From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 1 01:26:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA05428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 01:26:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe46.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.83]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA05423 for ; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 01:26:42 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 10771 invoked by uid 65534); 31 Dec 1999 14:26:03 -0000 Message-ID: <19991231142603.10770.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.14.9] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <6nq$1iDyS6a4Ewsj@probst.demon.co.uk> <001d01bf536d$24542c20$228001d5@davidburn> Subject: Re: MI and split scores Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 08:26:12 -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: David Burn To: Sent: Friday, December 31, 1999 2:57 AM Subject: Re: MI and split scores > 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. I did not think there was a need, and maybe I'm incorrect to point it out, but the second time around North has had the MI corrected and thus from his point of view there was no longer an infraction. And under such condidtions N has judged, gambling or not, that it was better to bid than pass, where certainly the knowledge exists that there may exist for his side a paucity of playable spots, if any, 3H breaks the connection to the past for his side because the contract was arrived at through the player's skill. i note that N has usurped his partner's judgement to arrive at the final contract, so in that vein there remains the issue of the damage to S's action which I believe as interpreted under Lillie #3 calls for adjustment of the EW score. Happy New Year Roger Pewick Houston, Texas From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 1 01:34:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA05468 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 01:34:49 +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 BAA05463 for ; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 01:34:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-71.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.71]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA10802; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 09:34:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000601bf539c$47d4df80$4784d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: A topical question Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 09:35:25 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Twelve...though only February will contain exactly 29. --- Craig -----Original Message----- From: David Burn To: Bridge Laws Date: Thursday, December 30, 1999 6:45 PM Subject: A topical question >How many months of the year 2000 will contain 29 days? > >David Burn >London, England > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 1 02:15:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA05766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 02:15:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA05761 for ; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 02:15:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.169] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 1243ll-000Lwn-00; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 15:15:09 +0000 Message-ID: <002401bf53a1$ec25bf00$a95408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" , "LORMANT Philippe" , Cc: "Claude Dadoun" , References: <002501bf5376$80001a80$ddb4f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: Law26A2 (or the attractions of fireworks) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 14:47:04 -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 > >> > >> Belgian fireworks +=+ Definition, 1623AD: 'Belgeans' - people of the Low Countries, Somersetshire, Wiltshire and Hampshire. A happy new year to all my friends from the downside. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 1 04:43:54 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA06215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 04:43:54 +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 EAA06208 for ; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 04:43:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12465F-000NU0-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 17:43:26 +0000 Message-ID: <6ShvIAEaqOb4EwnU@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 17:40:42 +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: <001d01bf536d$24542c20$228001d5@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <001d01bf536d$24542c20$228001d5@davidburn>, David Burn writes snip. Spoiler follows, it fits nicely with DB's arguements, with which I am mostly in agreement. >> >> 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. Indeed but we live in a real world, and North is not used to being faced with this problem. > >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. Agreed >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. I think was the case, and I have always felt (in cases like these) that North should never have been in this position. > >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. Agreed - I think it's close but give benefit to the NOs. I'd be more cynical in 2 board rounds but this was 4th or 5th of 8, where no weak 2 had been opened. It's much harder to remember over a 1 hour match than a 15 minute sprint. > >The disturbing why disturbing? Do you expect me to rule without asking questions? Aw c'mon David, this is the only disturbing phrase in a very well argued piece. > 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. But she could still be making 4H, so it wasn't pointless. The fact she butchered it later was not germane at the point I asked her. >This question was pointless and the answer to it irrelevant - what did >the TD expect that North would say, after all? Tell the truth?? It sometimes happens. As DWS never tires of pointing out "How can you find out if you don't ask?" > >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. I didn't feel it likely enough to allow this (which suggests I didn't give a lot of credence to north's statement, and my consultation both at the tourney and on blml bears this out) >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. But I did feel it quite likely they could stop in 3H, so i gave them that. >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. I'm not allowed to assign weighted scores. I can assign split scores. So I did. Time for the spoiler. I think we're all fairly comfortable that 2Sx-2 is an ok score for EW (between 10% and 30%) For NS I predicated the following auction (not allowing the pass of 2Sx) N S Txxxx AJ rotated for convenience AQJ9x Txx Qxx Jxxx -- AKJx after a weak 2S, x, P Looking at so many losers I thought it moot whether it would continue: 2N(leb), P, 3C, P, 3H end, or 3H End (with some likelihood of raising to 4H) Say 50/50 3H and 4H Anyway I ruled 3H just making (despite declarers effort in 4H, even *she* would make 3) I ruled NS +140, EW -500. No appeal, but a free frank and fearless exchange with the pard of the 2S opener in the pub afterwards. (All four players know me pretty well and know I don't mind arguing about it afterwards, as long as not in the context of the competition). >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. It might be better to let AC's continue to do this. The TD has a hard enough job getting to a sensible ruling without assigning likelihoods to outcomes. I can take it to appeal myself if i want the AC to award a split score (and have done so in the past). When I brief the AC I give the basis for my ruling and might comment that I felt it mandatory as TD but draconian, if appropriate. > >David Burn >London, England > DB and everyone thanks for the input. 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 Jan 1 08:05:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA06680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 08:05:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA06675 for ; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 08:05:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.82] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 1249Ek-0004q1-00; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 21:05:27 +0000 Message-ID: <000901bf53d2$dbb25bc0$525408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jean Pierre Rocafort" Cc: References: <008701bf5262$82608720$0a5408c3@dodona> <386B1B8F.8C02785A@meteo.fr> Subject: Re: Year End Tournament/Blackpool venue Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 21:05:30 -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 Grattan Endicott Cc: Sent: Thursday, December 30, 1999 8:45 AM Subject: Re: Year End Tournament/Blackpool venue ------- \x/ ------- > 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 . > --------- \x/ ------- > +=+ Hi Jean-Pierre, and a bright new year to you. If either of my colleagues had questioned this there would have been two questions for him to answer. 1. Are you failing to see life through the eyes of a player who belongs in the bottom quartile of this field? 2. Since he has said he does not know whether he would double or pass, are you crediting him with the guile to say this rather than "I was certainly going to double"? Life on appeal committees is about the ability to empathize with the player in front of you. Do you think, maybe, you are having difficulty in doing so? Cheers ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 1 09:37:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA06880 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 09:37:53 +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 JAA06875 for ; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 09:37:44 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 13060 invoked from network); 31 Dec 1999 22:15:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cableinet.co.uk) (194.117.146.85) by jaguars with SMTP; 31 Dec 1999 22:15:26 -0000 Message-ID: <386D2FC1.EA5716D7@cableinet.co.uk> Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 22:35:45 +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: y2k Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk raey wen yppah...?uoy era ,gub muinellim siht tuoba deirrow ton m'i larry From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 1 13:29:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 13:29:30 +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 NAA07473 for ; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 13:29:14 +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 124EHn-000Hgy-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 02:28:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2000 01:37:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) References: <002101bf504c$126c7ea0$483863c3@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <002101bf504c$126c7ea0$483863c3@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >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? I believe it is helpful to consider one matter at a time. I thought we were discussing the interpretation of L26 - I was, anyway. Now you want me to discuss what it should read: I will, if you like, but I do not see its relevance to this thread. The sense or otherwise of the application of Law is a matter for the law-makers. No doubt we can discuss it, and have input, but is it relevant to interpreting the current Law? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 1 13:29:30 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 13:29:30 +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 NAA07477 for ; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 13:29:18 +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 124EHq-000Hh3-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 02:28:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2000 02:06:06 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: MI and split scores References: <3.0.1.32.19991229082225.006f4520@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991229082225.006f4520@pop.cais.com> 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 NAA07488 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 02:53 AM 12/29/99 +0000, John wrote: >>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. Surely not. He knows that if South would have acted that he will get that on adjustment at the end of the hand. He does not need to "protect" against hands that will not pass over 2S. ---------- Anne Jones wrote: >"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." True. Weak Twos are covered by none of the above, however. > "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.". That *certainly* does not apply here. You do not want to tell everyone you have a strong hand in the face of an Acol Two! Your side's interests would be put at risk by asking. >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! No doubt they are, but you must also apply the Laws and Regulations. Alerting is compulsory in England [and Wales] and failure to do so when required is misinformation - that is a matter of Law. So, despite your opinion of CCs, you must adjust in this case if there is damage. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 1 13:29:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07475 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 13:29:19 +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 NAA07464 for ; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 13:29:07 +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 124EHX-000Hh1-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 02:28:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2000 01:30:18 +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> <68eO42CkTtZ4Ewka@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <006501bf505b$84b406e0$775408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <006501bf505b$84b406e0$775408c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >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. Grattan Endicott wrote: >From: David Stevenson >> 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 we are discussing how this Law should read in the future, then I am happy enough with these two comments. If we are having discussions for the purposes of semantic interest then I am happy enough with them as well. However, I still have as my main interest informing other how the Laws should be applied: I think this is important, and I do not see we want word games to interfere too much with this. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 1 13:29:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 13:29:31 +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 NAA07476 for ; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 13:29:18 +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 124EHq-000Hgz-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 02:29:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2000 02:06:27 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A topical question References: <000f01bf531f$f4fee3e0$8b5cac3e@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <000f01bf531f$f4fee3e0$8b5cac3e@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >How many months of the year 2000 will contain 29 days? Twelve? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Jan 1 13:29:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07496 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 13:29:31 +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 NAA07474 for ; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 13:29:16 +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 124EHq-000Hh0-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 02:28:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2000 02:03:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Year End Tournament/Blackpool venue References: <002e01bf52ec$9466fc80$4684d9ce@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: <002e01bf52ec$9466fc80$4684d9ce@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: >Also, why >was there not a copy of the CC easily available to East? Often a good question. In London a player called me to point out that his opponent had made UI available by ostentatiously leaning over to reach the CC in front of his partner. I told the player who called me if he wanted rulings in his favour in such circumstances he should invest in a second CC - and after a short search, he produced one! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 1 13:29:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 13:29:16 +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 NAA07462 for ; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 13:29:04 +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 124EHX-000Hh0-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 02:28:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2000 01:23:44 +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> <001b01bf5049$7f926b00$483863c3@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <001b01bf5049$7f926b00$483863c3@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: > >> 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. Oh, come on, David, surely that is normal in all walks of life. It is not possible to make any set of Laws simple enough to be universally understood and adequate to cover nearly all eventualities. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Jan 1 21:15:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA08217 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 21:15:44 +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 VAA08203 for ; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 21:15:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.111] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 124LZC-000HCR-00; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 10:15:23 +0000 Message-ID: <003001bf5441$363ae4e0$6f5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: References: <199912311714.AA13113@gateway.tandem.com> Subject: Re: Year End Tournament/Blackpool venue Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2000 09:54:13 -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: Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2000 12:51 AM Subject: Re: Year End Tournament/Blackpool venue > The instruction that LAs must > be considered in the context of the players and their peers tends to > be overlooked; it is too easy to (falsely) believe that an expert can > somehow 'dial-down' their expertise to any desired level. > +=+ I could give you a list of quality players of whom I think they lack this ability; I could speak of committee chairmen who have failed to bring it out at times in quality players who do have the ability. Quality players nearly all think they have it but are not universally perfect judges of themselves. In the chair of a committee it is all too easy an omission. +=+ > Have a great 2000! > +=+ And so to you, and so to All, Let's meet the future walking tall. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 1 21:15:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA08216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 21:15:42 +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 VAA08201 for ; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 21:15:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.111] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 124LZB-000HCR-00; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 10:15:21 +0000 Message-ID: <002f01bf5441$355789c0$6f5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "directing" References: <386D2FC1.EA5716D7@cableinet.co.uk> Subject: Re: y2k Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2000 09:14:35 -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: directing Sent: Friday, December 31, 1999 10:35 PM Subject: y2k > raey wen yppah...?uoy era ,gub muinellim siht tuoba deirrow ton m'i > > larry ?! > +=+ yrraL raeD ....... +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 1 21:15:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA08218 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 21:15:45 +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 VAA08202 for ; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 21:15:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.111] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 124LZE-000HCR-00; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 10:15:24 +0000 Message-ID: <003101bf5441$37044f60$6f5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <003a01bf4f9c$4cc785a0$13b5f1c3@kooijman><002301bf5012$5e9c53c0$645608c3@dodona><68eO42CkTtZ4Ewka@blakjak.demon.co.uk><006501bf505b$84b406e0$775408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2000 10:11:09 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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, January 01, 2000 1:30 AM Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) > If we are discussing how this Law should read in the future, then I am > happy enough with these two comments. > > If we are having discussions for the purposes of semantic interest > then I am happy enough with them as well. > > However, I still have as my main interest informing other how the Laws > should be applied: I think this is important, and I do not see we want > word games to interfere too much with this. > +=+ I rest easily enough with these thoughts. What should be appreciated is that my first objective, and proper concern, is improvement of the laws and regulatory framework, whereas you properly have a primary aim to enhance their application. Neither of us should neglect to learn from the other. I do try to listen to voices on blml, to convert what most impresses me into constructive proposals in my own appointed field. And then to persuade colleagues not to bury their heads in the sand. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 2 00:34:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA08675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 00:34:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from fe050.worldonline.dk (fe050.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.206]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA08670 for ; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 00:34:14 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <200001011334.AAA08670@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: (qmail 3380 invoked by uid 0); 1 Jan 2000 13:34:03 -0000 Received: from 34.ppp1-11.image.dk (HELO idefix) (212.54.67.34) by fe050.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 1 Jan 2000 13:34:03 -0000 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2000 14:34:10 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Year End Tournament/Blackpool venue Reply-to: jensogbodil@alesia.dk Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > 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. I know I am quibbling, but BLML is the place for it. I disagree in the wording of how the ACs should be instructed. I try to educate our ACs to the effect that the asking of questions and the examination of CCs do indeed transmit UI, as does not looking and not asking (L21F1 (footnote), L16A, L73B1). What the AC needs to do in cases like these is to use their judgement to decide whether the available unauthorized information demonstrably indicates etc. etc. (L16A). -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 2 01:55:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA08881 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 01:55:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA08875 for ; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 01:55:09 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA05877 for ; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 15:54:59 +0100 Received: from ip228.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.228), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda05874; Sat Jan 1 15:54:53 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: MI and split scores Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2000 15:54:53 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <01bf525d$e8d9fea0$4fa793c3@vnmvhhid> 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 BAA08876 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 00:46:29 +0000, "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >asking over an unalerted strong 2 creates *huge* UI. I'd *never* ask. A opening at the two level has the property in many jurisdictions that it requires a STOP procedure. If the STOP procedure is to have any meaning, the next player must then spend the following 10 seconds or so acting in a way that does not give away whether he is considering bidding or not. It seems to me that the only way to do this is to _always_ use (the beginning of) the pause to ascertain the meaning of RHO's call, if you don't know it already. I try to always do that in STOP pauses. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 2 02:12:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA09104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 02:12:56 +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 CAA09099 for ; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 02:12:47 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA05909 for ; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 16:12:39 +0100 Received: from ip62.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.62), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda05906; Sat Jan 1 16:12:34 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: MI and split scores Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2000 16:12:34 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <001d01bf536d$24542c20$228001d5@davidburn> <6ShvIAEaqOb4EwnU@probst.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <6ShvIAEaqOb4EwnU@probst.demon.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 CAA09100 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 31 Dec 1999 17:40:42 +0000, "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >In article <001d01bf536d$24542c20$228001d5@davidburn>, David Burn > writes > >>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. > >Indeed but we live in a real world, and North is not used to being faced >with this problem. It seems to me that the degree to which we should consider that N may have tried to compensate for S's MI depends very much on how carefully the TD explained to NS that any damage that occurred earlier in the auction would be handled by a possible adjustment afterwards. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 2 05:40:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA09979 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 05:40:56 +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 FAA09973 for ; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 05:40:47 +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 124TS1-000EVQ-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 18:40:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2000 03:02:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Year End Tournament/Blackpool venue References: <008701bf5262$82608720$0a5408c3@dodona> <386B1B8F.8C02785A@meteo.fr> <000901bf53d2$dbb25bc0$525408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <000901bf53d2$dbb25bc0$525408c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >Life on appeal committees is about the ability to >empathize with the player in front of you. Do you >think, maybe, you are having difficulty in doing so? I think it is often difficult to do so when considering a written report. It is much easier when the player is in front of 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 Sun Jan 2 07:32:23 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA10261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 07:32:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA10256 for ; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 07:32:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.225] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 124VC0-0007o2-00; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 20:32:04 +0000 Message-ID: <007501bf5497$5d3ae940$e15408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , References: <200001011334.AAA08670@octavia.anu.edu.au> Subject: Re: Year End Tournament/Blackpool venue Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2000 20:30:07 -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 To: Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2000 1:34 PM Subject: Re: Year End Tournament/Blackpool venue > David Burn wrote: > > > 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. > > I know I am quibbling, but BLML is the place for it. I disagree in > the wording of how the ACs should be instructed. > > I try to educate our ACs to the effect that the asking of questions > and the examination of CCs do indeed transmit UI, as does not looking > and not asking (L21F1 (footnote), L16A, L73B1). What the AC needs to > do in cases like these is to use their judgement to decide whether > the available unauthorized information demonstrably indicates etc. > etc. (L16A). > +=+ Well now, gentlemen, where do we look for the truth of the matter? Shall we consider further what the Law says? Having in mind the WBF Code of Practice, now officially in print, I would suggest that the Law provides that authorized information comprises information from (a) legal calls and plays on the current hand; (b) mannerisms of opponents; plus other information which the laws indicate it is appropriate for a player to have, or specify that he may use. Information deriving from other sources is not 'authorized' and its use is unlawful. The transmission of unauthorized information by a player to his partner is not subject to sanction but for its recipient to base a call or play on it is a matter for redress. So the test that should be applied is (a) whether any action of a player, be it permitted or irregular, has conveyed information from that player to his partner that it would be unlawful to use, and (b) if so, whether the partner has based a call or play upon it. In ascertaining the facts we do not found our enquiry upon generalisations as to what categories of actions may convey unauthorized information, but rather on what information is possessed in the current instance by the partner (the player whose use of the information is in question), and from what source(s) it has been derived. Then we examine whether any call or play has been based on information that it is not lawful to use because of the manner in which it has come to the partner. The language in which the law is expressed once more leaves me with a difficulty. I believe it to be the intention that where a player has information from a legitimate source he may base a call or play on it even if he also has that same information in an unauthorized manner from partner. Law16A, however, is not worded to say this; it is worded to make it appear that the restriction on the use of the information applies even when the player receives it in parallel, or subsequently, from a legitimate source. Maybe that is the way we wish it to apply, but if not there are no words in 16A to exclude those situations from the general statement. Having no longer a guru to obscure the imperfections of the laws with sententious pronouncements we are finding them now exposed to the view of any observer whose eyes are not tightly shut against the light. There are saving graces. It is rare indeed that the kind of information we have in view, conveyed from partner, does not incorporate additional implications beyond the content present in any parallel knowledge lawfully acquired. And the words 'makes available' can be thought to exclude information already legitimately known to the partner. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 2 08:05:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA10369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 08:05:25 +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 IAA10364 for ; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 08:05:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA07594 for ; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 16:05:05 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000101160636.006fbf78@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2000 16:06:36 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: MI and split scores In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991229082225.006f4520@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991229082225.006f4520@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:06 AM 1/1/00 +0000, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >>At 02:53 AM 12/29/99 +0000, John wrote: > >>>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. > > Surely not. He knows that if South would have acted that he will get >that on adjustment at the end of the hand. He does not need to >"protect" against hands that will not pass over 2S. Philosophers tell us that to know something requires two things: (a) one must believe it to be true, and (b) it must be true. So North neither knew that he had to had unilaterally, which fails (b), nor that if South would have acted he would get an adjustment, which fails (a), even if we're prepared to stipulate (b) on this one. >From North's perspective, unless he's a very experienced player or a bridge laws maven, if he can pass 2S and rely on an adjustment if South would have acted, that might well have gone down without his help -- he had, after all, already passed. But the TD (correctly), once the situation at the table was known, offered him another shot. He can hardly be blamed for thinking that the appropriate thing to do was to take his best shot given the situation at the table. His LHO had opened a weak 2, his partner had passed thinking it was a strong 2, his RHO had passed, presumably knowing it was a weak 2, and it was up to him. 3H looks pretty reasonable given all that. Of course, that's not what the law requires him to base his decision on, but he should hardly have his rights put in jeopardy by the ill-defined "wild, irrational or gambling" test because he fails to understand that. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 2 12:54:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11138 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 12:54:54 +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 MAA11133 for ; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 12:54:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 124aE4-000M8i-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 01:54:33 +0000 Message-ID: <1YnNhwAK9pb4Ew2m@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 00:43:54 +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> <68eO42CkTtZ4Ewka@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <006501bf505b$84b406e0$775408c3@dodona> <003101bf5441$37044f60$6f5608c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <003101bf5441$37044f60$6f5608c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >From: David Stevenson >> If we are discussing how this Law should read in the future, then I am >> happy enough with these two comments. >> >> If we are having discussions for the purposes of semantic interest >> then I am happy enough with them as well. >> >> However, I still have as my main interest informing other how the Laws >> should be applied: I think this is important, and I do not see we want >> word games to interfere too much with this. >> >+=+ I rest easily enough with these thoughts. What should > be appreciated is that my first objective, and proper > concern, is improvement of the laws and regulatory > framework, whereas you properly have a primary > aim to enhance their application. Neither of us > should neglect to learn from the other. I do try to > listen to voices on blml, to convert what most > impresses me into constructive proposals in my own > appointed field. And then to persuade colleagues not > to bury their heads in the sand. Fair enough. But I do think that the unannotated thread drift is excessive. People ask various questions here: many posts are unresponsive, and with the number of them now it probably confuses. We always ask people not to start new threads by accident. Perhaps we could also ask people to consider when a new thread would be a good idea. If we are discussing how to interpret L26 then obviously there is some interest in how L26 could be improved, but could we not take it to a different thread? Threads are getting very long. Some of them are based on an attempt to get to the end of the question - OK. But when the subject of some articles is not the same as the original please consider starting a new thread. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK In Australia 9/1 to 29/2: I shall answer emails on return: if you want to email me in Australia use *both* of the following or write me for snail mail address: + From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 2 17:08:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA11688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 17:08:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA11683 for ; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 17:08:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-58-211-146.s146.tnt1.lnhdc.md.dialup.rcn.com ([208.58.211.146] helo=hdavis) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #3) id 124eB8-00047n-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 01:07:49 -0500 Message-ID: <004701bf54e7$b21d33a0$92d33ad0@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <6ShvIAEaqOb4EwnU@probst.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: MI and split scores Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 01:07:33 -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: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Friday, December 31, 1999 12:40 PM Subject: Re: MI and split scores > In article <001d01bf536d$24542c20$228001d5@davidburn>, David Burn > writes > [snip] > > > >The disturbing > why disturbing? Do you expect me to rule without asking questions? Aw > c'mon David, this is the only disturbing phrase in a very well argued > piece. The disturbing part (for me) is not the question. It is that N had seen Dummy before answering it, if the description of events was as described. The pass of the t/o double is a much more attractive proposition when N has seen the AJ of spades and the worthless red suits. > > 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. > > But she could still be making 4H, so it wasn't pointless. The fact she > butchered it later was not germane at the point I asked her. > > >This question was pointless and the answer to it irrelevant - what did > >the TD expect that North would say, after all? > > Tell the truth?? It sometimes happens. As DWS never tires of pointing > out "How can you find out if you don't ask?" > > You sometimes get different answers, even from players who are trying to be ethical, once they have information that alters their perspective. It's not the asking that's the problem, it's the timing of the question. Personally, in a vacuum, I wouldn't allow 2SX for the NOS, as I think a pass of the t/o double on the pathetic spades and strong hearts might meet the "at all probable" standard, but is not "at all likely". However, if N has said that he would pass a t/o double before he has seen dummy, he gets the benefit of the doubt and 2SX it is, with no need to split the score. Once N has seen the S hand (or if N had not been asked at all) I would no longer consider the pass of the t/o double at all likely. My own sequence of events, FWIW (yes, I know some group members will hate this) would be to arrive at the table after 2S has been passed out. Take S away from the table to confirm that a t/o double would have happened in the absence of an alert. Back to the table, remove the final pass and reopen the auction. At the end of the auction, and before the opening lead, take N from the table and ask what he would have done if partner had made a t/o double after 2S. If the answer is "pass" *before* the defensively oriented dummy appears, I would consider it both probable and likely that *this player would have passed this double*, and that equity on the hand is 2SX. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 2 19:04:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA11902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 19:04:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from marge.inter.net.il (marge.inter.net.il [192.116.202.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA11896 for ; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 19:03:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-3-112.access.net.il [213.8.3.112] (may be forged)) by marge.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA20399; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 10:04:43 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <386F0672.31736608@zahav.net.il> Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2000 10:04:02 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en-US,fr,Hebrew,en,ro,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan Endicott CC: Schoderb@aol.com, t.kooyman@worldonline.nl, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) References: <0.e6e49fdd.2599608e@aol.com> <008d01bf52aa$fe3a1300$965608c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Gentleman I protest !!!! No cheese discussions on this list !!!!!! A year ago I wrote some stories about TD's peculiar life experience named " Maitre Fromage sur un arbre perche..." on Cena list ... (A paraphrase of La Fontaine's allegory ...) So ...let the cheese for the western Europe people (France , Netherlands and Switzerland..!!!!) - some of them really stink , I mean cheese !!!!!!! but very tasty .....and all the cheese discussions for the French list only . Thank you and a very happy new Milenium , century , year ........ and pleasant tournaments. Dany Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Grattan Endicott '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > "Some seeds fell by the wayside" > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > 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 Sun Jan 2 19:03:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA11895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 19:03:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from marge.inter.net.il (marge.inter.net.il [192.116.202.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA11889 for ; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 19:03:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-3-112.access.net.il [213.8.3.112] (may be forged)) by marge.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA20365; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 10:04:31 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <386F0665.DE2A60A9@zahav.net.il> Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2000 10:03:49 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en-US,fr,Hebrew,en,ro,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? References: <199912262312.SAA14103@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well David Please remember my LAW 0 - the game is for players !!!!!!!! I think that such a poll , amongst top 10% players in each country , would be a very helpful information for the Laws makers. It shouldn't be the automatic decision , but very helpful and interesting data . On the other side , the way the question will be asked - and the explanations attached - must be the laws makers most important job. Dany David Stevenson wrote: > > 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 Sun Jan 2 19:51:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA12018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 19:51:44 +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 TAA12013 for ; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 19:51:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.149] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 124giH-000Mnu-00; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 08:50:10 +0000 Message-ID: <009501bf54fe$79d51fa0$955608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <008701bf5262$82608720$0a5408c3@dodona><386B1B8F.8C02785A@meteo.fr> <000901bf53d2$dbb25bc0$525408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: Year End Tournament/Blackpool venue Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 08:43:45 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2000 3:02 AM Subject: Re: Year End Tournament/Blackpool venue > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >Life on appeal committees is about the ability to > >empathize with the player in front of you. Do you > >think, maybe, you are having difficulty in doing so? > > I think it is often difficult to do so when considering a written > report. It is much easier when the player is in front of you. > +=+ Which is, I think, the point. Anyone who comments on a written report of an appeal should always make allowances for the scant atmosphere, the absence of the 'feel' of what is going on, and the necessary abbreviation of detail. Failure to do so is apparent at times in the ACBL collections of appeals from its Nationals, and perhaps also in the commentaries accompanying selected appeals reports considered by the English L&E Committee. The condition exists no doubt in other quarters, too. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 2 20:44:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA12139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 20:44:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA12133 for ; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 20:44:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.172.95.121] (helo=davidburn) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 124hYE-0006u1-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 09:43:50 +0000 Message-ID: <001301bf5505$e3b2b340$795fac3e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <003a01bf4f9c$4cc785a0$13b5f1c3@kooijman><002301bf5012$5e9c53c0$645608c3@dodona><68eO42CkTtZ4Ewka@blakjak.demon.co.uk><006501bf505b$84b406e0$775408c3@dodona><003101bf5441$37044f60$6f5608c3@dodona> <1YnNhwAK9pb4Ew2m@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 09:43:56 -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: > However, I still have as my main interest informing other how the Laws > should be applied: I think this is important, and I do not see we want > word games to interfere too much with this. The Laws should be applied in accordance with the meaning of the words in which they are expressed. Deciding what that meaning may be is not "playing word games", it is performing our duties as TDs or AC members. It was not I who attempted to play games by arguing that "related to a specified suit" meant "related only to a specified suit"; it does not, just as all 12 months of the year 2000 will contain 29 days. (Congratulations to Ton for spotting the connection, by the way.) Law 26 as it is currently written should not be applied in the way in which, apparently, EBU TDs have been instructed to apply it, because that is not what it means. Until the wording of the Law is changed, the way in which the Law is applied must therefore be changed. If that is in keeping with your "main interest", then we may at least have achieved something. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 2 21:08:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA12241 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 21:08:05 +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 VAA12234 for ; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 21:07:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.18] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 124hv9-000Pqa-00; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 10:07:32 +0000 Message-ID: <002d01bf5509$48ba51a0$125408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "lynn hunt" , "cathie ritchie" , "Paul Endicott" Cc: "Nick Doe" , Subject: Inactivity report Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 10:05:11 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 21:07:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.18] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 124hv4-000Pqa-00; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 10:07:26 +0000 Message-ID: <002a01bf5509$454b69a0$125408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Dany Haimovici" Cc: References: <199912262312.SAA14103@cfa183.harvard.edu> <386F0665.DE2A60A9@zahav.net.il> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 09:19:45 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-user-defined" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: David Stevenson Cc: Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2000 8:03 AM Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? > > Please remember my LAW 0 - the game is for players !!!!!!!! > > I think that such a poll , amongst top 10% players in each country , > would be a very helpful information for the Laws makers. > +=+ I had thought we were providing laws for 100% of the bridge players. The top 10% will contain about the same proportion, maybe rather more, of individuals who do not understand the laws as almost any other 10% of the field. But it will be overweight with axes to be ground. If you are serious, what we need to find is a sufficient sample from all levels of ability, comprising players who have a fair understanding of the laws AND no bees in their bonnets. Go ahead Dany, you are the best person to find 10.000 players to match the requirement! :-))) Begin by eliminating everyone on blml; we are the world's foremost beekeepers. Follow this closely by binning all members of WBF, Zonal and NCBO committees. . ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 2 21:07:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA12233 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 21:07:50 +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 VAA12217 for ; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 21:07:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.18] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 124hv7-000Pqa-00; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 10:07:29 +0000 Message-ID: <002c01bf5509$474a9500$125408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <003a01bf4f9c$4cc785a0$13b5f1c3@kooijman><002301bf5012$5e9c53c0$645608c3@dodona><68eO42CkTtZ4Ewka@blakjak.demon.co.uk><006501bf505b$84b406e0$775408c3@dodona><003101bf5441$37044f60$6f5608c3@dodona> <1YnNhwAK9pb4Ew2m@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 09:30:41 -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 > Threads are getting very long. Some of them are based on an attempt > to get to the end of the question - OK. But when the subject of some > articles is not the same as the original please consider starting a new > thread. > +=+ It seems to work well if a new thread has a title which initially has words from the prior linked title and then adds some distinguishing phrase, symbol or character. Compare Dany's two messages today. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 2 21:07:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA12236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 21:07:53 +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 VAA12221 for ; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 21:07:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.18] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 124hv5-000Pqa-00; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 10:07:28 +0000 Message-ID: <002b01bf5509$466739e0$125408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Dany Haimovici" Cc: , , References: <0.e6e49fdd.2599608e@aol.com> <008d01bf52aa$fe3a1300$965608c3@dodona> <386F0672.31736608@zahav.net.il> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 09:25:46 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-user-defined" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Grattan Endicott Cc: ; ; Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2000 8:04 AM Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) > Dear Gentleman > > I protest !!!! No cheese discussions on this list !!!!!! > > > Dany > ++=++ Yea! - and I am not all that good at counting from 4.75 BC to 2001 AD, either! ++=++ ~ G ~ > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Or on Dec > > 31, 2000, you can celebrate with some > > approximation an elapse of 1004 years > > and nine months > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 2 22:00:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA12362 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 21:45:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailserver.ipf.net (pop.cabana.net [195.211.211.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA12357 for ; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 21:44:51 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 9584 invoked from network); 2 Jan 2000 10:44:40 -0000 Received: from dialin-160.muenchen.okay.net (HELO rabbit) (194.117.252.160) by mail.okay.net with SMTP; 2 Jan 2000 10:44:40 -0000 Message-ID: <000601bf550e$e98e8d80$a0fc75c2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: Subject: Intentionally created not-so-random results Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 11:48:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk We've had a discussion on rgb about this issue, where I did not get my point across. I'm moving it over to blml with a case from actual play. One day pairs tournament, three rounds. After two rounds, one pair has about 45%. [There is a 30 minute break between rounds two and three, and the results of round two are published right before the end of that break.] The pair wants to leave early. The conditions of the contest do not allow them to leave early if the TD declines. The TD declines their request because it would delay the last round if he would build a new movement, and with no new movement he would have two sit out tables in one section. One of the players then threatens: "if I am not allowed to leave early, now that I can't get into the price money any more, I'll make a psyche in every board." The TD still declines their wish and demands that they "play normal bridge in order not to affect the tournament's result." A few boards into the third rounds, the TD already has complaints like "he passed a 23 count first seat. next board, he opened 7NT" or "he opened 1S on a singleton. His partner then bid 2H on a heart singleton, which opener passed." The TD demands that the pair stops this nonsense and issues a warning. They decline and say that they will continue to create absurd results until they will be allowed to leave. TD stays at their table and they do continue to create not-so-random results. Two such incidents are reported to the national authorities about the same player over a very short period of time. You ruling please ;-) Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 2 22:46:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA12376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 21:47:12 +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 VAA12371 for ; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 21:47:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.96] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 124iX4-0001Nn-00; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 10:46:42 +0000 Message-ID: <003e01bf550e$c1dc3300$125408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <003a01bf4f9c$4cc785a0$13b5f1c3@kooijman><002301bf5012$5e9c53c0$645608c3@dodona><68eO42CkTtZ4Ewka@blakjak.demon.co.uk><006501bf505b$84b406e0$775408c3@dodona><003101bf5441$37044f60$6f5608c3@dodona> <1YnNhwAK9pb4Ew2m@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <001301bf5505$e3b2b340$795fac3e@davidburn> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 10:45:50 -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 > DWS wrote: > > However, I still have as my main interest informing others how the > Laws > > should be applied: I think this is important, and I do not see we > want > > word games to interfere too much with this. > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > The Laws should be applied in accordance with the meaning of the words > in which they are expressed. Deciding what that meaning may be is not > "playing word games", it is performing our duties as TDs or AC > members. It was not I who attempted to play games by arguing that > "related to a specified suit" meant "related only to a specified > suit"; it does not, just as all 12 months of the year 2000 will > contain 29 days. (Congratulations to Ton for spotting the connection, > by the way.) Law 26 as it is currently written should not be applied > in the way in which, apparently, EBU TDs have been instructed to apply > it, because that is not what it means. Until the wording of the Law is > changed, the way in which the Law is applied must therefore be > changed. If that is in keeping with your "main interest", then we may > at least have achieved something. > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ I trust all those who want to sit on their hands until the year AD 2007 will read this with some attention. We have a set of laws which contains a series of frailties of language, due in part perhaps to the frailty of the Chairman of the Drafting Committee in its later stages, compounded no doubt by the reluctance of its members to pick over the Master's language in the circumstances. To defer the rectification of these flaws, some of which are significant, and to fail to meet other needs created by the actions of regulating authorities (especially those elevated in the hierarchy of the game) is nothing less than an obdurate dereliction of duty. We have a major game, with high ambitions for its status, of which the rules are applied unevenly and with disparate interpretation; this should be remedied. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 3 00:46:08 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA12799 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 00:46:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA12793 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 00:45:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.212] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 124lKL-0008Yr-00; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 13:45:45 +0000 Message-ID: <001401bf5527$c5919080$d45608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Thomas Dehn" Cc: References: <000601bf550e$e98e8d80$a0fc75c2@rabbit> Subject: Re: Intentionally created not-so-random results Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 13:44:04 -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: Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2000 10:48 AM Subject: Intentionally created not-so-random results > The pair wants to leave early. The conditions of the > contest do not allow them to leave early if > the TD declines. The TD declines their request > ------------ \x/ --------- > One of the players then threatens: "if I am not allowed > to leave early, now that I can't get into the price money > any more, I'll make a psyche in every board." > The TD still declines their wish and demands that > they "play normal bridge in order not to affect the > tournament's result." > > A few boards into the third rounds, the TD already has > complaints like "he passed a 23 count first seat. next board, > he opened 7NT" or "he opened 1S on a singleton. His > partner then bid 2H on a heart singleton, which opener > passed." > +=+ We need to be careful in commenting upon what is evidently a disciplinary matter for the NCBO of which the players concerned are members. Prima facie there is evidence of collusion between the partners, by prior agreement, in multiple breaches of Law 40. If this is found by due process to be the case Law 72B2 has been violated, by both members of the partnership, as have Law 74A2 and 90B8. I have used the phrase 'by due process'. There is a need for the procedure of the disciplinary body to be squeaky clean. In England, the Law requires that the requirements of natural justice be observed. In particular the players must be informed of what they are accused and must be given fair opportunity to defend themselves. The disciplinary body must be untainted by bias - any member who is prejudiced by having discussed the case, or having an involvement with the defendants, or having preformed opinions, should recuse himself. (It is experience of such legal codes that leads to an abhorrence of the presence on appeals committees of people who might be perceived as favourable to one side or the other, whether they are or not, or who do not realize how they damage the process if they remain on the committee knowing that they have discussed the case outside of the committee.) Subject to fulfilment of these obligations, I would expect a guilty finding in England to result in a suspension of from six to eighteen months, depending on the degree to which there is aggravation or there are mitigating factors -e.g. first offence. If one of the players has led the other in, I would expect some distinction between them in the length of the suspension from membership of the NCBO. These assessments are personal; there may be precedents which could influence the sentence. Is this a clear enough response for you? You fail to say what action was finally taken on site by the Director. He certainly should have acted under Law 91. As I would think, that should have been under Law 91B. The tournament regulations would determine what happens to the scores. Probably the pair's whole record in the tournament would be better expunged if the Conditions of Contest allow of it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 3 01:16:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA12853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 01:16:17 +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 BAA12848 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 01:16:04 +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 124lnH-000OzB-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 14:15:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 00:48:29 +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: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Jesper Dybdal writes >On Fri, 31 Dec 1999 17:40:42 +0000, "John (MadDog) Probst" > wrote: > >>In article <001d01bf536d$24542c20$228001d5@davidburn>, David Burn >> writes >> >>>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. >> >>Indeed but we live in a real world, and North is not used to being faced >>with this problem. > >It seems to me that the degree to which we should consider that N >may have tried to compensate for S's MI depends very much on how >carefully the TD explained to NS that any damage that occurred >earlier in the auction would be handled by a possible adjustment >afterwards. > Competently. :)) But by any standards the 3H bid is not so awful that we could rule it as a subsequent error. 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 Jan 3 02:12:37 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA13135 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 02:12:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from ws.icl.co.uk (cfmgw.iclnet.co.uk [194.176.223.193]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA13129 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 02:12:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.icl.co.uk (mailgate [172.16.2.3]) by ws.icl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA07205 for ; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 15:11:57 GMT Received: from vguard2.icl.co.uk (vguard2.icl.co.uk [145.227.248.92]) by mailgate.icl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.0) with SMTP id PAA27089 for ; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 15:10:29 GMT Received: FROM x400.icl.co.uk BY vguard2.icl.co.uk ; Sun Jan 02 15:12:53 2000 0000 Received: (from root@localhost) by x400.icl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.2) id PAA05265 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 15:10:29 GMT X400-Received: by mta umg in /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/ ; Relayed ; Sun, 02 Jan 00 15:10:19 +0000 X400-Received: by mta fel01xc in /PRMD=icl/ADMD=gold 400/C=GB/ ; converted (IA5-Text) ; Relayed ; Sun, 02 Jan 00 14:52:45 +0000 X400-Received: by /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/ ; converted (IA5-Text) ; Relayed ; Sun, 02 Jan 00 15:00:01 +0000 X400-Received: by /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=PL/ ; Relayed ; Sun, 02 Jan 00 16:09:00 +0100 Date: Sun, 02 Jan 00 16:09:00 +0100 X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=PL/;G4002146441001000101031BC1F7042E] X400-Originator: "Jan Romanski" X400-Recipients: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2) Original-Encoded-Information-Types: Undefined Priority: normal Message-Id: From: "Jan Romanski" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Importance: normal Subject: RE:Intentionally created not-so-random results Content-Type: Text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thomas Dehn: >We've had a discussion on rgb about this >issue, where I did not get my point across. >I'm moving it over to blml with a case from >actual play. > > >One day pairs tournament, three rounds. >After two rounds, one pair has about 45%. >AThere is a 30 minute break between rounds two and three, >and the results of round two are published right >before the end of that break.E >The pair wants to leave early. The conditions of the >contest do not allow them to leave early if >the TD declines. The TD declines their request >because it would delay the last round if he >would build a new movement, and with no new movement he >would have two sit out tables in one section. > >One of the players then threatens: "if I am not allowed >to leave early, now that I can't get into the price money >any more, I'll make a psyche in every board." >The TD still declines their wish and demands that >they "play normal bridge in order not to affect the >tournament's result." > >A few boards into the third rounds, the TD already has >complaints like "he passed a 23 count first seat. next board, >he opened 7NT" or "he opened 1S on a singleton. His >partner then bid 2H on a heart singleton, which opener >passed." The TD demands that the pair stops this >nonsense and issues a warning. They decline and say >that they will continue to create absurd results until >they will be allowed to leave. TD stays at their table >and they do continue to create not-so-random results. > > >Two such incidents are reported to the national authorities >about the same player over a very short period of time. > >You ruling please ;-) > > >Thomas Of course the behaviour of this pair was not in sportslike fashion. Of course they broke the Laws, particularily L74. And of course such players should be rejected from our community. But... In my opiniom the case was produced by TD solely. It is not good idea to keep a pair in a tournament if they don't want to play. Our case is extraordinal, but even if they will try to play normal bridge it will not be normal anymore. I can't imagine more than 5 minutes of delay to organise new movement. It should take no time at all. The problem is addressed to computerman. But he/she has whole session to proceed it. Jan Romanski ______________________________________________ phone: +48 22 6310566 mobile: +48 601403308 email: jan.romanski@icl.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 3 02:20:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA13180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 02:20:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from fe020.worldonline.dk (fe020.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.196]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA13175 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 02:20:40 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <200001021520.CAA13175@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: (qmail 25183 invoked by uid 0); 2 Jan 2000 15:20:25 -0000 Received: from 117.ppp1-3.image.dk (HELO idefix) (212.54.69.117) by fe020.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 2 Jan 2000 15:20:25 -0000 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 16:20:32 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Intentionally created not-so-random results Reply-to: jensogbodil@alesia.dk Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thomas Dehn wrote: > One of the players then threatens: "if I am not allowed > to leave early, now that I can't get into the price money > any more, I'll make a psyche in every board." > The TD still declines their wish and demands that > they "play normal bridge in order not to affect the > tournament's result." > > A few boards into the third rounds, the TD already has > complaints like "he passed a 23 count first seat. next board, > he opened 7NT" or "he opened 1S on a singleton. His > partner then bid 2H on a heart singleton, which opener > passed." The TD demands that the pair stops this > nonsense and issues a warning. They decline and say > that they will continue to create absurd results until > they will be allowed to leave. TD stays at their table > and they do continue to create not-so-random results. > > > Two such incidents are reported to the national authorities > about the same player over a very short period of time. > > You ruling please ;-) This is an easy ruling in Denmark. at least as long as we are discussing the TD's part. Our supplementary regulations include two rules - one to the effect that it is unethical to introduce randomness in the play because of lack of interest in the result, and one to the effect that it is unethical to drop out of an event just because you are doing badly (except where this is explicitly allowed). So our perpretrators are in violation af a regulation that the TD has brought to their attention and warned them not to keep on violating. When they do so anyway, they get hit with L91 - which in this case implies that they get thrown out of the session (and so they get to leave after all, which is ironical). Whenever the TD has used L91, he is the obliged to report the incident to the DBF (the Danish NCBO). End of ruling part. The DBF will now decide whether to pursue the case further, either in a meeting of its board of directors (max. penalty 6 months suspension) or in a special ethics committe which exists for this purpose (max penalty suspension for life). If the case makes it to the special ethics committe - and I doubt that it would - the ethics committe acts on oral evidence and allows the defendant to bring an attorney. My guess is that these players would be suspended from three to six months. Only one report of this kind would be necessary if they kept violating the rule after the TD had warned them. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 3 04:02:05 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA13469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 04:02:05 +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 EAA13464 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 04:01:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-33qticl.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.201.149]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA26686; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 12:01:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000102171224.006e48ac@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, 02 Jan 2000 09:12:24 -0800 To: "Thomas Dehn" From: Henry Sun Subject: Re: Intentionally created not-so-random results Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:48 AM 1/2/00 +0100, you wrote: >One day pairs tournament, three rounds. >After two rounds, one pair has about 45%. >[There is a 30 minute break between rounds two and three, >and the results of round two are published right >before the end of that break.] >The pair wants to leave early. The conditions of the >contest do not allow them to leave early if >the TD declines. The TD declines their request >because it would delay the last round if he >would build a new movement, and with no new movement he >would have two sit out tables in one section. > >One of the players then threatens: "if I am not allowed >to leave early, now that I can't get into the price money >any more, I'll make a psyche in every board." >The TD still declines their wish and demands that >they "play normal bridge in order not to affect the >tournament's result." > >A few boards into the third rounds, the TD already has >complaints like "he passed a 23 count first seat. next board, >he opened 7NT" or "he opened 1S on a singleton. His >partner then bid 2H on a heart singleton, which opener >passed." The TD demands that the pair stops this >nonsense and issues a warning. They decline and say >that they will continue to create absurd results until >they will be allowed to leave. TD stays at their table >and they do continue to create not-so-random results. > > >Two such incidents are reported to the national authorities >about the same player over a very short period of time. > >You ruling please ;-) > > >Thomas interestingly enough, the bridge world discussed a case similar to this one in its mid 1970s discussion of dumping. apparently, during the 1950s a then-leading expert got extraordinarily upset with his (her?) partner and began bidding blind - making calls without looking at his cards. the td was called, of course, and the player was subject to disciplinary penalty but the results of the boards themselves stood because the bidding was deemed legal. i'd view this case similarly, unless there is evidence of an unannounced private understanding (which may have existed; i can't quite tell from the narrative), in which case adjusted scores are assigned. since this is the second such incident, i'd expect the sponsoring organisation to mete out a pretty stiff disciplinary penalty, perhaps disqualification from the next set of national/international competition, with probation for the following set or sets of similar competition. however, the structural problem should not be ignored. one of the bridge world's main points in its discussion of dumping is that tournament organisers have to work harder to assure that at every stage of the tournament participants have an incentive to do well. in money tournaments such as a cavendish, prize money is often made available for winners of each section or segment. in acbl tournaments, some form of master point awards are similarly available. if the pair in question had no incentive to do well and wished to withdraw, my question would be whether it would be equitable to do so. if, for example, every pair that would have played this particular pair is assigned an artificial score (average, let's say), then that will introduce a random element into the scoring as some will, and others won't, have an opportunity to score worse or better than average against live opponents. so whilst i would agree that the pair in question acted in a highly unsportsmanlike fashion, i would put a percentage of the blame on the tournament organisers who failed to provide an incentive for good play for pairs in that position. henry sun > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 3 05:58:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA13782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 05:58:52 +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 FAA13777 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 05:58:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from peas13a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.93.235] helo=pacific) by cobalt11-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 124Tvt-0006wa-00; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 19:11:22 +0000 Message-ID: <000d01bf5553$050dcbe0$eb5d93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Thomas Dehn" , "Henry Sun" Cc: Subject: Re: Intentionally created not-so-random results Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 18:36:47 -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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Thomas Dehn Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 02 January 2000 17:19 Subject: Re: Intentionally created not-so-random results > >interestingly enough, the bridge world discussed a case similar >to this one in its mid 1970s discussion of dumping. apparently, >during the 1950s a then-leading expert got extraordinarily >upset with his (her?) partner and began bidding blind - making >calls without looking at his cards. the td was called, of >course, and the player was subject to disciplinary penalty >but the results of the boards themselves stood because the >bidding was deemed legal. > +=+ Bidding blind has since become a violation of the laws. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 3 07:08:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA13899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 07:08:29 +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 HAA13894 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 07:08:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-150.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.150]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA00800 for ; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 15:08:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <007e01bf555d$3b9c9420$9684d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Re: Year End Tournament/Blackpool venue Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 15:09:09 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is why, as you both have pointed out in past, there is no substitute for a well trained TD on the scene, and for AC members who know what they are doing. There is a lot you can learn by being there that we cannot in doing post mortems on the net. To the extent that our debates enhance future training and future clarity in the laws and interpretation, we may be useful. We must be wary in criticism of those who ruled on the scene...there may well have been information available to them that was not in the writeup. This case is another that emphasizes regional differences as well. The attitude toward questions during the auction, the relative frequency and alertability of weak twos, and the known quality and tendencies of the players involved and their presumptive peers differ in major fashion with venue. All that being said, I think many in this thread may be treating the NOS rather harshly...they are after all "more sinned against than sinners" as it were. The whole attitude of punish the non-offenders for fear of the dreaded double shot neglects the fact that if there were no infraction to begin with that "horrendous" double shot does not exist. I for one would prefer to protect NON-offenders even at the cost of an offender getting burned on rare occasion. Those folks on the scene can pretty well sort out who the BLs and operators are after a bit...they won't get away with many that matter much. Meanwhile the vast majority of NON-offenders who really have done nothing wrong will get the redress they deserve. -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson >Grattan Endicott wrote: > >>Life on appeal committees is about the ability to >>empathize with the player in front of you. Do you >>think, maybe, you are having difficulty in doing so? > > I think it is often difficult to do so when considering a written >report. It is much easier when the player is in front of you. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 3 09:33:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA14302 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 09:33:15 +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 JAA14296 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 09:33:05 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA01242 for ; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 23:32:52 +0100 Received: from ip13.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.13), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda01240; Sun Jan 2 23:32:45 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: MI and split scores Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2000 23:32:45 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <1ckv6s8glqj9kvj21jq1u3nlf9msmrejmd@bilbo.dit.dk> References: 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 JAA14297 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 2 Jan 2000 00:48:29 +0000, "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >In article , Jesper >Dybdal writes >>It seems to me that the degree to which we should consider that N >>may have tried to compensate for S's MI depends very much on how >>carefully the TD explained to NS that any damage that occurred >>earlier in the auction would be handled by a possible adjustment >>afterwards. >> >Competently. :)) I expected that, of course. > But by any standards the 3H bid is not so awful that >we could rule it as a subsequent error. I agree with that - my comment was not meant to imply otherwise. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 3 09:41:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA14337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 09:41:59 +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 JAA14332 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 09:41:50 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA01268 for ; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 23:41:42 +0100 Received: from ip102.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.102), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda01266; Sun Jan 2 23:41:38 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Intentionally created not-so-random results Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2000 23:41:38 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <1kkv6ssl02e4kj2ofkghu3fpvt49a6tdou@bilbo.dit.dk> References: <1.5.4.32.20000102171224.006e48ac@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.20000102171224.006e48ac@mindspring.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 JAA14333 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 09:12:24 -0800, Henry Sun wrote: >so whilst i would agree that the pair in question acted in a >highly unsportsmanlike fashion, i would put a percentage of >the blame on the tournament organisers who failed to provide >an incentive for good play for pairs in that position. It is not easy to provide such an incentive to players who (a) are placed very badly in the ranking, and (b) only want to play when they are winning. On Sun, 02 Jan 00 16:09:00 +0100, "Jan Romanski" wrote: >It is not good idea to keep a pair in a tournament >if they don't want to play. I do not believe we should cater to players who lose interest in the game just because they are doing badly. If we accept that doing badly is a valid reason to withdraw from the game, we will end up with events where the number of contestants fall dramatically towards the end. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 3 09:43:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA14354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 09:43:38 +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 JAA14348 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 09:43:27 +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 RAA25341 for ; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 17:43:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA02672 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 17:43:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 17:43:12 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200001022243.RAA02672@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A topical question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > David Burn wrote: > >How many months of the year 2000 will contain 29 days? As David points out later, this belongs in the L26 thread. (I was surprised to notice the new subject line.) > From: "Peter Gill" > Exactly 29 days? None. > Every 100 years, no leap year? Or is that every 1000 years? The Gregorian calendar has 97 leap years out of every 400 years. Your digital wristwatch is probably Y2K compliant by using the rule "every fourth year is a leapyear." Of course it isn't Y2.1K compliant. > 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. Heh! Those who purchased the second are in for a surprise on Feb. 29. Do you think the publisher will issue a corrected version? From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 3 10:39:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA14529 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 10:39:12 +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 KAA14523 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 10:39:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-33qtjc2.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.205.130]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA25810; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 18:38:46 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000102234936.006d4e18@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, 02 Jan 2000 15:49:36 -0800 To: Jesper Dybdal From: Henry Sun Subject: Re: Intentionally created not-so-random results Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:41 PM 1/2/00 +0100, you wrote: >On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 09:12:24 -0800, Henry Sun > wrote: >>so whilst i would agree that the pair in question acted in a >>highly unsportsmanlike fashion, i would put a percentage of >>the blame on the tournament organisers who failed to provide >>an incentive for good play for pairs in that position. > >It is not easy to provide such an incentive to players who >(a) are placed very badly in the ranking, and >(b) only want to play when they are winning. that depends on the kind of tournament that is being run. if it is a money tournament, then clearly the cavendish approach is correct: provide section top awards of some size and give all competitors a chance to win a few bucks. in a non-money event three session event, use the first two sessions as qualifying sessions, and run the third session as a coordinated final and consolation. (this is, obviously, similar to having section awards for each section.) i agree that it is doubtful in the extreme that a system can be devised that will satisfy everyone, but having a system in place, even if imperfect, is better than not. henry sun From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 3 14:01:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA14917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 14:01:28 +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 OAA14911 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 14:01:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.172.216.179] (helo=davidburn) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 124xk4-0003R2-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 03:01:08 +0000 Message-ID: <000f01bf5596$c522a2a0$b3d8ac3e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: MI and split scores Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 03:01:01 -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: > >It seems to me that the degree to which we should consider that N > >may have tried to compensate for S's MI depends very much on how > >carefully the TD explained to NS that any damage that occurred > >earlier in the auction would be handled by a possible adjustment > >afterwards. > > > Competently. :)) But by any standards the 3H bid is not so awful that > we could rule it as a subsequent error. cheers john [Synopsis: the auction was S W N E 2S P P P at which point East said that 2S should have been alerted as it was weak (an unalerted 2S being strong in England). North, offered the chance to retract her final pass, substituted 3H on 10xxxx AQJ98 Qxx None.] I don't see that one needs to consider 3H in terms of "subsequent or consequent", since North is no longer considered to have suffered damage - she is now in possession of all the AI to which she is entitled. If it was explained to her, as it should have been, that she should bid on the assumption that South was aware that 2S was weak, then there is no need to consider her action from the point of view of damage arising from the infraction; if she chose to bid in order to "protect" South's pass, that is her affair. [South later asserted that had he known 2S was weak, he would have doubled it for takeout on AJ 10xx Jxxx AKJx. A ruling was given on the basis that had South done this, the most favourable result at all likely for the non-offenders would be a contract of 3H by NS.] The notion that North would have failed to bid 4H over a takeout double is, whatever North's level of competence, one that I find extraordinary. She was, after all, prepared to bid 3H facing a pass. If this hand were given as a bidding problem to a panel of average players, I would expect an 80% vote for 4H, 15% for a slam try of some kind and 5% for a pass. No one at all would bid only 3H, even if one could do so invitationally because of lebensohl. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 3 14:29:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA14958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 14:29:48 +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 OAA14949 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 14:29:37 +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 124yBR-0005Xp-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 03:29:27 +0000 Message-ID: <7+Gu4UAN6$b4Ew0v@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 01:42:37 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Intentionally created not-so-random results References: <1.5.4.32.20000102171224.006e48ac@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.20000102171224.006e48ac@mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henry Sun wrote: >however, the structural problem should not be ignored. one >of the bridge world's main points in its discussion of >dumping is that tournament organisers have to work harder >to assure that at every stage of the tournament participants >have an incentive to do well. in money tournaments such as >a cavendish, prize money is often made available for winners >of each section or segment. in acbl tournaments, some form >of master point awards are similarly available. > >if the pair in question had no incentive to do well and wished >to withdraw, my question would be whether it would be equitable >to do so. if, for example, every pair that would have played >this particular pair is assigned an artificial score (average, >let's say), then that will introduce a random element into >the scoring as some will, and others won't, have an opportunity >to score worse or better than average against live opponents. > >so whilst i would agree that the pair in question acted in a >highly unsportsmanlike fashion, i would put a percentage of >the blame on the tournament organisers who failed to provide >an incentive for good play for pairs in that position. Let us take an example of what you are suggesting. You run a single session pairs tournament [eg a Club Duplicate]. After half-time a pair whose score is 40% or less has no effective incentive. After three-quarter-time a pair whose score is 50% or less has no effective incentive. You think it is wrong to run club duplicates in this way? Or that it is acceptable to allow such players to withdraw or foul the movement in any way they like? It is normal in bridge events for some players towards the end to have little or no incentive. It will ruin a lot of bridge events for a lot of people if we have to mangle the running of them in such a way that there is always incentive. ---------------- Henry Sun wrote: >in a non-money event three session event, use the first two sessions >as qualifying sessions, and run the third session as a coordinated >final and consolation. (this is, obviously, similar to having >section awards for each section.) Some people like one competition, some like another. I do not see why we have to run qualifying [which is not everyone's cup of tea] rather than play-through, which is a better test, just because some people will finish at the bottom and some of them may not behave. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK In Australia 9/1 to 29/2: I shall answer emails on return: if you want to email me in Australia use *both* of the following or write me for snail mail address: + From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 3 14:29:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA14960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 14:29:49 +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 OAA14948 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 14:29:37 +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 124yBM-0005Xj-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 03:29:21 +0000 Message-ID: <$OJvEbAy9$b4EwX$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 01:46:26 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Intentionally created not-so-random results References: <000601bf550e$e98e8d80$a0fc75c2@rabbit> In-Reply-To: <000601bf550e$e98e8d80$a0fc75c2@rabbit> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thomas Dehn wrote: >We've had a discussion on rgb about this >issue, where I did not get my point across. >I'm moving it over to blml with a case from >actual play. > > >One day pairs tournament, three rounds. >After two rounds, one pair has about 45%. >[There is a 30 minute break between rounds two and three, >and the results of round two are published right >before the end of that break.] >The pair wants to leave early. The conditions of the >contest do not allow them to leave early if >the TD declines. The TD declines their request >because it would delay the last round if he >would build a new movement, and with no new movement he >would have two sit out tables in one section. > >One of the players then threatens: "if I am not allowed >to leave early, now that I can't get into the price money >any more, I'll make a psyche in every board." >The TD still declines their wish and demands that >they "play normal bridge in order not to affect the >tournament's result." > >A few boards into the third rounds, the TD already has >complaints like "he passed a 23 count first seat. next board, >he opened 7NT" or "he opened 1S on a singleton. His >partner then bid 2H on a heart singleton, which opener >passed." The TD demands that the pair stops this >nonsense and issues a warning. They decline and say >that they will continue to create absurd results until >they will be allowed to leave. TD stays at their table >and they do continue to create not-so-random results. > > >Two such incidents are reported to the national authorities >about the same player over a very short period of time. > >You ruling please ;-) A long ban. Ok, we would have to be very careful to make sure adequate procedures are followed, and that the Director did his job right, but in principle if the behaviour of people after warnings is completely unacceptable then they should be banned from the game. I do not know how bad this really was from the description, but at its worst, if they were actually threatening and disobeying the Director, and if there were no mitigating circumstances [illness, or something else] then something like a four year ban seems suitable. In practice, it possibly was not as bad as it sounds, and maybe a six month ban is more suitable. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK In Australia 9/1 to 29/2: I shall answer emails on return: if you want to email me in Australia use *both* of the following or write me for snail mail address: + From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 3 15:10:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA15053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 15:10:50 +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 PAA15048 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 15:10:43 +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 ; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 23:09:30 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000102230854.00855ba0@mail.maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@mail.maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2000 23:08:54 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Intentionally created not-so-random results In-Reply-To: <7+Gu4UAN6$b4Ew0v@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <1.5.4.32.20000102171224.006e48ac@mindspring.com> <1.5.4.32.20000102171224.006e48ac@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:42 AM 1/3/00 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >I do not see why >we have to run qualifying [which is not everyone's cup of tea] rather >than play-through, which is a better test, Why is a play-through a better test? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 3 16:35:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA15172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 16:35:36 +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 QAA15167 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 16:35:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-33qth35.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.196.101]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA13104; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 00:35:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000103054602.006ddf10@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, 02 Jan 2000 21:46:02 -0800 To: David Stevenson From: Henry Sun Subject: Re: Intentionally created not-so-random results Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:42 AM 1/3/00 +0000, you wrote: > > You run a single session pairs tournament [eg a Club Duplicate]. >After half-time a pair whose score is 40% or less has no effective >incentive. After three-quarter-time a pair whose score is 50% or less >has no effective incentive. > > You think it is wrong to run club duplicates in this way? Or that it >is acceptable to allow such players to withdraw or foul the movement in >any way they like? > > It is normal in bridge events for some players towards the end to have >little or no incentive. It will ruin a lot of bridge events for a lot >of people if we have to mangle the running of them in such a way that >there is always incentive. obviously not, although i would hazard the guess that the kind of behaviour described in the post happens far less frequently when one doesn't know that they are around the 40% game then when they do know. my basic point was that if an incentive exists for players to do well at all stages of an event, then behaviour of the type described in the original post becomes far less likely to occur. > Some people like one competition, some like another. I do not see why >we have to run qualifying [which is not everyone's cup of tea] rather >than play-through, which is a better test, just because some people will >finish at the bottom and some of them may not behave. again, to make myself clear: having incentives to do well at all stages of an event enhances the likelihood that all players will strive to do well at all stages of an event. i did not intend to suggest that it would eliminate the problem, nor that having an event without such incentives would guarentee the existence of the problem. clearly qualifying events are not everyone's cup of tea, but let me end by stating, once again, my belief in the position espoused by kaplan and rubens: that if there is reason to perform poorly, or if there is no reason to perform well, then the tournament organisers carry some part of the blame if a competitor decides to perform poorly. this is especially the case when it is in one's best interest to lose (as happened, most recently in my memory, in the 1991 bermuda bowl when the polish team attempted, without success, to dump a match to usa-2 in an attempt to determine their quarter- final and semi-final draw.) henry sun From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 3 22:30:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA15960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 22:30:17 +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 WAA15954 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 22:30:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 12:29:38 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id LAA00375 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 11:28:33 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Subject: RE: A topical question Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 10:34:46 +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 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: >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? 2000 is a leap year. Every 100 years no leap year is correct, except that every 400 years is a leap year. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 4 06:11:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA17679 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 06:11:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from marge.inter.net.il (marge.inter.net.il [192.116.202.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA17674 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 06:10:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-1-111.access.net.il [213.8.1.111] (may be forged)) by marge.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA01060; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 21:11:29 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3870F439.EB7F3A81@zahav.net.il> Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 21:10:49 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en-US,fr,Hebrew,en,ro,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan Endicott CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? References: <199912262312.SAA14103@cfa183.harvard.edu> <386F0665.DE2A60A9@zahav.net.il> <002a01bf5509$454b69a0$125408c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well sss... I think there is no doubt that the game is for all players as I quoted my Law 0 !! My suggestion to ask the top players is based on the FACT that they are more experienced and more law->minded" than most of all the other players; this is my opinion based on a lot of many years of directing and playing (less than a 1/4 of yours !!) I agree that a lot of the our days laws are the result of the "playing experience" of a Great player and "Initiator" of the Laws - what I believe is that the opinions - which express the experience of a significant number of players - should be a good and important data base for the Laws Makers discussions and laws elaboration.. I"ll think how to organize some polls - about a lot of issues - not rules dealing with "mechanics" - and get relevant answers..... I hope : 1. The WBFLC will find a way to add the essence of my Law 0 to the present Laws. 2. They will use the data base - and even should ask a lot of questions - if I"ll suggest and execute the practical way for serious polls. Dany Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Grattan Endicott '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > "The tendency was for each artist to construct an > an ivory tower of his own: to live, that is to say, in > a world of his own devising." [Collingwood] > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Dany Haimovici > To: David Stevenson > Cc: > Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2000 8:03 AM > Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? > > > > > Please remember my LAW 0 - the game is for players !!!!!!!! > > > > I think that such a poll , amongst top 10% players in each country , > > would be a very helpful information for the Laws makers. > > > +=+ I had thought we were providing laws for 100% of the > bridge players. The top 10% will contain about the > same proportion, maybe rather more, of individuals who > do not understand the laws as almost any other 10% of the > field. But it will be overweight with axes to be ground. > If you are serious, what we need to find is a sufficient > sample from all levels of ability, comprising players who > have a fair understanding of the laws AND no bees in their > bonnets. Go ahead Dany, you are the best person to find > 10.000 players to match the requirement! :-))) Begin by > eliminating everyone on blml; we are the world's > foremost beekeepers. Follow this closely by binning > all members of WBF, Zonal and NCBO committees. > . ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 4 06:43:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA17795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 06:43:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from marge.inter.net.il (marge.inter.net.il [192.116.202.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA17787 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 06:42:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-2-97.access.net.il [213.8.2.97] (may be forged)) by marge.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA03619; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 21:43:20 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3870FBAD.DEEDFCB6@zahav.net.il> Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 21:42:38 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en-US,fr,Hebrew,en,ro,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thomas Dehn CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Intentionally created not-so-random results References: <000601bf550e$e98e8d80$a0fc75c2@rabbit> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I don't like to comment this , but I shall do it ; and I read already about 10 messages commenting it . A .The players It is difficult to judge the described situation without hearing all the involved people , but I have no doubt that those two players "have to be hang" -> the only question is how high should be the gallows........and every NACO or NFC should decide accordingly to all the known data. B. The TD I think that the TD shouldn't compel any player to play ; his/her duty is to explain them what are the expected behavior & ethics & etc. and tell them what are the expected "gallows" if they leave without "force major" reasons.... Afterwards he/she has to rearrange the sitting - with as minimum as possible changes , and to update the computer accordingly. At the end of the session/contest s/he should report the case to ALL the relevant authorities Dany relevant Thomas Dehn wrote: > > We've had a discussion on rgb about this > issue, where I did not get my point across. > I'm moving it over to blml with a case from > actual play. > > One day pairs tournament, three rounds. > After two rounds, one pair has about 45%. > [There is a 30 minute break between rounds two and three, > and the results of round two are published right > before the end of that break.] > The pair wants to leave early. The conditions of the > contest do not allow them to leave early if > the TD declines. The TD declines their request > because it would delay the last round if he > would build a new movement, and with no new movement he > would have two sit out tables in one section. > > One of the players then threatens: "if I am not allowed > to leave early, now that I can't get into the price money > any more, I'll make a psyche in every board." > The TD still declines their wish and demands that > they "play normal bridge in order not to affect the > tournament's result." > > A few boards into the third rounds, the TD already has > complaints like "he passed a 23 count first seat. next board, > he opened 7NT" or "he opened 1S on a singleton. His > partner then bid 2H on a heart singleton, which opener > passed." The TD demands that the pair stops this > nonsense and issues a warning. They decline and say > that they will continue to create absurd results until > they will be allowed to leave. TD stays at their table > and they do continue to create not-so-random results. > > Two such incidents are reported to the national authorities > about the same player over a very short period of time. > > You ruling please ;-) > > Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 4 07:45:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA17998 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 07:45:58 +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 HAA17993 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 07:45:51 +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 ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 15:43:24 -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, 3 Jan 2000 15:43:00 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.20000103054602.006ddf10@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 15:43:51 -0500 To: mailing list From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Intentionally created not-so-random results Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >if there is reason to perform poorly, or if >there is no reason to perform well, then the tournament organisers >carry some part of the blame if a competitor decides to perform >poorly. Maybe so - but that's no excuse for deliberately disrupting the tournament. 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/AwUBOHEKcL2UW3au93vOEQJf7QCeNP1x5qRuxwC2lBAs5q3KHCGHJpwAoN0Q B1JW0qqXPNxRsm0V0z2lAqwO =SdMM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 4 08:26:10 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA18138 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 08:26:10 +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 IAA18133 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 08:26:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.24]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 13:25:50 -0800 Message-ID: <00be01bf5631$1d2f7960$182ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Failure to Announce a Transfer Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 13:25:40 -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 Just back from the Reno regional, where one TD ruling recalled to mind a recent BLML thread (300 lb man...) Vulnerability: Both Dealer: West S- 6 H- QJ10972 D- KJ9 C- 982 S- QJ1053 S- A97 H- 63 H- K84 D- 6 D- A85 C- AQJ54 C- 10763 S- K842 H- A5 D- Q107432 C- K West North East South P P 1NT P 2H * P ** P Dbl for takeout 3C All pass * Intended as a transfer to spades, Announceable but not Announced.. ** Feminine intuition? I was South, wife Alice North. E-W were playing strong notrumps when vulnerable, but East thought for some reason (bad light, he said) that he was not vulnerable when he bid a 12-14 HCP 1NT. In their methods 2H is a natural signoff opposite a weak notrump opening, transfer to spades opposite strong.. Before the opening lead, West explained that his 2H bid was meant as a transfer, East explained his pass of 2H, and I called the TD, who said play on. The spade 6 was led (yuk!), ace played, trumps pulled, spades established, 11 tricks taken, +150. The TD at first ruled result stands, mistakes are a part of the game, etc. I politely disagreed with the TD but said I would not appeal (I can be magnanimous when it looks like I haven't been damaged). Uncharacteristically, but understandably, Alice had something to say about my mental health after the opponents left the table. Later the TD said he had been wrong, and adjusted our score to +400 for beating 2H by four tricks. He let the E-W score stand, however, saying that this was required because of his TD error. Plus 150 gave E-W 1-1/2 matchpoints out of 17, while -400 would of course have meant a zero. Possibly pertinent facts: -- I knew that E-W were strong players, as evidenced by the first two boards of the round. -- Only one opposing CC was on the table, to the right of RHO, although ACBL regulations require two CCs on the table. -- This was not a double shot attempt, as I just didn't think (in view of my major suit holdings) to ask RHO for a look at his CC. (I do not inquire about things that are shown on the CC). And two statements in the ACBL Alert Procedure: -- Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert [or Announce, presumably--mlf] a special agreement will be expect to protect themselves. -- Note also that an opponent who actually knows or suspects what is happening, even though not properly informed, may not be entitled to redress if he or she chooses to proceed without clarifying the situation. As in the previous thread, the absence of an infraction would mean that I was made aware somehow, without East's knowing, that 2H was a transfer, as would be the case if West and I had been screenmates, or if I had their CC within easy view. The infraction of law was the MI, not the failure to Announce, which is a violation of regulation. While I am not entitled to know that the opponents have had a misunderstanding, I am entitled to be legally apprised of their partnership agreements. Although I did not "recognize" or even "suspect" what was happening, I would not have appealed if the TD had ruled that I should have "clarified the situation" before doubling, and that the table result stands for us. Exposing my stupidity to an AC would be too embarrassing, not worth a couple of matchpoints. Note East's pass to 3C. It seems likely that East realized his mistake by the time 3C came around, and knew that bidding either 3H or 3S would get him into some kind of trouble. Assuming this knowledge did not come from UI (facial twitch by West, which Alice observed), I think he was entitled to pass the forcing 3C bid. If the knowledge came from UI, then he has to bid 3H. This bid, together with the pass to 2H, would signify a possible psych based on a very long heart suit, and West must pass. It is not at all probable, however, that Alice would double 3H, so down five undoubled for E-W. I lean toward -150 (table result) for N/S, -400 in 2H for E/W, but if West utilized UI to pass 3C, then +500/-500 for N-S/E-W, adjusting the contract to 3H. Your opinions? Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 4 09:18:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA18270 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 09:18:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA18264 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 09:18:17 +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 RAA20938 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 17:18:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA03388 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 17:18:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 17:18:04 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200001032218.RAA03388@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > Just back from the Reno regional, where one TD ruling recalled to mind a > recent BLML thread (300 lb man...) An interesting case, and I'm sure it will provoke much interesting discussion. Just a couple of clarifications here: > The infraction of law was the MI, not the failure to Announce, > which is a violation of regulation. The failure to announce _is_ MI in every sense. See the parenthesized phrase is L21B2. And in general, for score adjustment purposes, I don't see why there should be any distinction between violation of law and violation of a regulation made under authority of law. > West North East South > P P 1NT P > 2H* P** P Dbl for takeout > 3C All pass [Hope I've removed all the tabs. Marvin should know better.] > Note East's pass to 3C. ... > I think he was entitled to pass the forcing 3C bid. I don't think the 3C bid was forcing. Remember (and ignoring for a moment the possibility of UI from West's reaction), West's 2H is supposed by East to be a natural signoff. Once West has signed off once, how could he make a forcing bid? Now suppose there was UI of some sort -- facial twitch or whatever. It must suggest bidding spades, and East is forbidden to do that. I don't see how it suggests passing 3C over taking preference to 3H. Since the UI suggests West's strength is unlimited, isn't it bidding that is illegal? Anyway, I'm not sure 3H is a LA when East has four clubs and three hearts, but perhaps I'm overlooking something. West, on the other hand, has pretty significant UI from East's failure to alert 2H. I'm not at all sure the 3C bid is legal. As I say, lots to analyze here. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 4 12:48:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA18957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 12:48:43 +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 MAA18952 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 12:48:36 +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 125J55-0007Dl-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 01:48:17 +0000 Message-ID: <+qdvNOA$5Lc4Ewth@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 15:21:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Intentionally created not-so-random results References: <1.5.4.32.20000102171224.006e48ac@mindspring.com> <1.5.4.32.20000102171224.006e48ac@mindspring.com> <7+Gu4UAN6$b4Ew0v@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.6.32.20000102230854.00855ba0@mail.maine.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000102230854.00855ba0@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: >At 01:42 AM 1/3/00 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > >>I do not see why >>we have to run qualifying [which is not everyone's cup of tea] rather >>than play-through, which is a better test, > >Why is a play-through a better test? Well, I cannot prove it, but it feels like a better test to me. Basically the more boards you play in any particular segment of an event, the better the test. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK In Australia 9/1 to 29/2: I shall answer emails on return: if you want to email me in Australia use *both* of the following or write me for snail mail address: + From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 4 14:11:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA19245 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 14:11:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from nowhere.fragment.com (IDENT:root@nowhere.fragment.com [207.239.226.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA19240 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 14:11:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from nowhere.fragment.com (IDENT:jl8e@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nowhere.fragment.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA00714 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 22:11:07 -0500 Message-Id: <200001040311.WAA00714@nowhere.fragment.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 03 Jan 2000 17:18:04 EST." <200001032218.RAA03388@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 22:11:05 -0500 From: Julian Lighton Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <200001032218.RAA03388@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes: >> From: "Marvin L. French" >> Just back from the Reno regional, where one TD ruling recalled to mind a >> recent BLML thread (300 lb man...) > >> West North East South >> P P 1NT P >> 2H* P** P Dbl for takeout >> 3C All pass > >West, on the other hand, has pretty significant UI from East's failure >to alert 2H. I'm not at all sure the 3C bid is legal. I'd think that the UI from the failure to announce is made redundant by the AI from the pass of 2H. -- Julian Lighton jl8e@fragment.com "Height, Hell, Time, Haste, Terror, Tension Life, Death, Want, Waste, Mass Depression" -- Metallica From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 4 15:10:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA19409 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 15:10:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (smtp7.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.128.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA19404 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 15:10:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-33qtgrb.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.195.107]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA06092; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 23:10:13 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000104042103.006ebb30@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: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 20:21:03 -0800 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Henry Sun Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:25 PM 1/3/00 -0800, you wrote: >Just back from the Reno regional, where one TD ruling recalled to mind a >recent BLML thread (300 lb man...) > >Vulnerability: Both >Dealer: West > > S- 6 > H- QJ10972 > D- KJ9 > C- 982 > >S- QJ1053 S- A97 >H- 63 H- K84 >D- 6 D- A85 >C- AQJ54 C- 10763 > > S- K842 > H- A5 > D- Q107432 > C- K > >West North East South >P P 1NT P >2H * P ** P Dbl for takeout >3C All pass > >* Intended as a transfer to spades, Announceable but not Announced.. >** Feminine intuition? > >Later the TD said he had been wrong, and adjusted our score to +400 for >beating 2H by four tricks. He let the E-W score stand, however, saying that >this was required because of his TD error. Plus 150 gave E-W 1-1/2 >matchpoints out of 17, while -400 would of course have meant a zero. >-- Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents >have neglected to Alert [or Announce, presumably--mlf] a special agreement >will be expect to protect themselves. >-- Note also that an opponent who actually knows or suspects what is >happening, even though not properly informed, may not be entitled to redress >if he or she chooses to proceed without clarifying the situation. within the context of the acbl, there is an additional pertinant fact: the failure of west to announce/alert a weak 1nt range. i consider the combination of the failure to announce/alert an abnormal 1nt range with the failure to announce the transfer should have been a sufficient alert to an experienced south to wonder about the situation. so my guess is that the correct ruling would be to award the actual result to ns, because south had reason to inquire but didn't and hence forfeited the right to redress, and average-minus of the result of 2h down 4 to ew, giving them the worst of the 'at all likely' bad results. hence, i agree with your basic position on the adjustment. >Note East's pass to 3C. It seems likely that East realized his mistake by the >time 3C came around, and knew that bidding either 3H or 3S would get him into >some kind of trouble. Assuming this >knowledge did not come from UI (facial twitch by West, which Alice observed), >I think he was entitled to pass the forcing 3C bid. If the knowledge came from >UI, then he has to bid 3H. This bid, together with the pass to 2H, would >signify a possible psych based on a very long heart suit, and West must pass. >It is not at all probable, however, that Alice would double 3H, so down five >undoubled for E-W. if 2h was nonforcing opposite a weak 1nt, then surely 3c would also be nonforcing and competitive, normally showing 5-4/5-5 roundeds. if there is ui that would suggest a call over a pass, so i think that east is in fact ethically correct to pass 3c. henry sun From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 4 16:36:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA19608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 16:36:38 +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 QAA19603 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 16:36:29 +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 VAA15628; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 21:36:19 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bbo@localhost) by king.halcyon.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA27582; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 21:36:19 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 21:36:19 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" To: Henry Sun cc: "Marvin L. French" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.20000104042103.006ebb30@mindspring.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > within the context of the acbl, there is an additional pertinant fact: > the failure of west to announce/alert a weak 1nt range. i consider the > combination of the failure to announce/alert an abnormal 1nt range with > the failure to announce the transfer should have been a sufficient alert > to an experienced south to wonder about the situation. I think that is wrong, Henry. If a 1NT is not announced, it is presumed to be within the range 15-18. That's simple, so why should any opponent be alert enough to "know" it was weak? Second, transfer bids are required to be announced, so why when there is none should south "know" it was a transfer? Of what possible use it is for the acbl to require announcements, and then take the position that an opponent, who was seven feet away from the one and only cc on the table [another violation], should "know" the meanings even when not announced?? > so my guess is that the correct ruling would be to award the actual > result to ns, because south had reason to inquire but didn't and hence > forfeited the right to redress, Why do you think south had reason to inquire about a mundane, every-day sequence? And as a matter of fact, even if he was all-knowing and God-like, where exactly does it say his rights are forfeited? Whenever a 1NT is made without an announcement, is it your position that the next player is required to inquire as to whether or not it is 15-18? If so, what is the sense of having the announcement regulation? Similarly, if a call is made that would be a transfer for us or others, I can't see that asking if it is or not is reasonable. Again, why have the regs if you are expected to ask every time to "protect" yourself. That really seems far out. Rich Odlin From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 4 16:50:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA19646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 16:50:58 +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 QAA19641 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 16:50:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-33qtgrb.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.195.107]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA04987; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 00:50:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000104060125.006df23c@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: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 22:01:25 -0800 To: "Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" From: Henry Sun Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:36 PM 1/3/00 -0800, you wrote: > >> within the context of the acbl, there is an additional pertinant fact: >> the failure of west to announce/alert a weak 1nt range. i consider the >> combination of the failure to announce/alert an abnormal 1nt range with >> the failure to announce the transfer should have been a sufficient alert >> to an experienced south to wonder about the situation. > >I think that is wrong, Henry. If a 1NT is not announced, it is presumed to >be within the range 15-18. That's simple, so why should any opponent be >alert enough to "know" it was weak? Second, transfer bids are required to >be announced, so why when there is none should south "know" it was a >transfer? > >Of what possible use it is for the acbl to require announcements, and then >take the position that an opponent, who was seven feet away from the one and >only cc on the table [another violation], should "know" the meanings even >when not announced?? > >> so my guess is that the correct ruling would be to award the actual >> result to ns, because south had reason to inquire but didn't and hence >> forfeited the right to redress, > >Why do you think south had reason to inquire about a mundane, every-day >sequence? And as a matter of fact, even if he was all-knowing and God-like, >where exactly does it say his rights are forfeited? > >Whenever a 1NT is made without an announcement, is it your position that the >next player is required to inquire as to whether or not it is 15-18? If so, >what is the sense of having the announcement regulation? Similarly, if a >call is made that would be a transfer for us or others, I can't see that >asking if it is or not is reasonable. Again, why have the regs if you are >expected to ask every time to "protect" yourself. That really seems far >out. > >Rich Odlin rich- i may not have made myself clear, so let me try to clarify. it is my contention (? suggestion? forlorn hope?) that it is the combination of the failure to announce a 1nt range (=thereby implying a range within the 15-18 point range) PLUS the failure to announce the transfer that should have awakened south. neither, by itself, would be the least unusual. but the combination of the two should lead south to suspect that these opps are playing a strong 1nt with natural signoffs, surely a very unusual combination these days, especially among strong opps in the acbl (as was part of the original post). it is that anomoly that should inquire south to ask, and it is the failure of south to do so when he has genuine reason to that forfeits his right to redress in my opinion. is that clearer? henry sun > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 4 17:12:36 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA19724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 17:12:36 +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 RAA19718 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 17:12:26 +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 125NCX-0006up-00; Tue, 04 Jan 2000 07:12:13 +0100 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA100086333; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 07:12:13 +0100 Subject: Re: Intentionally created not-so-random results To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 4 Jan 100 07:12:12 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <200001021520.CAA13175@octavia.anu.edu.au> from "Jens & Bodil" at Jan 02, 2000 04:20:32 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 Jens & Bodil: > >Thomas Dehn wrote: > >> One of the players then threatens: "if I am not allowed >> to leave early, now that I can't get into the price money >> any more, I'll make a psyche in every board." >> The TD still declines their wish and demands that >> they "play normal bridge in order not to affect the >> tournament's result." >> >> A few boards into the third rounds, the TD already has >> complaints like "he passed a 23 count first seat. next board, >> he opened 7NT" or "he opened 1S on a singleton. His >> partner then bid 2H on a heart singleton, which opener >> passed." The TD demands that the pair stops this >> nonsense and issues a warning. They decline and say >> that they will continue to create absurd results until >> they will be allowed to leave. TD stays at their table >> and they do continue to create not-so-random results. >> >> >> Two such incidents are reported to the national authorities >> about the same player over a very short period of time. >> >> You ruling please ;-) > >This is an easy ruling in Denmark. at least as long as we are >discussing the TD's part. Our supplementary regulations >include two rules - one to the effect that it is unethical to >introduce randomness in the play because of lack of interest in the >result, and one to the effect that it is unethical to drop out of an >event just because you are doing badly (except where this is explicitly >allowed). > >So our perpretrators are in violation af a regulation that the TD has >brought to their attention and warned them not to keep on violating. >When they do so anyway, they get hit with L91 - which in this case >implies that they get thrown out of the session (and so they get to >leave after all, which is ironical). > >Whenever the TD has used L91, he is the obliged to report the incident >to the DBF (the Danish NCBO). End of ruling part. > >The DBF will now decide whether to pursue the case further, either >in a meeting of its board of directors (max. penalty 6 months >suspension) or in a special ethics committe which exists for this >purpose (max penalty suspension for life). > >If the case makes it to the special ethics committe - and I doubt >that it would - the ethics committe acts on oral evidence and allows >the defendant to bring an attorney. > >My guess is that these players would be suspended from three to six >months. Only one report of this kind would be necessary if they >kept violating the rule after the TD had warned them. This is essentially what happened in the actual case. The player who had been reported to the national authorities twice then was suspended for six months. Ok, now I can move on to the issue we already discussed in rgb: >From the discussion in this thread we have a consensus that a player may not disturb a tournament by creating absurd results in order to achieve a non-bridge goal. OTOH, we have a consensus that a poster may psyche frequently in order to achieve a bridge result. "Increase your chances for a tournament win by increasing variation, even if it does reduce your average score." In rgb, we furthermore discussed the situation where a player repeats the same psyche frequently. There, we had a consensus (I was the only one who objected) that a player may make the same psyche (namely psyche a 1S response to 1H) over and over as long as this psyching habit is fully disclosed. Then several opinions were voiced on rgb that his partner may use this information ("never" raise the 1S response to 4S). Some others deem this to be an illegal psychic control. To summarizy, on the one hand we have a players legal right to psyche, which cannot be restricted by the sponsoring organization. And psyching is fun. On the other hand, we generally expect players to try to create good results for themselves, not just completely random results. Now, where do we draw the line? Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 4 17:50:11 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA19808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 17:50:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA19803 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 17:50:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-33qtgrb.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.195.107]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA11002; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 01:49:52 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000104070042.006ff17c@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: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 23:00:42 -0800 To: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de From: Henry Sun Subject: Re: Intentionally created not-so-random results Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:12 AM 1/4/00 +0100, you wrote: >Ok, now I can move on to the issue we already discussed >in rgb: > >From the discussion in this thread we have a consensus >that a player may not disturb a tournament by creating >absurd results in order to achieve a non-bridge goal. > >OTOH, we have a consensus >that a poster may psyche frequently in order to >achieve a bridge result. "Increase your chances >for a tournament win by increasing variation, >even if it does reduce your average score." in the acbl, frequent psychs are subject to disciplinary action, frequent being defined as 3 or more times per session. in addition, the acbl has extraordinarily stringent rules about fielding psychs, and whenever a psych is successfully fielded, it creates a presumption of ui or mi and the pair in question is usually liable to score adjustment. thus, if 3rd hand were to psych a 1x opening bid, it would be fine the first time; if 3rd hand were to psych a 1x opening bid a second time and it was fielded by his partner with no compelling bridge logic behind the field, the pair is presumed to have actedon the basis of ui or mi and would be liable to a score adjustment. so while the posters who advocate frequent psyching may be correct, in the acbl this sort of behaviour would generally result in score adjustment, with disciplinary penalties also possible. the only case in which this wouldn't happen is if the pair had previously agreed upon definitions of psychs (eg, open 1M in 3rd seat with 0-5 hcps and a 5 card major as a lead directing call). if a pair happened to hit a set of boards that allowed this sort of psych to happen, then they would be free of disciplinary penalty, although the question of score adjustment would still need to be decided. >In rgb, we furthermore discussed the situation >where a player repeats the same psyche frequently. >There, we had a consensus (I was the only one who >objected) that a player may make the same psyche >(namely psyche a 1S response to 1H) over and over >as long as this psyching habit is fully disclosed. again this may be a consensus, but in the acbl the partner of the psycher must not field the psych without compelling bridge logic. if opener has akxx;akjxx; kx; qx and fails to raise a 1s response to 4s because he thinks partner may have psyched, the pair is liable to score adjustment. if opener has x; aqjxxx; axx; xxx and rebids 2h over a psyched 1s response, then the partnership is fine. >To summarizy, on the one hand we have a players >legal right to psyche, which cannot be restricted >by the sponsoring organization. And psyching >is fun. >On the other hand, we generally expect players >to try to create good results for themselves, >not just completely random results. > >Now, where do we draw the line? from an acbl perspective, it is easy: frequent psyching is presumed to be unsporting, and hence liable to disciplinary action, subject to the qualifications i've mentioned above. incidentally, i base this on a mid-1970s discussion of psyching in the bridge world's series 'appeals committee' and a lengthy discussion of frequent psychs as a part of a system from the past known affectionally at ehaa (=every hand an adventure). with the changes to the lawbook in 1987 and 1997, the acbl's position may have changed. perhaps someone with a greater sense of bridge history than i can correct me if the acbl's position has changed from the one i remember. henry sun > > >Thomas > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 4 18:46:51 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA19923 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 18:46:51 +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 SAA19918 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 18:46:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.24]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 23:46:25 -0800 Message-ID: <011d01bf5687$d0463920$182ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <1.5.4.32.20000104042103.006ebb30@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 23:46:01 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henry Sun wrote: To: Marvin L. French > At 01:25 PM 1/3/00 -0800, you wrote: > >Just back from the Reno regional, where one TD ruling recalled to mind a > >recent BLML thread (300 lb man...) > > > >Vulnerability: Both > >Dealer: West > > > > S- 6 > > H- QJ10972 > > D- KJ9 > > C- 982 > > > >S- QJ1053 S- A97 > >H- 63 H- K84 > >D- 6 D- A85 > >C- AQJ54 C- 10763 > > > > S- K842 > > H- A5 > > D- Q107432 > > C- K > > > >West North East South > >P P 1NT P > >2H * P ** P Dbl for takeout > >3C All pass > > > >* Intended as a transfer to spades, Announceable but not Announced.. > >** Feminine intuition? > > > >Later the TD said he had been wrong, and adjusted our score to +400 for > >beating 2H by four tricks. He let the E-W score stand, however, saying that > >this was required because of his TD error. Plus 150 gave E-W 1-1/2 > >matchpoints out of 17, while -400 would of course have meant a zero. > > >-- Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents > >have neglected to Alert [or Announce, presumably--mlf] a special agreement > >will be expect to protect themselves. > >-- Note also that an opponent who actually knows or suspects what is > >happening, even though not properly informed, may not be entitled to redress > >if he or she chooses to proceed without clarifying the situation. > > within the context of the acbl, there is an additional pertinant fact: > the failure of west to announce/alert a weak 1nt range. i consider the > combination of the failure to announce/alert an abnormal 1nt range with > the failure to announce the transfer should have been a sufficient alert > to an experienced south to wonder about the situation. How could West Announce a weak notrump range when their agreement was that 1NT was strong in this situation? The infraction was failure to Announce the transfer meaning of 2H > > so my guess is that the correct ruling would be to award the actual result > to ns, because south had reason to inquire but didn't and hence forfeited > the right to redress, The ACBL regulation does not say redress can be denied on the basis that a player had reason to inquire. A player must have recognized or suspected that there was a failure to Alert or Announce. If s/he hasn't done that, redress is in order even if s/he had "reason to inquire." I had come previously come across several good pairs in Reno who don't use transfers in response to strong notrumps. They get quite tired of players who inquire about their natural responses, since transfers must be Announced. With these strong E-W opponents I didn't suspect there was a failure to Announce, and my hand gave me no clue, so I was entitled to redress. >and average-minus of the result of 2h down 4 to ew, > giving them the worst of the 'at all likely' bad results. hence, i agree > with your basic position on the adjustment. You mean "or the result," I presume. Why consider avg- when the most unfavorable result that was at all probable (not "at all likely") was -400 in 2H (assuming East did not use UI in the decision to pass 3C)? > > >Note East's pass to 3C. It seems likely that East realized his mistake by the > >time 3C came around, and knew that bidding either 3H or 3S would get him into > >some kind of trouble. Assuming this > >knowledge did not come from UI (facial twitch by West, which Alice observed), > >I think he was entitled to pass the forcing 3C bid. If the knowledge came from > >UI, then he has to bid 3H. This bid, together with the pass to 2H, would > >signify a possible psych based on a very long heart suit, and West must pass. > >It is not at all probable, however, that Alice would double 3H, so down five > >undoubled for E-W. > > if 2h was nonforcing opposite a weak 1nt, then surely 3c would also be > nonforcing and competitive, normally showing 5-4/5-5 roundeds. if there > is ui that would suggest a call over a pass, so i think that east is in > fact ethically correct to pass 3c. Matchpoint players routinely prefer a 5-3 major suit fit to a 5-4 (or 4-4!) minor suit fit, when there is a chance that the contract will make. A 2H transfer can be made with a decent hand, one just weak enough to suppose that game is unlikely. However, if East has come to realize his mistake on his own (as I believe in the absence of contrary evidence), not through UI, then passing 3C is just common sense and not illegal. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 4 19:13:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA20008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 19:13:34 +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 TAA20003 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 19:13:27 +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 AAA18455; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 00:13:19 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bbo@localhost) by king.halcyon.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA01844; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 00:13:18 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 00:13:11 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" To: Henry Sun cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.20000104060125.006df23c@mindspring.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Henry Sun wrote: > i may not have made myself clear, so let me try to clarify. > > it is my contention (? suggestion? forlorn hope?) that it is the > combination of the failure to announce a 1nt range (=thereby implying a > range within the 15-18 point range) PLUS the failure to announce the > transfer that should have awakened south. neither, by itself, would be > the least unusual. but the combination of the two should lead south to > suspect that these opps are playing a strong 1nt with natural signoffs, > surely a very unusual combination these days, especially among strong > opps in the acbl (as was part of the original post). > > it is that anomaly that should require south to ask, and it is the > failure of south to do so when he has genuine reason to that forfeits > his right to redress in my opinion. > > is that clearer? Yes it is clearer, but IMHO there is no anomaly, and what you are saying makes the regs a laughing-stock. No one should have to guess that they have failed to announce not just once but twice. The weak NT is not so overwhelmingly a favorite these days that anyone should take any note whatever of the failure to announce here. In fact asking for their range after no announcement smacks of rudeness to the opponents - kind of inquiring if they know their system or not! And then the non-announce of the two-heart call does not seem to me to be an anomaly at all, considering that the non-announce of the NT opener should be treated as a non-event! It would just make me think, "Well, here is a pair that plays it the old fashioned way, just like I like. How about that!" There is no light-bulb going off here that would require you to be on your guard and inquire. The announcement of transfers is so well ingrained into all players at a tournament level that I don't think one should ever need to question the lack thereof. It is something that everyone knows and does half a dozen times a session. If they fail to announce in such a mundane auction, it is not up to me to be the policeman on the block. Rich Odlin From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 4 19:18:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA20036 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 19:18:46 +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 TAA20031 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 19:18:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.24]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 00:18:30 -0800 Message-ID: <013101bf568c$4b283680$182ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <1.5.4.32.20000104060125.006df23c@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 00:17:15 -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 Henry Sun wrote: > > i may not have made myself clear, so let me try to clarify. > > it is my contention (? suggestion? forlorn hope?) that it is the combination > of the failure to announce a 1nt range (=thereby implying a range within the > 15-18 point range) PLUS the failure to announce the transfer that should > have awakened south. neither, by itself, would be the least unusual. but > the combination of the two should lead south to suspect that these opps > are playing a strong 1nt with natural signoffs, surely a very unusual > combination these days, especially among strong opps in the acbl (as was > part of the original post). That is very true. I should have suspected, but I didn't. I would have glanced at their CC when East bid 1NT (as is our custom, whatever our hands) had one been in view, and would have seen that natural responses apply only to non-vulnerable notrumps. However, contrary to ACBL regulations, there was no card within my field of view. > > it is that anomoly that should inquire south to ask, and it is the failure > of south to do so when he has genuine reason to that forfeits his right > to redress in my opinion. > > is that clearer? > Yes, except that the ACBL Alert Procedure (AP) does not say that having a reason to ask is sufficient grounds for annulment of redress. It says that one must have recognized, or suspected, what was happening, and for various reasons I did not. Alice rightly questioned my sanity after the opponents left the table. Maybe I just had a "senior moment." By the way, the AP speaks of "clarifying the situation," not "asking." If I want to know something that would normally be shown on the opposing CC, I get the information that way, not by asking. The main purpose of a CC is to communicate partnership agreements to the opponents, not to document a pair's understandings for their benefit. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 4 21:17:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA20501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 21:17:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (omicron.comarch.pl [195.116.125.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA20470 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 21:12:09 +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 LAA06440 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 11:09:13 +0100 Message-ID: <386F237B.549CA1BC@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2000 11:07:55 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: Intentionally created not-so-random results References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de pressed the following keys: > > Then several opinions were voiced on rgb that > his partner may use this information ("never" raise > the 1S response to 4S). Some others deem this to be > an illegal psychic control. > > Thomas That depends on the system restrictions. If a player is permitted to respond 1S to 1H opening _systemically_ on: xxx Kx KQxxxx xx as, say, a) 6-9 PC 3+H b) 5-9PC, long minor c) 10+PC without a heart fit ... then I see no reasons to forbid a player to psyche a natural 1S response frequently as long as the opponents know it in advance (and the 1S response is alerted, of course). However, if that three-way 1S response is illegal under the conditions of contest then frequent psyching should be banned also. Yes, the 1S response on their CC is marked as fully natural, 6+PC and 4+S. So what? Opener tries not to raise this 1S thing without checking whether responder has real spades or not. As the matter of fact their 1S response is _artificial_, i.e.: a) 6+PC, 4+S b) 5-9PC, 3+H (or anything else, depends on style) If they are allowed to do this they gain an unfair advantage over a pair who is not allowed to play the 1S response that is artificial by definition. -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Jan 5 00:27:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA21230 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 00:27:03 +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 AAA21225 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 00:26:55 +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, 4 Jan 2000 08:25:40 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000104082453.00858100@mail.maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@mail.maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 08:24:53 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Intentionally created not-so-random results In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.20000104070042.006ff17c@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:00 PM 1/3/00 -0800, Henry Sun wrote: >in the acbl, frequent psychs are subject to disciplinary >action, frequent being defined as 3 or more times per >session. I don't think you will find any ACBL regulation which restricts frequent psyching. Three psyches in a session may well cause the directing staff to ask some questions, but there won't be any automatic finding. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 5 01:05:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA21332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 01:05:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA21327 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 01:05:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA26903 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 09:04:49 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000104090540.00703810@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 09:05:40 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Intentionally created not-so-random results Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My apologies to the original poster; the first copy of my reply went to him instead of to the group. >At 07:12 AM 1/4/00 +0100, af06 wrote: > >>To summarizy, on the one hand we have a players >>legal right to psyche, which cannot be restricted >>by the sponsoring organization. And psyching >>is fun. >>On the other hand, we generally expect players >>to try to create good results for themselves, >>not just completely random results. >> >>Now, where do we draw the line? > >"The line" is between permissable psyching and an illegal attempt to disrupt the contest. When confronted with the possibility that a player's actions might constitute the latter, a committee should give the player an opportunity to defend them. If he can show a legitimate (albeit not necessarily sound) "bridge reason" for his actions, they are legal. > >Some will object that this requires "mind reading", and they are right. But such cases do require mind reading. Surely any determination as to whether a player was "attempting to disrupt the contest" requires some determination as to the motivation for his actions. > >In the original case, the player in question had effectively admitted that he was attempting to disrupt the game -- his actions were preceded by a threat to do exactly that. Hang 'im. > > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 5 01:25:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA21384 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 01:25:38 +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 BAA21379 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 01:25:31 +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 JAA28774 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 09:24:55 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000104092545.006a0ddc@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 09:25:45 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: EHAA and psychs (WAS Intentionally created not-so-random results) In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.20000104070042.006ff17c@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:00 PM 1/3/00 -0800, Henry wrote: >incidentally, i base this on a mid-1970s discussion >of psyching in the bridge world's series 'appeals >committee' and a lengthy discussion of frequent >psychs as a part of a system from the past known >affectionally at ehaa (=every hand an adventure). >with the changes to the lawbook in 1987 and 1997, >the acbl's position may have changed. perhaps >someone with a greater sense of bridge history >than i can correct me if the acbl's position has >changed from the one i remember. I cannot let this go unchallenged. EHAA is a rather old-fashioned and, for the most part, conservative system which has been around for over 40 years. It is absolutely not true that psychs, frequent or otherwise, are in any sense "a part of [the] system". Yes, the discussion Henry refers to did take place, as the result of the appearance before an NABC committee of a pair that was inappropriately using the name "EHAA" for a homebrew system of their own, which involved frequent psychs, despite the fact that EHAA was, at the time, fairly well-known and not infrequently played by a number of serious players. But the resulting confusion on the part of the ACBL was resolved more than 20 years ago, and I'm discouraged by the fact that it still lingers in parts of the bridge community. FTR, there was a variant of EHAA (expermented with in the early 1960s by, among others, Toby Stone) that did incorporate Roth-Stone style controlled psyches, and which would be illegal under ACBL rules now, but that variation had died out by the time the discussion Henry refers to took place. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 5 01:50:16 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA21499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 01:50:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe28.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA21494 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 01:50:08 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 26584 invoked by uid 65534); 4 Jan 2000 14:49:14 -0000 Message-ID: <20000104144914.26583.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.14.68] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <1.5.4.32.20000104060125.006df23c@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 08:49:18 -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 Is it only me that has noticed that the regulations promulgated by the ACBL necessitate, to the point of requiring in near astronomical proportions, communication between partners by means other than bids and plays made? It seems to me that a consequence of those regulations has been the policy of awarding AVE+/AVE- in large numbers, instead of adjusted scores per L12. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: Henry Sun To: Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin Cc: Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 12:01 AM Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer > At 09:36 PM 1/3/00 -0800, you wrote: > > > >> within the context of the acbl, there is an additional pertinant fact: > >> the failure of west to announce/alert a weak 1nt range. i consider the > >> combination of the failure to announce/alert an abnormal 1nt range with > >> the failure to announce the transfer should have been a sufficient alert > >> to an experienced south to wonder about the situation. > > > >I think that is wrong, Henry. If a 1NT is not announced, it is presumed to > >be within the range 15-18. That's simple, so why should any opponent be > >alert enough to "know" it was weak? Second, transfer bids are required to > >be announced, so why when there is none should south "know" it was a > >transfer? > > > >Of what possible use it is for the acbl to require announcements, and then > >take the position that an opponent, who was seven feet away from the one and > >only cc on the table [another violation], should "know" the meanings even > >when not announced?? > > > >> so my guess is that the correct ruling would be to award the actual > >> result to ns, because south had reason to inquire but didn't and hence > >> forfeited the right to redress, > > > >Why do you think south had reason to inquire about a mundane, every-day > >sequence? And as a matter of fact, even if he was all-knowing and God-like, > >where exactly does it say his rights are forfeited? > > > >Whenever a 1NT is made without an announcement, is it your position that the > >next player is required to inquire as to whether or not it is 15-18? If so, > >what is the sense of having the announcement regulation? Similarly, if a > >call is made that would be a transfer for us or others, I can't see that > >asking if it is or not is reasonable. Again, why have the regs if you are > >expected to ask every time to "protect" yourself. That really seems far > >out. > > > >Rich Odlin > > rich- > > i may not have made myself clear, so let me try to clarify. > > it is my contention (? suggestion? forlorn hope?) that it is the combination > of the failure to announce a 1nt range (=thereby implying a range within the > 15-18 point range) PLUS the failure to announce the transfer that should > have awakened south. neither, by itself, would be the least unusual. but > the combination of the two should lead south to suspect that these opps > are playing a strong 1nt with natural signoffs, surely a very unusual > combination these days, especially among strong opps in the acbl (as was > part of the original post). > > it is that anomoly that should inquire south to ask, and it is the failure > of south to do so when he has genuine reason to that forfeits his right > to redress in my opinion. > > is that clearer? > > henry sun > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 5 02:20:29 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA21746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 02:20:29 +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 CAA21741 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 02:20:21 +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 125Vkk-00045S-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 15:20:09 +0000 Message-ID: <22ZtKHCvTXc4Ewtb@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 04:19:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: Cats MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk List of cats 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, Loki, Snaggs, Rufus Mike Dennis Casino Laval Du Breuil Picatou Simon Edler Incy Michael Farebrother Shadow, Tipsy Wally Farley Andrew RB, Templeton, Scratcher, Joy, Panda RB, Shaure, Edmund 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 and a picture of Selassie is at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/slssie.htm Additions and amendments to this list should be sent to Nanki Poo at . Miiiiiiiaaaaaoouuuuwwwwww !!!!!!!!! Mrow *QU* -- Quango /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Pictures on Catpage at ( | | ) =( + )= http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/cat_menu.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 5 04:08:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA21897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 03:06:51 +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 DAA21892 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 03:06:42 +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 QAA10705; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 16:04:45 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA10952; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 16:04:44 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Tue, 04 Jan 2000 16:04:43 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 QAA02602; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 16:04:43 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id QAA00871; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 16:04:36 GMT Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 16:04:36 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200001041604.QAA00871@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, elandau@cais.com Subject: Re: EHAA and psychs (WAS Intentionally created not-so-random Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk results) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Eric writes: > > I cannot let this go unchallenged. > > EHAA is a rather old-fashioned and, for the most part, conservative system > which has been around for over 40 years. It is absolutely not true that > psychs, frequent or otherwise, are in any sense "a part of [the] system". > > Yes, the discussion Henry refers to did take place, as the result of the > appearance before an NABC committee of a pair that was inappropriately > using the name "EHAA" for a homebrew system of their own, which involved > frequent psychs, despite the fact that EHAA was, at the time, fairly > well-known and not infrequently played by a number of serious players. But > the resulting confusion on the part of the ACBL was resolved more than 20 > years ago, and I'm discouraged by the fact that it still lingers in parts > of the bridge community. > Eric wrote more fully to set the record straight re EHAA last year. In particular he described how EHAA became the "system that dare not speak its name" for many years after the original ruling, for to openly play EHAA was to arrouse suspicion, mistrust and out-right bigotry. 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 Jan 5 05:07:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA22347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 05:07:37 +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 FAA22342 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 05:07:28 +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 NAA13082 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 13:07:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA04111 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 13:07:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 13:07:22 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200001041807.NAA04111@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Intentionally created not-so-random results X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de > In rgb, we furthermore discussed the situation > where a player repeats the same psyche frequently. > There, we had a consensus (I was the only one who > objected) that a player may make the same psyche > (namely psyche a 1S response to 1H) over and over > as long as this psyching habit is fully disclosed. If this is a habit, it's a partnership agreement, not a psych. It may be legal or illegal according to the convention rules of a particular contest (and of course whether the agreement is conventional or a light initial action at the one-level). Without checking, I'd guess that a 1S response to 1H showing either spades or various sorts of hands without spades is probably legal on the ACBL Mid-chart but not on the GCC. I'd be astonished if it isn't legal on the Super-chart. (OK, OK, I've checked. It's legal on the Mid-chart if the additional meanings are "constructive" and legal on the Super-chart if they are "non-destructive." I suggest careful phrasing of your explanation.) > Then several opinions were voiced on rgb that > his partner may use this information ("never" raise > the 1S response to 4S). Some others deem this to be > an illegal psychic control. If the convention is legal, it is certainly legal to have non-conventional followup methods, as for example making natural bids below 4S. In the ACBL, conventional followup methods starting with opening bidder's rebid would be legal as well, and very likely methods beginning earlier would also be legal. > Now, where do we draw the line? Asking whether there's a bridge reason is a good start. I have no objection to mind reading in _conduct_ cases. Motivations are definitely important. > From: Eric Landau > FTR, there was a variant of EHAA (expermented with in the early 1960s by, > among others, Toby Stone) that did incorporate Roth-Stone style controlled > psyches, and which would be illegal under ACBL rules now, If these were similar to the "K-S controlled psyches," i.e. opening the bidding with one of a five-card suit (or specifically a major) and little strength, these would be an example of a partnership agreement, not a psych. Opening _by agreement_ at the one-level on less than 8 HCP is indeed illegal in the ACBL, even on the Super-chart. However, _overcalling_ with such hands is legal in the ACBL, and quite a few conventional methods to deal with such overcalls are legal. The important point is that if the bid is made _by agreement_ on a particular set of hands, it isn't a psych. Obviously the agreement must be disclosed. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 5 05:17:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA22374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 05:17:35 +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 FAA22368 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 05:17:27 +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 NAA13386 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 13:17:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA04130 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 13:17:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 13:17:22 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200001041817.NAA04130@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Tournament formats X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Subject: Re: Intentionally created not-so-random results > > Tim Goodwin wrote: > >At 01:42 AM 1/3/00 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > > > >>I do not see why > >>we have to run qualifying [which is not everyone's cup of tea] rather > >>than play-through, which is a better test, > > > >Why is a play-through a better test? > > Well, I cannot prove it, but it feels like a better test to me. > Basically the more boards you play in any particular segment of an > event, the better the test. Just so we are all on the same page, let's consider two events. Each has two sessions, 72 boards. The "play-through" is just what it sounds. Everyone plays two sessions, and at the end the contestant with the highest score wins. In the "qualifying," at the end of the first session, the field is separated into the top- and bottom-scoring halves. Each half plays within its own group (or perhaps the lower half goes home), and at the end the highest-scoring contestant _in the upper group_ is the winner. (The final score for the upper group may include a percentage from 0 to 100 of the score from the first session.) In either event, the movement is arranged to be balanced with as much care as the organizers wish to take. David: are you claiming that the play-through is a better test? IMHO, neither event can be declared "better" in any absolute sense. The "qualifying" gives less premium for beating up on weak players or lucking out when they do something stupid, so it may be better in that sense. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 5 06:43:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA22624 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 06:43:19 +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 GAA22617 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 06:43:06 +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, 4 Jan 2000 14:41:55 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000104144110.008aae40@mail.maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@mail.maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 14:41:10 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Tournament formats In-Reply-To: <200001041817.NAA04130@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:17 PM 1/4/00 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: >IMHO, neither event can be declared "better" in any absolute sense. >The "qualifying" gives less premium for beating up on weak players >or lucking out when they do something stupid, so it may be better in >that sense. That's my sense. There is great disparity between abilities in most fields. By reducing the field over some number of cuts, the field presumably gets stronger. Most carry-over schemes weight the later sessions much more heavily. So, winners are determined primarily by who does well against the better players. I'm not talking about the Cavendish Invitational. But, even such events at the ACBL's Blue Ribbon Pairs suffers from weak players. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 5 12:30:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA24097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 12:30:40 +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 MAA24092 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 12:30:31 +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 125fHB-0005lf-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 01:30:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 16:11:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer References: <1.5.4.32.20000104042103.006ebb30@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.20000104042103.006ebb30@mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henry Sun wrote: >At 01:25 PM 1/3/00 -0800, you wrote: >>Just back from the Reno regional, where one TD ruling recalled to mind a >>recent BLML thread (300 lb man...) >> >>Vulnerability: Both >>Dealer: West >> >> S- 6 >> H- QJ10972 >> D- KJ9 >> C- 982 >> >>S- QJ1053 S- A97 >>H- 63 H- K84 >>D- 6 D- A85 >>C- AQJ54 C- 10763 >> >> S- K842 >> H- A5 >> D- Q107432 >> C- K >> >>West North East South >>P P 1NT P >>2H * P ** P Dbl for takeout >>3C All pass >> >>* Intended as a transfer to spades, Announceable but not Announced.. >>** Feminine intuition? >> >>Later the TD said he had been wrong, and adjusted our score to +400 for >>beating 2H by four tricks. He let the E-W score stand, however, saying that >>this was required because of his TD error. Plus 150 gave E-W 1-1/2 >>matchpoints out of 17, while -400 would of course have meant a zero. > >>-- Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents >>have neglected to Alert [or Announce, presumably--mlf] a special agreement >>will be expect to protect themselves. >>-- Note also that an opponent who actually knows or suspects what is >>happening, even though not properly informed, may not be entitled to redress >>if he or she chooses to proceed without clarifying the situation. > >within the context of the acbl, there is an additional pertinant fact: >the failure of west to announce/alert a weak 1nt range. i consider the >combination of the failure to announce/alert an abnormal 1nt range with >the failure to announce the transfer should have been a sufficient alert >to an experienced south to wonder about the situation. How does South know the 1NT has not been announced as per the regulation? I don't think this is a very fair method for deciding to screw the non-offenders! If their opponents fail to announce once, you might adjust, but if they fail to announce twice their opponents should have known! All these regulations that screw the NOs should be applied with sympathy: the ACBL has certainly gone overboard in prosecuting NOs. The question as to whether the regulation applies here is this: when the bidding goes P P 1N P; 2H P P ? and you hold the South hand, do you think it reasonable for South to bid without checking whether 2H was a Transfer? I think it is eminently reasonable, so I do not think the ACBL regulation applies to this hand. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK In Australia 9/1 to 29/2: I shall answer emails on return: if you want to email me in Australia use *both* of the following or write me for snail mail address: + From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 5 13:45:47 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA24358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 13:45:47 +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 NAA24353 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 13:45:39 +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 SAA17763; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 18:45:31 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bbo@localhost) by king.halcyon.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA16763; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 18:45:31 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 18:45:31 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" To: David Stevenson cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, David Stevenson wrote: > Henry Sun wrote: > >At 01:25 PM 1/3/00 -0800, you wrote: > >>Just back from the Reno regional, where one TD ruling recalled to mind a > >>recent BLML thread (300 lb man...) > >> > >>Vulnerability: Both > >>Dealer: West > >> > >> S- 6 > >> H- QJ10972 > >> D- KJ9 > >> C- 982 > >> > >>S- QJ1053 S- A97 > >>H- 63 H- K84 > >>D- 6 D- A85 > >>C- AQJ54 C- 10763 > >> > >> S- K842 > >> H- A5 > >> D- Q107432 > >> C- K > >> > >>West North East South > >>P P 1NT P > >>2H * P ** P Dbl for takeout > >>3C All pass > >> > >>* Intended as a transfer to spades, Announceable but not Announced.. > >>** Feminine intuition? > >> > >>Later the TD said he had been wrong, and adjusted our score to +400 for > >>beating 2H by four tricks. He let the E-W score stand, however, saying that > >>this was required because of his TD error. Plus 150 gave E-W 1-1/2 > >>matchpoints out of 17, while -400 would of course have meant a zero. > > > >>-- Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents > >>have neglected to Alert [or Announce, presumably--mlf] a special agreement > >>will be expect to protect themselves. > >>-- Note also that an opponent who actually knows or suspects what is > >>happening, even though not properly informed, may not be entitled to redress > >>if he or she chooses to proceed without clarifying the situation. > > > >within the context of the acbl, there is an additional pertinant fact: > >the failure of west to announce/alert a weak 1nt range. i consider the > >combination of the failure to announce/alert an abnormal 1nt range with > >the failure to announce the transfer should have been a sufficient alert > >to an experienced south to wonder about the situation. > > How does South know the 1NT has not been announced as per the > regulation? I don't think this is a very fair method for deciding to > screw the non-offenders! If their opponents fail to announce once, you > might adjust, but if they fail to announce twice their opponents should > have known! I think you have this part right. South has no reason to know after the NT goes unannounced. But, if he has no reason to know on the first one, then from his perspective, there has only been one failure to announce, maybe, so why is David now ready to screw the NOs for what looks like to them one single FTA? > All these regulations that screw the NOs should be applied with > sympathy: the ACBL has certainly gone overboard in prosecuting NOs. The > question as to whether the regulation applies here is this: when the > bidding goes P P 1N P; 2H P P ? and you hold the South hand, do you > think it reasonable for South to bid without checking whether 2H was a > Transfer? Well, rather than insult the opponents, Marvin took what he deemed to be a reasonable action. With his hand it is certainly not unreasonable to double for takeout at MP! Besides this point, it may be that the damage has already happened. Maybe Marvin would have acted immediately after an announced weak NT, or partner might have done something else if the announcements, either one or two, were properly made. Perhaps on this or a different deal even. > I think it is eminently reasonable, so I do not think the ACBL > regulation applies to this hand. To Hades with the ACBL announcing Regs. Just don't bother ever making announcements, and if David should happen to be directing over here, he will protect you and skewer the NOs! But we will never get him to change his mind, he is like a bulldog on a bone! If the opponents break the law twice on a hand, it is YOUR fault, Marvin!!! Rich Odlin From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 5 16:08:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA24776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 16:08:18 +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 QAA24770 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 16:08:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-33qtheg.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.197.208]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA12194; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 00:07:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000105051851.006dba08@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, 04 Jan 2000 21:18:51 -0800 To: Eric Landau From: Henry Sun Subject: Re: EHAA and psychs Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:25 AM 1/4/00 -0500, you wrote: >At 11:00 PM 1/3/00 -0800, Henry wrote: > >>incidentally, i base this on a mid-1970s discussion >>of psyching in the bridge world's series 'appeals >>committee' and a lengthy discussion of frequent >>psychs as a part of a system from the past known >>affectionally at ehaa (=every hand an adventure). >>with the changes to the lawbook in 1987 and 1997, >>the acbl's position may have changed. perhaps >>someone with a greater sense of bridge history >>than i can correct me if the acbl's position has >>changed from the one i remember. > >I cannot let this go unchallenged. > >EHAA is a rather old-fashioned and, for the most part, conservative system >which has been around for over 40 years. It is absolutely not true that >psychs, frequent or otherwise, are in any sense "a part of [the] system". > far be it from me to challenge an author on a system book, but since eric and i both hail from upstate new york in the 1970s (bridge wise) let me simply say that the version of ehaa most familiar to me at the time was one in which all two bids were undisciplined, showing at least a 5 card suit and 6-12 hcps with any shape; that the 1nt opening bid was 9-12 (subsequently defined as a convention, thus prohibiting the partnership in question from using any conventions such as stayman); that the big opening bid was 3c; and that an opening 1bid was EITHER very sound, 13+ hcps and a 4+ suit OR a frequent controlled psych, the best suit in a hand with 0-5 hcps. so while it may be true that psychs, frequent or otherwise, are not a part of the system, the form of the system i am most familiar with was the one described above. in fact, although my recollection of that period in my life is somewhat dim, i even recall playing against eric at the 40&8 club whilst he was playing this form of the system :) henry sun From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 5 19:13:45 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA25190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 19:13:45 +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 TAA25185 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 19:13:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.47.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 00:13:27 -0800 Message-ID: <002a01bf5754$bf838480$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200001041817.NAA04130@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Tournament formats Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 00:11:28 -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: > > Just so we are all on the same page, let's consider two events. Each > has two sessions, 72 boards. The "play-through" is just what it > sounds. Everyone plays two sessions, and at the end the contestant > with the highest score wins. In the "qualifying," at the end of the > first session, the field is separated into the top- and bottom-scoring > halves. Each half plays within its own group (or perhaps the lower > half goes home), and at the end the highest-scoring contestant _in the > upper group_ is the winner. (The final score for the upper group may > include a percentage from 0 to 100 of the score from the first > session.) In either event, the movement is arranged to be balanced > with as much care as the organizers wish to take. > > David: are you claiming that the play-through is a better test? > > IMHO, neither event can be declared "better" in any absolute sense. > The "qualifying" gives less premium for beating up on weak players > or lucking out when they do something stupid, so it may be better in > that sense. > Any arrangement that reduces the randomness of results is better in an absolute sense. But how do you accomplish that? Pairs of highly unequal strength increase randomness, so drop the weak ones for the final(s), but when pairs are of roughly equal ability it is better to play-through because randomness decreases in proportion to the number of comparisons. My gut feeling is that qualifying is usually a good idea, since the weak are normally present, but the percentage of pairs qualifying should be based on the distribution of the scores in the qualifying session(s). With a wide dispersion only half might qualify, while if all pairs were to score between 49 and 51 percent, then all should qualify. The idea is that the dispersion is a measure of how unequal the pairs' abilities are. Maybe David Grabiner has some thoughts on this. I do not believe in carryovers when the two initial fields, E-W and N-S, are mixed in the finals. The two fields have played different hands against different opponents and have compared results with different pairs. You actually have two different events, with two winners, even if you switch the arrrow on a couple of rounds. Carrying over part of the qualifiers' scores is comparable to NBA basketball teams carrying over into the finals some of the points they scored in the semis. If the two fields were to be unmixed in the finals, each a line of a Mitchell, then carryovers would make sense. The amount of carryover should also be based on the dispersion of the scores, a wide dispersion indicating many weak pairs and calling for a reduced weight when calculating the partial carryover of scores. Still two winners. Two sessions, 72 boards? 36 boards are a lot for one session, and if all boards are not played by each pair, more randomness. You don't say how many pairs are participating. Let's say it's 72 pairs, with two 18-table sections playing a straight Mitchell to start. That's a truly bad game, but is exactly the arrangement used for the North American Open Pair Championship (NAOP) qualifying sessions (2) last year. With pairs playing only 26 boards out of 36 in each of the two sessions, too much randomness is introduced even if pairs are of equal ability. I have recommended to Gary Blaiss that a Web movement be used in the next NAOP. He seemed receptive to the idea. In a Web, two 18-table sections play with only 26 boards (using four sets), and pairs play all the boards. Each result is compared with 35 others instead of just 25, with a consequent reduction in randomness. Moreover, the post-mortems are more fun because everyone has played the same boards. But that's another thread, please excuse the digression. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 5 23:23:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA26074 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 23:23:55 +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 XAA26068 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 23:23:46 +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 125pTP-000EqF-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 12:23:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 02:01:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Tournament formats References: <200001041817.NAA04130@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200001041817.NAA04130@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 >> Subject: Re: Intentionally created not-so-random results >> >> Tim Goodwin wrote: >> >At 01:42 AM 1/3/00 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >> > >> >>I do not see why >> >>we have to run qualifying [which is not everyone's cup of tea] rather >> >>than play-through, which is a better test, >> > >> >Why is a play-through a better test? >> >> Well, I cannot prove it, but it feels like a better test to me. >> Basically the more boards you play in any particular segment of an >> event, the better the test. > >Just so we are all on the same page, let's consider two events. Each >has two sessions, 72 boards. The "play-through" is just what it >sounds. Everyone plays two sessions, and at the end the contestant >with the highest score wins. In the "qualifying," at the end of the >first session, the field is separated into the top- and bottom-scoring >halves. Each half plays within its own group (or perhaps the lower >half goes home), and at the end the highest-scoring contestant _in the >upper group_ is the winner. (The final score for the upper group may >include a percentage from 0 to 100 of the score from the first >session.) In either event, the movement is arranged to be balanced >with as much care as the organizers wish to take. > >David: are you claiming that the play-through is a better test? Yes. >IMHO, neither event can be declared "better" in any absolute sense. >The "qualifying" gives less premium for beating up on weak players >or lucking out when they do something stupid, so it may be better in >that sense. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK In Australia 9/1 to 29/2: I shall answer emails on return: if you want to email me in Australia use *both* of the following or write me for snail mail address: + From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 5 23:24:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA26080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 23:24:05 +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 XAA26075 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 23:23:57 +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 125pTf-000EqE-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 12:23:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 02:00:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: EHAA and psychs (WAS Intentionally created not-so-random References: <200001041604.QAA00871@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200001041604.QAA00871@tempest.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: >Eric writes: >> I cannot let this go unchallenged. >> >> EHAA is a rather old-fashioned and, for the most part, conservative system >> which has been around for over 40 years. It is absolutely not true that >> psychs, frequent or otherwise, are in any sense "a part of [the] system". >> >> Yes, the discussion Henry refers to did take place, as the result of the >> appearance before an NABC committee of a pair that was inappropriately >> using the name "EHAA" for a homebrew system of their own, which involved >> frequent psychs, despite the fact that EHAA was, at the time, fairly >> well-known and not infrequently played by a number of serious players. But >> the resulting confusion on the part of the ACBL was resolved more than 20 >> years ago, and I'm discouraged by the fact that it still lingers in parts >> of the bridge community. >Eric wrote more fully to set the record straight re EHAA last year. > >In particular he described how EHAA became the "system that dare not >speak its name" for many years after the original ruling, for to openly >play EHAA was to arrouse suspicion, mistrust and out-right bigotry. A short description of EHAA is available at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/ehaa_faq.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 Thu Jan 6 00:17:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA26318 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 00:17:52 +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 AAA26312 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 00:17:44 +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, 5 Jan 2000 08:16:35 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000105081546.0085c6c0@mail.maine.rr.com> X-Sender: thg@mail.maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 08:15:46 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: EHAA and psychs In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.20000105051851.006dba08@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:18 PM 1/4/00 -0800, Henry Sun wrote: >that the 1nt >opening bid was 9-12 (subsequently defined as a convention, thus >prohibiting the partnership in question from using any conventions >such as stayman); The ACBL had not defined a natural 9-12 1NT opening a convention -- that would clearly be wrong. The ACBL has plenary authority to regulate the use of conventions and that is what they do in this case: regulate the use of ocnventions after a natural 1NT which may, by partnership agreement, contain fewer than 10 HCP. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 6 00:29:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA26358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 00:29:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA26352 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 00:29:03 +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 IAA05769 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 08:28:50 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000105082948.006fd7b8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 08:29:48 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: EHAA and psychs In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.20000105051851.006dba08@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:18 PM 1/4/00 -0800, Henry wrote: >far be it from me to challenge an author on a system book, but since >eric and i both hail from upstate new york in the 1970s (bridge wise) >let me simply say that the version of ehaa most familiar to me at >the time was one in which all two bids were undisciplined, showing >at least a 5 card suit and 6-12 hcps with any shape; that the 1nt >opening bid was 9-12 (subsequently defined as a convention, thus >prohibiting the partnership in question from using any conventions >such as stayman); that the big opening bid was 3c; and that an opening >1bid was EITHER very sound, 13+ hcps and a 4+ suit OR a frequent >controlled psych, the best suit in a hand with 0-5 hcps. > >so while it may be true that psychs, frequent or otherwise, are >not a part of the system, the form of the system i am most >familiar with was the one described above. > >in fact, although my recollection of that period in my life is >somewhat dim, i even recall playing against eric at the 40&8 >club whilst he was playing this form of the system :) All true. The system Henry describes was called "Modified EHAA". It reached its peak of popularity in upstate New York in the mid-1960s, and Henry's recollection of my playing it against him at the old 40 & 8 tavern in Rochester is undoubtedly correct. By 1969 or 1970 it had been displaced by two other variants, one of which was then called "Canadian EHAA" (which was being played largely in southern Ontario at the same time "Modified EHAA" was reigning in upstate NY and original EHAA was still quite popular in NYC), without controlled psyches (and without the artificial 3C opening bid), differing from original EHAA primarily by frequent 4-card major suit openings (original EHAA bid 4-card suits up the line); this has become today's "mainstream" EHAA, and is the system described in "Every Hand An Adventure". (The other variation was called "Modernized Scientific EHAA". Originally formulated by J. Merrill, it differed a lot more from original EHAA than any of the other variations mentioned here. It did not involve frequent or controlled psychs. Its most important contribution to the modern game was its introduction of the "semi-forcing" 1NT response to a 1H/S opening.) The "Modified" variant, however, had disappeared from the bridge scene by the time of the flap over EHAA in the ACBL, which occurred in the mid 1970s. 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 Jan 6 02:29:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA26945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 02:29:07 +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 CAA26940 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 02:29:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from p05s08a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.168.6] helo=pacific) by cobalt1-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 125sLx-0007NY-00; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 07:28:02 -0800 Message-ID: <000901bf5791$3b0f5c00$06a893c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "BLML" Cc: "Patricia Davidson" , "Lynn & Dan Hunt" , "Gary Blaiss" , "Christina MacEachen" , "cathie ritchie" Subject: No response from here now until 26 or 27 January. Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 15:25:32 -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, 6 Jan 2000 02:52:02 +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 KAA11023 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 10:51:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA04761 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 10:51:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 10:51:57 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200001051551.KAA04761@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > when the > bidding goes P P 1N P; 2H P P ? and you hold the South hand, do you > think it reasonable for South to bid without checking whether 2H was a > Transfer? Playing in this area (Boston), I'd be virtually certain something had gone wrong. Every pair I have seen playing strong NT also plays transfers. If I heard the auction above with no announcements, I'd want to at least have a glance at a convention card. My suspicion would be that the 1NT bid had been a psych, not of a failure to announce, but I'd want to check what was going on. Marvin tells us, though, that several pairs in Reno were in fact playing strong NT without transfers, so he was in quite a different position. And anyway the opponents didn't provide a convention card within his view! Under these circumstances, as David has said, it would be crazy to apply a regulation that denies redress to the NOS. Even in the Boston area, I think denying redress would be unduly harsh. _Maybe_ I could be convinced if there were two convention cards, clearly marked and face up on the table. Maybe, but I doubt it! David is quite right that we should have more sympathy for the NOS and less for the side that caused the problem in the first place, especially after two infractions. (They were the missing convention card and the failure to announce the transfer. The 1NT bid was, by agreement, strong, so failing to announce it was correct. Opener misbid, which is not an infraction.) Only if the NOS have "stopped playing bridge" in some way should we even think about denying them redress. Incidentally, no one has commented that the transfer should have been announced even if opener was obliged to treat it as natural. Opener thinks he has opened a weak NT and should expect partner to announce. When no announcement comes, any normal player rechecks the vulnerability and realizes that his bid was supposed to be strong and that 2H is a transfer. This should be announced, even if opener is obliged to treat it as UI. (Is he? The vulnerability is visible all the time!) I can understand, however, why a player might not be aware of his obligations in this situation. > From: "Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" > why is David now ready to screw the NOs for what looks like to them one > single FTA? I think Rich needs to reread David's message. David wrote the exact opposite of what Rich thinks. Further, the ACBL regulation says that NOS have some duty to protect themselves. If a player _knows for sure_ that there has been a failure to alert or announce (whether once or twice or any number of times) and chooses not to clarify the situation, he may very well be denied redress. This regulation is reasonable, but I don't think it applies in the situation we were given. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 6 02:56:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA27080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 02:56:47 +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 CAA27075 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 02:56:40 +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 KAA11187 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 10:56:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA04775 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 10:56:37 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 10:56:37 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200001051556.KAA04775@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: EHAA and psychs X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > To: Eric Landau > the version of ehaa most familiar to me at > the time was one in which all two bids were undisciplined, showing > at least a 5 card suit and 6-12 hcps with any shape; that the 1nt > opening bid was 9-12 (subsequently defined as a convention, thus > prohibiting the partnership in question from using any conventions > such as stayman); that the big opening bid was 3c; and that an opening > 1bid was EITHER very sound, 13+ hcps and a 4+ suit OR a frequent > controlled psych, the best suit in a hand with 0-5 hcps. > > so while it may be true that psychs, frequent or otherwise, are > not a part of the system, the form of the system i am most > familiar with was the one described above. Nothing in the above system description is psychic by the definition given in the Laws. "Controlled psych" for a weak _systemic_ opening is a misnomer, although a popular one. No doubt pairs playing EHAA varied in their psyching habits, just as do pairs playing other systems. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 6 03:34:09 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA27327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 03:34:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f123.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.123]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA27322 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 03:34:01 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 22609 invoked by uid 0); 5 Jan 2000 16:33:23 -0000 Message-ID: <20000105163323.22608.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 05 Jan 2000 08:33:22 PST X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 16:33:22 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" >On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, David Stevenson wrote: > > > Henry Sun wrote: > > >At 01:25 PM 1/3/00 -0800, you [Marvin - mdf] wrote: > > >>Just back from the Reno regional, where one TD ruling recalled to mind >a > > >>recent BLML thread (300 lb man...) > > >> > > >>Vulnerability: Both > > >>Dealer: West > > >> > > >> S- 6 > > >> H- QJ10972 > > >> D- KJ9 > > >> C- 982 > > >> > > >>S- QJ1053 S- A97 > > >>H- 63 H- K84 > > >>D- 6 D- A85 > > >>C- AQJ54 C- 10763 > > >> > > >> S- K842 > > >> H- A5 > > >> D- Q107432 > > >> C- K > > >> > > >>West North East South > > >>P P 1NT P > > >>2H * P ** P Dbl for takeout > > >>3C All pass > > >> > > >>* Intended as a transfer to spades, Announceable but not Announced.. > > >>** Feminine intuition? > > >> [result snipped - both by me and others] > > > > > >within the context of the acbl, there is an additional pertinant > > >fact: the failure of west to announce/alert a weak 1nt range. > > >consider the combination of the failure to announce/alert an > > >abnormal 1nt range with the failure to announce the transfer > >should >have been a sufficient alert to an experienced south to > > >wonder about >the situation. This may or may not be true - I don't know. In the ACBL, the auction above, with no announcements or Alerts, would be a 1NT opening completely within the range of 15-18 HCP, and a non-conventional 2H bid. There are some players who don't play transfers over a strong 1NT (I don't know very many; but Marv has said in another post in this thread that he's seen quite a few in expert circles) so this is certainly a conceivable auction. Personally I make a point of scrutinizing the NT section of the opps' CC the first time they open 1NT, no matter what I hold. But that isn't required in the ACBL. However, that isn't my point (get on with it, I hear you say). > > How does South know the 1NT has not been announced as per the > >regulation? I don't think this is a very fair method for deciding > >to screw the non-offenders! If their opponents fail to announce > >once, you might adjust, but if they fail to announce twice their > >opponents should have known! > >I think you have this part right. South has no reason to know after >the >NT goes unannounced. But, if he has no reason to know on the >first one, >then from his perspective, there has only been one failure >to announce, >maybe, so why is David now ready to screw the NOs for >what looks like to >them one single FTA? > Remember, we have a system foulup on this hand, from what Marvin reported: in this situation, 1NT was strong, East forgot, and misbid. South has not only no reason to know, but no right, either. So, everything is correct and proper (but illegal) up to at least the 3C bid. East opened what he thought was a weak NT and passed partner's sign-off. West transferred into spades after partner's strong NT and got passed in it. East may or may not have had UI, but he didn't use it. West certainly had UI (from east's not announcing the transfer) and 3C may or may not be illegal. South, at the time of his double, had a right to the information that West's 2H bid was a transfer, but not to the fact that East had misbid, nor that East misinterpreted West's bid. So, while there are three possible infractions to investigate, there was only one failure to Announce, not 2. And it does make a difference here. Cowardly avoiding making a ruling, Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 6 04:00:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA27212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 03:16:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA27206 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 03:16:43 +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 LAA11904 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 11:16:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA04810 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 11:16:41 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 11:16:41 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200001051616.LAA04810@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Tournament formats X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > when pairs are of roughly equal ability it is better > to play-through because randomness decreases in proportion to the number of > comparisons. Actually, this is true only up to a point. Once you have 20 or so comparisons, there is very little further decrease in randomness compared to what is inherent in the game. (A finesse wins on some days, loses on others.) This is why scoring across two sections decreases randomness, but scoring across more than two does very little more. David G. is the first person I know of to have worked out the formulas. > With a wide dispersion only half might qualify, while if all pairs were to > score between 49 and 51 percent, then all should qualify. The idea is that > the dispersion is a measure of how unequal the pairs' abilities are. Maybe > David Grabiner has some thoughts on this. This is an interesting and (AFIAK) original idea. It is worth some thought. In practice, I expect the distribution of scores in most events can be pretty well predicted in advance, but that isn't an argument against Marv's suggestion. What if you predict wrong? > Two sessions, 72 boards? 36 boards are a lot for one session, Yes, I meant to write 52 boards, but the point is the same. You can make up whatever you want for other conditions, just making sure that they are the same for a play-through versus a qualifier. Either type of event can have an unbalanced or otherwise bad movement. I agree that a very small pair game is best conducted as a play- through. There should be at least a dozen and preferably more than 20 comparisons on every board, including those played in the finals. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 6 04:02:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA27503 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 04:02:25 +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 EAA27498 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 04:02:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.47.22]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 09:02:07 -0800 Message-ID: <000001bf579e$98594620$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 00:38:49 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin > David Stevenson wrote: > > > All these regulations that screw the NOs should be applied with > > sympathy: the ACBL has certainly gone overboard in prosecuting NOs. The > > question as to whether the regulation applies here is this: when the > > bidding goes P P 1N P; 2H P P ? and you hold the South hand, do you > > think it reasonable for South to bid without checking whether 2H was a > > Transfer? > > Well, rather than insult the opponents, Marvin took what he deemed to be a > reasonable action. With his hand it is certainly not unreasonable to double > for takeout at MP! Besides this point, it may be that the damage has > already happened. Maybe Marvin would have acted immediately after an > announced weak NT There was no infraction involved in the failure to Announce a weak notrump, since E-W were not playing weak notrumps when vulnerable. It is the agreement that should be Alerted or Announced, not the actual holding. The only infraction (unless East used UI from West, which is unknown) was the failure to communicate to N-S the transfer meaning of 2H. > > I think it is eminently reasonable, so I do not think the ACBL > > regulation applies to this hand. > > To Hades with the ACBL announcing Regs. Just don't bother ever making > announcements, and if David should happen to be directing over here, he will > protect you and skewer the NOs! But we will never get him to change his > mind, he is like a bulldog on a bone! If the opponents break the law twice > on a hand, it is YOUR fault, Marvin!!! > I think you misunderstood David, Rich. He said it was reasonable for me to bid 2H without checking, and that the ACBL regulation regarding annulment of redress does not apply to this case. His rhetorical question certainly gives the opposite impression until his answer to it is read. .Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 6 05:02:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA27747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 05:02:33 +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 FAA27742 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 05:02:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.47.22]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 10:02:16 -0800 Message-ID: <003a01bf57a6$ff14bcc0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200001051551.KAA04761@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 09:55:35 -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 Steve Willner wrote: (Snip of good stuff) > > Incidentally, no one has commented that the transfer should have been > announced even if opener was obliged to treat it as natural. Opener > thinks he has opened a weak NT and should expect partner to announce. > When no announcement comes, any normal player rechecks the vulnerability > and realizes that his bid was supposed to be strong and that 2H is a > transfer. This should be announced, even if opener is obliged to treat > it as UI. (Is he? The vulnerability is visible all the time!) I can > understand, however, why a player might not be aware of his obligations > in this situation. Yes, the range of a weak notrump opening must be Announced. When it isn't, opener should know he has made a mistake, should Announce the transfer meaning of 2H, and then pass. However, he apparently was not up to this subtlety, perhaps just thinking his partner forgot to Announce. The failure to Announce the notrump range is UI. It should awaken East to the fact that he made a mistake, but he can't make use of that knowledge. That is why he must pass 2H after Announcing its meaning, and all would have been well. I think even I could have worked out that passing 2H would be wise! Suppose East Announced the transfer meaning of 2H and then completed the transfer. It would take a sharp opponent to notice that UI (no announcement of the weak notrump range) had been misused, but East could claim that he realized his mistake before West called. An ACBL AC would dub that statement "self-serving" and ignore it, I suppose, and in this case they would probably be correct to do so. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 6 05:06:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA27764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 05:06:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA27759 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 05:06:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 125upM-000KHo-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 18:06:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 05:06:06 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , "Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" writes >On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Henry Sun wrote: >> >At 01:25 PM 1/3/00 -0800, you wrote: >> >>Just back from the Reno regional, where one TD ruling recalled to mind a >> >>recent BLML thread (300 lb man...) >> >> >> >>Vulnerability: Both >> >>Dealer: West >> >> >> >> S- 6 >> >> H- QJ10972 >> >> D- KJ9 >> >> C- 982 >> >> >> >>S- QJ1053 S- A97 >> >>H- 63 H- K84 >> >>D- 6 D- A85 >> >>C- AQJ54 C- 10763 >> >> >> >> S- K842 >> >> H- A5 >> >> D- Q107432 >> >> C- K >> >> >> >>West North East South >> >>P P 1NT P >> >>2H * P ** P Dbl for takeout >> >>3C All pass >> >> the question I ask myself is: "Would South have doubled for take-out knowing opponent's agreements?" I doubt it. "Did the opponents give MI?" Yes "Was there damage?" Yes "Was any action by NOs wild and haphazard?" Np "Could the opponents have known at the time of the infraction that it could damge the NOs?" Yes I adjust. 2H-4. No action against West who can reasonably pass 3C. The TD is correct however in respect of his TD error. How to get everyone over 50%? Employ a clueless TD and then rule TD error :))) snip > If the opponents break the law twice >on a hand, it is YOUR fault, Marvin!!! that of course is self-evident Rich :)) > >Rich Odlin 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 Jan 6 05:29:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA27821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 05:29:55 +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 FAA27816 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 05:29:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.47.22]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 10:29:40 -0800 Message-ID: <003d01bf57aa$d2ffcea0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <20000105163323.22608.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 10:29:07 -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 From: Michael Farebrother > the range of 15-18 HCP, and a non-conventional 2H bid. There are some > players who don't play transfers over a strong 1NT (I don't know very many; > but Marv has said in another post in this thread that he's seen quite a few > in expert circles) so this is certainly a conceivable auction. Not quite a few, just a few. Good players, not necessarily experts. I seem to remember that Linda Trent plays Two-Way Stayman, with 2D forcing-to-game Stayman and 2C Stayman with an invitational hand. I presume her 2H and 2S bids are natural signoffs. In fact didn't she write that opponents often annoy her by saying "Aren't you going to Announce that 2H is a transfer"? Her reply, if I remember right, was "Why should I do that when I don't play transfers?" (Point of information: natural 2H/2S responses are not Alertable if they are signoffs, but are Alertable if invitational or forcing). > > Personally I make a point of scrutinizing the NT section of the opps' CC the > first time they open 1NT, no matter what I hold. But that isn't required in > the ACBL. So do I, but it has to be within my view. If opponents hide their CC on me, they should pay the consequences for any resulting damage. Many players scrutinize the CC only when they have an interest in the auction, which ought to be illegal. > > East may or may not have had UI, but he didn't use it. UI might have affected his decision to pass 3C, but we can't be sure. He may have just been asleep, suspecting nothing, deciding to stop in the safest contract. > West certainly had UI (from east's not announcing the transfer) and 3C may > or may not be illegal. East's pass of 2H is AI that the wheels have come off, and West can use that information. I don't think we can say that 1NT could have been a vulnerable psych based on long hearts. > South, at the time of his double, had a right to the information that West's > 2H bid was a transfer, but not to the fact that East had misbid, nor that > East misinterpreted West's bid. I could deduce the misbid and misinterpretation if given the information I was entitled to have. > > So, while there are three possible infractions to investigate, > there was only one failure to Announce, not 2. And it does make a > difference here. There was also a failure to comply with ACBL CC regulations. > > Cowardly avoiding making a ruling, Shame on you! Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 6 05:49:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA27886 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 05:49:59 +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 FAA27879 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 05:49:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.47.22]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 10:49:43 -0800 Message-ID: <004b01bf57ad$a0651100$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200001051616.LAA04810@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Tournament formats Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 10:49:05 -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 Steve Willner wrote: >Once you have 20 or so > comparisons, there is very little further decrease in randomness > compared to what is inherent in the game. (A finesse wins on some > days, loses on others.) This is why scoring across two sections > decreases randomness, but scoring across more than two does very little > more. David G. is the first person I know of to have worked out the > formulas. > I fully agree with this, but still don't like the idea of scoring across only two sections at a time with, say, six sections. One reason some TDs favor it is that a scoring error usually affects just two sections instead of all sections, hence is easier to correct, and I suppose entering results into the computer becomes easier. Why don't I like it? Because a pair that loses an event by 1/2 matchpoint, but would have won by 1/2 matchpoint with full ATF matchpointing, has actually done better than the first place team. Denying them the win just isn't fair. Using an array of cheap hand-operated stopwatches instead of expensive modern timing devices would make little difference in the results of track and swimming races. That is not a good argument for using stopwatches. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 6 07:25:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA28199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 07:25:25 +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 HAA28194 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 07:25:17 +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 MAA05666; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 12:25:08 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bbo@localhost) by king.halcyon.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA12314; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 12:25:08 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 12:25:07 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" To: Steve Willner cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer In-Reply-To: <200001051551.KAA04761@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" > > why is David now ready to screw the NOs for what looks like to them one > > single FTA? > > I think Rich needs to reread David's message. David wrote the exact > opposite of what Rich thinks. When I got a similar note from Marvin, I did go back and reread David's message, and was again convinced that David had said it was all Marvin's fault. David's rhetorical question seemed certain to demand a "No!" answer: "The question as to whether the regulation applies here is this: when the bidding goes P P 1N P; 2H P P ? and you hold the South hand, do you think it reasonable for South to bid without checking whether 2H was a Transfer?" "No!" I thought to myself as I was reading it the first time. [See, I fell into the trap!] When reading his final "I think it is eminently reasonable, so I do not think the ACBL regulation applies to this hand," I understood that to say it is eminently reasonable that one SHOULD inquire before acting, and that the Announcing Regulation did not apply since you should have known. [There really is no "Regulation" annulling redress, it is more like a policy than a Regulation, as I understand it. So I thought he was referring to the original Regs re announcing.] And this was all in juxtaposition with his earlier statement, "If their opponents fail to announce once, you might adjust, but if they fail to announce twice their opponents should have known!" And all this followed the statement that, "Note also that an opponent who actually knows or suspects what is happening, even though not properly informed, may not be entitled to redress if he or she chooses to proceed without clarifying the situation." No wonder someone just might misread it! That Devil, David!! :) I see now that his answer to the rhetorical question could be yes; his reference to fail-twice-opps-should-know comment might be jocular [with no :)]; and that he may have thought the no-redress thing was an ACBL Regulation. I guess this is the case, David, and sorry I misread it, then. Nonetheless, I love your command of double-speak language. :) Richard B. Odlin From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 6 09:00:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA28675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:00:12 +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 JAA28670 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:00:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.47.22]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 13:59:55 -0800 Message-ID: <006f01bf57c8$32f42500$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 13:57:06 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: John (MadDog) Probst, concerning what Marv French wrote: > >> >>Vulnerability: Both > >> >>Dealer: West > >> >> > >> >> S- 6 > >> >> H- QJ10972 > >> >> D- KJ9 > >> >> C- 982 > >> >> > >> >>S- QJ1053 S- A97 > >> >>H- 63 H- K84 > >> >>D- 6 D- A85 > >> >>C- AQJ54 C- 10763 > >> >> > >> >> S- K842 > >> >> H- A5 > >> >> D- Q107432 > >> >> C- K > >> >> > >> >>West North East South > >> >> P P 1NT P > >> >> 2H * P ** P Dbl for takeout > >> >> 3C All pass > >> >> > > the question I ask myself is: "Would South have doubled for take-out > knowing opponent's agreements?" > > I doubt it. "Did the opponents give MI?" Yes > > "Was there damage?" Yes > > "Was any action by NOs wild and haphazard?" Np > > "Could the opponents have known at the time of the infraction that it > could damge the NOs?" Yes Don't see why that would matter. > > I adjust. 2H-4. No action against West who can reasonably pass 3C. You mean East. If East has realized his mistake, on his own, without noticing the lack of an Announcement or other UI, or if he is blissfully unaware of any problem, he can do anything he wants to do, However, if he has come to realize his mistake through UI, then bidding 3H would not be illogical, in view of the free 3C bid and the excellent fit of the two hands. Give West S-xx H-AQxxx H-x D-KJ9xx and even 10 tricks might be scored in a heart contract. A pass is reasonable, perhaps correct, but 3H is a logical alternative. > > The TD is correct however in respect of his TD error. Where is that written, please? The error did not prevent L12C2 from being applied, did it? Perhaps I am misinterpreting L82C, which says that both sides must be treated as non-offenders in case of a TD error "if no rectification can allow the board to be scored normally." I have always taken that to mean that there is no way to apply L12C2 equitably. If that is not what it means, that's what it should mean. Besides, treating both sides as non-offenders would mean that E-W get the most favorable result that was likely if the infraction had not occurred. Since the infraction was the MI concerning the transfer bid, that would mean playing in 2H, -400. If there were no way to determine the most favorable result that was likely, then they would get average plus. > How to get everyone over 50%? Employ a clueless TD and then rule TD > error :))) > In the old days, in these parts (southwest U. S.), it was the custom of many TDs to adjust the score for the non-offenders but let the offenders keep their good result. With everyone happy, no one complained, and it was good public relations. I witnessed this sort of ruling at an NABC a couple of years ago, but it seems to be rare nowadays. This case might have been an example, however. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 6 09:42:57 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA28769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:42:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f79.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.79]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA28764 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:42:49 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 98565 invoked by uid 0); 5 Jan 2000 22:42:11 -0000 Message-ID: <20000105224211.98564.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 05 Jan 2000 14:42:11 PST X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 22:42:11 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Marvin L. French" >From: Michael Farebrother This post is mostly "thanks for the clarifications" and probably tangential, if not ignorable. >Not quite a few, just a few. Good players, not necessarily experts. I >seem >to remember that Linda Trent plays Two-Way Stayman, with 2D > >forcing-to-game Stayman and 2C Stayman with an invitational hand. I > >presume her 2H and 2S bids are natural signoffs. In fact didn't she > >write that opponents often annoy her by saying "Aren't you going to > >Announce that 2H is a transfer"? Her reply, if I remember right, was > >"Why should I do that when I don't play transfers?" (Point of > >information: natural 2H/2S responses are not Alertable if they are > >signoffs, but are Alertable if invitational or forcing). (I am not going to go on record as denying Linda Expert status...even as a invalid inference). I get that too (playing weak NTs, 2-way Stayman) - though nowhere near as often as I did when the Announcement system came in. My standard response to "2D transfer should be announced, not alerted, you know" was "Yes, I know. Alert" with as polite a smile on my face as I could manage :-). Thanks for the PoI - I didn't remember that, though you notice I carefully avoided stating anything one way or t'other. [on scrutinizing CCs] > >So do I, but it has to be within my view. If opponents hide their CC >on >me, they should pay the consequences for any resulting damage. I tend to be rather draconic about that - I ask to see the CC when I sit down at the table, and keep asking to see it every time they put it away until they clue in that I consider it *my* property until end of round :-). So while I agree with Marvin on this point, it doesn't come up at my table. Note that I don't recommend this as the best solution - it's just mine. I also grumble (silently) when the CC packet (containing 14-odd CCs for various partners, and the last 50 or so session scores, folded over as best they can, and with a pen, change, and random other stuff inside it) is folded in such a way as to force me to make an obvious gesture (as opposed to a glance) to look at something. But that's a function of bad design, not bad manners. And it means that whenever I look at a folded CC, I look at both sides - to minimize UI. The thing that truly irks me about the CC system as it exists in the ACBL is that, were I unscrupulous, I would do exactly as above (what 50+% of pairs do with their CCs), expressly to get information about my opponents' interests. And I beleive that a significant fraction of those 50+% do use that information. >>West certainly had UI (from east's not announcing the transfer) >>and 3C may or may not be illegal. > >East's pass of 2H is AI that the wheels have come off, and West can >use >that information. I don't think we can say that 1NT could have >been a >vulnerable psych based on long hearts. > True, and I should have paid attention to this. But I am unsure whether 3C is illegal or not, even with that information. Of course, I don't expect it to be relevant to the ruling result. >>South, at the time of his double, had a right to the information >>that >>West's 2H bid was a transfer, but not to the fact that East had >>misbid, >>nor that East misinterpreted West's bid. > >I could deduce the misbid and misinterpretation if given the >information I >was entitled to have. Of course you could, and I expect you would. You are allowed to deduce anything you wish, at your own risk. However, my main point was that there was only one failure to Announce, and that South has no right to the knowledge that had the calls been announced per the intention rather than the system, there would have been two Announcements. What he chooses to deduce from AI (or what he would be expected to deduce, given all the AI he was entitled to, which is what is important for L12 purposes) is on his own account. > > So, while there are three possible infractions to investigate, > > there was only one failure to Announce, not 2. And it does make a > > difference here. > >There was also a failure to comply with ACBL CC regulations. True - I noticed the miscount just as I hit "send" :-). But of course, the MI and possible use of UI are infractions of Law, and the CC thing is simply failure to adhere to a poorly-disseminated and never-enforced Regulation. Not the same thing at all. > > Cowardly avoiding making a ruling, >Shame on you! :-) I expect 2H-# is right. That doesn't mean I'm going to stand behind it. After all, I'm not a national TD of anywhere, unlike the one at your table and several of our esteemed colleagues... Sitting cross-legged in awe and respect, awaiting the Masters' wisdom (and if you believe that, I have this wearable bridge from Quebec for sale), I remain, Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 6 10:26:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA28888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 10:26:41 +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 KAA28883 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 10:26:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id SAA27853 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 18:26:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA05183 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 18:26:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 18:26:33 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200001052326.SAA05183@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Tournament formats X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > Using an array of cheap hand-operated stopwatches instead of expensive > modern timing devices would make little difference in the results of track > and swimming races. That is not a good argument for using stopwatches. This strikes me as a perfect analogy. Aren't stopwatches in fact used in all but the highest-level events? What does, say, a typical college meet use? Not the NCAA championships, mind you, just a typical college A vs college B match? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 6 11:15:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA29032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 11:15:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA29027 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 11:15:01 +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 TAA28680 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 19:14:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA05260 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 19:15:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 19:15:00 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200001060015.TAA05260@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: John (MadDog) Probst, concerning what Marv French wrote: > > The TD is correct however in respect of his TD error. You will note that John carefully avoided mentioning L82C. We all agree the TD made an error, don't we? :-) > From: "Marvin L. French" > The error did not prevent L12C2 from being > applied, did it? Perhaps I am misinterpreting L82C, which says that both > sides must be treated as non-offenders in case of a TD error "if no > rectification can allow the board to be scored normally." I have always > taken that to mean that there is no way to apply L12C2 equitably. Joking aside, I agree with Marv. L82C would apply if, for example, a correct ruling would have led to playing a different contract. Then each side is treated as non- offending for determining "most favorable result likely," starting from the moment when the TD's error made a difference. (If the TD rules wrong after a revoke, you don't cancel the revoke! You just cancel subsequent play made in ignorance of the correct penalty, and that only if knowing the correct penalty could have made a difference.) In this case, no matter what ruling was made at the table, the play wasn't going to change. The only thing at issue is what adjustment should have been made at the end. If the TD gets it wrong at first, the proper thing to do is just to go back and make the correct ruling under L12C2. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 6 11:53:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA29143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 11:53:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA29138 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 11:53:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.109] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 1261Ah-000715-00; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 00:53:00 +0000 Message-ID: <001001bf57e0$7e110a40$6d5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "BLML" Cc: "cathie ritchie" , "Christina MacEachen" , "Gary Blaiss" , "Lynn & Dan Hunt" , "Patricia Davidson" References: <000901bf5791$3b0f5c00$06a893c3@pacific> Subject: Re: No response from here now until 26 or 27 January. Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 00:52:58 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: BLML Cc: Patricia Davidson ; Lynn & Dan Hunt ; Gary Blaiss ; Christina MacEachen ; cathie ritchie Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 3:25 PM Subject: No response from here now until 26 or 27 January. > > Grattan Endicott ================================ > "We can be absolutely certain only about > things we do not understand" - Eric Hoffer > :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > > +=+ Departure for Bermuda.+=+ > > +=+ And from second address also at this later hour. +=+ > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 6 12:52:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA29340 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 12:52:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA29331 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 12:52:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 126261-000NkQ-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 01:52:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 13:37:06 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Tournament formats References: <200001041817.NAA04130@cfa183.harvard.edu> <002a01bf5754$bf838480$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <002a01bf5754$bf838480$162fd2cc@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: >Any arrangement that reduces the randomness of results is better in an >absolute sense. But how do you accomplish that? It is an interesting statement, and not one I believe in. Bridge is a game with an element of randomness in it, and reducing that randomness is not always desirable. [s] >I do not believe in carryovers when the two initial fields, E-W and N-S, are >mixed in the finals. The two fields have played different hands against >different opponents and have compared results with different pairs. In major English events the fields have, of course, played the same hands. We would not carry forward if they had played different hands. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK In Australia 9/1 to 29/2: I shall answer emails on return: if you want to email me in Australia use *both* of the following or write me for snail mail address: + From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 6 12:52:35 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA29341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 12:52:35 +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 MAA29329 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 12:52:20 +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 12625w-000Nk9-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 01:52:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 17:14:19 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer References: 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, 4 Jan 2000, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Henry Sun wrote: >> >At 01:25 PM 1/3/00 -0800, you wrote: >> >>Just back from the Reno regional, where one TD ruling recalled to mind a >> >>recent BLML thread (300 lb man...) >> >> >> >>Vulnerability: Both >> >>Dealer: West >> >> >> >> S- 6 >> >> H- QJ10972 >> >> D- KJ9 >> >> C- 982 >> >> >> >>S- QJ1053 S- A97 >> >>H- 63 H- K84 >> >>D- 6 D- A85 >> >>C- AQJ54 C- 10763 >> >> >> >> S- K842 >> >> H- A5 >> >> D- Q107432 >> >> C- K >> >> >> >>West North East South >> >>P P 1NT P >> >>2H * P ** P Dbl for takeout >> >>3C All pass >> >> >> >>* Intended as a transfer to spades, Announceable but not Announced.. >> >>** Feminine intuition? >> >> >> >>Later the TD said he had been wrong, and adjusted our score to +400 for >> >>beating 2H by four tricks. He let the E-W score stand, however, saying that >> >>this was required because of his TD error. Plus 150 gave E-W 1-1/2 >> >>matchpoints out of 17, while -400 would of course have meant a zero. >> > >> >>-- Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents >> >>have neglected to Alert [or Announce, presumably--mlf] a special agreement >> >>will be expect to protect themselves. >> >>-- Note also that an opponent who actually knows or suspects what is >> >>happening, even though not properly informed, may not be entitled to redress >> >>if he or she chooses to proceed without clarifying the situation. >> > >> >within the context of the acbl, there is an additional pertinant fact: >> >the failure of west to announce/alert a weak 1nt range. i consider the >> >combination of the failure to announce/alert an abnormal 1nt range with >> >the failure to announce the transfer should have been a sufficient alert >> >to an experienced south to wonder about the situation. >> >> How does South know the 1NT has not been announced as per the >> regulation? I don't think this is a very fair method for deciding to >> screw the non-offenders! If their opponents fail to announce once, you >> might adjust, but if they fail to announce twice their opponents should >> have known! > >I think you have this part right. South has no reason to know after the NT >goes unannounced. But, if he has no reason to know on the first one, then >from his perspective, there has only been one failure to announce, maybe, so >why is David now ready to screw the NOs for what looks like to them one >single FTA? I am not. Kindly read what I wrote. >> All these regulations that screw the NOs should be applied with >> sympathy: the ACBL has certainly gone overboard in prosecuting NOs. The >> question as to whether the regulation applies here is this: when the >> bidding goes P P 1N P; 2H P P ? and you hold the South hand, do you >> think it reasonable for South to bid without checking whether 2H was a >> Transfer? > >Well, rather than insult the opponents, Marvin took what he deemed to be a >reasonable action. With his hand it is certainly not unreasonable to double >for takeout at MP! Besides this point, it may be that the damage has >already happened. Maybe Marvin would have acted immediately after an >announced weak NT, or partner might have done something else if the >announcements, either one or two, were properly made. Perhaps on this or a >different deal even. So, you agree with me then? >> I think it is eminently reasonable, so I do not think the ACBL >> regulation applies to this hand. >To Hades with the ACBL announcing Regs. Just don't bother ever making >announcements, and if David should happen to be directing over here, he will >protect you and skewer the NOs! But we will never get him to change his >mind, he is like a bulldog on a bone! If the opponents break the law twice >on a hand, it is YOUR fault, Marvin!!! Perhaps it is easier to answer something if you read it first. The ACBL have a regulation that people do not get redress if they should have known differently: I do not think it applies here, as I said. For you to attack me for the exact opposite of what I say and believe seems unreasonable. I have made it clear again and again, and said so in this article to which you are replying, that I do not approve of the ACBL's method of treating the NOs. If you agree with me, why attack me for it? -------- For those who missed it, my last post said that [a] I do not think it reasonable to deny redress when the opponents fail to announce twice rather than once [Henry Sun's suggestion] and [b] we should see whether the ACBL's regulation to deny redress applies here and [c] we should always apply it with sympathy for the NOs and [d] there is no reason to deny redress here since it was totally reasonable for Marvin not to ask on the sequence. Rich Odlin has attacked me for the exact reverse of what I said. He enjoys attacking me - he has done so several times before. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK In Australia 9/1 to 29/2: I shall answer emails on return: if you want to email me in Australia use *both* of the following or write me for snail mail address: + From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 6 14:27:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA29567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 14:27:55 +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 OAA29562 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 14:27:48 +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 1263aK-0002De-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 03:27:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 03:24:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer In-Reply-To: <200001060015.TAA05260@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <200001060015.TAA05260@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: John (MadDog) Probst, concerning what Marv French wrote: >> > The TD is correct however in respect of his TD error. > >You will note that John carefully avoided mentioning L82C. We all >agree the TD made an error, don't we? :-) > >> From: "Marvin L. French" >> The error did not prevent L12C2 from being >> applied, did it? Perhaps I am misinterpreting L82C, which says that both >> sides must be treated as non-offenders in case of a TD error "if no >> rectification can allow the board to be scored normally." I have always >> taken that to mean that there is no way to apply L12C2 equitably. > Once I've made a ruling I would not go back and change it for a poorer score. Thus once I've made a 'bum' ruling (plenty of those!) I might go back and increase someone's score, but never reduce it. The result is a split score. I'm not sure but it's how I read L82C. It's bad law giving to say "Not Guilty" then say "Sorry, it's the electric chair". 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 Jan 6 17:00:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA29925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 17:00:14 +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 RAA29920 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 17:00:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.47.22]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 21:59:55 -0800 Message-ID: <011a01bf580b$4058a8e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200001041817.NAA04130@cfa183.harvard.edu><002a01bf5754$bf838480$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Tournament formats Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 21:58:06 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >Any arrangement that reduces the randomness of results is better in an > >absolute sense. But how do you accomplish that? > > It is an interesting statement, and not one I believe in. Bridge is a > game with an element of randomness in it, and reducing that randomness > is not always desirable. Depends on one's point of view, I guess. Unnecessary randomness can make an event more attractive to weaker contestants, as it gives them a better chance to do well. As long as everyone understands the conditions of contest, no problem with that. We want bridge to be fun for everyone. However, when the chief aim of a high-level event is not to entertain but to determine who plays the best bridge, randomness is an undesirable side effect that should be minimized. > > [s] > > >I do not believe in carryovers when the two initial fields, E-W and N-S, are > >mixed in the finals. The two fields have played different hands against > >different opponents and have compared results with different pairs. > > In major English events the fields have, of course, played the same > hands. We would not carry forward if they had played different hands. > Not sure I understand that. In ACBL-land, the practice is to preserve the makeup of the two fields in straight Mitchell qualifying sessions, with all pairs (except the handicapped) changing directions after each session. As a result, pairs in each field have played the same hands through the two or four qualifying sessions. That makes carryovers sensible, whether full or partial. Since the two *fields* have not played the same hands (boards yes, hands no), have faced different opponents, and have compared only with each other, this method results in two essentially separate contests, with two rankings, two winners, one in each field. The ACBL recognizes this by not ranking pairs overall for qualifying sessions. It sometimes happens that qualifiers in one field have lower scores than non-qualifiers in the other, which is quite appropriate. When it comes to the final(s), the fields are scrambled to make up two new comparison fields for a straight Mitchell, or one comparison field for a Howell or scrambled Mitchell. Pairs get some carryover of previous scores into the finals, which is inappropriate when pairs have played in two different contests. Are you saying that the English run the same sort of game, except that there are no carryovers into the finals? Very good! Also, how are overall final standings for a large event determined? Not from a straight Mitchell in the finals, surely, as in ACBL NABC events, which should have two winners. Arrow switch(es)? Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 7 00:54:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA00937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 00:54:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA00932 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 00:54:33 +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 IAA11531 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 08:54:19 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000106085526.00701834@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 08:55:26 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: EHAA and psychs In-Reply-To: <200001051138.AA7481@gateway.tandem.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:36 AM 1/5/00 -0800, FARLEY_WALLY wrote: >IIRC, the sticking point of this was that the 'PASS' tended to show >values in the 6-12 HCP range, which was/is illegal in the ACBL. Is indeed. But wasn't at the time. EHAA dates from a time before the ACBL became proactive in regulating methods (alerts were far in the future), the use of "modern" conventions such as transfers was going from non-existent to seen rarely at high levels only, big club systems were unheard-of unless you were an internationalist or a bridge-book collecter who could read Italian, and "unusual" natural methods (weak NTs, limit raises, preemptive jumps) were called "conventions". Back then, you could play just about anything you wanted to. Even the most egregious EHAA-haters, who liked to call it "that cheating system", never suggested that it was illegal (while vociferously maintaining that it ought to be). "Illegal system" just didn't exist as a concept. >The >only other possibility was 0-5 with no 5-card suit.... I think you >are correct in defining the very weak initial actions as 'systemic' >rather than 'psychic' -- but they were described as psychs in the >letter J. Merrill sent to TBW and in EK's reply. At that time, "controlled psychs" was a common and well-known bit of jargon which described actions which, by today's definition, are not psychs at all, as several others have pointed out. It wasn't until regulations regarding psychs came along that the semantic distinction became important. Today we would regard "mandatory psych" as a contradiction in terms, but back then people routinely had such agreements. Messrs. Merrill and Kaplan weren't confused about this distinction; they were simply using the jargon of the times. 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 Jan 7 03:23:55 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA01437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 03:23:55 +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 DAA01432 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 03:23:42 +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 126Fh1-0003RC-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 16:23:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 12:55:38 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Tournament formats References: <200001041817.NAA04130@cfa183.harvard.edu> <002a01bf5754$bf838480$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <011a01bf580b$4058a8e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <011a01bf580b$4058a8e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Marvin L. French wrote: >> >> >Any arrangement that reduces the randomness of results is better in an >> >absolute sense. But how do you accomplish that? >> >> It is an interesting statement, and not one I believe in. Bridge is a >> game with an element of randomness in it, and reducing that randomness >> is not always desirable. > >Depends on one's point of view, I guess. Unnecessary randomness can make an >event more attractive to weaker contestants, as it gives them a better >chance to do well. As long as everyone understands the conditions of >contest, no problem with that. We want bridge to be fun for everyone. >However, when the chief aim of a high-level event is not to entertain but to >determine who plays the best bridge, randomness is an undesirable side >effect that should be minimized. I love being called a weaker contestant! Well, I like a variety of competition. But I still disagree with the basis you quote. Randomness is part of the game of bridge, so a test of people's ability is *not* fair if you take too much of the randomness away. Suppose you decide that American Football results are affected by weather [which is true]. You could think the best test for American Football would be to postpone *all* games if there is any rain or snow, or has been in the last 48 hours: if there is no visible sun: if the wind is anything above very light? No, the best test includes a team that is able to play in all conditions. So the fairest test of players is that they are able to win in fair conditions - and fair includes various random elements. >> [s] >> >> >I do not believe in carryovers when the two initial fields, E-W and N-S, >are >> >mixed in the finals. The two fields have played different hands against >> >different opponents and have compared results with different pairs. >> >> In major English events the fields have, of course, played the same >> hands. We would not carry forward if they had played different hands. >> >Not sure I understand that. In ACBL-land, the practice is to preserve the >makeup of the two fields in straight Mitchell qualifying sessions, with all >pairs (except the handicapped) changing directions after each session. As a >result, pairs in each field have played the same hands through the two or >four qualifying sessions. That makes carryovers sensible, whether full or >partial. Since the two *fields* have not played the same hands (boards yes, >hands no), have faced different opponents, and have compared only with each >other, this method results in two essentially separate contests, with two >rankings, two winners, one in each field. The ACBL recognizes this by not >ranking pairs overall for qualifying sessions. It sometimes happens that >qualifiers in one field have lower scores than non-qualifiers in the other, >which is quite appropriate. Very strange. We mix our directions, and arrow-switch if necessary. If you have twelve lines [six sections] then maybe eight change direction for the next session, and another eight for the next session - not the same eight. If it is a one-session qualifying then we arrow- switch. When I referred to the same hands I failed to appreciate your distinction between hand and board. >When it comes to the final(s), the fields are scrambled to make up two new >comparison fields for a straight Mitchell, or one comparison field for a >Howell or scrambled Mitchell. Pairs get some carryover of previous scores >into the finals, which is inappropriate when pairs have played in two >different contests. Are you saying that the English run the same sort of >game, except that there are no carryovers into the finals? Very good! Carryovers are rare, and it sounds as though they are fairer anyway when they happen. >Also, how are overall final standings for a large event determined? Not from >a straight Mitchell in the finals, surely, as in ACBL NABC events, which >should have two winners. Arrow switch(es)? Same principles: arrow-switches are normal. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK In Australia 9/1 to 29/2: I shall answer emails on return: if you want to email me in Australia use *both* of the following or write me for snail mail address: + From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 7 03:23:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA01431 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 03:23:36 +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 DAA01425 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 03:23:25 +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 126Fgx-0003RB-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 16:23:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 12:44:45 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer References: <200001060015.TAA05260@cfa183.harvard.edu> 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 <200001060015.TAA05260@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner > writes >>> From: John (MadDog) Probst, concerning what Marv French wrote: >>> > The TD is correct however in respect of his TD error. >> >>You will note that John carefully avoided mentioning L82C. We all >>agree the TD made an error, don't we? :-) >> >>> From: "Marvin L. French" >>> The error did not prevent L12C2 from being >>> applied, did it? Perhaps I am misinterpreting L82C, which says that both >>> sides must be treated as non-offenders in case of a TD error "if no >>> rectification can allow the board to be scored normally." I have always >>> taken that to mean that there is no way to apply L12C2 equitably. >> >Once I've made a ruling I would not go back and change it for a poorer >score. Thus once I've made a 'bum' ruling (plenty of those!) I might go >back and increase someone's score, but never reduce it. The result is a >split score. > >I'm not sure but it's how I read L82C. L82C says in effect: "If you have got it wrong you correct it". >It's bad law giving to say "Not Guilty" then say "Sorry, it's the >electric chair". Obviously time I included one of these for the EBU Panel TDs. I was corrected on this by Max Bavin about five years ago. If you make a wrong ruling you go back and correct it. Of course you apologise: of course you get flak - but you correct it. L82C says so. If someone gets a poorer score than before - tough. As a TD you are not running a popularity contest for yourself. It is perfectly good application of Law to say Not Guilty then change it to the electric chair if [a] the person did the crime and [b] the Law permits it. We have L82C which permits such a change. If you were certain that a person had raped and killed a child would you really want them to get away with it because you do not want to upset them? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK In Australia 9/1 to 29/2: I shall answer emails on return: if you want to email me in Australia use *both* of the following or write me for snail mail address: + From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 7 03:29:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA01470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 03:29:13 +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 DAA01465 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 03:29:06 +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 126FmT-0006u2-00; Thu, 06 Jan 2000 17:28:57 +0100 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA270416136; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 17:28:56 +0100 Subject: Re: Tournament formats To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 6 Jan 100 17:28:56 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <200001052326.SAA05183@cfa183.harvard.edu> from "Steve Willner" at Jan 05, 2000 06:26:33 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 Steve Willner: > >> From: "Marvin L. French" >> Using an array of cheap hand-operated stopwatches instead of expensive >> modern timing devices would make little difference in the results of track >> and swimming races. That is not a good argument for using stopwatches. > >This strikes me as a perfect analogy. > >Aren't stopwatches in fact used in all but the highest-level events? >What does, say, a typical college meet use? Not the NCAA >championships, mind you, just a typical college A vs college B match? In Germany, we usually prefer electronic timing devices whenever they are available. For track racing, "available" usually begins at the local championship level. The athletes certainly prefer electronic timing even though it might convert their hand-stopped 10.9 into a dull electronic 11.14. OTOH hand, they certainly would not prefer to have their result computed as the average time from three 100m races. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 7 03:32:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA01494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 03:32:15 +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 DAA01489 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 03:32:08 +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 126FpP-00077G-00; Thu, 06 Jan 2000 17:31:59 +0100 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA270776319; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 17:31:59 +0100 Subject: Re: MI and split scores To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 6 Jan 100 17:31:59 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <000f01bf5596$c522a2a0$b3d8ac3e@davidburn> from "David Burn" at Jan 03, 2000 03:01:01 AM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk According to David Burn: >[Synopsis: the auction was > >S W N E > 2S >P P P > >at which point East said that 2S should have been alerted as it was >weak (an unalerted 2S being strong in England). North, offered the >chance to retract her final pass, substituted 3H on 10xxxx AQJ98 Qxx >None.] > >I don't see that one needs to consider 3H in terms of "subsequent or >consequent", since North is no longer considered to have suffered >damage - she is now in possession of all the AI to which she is >entitled. If it was explained to her, as it should have been, that she >should bid on the assumption that South was aware that 2S was weak, >then there is no need to consider her action from the point of view of >damage arising from the infraction; if she chose to bid in order to >"protect" South's pass, that is her affair. > >[South later asserted that had he known 2S was weak, he would have >doubled it for takeout on AJ 10xx Jxxx AKJx. A ruling was given on the >basis that had South done this, the most favourable result at all >likely for the non-offenders would be a contract of 3H by NS.] > >The notion that North would have failed to bid 4H over a takeout >double is, whatever North's level of competence, one that I find >extraordinary. She was, after all, prepared to bid 3H facing a pass. >If this hand were given as a bidding problem to a panel of average >players, I would expect an 80% vote for 4H, 15% for a slam try of some >kind and 5% for a pass. No one at all would bid only 3H, even if one >could do so invitationally because of lebensohl. I fully agree with David Burn here. There is no possibility to adjust to 3H because a final contract of 3H is not "at all likely" Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 7 04:02:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA01565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 04:02:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA01560 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 04:02:44 +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 RAA11565 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 17:02:34 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA08104 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 17:02:33 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Thu, 06 Jan 2000 17:02:31 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 RAA09406 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 17:02:30 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id RAA09077 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 17:02:20 GMT Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 17:02:20 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200001061702.RAA09077@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: MI and split scores X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thomas writes: > From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Thu Jan 6 16:50:30 2000 > From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de > Subject: Re: MI and split scores > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Date: Thu, 6 Jan 100 17:31:59 +0100 (CET) !!! > > According to David Burn: > >[Synopsis: the auction was > > > >S W N E > > 2S > >P P P > > > >at which point East said that 2S should have been alerted as it was > >weak (an unalerted 2S being strong in England). North, offered the > >chance to retract her final pass, substituted 3H on 10xxxx AQJ98 Qxx > >None.] > > > > I fully agree with David Burn here. > There is no possibility to adjust to 3H because > a final contract of 3H is not "at all likely" There may well be no possibility to adjust _to_ 3H. But the ruling could well be that the score for 3H stands, i.e. there is no adjustment _from_ 3H. If South says she would double 2S (if weak) and this leads inevitably to 4H-1 then NS were not damaged by the MI present at South's turn to call. There can be no damage from MI present at North's turn to call, so the result in 3H would stand. 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 Fri Jan 7 04:39:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA01718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 04:39:55 +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 EAA01713 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 04:39:46 +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, 6 Jan 2000 12:38:39 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000106123744.007a48f0@mail.maine.rr.com> X-Sender: thg@mail.maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 12:37:44 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Tournament formats In-Reply-To: References: <011a01bf580b$4058a8e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <200001041817.NAA04130@cfa183.harvard.edu> <002a01bf5754$bf838480$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <011a01bf580b$4058a8e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:55 PM 1/6/00 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > Suppose you decide that American Football results are affected by >weather [which is true]. You could think the best test for American >Football would be to postpone *all* games if there is any rain or snow, >or has been in the last 48 hours: if there is no visible sun: if the >wind is anything above very light? No, the best test includes a team >that is able to play in all conditions. > > So the fairest test of players is that they are able to win in fair >conditions - and fair includes various random elements. This analogy breaks down because in a football contest both teams are playing under the same conditions. The analogy would be better if the score of a game in Buffalo (where it was snowing) were compared to the score of a game in Jacksonville (where it was warm and sunny) and the winner was determined to be the team who scored the most points. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 7 05:11:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA01812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 05:11:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [207.213.113.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA01807 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 05:11:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA05000; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 10:11:35 -0800 Message-Id: <200001061811.KAA05000@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 06 Jan 2000 12:44:45 PST." Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 10:11:35 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > >Once I've made a ruling I would not go back and change it for a poorer > >score. Thus once I've made a 'bum' ruling (plenty of those!) I might go > >back and increase someone's score, but never reduce it. The result is a > >split score. > > > >I'm not sure but it's how I read L82C. > > L82C says in effect: "If you have got it wrong you correct it". > > >It's bad law giving to say "Not Guilty" then say "Sorry, it's the > >electric chair". > > Obviously time I included one of these for the EBU Panel TDs. > > I was corrected on this by Max Bavin about five years ago. If you > make a wrong ruling you go back and correct it. Of course you > apologise: of course you get flak - but you correct it. L82C says so. > If someone gets a poorer score than before - tough. As a TD you are not > running a popularity contest for yourself. Looks right to me. L82C tells us to treat both sides as non-offending, but nowhere in the Laws does it say that a non-offender's score can't be adjusted downward. As far as I can see, treating both sides as NO's affects primarily how we apply L12C2 (i.e. whether we assign the "most favorable result that was likely" or the "most unfavorable result that was at all probable"), when that Law applies. > It is perfectly good application of Law to say Not Guilty then change > it to the electric chair if [a] the person did the crime and [b] the Law > permits it. We have L82C which permits such a change. > > If you were certain that a person had raped and killed a child would > you really want them to get away with it because you do not want to > upset them? No. However, in this country (U.S.), once a person has been tried and acquitted, we may not try them again no matter how certain we are that the person committed such a horrible crime. (*) (I don't know what the law is in the U.K. or other nations.) Perhaps some people who think it's wrong for a TD to say "Not Guilty" and then say "Electric Chair" have this prohibition against double jeopardy in the back of their minds. But the analogy is a poor one. The prohibition is in place because in the bad old days, the government would sometimes try someone repeatedly for the same crime, even after they had been acquitted several times, thus harassing some innocent people who didn't deserve this treatment. A TD correcting an error and giving someone a poorer score in no way resembles this sort of harassment. (*) All right, they *can* be sued for a federal civil rights violation and have to stand trial twice. ##### I'm finally back! When we moved to a new office, I unsubscribed from BLML because the e-mail was temporarily being routed through somebody's house while we got a new DSL service set up. We were originally told that the new service would be ready around November 8, but due to a less-than-expected amount of competence on the part of at least one vendor, this wasn't completed until right around the end of the year. A belated Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and Happy New Year to everyone. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 7 05:13:18 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA01828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 05:13:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from cmailg1.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg1.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.171]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA01823 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 05:13:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.92.197.25] (helo=mail17.svr.pol.co.uk) by cmailg1.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #0) id 126HPC-000714-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 06 Jan 2000 18:13:02 +0000 Received: from modem-206.name79.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.199.206] helo=laphroaig) by mail17.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #0) id 126HP8-0005I8-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 06 Jan 2000 18:13:01 +0000 Received: (from jeremy@localhost) by laphroaig (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA01306; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 18:17:02 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: laphroaig: jeremy set sender to j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk using -f To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Tournament formats References: <200001041817.NAA04130@cfa183.harvard.edu> <002a01bf5754$bf838480$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <011a01bf580b$4058a8e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: Jeremy Rickard Date: 06 Jan 2000 18:15:33 +0000 In-Reply-To: David Stevenson's message of "Thu, 6 Jan 2000 12:55:38 +0000" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 79 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > Marvin L. French wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > > > >> Marvin L. French wrote: > >> > >> >Any arrangement that reduces the randomness of results is better in an > >> >absolute sense. But how do you accomplish that? > >> > >> It is an interesting statement, and not one I believe in. Bridge is a > >> game with an element of randomness in it, and reducing that randomness > >> is not always desirable. > > > >Depends on one's point of view, I guess. Unnecessary randomness can make an > >event more attractive to weaker contestants, as it gives them a better > >chance to do well. As long as everyone understands the conditions of > >contest, no problem with that. We want bridge to be fun for everyone. > >However, when the chief aim of a high-level event is not to entertain but to > >determine who plays the best bridge, randomness is an undesirable side > >effect that should be minimized. > > I love being called a weaker contestant! Well, I like a variety of > competition. But I still disagree with the basis you quote. Randomness > is part of the game of bridge, so a test of people's ability is *not* > fair if you take too much of the randomness away. > > Suppose you decide that American Football results are affected by > weather [which is true]. You could think the best test for American > Football would be to postpone *all* games if there is any rain or snow, > or has been in the last 48 hours: if there is no visible sun: if the > wind is anything above very light? No, the best test includes a team > that is able to play in all conditions. > > So the fairest test of players is that they are able to win in fair > conditions - and fair includes various random elements. There is an art to playing against weak players -- maybe a rather unglamorous art -- that is rather different from what is involved in playing strong players. I know almost nothing about American Football, but I imagine something similar is true of playing that in bad weather. There is also a randomness involved in playing (pairs games, particularly) with weak players. But that is a different matter, and I think you are confusing the two. Admittedly it is hard to eliminate the second without also eliminating the first. If one eliminates the weak players, then of course it is true that one won't test that part of the remaining players' skill that involves dealing with weak players. But the randomness -- the unforced errors at other tables that turn your routine 6H into a 75% board, or turn your brilliant lead that breaks up the entries for a double squeeze into an average -- is doing nothing to make the contest a better test of any aspect of your ability. A play-through will be a better test of the ability to play against weak players, but, because of the randomness, it will be a worse test of the ability to play against good players. Whether it is a better test overall is a matter of taste, and of what qualities you wish to test. But the randomness itself, as opposed to the good/bad scores you get because of your skill/incompetence in dealing with poor players, is not making it a better test of *anything*. Personally I think that, unless one values the ability to deal with poor players *very* highly indeed, the extra randomness involved in a play-through will usually make it a significantly less reliable way to pick the "best" pair as winners. Despite (or possibly because of) my ignorance about American Football, I doubt the randomness of bad weather would swamp bad-weather skills as much. Jeremy. -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 7 05:50:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA01932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 05:50:37 +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 FAA01927 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 05:50:30 +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 NAA17821 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 13:50:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA05791 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 13:50:25 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 13:50:25 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200001061850.NAA05791@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: EHAA and psychs X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > At 11:36 AM 1/5/00 -0800, FARLEY_WALLY wrote: > >IIRC, the sticking point of this was that the 'PASS' tended to show > >values in the 6-12 HCP range, which was/is illegal in the ACBL. > From: Eric Landau > Is indeed. But wasn't at the time. Actually, I'd claim the pass promising moderate values is legal under the SuperChart. It is certainly non-destructive. Not that it does you much good... the weak opening bid at the one- level is illegal. But if you were willing to open all weak hands at the _two_ level (or higher) in your best suit, I think you could have a legal system. Actually, it wouldn't be too far from standard bidding with weak two-bids in all four suits and only four-card length required. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 7 06:03:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA01972 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 06:03:17 +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 GAA01967 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 06:03:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 11:02:59 -0800 Message-ID: <006c01bf5878$a3a3bd00$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <011a01bf580b$4058a8e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com><200001041817.NAA04130@cfa183.harvard.edu><002a01bf5754$bf838480$162fd2cc@san.rr.com><011a01bf580b$4058a8e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20000106123744.007a48f0@mail.maine.rr.com> Subject: Re: Tournament formats Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 10:59:54 -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 Tim Goodwin wrote: David Stevenson wrote: > > Suppose you decide that American Football results are affected by > >weather [which is true]. You could think the best test for American > >Football would be to postpone *all* games if there is any rain or snow, > >or has been in the last 48 hours: if there is no visible sun: if the > >wind is anything above very light? No, the best test includes a team > >that is able to play in all conditions. > > > > So the fairest test of players is that they are able to win in fair > >conditions - and fair includes various random elements. > > This analogy breaks down because in a football contest both teams are > playing under the same conditions. The analogy would be better if the > score of a game in Buffalo (where it was snowing) were compared to the > score of a game in Jacksonville (where it was warm and sunny) and the > winner was determined to be the team who scored the most points. > Also, unlike bridge, football is a spectator sport. The saying is, "On a given day, any team can beat any other team." That is due to the randomness of the game, in which that crazy football can bounce in unexpected ways. It makes the game more interesting for spectators and fans, which is the main goal. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 7 06:11:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA02003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 06:11:13 +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 GAA01998 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 06:11:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id va273671 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 05:04:28 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-002-p-223-126.tmns.net.au ([139.134.223.126]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Confounding-MailRouter V2.7 9/2578945); 07 Jan 2000 05:04:27 Message-ID: <000801bf5878$97395520$7edf868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Football Analogy Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 06:02:33 +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: David Stevenson wrote: >> Suppose you decide that American Football results are affected by >>weather [which is true]. You could think the best test for American >>Football would be to postpone *all* games if there is any rain or snow, >>or has been in the last 48 hours: if there is no visible sun: if the >>wind is anything above very light? No, the best test includes a team >>that is able to play in all conditions. >> >> So the fairest test of players is that they are able to win in fair >>conditions - and fair includes various random elements. > >This analogy breaks down because in a football contest both teams are >playing under the same conditions. The analogy would be better if the >score of a game in Buffalo (where it was snowing) were compared to the >score of a game in Jacksonville (where it was warm and sunny) and the >winner was determined to be the team who scored the most points. Perhaps Tim should have used the words *American Football* rather than refer to the worldwide game of *football*, in which his argument breaks down a bit. Liverpool draw 0-0 and share two points on their snowy pitch, while Man Utd win 4-2 in the sunshine and share three points. The fair weather game can thus have a value up to 50% higher than the icy one. The weather has contributed to a random effect.... And some of us think that the Laws and Rules of bridge have problems. Mmm. Peter Australia, which has its own football code just like America. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 7 06:25:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA02043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 06:25:41 +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 GAA02038 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 06:25:32 +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 OAA19604 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 14:25:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA05881 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 14:25:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 14:25:32 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200001061925.OAA05881@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan Welcome back, Adam! We missed you. > But the analogy is a poor one. The prohibition is in place because in > the bad old days, the government would sometimes try someone > repeatedly for the same crime... Any analogy between bridge score adjustment cases and criminal law is a poor one. (John started it; he should know better.) Score adjustment is more closely analogous to civil law, although the analogy is far from perfect. (For one thing, score adjustment is not an "adversary proceeding" in the legal sense.) Nevertheless, in civil law, it is entirely possible for a judge to reconsider a decision and change it, obviously to the detriment of one side. In a _conduct_ case, which is much more closely analogous to a criminal one, changing a "not guilty" decision to "guilty" would be something to avoid, although perhaps it could be justified in an extreme case. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 7 07:14:58 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA02194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 07:14:58 +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 HAA02188 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 07:14:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-02.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.2]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA28111; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 15:14:37 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000201bf5882$d0075f00$0284d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 12:35:28 -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: Thursday, January 06, 2000 11:36 AM Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>In article <200001060015.TAA05260@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner >> writes >>>> From: John (MadDog) Probst, concerning what Marv French wrote: >>>> > The TD is correct however in respect of his TD error. >>> >>>You will note that John carefully avoided mentioning L82C. We all >>>agree the TD made an error, don't we? :-) >>> >>>> From: "Marvin L. French" >>>> The error did not prevent L12C2 from being >>>> applied, did it? Perhaps I am misinterpreting L82C, which says that both >>>> sides must be treated as non-offenders in case of a TD error "if no >>>> rectification can allow the board to be scored normally." I have always >>>> taken that to mean that there is no way to apply L12C2 equitably. >>> >>Once I've made a ruling I would not go back and change it for a poorer >>score. Thus once I've made a 'bum' ruling (plenty of those!) I might go >>back and increase someone's score, but never reduce it. The result is a >>split score. >> >>I'm not sure but it's how I read L82C. > > L82C says in effect: "If you have got it wrong you correct it". > >>It's bad law giving to say "Not Guilty" then say "Sorry, it's the >>electric chair". > > Obviously time I included one of these for the EBU Panel TDs. > > I was corrected on this by Max Bavin about five years ago. If you >make a wrong ruling you go back and correct it. Of course you >apologise: of course you get flak - but you correct it. L82C says so. >If someone gets a poorer score than before - tough. As a TD you are not >running a popularity contest for yourself. > > It is perfectly good application of Law to say Not Guilty then change >it to the electric chair if [a] the person did the crime and [b] the Law >permits it. We have L82C which permits such a change. > > If you were certain that a person had raped and killed a child would >you really want them to get away with it because you do not want to >upset them? > Of course not. But if he had been acquitted of the crime, even if there were after-discovered evidence would you not face restrictions on prosecution due to double jeopardy? Certainly committing a bridge infraction is not nearly so heinous as your example. Should there be double jeopardy for the bridge offender...or reversal of a too favourable ruling for a non offender? The law DOES appear to say so...but it that what we want it to say? Of course a favourable ruling can be removed or reversed in A/C when it is determined to be incorrect...so perhaps the director should indeed correct his own errors (where possible) and let the chips fall where they may. There should, however be a reasonable correction period...I would hate to be told next week that my win was nullified because a director changed his ruling well after the event! Does Law 92B apply to a director correcting his own error? -- Craig >-- >David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > In Australia 9/1 to 29/2: I shall answer emails on return: if you want >to email me in Australia use *both* of the following or write me for >snail mail address: + From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 7 07:44:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA02288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 07:44:14 +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 HAA02283 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 07:44:07 +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 MAA12389 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 12:43:59 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bbo@localhost) by king.halcyon.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA22676; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 12:43:59 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 12:43:59 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, David Stevenson wrote: > Rich Odlin has attacked me for the exact reverse of what I said. He > enjoys attacking me - he has done so several times before. So the record is clear, I have written a personal note to David apologizing again for misunderstanding his post. This was in addition to the public apology sent here that he appears not to have gotten. Maye he didn't get my personal email either, as he may have me on his 'kill' list. :) It is regrettable that David takes any criticism of [or disagreement over] what he writes as "attacks", and I do not ever attack him or anyone else here, much less get enjoyment from writing differing views. All I can say on this particular incident is that I was not the only one who misunderstood what he was attempting to impart. I won't name names, but one told me in private that it was very easy to misread, saying, "Yes, it wasn't David's best effort." Another reported that he sat down and immediately composed a blistering reply, decided not to send it quite then, and later re-read David's note several times before he finally concluded, after some study, that David meant the opposite of what he originally thought, so he destroyed the reply before it was sent. Richard B. Odlin From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 7 07:53:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA02321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 07:53:16 +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 HAA02315 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 07:53:09 +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 126Ju0-0001vy-00; Thu, 06 Jan 2000 21:53:00 +0100 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA005471980; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 21:53:00 +0100 Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 6 Jan 100 21:53:00 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <200001061811.KAA05000@mailhub.irvine.com> from "Adam Beneschan" at Jan 06, 2000 10:11:35 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 Adam Beneschan: >David Stevenson wrote: >> It is perfectly good application of Law to say Not Guilty then change >> it to the electric chair if [a] the person did the crime and [b] the Law >> permits it. We have L82C which permits such a change. >> >> If you were certain that a person had raped and killed a child would >> you really want them to get away with it because you do not want to >> upset them? > >No. However, in this country (U.S.), once a person has been tried and >acquitted, we may not try them again no matter how certain we are that >the person committed such a horrible crime. (*) (I don't know what the >law is in the U.K. or other nations.) You can be tried several times for the same crime in Germany. The legal requirements for a new trial are very restrictive, but it is possible. >But the analogy is a poor one. The prohibition is in place because in >the bad old days, the government would sometimes try someone >repeatedly for the same crime, even after they had been acquitted >several times, thus harassing some innocent people who didn't deserve >this treatment. A TD correcting an error and giving someone a poorer >score in no way resembles this sort of harassment. I agree. Bridge is not criminal law. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 7 11:28:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA02970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:28:24 +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 LAA02965 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:28:15 +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 126NG5-000C8Q-0W for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 00:28:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 00:25:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer 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 > > L82C says in effect: "If you have got it wrong you correct it". > >>It's bad law giving to say "Not Guilty" then say "Sorry, it's the >>electric chair". > > Obviously time I included one of these for the EBU Panel TDs. > > I was corrected on this by Max Bavin about five years ago. If you >make a wrong ruling you go back and correct it. Of course you >apologise: of course you get flak - but you correct it. L82C says so. >If someone gets a poorer score than before - tough. As a TD you are not >running a popularity contest for yourself. > > It is perfectly good application of Law to say Not Guilty then change >it to the electric chair if [a] the person did the crime and [b] the Law >permits it. agreed (but absolutely subject to part [b]) > We have L82C which permits such a change. that was what I wasn't convinced about. > If you were certain that a person had raped and killed a child would >you really want them to get away with it because you do not want to >upset them? > This analogy is not a good one. In UK Law you cannot be tried for the same crime twice. Once a verdice of "Not Guilty" is handed down, there is *no changing it*. But a verdict of "Guilty" can (in due process) be overturned. I had drawn the analogy because that was how I read the Law. The fact that I chose a criminal code for comparison was ok when I chose it, as I considered them comparable. I'm wrong. That'll happen again. Sorry. 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 Jan 7 11:56:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA03032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:56:38 +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 LAA03027 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:56:32 +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, 6 Jan 2000 19:55:25 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000106195429.007ad970@mail.maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@mail.maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 19:54:29 -0500 To: From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Football Analogy In-Reply-To: <000801bf5878$97395520$7edf868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >David Stevenson wrote: >>> Suppose you decide that American Football results are affected by >>>weather [which is true]. >Tim Goodwin wrote: >>This analogy breaks down because in a football contest both teams are At 06:02 AM 1/7/00 +1100, Peter Gill wrote: >Perhaps Tim should have used the words *American Football* rather I thought the "American" was understood since I was responding to David's post where he did include the modifier. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 7 12:17:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA03091 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 12:17:01 +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 MAA03085 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 12:16:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 126O13-000C8B-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 01:16:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 00:40:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer References: 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 Wed, 5 Jan 2000, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Rich Odlin has attacked me for the exact reverse of what I said. He >> enjoys attacking me - he has done so several times before. > >So the record is clear, I have written a personal note to David apologizing >again for misunderstanding his post. This was in addition to the public >apology sent here that he appears not to have gotten. Maye he didn't get my >personal email either, as he may have me on his 'kill' list. :) I have just received it. The Demon time machine never seems consistent on when I see articles. >It is regrettable that David takes any criticism of [or disagreement over] >what he writes as "attacks", and I do not ever attack him or anyone else >here, much less get enjoyment from writing differing views. Over a period, your articles have always looked like attacks to me. This one was no different. The final paragraph about my attitude when directing is a personal attack, whatever the reason for it. >All I can say on this particular incident is that I was not the only one who >misunderstood what he was attempting to impart. I won't name names, but one >told me in private that it was very easy to misread, saying, "Yes, it wasn't >David's best effort." Another reported that he sat down and immediately >composed a blistering reply, decided not to send it quite then, and later >re-read David's note several times before he finally concluded, after some >study, that David meant the opposite of what he originally thought, so he >destroyed the reply before it was sent. So maybe it could have been better written. It occurs to me that I have been warned that Americans do not understand sarcasm, and the last twice I have put something sarcastic in it has been misunderstood. However, I do not believe that others would have made the comments on my directing. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK In Australia 9/1 to 29/2: I shall answer emails on return: if you want to email me in Australia use *both* of the following or write me for snail mail address: + From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 7 12:19:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA03112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 12:19:41 +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 MAA03107 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 12:19:05 +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 126O13-000L6G-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 01:16:35 +0000 Message-ID: <7Otl3QAm+Sd4EwW1@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 00:13:26 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Tournament formats References: <011a01bf580b$4058a8e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <200001041817.NAA04130@cfa183.harvard.edu> <002a01bf5754$bf838480$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <011a01bf580b$4058a8e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20000106123744.007a48f0@mail.maine.rr.com> <006c01bf5878$a3a3bd00$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <006c01bf5878$a3a3bd00$162fd2cc@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: >Tim Goodwin wrote: > David Stevenson wrote: >> > Suppose you decide that American Football results are affected by >> >weather [which is true]. You could think the best test for American >> >Football would be to postpone *all* games if there is any rain or snow, >> >or has been in the last 48 hours: if there is no visible sun: if the >> >wind is anything above very light? No, the best test includes a team >> >that is able to play in all conditions. >> > >> > So the fairest test of players is that they are able to win in fair >> >conditions - and fair includes various random elements. >> >> This analogy breaks down because in a football contest both teams are >> playing under the same conditions. The analogy would be better if the >> score of a game in Buffalo (where it was snowing) were compared to the >> score of a game in Jacksonville (where it was warm and sunny) and the >> winner was determined to be the team who scored the most points. >> >Also, unlike bridge, football is a spectator sport. The saying is, "On a >given day, any team can beat any other team." That is due to the randomness >of the game, in which that crazy football can bounce in unexpected ways. It >makes the game more interesting for spectators and fans, which is the main >goal. The randomness in bridge makes it more interesting for the players, which is the main goal. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK In Australia 9/1 to 29/2: I shall answer emails on return: if you want to email me in Australia use *both* of the following or write me for snail mail address: + From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 7 12:22:22 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA03127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 12:22:22 +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 MAA03093 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 12:17:26 +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 126O11-000C8M-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 01:16:37 +0000 Message-ID: <$eokjNAz9Sd4Ew3F@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 00:12:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer References: <000201bf5882$d0075f00$0284d9ce@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: <000201bf5882$d0075f00$0284d9ce@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: >From: David Stevenson >>John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>>In article <200001060015.TAA05260@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner >>> writes >>>>> From: John (MadDog) Probst, concerning what Marv French wrote: >>>>> > The TD is correct however in respect of his TD error. >>>>You will note that John carefully avoided mentioning L82C. We all >>>>agree the TD made an error, don't we? :-) >>>>> From: "Marvin L. French" >>>>> The error did not prevent L12C2 from being >>>>> applied, did it? Perhaps I am misinterpreting L82C, which says that >both >>>>> sides must be treated as non-offenders in case of a TD error "if no >>>>> rectification can allow the board to be scored normally." I have always >>>>> taken that to mean that there is no way to apply L12C2 equitably. >>>Once I've made a ruling I would not go back and change it for a poorer >>>score. Thus once I've made a 'bum' ruling (plenty of those!) I might go >>>back and increase someone's score, but never reduce it. The result is a >>>split score. >>> >>>I'm not sure but it's how I read L82C. >> L82C says in effect: "If you have got it wrong you correct it". >>>It's bad law giving to say "Not Guilty" then say "Sorry, it's the >>>electric chair". >> Obviously time I included one of these for the EBU Panel TDs. >> >> I was corrected on this by Max Bavin about five years ago. If you >>make a wrong ruling you go back and correct it. Of course you >>apologise: of course you get flak - but you correct it. L82C says so. >>If someone gets a poorer score than before - tough. As a TD you are not >>running a popularity contest for yourself. >> >> It is perfectly good application of Law to say Not Guilty then change >>it to the electric chair if [a] the person did the crime and [b] the Law >>permits it. We have L82C which permits such a change. >> >> If you were certain that a person had raped and killed a child would >>you really want them to get away with it because you do not want to >>upset them? >Of course not. But if he had been acquitted of the crime, even if there were >after-discovered evidence would you not face restrictions on prosecution due >to double jeopardy? Certainly committing a bridge infraction is not nearly >so heinous as your example. Should there be double jeopardy for the bridge >offender...or reversal of a too favourable ruling for a non offender? The >law DOES appear to say so...but it that what we want it to say? Of course a >favourable ruling can be removed or reversed in A/C when it is determined to >be incorrect...so perhaps the director should indeed correct his own errors >(where possible) and let the chips fall where they may. The real trouble is that it is a lousy analogy. We are talking of errors being discovered within the normal time framework. A better analogy might be: if a witness at a trial was discovered [during the trial] to have given wrong evidence [perhaps by mistake] would you expect the jury to be corrected? I would hope so. > There should, >however be a reasonable correction period...I would hate to be told next >week that my win was nullified because a director changed his ruling well >after the event! Does Law 92B apply to a director correcting his own error? The correction periods in the Law apply whatever. The whole idea of them was to stop this sort of nonsense: when there were no limits there was in theory nothing to stop rulings/appeals/score corrections being sought months after! Now there are limits they cover errors. That is why SOs should take care over correction periods - and probably should have different ones for different things. There was a two year fuss over the results of the Gazette Cups, a Newcastle area pairs championship, which involved several committees at different levels! More care with correction periods would have helped. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK In Australia 9/1 to 29/2: I shall answer emails on return: if you want to email me in Australia use *both* of the following or write me for snail mail address: + From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 7 16:00:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA03774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 16:00:54 +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 QAA03769 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 16:00:46 +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, 6 Jan 2000 23:59:35 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000106235841.008bd9a0@mail.maine.rr.com> X-Sender: thg@mail.maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 23:58:41 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Tournament formats In-Reply-To: <7Otl3QAm+Sd4EwW1@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <006c01bf5878$a3a3bd00$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <011a01bf580b$4058a8e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <200001041817.NAA04130@cfa183.harvard.edu> <002a01bf5754$bf838480$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <011a01bf580b$4058a8e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20000106123744.007a48f0@mail.maine.rr.com> <006c01bf5878$a3a3bd00$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:13 AM 1/7/00 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > The randomness in bridge makes it more interesting for the players, >which is the main goal. I wonder about this. Do experts enjoy the randomness created by the weaker players in an event? I fully agree that in diverse fields the randomness will be liked by a majority. But, if we are talking about better format in terms of "better at having the results reflect the ability of the players in the event", then I think some sort of qualifying event is better than a playthrough. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 7 19:40:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA04123 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 19:40:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns2.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA04118 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 19:40:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 00:40:23 -0800 Message-ID: <00c501bf58ea$d10328e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <011a01bf580b$4058a8e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com><200001041817.NAA04130@cfa183.harvard.edu><002a01bf5754$bf838480$162fd2cc@san.rr.com><011a01bf580b$4058a8e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com><3.0.6.32.20000106123744.007a48f0@mail.maine.rr.com><006c01bf5878$a3a3bd00$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <7Otl3QAm+Sd4EwW1@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Tournament formats Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 00:40:00 -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: > Marv French wrote: > >Also, unlike bridge, football is a spectator sport. The saying is, "On a > >given day, any team can beat any other team." That is due to the randomness > >of the game, in which that crazy football can bounce in unexpected ways. It > >makes the game more interesting for spectators and fans, which is the main > >goal. > > The randomness in bridge makes it more interesting for the players, > which is the main goal. > The randomness in football makes it less interesting for the *players*, as is true in any game. Bridge players, like football players, want a level playing field. That's why boards are duplicated, pairs are seeded, and conventions are limited. These practices increase fairness, which reduces randomness, and I don't know anyone on this side of the ocean who is against that. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 7 22:26:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA04414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 22:26:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from marge.inter.net.il (marge.inter.net.il [192.116.202.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA04408 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 22:26:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-7-141.access.net.il [213.8.7.141] (may be forged)) by marge.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA08460; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 13:26:09 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3875CD74.733FA47B@zahav.net.il> Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 13:26:45 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en-US,fr,Hebrew,en,ro,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I thought it once..... upon a time !! But : af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de wrote: > > According to Adam Beneschan: > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> It is perfectly good application of Law to say Not Guilty then change > >> it to the electric chair if [a] the person did the crime and [b] the Law > >> permits it. We have L82C which permits such a change. > >> > >> If you were certain that a person had raped and killed a child would > >> you really want them to get away with it because you do not want to > >> upset them? > > ..............snip...... > I agree. Bridge is not criminal law. Why so many players act , or REACT at the table , worse than a certified criminal ????? The fact we have special laws (Law 74 and the whole Ch. VII and..) is , IMHO , a proof that the laws makers - maybe world fame psychiatrists - were fully aware that this game produces some abnormal conduct/behavior ...?????????? > > Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 7 23:30:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA04514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 23:30:06 +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 XAA04505 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 23:29:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 13:29:31 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id NAA13409 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 13:34:49 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Subject: Correction attempt of insufficient bid Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 13:05:20 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Consider the following auction: W N E S 1D p 1C 1H 1S East makes an insufficient bid. When North notices this, East tries to correct with 1H. South bids 1S. Only now the TD is called. Apart from having a talk with the table about calling the TD in time, how do you rule? -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 8 00:49:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA04837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 00:49:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from ehcmail.ehc.edu (kelly.ehc.edu [208.27.12.3] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA04832 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 00:49:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from ehc.edu (OEMCOMPUTER [172.16.224.117]) by ehcmail.ehc.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id Y5N5NKRA; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 08:51:49 -0500 Message-ID: <3875EEE0.92ED5E0@ehc.edu> Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 08:49:20 -0500 From: John A Kuchenbrod X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Subject: Re: Correction attempt of insufficient bid References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot wrote: > > Consider the following auction: > > W N E S > 1D p 1C > 1H 1S > > East makes an insufficient bid. When North notices this, > East tries to correct with 1H. South bids 1S. Only now > the TD is called. Apart from having a talk with the table > about calling the TD in time, how do you rule? What is the level of the competition? If East bid the 1H in ignornace of the penalty, South's 1S bid forfeits the penalties by L11A, and bidding continues. -- | Dr. John A. Kuchenbrod | jkuchen@ehc.edu | lazarus.ehc.edu/~jkuchen | | Fight Hunger -- visit http://www.thehungersite.com daily | From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 8 01:09:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA04770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 00:29:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA04765 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 00:28:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA06128 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 08:28:43 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000107082959.006fd564@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 08:29:59 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Tournament formats In-Reply-To: References: <011a01bf580b$4058a8e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <200001041817.NAA04130@cfa183.harvard.edu> <002a01bf5754$bf838480$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <011a01bf580b$4058a8e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:55 PM 1/6/00 +0000, David wrote: > Very strange. We mix our directions, and arrow-switch if necessary. >If you have twelve lines [six sections] then maybe eight change >direction for the next session, and another eight for the next session - >not the same eight. If it is a one-session qualifying then we arrow- >switch. When I started playing bridge in the 1960s, the ACBL would routinely break up fields in large two-session play-through events. Pairs 1-5, 6-10, and 11+ from each field (section/direction) in the first session would be sent to a different field for the second session. This was, of course, before "event proliferation" in the ACBL, so just about every major event had enough sections to do this easily. The ACBL, however, abandoned this practice some decades ago, even for events that are easily large enough. I don't know why, unless it was sheer laziness. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 8 01:23:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA04956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 01:23:51 +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 BAA04951 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 01:23:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from karma.isi.com (pixsv41.isi.com [192.73.222.191]) by hopper.isi.com (8.8.4/8.6.10) with ESMTP id GAA24641 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 06:23:03 -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 GAA29097 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 06:18:25 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard Willey" To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Subject: Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:24:56 -0800 Message-ID: <000201bf5934$1db2ece0$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 In-Reply-To: <3875EEE0.92ED5E0@ehc.edu> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ran across something fairly amusing at the Consumer Electronics show. Actually seemed appropriate for bridge-laws. Many US computer shows feature the occasional self deprecating sketch. This one featured Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. >Gates returned as himself alongside friend and fellow billionaire >Warren Buffett in Judge Judy's courtroom. The two were depicted >squabbling over a US$2 bet over an online bridge game, during which >the reportedly hot-tempered Gates yanked the plug on his PC to >prevent losing. Can anyone think of an equivalent example in recent times where the leagl aspects of bridge received this type of exposure? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOHYhZyGkJ7YU62vZEQISSACfWb8KoCOenl1axZbSGDjR9CS+B0MAn3HL CBIsXJYl86ndt9BSHnJ+2diY =DbJZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 8 01:30:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA05008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 01:30:35 +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 BAA05002 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 01:30:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-33qtk0q.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.208.26]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA18326; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:30:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000107144112.006ef70c@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, 07 Jan 2000 06:41:12 -0800 To: "Martin Sinot" From: Henry Sun Subject: Re: Correction attempt of insufficient bid Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:05 PM 1/7/00 +0100, you wrote: >Consider the following auction: > > W N E S >1D p 1C > 1H 1S > > >East makes an insufficient bid. When North notices this, >East tries to correct with 1H. South bids 1S. Only now >the TD is called. Apart from having a talk with the table >about calling the TD in time, how do you rule? my understanding of the laws suggests that (1) south's 1s call condones east's 1h call, so that the auction proceeds normally and (2) east has passed ui to west by virtue of the insufficient 1c call, so that subsequent penalties against ew may occur, and (3) certainly lead penalties against west, should south declare some number of spades, would be in force. henry sun > >-- >Martin Sinot >Nijmegen >martin@spase.nl > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 8 01:56:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA05053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 01:56:43 +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 BAA05048 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 01:56:28 +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 126aoG-0007pq-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:56:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 13:33:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Tournament formats References: <011a01bf580b$4058a8e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <200001041817.NAA04130@cfa183.harvard.edu> <002a01bf5754$bf838480$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <011a01bf580b$4058a8e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20000106123744.007a48f0@mail.maine.rr.com> <006c01bf5878$a3a3bd00$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <7Otl3QAm+Sd4EwW1@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00c501bf58ea$d10328e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <00c501bf58ea$d10328e0$162fd2cc@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: > >> Marv French wrote: > >> >Also, unlike bridge, football is a spectator sport. The saying is, "On a >> >given day, any team can beat any other team." That is due to the >randomness >> >of the game, in which that crazy football can bounce in unexpected ways. >It >> >makes the game more interesting for spectators and fans, which is the >main >> >goal. >> >> The randomness in bridge makes it more interesting for the players, >> which is the main goal. >> >The randomness in football makes it less interesting for the *players*, as >is true in any game. Bridge players, like football players, want a level >playing field. That's why boards are duplicated, pairs are seeded, and >conventions are limited. These practices increase fairness, which reduces >randomness, and I don't know anyone on this side of the ocean who is against >that. Some people who have played bridge in NAmerica [not at top level] and on OKB have commented that the bridge is less interesting. Furthermore, NAmerican bridge does not seem to be flourishing. Perhaps more randomness would increase the popularity of the game in NAmerica. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK In Australia 9/1 to 29/2: I shall answer emails on return: if you want to email me in Australia use *both* of the following or write me for snail mail address: + From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 8 02:03:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA04652 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 00:05:55 +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 AAA04647 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 00:05:46 +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 OAA08710; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:05:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA20865; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:05:00 +0100 (CET) X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:05:00 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Martin Sinot cc: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Subject: Re: Correction attempt of insufficient bid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 7 Jan 2000, Martin Sinot wrote: > Consider the following auction: > > W N E S > 1D p 1C > 1H 1S > > > East makes an insufficient bid. When North notices this, > East tries to correct with 1H. South bids 1S. Only now > the TD is called. Apart from having a talk with the table > about calling the TD in time, how do you rule? (This one has been copied from another list, in the original problem: North was a student TD, EW were beginners, South decided to bid 1S in order to get his opponents out of this awkward situation). The footnote to 25B tells you what to do if the original bid was insufficient. 27 deals with the insufficient bid. If the TD had been called at this point, it would have been simple. However, NS failed to call the TD after the infraction had been noticed but instead continued to bid. This forfeits their right to penalize the insufficient bid, so the auction continues as if it had started: 1D-P-1H-1S. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Committee (...) was unable to reach a consensus that substantial merit was lacking. Thus, the appeal was deemed meritorious. (Orlando NABC #19). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 8 04:03:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA05528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 04:03:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f127.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.127]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA05523 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 04:03:24 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 48444 invoked by uid 0); 7 Jan 2000 17:02:46 -0000 Message-ID: <20000107170246.48443.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 07 Jan 2000 09:02:46 PST X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Correction attempt of insufficient bid Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 17:02:46 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Martin Sinot" >Consider the following auction: > >W N E S >1D p 1C > 1H 1S > > >East makes an insufficient bid. When North notices this, >East tries to correct with 1H. South bids 1S. Only now >the TD is called. Apart from having a talk with the table >about calling the TD in time, how do you rule? With all the information I've got since (i.e. Henk's reply) I don't know. I know what I want to do (and what I will do at the table), I just don't know whether I am allowed to do it. I do wish that they'd called me earlier and asked to waive the penalties. It seems there is a conflict in the Laws, and I don't know how to do precedence. --- L25: B. Delayed or Purposeful Correction Until LHO calls, a call may be substituted when Section A does not apply: 1. Substitute Call Condoned The substituted call may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender's LHO[*]; then, the second call stands and the auction proceeds without penalty. If offender's LHO has called before attention is drawn to the infraction and the Director determines that LHO intended his call to apply over the offender's original call at that turn, offender's substituted call stands without penalty, and LHO may withdraw his call without penalty (but see Law 16C2). and the footnote: [*] When the original bid was insufficient, apply Law 27. --- So, the way I read it is that if the Director had been called when the substitute call was made but before South called, we'd be in simple L27 country. However, since South called before attention was called to the *L25 irregularity* (the illegal substitution), I will apply the second sentence, and ignore the first. If South intended 1S to apply over 1H, no harm no foul, and away we go. If not, 1S goes away, and South gets to go ahead (with 1S, even, if she so wishes). Oh, and I would explain what all the players should have done... >From what Henk has added to the situation, it looks like this ruling will be both equitable, correct, and what the players wanted (south wanted to avoid penalties). Given that EW were beginners, I would explain what should be done very carefully, including letting "South" know that she could have called the director and exercised her option under L72A3/L82C8. NS should be lauded for not beating up on the beginners, but EW deserve the right to learn what they did wrong - otherwise they will do it later, against people who aren't as forgiving, and feel aggreived. However, I'm not sure I'm allowed to go past the footnote to read the second sentence. In that case, all hell breaks loose, and I desperately hope that S knows about her right to ask me to waive the penalties. I guess this time I *am* interested in what the CTDs and the Law-formers have to say about this one. Pity so many of them are in Australia/Bermuda... Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 8 06:00:03 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA05853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 06:00:03 +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 FAA05847 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 05:59:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 10:59:44 -0800 Message-ID: <00f001bf5941$545583e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <011a01bf580b$4058a8e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com><200001041817.NAA04130@cfa183.harvard.edu><002a01bf5754$bf838480$162fd2cc@san.rr.com><011a01bf580b$4058a8e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.20000107082959.006fd564@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Tournament formats Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 10:57:18 -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 Eric Landau wrote, very interestingly: David wrote: > > > Very strange. We mix our directions, and arrow-switch if necessary. > >If you have twelve lines [six sections] then maybe eight change > >direction for the next session, and another eight for the next session - > >not the same eight. If it is a one-session qualifying then we arrow- > >switch. > > When I started playing bridge in the 1960s, the ACBL would routinely break > up fields in large two-session play-through events. Pairs 1-5, 6-10, and > 11+ from each field (section/direction) in the first session would be sent > to a different field for the second session. This was, of course, before > "event proliferation" in the ACBL, so just about every major event had > enough sections to do this easily. I don't remember that. Perhaps it was just not done out here, in the Western U. S. Currently the ACBL does practice this partial switch of directions in a one-section two-session event. Only half the pairs switch direction after the first session. Partial switching should apply in multiple-section play-through games also. Switching directions doesn't have to be that complicated most of the time, with across-the-field matchpointing, since you can usually move an entire line intact instead of breaking it up. John Probst and I have corresponded on the proper shifting of lines for various numbers of sections. Maybe John will comment on this, along with the need for arrow-switching, since he knows a lot more than I do about the subject. Seeding permitting, you want to place pairs who must always be stationary in lines that remain North-South. > > The ACBL, however, abandoned this practice some decades ago, even for > events that are easily large enough. I don't know why, unless it was sheer > laziness. > Most players don't want to play E-W for two sessions, which is no doubt the major reason. I feel that the current method, in which there are two separate fields that remain intact with no arrow-switching, is correct for qualifying sessions, or for play-through games in which it is recognized that there are two winners, two second placers, etc. (as in the standard club game!). Let's assume a two-section (26 tables, boards preduplicated) four-session championship, with two qualifying sessions and then a two-session final. For the qualifying sessions, each carefully seeded line (everyone switching directions after the first session), has played the same hands (hands, not boards), has met the same opponents, and has compared results on every deal with every other pair in their field. First session scores are fully carried over to the second session, of course. Players are ranked within each field, and the top 13 pairs in each qualify for the finals. One can hardly imagine a fairer method. A pair that must remain stationary can be handled with a side table when playing East-West, where N-S players must go (with the boards) when meeting the pair. The only drawback (if it is one) is that partial carryover of scores into the finals is inappropriate unless the two-field two-winner format is to be retained. Mixing the two fields after the first session results in overall rankings. Competing pairs have not played the same hands (hands, not boards), have not met the same opponents, and have compared results on every board with roughly half their competitors. A partial carryover of qualifying scores becomes a little more logical, but overall I don't consider this method to be as fair as the current ACBL method. It would become a bit more fair if arrow-switching were employed, as evidently is the European practice. What to do in the finals is another thread. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 8 06:18:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA05924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 06:18:07 +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 GAA05919 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 06:17:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 126etP-000CiP-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 19:17:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 15:43:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Correction attempt of insufficient bid References: <1.5.4.32.20000107144112.006ef70c@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.20000107144112.006ef70c@mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henry Sun wrote: >At 01:05 PM 1/7/00 +0100, you wrote: >>Consider the following auction: >> >> W N E S >>1D p 1C >> 1H 1S >> >> >>East makes an insufficient bid. When North notices this, >>East tries to correct with 1H. South bids 1S. Only now >>the TD is called. Apart from having a talk with the table >>about calling the TD in time, how do you rule? > >my understanding of the laws suggests that (1) south's 1s >call condones east's 1h call, so that the auction proceeds >normally and (2) east has passed ui to west by virtue of the >insufficient 1c call, so that subsequent penalties against >ew may occur, and (3) certainly lead penalties against west, >should south declare some number of spades, would be in >force. RTFLB. LAW 27 - INSUFFICIENT BID A. Insufficient Bid Accepted Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender's LHO. It is accepted if that player calls. The 1S bid has accepted the 1C bid - not the 1H bid. By accepting it South has forfeited Lead Penalties. What about the 1H bid? B. Insufficient Bid Not Accepted If an insufficient bid made in rotation is not accepted, it must be corrected by the substitution of either a sufficient bid or a pass. There is no such thing as accepting it with another insufficient bid. Is that ambiguous? Probably - there was a long debate on BLML about it. However the WBFLC promulgated an interpretation on it: 8: Footnote to Law 25B1. Where an insufficient bid is prematurely substituted the premature correction is cancelled by the tournament director who then applies Law 27A to allow the LHO, if he so wishes, to accept the original insufficient bid. If he does not do so, the Tournament Director explains his options to the offender and allows him to select his action, applying Law 27B. http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/law_llle.htm Since the 1H was made and then withdrawn L16C applies: it is UI to the player's partner. Note that if Lead Penalties had applied they would have applied whether North or South became declarer. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Jan 8 06:27:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA05964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 06:27:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA05959 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 06:27:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id OAA21041 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:27:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA07060 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:27:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:27:35 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200001071927.OAA07060@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Tournament formats X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > The randomness in bridge makes it more interesting for the players, > which is the main goal. There is an irreduceable randomness from the lie of the cards. Imagine pairs always knew when game was exactly a 50% chance. One pair decides to bid all such games, another decides always to stay out. At matchpoints, these strategies are equally good in the long run, but on any particular set of deals, most likely one or the other will be work better. (You can quibble with the illustration, which is rather silly, but the principle is correct.) The only way around this form of randomness is to play more deals. You can introduce _additional_ randomness in various ways. One would be to have each contestant roll dice at the end of a session and add the pips to their score. I venture to suggest this would not be favored by most of the players! Other ways involve the movement and scoring. As we have seen, some people favor increasing randomness by these methods while others do not. Organizers should at least be aware of the effect of the decisions made. > From: "Marvin L. French" > Partial switching should apply in multiple-section play-through games also. > Switching directions doesn't have to be that complicated most of the time, > with across-the-field matchpointing, since you can usually move an entire > line intact instead of breaking it up. I claim it would be better to break it up, though. If Meckwell happen to sit in my line in the first session, do I have to have them there in the second session too? It would be nice to have a chance for section top in at least one of the sessions! My own pet theory is that the field should be seeded for each session after the first on the basis of results up to that time. Computers ought to be able to do that pretty easily, although I wouldn't like to do it by hand. > First session scores are fully carried > over to the second session, of course. Isn't it an improvement to carry over the difference between each pair's score and that of the lowest qualifier _in their field_? An alternative would be to assign arbitrary carryovers, e.g. 10 MP for the top qualifier, 9 MP for the second, etc. (I've invented these numbers; they are probably pretty silly, but a little study could produce some sensible ones. This is an application of "non- parametric statistics.") From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 8 07:03:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA06070 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 07:03:48 +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 HAA06065 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 07:03:41 +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, 7 Jan 2000 15:02:35 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000107150138.008b8330@mail.maine.rr.com> X-Sender: thg@mail.maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 15:01:38 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Tournament formats In-Reply-To: <00f001bf5941$545583e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: <011a01bf580b$4058a8e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <200001041817.NAA04130@cfa183.harvard.edu> <002a01bf5754$bf838480$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <011a01bf580b$4058a8e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.20000107082959.006fd564@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:57 AM 1/7/00 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >I don't remember that. Perhaps it was just not done out here, in the Western >U. S. Currently the ACBL does practice this partial switch of directions in >a one-section two-session event. Only half the pairs switch direction after >the first session. Isn't there a movement where a mitchell is played in the first session and some sort of howell is played in the second session which results in a complete round robin for an event such as this? Why wouldn't it be standard? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 8 07:59:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA06165 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 07:59:56 +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 HAA06159 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 07:59:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from ivillage (ip52.kansas-city4.mo.pub-ip.psi.net [38.27.35.52]) by gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA26276 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 12:59:40 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000107144749.009ae100@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: baresch@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 15:00:18 -0600 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Brian Baresch Subject: Re: Tournament formats In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000107150138.008b8330@mail.maine.rr.com> References: <00f001bf5941$545583e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <011a01bf580b$4058a8e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <200001041817.NAA04130@cfa183.harvard.edu> <002a01bf5754$bf838480$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <011a01bf580b$4058a8e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.20000107082959.006fd564@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Isn't there a movement where a mitchell is played in the first session and >some sort of howell is played in the second session which results in a >complete round robin for an event such as this? Why wouldn't it be standard? Possibly because it's a bit of a challenge, at least using ACBLScore or for certain field sizes. In the North American Pairs District 15 final a few months ago there weren't enough flight C pairs to constitute a separate section (I think they want 6 tables, or maybe it's 5, for a separate flight; there were actually 4 in C, plus 9 in B), so we played a 13-table Mitchell the first session and a 13-table Howell the second. Rick Beye, who was running the show, told me it took him an hour to tweak the second-session movement to maximize the round-robin aspect. I suspect it wasn't possible to do it perfectly -- there was one pair we didn't face either session. If memory serves, Rick also said that if he'd had time beforehand he'd have run it as a two-session Howell (the details escape me). As an aside, that event had one of those endings you read about -- the top two pairs were at the same table in the last round (although of course we didn't know it at the time and both pairs were going to qualify anyway), so those two boards determined first and second place. I've seen Mitchell-then-Howell movements described in one of my directing books but haven't looked closely, and the book is not at hand. Anyone else? Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 8 08:15:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA06205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 08:15:44 +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 IAA06200 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 08:15:36 +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 QAA08080; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 16:15:23 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000107150138.008b8330@mail.maine.rr.com> References: <00f001bf5941$545583e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <011a01bf580b$4058a8e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <200001041817.NAA04130@cfa183.harvard.edu> <002a01bf5754$bf838480$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <011a01bf580b$4058a8e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.20000107082959.006fd564@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 16:13:19 -0500 To: Tim Goodwin , "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Tournament formats Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 3:01 PM -0500 1/7/00, Tim Goodwin wrote: >Isn't there a movement where a mitchell is played in the first session and >some sort of howell is played in the second session which results in a >complete round robin for an event such as this? Why wouldn't it be standard? One problem with this movement is that it runs into problems if pairs withdraw or play only one session. It can be used in events in which this is unlikely. For example, when I played in the non-LM Pairs, the final had 13 tables, and we used this movement to play 25 rounds of two boards, one against each opposing pair. In a game with more than one section, the usual procedure of switching sections gives everyone a chance to play against different opponents. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 8 08:31:49 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA06231 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 08:31:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (smtp7.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.128.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA06226 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 08:31:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-151.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.151]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA08633 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 16:31:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <004c01bf5956$baff0d40$9784d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 16:32:41 -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 One of the problems with sarcasm, and with humour in general, is that we lack intonation and facial expression in email that would be present in speech. Likewise it is easy, lacking these often softening modifiers, to magnify critical comment, even if it may seem gratuitously critical, to attack. I once offended DWS seriously with a comment intended in jest; DB roasted me royally when I first began to post a couple of years back...I could have been offended, but realised what a fantastic send up it was and had a rollicking good laugh at my own pompous expense. Unlike ddj over on rgb, many of the critics on this list are seeking to argue (whether out of a love of debate, sheer contentious bloodymindedness, or a real difference of opinion that is worthy of being thrashed out) and not primarily to wound. In order that we may continue to support lively discussion, I would urge my fellow blml posters to strain to avoid sounding like you are attacking an individual rather than the merits of his arguments, and to bend over backwards to avoid taking offense where there remains a possibility than none is intended. Over the long run we gain if everyone may speak his mind freely when he believes he has something useful to contribute rather that pack up his posts in a pout and go home, or refrain from comment for fear of being unfairly condemned. I suspect I shall say something stupid, some things wrong, more things debatable and some things useful this year. I don't seek to attack anyone. I hope you all will feel free to do the same, for I and others can learn from what you have to say. I must assure you, though, that Americans are no strangers to sarcasm and that we are in no way humourless creatures. We are in some cases walking proof that the folk on both sides of the Atlantic pond are indeed two nations separated by a common language. I can only imagine the confusion some of our less clear posts must pose to those who must deal with English as a foreign language. Suffice it to say than sometimes English thought is foreign to Americans as is ours to them...and the folks in Canada and Oz sometimes have their own twists of expression. No wonder we have so many semantic disagreements, and the folks meeting in Bermuda over the next few weeks will have such difficulty in coming up with perfect wording for everything. If nothing else, we can continue to sniff out the misunderstandings and give voice to them so they can be corrected! -- Craig Senior I once proofread a paper for a relative...a review of Swift's "On Population." She was horrified at his ("delicious") child-abusing gustatorial suggestions and painted him as quite the ogre, drawing a parallel to abortionists' callous disregard for infant life. -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, January 06, 2000 9:25 PM Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer >Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin wrote: >>On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, David Stevenson wrote: >> >>> Rich Odlin has attacked me for the exact reverse of what I said. He >>> enjoys attacking me - he has done so several times before. >> >>So the record is clear, I have written a personal note to David apologizing >>again for misunderstanding his post. This was in addition to the public >>apology sent here that he appears not to have gotten. Maye he didn't get my >>personal email either, as he may have me on his 'kill' list. :) > > I have just received it. The Demon time machine never seems >consistent on when I see articles. > >>It is regrettable that David takes any criticism of [or disagreement over] >>what he writes as "attacks", and I do not ever attack him or anyone else >>here, much less get enjoyment from writing differing views. > > Over a period, your articles have always looked like attacks to me. >This one was no different. The final paragraph about my attitude when >directing is a personal attack, whatever the reason for it. > >>All I can say on this particular incident is that I was not the only one who >>misunderstood what he was attempting to impart. I won't name names, but one >>told me in private that it was very easy to misread, saying, "Yes, it wasn't >>David's best effort." Another reported that he sat down and immediately >>composed a blistering reply, decided not to send it quite then, and later >>re-read David's note several times before he finally concluded, after some >>study, that David meant the opposite of what he originally thought, so he >>destroyed the reply before it was sent. > > So maybe it could have been better written. It occurs to me that I >have been warned that Americans do not understand sarcasm, and the last >twice I have put something sarcastic in it has been misunderstood. >However, I do not believe that others would have made the comments on my >directing. > >-- >David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > In Australia 9/1 to 29/2: I shall answer emails on return: if you want >to email me in Australia use *both* of the following or write me for >snail mail address: + From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 8 09:23:34 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA06371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 09:23:34 +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 JAA06363 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 09:21:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:18:18 -0800 Message-ID: <013c01bf595d$0ffe0700$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <011a01bf580b$4058a8e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com><200001041817.NAA04130@cfa183.harvard.edu><002a01bf5754$bf838480$162fd2cc@san.rr.com><011a01bf580b$4058a8e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com><3.0.1.32.20000107082959.006fd564@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.20000107150138.008b8330@mail.maine.rr.com> Subject: Re: Tournament formats Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:17:20 -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 Tim Goodwin wrote: Marvin L. French wrote: > >I don't remember that. Perhaps it was just not done out here, in the Western > >U. S. Currently the ACBL does practice this partial switch of directions in > >a one-section two-session event. Only half the pairs switch direction after > >the first session. > > Isn't there a movement where a mitchell is played in the first session and > some sort of howell is played in the second session which results in a > complete round robin for an event such as this? Why wouldn't it be standard? > It should be, but would be improved by arrow-switching a couple of rounds, John Probst told me once. In my first Open Pairs at the prestigious Bridge Week regional in Los Angeles, 1951, held in the Elks Temple, the finals (just one section!) consisted of a straight Mitchell in the first session and a guide card one-winner movement of some sort in the second session that had same-field pairs meeting to complete a near round-robin.. Comparative novices Bill Chapman and I led after the first qualifying session, barely qualified, were second going into the final session, and ended nowhere. Too much between-session celebrating! Participants included Lew Mathe, Eddie Taylor, Meyer Schleifer, Mary Jane and Arnold Kauder, Stella Rebner, Dr. Edward Frischauer, Helen and Morris Portugal, all "Leading Bridge Personalities" in the ACBL Official Encyclopedia of Bridge. What a game! Players who did not understand the need for them, becoming a majority after a while, did not like guide cards. The movement was hectic with players moving all over the place, mandatory stationery pairs had to be accommodated, and TDs hated the whole idea. NABCs used the Web movement for a while, in which players move as in a Mitchell. It was a two-winner movement with overall scoring, not correct, but had the benefit that players in an 18-table section did not miss any boards. Other methods used in those days for the last session of finals were various forms of Howells and Scrambled Mitchells. Arrow-switch games were usually done incorrectly in lesser events, with one arrow-switch at the halfway mark. All these went out of fashion, or became unsuitable for very large games, and the straight Mitchell rules in the ACBL today. There is little reason not to have arrow switches, however. Since straight Mitchell with no mixing of the two fields are two-winner games that should not have overall ranking, there has been some talk of having two rankings, one for each field, but it seems to have fizzled out. I'm working on an idea called "Knockout Pairs," in which the huge attendance at important six-session NABC pair championships is whittled down more drastically, with pairs knocked out after each of the four qualifying sessions. The finalists play the same hands (hands, not boards) against the same opponents, play every board, and compare every result with all other finalists, over two sessions. How does that sound? Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 8 09:28:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA06388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 09:28:38 +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 JAA06383 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 09:28:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:28:22 -0800 Message-ID: <014201bf595e$776d1a60$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <00f001bf5941$545583e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com><011a01bf580b$4058a8e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com><200001041817.NAA04130@cfa183.harvard.edu><002a01bf5754$bf838480$162fd2cc@san.rr.com><011a01bf580b$4058a8e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com><3.0.1.32.20000107082959.006fd564@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Tournament formats Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:25:45 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > > >Isn't there a movement where a mitchell is played in the first session and > >some sort of howell is played in the second session which results in a > >complete round robin for an event such as this? Why wouldn't it be standard? > > One problem with this movement is that it runs into problems if pairs > withdraw or play only one session. It can be used in events in which this > is unlikely. > > For example, when I played in the non-LM Pairs, the final had 13 tables, > and we used this movement to play 25 rounds of two boards, one against each > opposing pair. > > In a game with more than one section, the usual procedure of switching > sections gives everyone a chance to play against different opponents. > A much more important factor is that pairs compare results with as many other pairs as possible. After all, a pair's real opponents are sitting in the same direction, holding the same hands. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 8 09:58:55 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA06447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 09:58:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns2.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.3] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA06441 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 09:58:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:58:30 -0800 Message-ID: <014d01bf5962$ad002c40$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200001071927.OAA07060@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Tournament formats Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:51:10 -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 Steve Willner wrote: Marv French wrote: > > Partial switching should apply in multiple-section play-through games also. > > Switching directions doesn't have to be that complicated most of the time, > > with across-the-field matchpointing, since you can usually move an entire > > line intact instead of breaking it up. > > I claim it would be better to break it up, though. If Meckwell happen > to sit in my line in the first session, do I have to have them there in > the second session too? It would be nice to have a chance for section > top in at least one of the sessions! I agree with that, but currently the ACBL does not usually give section awards with ATF matchpointing, although ACBLScore has that option. Instead, session awards for N-S and E-W are also based on ATF. ACBL TD Matt Smith (a new BLMLer) feels that section awards are inappropriate with ATF matchpointing. I agree, but most players seem to prefer section awards. > > My own pet theory is that the field should be seeded for each session > after the first on the basis of results up to that time. Computers > ought to be able to do that pretty easily, although I wouldn't like to > do it by hand. Insufficient data, but probably better than seeding by masterpoint holdings. Most ACBL TDs seed good players by using their own judgment, and this seems to work very well. I believe the NABCs use "specialists" who are good at this task. However, the weaker players are generally unknown, and not seeded even if they are. Current scores could be used as a basis for seeding them. As I remember, both methods are used in the finals of important NABC pair events, with the additional concern that players who have met in the qualifying rounds should not meet in the finals, whenever that is feasible. You don't have to play against Meckwell twice. > > > First session scores are fully carried > > over to the second session, of course. > > Isn't it an improvement to carry over the difference between each > pair's score and that of the lowest qualifier _in their field_? > An alternative would be to assign arbitrary carryovers, e.g. 10 > MP for the top qualifier, 9 MP for the second, etc. (I've invented > these numbers; they are probably pretty silly, but a little study > could produce some sensible ones. This is an application of "non- > parametric statistics.") Maybe when going from qualifying to finals, which I suspect is what you mean. I don't see why every board in each of two qualifying sessions should not have equal weight. With four qualifying sessions--two initial sessions, plus two more with fewer players--carryover into the second stage is an interesting problem. You want to give less weight to the first two sessions because there is more randomness created by the weaker players. The carryover is calculated as follows in ACBL events: carryover = (MxQFDxAxB) / (ExS), where M = number of matchpoints scored in the qualifying round(s) QFD = square of the number of pairs to be accommodated in the finals A = average on a board in the finals B = number of boards played in the qualifying round(s) E = number of pairs in the event S = sum of all qualifying scores of the finalists If there is one qualifying session and one final, the answer is factored down, if necessary, so that the spread between the top and bottom qualifiers is no more than two boards' worth of matchpoints in the finals. That becomes three boards for one qualifying and two final sessions, and four boards for two qualifying and two final sessions. I do not know how this is done with four qualifying sessions. If the equation yields a lesser spread, that is used. Seems reasonable, but I am not qualifed to judge this method. I don't believe carryovers are appropriate when qualifiers come out of two unmixed Mitchell fields, which have essentially played in two different games. It appears that S sums scores from these two games, adding apples and oranges. M has the same problem. I do believe that the number of qualifying pairs should be inversely related to the dispersion of the qualifying scores, to the degree practicable. All this is out of my sphere. David Grabiner, are you there? Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 8 10:40:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA06527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 10:40:21 +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 KAA06522 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 10:40:13 +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 SAA05254 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 18:39:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA07379 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 18:40:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 18:40:11 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200001072340.SAA07379@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Tournament formats X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > I agree with that, but currently the ACBL does not usually give section > awards with ATF matchpointing, although ACBLScore has that option. Instead, > session awards for N-S and E-W are also based on ATF. ACBL TD Matt Smith (a > new BLMLer) feels that section awards are inappropriate with ATF > matchpointing. I agree, but most players seem to prefer section awards. I see no conflict between ATF scoring and section awards. If you really cared, you could have the computer calculate matchpoints only within a section for the section awards while keeping ATF for the event awards, but that seems silly to me. > > My own pet theory is that the field should be seeded for each session > > after the first on the basis of results up to that time. > Insufficient data, but probably better than seeding by masterpoint holdings. I don't know in what sense 'better', but my suggestion seems fair on its face. It is similar to seeding the lanes in a swimming final on the basis of the qualifying times. (The fastest qualifier gets lane 4, next fastest lane 3, next 5, etc., the middle lanes being considered most desirable.) If you wanted, you could vary +/- 1 seeding place to make sure nobody plays EW twice in a row. > Most ACBL TDs seed good players by using their own judgment, This is fine for the first session. After that, _results_ ought to count. It sounds as though the TD's are doing a good job in a somewhat informal way for major events, but why not automate the whole process and use it for every event? > Maybe when going from qualifying to finals, which I suspect is what you > mean. Yes. I agree that all boards should have equal weight at any given stage of an event. > The carryover is calculated as follows in ACBL events: > > carryover = (MxQFDxAxB) / (ExS), where > > M = number of matchpoints scored in the qualifying round(s) > QFD = square of the number of pairs to be accommodated in the finals > A = average on a board in the finals > B = number of boards played in the qualifying round(s) > E = number of pairs in the event > S = sum of all qualifying scores of the finalists This is an interesting formula, and it will take some thought to evaluate. (Any takers?) One thing that seems obvious is to calculate _separately_ for the two fields coming from a Mitchell. The relevant ratio seems to be M/S _for the particular field_, not for the whole event. As Marv keeps saying, the other line is irrelevant. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 8 11:36:11 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA06658 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 11:36:11 +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 LAA06653 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 11:36:03 +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 TAA02968; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 19:35:54 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <014d01bf5962$ad002c40$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: <200001071927.OAA07060@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 19:34:10 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Tournament formats Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 2:51 PM -0800 1/7/00, Marvin L. French wrote: >Maybe when going from qualifying to finals, which I suspect is what you >mean. I don't see why every board in each of two qualifying sessions should >not have equal weight. With four qualifying sessions--two initial sessions, >plus two more with fewer players--carryover into the second stage is an >interesting problem. You want to give less weight to the first two sessions >because there is more randomness created by the weaker players. But how much weight? >The carryover is calculated as follows in ACBL events: > >carryover = (MxQFDxAxB) / (ExS), where > >M = number of matchpoints scored in the qualifying round(s) >QFD = square of the number of pairs to be accommodated in the finals >A = average on a board in the finals >B = number of boards played in the qualifying round(s) >E = number of pairs in the event >S = sum of all qualifying scores of the finalists This formula is not statistically valid. Suppose that half the field qualifies, and the average on a board is the same in both sessions. Then sqrt(QFD)/E is .5, and sqrt(QFD)/S is the average score of a finalist, which is slightly larger than A*B since the finalists were above average. Thus (QFD*A*B)/(E*S) is slightly less than .5; this is the number of final-round matchpoints awarded for a first-round matchpoint. This is too low a factor. Qualifiers presumably earned half of their scores against other qualifiers; therefore, if the results against non-qualifiers were completely thrown out, the factor would be .5. However, it is consistent with the competitive goal; in almost all forms of competition, the final rounds count more. >If there is one qualifying session and one final, the answer is factored >down, if necessary, so that the spread between the top and bottom qualifiers >is no more than two boards' worth of matchpoints in the finals. That becomes >three boards for one qualifying and two final sessions, and four boards for >two qualifying and two final sessions. This makes no statistical sense, and causes problems with intermediate scores. If the lowest qualifier is average and the second-place qualifier is four boards above average, the margin the lowest qualifier needs to make up to finish second should not depend on whether the top qualifier is four or five above average. Instead, the second-place qualifier loses some of its advantage when the qualifying range is reduced to two boards. The purpose is clear, though; by limiting the top-to-bottom spread, the ACBL can reduce the chance that a pair will qualify with no realistic chance of placing. >If the equation yields a lesser spread, that is used. Seems reasonable, but >I am not qualifed to judge this method. I don't believe carryovers are >appropriate when qualifiers come out of two unmixed Mitchell fields, which >have essentially played in two different games. The real problem is with qualifying from two unmixed fields; it can be easier to qualify N-S than to qualify E-W. If this happens, there is no way to give the E-W pairs a higher carryover, or even to determine that they deserve one. (If you have large fields scored across the field, the effect essentially disappears.) >It appears that S sums >scores from these two games, adding apples and oranges. M has the same >problem. This is a relatively small effect, though; if you want to reward pairs for playing well when they have already qualified, the error should be fairly small. >I do believe that the number of qualifying pairs should be inversely related >to the dispersion of the qualifying scores, to the degree practicable. I don't understand this point. It is better to qualify a fixed percentage than a fixed score; if you want to qualify only a small part of the field, then it isn't fair to qualify more N-S pairs than E-W pairs because 32 N-S pairs and only 20 E-W pairs scored over 55%. But I don't see any reason to go by inverse dispersion, and qualify 20 N-S pairs and 32 E-W pairs. >All this is out of my sphere. David Grabiner, are you there? Yes, but I can only give statistical conclusions, and these conclusions depend too much on my model. Is there more variance in the ability to play against good pairs than in the ability to play against weak pairs? How much more variance? I would need to see some data. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 8 12:17:35 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA06750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 12:17:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA06745 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 12:17:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-58-212-88.s342.tnt1.lnhdc.md.dialup.rcn.com ([208.58.212.88] helo=hdavis) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #3) id 126kUp-000204-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 20:16:48 -0500 Message-ID: <008901bf5975$fe4bf620$58d43ad0@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <1.5.4.32.20000107144112.006ef70c@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Correction attempt of insufficient bid Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 20:16:24 -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, January 07, 2000 10:43 AM Subject: Re: Correction attempt of insufficient bid > Henry Sun wrote: > >At 01:05 PM 1/7/00 +0100, you wrote: > >>Consider the following auction: > >> > >> W N E S > >>1D p 1C > >> 1H 1S > >> > >> > >>East makes an insufficient bid. When North notices this, > >>East tries to correct with 1H. South bids 1S. Only now > >>the TD is called. Apart from having a talk with the table > >>about calling the TD in time, how do you rule? > > > >my understanding of the laws suggests that (1) south's 1s > >call condones east's 1h call, so that the auction proceeds > >normally and (2) east has passed ui to west by virtue of the > >insufficient 1c call, so that subsequent penalties against > >ew may occur, and (3) certainly lead penalties against west, > >should south declare some number of spades, would be in > >force. > > RTFLB. > > LAW 27 - INSUFFICIENT BID > > A. Insufficient Bid Accepted > Any insufficient bid may be accepted > (treated as legal) at the option of > offender's LHO. It is accepted if that > player calls. > > The 1S bid has accepted the 1C bid - not the 1H bid. By accepting it > South has forfeited Lead Penalties. > This would be true if S had summoned the TD before calling. The TD would have offered the option of accepting 1C. As it is, there was a 1H call on the table when S called 1S. > What about the 1H bid? > > B. Insufficient Bid Not Accepted > If an insufficient bid made in rotation > is not accepted, it must be corrected by > the substitution of either a sufficient > bid or a pass. > > There is no such thing as accepting it with another insufficient bid. > Is that ambiguous? Probably - there was a long debate on BLML about it. > However the WBFLC promulgated an interpretation on it: > Both the correction and the acceptance were sufficient, so I'm not sure how this applies. > 8: Footnote to Law 25B1. > Where an insufficient bid is prematurely > substituted the premature correction is > cancelled by the tournament director who > then applies Law 27A to allow the LHO, > if he so wishes, to accept the original > insufficient bid. If he does not do so, > the Tournament Director explains his > options to the offender and allows him > to select his action, applying Law 27B. > > http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/law_llle.htm > Exactly, if the TD is called at the time of the premature correction. L25B1 gives LHO the option of accepting the substituted call, and the footnote makes it clear that LHO also has the option of accepting the original call at that point. However, the TD was not called at that point, but rather after S had already made his next call. This situation is covered in L25B1 itself, which reads: "B. Delayed or Purposeful Correction Until LHO calls, a call may be substituted when Section A [immediate correction of inadvertent call, HD] does not apply: 1. Substitute Call Condoned The substituted call may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender's LHO ; then, the second call stands and the auction proceeds without penalty. If offender's LHO has called before attention is drawn to the infraction and the Director determines that LHO intended his call to apply over the offender's original call at that turn, offender's substituted call stands without penalty, and LHO may withdraw his call without penalty (but see Law 16C2)." > Since the 1H was made and then withdrawn L16C applies: it is UI to the > player's partner. > > Since LHO has called, the footnote does not apply. The 1S call condones the 1H call. The 1H call cannot be withdrawn at this point, and consequently is not UI. Since S made the 1S call after attention was drawn to the infraction, S no longer has the option of changing his call. Note that even if attention had not been drawn to the infraction before the 1S call, the 1H call would still stand once LHO had called. The 1C call is UI to W. > > Note that if Lead Penalties had applied they would have applied > whether North or South became declarer. > Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 8 12:19:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA06768 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 12:19:26 +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 MAA06763 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 12:19:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 17:19:09 -0800 Message-ID: <016801bf5976$521b5840$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <004c01bf5956$baff0d40$9784d9ce@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 17:11:43 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: (snip of good stuff) > > I must assure you, though, that Americans are no strangers to sarcasm and > that we are in no way humourless creatures. We are in some cases walking > proof that the folk on both sides of the Atlantic pond are indeed two > nations separated by a common language. I can only imagine the confusion > some of our less clear posts must pose to those who must deal with English > as a foreign language. > David Stevenson wrote: > > > So maybe it could have been better written. It occurs to me that I > >have been warned that Americans do not understand sarcasm, and the last > >twice I have put something sarcastic in it has been misunderstood. When writers are not good at communicating sarcasm in print, as I understand is true of the British, they should include a smiley or two. Actually sarcasm is objectionable basically, since it is usually nasty, harsh, bitter, while facetiousness is acceptable if written in a way that makes its playfulness obvious. :)) Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 8 12:30:29 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA06808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 12:30:29 +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 MAA06800 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 12:30:20 +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 126khi-000EAH-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 01:30:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 01:06:03 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Correction attempt of insufficient bid References: <1.5.4.32.20000107144112.006ef70c@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: This was a fairly stupid post. Oh well, try again! >Henry Sun wrote: >>At 01:05 PM 1/7/00 +0100, you wrote: >>>Consider the following auction: >>> >>> W N E S >>>1D p 1C >>> 1H 1S >>> >>> >>>East makes an insufficient bid. When North notices this, >>>East tries to correct with 1H. South bids 1S. Only now >>>the TD is called. Apart from having a talk with the table >>>about calling the TD in time, how do you rule? >> >>my understanding of the laws suggests that (1) south's 1s >>call condones east's 1h call, so that the auction proceeds >>normally and (2) east has passed ui to west by virtue of the >>insufficient 1c call, so that subsequent penalties against >>ew may occur, and (3) certainly lead penalties against west, >>should south declare some number of spades, would be in >>force. > > RTFLB. > >LAW 27 - INSUFFICIENT BID > >A. Insufficient Bid Accepted > Any insufficient bid may be accepted > (treated as legal) at the option of > offender's LHO. It is accepted if that > player calls. > > The 1S bid has accepted the 1C bid - not the 1H bid. By accepting it >South has forfeited Lead Penalties. OK so far. > What about the 1H bid? > >B. Insufficient Bid Not Accepted > If an insufficient bid made in rotation > is not accepted, it must be corrected by > the substitution of either a sufficient > bid or a pass. > > There is no such thing as accepting it with another insufficient bid. >Is that ambiguous? Probably - there was a long debate on BLML about it. This is the silly bit, since I thought 1H was insufficient! However, the next bit still applies: >However the WBFLC promulgated an interpretation on it: > >8: Footnote to Law 25B1. > Where an insufficient bid is prematurely > substituted the premature correction is > cancelled by the tournament director who > then applies Law 27A to allow the LHO, > if he so wishes, to accept the original > insufficient bid. If he does not do so, > the Tournament Director explains his > options to the offender and allows him > to select his action, applying Law 27B. So the 1H is cancelled, whether it is insufficient or not. > http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/law_llle.htm > > Since the 1H was made and then withdrawn L16C applies: it is UI to the >player's partner. That's fine. > Note that if Lead Penalties had applied they would have applied >whether North or South became declarer. So's that. Actually, it was not that silly: I just missed the fact that 1H was sufficient, but it does not affect the ruling. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK In Australia 9/1 to 29/2: I shall answer emails on return: if you want to email me in Australia use *both* of the following or write me for snail mail address: + From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 8 12:30:33 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA06813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 12:30:33 +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 MAA06799 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 12:30:20 +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 126khi-000EAI-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 01:30:07 +0000 Message-ID: <5ZkeRMAe+od4Ew3T@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 01:15:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Correction attempt of insufficient bid References: <20000107170246.48443.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000107170246.48443.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: >>From: "Martin Sinot" >>Consider the following auction: >> >>W N E S >>1D p 1C >> 1H 1S >> >> >>East makes an insufficient bid. When North notices this, >>East tries to correct with 1H. South bids 1S. Only now >>the TD is called. Apart from having a talk with the table >>about calling the TD in time, how do you rule? > >With all the information I've got since (i.e. Henk's reply) I don't know. I >know what I want to do (and what I will do at the table), I just don't know >whether I am allowed to do it. I do wish that they'd called me earlier and >asked to waive the penalties. At the table, what you do is RTFLB. There is no need for generosity in book rulings. >It seems there is a conflict in the Laws, and I don't know how to do >precedence. > >--- >L25: >B. Delayed or Purposeful Correction > Until LHO calls, a call may be substituted when Section A does not >apply: > 1. Substitute Call Condoned > The substituted call may be accepted (treated as legal) at the >option of offender's LHO[*]; then, the second call stands and the auction >proceeds without penalty. If offender's LHO has called before >attention is drawn to the infraction and the Director determines that LHO >intended his call to apply over the offender's original call at that turn, >offender's substituted call stands without penalty, and >LHO may withdraw his call without penalty (but see Law 16C2). > >and the footnote: >[*] When the original bid was insufficient, apply Law 27. This seems completely clear. If the original bid is insufficient, then you apply L27. In what way is it ambiguous? >So, the way I read it is that if the Director had been called when the >substitute call was made but before South called, we'd be in simple L27 >country. However, since South called before attention was called to the >*L25 irregularity* (the illegal substitution), I will apply the second >sentence, and ignore the first. Sorry, you can't. You have to follow the laws when there is no ambiguity, and L25B just does not apply when there is an insufficient bid. > If South intended 1S to apply over 1H, no >harm no foul, and away we go. No, sorry. You cannot invent Law. There is no way that 1H is accepted by 1S - see interpretations from Lille and other articles in this thread. > If not, 1S goes away, and South gets to go >ahead (with 1S, even, if she so wishes). > >Oh, and I would explain what all the players should have done... Good idea. >From what Henk has added to the situation, it looks like this ruling will be >both equitable, correct, and what the players wanted (south wanted to avoid >penalties). Given that EW were beginners, I would explain what should be >done very carefully, including letting "South" know that she could have >called the director and exercised her option under L72A3/L82C8. NS should >be lauded for not beating up on the beginners, but EW deserve the right to >learn what they did wrong - otherwise they will do it later, against people >who aren't as forgiving, and feel aggreived. I have very strong doubts about not applying book rulings to soi- disant beginners. Perhaps it depends what is meant by beginners - the ones I call beginners don't play with the big boys anyway. My view is that careful explanation, showing them the Law book, and being gentle about it, but ruling right, is better for them in the long run. >However, I'm not sure I'm allowed to go past the footnote to read the second >sentence. In that case, all hell breaks loose, and I desperately hope that >S knows about her right to ask me to waive the penalties. Why? What's wrong with the standard ruling? I don't understand this. The actual "penalty" is so incredibly mild here - why would you want them to waive penalties? The bidding has gone 1D - 1C 1S: what is the big deal? OK, the 1H bid is UI, but that is the sort of thing that we ignore for beginners - they are not using UI anyway. >I guess this time I *am* interested in what the CTDs and the Law-formers >have to say about this one. Pity so many of them are in >Australia/Bermuda... Oh? Which ones are in Australia? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK In Australia 9/1 to 29/2: I shall answer emails on return: if you want to email me in Australia use *both* of the following or write me for snail mail address: + From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 8 12:30:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA06819 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 12:30:40 +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 MAA06802 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 12:30:23 +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 126khq-000EAY-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 01:30:15 +0000 Message-ID: <3pEddEAdyod4Ew0m@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 01:02:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Correction attempt of insufficient bid References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >On Fri, 7 Jan 2000, Martin Sinot wrote: > >> Consider the following auction: >> >> W N E S >> 1D p 1C >> 1H 1S >> >> >> East makes an insufficient bid. When North notices this, >> East tries to correct with 1H. South bids 1S. Only now >> the TD is called. Apart from having a talk with the table >> about calling the TD in time, how do you rule? > >(This one has been copied from another list, in the original problem: >North was a student TD, EW were beginners, South decided to bid 1S in >order to get his opponents out of this awkward situation). > >The footnote to 25B tells you what to do if the original bid was >insufficient. 27 deals with the insufficient bid. If the TD had been >called at this point, it would have been simple. > >However, NS failed to call the TD after the infraction had been noticed >but instead continued to bid. This forfeits their right to penalize the >insufficient bid, so the auction continues as if it had started: >1D-P-1H-1S. No, it doesn't. It continues as though it has started 1D P 1C 1S. See many articles on the subject in BLML, and, more importantly, the WBFLC interpretation from Lille. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK In Australia 9/1 to 29/2: I shall answer emails on return: if you want to email me in Australia use *both* of the following or write me for snail mail address: + From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 8 15:05:22 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA07189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 15:05:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA07179 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 15:05:13 +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 126n7d-000ExG-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 04:05:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 03:42:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Tournament formats In-Reply-To: <00f001bf5941$545583e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <00f001bf5941$545583e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes snip > >Partial switching should apply in multiple-section play-through games also. >Switching directions doesn't have to be that complicated most of the time, >with across-the-field matchpointing, since you can usually move an entire >line intact instead of breaking it up. John Probst and I have corresponded >on the proper shifting of lines for various numbers of sections. Maybe John >will comment on this, along with the need for arrow-switching, since he >knows a lot more than I do about the subject. My own thoughts are that if you have a qualifier and then a final, it is better to use a two winner movement and qualify the top x pairs from each line. This requires one to seed (ideally) or have random draw for seats. If you have a play through then I think one needs to aim for there to be equal competition between all pairs and this is done by switching NS and EW lines, AND having arrow switches (the details for multi section are complex, I'm still working on it) > >Seeding permitting, you want to place pairs who must always be stationary in >lines that remain North-South. >> snip >> >Most players don't want to play E-W for two sessions, which is no doubt the >major reason. it's the only exercise I get :)) > >I feel that the current method, in which there are two separate fields that >remain intact with no arrow-switching, is correct for qualifying sessions, >or for play-through games in which it is recognized that there are two >winners, two second placers, etc. (as in the standard club game!). > >Let's assume a two-section (26 tables, boards preduplicated) four-session >championship, with two qualifying sessions and then a two-session final. For >the qualifying sessions, each carefully seeded line (everyone switching >directions after the first session), has played the same hands (hands, not >boards), has met the same opponents, and has compared results on every deal >with every other pair in their field. First session scores are fully carried >over to the second session, of course. Players are ranked within each field, >and the top 13 pairs in each qualify for the finals. One can hardly imagine >a fairer method. A pair that must remain stationary can be handled with a >side table when playing East-West, where N-S players must go (with the >boards) when meeting the pair. The only drawback (if it is one) is that >partial carryover of scores into the finals is inappropriate unless the >two-field two-winner format is to be retained. agree with this although one can do something by arrow switching more than 1/8 of the rounds to balance the effect of the carry-over. I'd need to think about it though. > >Mixing the two fields after the first session results in overall rankings. >Competing pairs have not played the same hands (hands, not boards), have >not met the same opponents, and have compared results on every board with >roughly half their competitors. A partial carryover of qualifying scores >becomes a little more logical, but overall I don't consider this method to >be as fair as the current ACBL method. It would become a bit more fair if >arrow-switching were employed, as evidently is the European practice. carry forward is ok if one equalises the competition between the two lines IMO > >What to do in the finals is another thread. > 13 table, 2 session final, best is a switched Mitchell (13 rounds, switch 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11), and a double Howell (details on request :)) There exists a perfectly balanced movement for 12 tables. 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 Jan 8 15:05:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA07190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 15:05:24 +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 PAA07178 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 15:05:13 +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 126n7d-0007i0-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 04:05:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 03:54:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Tournament formats In-Reply-To: <014d01bf5962$ad002c40$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <014d01bf5962$ad002c40$162fd2cc@san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes > >I agree with that, but currently the ACBL does not usually give section >awards with ATF matchpointing, although ACBLScore has that option. Instead, >session awards for N-S and E-W are also based on ATF. ACBL TD Matt Smith (a >new BLMLer) feels that section awards are inappropriate with ATF >matchpointing. I agree, but most players seem to prefer section awards. >> there's no problem if section awards are granted by using section scoring, and the overalls are awarded by ATF. You get some funny results like a pair not winning their section could be the overall winners :)) I often run "simultaneous" competitions between the different clubs I direct at on consecutive nights, where there is no cross-over of members and where the security aspect is adequate (eg Japanese Ladies Club, and the Acol Social duplicate). We award the prizes on the night on the section scores, but the winners overall and the master-points are awarded based on ATF scoring. This means I can give larger masterpoint awards. However I caused total consternation with the Japanese Ladies when the pair who came second in their club failed to make the master points ATF. It took a whole pre-game seminar (which I use to explain aspects of Law or whatever, once a month) to explain why this was so. 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 Jan 8 16:14:49 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA07354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 16:14:49 +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 QAA07348 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 16:14:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 21:14:33 -0800 Message-ID: <017d01bf5997$32dad840$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200001071927.OAA07060@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Tournament formats Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 21:08:22 -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 David Grabiner wrote: Marvin L. French wrote: > > >Maybe when going from qualifying to finals, which I suspect is what you > >mean. I don't see why every board in each of two qualifying sessions should > >not have equal weight. With four qualifying sessions--two initial sessions, > >plus two more with fewer players--carryover into the second stage is an > >interesting problem. You want to give less weight to the first two sessions > >because there is more randomness created by the weaker players. > > But how much weight? That is my question. Neither the Encyclopedia nor ACBL Tech Files deal with the 2-2-2 event, so far as I can tell. I suspect that the following equation is used for the first two qualifying sessions as well as the second two. > > >The carryover is calculated as follows in ACBL events: > > > >carryover = (MxQFDxAxB) / (ExS), where > > > >M = number of matchpoints scored in the qualifying round(s) > >QFD = square of the number of pairs to be accommodated in the finals > >A = average on a board in the finals > >B = number of boards played in the qualifying round(s) > >E = number of pairs in the event > >S = sum of all qualifying scores of the finalists > > This formula is not statistically valid. Suppose that half the field > qualifies, and the average on a board is the same in both sessions. Then > sqrt(QFD)/E is .5, and sqrt(QFD)/S is the average score of a finalist, > which is slightly larger than A*B since the finalists were above average. > Thus (QFD*A*B)/(E*S) is slightly less than .5; this is the number of > final-round matchpoints awarded for a first-round matchpoint. > > This is too low a factor. Qualifiers presumably earned half of their > scores against other qualifiers; therefore, if the results against > non-qualifiers were completely thrown out, the factor would be .5. > > However, it is consistent with the competitive goal; in almost all forms of > competition, the final rounds count more. A lot more. In the Superbowl, NBA Championship Series, and the World Series of Baseball, the final rounds are all that count. > > >If there is one qualifying session and one final, the answer is factored > >down, if necessary, so that the spread between the top and bottom qualifiers > >is no more than two boards' worth of matchpoints in the finals. That becomes > >three boards for one qualifying and two final sessions, and four boards for > >two qualifying and two final sessions. > > This makes no statistical sense, and causes problems with intermediate > scores. If the lowest qualifier is average and the second-place qualifier > is four boards above average, the margin the lowest qualifier needs to make > up to finish second should not depend on whether the top qualifier is four > or five above average. Instead, the second-place qualifier loses some of > its advantage when the qualifying range is reduced to two boards. > > The purpose is clear, though; by limiting the top-to-bottom spread, the > ACBL can reduce the chance that a pair will qualify with no realistic > chance of placing. Perhaps the answer is that they should not be qualified. > > >If the equation yields a lesser spread, that is used. Seems reasonable, but > >I am not qualifed to judge this method. I don't believe carryovers are > >appropriate when qualifiers come out of two unmixed Mitchell fields, which > >have essentially played in two different games. > > The real problem is with qualifying from two unmixed fields; it can be > easier to qualify N-S than to qualify E-W. If this happens, there is no > way to give the E-W pairs a higher carryover, or even to determine that > they deserve one. But I'm saying that unmixed fields should not carry over any of their scores when they get mixed in the finals. > > (If you have large fields scored across the field, the effect essentially > disappears.) > > >It appears that S sums > >scores from these two games, adding apples and oranges. M has the same > >problem. > > This is a relatively small effect, though; if you want to reward pairs for > playing well when they have already qualified, the error should be fairly > small. > > >I do believe that the number of qualifying pairs should be inversely related > >to the dispersion of the qualifying scores, to the degree practicable. > > I don't understand this point. It is better to qualify a fixed percentage > than a fixed score; if you want to qualify only a small part of the field, > then it isn't fair to qualify more N-S pairs than E-W pairs because 32 N-S > pairs and only 20 E-W pairs scored over 55%. But I don't see any reason to > go by inverse dispersion, and qualify 20 N-S pairs and 32 E-W pairs. I see that my idea would make more sense if the qualifying sessions were arrow-switched, so that ranking is overall instead of by separate fields. My thought was that if scores range from 30% to 70% with a normal distribution, that would indicate a high percentage of weak players who should not qualify, perhaps 60% of the field. If the scores range from 47% to 53%, then all pairs should qualify. How to put this into mathematical terms is beyond my capability, especially since the distribution is likely to be skewed. > > >All this is out of my sphere. David Grabiner, are you there? > > Yes, but I can only give statistical conclusions, and these conclusions > depend too much on my model. Is there more variance in the ability to play > against good pairs than in the ability to play against weak pairs? How > much more variance? I would need to see some data. Which is not available. We have to guess. I can remember drawing a curve through one data point when I was in the aerospace business. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 8 16:17:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA07372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 16:17:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA07367 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 16:17:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-58-212-88.s342.tnt1.lnhdc.md.dialup.rcn.com ([208.58.212.88] helo=hdavis) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #3) id 126oFU-0001LK-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 00:17:13 -0500 Message-ID: <001601bf5997$95b0f800$58d43ad0@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <1.5.4.32.20000107144112.006ef70c@mindspring.com> <008901bf5975$fe4bf620$58d43ad0@hdavis> Subject: Re: Correction attempt of insufficient bid Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 00:16:45 -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 On rereading my previous post, my analysis was wrong, and I agree with David Stevenson. The relevant footnote is one which was not originally quoted, which states "When the original bid was insufficient, apply Law 27". This footnote is applied before the second call is allowed to stand in Law 25B1. So IMO DWS is right, the auction is 1D-P-1C-1S, with the 1H call UI to W. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 8 16:34:56 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA07418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 16:34:56 +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 QAA07413 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 16:34:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 21:34:40 -0800 Message-ID: <018a01bf599a$0277bb20$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200001072340.SAA07379@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Tournament formats Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 21:33:49 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > I agree with that, but currently the ACBL does not usually give section > > awards with ATF matchpointing, although ACBLScore has that option. Instead, > > session awards for N-S and E-W are also based on ATF. ACBL TD Matt Smith (a > > new BLMLer) feels that section awards are inappropriate with ATF > > matchpointing. I agree, but most players seem to prefer section awards. > > I see no conflict between ATF scoring and section awards. I'm told that some players get miffed when they come third in section with 55% and see that a pair has won another section with the same score. Players also get miffed when they have the highest score in their section and don't see a 1 by their names. We have run two-section ATF matchpointing with section awards (based on ATF) for over a year now in the La Jolla and Beach Unit, without a single complaint. Prior to that we had plenty of complaints from players who saw that their score of 8 matchpoints on a board would have been 11 in the other section. Judging by a letter in the ACBL Bulletin, players get incensed when there is no section ranking with ATF. In short, ATF with section ranking is legal, ACBLScore includes that option, players get more points, and players like it. So what if it's a little illogical? > If you > really cared, you could have the computer calculate matchpoints only > within a section for the section awards while keeping ATF for the event > awards, but that seems silly to me. Yes, silly. No one has suggested that. It seems likely that more masterpoints are given out when sections are ranked separately, and it gives a mediocre pair a chance for a section top (gold points!) with something like 54%. > > > > My own pet theory is that the field should be seeded for each session > > > after the first on the basis of results up to that time. > > > Insufficient data, but probably better than seeding by masterpoint holdings. > > I don't know in what sense 'better', but my suggestion seems fair on > its face. It is similar to seeding the lanes in a swimming final on > the basis of the qualifying times. (The fastest qualifier gets lane 4, > next fastest lane 3, next 5, etc., the middle lanes being considered > most desirable.) If you wanted, you could vary +/- 1 seeding place to > make sure nobody plays EW twice in a row. I don't think this is a good analogy. Bridge score variance is much higher than that of swimming times, making one score a poor indicator. Too bad we don't have a player rating system that makes sense, so that seeding could be accomplished as in tennis. > > > Most ACBL TDs seed good players by using their own judgment, > > This is fine for the first session. After that, _results_ ought to > count. It sounds as though the TD's are doing a good job in a somewhat > informal way for major events, but why not automate the whole process > and use it for every event? The human brain can do some things much better than computers, and this is one of them. A knowledgeable seeder will easily outdo any computer program, at least when seeding the stronger pairs, most of whom they know well. That includes taking last-session scores into account, of course. > > Maybe when going from qualifying to finals, which I suspect is what you > > mean. > > Yes. I agree that all boards should have equal weight at any given > stage of an event. > > > The carryover is calculated as follows in ACBL events: > > > > carryover = (MxQFDxAxB) / (ExS), where > > > > M = number of matchpoints scored in the qualifying round(s) > > QFD = square of the number of pairs to be accommodated in the finals > > A = average on a board in the finals > > B = number of boards played in the qualifying round(s) > > E = number of pairs in the event > > S = sum of all qualifying scores of the finalists > > This is an interesting formula, and it will take some thought to > evaluate. (Any takers?) One thing that seems obvious is to calculate > _separately_ for the two fields coming from a Mitchell. The relevant > ratio seems to be M/S _for the particular field_, not for the whole > event. As Marv keeps saying, the other line is irrelevant. See David Grabiner's answer, which shows there are problems with calculating carryovers for two unmixed fields. My answer is: No carryover when two unmixed fields are mixed for the finals(s). For the carryover from the first two of four qualifying sessions into the second two, not mixing the two fields, I have no idea what would be appropriate. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 8 16:44:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA07462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 16:44:06 +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 QAA07457 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 16:44:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA19342 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 15:43:55 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 15:43:55 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Tournament formats In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 8 Jan 2000, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > carry forward is ok if one equalises the competition between the two > lines IMO > > > >What to do in the finals is another thread. > > > 13 table, 2 session final, best is a switched Mitchell (13 rounds, > switch 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11), and a double Howell (details on request :)) Surely only 12 rounds of the mitchell, otherwise you end up playing 26 rounds and meeting one pair again in the interwoven Howell. On second thoughts do you rally mean a double Howell? In that case everyone sits out once during the second session! > There exists a perfectly balanced movement for 12 tables. Yes, mind you the session length isn't always to everyone's liking then. Laurie (In Australia) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 9 02:41:18 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA09258 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 02:41:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe35.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.28]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA09253 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 02:41:09 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 73378 invoked by uid 65534); 8 Jan 2000 15:40:32 -0000 Message-ID: <20000108154032.73377.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.14.106] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <20000107170246.48443.qmail@hotmail.com> <5ZkeRMAe+od4Ew3T@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Correction attempt of insufficient bid Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 09:40:43 -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 Good stuff at the end When I first read this case I was concerned that the facts did not permit an accurate ruling. I have reread the facts and I still come to the same conclusion, even with the addition of the fact that it was the intention of the 1S bidder to condone the infraction [or infractions?] . And that is the crux of the matter. Was the 1S call made before or after 1H? The language [meaning of "tries"] on the matter is fuzzy. No ruling ought to be made without determining this fact. It would appear that 1S after condones both [partner is not barred, only restricted by UI]; and if before, 1H is an insufficient bid at his partner's turn. Before sending this off I have now read the case once more and I find the fact conclusive that 1S was made after 1H because of the auction diagram clearly shows it so. However, the situation is a bit stickier than I earlier presented. [at this point a fuzzy thought formed as follows:] There is an anomaly in L25B. L25B provides for when there is a 'correction' of an insufficient bid it is adjudicated in accordance with L27. The anomaly is that L27 covers when the IB was accepted and when it is not accepted; it does not cover when it is neither accepted nor not- as when the change was on the offender's own volition and not the 1S bidder's volition. It does not seem to be prudent to have an arrangement covering only two situations when in fact three situations are possible. So, now it happens that I find myself stuck within L27 with no [legal] way out. [end fuzzy thought, begin lifting the murkiness by RTFLB as follows:] According to L27A, by bidding 1S after the insufficient call of 1C the only possible conclusion is that 1C is accepted as legal, irrespective that there was a subsequent call before the acceptance. 1C is no longer insufficient, therefore 1H now is a change of call subject to L25B, but not subject to its footnote referring to L27. Since 1S was subsequent to 1H, it condones as legal without lead penalties. However, LHO having bid before attention was drawn to the change, may substitute a call if his 1S was not intended over 1H. The withdrawn 1C is UI to the OS. Cheers ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Friday, January 07, 2000 7:15 PM Subject: Re: Correction attempt of insufficient bid > Michael Farebrother wrote: > >>From: "Martin Sinot" > >>Consider the following auction: > >> > >>W N E S > >>1D p 1C > >> 1H 1S > >> > >> > >>East makes an insufficient bid. When North notices this, > >>East tries to correct with 1H. South bids 1S. Only now > >>the TD is called. Apart from having a talk with the table > >>about calling the TD in time, how do you rule? > > > >With all the information I've got since (i.e. Henk's reply) I don't know. I > >know what I want to do (and what I will do at the table), I just don't know > >whether I am allowed to do it. I do wish that they'd called me earlier and > >asked to waive the penalties. > > At the table, what you do is RTFLB. There is no need for generosity > in book rulings. > > >It seems there is a conflict in the Laws, and I don't know how to do > >precedence. > > > >--- > >L25: > >B. Delayed or Purposeful Correction > > Until LHO calls, a call may be substituted when Section A does not > >apply: > > 1. Substitute Call Condoned > > The substituted call may be accepted (treated as legal) at the > >option of offender's LHO[*]; then, the second call stands and the auction > >proceeds without penalty. If offender's LHO has called before > >attention is drawn to the infraction and the Director determines that LHO > >intended his call to apply over the offender's original call at that turn, > >offender's substituted call stands without penalty, and > >LHO may withdraw his call without penalty (but see Law 16C2). > > > >and the footnote: > >[*] When the original bid was insufficient, apply Law 27. > > This seems completely clear. If the original bid is insufficient, > then you apply L27. In what way is it ambiguous? > > >So, the way I read it is that if the Director had been called when the > >substitute call was made but before South called, we'd be in simple L27 > >country. However, since South called before attention was called to the > >*L25 irregularity* (the illegal substitution), I will apply the second > >sentence, and ignore the first. > > Sorry, you can't. You have to follow the laws when there is no > ambiguity, and L25B just does not apply when there is an insufficient > bid. > > > If South intended 1S to apply over 1H, no > >harm no foul, and away we go. > > No, sorry. You cannot invent Law. There is no way that 1H is > accepted by 1S - see interpretations from Lille and other articles in > this thread. > > > If not, 1S goes away, and South gets to go > >ahead (with 1S, even, if she so wishes). > > > >Oh, and I would explain what all the players should have done... > > Good idea. > > >From what Henk has added to the situation, it looks like this ruling will be > >both equitable, correct, and what the players wanted (south wanted to avoid > >penalties). Given that EW were beginners, I would explain what should be > >done very carefully, including letting "South" know that she could have > >called the director and exercised her option under L72A3/L82C8. NS should > >be lauded for not beating up on the beginners, but EW deserve the right to > >learn what they did wrong - otherwise they will do it later, against people > >who aren't as forgiving, and feel aggreived. > > I have very strong doubts about not applying book rulings to soi- > disant beginners. Perhaps it depends what is meant by beginners - the > ones I call beginners don't play with the big boys anyway. My view is > that careful explanation, showing them the Law book, and being gentle > about it, but ruling right, is better for them in the long run. > > >However, I'm not sure I'm allowed to go past the footnote to read the second > >sentence. In that case, all hell breaks loose, and I desperately hope that > >S knows about her right to ask me to waive the penalties. > > Why? What's wrong with the standard ruling? > > I don't understand this. The actual "penalty" is so incredibly mild > here - why would you want them to waive penalties? The bidding has gone > 1D - 1C 1S: what is the big deal? OK, the 1H bid is UI, but that is the > sort of thing that we ignore for beginners - they are not using UI > anyway. > > >I guess this time I *am* interested in what the CTDs and the Law-formers > >have to say about this one. Pity so many of them are in > >Australia/Bermuda... > > Oh? Which ones are in Australia? > > -- > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > In Australia 9/1 to 29/2: I shall answer emails on return: if you want > to email me in Australia use *both* of the following or write me for > snail mail address: + > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 9 05:08:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA09731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 05:08:18 +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 FAA09724 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 05:08:09 +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 1270HO-000PlS-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 18:08:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 02:06:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Correction attempt of insufficient bid References: <1.5.4.32.20000107144112.006ef70c@mindspring.com> <008901bf5975$fe4bf620$58d43ad0@hdavis> In-Reply-To: <008901bf5975$fe4bf620$58d43ad0@hdavis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: >Exactly, if the TD is called at the time of the premature correction. >L25B1 gives LHO the option of accepting the substituted call, and the >footnote makes it clear that LHO also has the option of accepting the >original call at that point. However, the TD was not called at that >point, but rather after S had already made his next call. This >situation is covered in L25B1 itself, which reads: > >"B. Delayed or Purposeful Correction >Until LHO calls, a call may be substituted when Section A [immediate >correction of inadvertent call, HD] does not apply: >1. Substitute Call Condoned >The substituted call may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of >offender's LHO ; then, the second call stands and the auction proceeds >without penalty. If offender's LHO has called before attention is drawn >to the infraction and the Director determines that LHO intended his call >to apply over the offender's original call at that turn, offender's >substituted call stands without penalty, and LHO may withdraw his call >without penalty (but see Law 16C2)." No. The footnote to L25B makes it clear that it does not apply to insufficient bids. It matters not whether the TD is called or not: it just does not apply. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK In Australia 9/1 to 29/2: I shall answer emails on return: if you want to email me in Australia use *both* of the following or write me for snail mail address: + From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 9 05:08:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA09741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 05:08:28 +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 FAA09730 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 05:08:16 +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 1270HP-000PlR-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 18:08:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 02:00:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Tournament formats References: <200001071927.OAA07060@cfa183.harvard.edu> <014d01bf5962$ad002c40$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <014d01bf5962$ad002c40$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >The carryover is calculated as follows in ACBL events: > >carryover = (MxQFDxAxB) / (ExS), where > >M = number of matchpoints scored in the qualifying round(s) >QFD = square of the number of pairs to be accommodated in the finals >A = average on a board in the finals >B = number of boards played in the qualifying round(s) >E = number of pairs in the event >S = sum of all qualifying scores of the finalists The EBU formula is: Carryover = S x F x A / 2 / Q / B For clarity, it is expressed this way [if this is not clear to you then you are using proportional fonts]: Carryover = S x F x A ----- - 2 x Q B S = the qualifying score obtained by the contestant F = maximum score obtainable in the final Q = maximum score obtainable in the qualifying stage A = number of boards played in the qualifier B = number of boards to be played in the final The effect is that the final carries twice as much weight as the previous qualifying stage, if the two stages were otherwise of equal duration. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK In Australia 9/1 to 29/2: I shall answer emails on return: if you want to email me in Australia use *both* of the following or write me for snail mail address: + From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 9 05:08:22 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA09736 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 05:08:22 +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 FAA09728 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 05:08:14 +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 1270HT-000Cpx-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 18:08:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 01:50:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Tournament formats References: <00f001bf5941$545583e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <011a01bf580b$4058a8e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <200001041817.NAA04130@cfa183.harvard.edu> <002a01bf5754$bf838480$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <011a01bf580b$4058a8e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.20000107082959.006fd564@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.20000107150138.008b8330@mail.maine.rr.com> <4.2.0.58.20000107144749.009ae100@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20000107144749.009ae100@mail.earthlink.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Brian Baresch wrote: > >>Isn't there a movement where a mitchell is played in the first session and >>some sort of howell is played in the second session which results in a >>complete round robin for an event such as this? Why wouldn't it be standard? Another normal movement in England if you have the right number of pairs. There are lots of all-play-all movements, presumably in Manning's book. >Possibly because it's a bit of a challenge, at least using ACBLScore or for >certain field sizes. In the North American Pairs District 15 final a few >months ago there weren't enough flight C pairs to constitute a separate >section (I think they want 6 tables, or maybe it's 5, for a separate >flight; there were actually 4 in C, plus 9 in B), so we played a 13-table >Mitchell the first session and a 13-table Howell the second. Rick Beye, who >was running the show, told me it took him an hour to tweak the >second-session movement to maximize the round-robin aspect. I suspect it >wasn't possible to do it perfectly -- there was one pair we didn't face >either session. ??????? This sounds easy to me, and I am not an expert on movements. Play a 13-table Mitchell, but don't let NS pairs play against EW pairs of the same number, ie 12 rounds. Arrow-switch the last two rounds, of course. Then you play two 7 table Full Howells, with the stationary pairs missing: when pairs reach the stationary table they play against the equivalent pair in the other Howell [whom they missed in the first session]. Seems simple enough. >If memory serves, Rick also said that if he'd had time beforehand he'd have >run it as a two-session Howell (the details escape me). That sounds inferior. >As an aside, that event had one of those endings you read about -- the top >two pairs were at the same table in the last round (although of course we >didn't know it at the time and both pairs were going to qualify anyway), so >those two boards determined first and second place. We play Swiss Pairs a lot in England/Wales, so these finishes are normal enough. In some cases we match one-round in arrears, and playing one of those, it was still [by coincidence] 1st v 2nd in the last round. I was playing with a client against Heather Dhondy and David Parry. We needed 12-8 to win, and I thought I had blown it when I failed to take a vulnerable 1NT two off: true, my pard should have got it right, but it was still my fault: he was a client. We were standing chatting to our opponents at the end, and the results were posted. Heather went off to look at them, and came back and said "Sorry" to us. Oh well, there's always another tourney. Soon after, her husband Jeremy came along and asked how we had done. Heather told him, so he went and had a look at the results. He came back, and said to Heather "I think you should go and have another look." She came back and said "We were N/S, weren't we? It was you who won 13-7, not us". Two years later I won the event with Jeremy Dhondy and next year I reached table one of the same competition [1st v 2nd from a match-in-arrears] with Heather but we finished about thirteenth. Sadly, this was an event like the one being described in this thread, and the Swiss Pairs was for non-qualifiers for the Final!!!!!! >I've seen Mitchell-then-Howell movements described in one of my directing >books but haven't looked closely, and the book is not at hand. Anyone else? Standard movements here. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK In Australia 9/1 to 29/2: I shall answer emails on return: if you want to email me in Australia use *both* of the following or write me for snail mail address: + From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 9 06:55:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA10096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 06:55:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA10090 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 06:55:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.181] (dhcp165-181.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.181]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA08088; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 14:55:00 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <014d01bf5962$ad002c40$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <200001071927.OAA07060@cfa183.harvard.edu> <014d01bf5962$ad002c40$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 14:43:32 -0500 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Tournament formats Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 2:00 AM +0000 1/8/00, David Stevenson wrote: >Marvin L. French wrote: > >>The carryover is calculated as follows in ACBL events: >> >>carryover = (MxQFDxAxB) / (ExS), where >> >>M = number of matchpoints scored in the qualifying round(s) >>QFD = square of the number of pairs to be accommodated in the finals >>A = average on a board in the finals >>B = number of boards played in the qualifying round(s) >>E = number of pairs in the event >>S = sum of all qualifying scores of the finalists > > The EBU formula is: > >Carryover = S x F x A / 2 / Q / B > > For clarity, it is expressed this way [if this is not clear to you >then you are using proportional fonts]: > >Carryover = S x F x A > ----- - > 2 x Q B > >S = the qualifying score obtained by the contestant >F = maximum score obtainable in the final >Q = maximum score obtainable in the qualifying stage >A = number of boards played in the qualifier >B = number of boards to be played in the final > > The effect is that the final carries twice as much weight as the >previous qualifying stage, if the two stages were otherwise of equal >duration. It is interesting that this formula is independent of the field size. The ACBL formula multiplies the weight of the qualifying session by the fraction of the field which qualified. Do most EBU events qualify half the field? From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 9 10:06:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA10594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 10:06:17 +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 KAA10589 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 10:06:09 +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 1274vo-000CLZ-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 23:06:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 23:04:27 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Tournament formats References: <014d01bf5962$ad002c40$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <200001071927.OAA07060@cfa183.harvard.edu> <014d01bf5962$ad002c40$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David J. Grabiner wrote: >At 2:00 AM +0000 1/8/00, David Stevenson wrote: >>Marvin L. French wrote: >> >>>The carryover is calculated as follows in ACBL events: >>> >>>carryover = (MxQFDxAxB) / (ExS), where >>> >>>M = number of matchpoints scored in the qualifying round(s) >>>QFD = square of the number of pairs to be accommodated in the finals >>>A = average on a board in the finals >>>B = number of boards played in the qualifying round(s) >>>E = number of pairs in the event >>>S = sum of all qualifying scores of the finalists >> >> The EBU formula is: >> >>Carryover = S x F x A / 2 / Q / B >> >> For clarity, it is expressed this way [if this is not clear to you >>then you are using proportional fonts]: >> >>Carryover = S x F x A >> ----- - >> 2 x Q B >> >>S = the qualifying score obtained by the contestant >>F = maximum score obtainable in the final >>Q = maximum score obtainable in the qualifying stage >>A = number of boards played in the qualifier >>B = number of boards to be played in the final >> >> The effect is that the final carries twice as much weight as the >>previous qualifying stage, if the two stages were otherwise of equal >>duration. > >It is interesting that this formula is independent of the field size. The >ACBL formula multiplies the weight of the qualifying session by the >fraction of the field which qualified. Do most EBU events qualify half the >field? No, but the maximum score is a function of the field size, n'est-ce pas? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK In Australia 9/1 to 29/2: I shall answer emails on return: if you want to email me in Australia use *both* of the following or write me for snail mail address: + From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 9 10:47:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA10863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 10:47:11 +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 KAA10858 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 10:47:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (p025.supa1-tsv.ultra.net.au [202.80.71.25]) by ultra.ultra.net.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA08113 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 09:46:59 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000109091424.008c48f0@mail.ultra.net.au> X-Sender: suelaing@mail.ultra.net.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2000 09:14:24 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Laurie Kelso Subject: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The following announcement appeared in the first Daily Bulletin from Bermuda: "Appeals Committee Information As part of its arrangements under Law 80G the Appeals Committee requires the Chief Director of his own volition, as a preliminary in the appeals process, to consider whether an adjustment in accordance with the provisions of Law 12C3 would be appropriate. If so, in pursuance of the terms of the WBF Code of Practice he is authorized to make such an adjustment before the players are given the ruling in order to achieve equity as he judges it. Such a score adjustment may be appealed to the Appeals Committee on the same basis as an appeal of any other ruling, but the fact that a judgemental ruling by the Director is made with these enhanced powers, and after consultation with colleagues and expert opinion, means that Appeals committees will require strong evidence that puts it beyond reasonable doubt a ruling should be varied." Laurie (In Australia) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 9 11:24:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA11003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 11:24:22 +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 LAA10998 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 11:24:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.181] (dhcp165-181.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.181]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA05147; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 19:24:04 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <014d01bf5962$ad002c40$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <200001071927.OAA07060@cfa183.harvard.edu> <014d01bf5962$ad002c40$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 19:11:05 -0500 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Tournament formats Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:04 PM +0000 1/8/00, David Stevenson wrote: >David J. Grabiner wrote: >>At 2:00 AM +0000 1/8/00, David Stevenson wrote: >>> The EBU formula is: >>> >>>Carryover = S x F x A / 2 / Q / B >>> >>> For clarity, it is expressed this way [if this is not clear to you >>>then you are using proportional fonts]: >>> >>>Carryover = S x F x A >>> ----- - >>> 2 x Q B >>> >>>S = the qualifying score obtained by the contestant >>>F = maximum score obtainable in the final >>>Q = maximum score obtainable in the qualifying stage >>>A = number of boards played in the qualifier >>>B = number of boards to be played in the final >>> >>> The effect is that the final carries twice as much weight as the >>>previous qualifying stage, if the two stages were otherwise of equal >>>duration. >> >>It is interesting that this formula is independent of the field size. The >>ACBL formula multiplies the weight of the qualifying session by the >>fraction of the field which qualified. Do most EBU events qualify half the >>field? > No, but the maximum score is a function of the field size, n'est-ce >pas? The maximum score depends on the field size, but the relative importance does not depend on the field size. If the final and qualifier are of the same length, then a pair which leads the field by two boards after qualifying will lead the field by one board in carryover, whether half or 1/4 of the original pairs qualify. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 9 12:19:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 12:19:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA11341 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 12:19:13 +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 12770a-000C15-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 01:19:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 01:06:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Tournament formats In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Laurie Kelso writes > >On Sat, 8 Jan 2000, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >> carry forward is ok if one equalises the competition between the two >> lines IMO >> > >> >What to do in the finals is another thread. >> > >> 13 table, 2 session final, best is a switched Mitchell (13 rounds, >> switch 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11), and a double Howell (details on request :)) > >Surely only 12 rounds of the mitchell, otherwise you end up playing 26 >rounds and meeting one pair again in the interwoven Howell. > >On second thoughts do you rally mean a double Howell? Yep >In that case >everyone sits out once during the second session! Not necessarily, as the two "sitting out" pairs play each other (and so the Howell is 13 rounds long and the Mitchell only 12). You play the pair you didn't meet in the Mitchell in the other line, during the Howell. There are some very neat movements that do things like having a Hesitation Mitchell where you play the people in your line on each side of you, and a 3/4 Howell where you don't play the people on each side of you. > >> There exists a perfectly balanced movement for 12 tables. > >Yes, mind you the session length isn't always to everyone's liking then. > yep -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 9 12:31:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 12:31:10 +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 MAA11388 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 12:31:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 17:30:54 -0800 Message-ID: <013301bf5a41$2ce459c0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000109091424.008c48f0@mail.ultra.net.au> Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 17:30:51 -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 Laurie Kelso wrote: > > The following announcement appeared in the first Daily Bulletin from Bermuda: > > "Appeals Committee Information > > As part of its arrangements under Law 80G the Appeals Committee requires > the Chief Director of his own volition, as a preliminary in the appeals > process, to consider whether an adjustment in accordance with the > provisions of Law 12C3 would be appropriate. If so, in pursuance of the > terms of the WBF Code of Practice he is authorized to make such an > adjustment before the players are given the ruling in order to achieve > equity as he judges it. Such a score adjustment may be appealed to the > Appeals Committee on the same basis as an appeal of any other ruling, but > the fact that a judgemental ruling by the Director is made with these > enhanced powers, and after consultation with colleagues and expert opinion, > means that Appeals committees will require strong evidence that puts it > beyond reasonable doubt a ruling should be varied." > L80G authorizes the SO "To make suitable arrangements for appeals to be heard." Wow, I thought that meant providing some suitable people, a room, a table, and some chairs. This "announcement" seems a bit of a stretch, since L12C3 clearly states that the AC is the sole authority for varying a score (whatever that means). Delegating that responsibility, even partially, to the Chief Director looks like an abdication of responsibility and a violation of the Laws. The Code of Practice is advisory only, not an official document of the WBF Laws Committee. It says on this subject: "It is desired [weasal words--mlf] that L12C3 be amended to extend the powers it currently gives to appeals committees also to Chief Directors." L12C3 has not been changed as of this date. The announcement is contrary to the Laws. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 9 15:53:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA13010 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 15:53:48 +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 PAA13005 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 15:53:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 20:53:32 -0800 Message-ID: <018001bf5a5d$7c19fec0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000109091424.008c48f0@mail.ultra.net.au> <013301bf5a41$2ce459c0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 20:44:34 -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 I wrote: > The Code of Practice is advisory only, not an official document of the WBF > Laws Committee. It says on this subject: > > "It is desired [weasal words--mlf] that L12C3 be amended to extend the > powers it currently gives to appeals committees also to Chief Directors." > > L12C3 has not been changed as of this date. The announcement is contrary to > the Laws. > That's "weasel," not "weasal," very embarrassing. Weasel words are those that destroy the force of a statement as a weasel ruins an egg by sucking out its contents while leaving it superficially intact. They often consist of passive voice statements that timidly avoid the identification of an agent ("desired" by whom?). The phrase was given currency by Theodore Roosevelt, says my dictionary. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 9 19:55:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA13643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 19:55:02 +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 TAA13638 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 19:54:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 00:54:47 -0800 Message-ID: <019801bf5a7f$304f19e0$16991e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Convention Chart Changes X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 00:54:42 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The January 2000 ACBL *Bridge Bulletin* describes on page 56 several changes to the ACBL General Convention Chart and Mid-Chart General Convention Chart: -- It is now okay to open a two-level or higher suit bid that shows two known suits other than the one named. Previously the opening had to be in one of the suits, except for 2D showing the majors. Maybe the Flannery enthusiasts are going to be shown less favoritism from now on. -- An opening 3NT bid can now be based on any long minor. This fixed an obvious error that permitted an opening of 3NT with a solid minor or a broken minor, but not a semi-solid minor. -- Any 2NT or higher notrump response can be used to show a raise or to force to game. Formerly it had to be a jump, but now 1S-2C-2NT (or even 1S-3C-3NT) is okay for a Jacoby spade raise (or any force to game). -- Addition of an item 7. under DISALLOWED outlawing the use of conventions by weak two bidders and weak notrump openers (and their partners) after such openings, when their HCP ranges, or minimum strength, or suit length promised, while legal, are not in favor with the Board of Directors (BoD). This is not a change, as the prohibitions were formerly stated in the descriptions of permitted responses and rebids, and are now being placed under DISALLOWED, where they belong. Mid-Chart: -- An opening 2D bid to show a weak two bid in an unspecified major, or "additional strong meanings" is allowed. Formerly it was "a weak two bid in either major," which was ambiguous. It is interesting that using 2D to show a weak two bid in a *specified* major, or additional strong meanings, is apparently not allowed, although that would be much easier to defend. Just another example of favoritism shown to some conventions (in this case, Multi). -- An opening 2S bid to show an unspecified minor or both minors. This used to be "in either minor." Opening 2S to show a specified minor is permitted by the general rule permitting any call that promises four or more cards in a known suit. The effort to move artificial notrump defenses, 2D and higher, that do not include a known suit to the General Convention Chart was not successful. When an artificial bid of 2D or higher does not show a known suit, there is no opposing suit that can be used as a Stayman bid, which gives problems to inexperienced players (and to me!). The BoD was right not to make this change, although many regionals and even sectionals are permitting this Mid-Chart item in events that are otherwise restricted to the General Convention Chart. Contrary to ACBL regulations, defenses against such conventions and Pre-Alerts by the users are not being provided to opponents, at least in my experience. The Alert Procedure was to be re-examined at the Boston NABC, but I have not seen anything concerning the results. Evidently no action was taken to simplify this complicated regulation. -- Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 10 03:25:15 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA14813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 03:25:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from fe020.worldonline.dk (fe020.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.196]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA14808 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 03:24:58 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <200001091624.DAA14808@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: (qmail 15172 invoked by uid 0); 9 Jan 2000 16:24:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO idefix) (213.237.2.254) by fe020.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 9 Jan 2000 16:24:45 -0000 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 17:24:55 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT Comments: Sender has elected to use 8-bit data in this message. If problems arise, refer to postmaster at sender's site. Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Reply-to: jensogbodil@alesia.dk Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marv wrote: > Laurie Kelso wrote: > > > > The following announcement appeared in the first Daily Bulletin from > Bermuda: > > > > "Appeals Committee Information > > > > As part of its arrangements under Law 80G the Appeals Committee requires > > the Chief Director of his own volition, as a preliminary in the appeals > > process, to consider whether an adjustment in accordance with the > > provisions of Law 12C3 would be appropriate. If so, in pursuance of the > > terms of the WBF Code of Practice he is authorized to make such an > > adjustment before the players are given the ruling in order to achieve > > equity as he judges it. Such a score adjustment may be appealed to the > > Appeals Committee on the same basis as an appeal of any other ruling, but > > the fact that a judgemental ruling by the Director is made with these > > enhanced powers, and after consultation with colleagues and expert > opinion, > > means that Appeals committees will require strong evidence that puts it > > beyond reasonable doubt a ruling should be varied." > > > L80G authorizes the SO "To make suitable arrangements for appeals to be > heard." > The Code of Practice is advisory only, not an official document of the WBF > Laws Committee. It says on this subject: > > "It is desired [weasal words--mlf] that L12C3 be amended to extend the > powers it currently gives to appeals committees also to Chief Directors." > > L12C3 has not been changed as of this date. The announcement is contrary to > the Laws. I agree with Marv that the announcement is contrary to the laws. It is slightly irritating for us who serve on an NA to have the WBF establish as a precedent that regulations can be made that are so clearly in conflict with the laws. It undermines our efforts to maintain the authority of the laws within our respective jurisdictions. Having dealt with that issue, let me try to see if I would like this approach to become official. 1. I would see it as an improvement that the TD was allowed to use L12C3. For the events run by a highly qualified TD, this would probably lead to fewer rulings changed in an appeal, which overall is desribale. For events run by a mediocre TD, this rule would make little difference. 2. I don't support the other part: "Appeals committees will require strong evidence that puts it beyond reasonable doubt a ruling should be varied." Granted, we use much the same policy in the Danish NA, but that is only when a judgmental ruling by an appeals committee is appealed to us. To use this policy also on the first appeal is suggested by some of our best players now and then, but many of our other best players make the point that our best TDs don't have expert level as players and therefore are somewhat handicapped in their judgment. With the present approach, if a TD after consultation delivers a ruling that some player cannot accept, that player gets to state his case in front of his peers, who will then execute the bridge judgement as they see fit. With the approach suggested in the announcement, the good players' judgement will now be via consultation, so that only the TD hears the players own version of the story, and the peers forming an opinion do so based on filtered information and without the keen sense of responsibility for justice that follows with serving on an AC. So I prefer that the AC is instructed to hear the case, and form its own independent opinion of the judgement to be made. I donřt know if it makes any great difference in practice. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 10 06:22:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA15381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 06:22:01 +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 GAA15376 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 06:21:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 11:21:45 -0800 Message-ID: <01ed01bf5ad6$c7dfd720$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200001091624.DAA14808@octavia.anu.edu.au> Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 11:21:45 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Jens & Bodil Marv French wrote: >> L12C3 has not been changed as of this date. The announcement is contrary to >> the Laws. > I agree with Marv that the announcement is contrary to the laws. > It is slightly irritating for us who serve on an NA to have the WBF establish as a precedent that regulations can be made that are so clearly in conflict with the laws. It undermines our efforts to maintain the authority of the laws within our respective jurisdictions. < Let's keep in mind that this is not official WBF policy until, or unless, the WBFLC confirms it. As I understand it, when the WBF acts as an SO for an event its pronouncements for the event do not have the force of law for all SOs. > Having dealt with that issue, let me try to see if I would like this approach to become official. < > 1. I would see it as an improvement that the TD was allowed to use L12C3. For the events run by a highly qualified TD, this would probably lead to fewer rulings changed in an appeal, which overall is desribale. For events run by a mediocre TD, this rule would make little difference. < Unstated was my opinion that the ACBL was wise to reject L12C3, in view of what we saw from Lille. If L12C3 were made subordinate to L12C2, which the language seems to say (i.e., vary L12C2 a bit when rigid application seems contrary to common sense), it might receive more support over here. Instead, those applying L12C3 evidently believe that it is an alterntive to L12C2, not a supplement, and that it authorizes any action whatsoever by an AC. 2. (snip of probably good stuff) Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 10 07:27:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA15535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 07:27:55 +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 HAA15530 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 07:27:48 +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 PAA26571 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 15:27:38 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000108220347.008a24d0@mail.maine.rr.com> References: <3.0.6.32.20000107150138.008b8330@mail.maine.rr.com> <00f001bf5941$545583e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <011a01bf580b$4058a8e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <200001041817.NAA04130@cfa183.harvard.edu> <002a01bf5754$bf838480$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <011a01bf580b$4058a8e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.20000107082959.006fd564@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 15:19:21 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Tournament formats Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:03 PM -0500 1/8/00, Tim Goodwin wrote: >At 04:13 PM 1/7/00 -0500, David J. Grabiner wrote: >>One problem with this movement is that it runs into problems if pairs >>withdraw or play only one session. It can be used in events in which this >>is unlikely. >> >>For example, when I played in the non-LM Pairs, the final had 13 tables, >>and we used this movement to play 25 rounds of two boards, one against each >>opposing pair. > >For events where there is a qualifying and finals, I would think you could >reliably count on participants showing up for the final. And, the proper >number of tables could be achieved by cutting the field appropriatly. That's what was done in my example. Pairs could reasonably be expected to play in both sessions of the final if they played in the first session. (However, with the qualifying and finals played on different days, one qualifier didn't show up for the final, and was replaced by the highest non-qualifier who was around.) But pairs do often withdraw, or play only in the second session, in regular two-session events,. This is why this movement isn't used for such things as a sectional open pairs (which might otherwise be able to play a perfect two-session movement with 18 or 26 pairs). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 10 09:32:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA15839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 09:32:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from maggie.inter.net.il (maggie.inter.net.il [192.116.202.28]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA15833 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 09:32:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-5-200.access.net.il [213.8.5.200] (may be forged)) by maggie.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA27234; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 00:33:32 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <38790C87.DF755892@zahav.net.il> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 00:32:39 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en-US,fr,Hebrew,en,ro,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Marvin L. French" CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda References: <200001091624.DAA14808@octavia.anu.edu.au> <01ed01bf5ad6$c7dfd720$16991e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From my experience ( Business ,Army ,....and Bridge) I think that I understand the WBFLC's long range intentions. As all of you quoted - this approach was suggested by the WBFLC at Lille .....If any zone organization (and ACBL is the most difficult "client") tries to avoid or bypass a WBF regulation, the best place to implement it is a WBF event . And Bermuda bowls is the best of them . Now the top players learn the new regulations , or Laws' s interpretations and will propagate them in their zones.!!!!! Try to ask some of the most eminent members of the WBFLC.... Dany "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > From: Jens & Bodil > > Marv French wrote: > > >> L12C3 has not been changed as of this date. The announcement is > contrary to > >> the Laws. > > > I agree with Marv that the announcement is contrary to the laws. > > > It is slightly irritating for us who serve on an NA to have the > WBF > establish as a precedent that regulations can be made that are so > clearly in conflict with the laws. It undermines our efforts to > maintain the authority of the laws within our respective > jurisdictions. < > > Let's keep in mind that this is not official WBF policy until, or > unless, the WBFLC confirms it. As I understand it, when the WBF acts > as an SO for an event its pronouncements for the event do not have > the force of law for all SOs. > > > Having dealt with that issue, let me try to see if I would like > this > approach to become official. < > > > 1. I would see it as an improvement that the TD was allowed to > use > L12C3. For the events run by a highly qualified TD, this would > probably lead to fewer rulings changed in an appeal, which overall > is > desribale. For events run by a mediocre TD, this rule would make > little difference. < > > Unstated was my opinion that the ACBL was wise to reject L12C3, in > view of what we saw from Lille. If L12C3 were made subordinate to > L12C2, which the language seems to say (i.e., vary L12C2 a bit when > rigid application seems contrary to common sense), it might receive > more support over here. Instead, those applying L12C3 evidently > believe that it is an alterntive to L12C2, not a supplement, and > that it authorizes any action whatsoever by an AC. > > 2. (snip of probably good stuff) > > Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 10 09:53:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA15993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 09:53:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from alpha.netvision.net.il (alpha.netvision.net.il [194.90.1.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA15988 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 09:53:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from eitan (RAS1-p119.nt.netvision.net.il [62.0.182.121]) by alpha.netvision.net.il (8.9.3/8.8.6) with SMTP id AAA12186 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 00:53:34 +0200 (IST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000110005321.0086f4d0@netvision.net.il> X-Sender: moranl@netvision.net.il X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 00:53:21 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Eitan Levy Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda In-Reply-To: <013301bf5a41$2ce459c0$16991e18@san.rr.com> References: <3.0.6.32.20000109091424.008c48f0@mail.ultra.net.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:30 PM 08/01/2000 -0800, you wrote: >Laurie Kelso wrote: >> >> The following announcement appeared in the first Daily Bulletin from >Bermuda: >> >> "Appeals Committee Information >> >> As part of its arrangements under Law 80G the Appeals Committee requires >> the Chief Director of his own volition, as a preliminary in the appeals >> process, to consider whether an adjustment in accordance with the >> provisions of Law 12C3 would be appropriate. If so, in pursuance of the >> terms of the WBF Code of Practice he is authorized to make such an >> adjustment before the players are given the ruling in order to achieve >> equity as he judges it. Such a score adjustment may be appealed to the >> Appeals Committee on the same basis as an appeal of any other ruling, but >> the fact that a judgemental ruling by the Director is made with these >> enhanced powers, and after consultation with colleagues and expert >opinion, >> means that Appeals committees will require strong evidence that puts it >> beyond reasonable doubt a ruling should be varied." >> >L80G authorizes the SO "To make suitable arrangements for appeals to be >heard." > >Wow, I thought that meant providing some suitable people, a room, a table, >and some chairs. > >This "announcement" seems a bit of a stretch, since L12C3 clearly states >that the AC is the sole authority for varying a score (whatever that means). >Delegating that responsibility, even partially, to the Chief Director looks >like an abdication of responsibility and a violation of the Laws. > >The Code of Practice is advisory only, not an official document of the WBF >Laws Committee. It says on this subject: > >"It is desired [weasal words--mlf] that L12C3 be amended to extend the >powers it currently gives to appeals committees also to Chief Directors." > >L12C3 has not been changed as of this date. The announcement is contrary to >the Laws. > unless the AC is unavailable or cannot meet. Then by law 93 the CTD has the powers of the AC. So if we stretch a little (AC cannot meet etc - CTD acts as AC - now the AC finds that it can meet) I suppose it could be argued that it is in accordance with the laws. Eitan > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 10 09:59:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA16029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 09:59:23 +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 JAA16024 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 09:59:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.8] (dial32.ppp.datatone.com [208.220.195.32]) by datatone.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA06577; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 17:58:52 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000109091424.008c48f0@mail.ultra.net.au> References: <3.0.6.32.20000109091424.008c48f0@mail.ultra.net.au> Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 17:59:05 -0500 To: Laurie Kelso , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 9:14 AM +1000 1/9/00, Laurie Kelso wrote: >The following announcement appeared in the first Daily Bulletin from Bermuda: > >"Appeals Committee Information > >As part of its arrangements under Law 80G the Appeals Committee requires >the Chief Director of his own volition, as a preliminary in the appeals >process, to consider whether an adjustment in accordance with the >provisions of Law 12C3 would be appropriate. If so, in pursuance of the >terms of the WBF Code of Practice he is authorized to make such an >adjustment before the players are given the ruling in order to achieve >equity as he judges it. Such a score adjustment may be appealed to the >Appeals Committee on the same basis as an appeal of any other ruling, but >the fact that a judgemental ruling by the Director is made with these >enhanced powers, and after consultation with colleagues and expert opinion, >means that Appeals committees will require strong evidence that puts it >beyond reasonable doubt a ruling should be varied." What an extraordinary statement. Thank you so much for bringing it to our attention! Several correspondents have questioned its legality, rightly so in my opinion. I'd like to pursue the matter further, in particular with input from those who may be more familiar with the application of 12C3 than I. First of all, who is the statement from? I checked the original, and Laurie has reproduced it in its entirety - it is not signed. Second, what does it mean? It sounds as though it is intended to be part of every ruling involving an adjusted score, not just those which are appealed. Will the Chief Director apply 12C3 to every adjustment where 12C2 would have been applied otherwise? Will he delegate this authority? Third, what is intended by the use of the term "volition"? How can the Appeals Committee require anyone to use his volition? Does the anonymous author of this statement understand the term? Fourth, if he agrees that this "arrangement" is not lawful, does the chief tournament director intend to abide by it? Fifth, if we as players, politicians, or other interested parties do not consider this "arrangement" lawful, what can and should we do about it? Were I in Bermuda I'd be happy to put up $50 to test the system, but I am not. AW From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 10 11:21:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA16271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 11:21:52 +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 LAA16264 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 11:21:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA01867 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 19:21:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000109192303.00706ae4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2000 19:23:03 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Correction attempt of insufficient bid In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:05 PM 1/7/00 +0100, Martin wrote: > W N E S >1D p 1C > 1H 1S > >East makes an insufficient bid. When North notices this, >East tries to correct with 1H. South bids 1S. Only now >the TD is called. Apart from having a talk with the table >about calling the TD in time, how do you rule? Auction stands at 1S, W's turn to call; E's 1C call is UI to W. 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 Jan 11 00:16:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA18037 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 00:16:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA18031 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 00:16:31 +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 IAA06552 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 08:16:14 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000110081755.00707700@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 08:17:55 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Tournament formats In-Reply-To: <00f001bf5941$545583e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: <011a01bf580b$4058a8e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <200001041817.NAA04130@cfa183.harvard.edu> <002a01bf5754$bf838480$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <011a01bf580b$4058a8e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.20000107082959.006fd564@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:57 AM 1/7/00 -0800, Marvin wrote: >Eric Landau wrote, very interestingly: > >> When I started playing bridge in the 1960s, the ACBL would routinely break >> up fields in large two-session play-through events. Pairs 1-5, 6-10, and >> 11+ from each field (section/direction) in the first session would be sent >> to a different field for the second session. This was, of course, before >> "event proliferation" in the ACBL, so just about every major event had >> enough sections to do this easily. > >I don't remember that. Perhaps it was just not done out here, in the Western >U. S. Currently the ACBL does practice this partial switch of directions in >a one-section two-session event. Only half the pairs switch direction after >the first session. I encountered the practice in New York; it may have been a local thing. This was before I was playing at a level that took me to other parts of the country. >> The ACBL, however, abandoned this practice some decades ago, even for >> events that are easily large enough. >> >Most players don't want to play E-W for two sessions, which is no doubt the >major reason. In the method I'm talking about, everyone switched directions at the half. e.g. with three 14-table sections, A 1-5 N-S would go to A 1-5 E-W, A 6-10 N-S would go to B 6-10 E-W, A 11-14 N-S would go to C 11-14 E-W, etc. Marv is certainly correct that ATF comparisions would have made this superfluous. Of course, in those days, when the cheapest computers cost millions, ATF scoring was unheard of. I don't play much these days, but I guess multi-section comparisions are now routine, so pairs would no longer be going to different fields, meaning there'd no longer be any point in doing it this way. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 11 00:48:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA18136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 00:48:10 +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 AAA18131 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 00:48:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from cc68559-a.flrtn1.occa.home.com ([24.0.94.45]) by mail.rdc2.occa.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <20000110134752.QRDZ8398.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559-a.flrtn1.occa.home.com> for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 05:47:52 -0800 Message-Id: X-Sender: ltrent@mail X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2000 18:24:07 -0800 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Trent Subject: Re: Tournament formats In-Reply-To: <200001072340.SAA07379@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >This is fine for the first session. After that, _results_ ought to >count. It sounds as though the TD's are doing a good job in a somewhat >informal way for major events, but why not automate the whole process >and use it for every event? TD's generally don't seed at Nationals. NABC, Stratified, and basically everthing that includes Flight A players is taken care of by the National Seeding Committee. (Trust me, my husband has be Co-Chairman of the National Seeding Committee along with Nadine Wood for the past 5+ years.) :-) > >> Maybe when going from qualifying to finals, which I suspect is what you >> mean. > Top players help with the re-seed (Danny Sprung, Steve Weinstein help Brian and Nadine often) They do take into account the current standings - to some degree but there are some pairs that are always going to be a 1 seed (Meckwell, Berkowitz-Cohen for example). They always check at the end of the event, I think their best performance was once when 13 out of the 14 top finishers were 1-seeds. I also believe that they mix the field from day to day - ie split the e/w field in half etc so by the end of the event, basically everyone has played almost everyone. I am a little fuzzy on this but could get more accurate details from Brian if anyone is interested. Linda From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 11 02:09:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA18187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 01:02:20 +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 BAA18181 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 01:01:47 +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 OAA18005 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 14:00:50 GMT Message-ID: <3879E62D.3962FBF@meteo.fr> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 15:01:18 +0100 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda References: <3.0.6.32.20000109091424.008c48f0@mail.ultra.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laurie Kelso a écrit : > > The following announcement appeared in the first Daily Bulletin from Bermuda: > > "Appeals Committee Information > > As part of its arrangements under Law 80G the Appeals Committee requires > the Chief Director of his own volition, as a preliminary in the appeals > process, to consider whether an adjustment in accordance with the > provisions of Law 12C3 would be appropriate. If so, in pursuance of the > terms of the WBF Code of Practice he is authorized to make such an > adjustment before the players are given the ruling in order to achieve > equity as he judges it. Such a score adjustment may be appealed to the > Appeals Committee on the same basis as an appeal of any other ruling, but > the fact that a judgemental ruling by the Director is made with these > enhanced powers, and after consultation with colleagues and expert opinion, > means that Appeals committees will require strong evidence that puts it > beyond reasonable doubt a ruling should be varied." > > Laurie > (In Australia) I agree this arrangement is contrary to the Laws, but, as this notice only appeared in the BB daily bulletin, I think it only applies, as an exception, to the present competitions in Bermuda: daily bulletins are only supposed to be read by people present on the place of the competitions and their availability on the web is an epiphenomenon. As I understand it, varying a score means averaging different adjusted scores when you can't decide which only one to assign; this is already a practice used in some places by Subaltern Directors! (in the French Law Book, "vary" has been translated by "modifier") On another side, I think the sentence about the likelihood of AC overruling CD is very tactless: it will ruin years spent to persuade directors not to feel offensed when their ruling happens to be returned by an AC. 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 Tue Jan 11 03:37:16 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA18897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 03:37:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [207.213.113.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA18892 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 03:37:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA21716; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 08:09:02 -0800 Message-Id: <200001101609.IAA21716@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Convention Chart Changes In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 09 Jan 2000 00:54:42 PST." <019801bf5a7f$304f19e0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 08:09:02 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin French wrote: > Mid-Chart: > > -- An opening 2D bid to show a weak two bid in an unspecified major, > or "additional strong meanings" is allowed. Formerly it was "a weak > two bid in either major," which was ambiguous. It is interesting > that using 2D to show a weak two bid in a *specified* major, or > additional strong meanings, is apparently not allowed, although that > would be much easier to defend. Just another example of favoritism > shown to some conventions (in this case, Multi). I was almost going to say you were wrong about this. Item #4 of the Mid-Chart, which allows any call that shows 4+ cards in known suit, would certainly permit a 2D opening that shows a weak two in a specified major. However, it still seems that a 2D opening that shows *either* a weak two in a specified major *or* some strong meanings is disallowed (unless all the strong hands also have 4+ cards in this same major). This seems like a hole that needs to be plugged up. I'm not sure whether to blame this on "favoritism", or simply on narrow thinking. It seems most likely to me that if the regulations disallow, say, a 2D opening that shows a weak two in hearts or 18-19 balanced or a strong 4441, it's because the regulators have never heard of anyone wishing to play such a convention, and haven't tried to imagine that someone might. I'm betting that if someone actually tried to play this convention in a Mid-Chart event, got turned down, and raised a stink, the regulation would be altered at the next BoD meeting. . . . > The effort to move artificial notrump defenses, 2D and higher, that > do not include a known suit to the General Convention Chart was not > successful. When an artificial bid of 2D or higher does not show a > known suit, there is no opposing suit that can be used as a Stayman > bid, which gives problems to inexperienced players (and to me!). The > BoD was right not to make this change, although many regionals and > even sectionals are permitting this Mid-Chart item in events that > are otherwise restricted to the General Convention Chart. Contrary > to ACBL regulations, defenses against such conventions and > Pre-Alerts by the users are not being provided to opponents, at > least in my experience. What bothers me is that the rule barring such defenses applies regardless of the notrump range. I can understand their logic when a strong notrump is involved; less-experienced players in this country are likely to be using a strong NT, and such a convention could be considered destructive to them. But it makes no sense against a 10-12 notrump. This 1NT opening is essentially "destructive", and I believe opponents need unlimited license to use conventions to try to get their constructive auction back. So putting restrictions on defenses to a 10-12 1NT is absurd. I could go either way on 12-14 notrumps, but my intuition is that defenses against that NT range shouldn't be restricted either. I've written a couple letters about this, one to a district official, and one to the ACBL Bulletin (at least a year ago). I got e-mail back from one of the Bulletin's editors indicating that they were planning to include my letter in an upcoming issue, but that never happened. I don't know why, although I have no reason to believe there was anything pernicious about it. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 11 04:22:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA19029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 04:22:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc10.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc10.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.17]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA19024 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 04:21:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from default ([12.75.44.222]) by mtiwmhc10.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with SMTP id <20000110172117.QTXK8291@default> for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 17:21:17 +0000 Message-ID: <019001bf5b8e$ccf73560$bd2b4b0c@default> From: "Richard F Beye" To: "BLML" References: <3.0.6.32.20000109091424.008c48f0@mail.ultra.net.au> <013301bf5a41$2ce459c0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 11:09:00 -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: Marvin L. French > > This "announcement" seems a bit of a stretch, since L12C3 clearly states > that the AC is the sole authority for varying a score (whatever that means). > Delegating that responsibility, even partially, to the Chief Director looks > like an abdication of responsibility and a violation of the Laws. Am I crazy, or is it the rest of the world? Please read the books words. Let us begin with 'Unless Zonal Organizations specify otherwise . . .' Seems as if they have, in accordance with the Laws. Rick From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 11 05:04:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA19175 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 05:04:59 +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 FAA19170 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 05:04:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 10:04:39 -0800 Message-ID: <02f401bf5b95$22cd5540$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <011a01bf580b$4058a8e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com><200001041817.NAA04130@cfa183.harvard.edu><002a01bf5754$bf838480$162fd2cc@san.rr.com><011a01bf580b$4058a8e0$162fd2cc@san.rr.com><3.0.1.32.20000107082959.006fd564@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.20000110081755.00707700@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Tournament formats Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 10:01:48 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > In the method I'm talking about, everyone switched directions at the half. > e.g. with three 14-table sections, A 1-5 N-S would go to A 1-5 E-W, A 6-10 > N-S would go to B 6-10 E-W, A 11-14 N-S would go to C 11-14 E-W, etc. > > Marv is certainly correct that ATF comparisions would have made this > superfluous. Of course, in those days, when the cheapest computers cost > millions, ATF scoring was unheard of. I don't play much these days, but I > guess multi-section comparisions are now routine, so pairs would no longer > be going to different fields, meaning there'd no longer be any point in > doing it this way. > Splitting lines can still be logical in some situations. In a three-section two-session one-winner Mitchell game, scored ATF, for instance, how do you arrange that as many pairs as possible either play each other (just once, of course) or compare with each other? (A goal suggested to me by John Probst) I found that splitting each line in half, with seeds evenly divided, resulting in 12 groups, met the goal more closely than when keeping lines intact. For the second session, the lower half of N-S stay put, the lower half of E-W rotate "down" one section and remain E-W, the higher half of N-S rotate "up" one section and sit E-W, while the higher half of E-W turn around and sit N-S in the same section. The result is that each group lacks an "interest" (as John calls it) in only one of the 11 other groups, neither meeting nor comparing with it. Pairs that must play N-S can be conveniently placed in the N-S lower half, who stay N-S in the same section. Appropriate arrow-switching is desirable, no doubt, but I'll leave that detail to John! Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 11 05:06:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA19195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 05:06:12 +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 FAA19188 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 05:06:04 +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 SAA02454 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 18:05:25 GMT Message-ID: <387A1F82.CAAA945@meteo.fr> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 19:05:54 +0100 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda References: <3.0.6.32.20000109091424.008c48f0@mail.ultra.net.au> <013301bf5a41$2ce459c0$16991e18@san.rr.com> <019001bf5b8e$ccf73560$bd2b4b0c@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard F Beye a écrit : > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Marvin L. French > > > > > This "announcement" seems a bit of a stretch, since L12C3 clearly states > > that the AC is the sole authority for varying a score (whatever that > means). > > Delegating that responsibility, even partially, to the Chief Director > looks > > like an abdication of responsibility and a violation of the Laws. > > Am I crazy, or is it the rest of the world? > > Please read the books words. Let us begin with 'Unless Zonal Organizations > specify otherwise . . .' Seems as if they have, in accordance with the > Laws. > > Rick My understanding of "unless... " is: a) according to the decision made by relevant ZO, an AC may or may not vary scores. b) nobody else may vary scores In order to vary scores, 2 conditions are required: to be an AC and to be given ZO's authorization. IMO, it is not the rest of the world, or, maybe, it is only me! 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 Tue Jan 11 05:15:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA19243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 05:15:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f50.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA19238 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 05:15:51 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 72202 invoked by uid 0); 10 Jan 2000 18:15:13 -0000 Message-ID: <20000110181513.72201.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 10:15:12 PST X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Tournament formats Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 18:15:12 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > You get some funny >results like a pair not winning their section could be the overall >winners :)) I often run "simultaneous" competitions between the >different clubs I direct at on consecutive nights, where there is no >cross-over of members and where the security aspect is adequate (eg >Japanese Ladies Club, and the Acol Social duplicate). We award the >prizes on the night on the section scores, but the winners overall >and the >master-points are awarded based on ATF scoring. This means I >can give >larger masterpoint awards. However I caused total >consternation with the >Japanese Ladies when the pair who came second >in their club failed to make >the master points ATF. It took a whole >pre-game seminar (which I use to >explain aspects of Law or whatever, >once a month) to explain why this was >so. > Cue story thread... When the results came back from the first time the K-W bridge club (where I direct) held a fifth-friday game, I had several people, including the "aggrieved" pair and *the person who has been helping score at the club for 20 years* complain because the E-W winner from the club (with a 64% game at the club) scored lower in the world rankings than the N-S winner (with a 62% game in house). That can't happen, can it? Aargh. And unfortunately, the scorer is a big light at the club, the W winner is a good friend of hers, and neither of them understand enough about how scoring works (as opposed to how to score) for me to explain ATF != section. On the original topic, however, I am for ATF scoring, two-winner big Mitchells, if we're playing them ACBL-style (but I object to having to score against the same pairs two sessions in a row, as well - probably more than having to play against the same pair in both sessions. But shh - if we don't tell the proles, they won't realize that they're hard done by), with section tops in-section. The monsterpoint hoarders will get their chance to get their "I beat 12 others" numbers, and the overall awards will be closer to right - and the burn factor for having Gitelman-Mittleman in my line both sessions will go away. Basically, we gave them a lolly, and they're going to complain now if we take it away (same goes for non-stratified games, open games, and all the other things C players have been trained to complain about that take away some of their attendance points). It don't hurt none, even if it gives some occasional weird results, so go for it. If you want to get away from the wierd results, score the section tops using the ATF matchpoints scores. The balance in each section will be off, but that's a Director's problem, not a player's, and the players don't know enough scoring to understand that weirdness. Or should I start taking my anti-cynic medication again? Michael. > 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 ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 11 06:14:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA19435 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 06:14:57 +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 GAA19430 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 06:14:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.8] (dial68.ppp.datatone.com [208.220.195.68]) by datatone.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA13040; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 14:14:39 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <019001bf5b8e$ccf73560$bd2b4b0c@default> References: <3.0.6.32.20000109091424.008c48f0@mail.ultra.net.au> <013301bf5a41$2ce459c0$16991e18@san.rr.com> <019001bf5b8e$ccf73560$bd2b4b0c@default> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 14:14:29 -0500 To: "Richard F Beye" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:09 AM -0600 1/10/00, Richard F Beye wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: Marvin L. French > >>This "announcement" seems a bit of a stretch, since L12C3 clearly states >>that the AC is the sole authority for varying a score (whatever that >>means). >> >>Delegating that responsibility, even partially, to the Chief Director >>looks like an abdication of responsibility and a violation of the Laws. > >Am I crazy, or is it the rest of the world? > >Please read the books words. Let us begin with 'Unless Zonal Organizations >specify otherwise . . .' Seems as if they have, in accordance with the >Laws. For the record, here is the entire text of 12C3: 3. Powers of Appeals Committee Unless Zonal Organisations specify otherwise, an appeals committee may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to achieve equity. The reason that Marvin, myself, and others question the legality of the announcement in question is that the Laws explicitly grant 12C3 powers only to the AC, not to any director. I understand the phrase "Unless Zonal Organisations specify otherwise" to mean only that Zonal Organisations may choose not to use 12C3, as the ACBL has chosen not to. I can only speculate, but I expect that this unusual arrangement is due to a political compromise. My guess is that the ACBL representatives to the WBF laws commission opposed 12C3 while other representatives were in favor of it. Perhaps the ACBL representatives grudgingly accepted it, with the proviso that an NCBO be given the opportunity to opt out. This in effect makes the current span of ten years a laboratory for the use of 12C3. I'm afraid, though, that we haven't yet learned much from the experiment. AW From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 11 06:33:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA19524 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 06:33:54 +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 GAA19519 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 06:33:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from karma.isi.com (pixsv41.isi.com [192.73.222.191]) by hopper.isi.com (8.8.4/8.6.10) with ESMTP id LAA04940 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 11:33:08 -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 LAA13875 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 11:28:26 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard Willey" To: Subject: RE: Convention Chart Changes Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 14:35:06 -0800 Message-ID: <001601bf5bba$f170a800$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 In-Reply-To: <200001101609.IAA21716@mailhub.irvine.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Adam Beneschan wrote >I'm not sure whether to blame this on "favoritism", or simply on >narrow thinking. It seems most likely to me that if the regulations >disallow, say, a 2D opening that shows a weak two in hearts or 18-19 >balanced or a strong 4441, it's because the regulators have never >heard of anyone wishing to play such a convention, and haven't tried >to imagine that someone might. I'm betting that if someone actually >tried to play this convention in a Mid-Chart event, got turned down, >and raised a stink, the regulation would be altered at the next BoD >meeting. At the moment, the convention charts used in the ACBL seem to primarily license or forbid specific bids. For example, at the GCC level, a player can chose to use 2C as an artificial opening bid showing a strong hand. At the Midchart level, a player can chose to play "Opening two diamonds showing a weak two-bid in either major may include additional strong (15+ HCP) meaning(s)" or "A two spade or two no trump opening bid showing either minor". However, as Adam has pointed out, in many cases, players might wish to use a convention that might not present any difficulty to defend against which is non-the-less banned simply because the individuals who designed the convention chart did not expect that players might want to use this specific treatment. I, for one, would be much happier if the ACBL were to thoroughly overhaul the basic way in which the convention charts were designed. Maybe its because I come out of an academic environment that was pretty heavy in math and computer programming, but I can help thinking that the current system could be designed on a more rational basis. The existing convention charts seem to be based on an essentially random set of bids that the authorities approve of and an equally random set of bids that they disapprove of. The dynamic NT opening would appear to be a classic example of an opening that goes in an out of favor almost at random. I would like to see an effort made to categorize different sets of bids. So long as bids have the same general characteristics, they should be licensed or banned as a set, and not as an individual bids. Richard -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOHpemSGkJ7YU62vZEQKSCACeI+bf5RlmycNM3N6EY5Cgf2Xb948AnisH Z1N83KzSzlML2e4iukP7vSAw =5YFl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 11 07:28:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA19714 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 07:28:01 +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 HAA19709 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 07:27:51 +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 LAA16271 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 11:27:40 -0900 Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 11:27:40 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Convention Chart Changes In-Reply-To: <200001101609.IAA21716@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, Adam Beneschan wrote: [snip] > It seems most likely to me that if the regulations > disallow, say, a 2D opening that shows a weak two in hearts or 18-19 > balanced or a strong 4441, it's because the regulators have never > heard of anyone wishing to play such a convention, and haven't tried > to imagine that someone might. I'm betting that if someone actually > tried to play this convention in a Mid-Chart event, got turned down, > and raised a stink, the regulation would be altered at the next BoD > meeting. That is essentially a Rubin Two-Bid, isn't it? Weak in the next-highest suit, or any of various strong meanings? Quite a clever idea, actually, I thought when I first read about them. The regulators have most certainly heard of them. Until you brought this up, I was under the impression that Rubin Twos were Mid-Chart legal, but I see I am wrong. If you ask me, they should be. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 11 08:24:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA19979 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 08:24:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [207.213.113.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA19974 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 08:23:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA25342; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 12:55:45 -0800 Message-Id: <200001102055.MAA25342@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Convention Chart Changes In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 10 Jan 2000 14:35:06 PST." <001601bf5bba$f170a800$1ec1e080@isi.com> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 13:23:34 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Willey wrote: > At the moment, the convention charts used in the ACBL seem to > primarily license or forbid specific bids. For example, at the GCC > level, a player can chose to use 2C as an artificial opening bid > showing a strong hand. At the Midchart level, a player can chose to > play "Opening two diamonds showing a weak two-bid in either major may > include additional strong (15+ HCP) meaning(s)" or "A two spade or > two no trump opening bid showing either minor". > > However, as Adam has pointed out, in many cases, players might wish > to use a convention that might not present any difficulty to defend > against which is non-the-less banned simply because the individuals > who designed the convention chart did not expect that players might > want to use this specific treatment. > > I, for one, would be much happier if the ACBL were to thoroughly > overhaul the basic way in which the convention charts were designed. > Maybe its because I come out of an academic environment that was > pretty heavy in math and computer programming, but I can help > thinking that the current system could be designed on a more rational > basis. The existing convention charts seem to be based on an > essentially random set of bids that the authorities approve of and an > equally random set of bids that they disapprove of. The dynamic NT > opening would appear to be a classic example of an opening that goes > in an out of favor almost at random. > > I would like to see an effort made to categorize different sets of > bids. So long as bids have the same general characteristics, they > should be licensed or banned as a set, and not as an individual bids. I agree completely. You have to admit, though, that the ACBL has made great strides in the right direction since the days when I started playing (early 1980's), where they classified conventions as Class A through F and almost everything on that list was a specific convention instead of a category of conventions. The recent change made a change to this item on the 1998 GCC: 6. 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. but the old chart simply listed 2D Flannery as a Class C convention and 2H Flannery as Class D (if I remember right), and minor variations (such as incorporating 4=6=x=x hands into the 2D opener) weren't permitted since they weren't part of what Bill Flannery invented. [Did I get his first name right?] -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 11 08:49:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA20044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 08:49:18 +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 IAA20039 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 08:49:10 +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 QAA10224 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 16:49:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA09369 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 16:49:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 16:49:00 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200001102149.QAA09369@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Tournament formats X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Linda Trent > Top players help with the re-seed (Danny Sprung, Steve Weinstein help Brian > and Nadine often) They do take into account the current standings - to > some degree but there are some pairs that are always going to be a 1 seed Thanks Linda, and thanks to those who do the hard work. This is fine for top events. Lots of people work hard to get the seeding right and (one hopes) mix up the lines. I'm sure they do a better job than any purely mechanical system with existing data. This still doesn't explain why lesser events that don't justify extraordinary measures don't use a simple, mechanical seeding based on current standings. Or even if the seeding isn't based on current standings, at least rearrange the lines! Several good ideas have been proposed in this thread. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 11 10:22:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA20311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 10:22:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc10.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc10.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.17]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA20306 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 10:22:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from default ([12.50.217.77]) by mtiwmhc10.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with SMTP id <20000110232125.WRCW8291@default> for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 23:21:25 +0000 Message-ID: <024901bf5bc1$13502b20$bd2b4b0c@default> From: "Richard F Beye" To: "BLML" References: <3.0.6.32.20000109091424.008c48f0@mail.ultra.net.au> <013301bf5a41$2ce459c0$16991e18@san.rr.com> <019001bf5b8e$ccf73560$bd2b4b0c@default> <387A1F82.CAAA945@meteo.fr> Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 17:18:57 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Jean Pierre Rocafort Richard F Beye a écrit : > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Marvin L. French > > > > > This "announcement" seems a bit of a stretch, since L12C3 clearly states > > that the AC is the sole authority for varying a score (whatever that > means). > > Delegating that responsibility, even partially, to the Chief Director > looks > > like an abdication of responsibility and a violation of the Laws. > > Am I crazy, or is it the rest of the world? > > Please read the books words. Let us begin with 'Unless Zonal Organizations > specify otherwise . . .' Seems as if they have, in accordance with the > Laws. > > Rick My understanding of "unless... " is: a) according to the decision made by relevant ZO, an AC may or may not vary scores. b) nobody else may vary scores In order to vary scores, 2 conditions are required: to be an AC and to be given ZO's authorization. IMO, it is not the rest of the world, or, maybe, it is only me! *****I respectfully disagree with this interpretation. Law 12 'Director's Discretionary Powers' Law 12C 'Awarding an Adjusted Score' Law 12C3 'Unless Zonal Organizations ....' I read this, in conjunction with the statement attributed to the Bermuda bulletin, to mean that the WBFLC has 'designated otherwise'. i.e. The CTD will rule upon assigned scores PRIOR to an appeal hearing. I do not find this to be unlawful, nor do I find it to be a reason for any great concern. The whole thing is probably a plot by Schoder to take over the world! :) Rick From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 11 10:49:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA20412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 10:49:00 +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 KAA20406 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 10:48:52 +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 SAA21286 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 18:48:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA09496 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 18:48:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 18:48:43 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200001102348.SAA09496@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Richard F Beye" > *****I respectfully disagree with this interpretation. > Law 12C3 'Unless Zonal Organizations ....' > > I read this, in conjunction with the statement attributed to the Bermuda > bulletin, to mean that the WBFLC has 'designated otherwise'. i.e. The CTD > will rule upon assigned scores PRIOR to an appeal hearing. I do not find > this to be unlawful, nor do I find it to be a reason for any great concern. Sorry Richard, but I'm with Jean-Pierre and the others. Yes, the Bermuda bulletin article is clear as to the intent, but I don't see how L12C3 gives anyone the authority to proceed that way. L12C3, if the ZO is willing, gives authority for varying scores to an AC, but I don't see how it can be read as allowing the ZO to give that authority to a director. (Mind you, I am not commenting on whether any of this is a good or bad idea, only on what L12C3 says.) Even L80E, the usual "loophole law," doesn't seem to work here. Appeals are not part of "bidding and play." From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 11 12:09:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA20593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 12:09:43 +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 MAA20588 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 12:09:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 17:09:03 -0800 Message-ID: <02fd01bf5bd0$6adc2240$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000109091424.008c48f0@mail.ultra.net.au> <3879E62D.3962FBF@meteo.fr> Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 17:08:13 -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: Jean Pierre Rocafort of France: >As I >understand it, varying a score means averaging different adjusted scores >when you can't decide which only one to assign; this is already a >practice used in some places by Subaltern Directors! (in the French Law >Book, "vary" has been translated by "modifier." Excellent! As is so often the case, the French express the intent of the law more clearly than the English text from which they are translating. A sensible reading of L12C3 is that it supplements and is subordinate to 12C2, not that it is an alternative to L12C2. That is, when applying L12C2 the score assignments can be modified somewhat per L12C3 if that seems more equitable. The usual cases for this would be (1) when it cannot be agreed by an AC which of two or more favorable or unfavorable potential results has a greater probability; or (2) when the probabilities individually do not meet the thresholds established by L12C2, but do so when summed; or (3) when multiple results with different probabilities meet the threshold. Example (1): Two potential favorable results for the NOS are +620 and +170, but the AC cannot agree on which is more likely. Assign an average of the scores (matchpoints, IMPs) that would have been produced by each result, which is more equitable than picking one. Example (2): Three potential favorable results for the NOS have probabilities of 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3, none of which is by itself the most favorable result that was likely (requiring a 1/3 probability, according to the ACBL LC). Steve Willner's solution per the spirit, if not the letter (using the LC guideline, anyway) of L12C2, would be to sum from the bottom and pick the one that causes the threshold to be crossed by the sum, in this case the result with probability of 0.3. L12C3 would permit the AC to assign all three potential results with weights of 1, 2, and 3, which is a bit more equitable. Example (3) Two potential unfavorable results of -620 and -170 for the OS have probabilities of 0.25 and 0.75 respectively. Per L12C2 -620 should be assigned, which does not seem equitable, so use L12C3 to assign both potential results with weights of 1 and 3, respectively. The BOB will appreciate the fact that this accords with his PTF philosophy. I believe if L12C3 were clearly restricted to this sort of modification of L12C2, it would be more readily accepted in ACBL-land. Nothing in the language of L12C3 grants the sort of license to penalize in any fashion desired by an AC, as was the case (for instance) in Lille. If that is how it is to be interpreted, the ACBL was wise in rejecting it. IMO this implementation of L12C3 is a task for ACs, who are expected to have expertise in such matters, not for TDs. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 11 12:39:29 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA20743 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 12:39:29 +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 MAA20738 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 12:39:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 17:39:14 -0800 Message-ID: <031a01bf5bd4$a1e07760$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200001101609.IAA21716@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: Convention Chart Changes Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 17:36:19 -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 Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Marvin French wrote: > > > Mid-Chart: > > > > -- An opening 2D bid to show a weak two bid in an unspecified major, > > or "additional strong meanings" is allowed. Formerly it was "a weak > > two bid in either major," which was ambiguous. It is interesting > > that using 2D to show a weak two bid in a *specified* major, or > > additional strong meanings, is apparently not allowed, although that > > would be much easier to defend. Just another example of favoritism > > shown to some conventions (in this case, Multi). > > I was almost going to say you were wrong about this. Item #4 of the > Mid-Chart, which allows any call that shows 4+ cards in known suit, > would certainly permit a 2D opening that shows a weak two in a > specified major. However, it still seems that a 2D opening that shows > *either* a weak two in a specified major *or* some strong meanings is > disallowed (unless all the strong hands also have 4+ cards in this > same major). This seems like a hole that needs to be plugged up. Right. > I'm > not sure whether to blame this on "favoritism", or simply on narrow > thinking. It seems most likely to me that if the regulations > disallow, say, a 2D opening that shows a weak two in hearts or 18-19 > balanced or a strong 4441, it's because the regulators have never > heard of anyone wishing to play such a convention, and haven't tried > to imagine that someone might. Wrong, if my correspondence ever gets through. I have asked for years now that one of my pet conventions, 2D opening to show a weak two bid in hearts, or a strong two bid in spades, or a 21-22 HCP notrump hand with a five-card suit, be allowed, with no success. If I were on the BoD, I bet I could get it approved. If the approved 2D convention were "a weak two bid in a specified or unspecified major, with additional strong meanings," as I suggested to the C&C committee, I would have been okay. The complementary convention, a 2H opening to show a weak two bid in spades, or a strong two bid in hearts, or a 23-24 HCP notrump hand, is outside the pale for the Mid-Chart, despite my requests that it be approved. I fail to see why Multi (weak two bid in an *unspecified* major, with possible strong adjuncts) is easier to defend against than these two inocuous conventions. > I'm betting that if someone actually > tried to play this convention in a Mid-Chart event, got turned down, > and raised a stink, the regulation would be altered at the next BoD > meeting. I must try that, just for fun, if only to prove you wrong. > > > > The effort to move artificial notrump defenses, 2D and higher, that > > do not include a known suit to the General Convention Chart was not > > successful. When an artificial bid of 2D or higher does not show a > > known suit, there is no opposing suit that can be used as a Stayman > > bid, which gives problems to inexperienced players (and to me!). The > > BoD was right not to make this change, although many regionals and > > even sectionals are permitting this Mid-Chart item in events that > > are otherwise restricted to the General Convention Chart. Contrary > > to ACBL regulations, defenses against such conventions and > > Pre-Alerts by the users are not being provided to opponents, at > > least in my experience. > > What bothers me is that the rule barring such defenses applies > regardless of the notrump range. I can understand their logic when a > strong notrump is involved; less-experienced players in this country > are likely to be using a strong NT, and such a convention could be > considered destructive to them. But it makes no sense against a 10-12 > notrump. This 1NT opening is essentially "destructive", and I believe > opponents need unlimited license to use conventions to try to get > their constructive auction back. So putting restrictions on defenses > to a 10-12 1NT is absurd. I could go either way on 12-14 notrumps, > but my intuition is that defenses against that NT range shouldn't be > restricted either. Agreed, as to the 10-12 range. > > I've written a couple letters about this, one to a district official, > and one to the ACBL Bulletin (at least a year ago). I got e-mail back > from one of the Bulletin's editors indicating that they were planning > to include my letter in an upcoming issue, but that never happened. I > don't know why, although I have no reason to believe there was > anything pernicious about it. > Keep trying. Editor Brent Manley is usually quite even-handed in such matters. The e-mail addresses of ACBL directors are provided by COI, at http://home.maine.rr.com/timg/coi/ While I have been told that they usually don't pay attention to persons outside their districts, that might not be universally true. A bulk mailing to them of reasonable e-mails could be effective. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 11 19:40:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA22068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 19:40:06 +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 TAA22057 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 19:39:56 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id IAA24280 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 08:39:18 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 08:39 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Convention Chart Changes 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: <031a01bf5bd4$a1e07760$16991e18@san.rr.com> Marv wrote: > Wrong, if my correspondence ever gets through. I have asked for > years now that one of my pet conventions, 2D opening to show a weak > two bid in hearts, or a strong two bid in spades, or a 21-22 HCP > notrump hand with a five-card suit, be allowed, with no success. If > I were on the BoD, I bet I could get it approved. Why not just include any 6(331) hand with 10HCP and precisely AKQJT9 in spades - surely there is a spare rebid somewhere (eg 5S) to cover the eventuality. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 11 19:40:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA22067 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 19:40:05 +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 TAA22056 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 19:39:55 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id IAA24272 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 08:39:17 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 08:39 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda 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: <200001102348.SAA09496@cfa183.harvard.edu> There seems to be nothing in L12c3 to say how an AC may exercise its authority. The mechanism chosen in Bermuda seems to be that the AC delegates the first stage of the appeal to the CTD and subsequently reviews, albeit 'gently', his decision. Good, bad, or indifferent this sounds perfectly legal. Better we focus on the pros and cons of such an approach rather than its legality. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 11 20:53:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA22356 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 20:53:07 +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 UAA22351 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 20:52:58 +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 KAA14134 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 10:48:35 +0100 Message-ID: <387AFC31.93A909AD@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 10:47:29 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda References: <3.0.6.32.20000109091424.008c48f0@mail.ultra.net.au> <3879E62D.3962FBF@meteo.fr> <02fd01bf5bd0$6adc2240$16991e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > From: Jean Pierre Rocafort of France: > > >As I > >understand it, varying a score means averaging different adjusted > scores > >when you can't decide which only one to assign; this is already a > >practice used in some places by Subaltern Directors! (in the French > Law > >Book, "vary" has been translated by "modifier." > > Excellent! As is so often the case, the French express the intent of > the law more clearly than the English text from which they are > translating. I don't get it. Why Marvin L. French expresses the intent of the Law more clearly than the English text? -- *********************************************************************** - One school believes that high taxes are 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 Jan 12 00:52:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA23261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 00:52:22 +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 AAA23256 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 00:52:14 +1100 (EST) From: Grisbie@aol.com Received: from Grisbie@aol.com by imo28.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id w.56.56094b38 (2615); Tue, 11 Jan 2000 08:47:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <56.56094b38.25ac8e6e@aol.com> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 08:47:26 EST Subject: SABRINA and D-SCORE Programs To: Konrad.Ciborowski@omicron.comarch.pl, Pierre.cormault@wanadoo.fr, jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr CC: discuss@okbridge.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, Yank3003@aol.com, Dscore3@aol.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 1/11/00 1:33:03 AM Pacific Standard Time, Pierre.Cormault@wanadoo.fr writes: > I acknowledge your proposal to freely download your D-SCORE program. As > the author of the SABRINA Bridge player simulator, I am always very interested to > implement any kind of measure of the degree of knowledge of my program". ..... Your statement as shown above of "FREE downloading of the D-SCORE" program was NEVER made by our engineering group as a public disclosure. The program was offered ONLY to selected few experienced bridge players as to their opinion with regard to any future improvements to the program. The "Licensing Agreement" imprinted in the D-SCORE program makes the following statement: "Under the USA federal and international copyright laws, neither the documentation nor the software may be transferred to another party, copied, photocopied, reproduced, translated, or reduced to any electronic medium or machine readable form, in whole or in part, without the prior WRITTEN consent of ENGINEERING SYSTEMS. Consequently, any unauthorized "FREE downloading" of the D-SCORE program by any party other than "Engineering Systems" will be legally enforced. The above message ALSO legally prohibits any software developer, including the "SABRINA Bridge Player", to tie its functions in any way to the performance of the D-SCORE program. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 12 01:59:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA23299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 01:01:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe39.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.76]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA23294 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 01:01:22 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 13845 invoked by uid 65534); 11 Jan 2000 14:00:40 -0000 Message-ID: <20000111140040.13844.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.14.116] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 08:00:52 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim West-meads To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2000 2:39 AM Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda > In-Reply-To: <200001102348.SAA09496@cfa183.harvard.edu> > There seems to be nothing in L12c3 to say how an AC may exercise its > authority. The mechanism chosen in Bermuda seems to be that the AC > delegates the first stage of the appeal to the CTD and subsequently > reviews, albeit 'gently', his decision. Good, bad, or indifferent this > sounds perfectly legal. Better we focus on the pros and cons of such an > approach rather than its legality. > > Tim West-Meads By Jove, I think that logic will indeed go far. At least until someone notices how difficult it is for an AC to delegate its powers for a case that has not yet been created . Roger Pewick Houston, Texas From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 12 02:08:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA23760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 02:08:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA23755 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 02:08:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from default ([12.75.45.34]) by mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with SMTP id <20000111150735.BWOR2478@default>; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 15:07:35 +0000 Message-ID: <008a01bf5c45$42792e40$ab2b4b0c@default> From: "Richard F Beye" To: "Adam Wildavsky" Cc: "BLML" References: <3.0.6.32.20000109091424.008c48f0@mail.ultra.net.au><013301bf5a41$2ce459c0$16991e18@san.rr.com><019001bf5b8e$ccf73560$bd2b4b0c@default> Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 09:05:09 -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: Adam Wildavsky > At 11:09 AM -0600 1/10/00, Richard F Beye wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: Marvin L. French > > > >>This "announcement" seems a bit of a stretch, since L12C3 clearly states > >>that the AC is the sole authority for varying a score (whatever that > >>means). > >> > >>Delegating that responsibility, even partially, to the Chief Director > >>looks like an abdication of responsibility and a violation of the Laws. > > > >Am I crazy, or is it the rest of the world? > > > >Please read the books words. Let us begin with 'Unless Zonal Organizations > >specify otherwise . . .' Seems as if they have, in accordance with the > >Laws. > > For the record, here is the entire text of 12C3: > > 3. Powers of Appeals Committee > Unless Zonal Organisations specify otherwise, > an appeals committee may vary an assigned > adjusted score in order to achieve equity. > This is not the text that appears in any of my six law books. For the record mine reads . . . 3. 'Unless . . . etc, etc. etc.' There is no line 'POWERS OF APPEALS COMMITTEE', no line. Let the record be clear. Rick From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 12 03:45:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA24100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 03:45:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [207.213.113.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA24095 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 03:45:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA06809; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 08:45:15 -0800 Message-Id: <200001111645.IAA06809@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: UI after failure to Alert/announce Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 08:45:15 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This question popped into my mind last night: What are one's ethical responsibilities when partner has failed to Alert or announce a call, and there's a good likelihood that this happened because he forgot the Alerting regulations? Has any UI been transmitted, and if so, what? Here's a concrete example: You're in the ACBL. You're playing with a former partner who has been too busy to play for a number of years. He's kept up on his reading, so he's read about the recent changes in Alerting regulations, but hasn't actually played since those regulations took effect. You've decided to play the same system you played years ago, which includes a 12-14 notrump in all positions (which must be announced in the ACBL). On the first board, you deal and open 1NT. Partner doesn't announce. The opponents don't ask any questions. Do you have UI? If so, what UI do you have, and what actions might be demonstrably suggested by the UI? Suppose partner now bids 2NT, natural and invitational. You have a borderline 13-count. If you knew that partner thought your NT was 15-17, this UI would demonstrably suggest passing (since 2NT would show about 9 HCP), so you have to bid 3NT. But if you don't know, then what? If partner's failure to announce could be because he forgot the NT range or it could be because he forgot the regulations, is your choice of calls restricted? Suppose you pass, and the opponents eventually call the director to complain about the use of UI (they do not claim to be damaged by the MI). How should the TD rule, and what information, if any, would the TD need to find out before ruling? -- thanks, Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 12 04:02:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24164 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 04:02:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA24158 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 04:02:00 +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 MAA14131 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 12:01:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA10022 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 12:01:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 12:01:52 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200001111701.MAA10022@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > I believe if L12C3 were clearly restricted to this sort of > modification of L12C2, it would be more readily accepted in > ACBL-land. Yes. > Nothing in the language of L12C3 grants the sort of > license to penalize in any fashion desired by an AC, as was the case > (for instance) in Lille. Sorry, but I don't read it that way. The language of L12C3 seems to me to grant an AC the authority to do whatever it pleases without restriction once it has determined to give an assigned adjusted score. (There seems to be no authority to vary an _artificial_ adjusted score or to give one type of score when the other was required.) L80F does allow the SO to establish its own restrictions on what an AC can do under L12C3. I think SO's in zones where L12C3 is in effect would be wise to use this authority. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 12 04:07:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24196 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 04:07:12 +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 EAA24191 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 04:07:04 +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 MAA14629 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 12:06:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA10033 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 12:06:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 12:06:58 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200001111706.MAA10033@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Convention Chart Changes X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk An unremarked change is that item 6 in Responses and Rebids is now "Artificial Calls" instead of "Artificial Bids." This allows a pass that promises positive values, as many people play after their strong 2C is overcalled. (The artificial double denying values was already legal under another category.) I've been told this change was in fact made last February, but it wasn't publicized then. The convention charts on the ACBL web site are still from 1999 January. Kent, Chyah? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 12 04:54:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 04:54:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA24473 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 04:54:29 +1100 (EST) Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id E284930FDF; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 12:54:19 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <008a01bf5c45$42792e40$ab2b4b0c@default> References: <3.0.6.32.20000109091424.008c48f0@mail.ultra.net.au><013301bf5a41$2ce459c0 $16991e18@san.rr.com><019001bf5b8e$ccf73560$bd2b4b0c@default> <008a01bf5c45$42792e40$ab2b4b0c@default> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 12:55:14 -0500 To: "Richard F Beye" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Cc: "BLML" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 9:05 AM -0600 1/11/00, Richard F Beye wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: Adam Wildavsky > > For the record, here is the entire text of 12C3: > > > > 3. Powers of Appeals Committee > > Unless Zonal Organisations specify otherwise, > > an appeals committee may vary an assigned > > adjusted score in order to achieve equity. > > > > >This is not the text that appears in any of my six law books. For the >record mine reads . . . > >3. 'Unless . . . etc, etc. etc.' > >There is no line 'POWERS OF APPEALS COMMITTEE', no line. Let the record >be clear. I copied and pasted from the English (UK, not US) version of the Laws on Niels Pedersen's WWW page at http://www.math.auc.dk/~nwp/bridge/laws/laws97e/ I don't have a paper copy, so I can't verify the text. That said, I was not relying on the header line for my interpretation. AW From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 12 04:57:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 04:57:28 +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 EAA24498 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 04:57:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 09:57:12 -0800 Message-ID: <03be01bf5c5d$377e4800$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <3.0.6.32.20000109091424.008c48f0@mail.ultra.net.au> <3879E62D.3962FBF@meteo.fr> <02fd01bf5bd0$6adc2240$16991e18@san.rr.com> <387AFC31.93A909AD@omicron.comarch.pl> Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 09:48:32 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Konrad Ciborowski > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > From: Jean Pierre Rocafort of France: > > > > >As I > > >understand it, varying a score means averaging different adjusted > > scores > > >when you can't decide which only one to assign; this is already a > > >practice used in some places by Subaltern Directors! (in the French > > Law > > >Book, "vary" has been translated by "modifier." > > > > Excellent! As is so often the case, the French express the intent of > > the law more clearly than the English text from which they are > > translating. > > > I don't get it. Why Marvin L. French expresses the intent of > the Law more clearly than the English text? > Very funny, but Marvin L. French is not included in "the French." :)) Our name came over here with one of a number of Frenches who emigrated from the British Isles back in the 1600s. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 12 05:20:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA24656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 05:20:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA24650 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 05:20:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-229.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.229]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA03051; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 13:20:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001c01bf5c60$b6536e00$e584d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: Subject: Re: Convention Chart Changes Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 13:20:32 -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 Yes, back then they did it that way..and it was clear and understandable to many more people than it is now. You KNEW whether you played Flannery or not. If you didn't, you didn't have to worry if it was legal in this game or not! Those "great strides" don't all seem to be in the "right direction" when over 3/4 of the membership don't understand clearly what is and is not permitted. Yes, it's Bill...from the Pittsburgh area. Yes 2D was C and 2H D. I would not consider 4-6-x-x a minor variation or even Flannery. -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: Adam Beneschan >I agree completely. You have to admit, though, that the ACBL has made >great strides in the right direction since the days when I started >playing (early 1980's), where they classified conventions as Class A >through F and almost everything on that list was a specific convention >instead of a category of conventions. The recent change made a change >to this item on the 1998 GCC: > > 6. 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. > >but the old chart simply listed 2D Flannery as a Class C convention >and 2H Flannery as Class D (if I remember right), and minor variations >(such as incorporating 4=6=x=x hands into the 2D opener) weren't >permitted since they weren't part of what Bill Flannery invented. >[Did I get his first name right?] > > -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 12 05:23:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA24677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 05:23:24 +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 FAA24672 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 05:23:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 10:23:09 -0800 Message-ID: <03c501bf5c60$d7436fc0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000109091424.008c48f0@mail.ultra.net.au><013301bf5a41$2ce459c0$16991e18@san.rr.com><019001bf5b8e$ccf73560$bd2b4b0c@default> <008a01bf5c45$42792e40$ab2b4b0c@default> Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 10:21:31 -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 Rick Beye wrote: > From: Adam Wildavsky > > >From: Marvin L. French > > > > > >>This "announcement" seems a bit of a stretch, since L12C3 clearly states > > >>that the AC is the sole authority for varying a score (whatever that > > >>means). > > >> > > >>Delegating that responsibility, even partially, to the Chief Director > > >>looks like an abdication of responsibility and a violation of the Laws. > > > > > >Am I crazy, or is it the rest of the world? > > > > > >Please read the books words. Let us begin with 'Unless Zonal > Organizations > > >specify otherwise . . .' Seems as if they have, in accordance with the > > >Laws. > > > > For the record, here is the entire text of 12C3: > > > > 3. Powers of Appeals Committee > > Unless Zonal Organisations specify otherwise, > > an appeals committee may vary an assigned > > adjusted score in order to achieve equity. > > > > > This is not the text that appears in any of my six law books. For the > record mine reads . . . > > 3. 'Unless . . . etc, etc. etc.' > > There is no line 'POWERS OF APPEALS COMMITTEE', no line. Let the record > be clear. > Interesting. L12C3 has no title in the ACBL and European versions of the Laws. The English version has a title: "Powers of Appeals Committee," at least in the version available on the internet (via ACBL web site, my path to it). Oddly enough the title is shown in a faint text instead of the bold text used elsewhere, which I suppose means that it is an "emendation" inserted by someone. It does look as though L12C3 *should* have a title, and that the absence of one is just an oversight. Since it was a late addition to the Laws, after a footnote version was considered and rejected, that's not surprising. Whoever translated the Laws into French must have thought the lack of a title was strange too, since he/she added one: 3. Modification The French version of L12C3 includes the words: ...un comité d'appel peut modifier une marque ajustée de remplacement pour assurer l'équité. My retranslation: ...an Appeals Committee can modify an assigned adjusted score in order to make it equitable. Right on! Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 12 05:43:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA24763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 05:43:30 +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 FAA24757 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 05:43:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 10:43:14 -0800 Message-ID: <03d001bf5c63$a53513a0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200001111645.IAA06809@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: UI after failure to Alert/announce Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 10:33:29 -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 Adam Beneschan wrote: > > This question popped into my mind last night: What are one's ethical > responsibilities when partner has failed to Alert or announce a call, > and there's a good likelihood that this happened because he forgot the > Alerting regulations? Has any UI been transmitted, and if so, what? > > Here's a concrete example: You're in the ACBL. You're playing with a > former partner who has been too busy to play for a number of years. > He's kept up on his reading, so he's read about the recent changes in > Alerting regulations, but hasn't actually played since those > regulations took effect. You've decided to play the same system you > played years ago, which includes a 12-14 notrump in all positions > (which must be announced in the ACBL). On the first board, you deal > and open 1NT. Partner doesn't announce. The opponents don't ask any > questions. Do you have UI? If so, what UI do you have, and what > actions might be demonstrably suggested by the UI? > > Suppose partner now bids 2NT, natural and invitational. You have a > borderline 13-count. If you knew that partner thought your NT was > 15-17, this UI would demonstrably suggest passing (since 2NT would > show about 9 HCP), so you have to bid 3NT. But if you don't know, > then what? If partner's failure to announce could be because he > forgot the NT range or it could be because he forgot the regulations, > is your choice of calls restricted? > > Suppose you pass, and the opponents eventually call the director to > complain about the use of UI (they do not claim to be damaged by the > MI). How should the TD rule, and what information, if any, would the > TD need to find out before ruling? We should be told what range was shown on the CC. Assuming it was 12-14, you can bid according to that, as you would behind a screen. The failure to Announce is UI, but contains no useful information for you. Only if the opponents are damaged by the failure to Announce the weak range will there be any action by the TD (other than a lecture). I see what you are driving at, but you ought to give an example that includes a possible agreement that would not be reflected on the CC. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 12 05:53:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA24812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 05:53:33 +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 FAA24807 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 05:53:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 10:53:19 -0800 Message-ID: <03d801bf5c65$0db0b500$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200001111701.MAA10022@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 10:47:28 -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" > > I believe if L12C3 were clearly restricted to this sort of > > modification of L12C2, it would be more readily accepted in > > ACBL-land. > > Yes. > > > Nothing in the language of L12C3 grants the sort of > > license to penalize in any fashion desired by an AC, as was the case > > (for instance) in Lille. > > Sorry, but I don't read it that way. The language of L12C3 seems to me > to grant an AC the authority to do whatever it pleases without > restriction once it has determined to give an assigned adjusted score. Well, there you are. If this is the way L12C3 might be interpreted, it was wise of the ACBL to opt out of it. > (There seems to be no authority to vary an _artificial_ adjusted score > or to give one type of score when the other was required.) Yes. L12C3 is clearly a supplement to L12C2, not an alternative to it, which has frequently been ignored. > > L80F does allow the SO to establish its own restrictions on what an AC > can do under L12C3. I think SO's in zones where L12C3 is in effect > would be wise to use this authority. Some might think that this would conflict with the words of L12C3, not permitted by L80F. Better for the WBF LC to state the restrictions in an interpretation, or maybe to change L12C3's wording to clarify the intent. Suggestion: use the French language version of the Laws as a guide. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 12 06:03:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA24861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 06:03:39 +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 GAA24856 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 06:03:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 11:03:23 -0800 Message-ID: <03de01bf5c66$75d6e360$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 10:59:58 -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 West-meads wrote: > There seems to be nothing in L12c3 to say how an AC may exercise its > authority. The mechanism chosen in Bermuda seems to be that the AC > delegates the first stage of the appeal to the CTD and subsequently > reviews, albeit 'gently', his decision. Good, bad, or indifferent this > sounds perfectly legal. > When there is no AC available, the CTD/DIC may act in its place, per L93A. Where is it written that an available AC can delegate its reponsibilities to the CTD/DIC? If an SO wishes to permit this per L80F, I would consider the action to be in conflict with the Laws. The author(s) of L12C3 rather plainly intend that varying an assigned score is a job for ACs, not for TDs. L93 is also rather prescriptive as to their respective roles in the appeals process. SOs have no right to tinker with this straightforward language. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 12 06:14:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA24896 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 06:14:15 +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 GAA24891 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 06:14:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-229.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.229]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA09295 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 14:13:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <006801bf5c68$33361600$e584d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 14:15:17 -0500 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 FWIW I have the 97 Laws UK (Portland Club) version downloaded thru DWS web site and it DOES contain the heading. The title is in the same (italic) text as all the other headings. -- Craig (MLF) >Interesting. L12C3 has no title in the ACBL and European versions of >the Laws. The English version has a title: "Powers of Appeals >Committee," at least in the version available on the internet (via >ACBL web site, my path to it). Oddly enough the title is shown in a >faint text instead of the bold text used elsewhere, which I suppose >means that it is an "emendation" inserted by someone. It does look >as though L12C3 *should* have a title, and that the absence of one >is just an oversight. Since it was a late addition to the Laws, >after a footnote version was considered and rejected, that's not >surprising. > >Whoever translated the Laws into French must have thought the lack >of a title was strange too, since he/she added one: 3. Modification > >The French version of L12C3 includes the words: > >...un comité d'appel peut modifier une marque ajustée de >remplacement pour assurer l'équité. > >My retranslation: ...an Appeals Committee can modify an assigned >adjusted score in order to make it equitable. Right on! > >Marv (Marvin L. French) > L12C3 is certainly more palatable in either "French" version. :-)) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 12 06:35:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA25004 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 06:35:29 +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 GAA24994 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 06:35:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 11:35:10 -0800 Message-ID: <03f401bf5c6a$e5ca6a80$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Convention Chart Changes Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 11:15:01 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: > Marv wrote: > > > Wrong, if my correspondence ever gets through. I have asked for > > years now that one of my pet conventions, 2D opening to show a weak > > two bid in hearts, or a strong two bid in spades, or a 21-22 HCP > > notrump hand with a five-card suit, be allowed, with no success. If > > I were on the BoD, I bet I could get it approved. > > Why not just include any 6(331) hand with 10HCP and precisely AKQJT9 in > spades - surely there is a spare rebid somewhere (eg 5S) to cover the > eventuality. > Since no smiley was included, I have to assume that this is not just facetious humor. My point has been missed, evidently, mea culpa. What I am trying to convey is that there are lots of harmless conventions that ought to be given some sort of blanket approval, in view of some specifc ones that the BoD has approved. Example: *Any* call (including the one I describe above) that shows four or more cards in a specified denomination (and at least 10 HCP, I suppose) should be permitted on the Mid-Chart, along with possible alternative meanings if they are strong (15+ HCP). There is no reason to restrict this type of bid by saying it is permitted only for Multi 2D, showing an *unspecified* major with alternative strong meanings, just because Multi is in favor with the BoD. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 12 06:35:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA25005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 06:35:30 +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 GAA24995 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 06:35:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 11:35:10 -0800 Message-ID: <03f501bf5c6a$e62f1fc0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200001111706.MAA10033@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Convention Chart Changes Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 11:23:14 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > An unremarked change is that item 6 in Responses and Rebids is now > "Artificial Calls" instead of "Artificial Bids." This allows a pass > that promises positive values, as many people play after their strong > 2C is overcalled. (The artificial double denying values was already > legal under another category.) Please tell us your source for this change, which can only be made by the BoD. > > I've been told this change was in fact made last February, but it > wasn't publicized then. Made by whom? I hope you don't believe everything you are told by TDs. >The convention charts on the ACBL web site are > still from 1999 January. Kent, Chyah? They will no doubt be modified soon to accord with the BoD decisions made in Boston. If that modification is to include this one for Item 6, I'd like to know its source. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 12 06:56:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA25091 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 06:56:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA25086 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 06:56:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.168.179] (helo=davidburn) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 1287Oq-0007IX-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 19:56:16 +0000 Message-ID: <004401bf5c6d$fcd26220$b3a801d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000109091424.008c48f0@mail.ultra.net.au><013301bf5a41$2ce459c0$16991e18@san.rr.com><019001bf5b8e$ccf73560$bd2b4b0c@default> <008a01bf5c45$42792e40$ab2b4b0c@default> <03c501bf5c60$d7436fc0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 19:56:44 -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 If it matters, the Law book that I am currently holding is the official English version published by the EBU and copyrighted by the Portland Club. Law 12C3 has no title. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 12 07:01:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA25118 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 07:01:13 +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 HAA25113 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 07:01:04 +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 PAA23866 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 15:00:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA10278 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 15:00:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 15:00:54 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200001112000.PAA10278@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Convention Chart Changes X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > An unremarked change is that item 6 in Responses and Rebids is now > > "Artificial Calls" instead of "Artificial Bids." > Please tell us your source for this change, which can only be made by the > BoD. It's in the text printed in the January Bulletin. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 12 08:10:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA25031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 06:36:37 +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 GAA25026 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 06:36:27 +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 OAA22876 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 14:36:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA10226 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 14:36:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 14:36:15 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200001111936.OAA10226@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > L80F does allow the SO to establish its own restrictions on what an AC > > can do under L12C3. I think SO's in zones where L12C3 is in effect > > would be wise to use this authority. > From: "Marvin L. French" > Some might think that this would conflict with the words of L12C3, not > permitted by L80F. I don't see how. SO's already define 'likely' and 'at all probable' in L12C2. Why shouldn't they define 'vary' and 'equity' in L12C3? More generally, for any law that gives a TD or AC wide discretion, why shouldn't the SO have a regulation limiting that discretion or saying how it should be exercised? This seems to me entirely consistent with L80F. > Better for the WBF LC to state the restrictions in an > interpretation, or maybe to change L12C3's wording to clarify the intent. I think a wording change is the best option in the long run, although an interpretation would be fine as an interim arrangement. If we drop the idea of a zonal option, I suggest the wording specify the circumstances under which L12C3 applies (i.e. when no single score can be considered likely/at all probable), what the result should be (a weighting of two or more scores that might be consistent with L12C2), and who may use L12C3 (probably allowing the SO to decide). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 12 09:17:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA25622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:17:58 +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 JAA25616 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:17:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-58-211-186.s186.tnt1.lnhdc.md.dialup.rcn.com ([208.58.211.186] helo=hdavis) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #3) id 1289bB-0004to-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 17:17:10 -0500 Message-ID: <002e01bf5c81$8ca19700$bad33ad0@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3.0.1.32.20000109192303.00706ae4@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Correction attempt of insufficient bid Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 17:16:34 -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: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2000 7:23 PM Subject: Re: Correction attempt of insufficient bid > At 01:05 PM 1/7/00 +0100, Martin wrote: > > > W N E S > >1D p 1C > > 1H 1S > > > >East makes an insufficient bid. When North notices this, > >East tries to correct with 1H. South bids 1S. Only now > >the TD is called. Apart from having a talk with the table > >about calling the TD in time, how do you rule? > > Auction stands at 1S, W's turn to call; E's 1C call is UI to W. > > This is the same trap I fell into. When the first call in insufficient, the second call cannot be accepted. L25A1 calls for implementation of L27 before the second call stands, even if LHO chooses to accept the second call as legal. So, although the acceptance of the call stands, the only call that can be accepted under L27 is the insufficient one. (See also the Lille footnote to L25 that David Stevenson posted). Although it does not apply in this case, LHO would still have a chance to change is call if it was based on the first bid, even though that was the bid accepted, if attention had not been brought to the infraction before the 1S call. The auction is 1D-P-1C-1S. The 1H call intended to replace 1C is UI to W. So, LHO can condone an insufficient bid. LHO can condone a change of call if the original bid was sufficient. LHO cannot condone a change of call if the original bid was insufficient. As far as *why* LHO was not given the option in law to condone a changed call after an insufficient bid, I have no idea. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 12 09:20:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA25043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 06:38:15 +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 GAA25038 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 06:38:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.168.179] (helo=davidburn) by gadolinium with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12876w-0002H8-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 19:37:47 +0000 Message-ID: <003001bf5c6b$67a3b020$b3a801d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "BLML" References: <3.0.6.32.20000109091424.008c48f0@mail.ultra.net.au><013301bf5a41$2ce459c0$16991e18@san.rr.com><019001bf5b8e$ccf73560$bd2b4b0c@default><008a01bf5c45$42792e40$ab2b4b0c@default> Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 19:38:14 -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 I haven't been paying a lot of attention to this but: 3. Powers of Appeals Committee Unless Zonal Organisations specify otherwise, an appeals committee may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to achieve equity. I had always thought that this meant only that the SO may specify that the AC may not vary an adjusted score, or that the AC may do so. I had not thought that it gave the SO the power to ask the CTD (or anyone else) to vary the score first and then ask the AC to ratify (or otherwise) his decision. Nor had I believed that 80G, to which the Bermuda bulletin refers, carried the implication that a "suitable arrangement" for the hearing of an appeal encompassed getting somebody else to make a decision before the matter came to an appeals committee. I have always believed that the determination of an equitable result on a deal is a task for more than one person; my experiences as a referee (sole arbiter) and AC member have, over more than fifteen years, done nothing but confirm that belief ever more strongly. I *know* that I have made more errors acting on my own than ACs on which I am but one member have made. However, there is in principle no objection to asking a sole arbiter to perform the task subject to review - particularly an arbiter with the skill and experience of Kojak. It will be interesting to observe the results, if any; so far, no appeals cases have appeared in the Bulletins. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 12 09:59:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA25799 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:49:18 +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 JAA25794 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:49:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-58-211-186.s186.tnt1.lnhdc.md.dialup.rcn.com ([208.58.211.186] helo=hdavis) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #3) id 128A5X-0002VC-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 17:48:32 -0500 Message-ID: <010801bf5c85$ef0744e0$bad33ad0@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <200001102348.SAA09496@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 17:46:57 -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: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Monday, January 10, 2000 6:48 PM Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda > > Even L80E, the usual "loophole law," doesn't seem to work here. > Appeals are not part of "bidding and play." > The real loophole law for appeals procedures is L93, IMO. All sections of part B of this law, dealing with procedures of appeal when an appeals committee is present, refer to the following footnote when mentioning the committee: "Zonal organizations may establish differing conditions of appeals for special contests". As I read it, the ZO can legally set up any appeals procedure it wants to for "special contests", whatever they are. Note that the message that initiates this thread gives L12C3 powers to the DIC as part of the appeals process, not as part of his duties as a TD. Looks legal to me, but I've been wrong before ;) Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 12 16:10:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA26925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:10:04 +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 QAA26920 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:09:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehnh.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.70.241]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA02570 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 00:09:39 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000112000705.011fdf58@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 00:07:05 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI after failure to Alert/announce In-Reply-To: <200001111645.IAA06809@mailhub.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:45 AM 1/11/00 PST, Adam wrote: > >This question popped into my mind last night: What are one's ethical >responsibilities when partner has failed to Alert or announce a call, >and there's a good likelihood that this happened because he forgot the >Alerting regulations? Has any UI been transmitted, and if so, what? The fact that partner fails to alert your alertable call is UI. Whether it affects your legal options in any particular situation depends upon the specific facts, but in general, partner's failure to alert "demonstrably suggests" the possibility that he has forgotten or misunderstood the significance of your call. Naturally there may be other possibile explanations, as you have suggested, but you will have a hard time selling these alternatives to a TD or AC as a reason that the usual UI restrictions should not be applied in the present case. Indeed, to take the opposite point of view is to argue, in effect, that failure to alert is never a restrictive source of UI, because it is always possible (and often likely) that partner's failure to alert was merely that, rather than indicative of a faulty understanding of the meaning of the auction. >Here's a concrete example: You're in the ACBL. You're playing with a >former partner who has been too busy to play for a number of years. >He's kept up on his reading, so he's read about the recent changes in >Alerting regulations, but hasn't actually played since those >regulations took effect. You've decided to play the same system you >played years ago, which includes a 12-14 notrump in all positions >(which must be announced in the ACBL). On the first board, you deal >and open 1NT. Partner doesn't announce. The opponents don't ask any >questions. Do you have UI? If so, what UI do you have, and what >actions might be demonstrably suggested by the UI? The fact that partner failed to announce is UI. It suggests (among other possibilities) that partner forgot your weak nt methods, and therefore makes passing more attractive, relative to the LA of bidding. The back story is interesting, but probably won't be taken terribly seriously if you pass and partner really does come down with a 9-count. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 12 20:22:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA27946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 20:22:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from pub_notes.pub.gov.sg ([203.120.199.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA27941 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 20:22:49 +1100 (EST) From: gregory@pub.gov.sg Received: by pub_notes.pub.gov.sg(Lotus SMTP MTA v1.06 (346.8 3-18-1997)) id 48256864.00338D70 ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 17:23:05 +0800 X-Lotus-FromDomain: PUB To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: <48256864.00337F42.00@pub_notes.pub.gov.sg> Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 17:23:01 +0800 Subject: Re: Terminate Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Please take me out from your mailing list. Thanks Chris From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 12 21:58:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA28774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 21:58:07 +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 VAA28769 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 21:57:58 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id KAA25595 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 10:57:20 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 10:57 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: UI after failure to Alert/announce To: adam@irvine.com, 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: <200001111645.IAA06809@mailhub.irvine.com> Adam wrote: > > Suppose partner now bids 2NT, natural and invitational. You have a > borderline 13-count. If you knew that partner thought your NT was > 15-17, this UI would demonstrably suggest passing (since 2NT would > show about 9 HCP), so you have to bid 3NT. But if you don't know, > then what? If partner's failure to announce could be because he > forgot the NT range or it could be because he forgot the regulations, > is your choice of calls restricted? I believe that I am always obliged to make my best guess, based on my knowledge of partner, at what any UI suggests and base my subsequent actions on that. I would assume, in this situation, that partner had forgotten to announce. I would further assume that everyone else would come to the same conclusion and that the UI didn't suggest anything. If partner comes down with an 8-9 count I will call the director immediately and tell him I made a bad judgement in a UI situation and that I believe there are grounds for possible adjustment. If partner comes down with an obvious invitation opposite a weak NT and opps call the director for UI I will try and avoid playing against them in future. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 13 04:26:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA01346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 04:26:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from uucp.nl.uu.net (uucp.nl.uu.net [193.79.237.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA01340 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 04:26:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 18:25:53 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id SAA10121 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 18:39:15 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Subject: Defender announces card Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 18:07:45 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Consider the following deal: S: - H: K D: J C: - S: - S: 7 H: Q2 H: - D: - D: - C: - C: 7 S: 9 H: 3 D: - C: - South is declarer in a spade contract. West is on lead and plays the HQ, North the king and East announces: "I ruff". However, on table comes the C7. East notices immediately and replaces the C7 with the S7. TD!!! How do you rule? -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 13 04:53:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA01470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 04:53:47 +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 EAA01465 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 04:53:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id MAA21664 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 12:53:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA11097 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 12:53:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 12:53:34 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200001121753.MAA11097@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI after failure to Alert/announce X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > The fact that partner failed to announce is UI. It suggests (among other > possibilities) that partner forgot your weak nt methods, and therefore > makes passing more attractive, relative to the LA of bidding. The back > story is interesting, but probably won't be taken terribly seriously if you > pass and partner really does come down with a 9-count. All correct, as far as I can tell. How would you rule if opener has a 13-count and passes, and responder comes down with the expected 11-count? In other words, at the end of the hand, it will be clear that responder knew the correct agreement all along. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 13 06:03:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA01691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 06:03:23 +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 GAA01686 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 06:03:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from [207.227.70.80] (helo=JNichols) by uno.minfod.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 128T4J-0002dO-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 14:04:31 -0500 Message-Id: <4.1.20000112135822.00982840@popmid.minfod.com> X-Sender: jnichols@popmid.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 14:03:00 -0500 To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: Defender announces card In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:07 PM 1/12/00 , Martin Sinot wrote: >Consider the following deal: > > S: - > H: K > D: J > C: - >S: - S: 7 >H: Q2 H: - >D: - D: - >C: - C: 7 > S: 9 > H: 3 > D: - > C: - > >South is declarer in a spade contract. >West is on lead and plays the HQ, North the king >and East announces: "I ruff". However, on table comes >the C7. East notices immediately and replaces the C7 with >the S7. TD!!! > >How do you rule? > In announcing "I ruff" East has fulfilled the requirements of 45C4a. "A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposed to play. " He must play a spade, and when the S7 appears that is the one he must play. The C7 becomes a major penalty card. John Nichols From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 13 06:07:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA01719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 06:07:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (root@Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA01713 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 06:07:25 +1100 (EST) From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.2]) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA17959; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 14:07:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA071054027; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 14:07:07 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 14:06:50 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Defender announces card Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, martin@spase.nl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="BDY.RTF" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="BDY.RTF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id GAA01714 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Consider the following deal: S: - H: K D: J C: - S: - S: 7 H: Q2 H: - D: - D: - C: - C: 7 S: 9 H: 3 D: - C: - South is declarer in a spade contract. West is on lead and plays the HQ, North the king and East announces: "I ruff". However, on table comes the C7. East notices immediately and replaces the C7 with the S7. TD!!! How do you rule? [Laval Dubreuil] I I am sure who know very well Law 45C.4. "A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposed to play." IMHO, "I ruff" clearly designates S7 here. The first intention was to play this card and it seems evident that E did not made an inadvertent designation. So he just made a "split of mind" when playing C7 and must replace this card by the "played" card. C7 becomes a penalty card, but who cares... Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 13 06:10:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA01739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 06:10:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [207.213.113.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA01733 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 06:10:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA26776; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 11:10:04 -0800 Message-Id: <200001121910.LAA26776@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Defender announces card In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 12 Jan 2000 18:07:45 PST." Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 11:10:01 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot wrote: > Consider the following deal: > > S: - > H: K > D: J > C: - > S: - S: 7 > H: Q2 H: - > D: - D: - > C: - C: 7 > S: 9 > H: 3 > D: - > C: - > > South is declarer in a spade contract. > West is on lead and plays the HQ, North the king > and East announces: "I ruff". However, on table comes > the C7. East notices immediately and replaces the C7 with > the S7. TD!!! > > How do you rule? L45C4 says "a card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play". Under the circumstances, I rule that the S7 was designated, so that card is played. L45C1 says: A defender's card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face must be played to the current trick (if the defender has already made a legal play to the current trick, see Law 45E). I notice that you didn't say whether the C7 was "held" or not; if the C7 fell out of his hand, it becomes a minor penalty card but L45C1 doesn't apply. Anyway, assuming the C7 was "held": since the S7 was already played (because it was named), we go to 45E, which unfortunately talks about a "fifth card to the trick", which doesn't apply here since this is only the fourth card, declarer not having played yet. This looks like a hole in 45C1; in the case where the defender plays a card after previously playing a card legally, we're referred to a Law which doesn't really apply. No matter; I apply the spirit of Law 45E and rule that the first card played is played, and the second card played becomes a penalty card. OK. So the result is that East played the S7. The C7 is a penalty card (a minor penalty card, I believe) and therefore must be played at trick 13. Also, the C7 is UI for West, who must bend over backwards to avoid taking advantage of this information when deciding whether to play the H2, the H2 or the H2 at trick 13. The only way I think someone could rule differently is to argue that "I ruff" does not designate a card, since it just means "I am going to play a spade" without naming the specific spade he was going to play. Or maybe someone could argue that "must be played" in L45C4 doesn't imply that card "was played", and that the "already made a legal play" of L45C1 therefore doesn't apply. To me, either of these interpretations would be too-narrow and not keeping with the spirit of the game. If it were earlier in the hand and East's trumps were K7 or something, the problem would be more complicated. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 13 07:54:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA01994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 07:54:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [207.213.113.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA01989 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 07:53:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA28413; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 12:53:33 -0800 Message-Id: <200001122053.MAA28413@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Defender announces card In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 12 Jan 2000 11:10:01 PST." <200001121910.LAA26776@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 12:53:34 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wrote: > This looks like > a hole in 45C1; in the case where the defender plays a card after > previously playing a card legally, we're referred to a Law which > doesn't really apply. I just now realized that some of the text fell out of this sentence and onto the floor. I've managed to pick up all the letters off the floor with a pair of tweezers and glue them back on the screen. Here's what I meant to say: This looks like a hole in 45C1; in the case where the defender plays a card after previously playing a card legally, before all the other players have played to the trick, we're referred to a Law which doesn't really apply. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 13 08:11:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA02063 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 08:11:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from fe060.worldonline.dk (fe060.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.207]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA02058 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 08:10:58 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <200001122110.IAA02058@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: (qmail 20301 invoked by uid 0); 12 Jan 2000 21:10:45 -0000 Received: from 13.ppp1-4.image.dk (HELO idefix) (213.237.3.13) by fe060.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 12 Jan 2000 21:10:45 -0000 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 22:10:57 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Defender announces card Reply-to: jensogbodil@alesia.dk Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot wrote: > Consider the following deal: > > S: - > H: K > D: J > C: - > S: - S: 7 > H: Q2 H: - > D: - D: - > C: - C: 7 > S: 9 > H: 3 > D: - > C: - > > South is declarer in a spade contract. > West is on lead and plays the HQ, North the king > and East announces: "I ruff". However, on table comes > the C7. East notices immediately and replaces the C7 with > the S7. TD!!! > > How do you rule? The spade 7 is effectively played when East says "I ruff". This is L45c4a. The C7 is not played. The C7 becomes a penalty card - whether it is a major or a minor penalty card depends on what "on the table comes" turns out to be on closer examination. Of course, the penalty card is purely academic at this stage. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 13 08:17:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA02101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 08:17:48 +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 IAA02096 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 08:17:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveig7.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.74.7]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA07943 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:17:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000112161447.011f9e5c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:14:47 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI after failure to Alert/announce In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:57 AM 1/12/00 +0000, Tim wrote: > >I believe that I am always obliged to make my best guess, based on my >knowledge of partner, at what any UI suggests and base my subsequent >actions on that. I would assume, in this situation, that partner had >forgotten to announce. I would further assume that everyone else would >come to the same conclusion and that the UI didn't suggest anything. If >partner comes down with an 8-9 count I will call the director immediately >and tell him I made a bad judgement in a UI situation and that I believe >there are grounds for possible adjustment. > >If partner comes down with an obvious invitation opposite a weak NT and >opps call the director for UI I will try and avoid playing against them in >future. And if you happened to pass 2nt holding a 14 count, and 3nt happens to fail opposite partner's 12? It sure _looks_ like you took advantage of the failure to alert, even if you misinterpreted its significance. And the opponents have every right to feel disadvantaged by the outcome. The point is that the legality of your pass is wholly independent of partner's actual hand, since you can't know what he actually holds at the time of your bid. If your pass is illegal opposite the 9-count, it is equally so opposite the 12-count, and damage to the opponents results whenever your illegal pass results in a worse score than they would have gotten had you bid properly. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 13 08:21:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA02120 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 08:21:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA02115 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 08:21:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveig7.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.74.7]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA18079 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:21:32 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000112161856.011fa8d8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:18:56 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI after failure to Alert/announce In-Reply-To: <200001121753.MAA11097@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:53 PM 1/12/00 -0500, Steve wrote: >> From: "Michael S. Dennis" >> The fact that partner failed to announce is UI. It suggests (among other >> possibilities) that partner forgot your weak nt methods, and therefore >> makes passing more attractive, relative to the LA of bidding. The back >> story is interesting, but probably won't be taken terribly seriously if you >> pass and partner really does come down with a 9-count. > >All correct, as far as I can tell. > >How would you rule if opener has a 13-count and passes, and responder >comes down with the expected 11-count? In other words, at the end of >the hand, it will be clear that responder knew the correct agreement >all along. > > I assume the question only arises when 3nt fails, as otherwise no damage from the pass. If I judged 3nt to be a LA, I would rule 3nt down however many. WTP? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 13 08:44:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA02172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 08:44:04 +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 IAA02167 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 08:43:56 +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 QAA29542 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:43:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA11399 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:43:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:43:45 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200001122143.QAA11399@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI after failure to Alert/announce X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > The point is that the legality of your pass is wholly independent of > partner's actual hand, since you can't know what he actually holds at the > time of your bid. Well, yes, but... You certainly know from past experience what he is _likely_ to hold, and that affects which calls are "suggested over another." The actual hand partner holds is evidence for the past experience, but of course it is not likely to be conclusive. Let me give you a practical example. I know a player who fails to announce a 12-14 notrump about once a session, perhaps more. I don't know why; his brain must not be programmed to make the announcement. On the other hand, I doubt he has really forgotten his notrump range in the last twenty years. His brain seems to be programmed just fine for that function! I'm sure even casual partners pick this up pretty quickly. When this player fails to announce, do you really think it suggests one call over another? I will grant that a TD, ruling on the evidence of only one hand, may have to rule as if it does. But when the TD in the regular club game, who knows perfectly well what the story is, comes round and says "Oh, you forgot again, did you?" do you think he should rule the same way? > And if you happened to pass 2nt holding a 14 count, and 3nt happens to > fail opposite partner's 12? It sure _looks_ like you took advantage of > the failure to alert, If "14 count" means an obvious maximum for a 12-14 notrump, then I agree. That looks like a L73C violation. If the "14-count" is, say, QJxx QJx QJx KQx, things may be a little harder. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 13 09:30:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA03895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 09:30:32 +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 JAA03890 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 09:30:24 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id WAA15767 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 22:29:47 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 22:29 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Convention Chart Changes 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: <03f401bf5c6a$e5ca6a80$16991e18@san.rr.com> Marv wrote: > Since no smiley was included, I have to assume that this is not just > facetious humor. Being English one tends not to use smileys even when being slightly facetious. > > My point has been missed, evidently, mea culpa. What I am trying to > convey > is that there are lots of harmless conventions that ought to be given > some > sort of blanket approval, in view of some specifc ones that the BoD has > approved. I have no doubt you are right but I can't see it happening (and I doubt you can either). I was suggesting the alternative approach of finding loopholes in the regulations that require only very minor sacrifice of system to exploit - regard it as a form of passive resistance to bureaucracy. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 13 10:07:32 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA02676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 09:16:49 +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 JAA02612 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 09:16:21 +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 IAA04709 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 08:15:24 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mosaic@localhost) by cuda.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA20333; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 08:15:27 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 08:15:27 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200001122215.IAA20333@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: <4.1.20000112135822.00982840@popmid.minfod.com> In-Reply-To: <4.1.20000112135822.00982840@popmid.minfod.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: IMP/PHP3 Imap webMail Program 2.0.11 X-Originating-IP: 150.203.233.4 Subject: DWS\'s new working hours Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As some you may be aware, David Stevenson is currently in Australia working at the Summer Bridge Festival in Canberra. It may surprise many that we managed to dragged him out of bed and get him over to the alternative venue by 7.30am this morning where he got to set up and dress tables! Laurie ----------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://web.horde.org/imp/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 13 11:44:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA04235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:44:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from server03.gw.total-web.net (qmailr@server03.gw.total-web.net [209.186.12.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA04230 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:44:24 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 19769 invoked from network); 13 Jan 2000 00:44:14 -0000 Received: from ip-014-202.gw.total-web.net (HELO Bill) (209.186.14.202) by server03.gw.total-web.net with SMTP; 13 Jan 2000 00:44:14 -0000 Message-ID: <05f101bf5d5f$c13956e0$ca0ebad1@gw.totalweb.net> From: "Bill Bickford" To: "Laurie Kelso" , References: <4.1.20000112135822.00982840@popmid.minfod.com> <200001122215.IAA20333@cuda.jcu.edu.au> Subject: Re: DWS\'s new working hours Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 19:47:23 -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 Isn't that 5:30 in the afternoon based on UK time? Cheers........................../Bill Bickford ----- Original Message ----- From: Laurie Kelso To: Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 5:15 PM Subject: DWS\'s new working hours > > As some you may be aware, David Stevenson is currently > in Australia working at the Summer Bridge Festival in > Canberra. It may surprise many that we managed to > dragged him out of bed and get him over to the > alternative venue by 7.30am this morning where he got > to set up and dress tables! > > Laurie > > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > This mail sent through IMP: http://web.horde.org/imp/ > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 13 12:37:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA04358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 12:37:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (root@omicron.comarch.pl [195.116.125.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA04353 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 12:37:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (pc205.krakow.ppp.tpnet.pl [212.160.4.205]) by omicron.comarch.pl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA09616 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 02:38:58 +0100 Message-ID: <387D2C32.92833128@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 02:36:50 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Defender announces card References: <200001121910.LAA26776@mailhub.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan pressed the following keys: > Also, the C7 is UI for West, who must bend over backwards > to avoid taking advantage of this information when deciding whether > to play the H2, the H2 or the H2 at trick 13. > I love you, Adam!!!!!!!! I think we forgot about a PP to East according to the L90B3 if his announcement was "loud"... Konrad Ciborowski From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 13 13:01:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA04394 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 13:01:03 +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 NAA04389 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 13:00:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from pb2s02a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.98.179] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt7-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 128ZYP-00056o-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 02:00:01 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: DWS\'s new working hours Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 02:06:24 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf5d6a$caf602e0$b36293c3@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----Original Message----- From: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 11:18 PM Subject: DWS\'s new working hours > >As some you may be aware, David Stevenson is currently >in Australia working at the Summer Bridge Festival in >Canberra. It may surprise many that we managed to >dragged him out of bed and get him over to the >alternative venue by 7.30am this morning That would have been easy. David thinks there's only one 7.30 in a day! >where he got >to set up and dress tables! But had he dressed himself? I look foreward to the next episode :-)))) Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 13 13:49:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA04501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 13:49:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA04491 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 13:49:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 128aKD-000L0K-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 02:49:25 +0000 Message-ID: <3u$snjAwvTf4Ew13@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 02:44:00 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Defender announces card In-Reply-To: <200001121910.LAA26776@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <200001121910.LAA26776@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes snip > >The only way I think someone could rule differently is to argue that >"I ruff" does not designate a card, since it just means "I am going to >play a spade" without naming the specific spade he was going to play. >Or maybe someone could argue that "must be played" in L45C4 doesn't >imply that card "was played", and that the "already made a legal play" >of L45C1 therefore doesn't apply. To me, either of these >interpretations would be too-narrow and not keeping with the spirit of >the game. If it were earlier in the hand and East's trumps were K7 or >something, the problem would be more complicated. > > -- Adam I don't even see a problem here. I ruff says in effect "spade" in effect "smallest spade" I'd be comfortable that this was the intent of the Law, by analogy with declarer doing the same thing wrt dummy. 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 Jan 13 13:49:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA04500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 13:49:44 +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 NAA04490 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 13:49:35 +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 128aKD-000L0J-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 02:49:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 02:48:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: DWS\'s new working hours In-Reply-To: <200001122215.IAA20333@cuda.jcu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <200001122215.IAA20333@cuda.jcu.edu.au>, Laurie Kelso writes > >As some you may be aware, David Stevenson is currently >in Australia working at the Summer Bridge Festival in >Canberra. It may surprise many that we managed to >dragged him out of bed and get him over to the >alternative venue by 7.30am this morning where he got >to set up and dress tables! > >Laurie > best part of his TD'ing. Tell him to make sure that the tables are always properly squared off and the logos on the cloths are always in the SE corner, or I'll report him to Jim. All part of the job!! 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 Jan 13 15:15:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA04649 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:15:43 +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 PAA04644 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:15:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegkd.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.141]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA17778 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 23:15:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000112231248.011f5030@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 23:12:48 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI after failure to Alert/announce In-Reply-To: <200001122143.QAA11399@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:43 PM 1/12/00 -0500, you wrote: >> From: "Michael S. Dennis" >> The point is that the legality of your pass is wholly independent of >> partner's actual hand, since you can't know what he actually holds at the >> time of your bid. > >Well, yes, but... You certainly know from past experience what he is >_likely_ to hold, and that affects which calls are "suggested over >another." The actual hand partner holds is evidence for the past >experience, but of course it is not likely to be conclusive. > >Let me give you a practical example. I know a player who fails to >announce a 12-14 notrump about once a session, perhaps more. I don't >know why; his brain must not be programmed to make the announcement. >On the other hand, I doubt he has really forgotten his notrump range in >the last twenty years. His brain seems to be programmed just fine for >that function! I'm sure even casual partners pick this up pretty >quickly. > >When this player fails to announce, do you really think it suggests one >call over another? I will grant that a TD, ruling on the evidence of >only one hand, may have to rule as if it does. But when the TD in the >regular club game, who knows perfectly well what the story is, comes >round and says "Oh, you forgot again, did you?" do you think he should >rule the same way? Probably not. Likewise, it would certainly be appropriate under these circumstances for you to advise the opponents with a pre-alert of your no-trump range, along with an advisory that partner frequently forgets to announce the range. And no, I am not so anal-retentive as to argue that even in this carefully documented, well-understood setting, we are still required to treat this as UI. But the original problem was posed in somewhat less specific terms, and I think that the principle that legality has to be evaluated based on the information available _at the time of the putative infraction_ is worth stressing. Tim seemed to be arguing that passing 2nt in the original problem was legal and appropriate if it turned out that partner held the expected 11-12-count, but illegal and perhaps unethical if it turned out that partner actually had forgotten the agreement and only had 9 pts. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 13 15:28:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA04678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:28:54 +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 PAA04673 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:27:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegkd.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.141]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA19895 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 23:27:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000112232457.011f47f8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 23:24:57 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI after failure to Alert/announce In-Reply-To: <04da01bf5d6d$2afe71c0$16991e18@san.rr.com> References: <3.0.1.32.20000112161856.011fa8d8@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:22 PM 1/12/00 -0800, Marv wrote: >I can't believe you guys aren't asking what is on the convention card! That's because what's on the CC is only relevant to the problem of MI, which was not really the issue in the original problem. Players are not expected to consult their own CC during the auction, and so the question of what range is displayed thereon is not germane to the questions posed, to wit: 1.) Is the failure to announce the range UI? (Yes, certainly) 2.) Does the failure to announce suggest that partner might have forgotten the methods, even when experience makes it more probable that he has remembered the method but forgotten to announce? (IMO, yes, except in the extreme type of circumstances described by Steve) 3.) Does the legality of subsequent actions turn in any degree on whether partner really did forget the meaning as opposed to the correct procedure? (IMO, no, although in practice both the likelihood of the issue arising and the expectation of an adjustment will both be much higher when it turns out that partner forgot the agreement). Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 13 17:13:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA04800 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 17:13:17 +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 RAA04794 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 17:13:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 22:13:00 -0800 Message-ID: <050101bf5d8d$15963280$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Convention Chart Changes Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 22:11:43 -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 Tim West-meads wrote: > Marv French wrote: > > What I am trying to convey is that there are lots of harmless > > conventions that ought to be given some sort of blanket approval, > > in view of some specifc ones that the BoD has approved. > > I have no doubt you are right but I can't see it happening (and I doubt > you can either). I was suggesting the alternative approach of finding > loopholes in the regulations that require only very minor sacrifice of > system to exploit - regard it as a form of passive resistance to > bureaucracy. > Well it did happen this time, to a small degree. The Flannerite-favoring rule for GCC that only 2D showing hearts and spades, or 2x showing x and another known suit, was permitted has been changed so that any two-level or higher opening suit bid showing two known suits is permitted, even if neither is named. This is a welcome step toward generalizing types of conventions instead of permitting specific ones. These openings require at least 10 HCP, which makes it somewhat illogical that an opening 2NT bid showing diamonds and clubs has no HCP limitation. Bill Bartley thinks it is also illogical for GCC that a 2D opening showing three unknown suits is permitted, but for a two-suiter the suits must be known. My suggestion, ignored, was that a two-level suit opening showing a weak two bid in a specific major, or some strong (15+) sort of hand, should be permitted on the Mid-Chart, considering that 2D is permitted for a weak two bid in an unspecified major, or some strong (15+) hand. Isn't the latter harder to defend against? It would be so easy to generalize this rule by saying "specified or unspecified major" instead of "unspecified major." Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 13 19:06:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA04990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:06:01 +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 TAA04985 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:05:53 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id IAA17660 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 08:05:15 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 08:05 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: UI after failure to Alert/announce To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000112161447.011f9e5c@pop.mindspring.com> > And if you happened to pass 2nt holding a 14 count, and 3nt happens to > fail > opposite partner's 12? It sure _looks_ like you took advantage of the > failure to alert, even if you misinterpreted its significance. And the > opponents have every right to feel disadvantaged by the outcome. One doesn't pass an invitational 2NT with a 14 count when playing weak NT so of course such an auction would create suspicion - though more that one had a wire on the board than of taking advantage of UI. > The point is that the legality of your pass is wholly independent of > partner's actual hand, since you can't know what he actually holds at > the > time of your bid. If your pass is illegal opposite the 9-count, it is > equally so opposite the 12-count, and damage to the opponents results > whenever your illegal pass results in a worse score than they would have > gotten had you bid properly Pass is not illegal opposite the 9 count. It is not illegal to misinterpret UI when you have to make a judgement. When you do misinterpret such UI the TD will adjust if he considers opponents to have been damaged. In 90% of UI adjustments the TD goes out of his way to point out that he is not accusing the adjustee of doing anything wrong. Players are expected to make an effort to interpret the UI and avoid taking advantage - they should not be condemned if their efforts are sometimes misguided. BTW if I know partner has a habit of forgetting the NT range then the UI suggests something completely different than when I know partner has never played under current ACBL regulations. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 13 21:57:34 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA05260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 21:57:34 +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 VAA05255 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 21:57:21 +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 MAA03803 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 12:18:32 GMT Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000113105540.00844e04@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: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:55:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Edouard Beauvillain Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer (2) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi everybody, >Just back from the Reno regional, where one TD ruling recalled to mind a >recent BLML thread (300 lb man...) > >Vulnerability: Both >Dealer: West > > S- 6 > H- QJ10972 > D- KJ9 > C- 982 > >S- QJ1053 S- A97 >H- 63 H- K84 >D- 6 D- A85 >C- AQJ54 C- 10763 > > S- K842 > H- A5 > D- Q107432 > C- K > >West North East South > P P 1NT P > 2H * P ** P Dbl for takeout > 3C All pass > > * Intended as a transfer to spades, Announceable but not Announced.. >** Feminine intuition? > >I was South, wife Alice North. E-W were playing strong notrumps when >vulnerable, but East thought for some reason (bad light, he said) that he was >not vulnerable when he bid a 12-14 HCP 1NT. In their methods 2H is a natural >signoff opposite a weak notrump opening, transfer to spades opposite strong.. > >Before the opening lead, West explained that his 2H bid was meant as a >transfer, East explained his pass of 2H, and I called the TD, who said play >on. The spade 6 was led (yuk!), ace played, trumps pulled, spades established, >11 tricks taken, +150. > >The TD at first ruled result stands, mistakes are a part of the game, etc. I >politely disagreed with the TD but said I would not appeal (I can be >magnanimous when it looks like I haven't been damaged). Uncharacteristically, >but understandably, Alice had something to say about my mental health after >the opponents left the table. > >Later the TD said he had been wrong, and adjusted our score to +400 for >beating 2H by four tricks. He let the E-W score stand, however, saying that >this was required because of his TD error. Plus 150 gave E-W 1-1/2 >matchpoints out of 17, while -400 would of course have meant a zero. > >Possibly pertinent facts: > >-- I knew that E-W were strong players, as evidenced by the first two boards >of the round. >-- Only one opposing CC was on the table, to the right of RHO, although ACBL >regulations require two CCs on the table. >-- This was not a double shot attempt, as I just didn't think (in view of my >major suit holdings) to ask RHO for a look at his CC. (I do not inquire about >things that are shown on the CC). > >And two statements in the ACBL Alert Procedure: > >-- Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents >have neglected to Alert [or Announce, presumably--mlf] a special agreement >will be expect to protect themselves. >-- Note also that an opponent who actually knows or suspects what is >happening, even though not properly informed, may not be entitled to redress >if he or she chooses to proceed without clarifying the situation. > >As in the previous thread, the absence of an infraction would mean that I was >made aware somehow, without East's knowing, that 2H was a transfer, as would >be the case if West and I had been screenmates, or if I had their CC within >easy view. The infraction of law was the MI, not the failure to Announce, >which is a violation of regulation. While I am not entitled to know that the >opponents have had a misunderstanding, I am entitled to be legally apprised of >their partnership agreements. > >Although I did not "recognize" or even "suspect" what was happening, I would >not have appealed if the TD had ruled that I should have "clarified the >situation" before doubling, and that the table result stands for us. Exposing >my stupidity to an AC would be too embarrassing, not worth a couple of >matchpoints. > >Note East's pass to 3C. It seems likely that East realized his mistake by the >time 3C came around, and knew that bidding either 3H or 3S would get him into >some kind of trouble. Assuming this >knowledge did not come from UI (facial twitch by West, which Alice observed), >I think he was entitled to pass the forcing 3C bid. If the knowledge came from >UI, then he has to bid 3H. This bid, together with the pass to 2H, would >signify a possible psych based on a very long heart suit, and West must pass. >It is not at all probable, however, that Alice would double 3H, so down five >undoubled for E-W. > >I lean toward -150 (table result) for N/S, -400 in 2H for E/W, but if West >utilized UI to pass 3C, then +500/-500 for N-S/E-W, adjusting the contract to >3H. > >Your opinions? > >Marv (Marvin L. French) > I have just been reading all the post on this subject, which i find quite interesting. Many questions come to my mind but the first comment is about your answers : everyone is focusing on East actions : no alert, pass after 2H and pass after 3C; what about West ??? I Think the TD should have asked to West what was in his mind when his partner passed the forcing 2H : passing in his own psyched suit or forgetting to rectify transfer or something else? Another point : would you have ruled the same way if West had rectified himself 2H* into 2S, not showing his second suit? (may be with a weaker hand) Is it conceivable that West could have passed 2H* maybe thinking that his partner has psyched with a heart suit? After all, his hand is not bad for hearts as trumps : one Ace, two trumps, a singleton... It is possible that my questions are pointless but i'm puzzled anyway... general remark : in France weak NT and transfer have to be alerted so failure to do this means opp made natural bids : strong NT, weak rectification, no need to check; i am with Marvin about that. Not sure it is good news for him ;-) Thanks, Edouard Beauvillain From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 13 22:05:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA05338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 22:05:13 +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 WAA05332 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 22:05:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-13-159.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.13.159]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA21864 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 12:04:55 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <387C7A59.CEBA2F21@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 13:58:01 +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: Correction attempt of insufficient bid References: <20000107170246.48443.qmail@hotmail.com> <5ZkeRMAe+od4Ew3T@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Michael Farebrother wrote: > >>From: "Martin Sinot" > >>Consider the following auction: > >> > >>W N E S > >>1D p 1C > >> 1H 1S > >> > >> > > At the table, what you do is RTFLB. There is no need for generosity > in book rulings. > > >It seems there is a conflict in the Laws, and I don't know how to do > >precedence. > > There is a problem here, David, but I don't believe you have the "best" solution. The Laws are not very clear, but we should rather go for the natural happenings at the table. What happened was that 1C was not accepted, but 1H was. And the bidding continued. I agree that there must be some basis for further penalties, if these folks should ever try to ask for them later (and we won't give them), but it must be better to have the 1H as a call and the 1Cl as UI than the reverse. Suppose the bidding goes : 1Di 1Sp 1He (no) Dbl Redbl 2He TD, is he allowed to bid 2He ? I am very certain you will not treat this bidding as 1Di 1Sp 1He Redbl 2He and rule illegal redouble, but rather as : 1Di 1Sp Dbl Redbl 2He and rule MI on 1He (or even not). My point of view is, there has been a change of call, and it has been accepted. L27 also applies, but I rule with L11 at hand. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 13 23:56:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA05528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 23:56:23 +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 XAA05523 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 23:56:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 13:55:55 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id OAA15271 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 14:01:48 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: Correction attempt of insufficient bid Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 13:30:01 +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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >My point of view is, there has been a change of call, and it >has been accepted. L27 also applies, but I rule with L11 at >hand. Where does L11 say that 1H is now accepted? It says that the right to penalize may be forfeited if the non-offending side takes action before TD is called. But that does not suggest that either 1H or 1C is the accepted bid. Or is it a penalty for someone if 1C would be accepted instead of 1H? -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 14 00:02:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA05554 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 00:02:54 +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 AAA05548 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 00:02:42 +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, 13 Jan 2000 08:01:37 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000113080021.007a25a0@mail.maine.rr.com> X-Sender: thg@mail.maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 08:00:21 -0500 To: From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Convention Chart Changes In-Reply-To: <050101bf5d8d$15963280$16991e18@san.rr.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:11 PM 1/12/00 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >My suggestion, ignored, was that a two-level suit opening showing a >weak two bid in a specific major, or some strong (15+) sort of hand, >should be permitted on the Mid-Chart, considering that 2D is >permitted for a weak two bid in an unspecified major, or some strong >(15+) hand. Isn't the latter harder to defend against? It would be >so easy to generalize this rule by saying "specified or unspecified >major" instead of "unspecified major." Why are you limiting yourself to major suits? In the spirit of generalizing, a two-level bid showing a weak hand with a long suit or various other strong meanings should be allowed. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 14 00:56:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA05758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 00:56:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (smtp7.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.128.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA05753 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 00:56:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegpn.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.67.55]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA07994 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 08:55:55 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000113085311.011f5818@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 08:53:11 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI after failure to Alert/announce In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:05 AM 1/13/00 +0000, Tim wrote: >Pass is not illegal opposite the 9 count. It is not illegal to >misinterpret UI when you have to make a judgement. When you do >misinterpret such UI the TD will adjust if he considers opponents to >have been damaged. In 90% of UI adjustments the TD goes out of his way to >point out that he is not accusing the adjustee of doing anything wrong. >Players are expected to make an effort to interpret the UI and avoid >taking advantage - they should not be condemned if their efforts are >sometimes misguided. Condemnation? I agree, that would be too harsh. But score adjustment in a UI case presupposes an infraction of Law, specifically L16 (or more rarely L73). That is, we adjust if and only if we find that the player has chosen an action which the UI has demonstrably suggested over one or more LAs. If he has done so, then that action is illegal, because it is contrary to the requirements of the Laws. And observe that nothing in the standards set forth under L16 involves the actual hand that partner holds. The standards apply only to the action taken in the context of the information (legal and otherwise) which was available at the time of the action. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 14 04:23:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA06331 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 04:23:53 +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 EAA06326 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 04:23:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 09:23:34 -0800 Message-ID: <055601bf5dea$b8292d60$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <1.5.4.32.20000113105540.00844e04@bach-int.ensg.ign.fr> Subject: Re: Failure to Announce a Transfer (2) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 09:21:46 -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 I agree with what Edouard writes. I hadn't considered that West should perhaps pass the double, catering to partner's *obvious* psych based on a heart suit. With South's double for takeout, implying short hearts, and North not doubling the 2H bid, where else could the hearts be? From: Edouard Beauvillain > Hi everybody, Marv French wrote: > > >Just back from the Reno regional, where one TD ruling recalled to mind a > >recent BLML thread (300 lb man...) > > > >Vulnerability: Both > >Dealer: West > > > > S- 6 > > H- QJ10972 > > D- KJ9 > > C- 982 > > > >S- QJ1053 S- A97 > >H- 63 H- K84 > >D- 6 D- A85 > >C- AQJ54 C- 10763 > > > > S- K842 > > H- A5 > > D- Q107432 > > C- K > > > >West North East South > > P P 1NT P > > 2H * P ** P Dbl for takeout > > 3C All pass > > > > * Intended as a transfer to spades, Announceable but not Announced.. > >** Feminine intuition? > > > > I have just been reading all the post on this subject, which i find quite > interesting. > Many questions come to my mind but the first comment is about your answers : > everyone is focusing on East actions : no alert, pass after 2H and pass > after 3C; what about West ??? > I Think the TD should have asked to West what was in his mind when his > partner passed the forcing 2H : passing in his own psyched suit or > forgetting to rectify transfer or something else? > > Another point : would you have ruled the same way if West had rectified > himself 2H* into 2S, not showing his second suit? (may be with a weaker > hand) > > Is it conceivable that West could have passed 2H* maybe thinking that his > partner has psyched with a heart suit? After all, his hand is not bad for > hearts as trumps : one Ace, two trumps, a singleton... > > It is possible that my questions are pointless but i'm puzzled anyway. Very much to the point. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 14 05:06:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA06433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 05:06:27 +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 FAA06427 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 05:06:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 10:06:09 -0800 Message-ID: <056601bf5df0$aaf23f00$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000113080021.007a25a0@mail.maine.rr.com> Subject: Re: Convention Chart Changes Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 10:03:56 -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 Tim Goodwin wrote: Marvin L. French wrote: > >My suggestion, ignored, was that a two-level suit opening showing a > >weak two bid in a specific major, or some strong (15+) sort of hand, > >should be permitted on the Mid-Chart, considering that 2D is > >permitted for a weak two bid in an unspecified major, or some strong > >(15+) hand. Isn't the latter harder to defend against? It would be > >so easy to generalize this rule by saying "specified or unspecified > >major" instead of "unspecified major." > > Why are you limiting yourself to major suits? In the spirit of > generalizing, a two-level bid showing a weak hand with a long suit or > various other strong meanings should be allowed. > A *known* long suit, of course, and at least 10 HCP (just going along with the current ACBL requirement for such bids). You're right, but half a loaf is better than none. More desirable generalizations: The GCC (Item 4, Responses & Rbids) permits a 2C or 2D response to a 3rd or 4th *major* opening asking the quality of the opening bid. Obviously caters to the Drury enthusiasts. There is no good reason that I can see for barring such a convention after minor suit openings. Items 3 & 5 permit conventional responses that either show a raise or are forcing to game. This pretty much restricts a passed hand's conventions to raises only. Game-invitational bids should be okay too. Maybe a 10 HCP minimum would be appropriate. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 14 08:56:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA06947 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 08:56:09 +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 IAA06942 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 08:56:03 +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 HAA14828 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 07:55:58 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mosaic@localhost) by cuda.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA32444; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 07:56:01 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 07:56:01 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200001132156.HAA32444@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: BLML Reply-To: Laurie Kelso References: <01bf5d6a$caf602e0$b36293c3@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf5d6a$caf602e0$b36293c3@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: IMP/PHP3 Imap webMail Program 2.0.11 X-Originating-IP: 150.203.233.4 Subject: Re: DWS\\\'s new working hours Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Quoting Anne Jones : > ----Original Message----- > From: Laurie Kelso > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Date: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 11:18 PM > Subject: DWS\\\'s new working hours > > > > >As some you may be aware, David Stevenson is currently > >in Australia working at the Summer Bridge Festival in > >Canberra. It may surprise many that we managed to > >dragged him out of bed and get him over to the > >alternative venue by 7.30am this morning > > That would have been easy. David thinks there\'s only one 7.30 in a day! > >where he got > >to set up and dress tables! > But had he dressed himself? > I look foreward to the next episode :-)))) > Anne Yes he was dressed, but the electric razor made a lot of noise in the back of the car! ----------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://web.horde.org/imp/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 14 09:31:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA07178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:31:37 +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 JAA07173 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:31:29 +1100 (EST) From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id p.aa.44dfb4 (5701) for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 17:30:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 17:30:43 EST Subject: Re: DWS\\\'s new working hours To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>Yes he was dressed, but the electric razor made a lot of noise in the back of the car!<< Reminds me of a story about a Rolls Royce burning in the Queens Midtown Tunnel in New York City. The relevant quote was "all you could hear was the ticking of the clock and the crackling of the flames." From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 14 14:13:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA08108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 14:13:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from ehcmail.ehc.edu ([208.1.218.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA08103 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 14:13:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from ehc.edu (OEMWORKGROUP [172.16.224.117]) by ehcmail.ehc.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id Y5N5NS26; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 22:15:23 -0500 Message-ID: <387E943D.D15A6401@ehc.edu> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 22:13:01 -0500 From: John A Kuchenbrod Reply-To: kuch@ms.uky.edu X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: my server's mishaps Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Greetings. I apologize if any of you have been getting any error message on account of my institution. We've been struggling with an IP change (and some other mishaps). We have not received any incoming e-mail since Monday. Now the colleagues which we can reach are telling us that mail messages sent to E&H are starting to bounce. If this hasn't affected you, sorry for the bother. Marcus, if there have been any problems, could you take me off the list and put kuch@ms.uky.edu back on the list? If there haven't been any problems, just keep me on and I'll catch up once things are up to speed. Since I'm no longer at U.Ky., I'd rather not send the list mailings to them if it can be avoided. Once again, my apologies. Please reply to kuch@ms.uky.edu . Best regards, John -- | Dr. John A. Kuchenbrod | jkuchen@ehc.edu | lazarus.ehc.edu/~jkuchen | | Fight Hunger -- visit http://www.thehungersite.com daily | From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 14 15:50:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA08440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 15:50:06 +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 PAA08431 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 15:49:57 +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 128ygG-0007ku-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 04:49:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 04:48:26 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: bum claim MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk an easy one I think, in DWS's absence Jxxx AQTxx K9xx claim by W (rest of hand trumps) - careless or irrational? club game, mps, competent mid-stake rubber bridge player I ruled 1 trick to the opponents, anyone disagree? claimer's partner commented "sloppy, serves u right!" 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 Jan 14 17:41:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA08812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 17:41:38 +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 RAA08806 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 17:41:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from alltel.net (cras18p74.navix.net [207.91.7.76]) by mail.alltel.net (8.9.3/ALLTEL Messaging Service) with ESMTP id AAA21766 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 00:41:15 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <387EC57A.EA03D9C1@alltel.net> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 00:43:06 -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: bum claim References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > an easy one I think, in DWS's absence > > Jxxx > > AQTxx K9xx claim by W (rest of hand trumps) > > - > > careless or irrational? > > club game, mps, competent mid-stake rubber bridge player > > I ruled 1 trick to the opponents, anyone disagree? No. When running a combined long suit with "no problems," it's normal to start with the high cards in the shorter hand. So the lead is the king, or to the king, discovering the void. Too late. Reverse the location of the E/W hands, however, and now the "normal" play of the king discovers the void with the lead in the correct hand for taking a finesse. So in that case, no trick to the opponents. Anyone disagree? Norm Hostetler > > > claimer's partner commented "sloppy, serves u right!" > > 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 Jan 14 19:06:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA09073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 19:06:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f108.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA09068 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 19:05:53 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 822 invoked by uid 0); 14 Jan 2000 08:05:12 -0000 Message-ID: <20000114080512.821.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 4.33.182.89 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 00:05:12 PST X-Originating-IP: [4.33.182.89] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: bum claim Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 00:05:12 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yes, I'd play the ace from my hand since I can still try the finesse either way when I discover the 4-0 split. If the cards split 3-1 or 2-2 there's no need to finesse against the jack and playing the ace first didn't hurt none. I can guarantee the remainder of the tricks, though not for the reason that I have a handful of trumps. But if west was careless enough to claim with 4 outstanding trumps, west could still be careless enough to cash ace, queen, then lead to the king (which is reasonable if west thinks that there are only 3 outstanding trump) and still lose a trick when south's holding 4 to the jack. How lax is 70C3 in regards to defining 'normal' play? -Todd >From: Norman Hostetler >CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Subject: Re: bum claim >Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 00:43:06 -0600 > > >"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > an easy one I think, in DWS's absence > > > > Jxxx > > > > AQTxx K9xx claim by W (rest of hand trumps) > > > > - > > > > careless or irrational? > > > > club game, mps, competent mid-stake rubber bridge player > > > > I ruled 1 trick to the opponents, anyone disagree? > >No. When running a combined long suit with "no problems," it's normal to >start with the high cards in the shorter hand. So the lead is the king, >or to the king, discovering the void. Too late. Reverse the location of >the E/W hands, however, and now the "normal" play of the king discovers >the void with the lead in the correct hand for taking a finesse. So in >that case, no trick to the opponents. Anyone disagree? > >Norm Hostetler > > > > > > > claimer's partner commented "sloppy, serves u right!" > > > > 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 > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 14 20:33:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA09359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 20:33:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from alpha.netvision.net.il (alpha.netvision.net.il [194.90.1.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA09354 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 20:33:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from eitan (RAS3-p35.nt.netvision.net.il [62.0.183.37]) by alpha.netvision.net.il (8.9.3/8.8.6) with SMTP id LAA30459 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 11:32:57 +0200 (IST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000114113245.008518b0@netvision.net.il> X-Sender: moranl@netvision.net.il X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 11:32:45 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Eitan Levy Subject: re: bum claim Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > >> an easy one I think, in DWS's absence >> >> Jxxx >> >> AQTxx K9xx claim by W (rest of hand trumps) >> >> - >> >> careless or irrational? >> >> club game, mps, competent mid-stake rubber bridge player >> >> I ruled 1 trick to the opponents, anyone disagree? > >No. When running a combined long suit with "no problems," it's normal to >start with the high cards in the shorter hand. So the lead is the king, >or to the king, discovering the void. Too late. Reverse the location of >the E/W hands, however, and now the "normal" play of the king discovers >the void with the lead in the correct hand for taking a finesse. So in >that case, no trick to the opponents. Anyone disagree? > >Norm Hostetler > In the actual hand I agree with John's ruling. If the hands were switched I agree no tricks to opponents but not for the reason that the King is "normal", rather because to lose a trick now is irrational, thus: There are two possible "normal" plays and both must be considered - play 1. the king is played first and play 2. Ace is played first. IMHO both these plays are normal according to the definition in L69 footnote.(even though one of them may be inferior and careless). In the original hand play 1 (King) loses a trick so give a trick to opponents even tho play 2 succeeds.. In the switched hand: play 2 (Ace) reveals the void, enter the other hand with King and the Jack can be finessed. Play 1 (the King) also reveals the void and the Jack is now finessable. In the switched hand the only plays that lose to the jack are not finessing after seeing a void (irrational) and finessing on the first round (irrational.) Eitan Levy >> >> >> claimer's partner commented "sloppy, serves u right!" >> >> cheers john From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 14 20:53:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA09428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 20:53:23 +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 UAA09422 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 20:53:14 +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 JAA06621 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:52:27 GMT Message-ID: <387EF206.916BB8A5@meteo.fr> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 10:53:10 +0100 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: reddemus in lectum Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Did anybody notice the controverse initiated by Allan Truscott (issues 6 and 7 of Bermuda daily bulletin) about system regulation? I was still wondering how to react to Truscott's crusade against bidding development when I read David Burn's outstanding response and I realized I had nothing to add and I never could have expressed my opinion in so clear and so picturesque a fashion. 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 Jan 14 23:17:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA10041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 23:17:10 +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 XAA10036 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 23:17:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-13-196.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.13.196]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA03910 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 13:16:33 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <387F1267.6071B2DB@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 13:11:19 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: bum claim References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > an easy one I think, in DWS's absence > > Jxxx > > AQTxx K9xx claim by W (rest of hand trumps) > > - > > careless or irrational? > > club game, mps, competent mid-stake rubber bridge player > > I ruled 1 trick to the opponents, anyone disagree? > > claimer's partner commented "sloppy, serves u right!" > This really depends upon the practices at that table. If this sort of claim is common, normal and accepted, then I judge that the player knows there are 4 trumps cards out, and of course he knows that he should play one of the double honours first. And the claim valid. If this sort of claim is not common at this table, then I judge that he has forgotten to count until 13 and thus one trick to the opponents. But since the partner called it sloppy, I believe the second one to be true. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 15 00:22:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA10327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 00:22:48 +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 AAA10322 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 00:22:39 +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 IAA23735 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 08:22:20 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000114082311.0070d5c4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 08:23:11 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda In-Reply-To: <003001bf5c6b$67a3b020$b3a801d5@davidburn> References: <3.0.6.32.20000109091424.008c48f0@mail.ultra.net.au> <013301bf5a41$2ce459c0$16991e18@san.rr.com> <019001bf5b8e$ccf73560$bd2b4b0c@default> <008a01bf5c45$42792e40$ab2b4b0c@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I really don't see any difference between the SO "delegating" the AC's L12C3 authority to the CTD *subject to review by the AC* and their requiring the AC to obtain a "recommendation" from the CTD prior to making *their* determination. I suspect that if the WBF had worded their policy more along the latter lines, we wouldn't be debating it. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 15 01:25:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA10598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 01:25:48 +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 BAA10591 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 01:25:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-2inio96.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.97.38]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA30086; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:25:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000114143628.006d05d8@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, 14 Jan 2000 06:36:28 -0800 To: "John Probst" From: Henry Sun Subject: Re: bum claim Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:48 AM 1/14/00 +0000, you wrote: > >an easy one I think, in DWS's absence > > Jxxx > > >AQTxx K9xx claim by W (rest of hand trumps) > > - >careless or irrational? careless. i remember reading about a hand in our team trials in which an expert declarer had to play kq98x opposite a7x for 4 winners and started the suit by cashing the king. so a misplay of this suit seems far from what i would consider irrational. i agree with 1 trick to the defenders. henry sun From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 15 01:29:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA10616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 01:29:24 +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 BAA10611 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 01:29:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-128.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.128]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA28784; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:28:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000b01bf5e9b$e1c21cc0$8084d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Norman Hostetler" Cc: Subject: Re: bum claim Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:30:16 -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 Yes...normal play would be the A or Q (or to them) which discovers any void in time. Anything else would be irrational in my view. -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: Norman Hostetler Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, January 14, 2000 2:01 AM Subject: Re: bum claim > >"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > >> an easy one I think, in DWS's absence >> >> Jxxx >> >> AQTxx K9xx claim by W (rest of hand trumps) >> >> - >> >> careless or irrational? >> >> club game, mps, competent mid-stake rubber bridge player >> >> I ruled 1 trick to the opponents, anyone disagree? > >No. When running a combined long suit with "no problems," it's normal to >start with the high cards in the shorter hand. So the lead is the king, >or to the king, discovering the void. Too late. Reverse the location of >the E/W hands, however, and now the "normal" play of the king discovers >the void with the lead in the correct hand for taking a finesse. So in >that case, no trick to the opponents. Anyone disagree? > >Norm Hostetler > >> >> >> claimer's partner commented "sloppy, serves u right!" >> >> 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 Jan 15 02:20:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA11013 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 02:20:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp.pandora.be (hercules.telenet-ops.be [195.130.132.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA11008 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 02:19:57 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 10202 invoked from network); 14 Jan 2000 15:19:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bureau) ([213.224.22.253]) (envelope-sender ) by hercules.telenet-ops.be (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 14 Jan 2000 15:19:48 -0000 Message-ID: <000201bf5ea3$f8dee2a0$fd16e0d5@bureau.pandora.be> From: "Paul Vercammen" To: Subject: Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 16:26:50 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01BF5EAC.294C10E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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_0006_01BF5EAC.294C10E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable unsubscribe bridge laws ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BF5EAC.294C10E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
unsubscribe bridge=20 laws
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BF5EAC.294C10E0-- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 15 02:33:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA11074 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 02:33:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (omicron.comarch.pl [195.116.125.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA11058 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 02:31:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (pc217.krakow.ppp.tpnet.pl [212.160.4.217]) by omicron.comarch.pl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA12527 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 16:31:54 +0100 Message-ID: <387F40E8.CD61EDB5@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 16:29:44 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: reddemus in lectum References: <387EF206.916BB8A5@meteo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > Did anybody notice the controverse initiated by Allan Truscott (issues > 6 and 7 of Bermuda daily bulletin) about system regulation? I was still > wondering how to react to Truscott's crusade against bidding development > when I read David Burn's outstanding response and I realized I had > nothing to add and I never could have expressed my opinion in so clear > and so picturesque a fashion. > > JP Rocafort I did. I woke up this morning and read David's reply. All I can say is Truscott - Burn 0:25 ! I hope I will always agree with David in everything. Don't want to have him as an opponent in a discussion :))) **************************************************************************** - 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 Sat Jan 15 03:37:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA11427 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 03:37:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from legend.idworld.net (legend.idworld.net [209.142.64.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA11422 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 03:37:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from txdirect.net (unverified [209.142.68.74]) by legend.idworld.net (Rockliffe SMTPRA 3.4.5) with ESMTP id ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 10:37:28 -0600 Message-ID: <387F504C.80CCA98D@txdirect.net> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 10:35:24 -0600 From: "\"Albert \\\"BiigAl\\\" Lochli\"" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Konrad Ciborowski , "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: reddemus in lectum References: <387EF206.916BB8A5@meteo.fr> <387F40E8.CD61EDB5@omicron.comarch.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Re: Bermuda Bulletins. What is an URL to see these bulletins??? All I find on the Orbis site is a sampling and I missed this. -- 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 Jan 15 04:02:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA11579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 04:02:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [207.213.113.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA11574 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 04:02:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA03197; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:02:18 -0800 Message-Id: <200001141702.JAA03197@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: bum claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 14 Jan 2000 06:36:28 PST." <1.5.4.32.20000114143628.006d05d8@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:02:19 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henry Sun wrote: > At 04:48 AM 1/14/00 +0000, you wrote: > > > >an easy one I think, in DWS's absence > > > > Jxxx > > > > > >AQTxx K9xx claim by W (rest of hand trumps) > > > > - > > >careless or irrational? > > careless. i remember reading about a hand in our team trials in > which an expert declarer had to play kq98x opposite a7x for 4 > winners and started the suit by cashing the king. so a misplay > of this suit seems far from what i would consider irrational. I don't get the point of your example. Are you suggesting that even experts misplay in clear situations? Someone will have to explain to me why the king is a misplay. If you need only 4 winners, your only concern is JTxxx in one hand; playing the king caters to this holding in either hand, while playing the ace fails if JTxxx is behind KQ98x. If this was a typo, and you meant to say the expert played the ace first, it still doesn't prove your point. First of all, an overtrick IMP is still an IMP, and matches are sometimes won by 1 IMP. The expert might have been (consciously or out of habit) trying to maximize his chances for five tricks (thinking that the stiff J or T was more likely to be on his left). Usually, players are taught that at IMPs, you should never jeopardize your contract to try for an overtrick. But that's not correct. This subject has come up on rec.games.bridge, and I've done some simulations, and I'm now convinced that if the expected IMP gain is higher from playing for an overtrick than from taking a safety play, playing for the overtrick, even when you risk your contract, increases your chances of winning the match. (If it's toward the end of the match and you believe you're up by say 8 or 9 IMPs, the overtrick has a lot less to gain.) So there are possible legitimate-seeming reasons to start with the ace, making this play not at all irrational. Of course, overtricks are no issue with AQTxx/K9xx. Second, this particular layout is just less common than AQTxx opposite K9xx. The latter layout comes up fairly often, and it's mentioned often enough in textbooks that anyone but a novice should recognize the right play. So I can say confidently that with AQTxx opposite K9xx, it's irrational for a moderately experienced player to start with anything other than ace or queen. Of course, the experience level matters. I won't argue with John's ruling, since he knows the people involved better than we do. But I'd accept the claim for any player who I know has been around for a while. In fact, if a good player made this claim against me, I wouldn't argue or call the TD. (Nevertheless, I don't take chances. Last time I had this sort of layout, I played the ace out of my hand and then claimed.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 15 04:05:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA11603 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 04:05:00 +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 EAA11598 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 04:04:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from karma.isi.com (pixsv41.isi.com [192.73.222.191]) by hopper.isi.com (8.8.4/8.6.10) with ESMTP id JAA03404; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:04:12 -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 IAA13629; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 08:59:23 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard Willey" To: "\"Albert \\\"BiigAl\\\" Lochli\"" Cc: Subject: RE: reddemus in lectum Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 12:06:17 -0800 Message-ID: <001001bf5eca$d1479f80$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: <387F504C.80CCA98D@txdirect.net> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Al The Bermuda Bowl site has two sets of bulletins One set is in PDF format (requiring an Adobe Acrobat reader) The other is in HTML format. The PDF files are MUCH more complete and contain the referenced articles. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of "Albert \"BiigAl\" Lochli" Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 8:35 AM To: Konrad Ciborowski; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: reddemus in lectum Re: Bermuda Bulletins. What is an URL to see these bulletins??? All I find on the Orbis site is a sampling and I missed this. - -- 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 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOH+BuCGkJ7YU62vZEQLAFwCghD7GO79lUFmyC4wfdpLmE0Ln6i4AmwUi CAb1rIQJ1dOmsybLu4dz+YWK =72jn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 15 04:05:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA11630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 04:05:12 +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 EAA11623 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 04:05:04 +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 RAA28891; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 17:04:25 GMT Message-ID: <387F5746.F3C727CB@meteo.fr> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 18:05:10 +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: reddemus in lectum References: <387EF206.916BB8A5@meteo.fr> <387F40E8.CD61EDB5@omicron.comarch.pl> <387F504C.80CCA98D@txdirect.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk \"Albert \\\"BiigAl\\\" Lochli\" a écrit : > > Re: Bermuda Bulletins. > What is an URL to see these bulletins??? > All I find on the Orbis site is a sampling and I missed this. > -- Don't panic, your curiosity will be gratified at: http://www.bermudabowl.com/results/bulletins.htm where you will click on numbers 6 and 7 of the "PDF" column (you need the "acrobat" freeware to read those bulletins). > 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 -- ___________________________________________________ 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 Jan 15 04:19:40 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA11773 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 04:19:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailhost.math.auc.dk (root@mailhost.math.auc.dk [130.225.48.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA11768 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 04:19:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from borsuk.math.auc.dk (borsuk.math.auc.dk [130.225.48.73]) by mailhost.math.auc.dk (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA23056 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 18:19:18 +0100 (MET) Received: (from nwp@localhost) by borsuk.math.auc.dk (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id SAA01177; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 18:18:38 +0100 (MET) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 18:18:38 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200001141718.SAA01177@borsuk.math.auc.dk> X-Authentication-Warning: borsuk.math.auc.dk: nwp set sender to nwp@borsuk.math.auc.dk using -f From: Niels Wendell Pedersen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: reddemus in lectum ... Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean Pierre Rocafort wrote: >Don't panic, your curiosity will be gratified at: > > http://www.bermudabowl.com/results/bulletins.htm Here is a text version of those two articles. Niels ----------------------------------------------------------------- SYSTEMIC GERMS By Alan TruscOtt Some of you will have noticed that Bob Hamman, the World Bridge Federation's top-ranked player, is carrying around a large book. He is doing so reluctantly. It was prepared by two world-class experts and has 450 pages. It lists the counter-measures his team is using against the methods of the 57 pairs they may have to play against in the Bermuda Bowl. He cites an opponent who used a canape overcall of one spade over one diamond to show either clubs, or hearts, plus three or four cards in spades, but maybe two. The system card did not give any point count, but the style was 'aggressive'. This requires advance preparation by the opening bidder's side, since you may need to play in spades. Unlike most of the pairs in the event, Hamman was, up to a point, prepared for this. Since he is allowed to have prepared defenses at the table, he consulted his book and his partner did the same. This wasted 10 minutes, and they were still at some disadvantage: They were in a position that they had never been in before. The opponents had experienced the situation, and there were nuances that were not available to Hamman. Other players in this situation are much worse off. Few teams have the foresight and financial resources to pay an expert to prepare such a book. They have to rely on a quick look at the opponents' methods before the match starts, after they have discovered which pair they will be facing. The World Bridge Federation has long held to the position that all methods are acceptable in world team championships provided they are fully disclosed in advance. I shared that opinion, but Hamman has changed my mind. I believe that purely destructive conventions -- systemic germs -- should be barred by regulation, as they are in world pairs contests. (Eliminating Brown Sticker conventions is an incomplete solution.) Unlike almost all the readers of this, I have read the convention cards of the Bermuda Bowl partnerships. There are many problems. The worst of them would be eliminated by the following simple regulation: The first action by a partnership must EITHER guarantee 9 high-card (4-3-2-1) points OR guarantee length (4+ cards) in a specified suit. Many partnerships will demand, but I hope not get, exceptions for the methods they favor. Some of the effects would be: 1. To bar Multi. (Highly controversial). This was manageable in its original form, but the convention cards show that there are many varieties. And that affects the opponents. 2. To bar opening one notrump bids if the minimum is below nine points. 3. To bar opening bids, such as two spades, that show a weak preempt in an unspecified suit. 4. To bar opening bids that show either a weak two in the next suit or a strong hand. 5. To bar overcalls, such as the one spade overcall quoted above, that can be weak and have no anchor suit. 6. To bar Crash over strong club openings unless 9 points are guaranteed. 7. To bar two clubs over an opposing one notrump to show an unspecified one-suiter unless 9 points are guaranteed. 8. To bar many of the methods that are used here over the opposing one notrump unless 9 points or an anchor suit are guaranteed. (In this area, almost every pair has a different method.) 9. To bar strong-pass systems and ferts, which are now out of fashion. 10. To bar an opening four-club bid showing a preempt in either minor. (This is not Brown Sticker, because it is above 3NT.) 11. This does NOT bar the Gambling 3NT opening, because it has the 9-point minimum. The WBF is understandably reluctant to do anything that interferes with the Laws. But the Laws provide for regulation by sponsoring bodies, modifying the Laws. Regulations are often imposed by NCBOs, and by the WBF itself for world pairs events. If the WBF will adopt the regulation suggested above the great majority of players will be happy. Players who dream up conventions designed purely to disrupt the opponents' bidding will have to mend their ways. This is not a total solution, but Hamman's book will be much smaller next time around. Wealthy teams, who can pay for a book, will have a reduced advantage. And systemic germs will not slow the play down. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A modest proposal David Burn, Great Britain Alan Truscott's article has provoked a swift response from one of our Internet readers. We certainly enjoyed reading it. Some of you will have noticed that Abbey Walker, the European champion, is carrying around a couple of sheets of paper. She is doing so under protest. They were prepared by her partner, and contain among other things the counter-measures she uses when her opponents open the bidding. She cites an opponent who used a bid of one club to show spades, or hearts, or diamonds, or clubs, or any of the six combinations of two of those suits, the four three-suited possibilities and even a balanced hand. The system card gave only a vague indication of the point count, but the style was described as 'strong'. This requires advance preparation by the defending side, since you may want to play in clubs, diamonds, hearts, spades, or conceivably nothing at all. Like all of the players in the event,Abbey was prepared for this to some extent. Since she is not allowed to have prepared defences at the table, she has been forced to rely on a complex procedure involving looking at her hand and bidding according to its contents. This wastes up to half a second on any given deal, and she was still at some disadvantage, because she was in a position that could never have occurred if players were forced to bid only suits in which they had length, provided that they also held good hands. The World Bridge Federation has consistently refused to espouse the obvious notion that bids that do not show strength or specified suits should be placed in the same category as coffee and other dangerous drugs. I shared that opinion, but Truscott has changed my mind. I believe that no call should be permitted unless there is a possibility that it could terminate the auction. Eliminating the Precision Club is only a partial solution. Unlike almost all readers, I have read thousands of convention cards over a period of twelve years as coach to international teams. There are, in truth, very few problems that cannot be solved by the application of a few general principles and some basic common sense. But that is not the point - as bridge becomes an Olympic sport, as the march of time carries us inexorably towards a new millennium, it is more important than ever that the game remains firmly rooted in the 1930s, where everybody knew what was happening. This will occur only if the following regulation is adopted as a matter of urgency: Any action by anyone must not be forcing. Of course, there will be die-hards who persist in the foolish belief that the object of bidding is either: to reach the optimum contract, or to prevent the opponents from doing likewise. I trust that these practitioners of chemical warfare will be given the short shrift they deserve by the governing bodies. The effect of my proposal would be to eliminate the strong 1}, the strong 2}, the take-out double, Blackwood, Stayman, cue-bids, asking bids and all manner of pernicious devices which place the opponents in the invidious position of having to defend against the right contract. An additional advantage would be that the game becomes a great deal faster. Since the chances of getting a plus score by bidding under the new regime would be minimal, hardly anyone would bother to bid at all. Even when an auction did start, it would not last very long. With no need for alerts and explanations, matches which currently take two hours would be over in a matter of minutes, and we could all spend most of our day at the beach instead of having to put some effort into exploring the unnecessary complexities of what ought to be a simple game. Instead of the Olympic motto -- "faster, higher, stronger" -- let us adopt for our sport a new watchword: "Reddemus in lectum et stragulum super capitem trahemus", which being roughly translated means: "Let us go back to bed and pull the covers over our heads". David Burn 13th January 2000 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 15 04:56:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA11961 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 04:56:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from igngate.merck.de (igngate.merck.de [194.196.248.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA11956 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 04:56:34 +1100 (EST) From: James.Vickers@merck.de Received: from dedamsgnt02.merck.de (smtpgw.merck.de [155.250.248.234]) by igngate.merck.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA19878 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 18:55:56 +0100 (MET) X-Internal-ID: 3870545A0002526B Received: from dedamsg1.merck.de (155.250.248.233) by dedamsgnt02.merck.de (NPlex 2.0.123) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 18:55:56 +0100 Received: by dedamsg1.merck.de(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.5 (863.2 5-20-1999)) id C1256866.0062521B ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 18:53:55 +0100 X-Lotus-FromDomain: MERCK To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 18:53:51 +0100 Subject: Redress for N/S? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello again. Returning after a short break, I find this interesting case has the German news group "Doubl" in a bit of a spin, and would appreciate some comments: Teams, dealer N, N/S vul: 10 K Q J 9 7 J 7 6 2 J 6 2 6 5 4 2 N K Q 3 W E A 10 8 6 5 4 2 A Q 8 S K 4 A 10 8 5 4 9 7 A J 9 8 7 3 - 10 9 5 3 K Q 3 The auction: N E S W 2 H * pass pass ? * Alerted. East asked and was told "a super-weak two in hearts, 9-12 pts and 6 hearts". He enquired further as to whether it could only mean hearts, or if it could possibly be a weak two in spades (not a legal treatment in some parts of the world, but would have been here). South denied this possibility. West passed and 2H was defeated by two tricks. N/S were unhappy about the line of questioning, and called the TD to reserve their rights. West declared that after East's behaviour he was barred from bidding anyway (not true, of course, E/W are in need of some educating). How should the TD rule? Following the usual procedure for such cases, I would ask myself the following questions: Was UI transmitted? (Yes) Did offender's partner choose from among logical alternatives one which could have been suggested over and above others by the UI? (Not in my opinion, but arguable) Were the opponents damaged as a result? (Quite possibly) East's question could be interpreted as saying: "I can't believe you have a weak two in hearts as I have so many of them and not so many spades" and make a take-out double by West (to be converted to penalty) more attractive than a pass (logical alternative? To some players perhaps). But consider what happens if there had been no UI and West makes the normal double. East passes, and it would not be unreasonable for South to rescue to 2S and on a good day take eight tricks. East's question was undoubtably illegal, and West acted naively, albeit in good faith. It seems that as a result N/S have lost their chance to obtain a better score in 2S, even though West went out of his way not to act on the UI. Do N/S have a right to redress? If so, which law do you cite? James Vickers From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 15 05:09:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA11908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 04:47:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.pinehurst.net (mail.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA11902 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 04:47:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from pinehurst.net (3com-tc1-64.sopines.pinehurst.net [12.20.159.68]) by mail.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA56968 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 12:47:26 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from nancy@pinehurst.net) Message-ID: <387F60E7.A02ABC62@pinehurst.net> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 12:46:15 -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: Wrong hand Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yesterday I was called when declarer realized that there were 2 diamond aces in the hand. The bidding had been completed and the opening diamond lead faced. Declarer was surprised when RHO tried to win the trick with the DA which was also in his hand. When I got to the table it was obvious that RHO had blue cards when she should have had yellow ones! Law 17D only seems to cover this situation while the auction is taking place and here the auction was obviously over! Again, there were 4 directors there, (declarer, declarer's partner, offender, and me.) Declarer's partner said "You won't find this one in the book!" , I suggested that I think I will and at this point suggested that OS should receive an Ave- procedural penalty. They wanted to play the hand with offender playing the correct hand with the bidding arrived at during the auction. I said go ahead and call me back. In the meantime I searched the law book but could not find anything relating to this problem discovered during the play of the hand. After the hand was over, declarer had bid and made 2 clubs. I suggested they could take the table result or the ave- without looking at the table result. Declarer elected the table result. After looking at the score, OS stated they would have preferred the ave- as it would have been a better score for them. We laughed at the whole scenario and carried on - Everyone quite satisfied with the result. How far off base was this or was it all OK? (and where is this situation covered in TFLB?) Thanks, Nancy From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 15 05:54:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA12259 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 05:54:46 +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 FAA12254 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 05:54:38 +1100 (EST) From: pamhad@netcomuk.co.uk Received: from dialup-21-44.netcomuk.co.uk (dialup-21-44.netcomuk.co.uk [194.42.233.108]) by avalon.netcom.net.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA15169 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 18:54:23 GMT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: bum claim Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 18:53:41 +0000 Reply-To: pamhad@netcomuk.co.uk Message-ID: References: <387EC57A.EA03D9C1@alltel.net> In-Reply-To: <387EC57A.EA03D9C1@alltel.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 FAA12255 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 00:43:06 -0600, you wrote: > >"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > >> an easy one I think, in DWS's absence >> >> Jxxx >> >> AQTxx K9xx claim by W (rest of hand trumps) >> >> - >> >> careless or irrational? Stupid/lazy (OK, careless if you prefer it) >> >> club game, mps, competent mid-stake rubber bridge player >> >> I ruled 1 trick to the opponents, anyone disagree? > >No. When running a combined long suit with "no problems," it's normal to >start with the high cards in the shorter hand. So the lead is the king, >or to the king, discovering the void. Too late. Reverse the location of >the E/W hands, however, and now the "normal" play of the king discovers >the void with the lead in the correct hand for taking a finesse. So in >that case, no trick to the opponents. Anyone disagree? Me As an intermediate player I would look at the two holdings and cash the A or Q before claiming knowing I can always pick up 40 breaks either side - OR I would miscount OR I would be careless. > >Norm Hostetler > >> >> >> claimer's partner commented "sloppy, serves u right!" Claimer's partner was right. I'd give defenders 1 trick on *any* 4 nil break. Luckily for the "experts" who could never play carelessly or miscount I am not a director and neither would I ever be chosen for an appeals committee. -- Pam Sussex, England From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 15 06:05:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA12306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 06:05:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe42.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.79]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA12301 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 06:05:40 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 5177 invoked by uid 65534); 14 Jan 2000 19:04:59 -0000 Message-ID: <20000114190459.5176.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.14.12] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <387F60E7.A02ABC62@pinehurst.net> Subject: Re: Wrong hand Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 13:05:23 -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 L17D applies if during the auction a player with the wrong hand takes a call- and it indeed happened in this case! I do not see in the law the words ‘ until the play period has begun'. L17D definitely gives the TD the power to cancel the board. It also gives the NOS the power to cancel whether the TD wants to or not. I see several issues to be resolved to permit play to continue: 1. it is UI to the OS that the offender was bidding based on the wrong hand. 2. The information gained about declarer’s hand is UI to the OS. 3. Dealing with the resulting score if it judged that the OS gained an advantage. I do not like at all the award of an artificial score on a board that all parties say they want to play out and then do. It is another matter if L16 is breached but in that case the score is adjusted. Personally, I am inclined to cancel the board as unplayable because offender can not duplicate his retracted play. The OS has earned a fair PP. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: Nancy T Dressing To: Bridge Laws Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 11:46 AM Subject: Wrong hand > Yesterday I was called when declarer realized that there were 2 diamond > aces in the hand. The bidding had been completed and the opening > diamond lead faced. Declarer was surprised when RHO tried to win the > trick with the DA which was also in his hand. When I got to the table > it was obvious that RHO had blue cards when she should have had yellow > ones! Law 17D only seems to cover this situation while the auction is > taking place and here the auction was obviously over! Again, there were > 4 directors there, (declarer, declarer's partner, offender, and me.) > Declarer's partner said "You won't find this one in the book!" , I > suggested that I think I will and at this point suggested that OS should > receive an Ave- procedural penalty. They wanted to play the hand with > offender playing the correct hand with the bidding arrived at during the > auction. I said go ahead and call me back. In the meantime I searched > the law book but could not find anything relating to this problem > discovered during the play of the hand. > After the hand was over, declarer had bid and made 2 clubs. I suggested > they could take the table result or the ave- without looking at the > table result. Declarer elected the table result. After looking at the > score, OS stated they would have preferred the ave- as it would have > been a better score for them. We laughed at the whole scenario and > carried on - Everyone quite satisfied with the result. How far off base > was this or was it all OK? (and where is this situation covered in > TFLB?) > Thanks, Nancy > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 15 06:13:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA12352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 06:13:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (root@Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA12347 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 06:13:39 +1100 (EST) From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.2]) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA12059; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 14:13:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA235197185; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 14:13:06 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 14:13:00 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Wrong hand Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, nancy@pinehurst.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="BDY.RTF" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="BDY.RTF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id GAA12348 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nancy wrote: Yesterday I was called when declarer realized that there were 2 diamond aces in the hand. The bidding had been completed and the opening diamond lead faced. Declarer was surprised when RHO tried to win the trick with the DA which was also in his hand. When I got to the table it was obvious that RHO had blue cards when she should have had yellow ones! Law 17D only seems to cover this situation while the auction is taking place and here the auction was obviously over! [Laval Dubreuil] Law 17 says" If a player who has picked up cards from a wrong board makes a call, that call is cancelled". Here we dont know if RHO made a bid but he surely made a call (P..). His calls should have been cancelled. Again, there were 4 directors there, (declarer, declarer's partner, offender, and me.) Declarer's partner said "You won't find this one in the book!" [Laval Dubreuil] Law 12A2 reads "The director may award an artificial score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board. As the error was discoverd at first trick, may be you can ask RHO to take the wright hand and play the board. I think Law 17 says the hand is unplayable and should have rule on Law 12A2, allowing an Avg- to RHO's team and Avg+ to NOS. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 15 07:02:38 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA12556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 07:02:38 +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 HAA12551 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 07:02:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-197.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.197]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA02352; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 15:01:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <003e01bf5eca$640f6b00$c584d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 15:03:12 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There appears to be nothing improper about the questions of an alerted bid. (And what is super weak about 9-12? 3-4 would be super weak!) Since a transfer weak two meaning spades would also be legal, it surely seems legal to ask the original question. The follow up "are you SURE" question though does seem somewhat improper. A takeout double does seem to be an LA for west...but is pass DEMONSTRABLY suggested over this rather risky endeavour? After all, west has been (mis)informed that north must have 6 hearts instead of the 5 he actually holds and has no assurance that east has anything much except long hearts based on the UI...is there anywhere to takeout to? Also are NS playing ronf over the weak 2? South has the AI that RHO may have a heart stack; even absent it he could call 2S directly if partnership agreement allows that to end the auction. I don't know what typical play is in Germany...I would tend not to adjust since there was potential MI by NS that exacerbated the UI situation, the demonstrability of the LA is dubious, and it is far from clear that South would fancy 2S when he did not originally and now has heard a takeout double of hearts underneath him. -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: James.Vickers@merck.de To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, January 14, 2000 1:09 PM Subject: Redress for N/S? >Hello again. Returning after a short break, I find this interesting case has the >German news group "Doubl" in a bit of a spin, and would appreciate some >comments: > >Teams, dealer N, N/S vul: > > 10 > K Q J 9 7 > J 7 6 2 > J 6 2 > >6 5 4 2 N K Q >3 W E A 10 8 6 5 4 2 >A Q 8 S K 4 >A 10 8 5 4 9 7 > > A J 9 8 7 3 > - > 10 9 5 3 > K Q 3 > > >The auction: >N E S W >2 H * pass pass ? > >* Alerted. East asked and was told "a super-weak two in hearts, 9-12 pts and >6 hearts". He enquired further as to whether it could only mean hearts, or if it >could possibly be a weak two in spades (not a legal treatment in some parts of >the world, but would have been here). South denied this possibility. West passed >and 2H was defeated by two tricks. > >N/S were unhappy about the line of questioning, and called the TD to reserve >their rights. West declared that after East's behaviour he was barred from >bidding anyway (not true, of course, E/W are in need of some educating). >How should the TD rule? Following the usual procedure for such cases, I would >ask myself the following questions: > > Was UI transmitted? (Yes) > Did offender's partner choose from among logical alternatives one which could > have been suggested over and above others by the UI? (Not in my opinion, but > arguable) > Were the opponents damaged as a result? (Quite possibly) > >East's question could be interpreted as saying: "I can't believe you have a weak >two in hearts as I have so many of them and not so many spades" and make a >take-out double by West (to be converted to penalty) more attractive than a pass >(logical alternative? To some players perhaps). But consider what happens if >there had been no UI and West makes the normal double. East passes, and it would >not be unreasonable for South to rescue to 2S and on a good day take eight >tricks. > >East's question was undoubtably illegal, and West acted naively, albeit in good >faith. It seems that as a result N/S have lost their chance to obtain a better >score in 2S, even though West went out of his way not to act on the UI. Do N/S >have a right to redress? If so, which law do you cite? > >James Vickers > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 15 07:21:46 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA12622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 07:21:46 +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 HAA12615 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 07:21:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 12:21:28 -0800 Message-ID: <000001bf5ecc$91092c20$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 12:17:56 -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 James Vickers wrote with very long line length:: > Hello again. Returning after a short break, I find this interesting case has the > German news group "Doubl" in a bit of a spin, and would appreciate some > comments: > > Teams, dealer N, N/S vul: > > 10 > K Q J 9 7 > J 7 6 2 > J 6 2 > > 6 5 4 2 N K Q > 3 W E A 10 8 6 5 4 2 > A Q 8 S K 4 > A 10 8 5 4 9 7 > > A J 9 8 7 3 > - > 10 9 5 3 > K Q 3 > > > The auction: > N E S W > 2 H * pass pass ? That's some weak two bid, in first seat with unfavorable vulnerability! I hate giving N-S any redress after that. :)) > > * Alerted. East asked and was told "a super-weak two in hearts, 9-12 pts and > 6 hearts". He enquired further as to whether it could only mean hearts, or if it > could possibly be a weak two in spades (not a legal treatment in some parts of > the world, but would have been here). South denied this possibility. West passed > and 2H was defeated by two tricks. > > N/S were unhappy about the line of questioning, and called the TD to reserve > their rights. West declared that after East's behaviour he was barred from > bidding anyway (not true, of course, E/W are in need of some educating). > How should the TD rule? Following the usual procedure for such cases, I would > ask myself the following questions: > > Was UI transmitted? (Yes) > Did offender's partner choose from among logical alternatives one which could > have been suggested over and above others by the UI? (Not in my opinion, but > arguable) > Were the opponents damaged as a result? (Quite possibly) > > East's question could be interpreted as saying: "I can't believe you have a weak > two in hearts as I have so many of them and not so many spades" and make a > take-out double by West (to be converted to penalty) more attractive than a pass > (logical alternative? To some players perhaps). But consider what happens if > there had been no UI and West makes the normal double. East passes, and it would > not be unreasonable for South to rescue to 2S and on a good day take eight > tricks. > > East's question was undoubtably illegal, and West acted naively, albeit in good > faith. It seems that as a result N/S have lost their chance to obtain a better > score in 2S, even though West went out of his way not to act on the UI. Do N/S > have a right to redress? If so, which law do you cite? > L12C2 The most favorable result that was likely in the absence of the infraction was +110 for N/S. Since this is the most unfavorable result that was at all probable for E-W, assign -110 to them, along with a stern lecture for East. If East should have known better, then report the matter to C&E people. There is a possibility that East would have doubled 2S, but I don't know whether that is a strong enough possibility to include it in one or both adjusted scores. West's ethical behavior, although in compliance with L16A, does not annul redress to N/S for the consequences of East's infraction. There is nothing in the Laws to that effect. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 15 08:33:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA12963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 08:33:38 +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 IAA12958 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 08:33:31 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <200001142133.IAA12958@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: (qmail 21959 invoked by uid 0); 14 Jan 2000 21:33:19 -0000 Received: from 125.ppp1-27.image.dk (HELO idefix) (212.54.83.125) by fe040.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 14 Jan 2000 21:33:19 -0000 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 22:33:30 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: bum claim Reply-to: jensogbodil@alesia.dk Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Probst asked: > > an easy one I think, in DWS's absence > > Jxxx > > > AQTxx K9xx claim by W (rest of hand trumps) > > - > > careless or irrational? > > club game, mps, competent mid-stake rubber bridge player Players who are so good that they play the ace or queen as a matter of routine, but who are careless enough not to mention that that is what they are doing when they are claiming, are also careless enough to overlook the right play now and then. One trick to the defenders is my ruling too. However, an appeals committee made up of excellent players might not want to admit that good players can be this careless - because they might think that they certainly would never make such a mistake themselves - so this is one that might be overturned in the committee. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 15 08:32:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA12954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 08:32:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA12949 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 08:32:46 +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 QAA01502 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 16:32:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA13254 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 16:32:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 16:32:46 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200001142132.QAA13254@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > James Vickers wrote with very long line length:: > > East's question was undoubtably illegal, and West acted naively, albeit in > good > > faith. It seems that as a result N/S have lost their chance to obtain a better > > score in 2S, even though West went out of his way not to act on the UI. Do N/S > > have a right to redress? If so, which law do you cite? > From: "Marvin L. French" > L12C2 I think Marv means L73B1. Since there is no prescribed penalty, you go to 12A1 and then to 12C2. All this assumes, of course, that the questioning itself was so likely to transmit information about East's hand as to be illegal. West looks blameless; I can't see a violation of either L16A or 73C. The questioning suggests double, and West chose to pass instead. No violation there. If you do adjust, you would have to inquire a bit into the EW methods to know the proper adjustment. For example, for some pairs, forcing passes would be in effect over 2S. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 15 08:33:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA12969 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 08:33:46 +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 IAA12964 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 08:33:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivei4k.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.72.148]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA15460 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 16:33:29 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000114163056.011fd530@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 16:30:56 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: bum claim In-Reply-To: <387EC57A.EA03D9C1@alltel.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:43 AM 1/14/00 -0600, Norm wrote: >No. When running a combined long suit with "no problems," it's normal to >start with the high cards in the shorter hand. So the lead is the king, >or to the king, discovering the void. Too late. Reverse the location of >the E/W hands, however, and now the "normal" play of the king discovers >the void with the lead in the correct hand for taking a finesse. So in >that case, no trick to the opponents. Anyone disagree? I do. The "normal" line with this holding, which is to say the easy, 100% foolproof line, is to play a high honor from the AQ, discovering either potential bad break in time to pick up the suit. Although I strongly suspect that West had intended his claim to imply exactly that intention, I am inclined to agree with John's ruling, since it seems to me that it would be merely careless, rather than irrational, to take this elementary precaution. Was there a fire? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 15 09:00:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA13046 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 08:49:24 +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 IAA13041 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 08:49:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.8] (dial36.ppp.datatone.com [208.220.195.36]) by datatone.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA13630; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 16:48:45 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000114082311.0070d5c4@pop.cais.com> References: <3.0.6.32.20000109091424.008c48f0@mail.ultra.net.au> <013301bf5a41$2ce459c0$16991e18@san.rr.com> <019001bf5b8e$ccf73560$bd2b4b0c@default> <008a01bf5c45$42792e40$ab2b4b0c@default> <3.0.1.32.20000114082311.0070d5c4@pop.cais.com> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 16:24:38 -0500 To: Eric Landau From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 8:23 AM -0500 1/14/00, Eric Landau wrote: >I really don't see any difference between the SO "delegating" the AC's >L12C3 authority to the CTD *subject to review by the AC* and their >requiring the AC to obtain a "recommendation" from the CTD prior to making >*their* determination. I suspect that if the WBF had worded their policy >more along the latter lines, we wouldn't be debating it. One of us misunderstands. As I read the announcement the CTD will be required to consider the use 12C3 for every ruling requiring an adjusted score, whether or not it is appealed. The Laws as written allow the use of 12C3 only for appeals, not for initial rulings. I think that was a poor decision by the lawmakers, since it will necessarily result in too many appeals. It was the lawmakers' decision to make, however, and I fail to see how it can properly be unmade without changing the Laws. While as I said I consider the use of differing Laws for initial decisions and appealed decisions a mistake it's not one I'm concerned about. I think it is dwarfed by the more serious mistake of putting 12C3 on the books in the first place. AW From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 15 10:06:21 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA13388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 10:06:21 +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 KAA13382 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 10:06:12 +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 SAA13750 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 18:06:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA13342 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 18:06:14 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 18:06:14 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200001142306.SAA13342@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI after failure to Alert/announce X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > the principle that legality has to be evaluated based on the > information available _at the time of the putative infraction_ is worth > stressing. Tim seemed to be arguing that passing 2nt in the original > problem was legal and appropriate if it turned out that partner held the > expected 11-12-count, but illegal and perhaps unethical if it turned out > that partner actually had forgotten the agreement and only had 9 pts. I think there's some confusion here. There are really two different questions to be answered. First, let's stress another important principle. The meaning of any particular piece of UI -- which actions it suggests over others -- depends on the player. If a "machine gun bidder" hesitates 10 milliseconds, that no doubt tells his partner something important. If a beginner thinks for five seconds (an eternity in bridge terms), looking pained all the while, it may not suggest anything other than that he is trying to remember how many points it takes to make some bid or other. In more common cases, say an alleged hesitation over a skip bid, the meaning depends on what the player in question habitually does over skip bids. Are we agreed so far? With that in mind, we can see that there are really two questions raised by Adam's post. a) What are the player's responsibilities? This was the question Adam asked. In the circumstances he gave, where it's overwhelmingly likely that the failure to announce did not indicate a failure to remember the system, I claim the player is under no ethical restrictions whatsoever. Following Michael's principle, _at the time of the putative infraction_ (namely Adam's choice of call), Adam has no reason to believe the failure to announce suggests one action over another. However, a player who wants to win should also consider the answer to question b), which is: b) How should a TD rule if faced by this situation? Well, David keeps telling us that you gather all the facts, then you consult, then you rule. One of the essential elements of a L16A ruling is "suggested over another," and in accordance with the principle above, you want to know what the player's normal habits are. If he says, as will Adam's partner, that he hasn't played in awhile and has trouble remembering to announce, you will discount (but not ignore!) that testimony as self-serving. However, if he also has the expected 11-count, that tends to support his story. If he shows you a British passport :-) and a convention card marked "Acol," that might be more evidence in support. There might be other information, like (in my example) the TD's past experience with the player. Anyway, with enough evidence, even giving the benefit of the doubt to the NOS, a reasonable TD may find himself convinced that the failure to announce did not suggest one action over another. If so, he should rule that there has been no L16A infraction. On the other hand, if the forgetful player actually turns up with an 8-count, that would be a very strong indication that he had forgotten his notrump range, and the TD would inevitably rule that the failure to announce told his partner exactly that. We should keep in mind, though, that convincing the TD that there was no L16A infraction is not trivial. The failure to announce is an infraction, and doubts on any related issue are resolved in favor of the NOS. So unless Adam expects to provide enough evidence of his story to convince the TD, he is well-advised to bid _as though_ he is under UI restrictions, even though ethically he is not. In practice, this means he should bid game on most 13-counts and maybe some 12's: any time bidding game is a LA. At least then if he gets a good score, he can keep it. Perhaps this is more of an answer than people wanted. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 15 10:26:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA13495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 10:26:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [207.213.113.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA13490 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 10:26:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA09248; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 15:26:02 -0800 Message-Id: <200001142326.PAA09248@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: bum claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 14 Jan 2000 22:33:30 PST." <200001142133.IAA12958@octavia.anu.edu.au> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 15:26:03 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens wrote: > John Probst asked: > > > > an easy one I think, in DWS's absence > > > > Jxxx > > > > > > AQTxx K9xx claim by W (rest of hand trumps) > > > > - > > > > careless or irrational? > > > > club game, mps, competent mid-stake rubber bridge player > > Players who are so good that they play the ace or queen as a matter > of routine, but who are careless enough not to mention that that is > what they are doing when they are claiming, are also careless enough > to overlook the right play now and then. One trick to the defenders > is my ruling too. Can we assume that someone who doesn't mention anything extra in their claim statement is careless? I don't think so. Depending on the circumstances, it's certainly possible that the player thinks the correct play is so obvious to everyone, including the opponents, that he's not going to waste time spelling it out. Suppose West had played the ace first, and South showed out. Now West claims, without a claim statement. Would you argue that since West was careless enough not to mention that he is going to take the marked finesse, he would be careless enough to overlook the finesse? Of course not. The finesse is too obvious. Obviously there's a line somewhere between plays that are so simple that they don't need to be stated, and more subtle plays that, we could rule, could be overlooked due to carelessness. The line depends on "the class of player involved" (Footnote 20 in the Laws). I maintain that, for experienced players, this suit layout falls on the "too simple" side of the line, since it is such a well-known position that appears frequently in textbooks. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 15 12:06:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA13971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 12:06:13 +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 MAA13966 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 12:06:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from pb8s08a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.136.185] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt1-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 129HeL-0003Sa-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 17:05:05 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: reddemus in lectum Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 01:11:18 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf5ef5$6d713f40$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am an ignorant person. I thought when I read the subject line of this thread, that it was miss-spelt. That correctly it should have been "reddemus in rectum" and that it was something to do with John Probst's "bum claim"! Anne -----Original Message----- From: Jean Pierre Rocafort To: Bridge Laws Date: Friday, January 14, 2000 10:07 AM Subject: reddemus in lectum > Did anybody notice the controverse initiated by Allan Truscott (issues >6 and 7 of Bermuda daily bulletin) about system regulation? I was still >wondering how to react to Truscott's crusade against bidding development >when I read David Burn's outstanding response and I realized I had >nothing to add and I never could have expressed my opinion in so clear >and so picturesque a fashion. > >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 Sat Jan 15 13:00:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA14210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 13:00:18 +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 NAA14204 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 13:00:09 +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 129IVS-0009Rn-0U for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 01:59:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 01:49:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: bum claim In-Reply-To: <200001141702.JAA03197@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <200001141702.JAA03197@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >Henry Sun wrote: > >> At 04:48 AM 1/14/00 +0000, you wrote: >> > >> >an easy one I think, in DWS's absence >> > >> > Jxxx >> > >> > >> >AQTxx K9xx claim by W (rest of hand trumps) >> > >> > - >> >> >careless or irrational? >> >> careless. i remember reading about a hand in our team trials in >> which an expert declarer had to play kq98x opposite a7x for 4 >> winners and started the suit by cashing the king. so a misplay >> of this suit seems far from what i would consider irrational. this was the layout and the guy claimed with no statement of claim. > >I don't get the point of your example. Are you suggesting that even >experts misplay in clear situations? Someone will have to explain to >me why the king is a misplay. If you need only 4 winners, your only >concern is JTxxx in one hand; playing the king caters to this holding >in either hand, while playing the ace fails if JTxxx is behind KQ98x. > I think you'll find the 10 is in one of the claimer's hands. 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 Jan 15 13:31:48 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA14333 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 13:31:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from apicra.wanadoo.fr (smtp-rt-3.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.155]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA14328 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 13:31:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from andira.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.152) by apicra.wanadoo.fr; 15 Jan 2000 03:31:22 +0100 Received: from lormant (164.138.181.84) by andira.wanadoo.fr; 15 Jan 2000 03:07:21 +0100 Message-ID: <387FD470.6F93@wanadoo.fr> Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 02:59:12 +0100 From: LORMANT Philippe Organization: Ffb_Arb X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E [fr]-NAVIGATEU (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Roger Pewick CC: blml Subject: Re: Wrong hand References: <387F60E7.A02ABC62@pinehurst.net> <20000114190459.5176.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: > > L17D applies if during the auction a player with the wrong hand takes a > call- and it indeed happened in this case! I do not see in the law the > words ‘ until the play period has begun'. > > L17D definitely gives the TD the power to cancel the board. It also gives > the NOS the power to cancel whether the TD wants to or not. I see several > issues to be resolved to permit play to continue: > > 1. it is UI to the OS that the offender was bidding based on the wrong hand. > 2. The information gained about declarer’s hand is UI to the OS. > 3. Dealing with the resulting score if it judged that the OS gained an > advantage. I do not like at all the award of an artificial score on a board > that all parties say they want to play out and then do. It is another > matter if L16 is breached but in that case the score is adjusted. > > Personally, I am inclined to cancel the board as unplayable because offender > can not duplicate his retracted play. The OS has earned a fair PP. > > Roger Pewick > Houston, Texas > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Nancy T Dressing > To: Bridge Laws > Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 11:46 AM > Subject: Wrong hand > > > Yesterday I was called when declarer realized that there were 2 diamond > > aces in the hand. The bidding had been completed and the opening > > diamond lead faced. Declarer was surprised when RHO tried to win the > > trick with the DA which was also in his hand. When I got to the table > > it was obvious that RHO had blue cards when she should have had yellow > > ones! Law 17D only seems to cover this situation while the auction is > > taking place and here the auction was obviously over! Again, there were > > 4 directors there, (declarer, declarer's partner, offender, and me.) > > Declarer's partner said "You won't find this one in the book!" , I > > suggested that I think I will and at this point suggested that OS should > > receive an Ave- procedural penalty. They wanted to play the hand with > > offender playing the correct hand with the bidding arrived at during the > > auction. I said go ahead and call me back. In the meantime I searched > > the law book but could not find anything relating to this problem > > discovered during the play of the hand. > > After the hand was over, declarer had bid and made 2 clubs. I suggested > > they could take the table result or the ave- without looking at the > > table result. Declarer elected the table result. After looking at the > > score, OS stated they would have preferred the ave- as it would have > > been a better score for them. We laughed at the whole scenario and > > carried on - Everyone quite satisfied with the result. How far off base > > was this or was it all OK? (and where is this situation covered in > > TFLB?) > > Thanks, Nancy > > Bonjour, In my opinion we have an incorrect pack of cards and a breach of Law one. " Duplicate Contract Bridge is played with a pack of 52 cards, consisting of 13 cards in each of four suits;" This is not the case. In my opinion, board is unplayable for this reason. You don't agree? Ph.L. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 15 14:06:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA14446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 14:06:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [207.213.113.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA14441 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 14:06:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA12454; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 19:05:59 -0800 Message-Id: <200001150305.TAA12454@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: bum claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 15 Jan 2000 01:49:33 PST." Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 19:05:59 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: > In article <200001141702.JAA03197@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan > writes > > > >Henry Sun wrote: > > > >> At 04:48 AM 1/14/00 +0000, you wrote: > >> > > >> >an easy one I think, in DWS's absence > >> > > >> > Jxxx > >> > > >> > > >> >AQTxx K9xx claim by W (rest of hand trumps) > >> > > >> > - > >> > >> >careless or irrational? > >> > >> careless. i remember reading about a hand in our team trials in > >> which an expert declarer had to play kq98x opposite a7x for 4 > >> winners and started the suit by cashing the king. so a misplay > >> of this suit seems far from what i would consider irrational. > > this was the layout and the guy claimed with no statement of claim. > > >I don't get the point of your example. Are you suggesting that even > >experts misplay in clear situations? Someone will have to explain to > >me why the king is a misplay. If you need only 4 winners, your only > >concern is JTxxx in one hand; playing the king caters to this holding > >in either hand, while playing the ace fails if JTxxx is behind KQ98x. > I think you'll find the 10 is in one of the claimer's hands. Wow. How did it get all the way there, from one of the defender's hands at the Team Trials, to a local game you were directing? Sigh. Between this response and a private e-mail I got, I suspect that there's confusion about what's being argued. Let me try to clarify, assuming I understand Henry correctly. His argument seems to be that in the layout AQTxx / K9xx even good players might get careless and cash the king first, and therefore this play would not be considered irrational; he supports this with evidence from a *different* layout, from the Team Trials: KQ98x / A7x in which (he seems to say) an expert made a careless misplay. Therefore, if an expert is capable of making a careless misplay on this hand, a good player is capable of making a careless misplay on the hand John asked about. My counter-arguments were that: (1) if things happened in the Team Trials the way Henry described it, the expert's play was not a misplay; (2) even if Henry did make a typo and the expert did misplay the hand in the Team Trials, you can't use that hand to draw conclusions about John's hand, because there are significant differences. The part of my post quoted above pertained to the Team Trials hand, not to John's hand. Are we all on the same page now? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 15 14:06:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA14453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 14:06:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.bezeqint.net (mail-a.bezeqint.net [192.115.106.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA14448 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 14:06:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from isdn.net.il ([212.179.104.145]) by mail.bezeqint.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.07.30.00.05.p8) with ESMTP id <0FOC00EEAWMM8Q@mail.bezeqint.net> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 05:06:24 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 05:06:41 +0200 From: Zvi Shilon Subject: Re: bum claim To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <387FE441.CE8EA5F3@isdn.net.il> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------FA0AC794B775705B1CC84D4C" X-Accept-Language: en-US,en,Hebrew References: <200001142133.IAA12958@octavia.anu.edu.au> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------FA0AC794B775705B1CC84D4C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It is probably no more careless to play the king first than not to mention during the claim that declarer will play the Ace (or Queen) first. One trick to the defence. But, in truth, I would not call the director against an expert declarer. Zvi Shilon, Nahal Hayarkon 8/4, Modiin, 71700, Israel zvika3@isdn.net.il Jens & Bodil wrote: > John Probst asked: > > > > an easy one I think, in DWS's absence > > > > Jxxx > > > > > > AQTxx K9xx claim by W (rest of hand trumps) > > > > - > > > > careless or irrational? > > > > club game, mps, competent mid-stake rubber bridge player > > Players who are so good that they play the ace or queen as a matter > of routine, but who are careless enough not to mention that that is > what they are doing when they are claiming, are also careless enough > to overlook the right play now and then. One trick to the defenders > is my ruling too. > > However, an appeals committee made up of excellent players might not > want to admit that good players can be this careless - because they > might think that they certainly would never make such a mistake > themselves - so this is one that might be overturned in the > committee. > -- > Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark > http://www.alesia.dk/ --------------FA0AC794B775705B1CC84D4C Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="zvika3.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Zvi Shilon Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="zvika3.vcf" begin:vcard n:Shilon;Zvi tel;cell:052-285947 tel;home:972-8-9720381 tel;work:972-8-9720978 x-mozilla-html:TRUE adr:;;Nahal Hayarkon 8/4;Modiin;;71700;Israel version:2.1 email;internet:zvika3@isdn.net.il x-mozilla-cpt:;-28304 fn:Zvi Shilon end:vcard --------------FA0AC794B775705B1CC84D4C-- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 15 15:34:43 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA14696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 15:34:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.pinehurst.net (mail.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA14687 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 15:34:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from momsputer (arc-1-port-99.pinehurst.net [12.20.159.99]) by mail.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA68262; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 23:34:23 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from nancy@pinehurst.net) Message-ID: <001301bf5f11$e03adce0$639f140c@momsputer> From: "Nancy T Dressing" To: "Roger Pewick" , "blml" References: <387F60E7.A02ABC62@pinehurst.net> <20000114190459.5176.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Wrong hand Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 23:34:55 -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 Did I make it clear that no new auction occurred? The auction was completed and the original opening lead and dummy card were still on the table. Offender played to the first trick (after the error was noted and the offender took the correct hand out of the board) and play continued. No new bidding took place, nor did any review of the bidding. No information about the correct hand was received by any one at the table other than the offender. I would still like to know a direct law that covers this situation. Thanks, Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: Roger Pewick To: blml Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 2:05 PM Subject: Re: Wrong hand > L17D applies if during the auction a player with the wrong hand takes a > call- and it indeed happened in this case! I do not see in the law the > words ' until the play period has begun'. > > L17D definitely gives the TD the power to cancel the board. It also gives > the NOS the power to cancel whether the TD wants to or not. I see several > issues to be resolved to permit play to continue: > > 1. it is UI to the OS that the offender was bidding based on the wrong hand. > 2. The information gained about declarer's hand is UI to the OS. > 3. Dealing with the resulting score if it judged that the OS gained an > advantage. I do not like at all the award of an artificial score on a board > that all parties say they want to play out and then do. It is another > matter if L16 is breached but in that case the score is adjusted. > > Personally, I am inclined to cancel the board as unplayable because offender > can not duplicate his retracted play. The OS has earned a fair PP. > > Roger Pewick > Houston, Texas > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Nancy T Dressing > To: Bridge Laws > Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 11:46 AM > Subject: Wrong hand > > > > Yesterday I was called when declarer realized that there were 2 diamond > > aces in the hand. The bidding had been completed and the opening > > diamond lead faced. Declarer was surprised when RHO tried to win the > > trick with the DA which was also in his hand. When I got to the table > > it was obvious that RHO had blue cards when she should have had yellow > > ones! Law 17D only seems to cover this situation while the auction is > > taking place and here the auction was obviously over! Again, there were > > 4 directors there, (declarer, declarer's partner, offender, and me.) > > Declarer's partner said "You won't find this one in the book!" , I > > suggested that I think I will and at this point suggested that OS should > > receive an Ave- procedural penalty. They wanted to play the hand with > > offender playing the correct hand with the bidding arrived at during the > > auction. I said go ahead and call me back. In the meantime I searched > > the law book but could not find anything relating to this problem > > discovered during the play of the hand. > > After the hand was over, declarer had bid and made 2 clubs. I suggested > > they could take the table result or the ave- without looking at the > > table result. Declarer elected the table result. After looking at the > > score, OS stated they would have preferred the ave- as it would have > > been a better score for them. We laughed at the whole scenario and > > carried on - Everyone quite satisfied with the result. How far off base > > was this or was it all OK? (and where is this situation covered in > > TFLB?) > > Thanks, Nancy > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 15 16:26:24 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA14851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 16:26:24 +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 QAA14844 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 16:26:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-33qtgqj.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.195.83]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA20896; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 00:25:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000115053634.006ec464@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, 14 Jan 2000 21:36:34 -0800 To: James.Vickers@merck.de From: Henry Sun Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:53 PM 1/14/00 +0100, you wrote: >Hello again. Returning after a short break, I find this interesting case has the >German news group "Doubl" in a bit of a spin, and would appreciate some >comments: > >Teams, dealer N, N/S vul: > > 10 > K Q J 9 7 > J 7 6 2 > J 6 2 > >6 5 4 2 N K Q >3 W E A 10 8 6 5 4 2 >A Q 8 S K 4 >A 10 8 5 4 9 7 > > A J 9 8 7 3 > - > 10 9 5 3 > K Q 3 > > >The auction: >N E S W >2 H * pass pass ? > >* Alerted. East asked and was told "a super-weak two in hearts, 9-12 pts and >6 hearts". He enquired further as to whether it could only mean hearts, or if it >could possibly be a weak two in spades (not a legal treatment in some parts of >the world, but would have been here). South denied this possibility. West passed >and 2H was defeated by two tricks. > >N/S were unhappy about the line of questioning, and called the TD to reserve >their rights. West declared that after East's behaviour he was barred from >bidding anyway (not true, of course, E/W are in need of some educating). >How should the TD rule? Following the usual procedure for such cases, I would >ask myself the following questions: > > Was UI transmitted? (Yes) i'd guess yes, on the basis of the second question. incidentally, i assume that by 'super weak 2' south means a super(strong) weak 2 instead of a super(weak) weak 2. > Did offender's partner choose from among logical alternatives one which could > have been suggested over and above others by the UI? (Not in my opinion, but > arguable) i'd guess no. especially the second question suggests a good hand with good hearts, and thus suggests a double by balancer. that balancer chooses not to double seems to say that he deliberately, and rightly imo, chose not to make the call suggested by ui. whether doubling 2h is so clear as to be allowable in the face of ui is a matter for a committee. i'd guess that in the us, almost everyone would double after the auction 2h-p-p-?, so my guess is that had west doubled and the director adjusted the score, then a committee would restore the original result if the auction went 2h-p-p-dbl. > Were the opponents damaged as a result? (Quite possibly) in my understanding, no. west bent over backwards not to make a call that could have been suggested by ui, so there is no possible damage to ns. >East's question could be interpreted as saying: "I can't believe you have a weak >two in hearts as I have so many of them and not so many spades" and make a >take-out double by West (to be converted to penalty) more attractive than a pass >(logical alternative? To some players perhaps). But consider what happens if >there had been no UI and West makes the normal double. East passes, and it would >not be unreasonable for South to rescue to 2S and on a good day take eight >tricks. perhaps, but that's the luck of the draw. east passed ui to west; west chose not to take advantage of it. if that happens to result in a bad score to ns, then that's just ns's bad luck. >East's question was undoubtably illegal, and West acted naively, albeit in good >faith. It seems that as a result N/S have lost their chance to obtain a better >score in 2S, even though West went out of his way not to act on the UI. Do N/S >have a right to redress? If so, which law do you cite? it isn't clear to me why east's question was illegal, nor why west acted naively. personally, i'd applaud the ethics of any west who chose to pass after ui because i think that a balancing double would be a near 100% action. henry sun From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 15 16:30:01 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA14889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 16:30:01 +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 QAA14884 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 16:29:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveig2.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.74.2]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA18702 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 00:29:44 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000115002710.011fb68c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 00:27:10 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI after failure to Alert/announce In-Reply-To: <200001142306.SAA13342@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:06 PM 1/14/00 -0500, Steve wrote: >> From: "Michael S. Dennis" >> the principle that legality has to be evaluated based on the >> information available _at the time of the putative infraction_ is worth >> stressing. Tim seemed to be arguing that passing 2nt in the original >> problem was legal and appropriate if it turned out that partner held the >> expected 11-12-count, but illegal and perhaps unethical if it turned out >> that partner actually had forgotten the agreement and only had 9 pts. > >I think there's some confusion here. There are really two different >questions to be answered. > >First, let's stress another important principle. The meaning of any >particular piece of UI -- which actions it suggests over others -- >depends on the player. If a "machine gun bidder" hesitates 10 >milliseconds, that no doubt tells his partner something important. If >a beginner thinks for five seconds (an eternity in bridge terms), >looking pained all the while, it may not suggest anything other than >that he is trying to remember how many points it takes to make some bid >or other. In more common cases, say an alleged hesitation over a skip >bid, the meaning depends on what the player in question habitually does >over skip bids. Are we agreed so far? Not entirely, no. My problem is that your argument gives rather too much play to the possibility for rationalization. As long as I can convince myself that partner's pained hesitation is apt to be a case of gas, or confusion over where he parked, or really anything other than the logic of the bridge situation suggests, then I can ethically ignore what would otherwise be a burdensome legal obligation. But with that caveat, I am prepared to agree that the "meaning" (and hence the "demonstrably suggests") of a bit of UI depends in part on idiosyncratic factors, and is not strictly a function of objective bridge logic. >With that in mind, we can see that there are really two questions >raised by Adam's post. > >a) What are the player's responsibilities? This was the question Adam >asked. In the circumstances he gave, where it's overwhelmingly likely >that the failure to announce did not indicate a failure to remember the >system, I claim the player is under no ethical restrictions >whatsoever. Following Michael's principle, _at the time of the >putative infraction_ (namely Adam's choice of call), Adam has no reason >to believe the failure to announce suggests one action over another. >However, a player who wants to win should also consider the answer to >question b), which is: No, those were not the conditions of Adam's problem. They are closer to the example you later suggested, but in Adam's case, the failure to alert was hardly "overwhelmingly likely" to derive from confusion over the announcement procedure. It was merely one likely (perhaps the most likely) explanation. Life is seldom black and white; in this example which seems more typical than what you later described, we simply have experience or extraneous information (meta-UI??) which muddies the significance which can be reliably attached to the UI. What then? >b) How should a TD rule if faced by this situation? Well, David keeps >telling us that you gather all the facts, then you consult, then you >rule. One of the essential elements of a L16A ruling is "suggested >over another," and in accordance with the principle above, you want to >know what the player's normal habits are. If he says, as will Adam's >partner, that he hasn't played in awhile and has trouble remembering to >announce, you will discount (but not ignore!) that testimony as >self-serving. However, if he also has the expected 11-count, that >tends to support his story. If he shows you a British passport :-) and >a convention card marked "Acol," that might be more evidence in >support. There might be other information, like (in my example) the >TD's past experience with the player. Anyway, with enough evidence, >even giving the benefit of the doubt to the NOS, a reasonable TD may >find himself convinced that the failure to announce did not suggest one >action over another. If so, he should rule that there has been no L16A >infraction. On the other hand, if the forgetful player actually turns >up with an 8-count, that would be a very strong indication that he had >forgotten his notrump range, and the TD would inevitably rule that the >failure to announce told his partner exactly that. Please bear in mind the distinction between the illegality of an action and the ruling which will result. Even accounting for the wide variability in TD competence, director's find themselves called upon to make fine judgements about truthfulness, motivation, bridge expertise, and other complex problems with far from complete informtion. Whatever can be done to minimize the requirements for such judgements is, IMO, a step toward consistent and fair adjudication. Thus I think it preferable if the standard in this type of case is to evaluate the objective bridge logic, and discount the extraneous explanations about what else partner's hesitation might have suggested, except in those extreme cases where such information really does make it "overwhelmingly obvious" that the UI really is meaningless. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 15 18:30:37 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA15335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 18:30:37 +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 SAA15330 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 18:30:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailout2.nyroc.rr.com ([24.92.226.165]) by mailhop1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 02:27:58 -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 ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 02:21:06 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001301bf5f11$e03adce0$639f140c@momsputer> References: <387F60E7.A02ABC62@pinehurst.net> <20000114190459.5176.qmail@hotmail.com> Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 02:27:22 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Wrong hand Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Did I make it clear that no new auction occurred? The auction was completed >and the original opening lead and dummy card were still on the table. >Offender played to the first trick (after the error was noted and the >offender took the correct hand out of the board) and play continued. No new >bidding took place, nor did any review of the bidding. No information about >the correct hand was received by any one at the table other than the >offender. I would still like to know a direct law that covers this >situation. Thanks, Nancy Well, I'm no expert, but I don't think there is one. :-) That is, I think it takes more than one. Law 7 is germane, as it governs proper handling of the board and its cards. Law 9 governs proper procedure following the discovery of an irregularity. You know all this, I'm sure. Bear with me, I'm trying to do this stepwise. :-) Law 12 is germane, in particular Law 12A2 ("Normal Play of a Board is Impossible"). Law 17, IMO, does not apply (because the auction is over) but 17D _may_ give us a clue what to do. It appears to me that all the Laws governing play (41-71) assume that the players have the correct hands (IOW, that this scenario wouldn't happen, because the problem would have been discovered during the auction :-). Looking through the remaining Laws, Law 82 jumps out. Law 87 (Fouled Board) might at first glance apply, but you don't have a legal hand IAC Law 1 (missed that one) since _these_ 52 cards include some duplicates and some of the usual 52 are missing. I think we have to fall back on Law 82, and perhaps Law 81. There has been an error in procedure (violation of Law 7). Law 82A says it's the Director's duty to rectify such. 82B1 say he may award an adjusted score "as permitted by these laws". Law 12A2 says he is permitted to do so when "no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board." So, does restoring the original hand _at the point in the play where the problem was discovered_ permit normal play? I submit that it does not, because we don't know if the _auction_ would have gone the same way (did the TD address that question at the table?) OTOH, if the question _were_ addressed, and the Offender claims he would have made _exactly_ the same calls if he'd had the correct hand, _and_ if the TD finds this credible, then perhaps rectification _is_ possible. :-) In that case, restoring the proper hand and continuing from that point (given it was the _first_ trick) seems okay. Okay, summary. Point one: the Director is bound by the Laws, which (a) confer on him the duty, inter alia, to "insure the orderly progress of the game". (Law 81 B2, C4, and C5). Point two: no Law _specifically_ addresses this problem. Point three: the two (East, wasn't it?) hands in question must be restored to their proper boards. Point four: there's a question unanswered to which a full ruling requires an answer. So, my (rather pedantic as written, I guess) ruling(s): There having been a violation of proper procedure as defined in Law 7, and it being the TD's duty to rectify same (Law 82A), _if_ it can be determined that the auction would have been the same with East holding the correct hand, I rule under Laws 81B2, C4, and C5 that the proper hand be restored to East and play proceed normally. I advise the players of their right to appeal (Law 83). If it cannot be determined that the auction would have been the same, then I rule the board unplayable and award an artificial adjusted score under Laws 82B1 and 12A2 and C1. I would award OS avg-, and NOS avg or avg+ (or some score in between) depending on their level of expertise. Again I advise the players of their right to appeal. In addition, and in both cases, I would award a PP to the OS, and possibly the NOS, for not noticing that East held the wrong hand - the degree of the penalty to be commensurate with the experience level of the players. (Yeah, I'm a hard-ass. :) That's about the best I can come up with. I'm sure someone will point out any errors. :-) 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 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 15 20:03:28 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA15510 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 20:03:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe33.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.26]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA15505 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 20:03:20 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 97324 invoked by uid 65534); 15 Jan 2000 09:02:42 -0000 Message-ID: <20000115090242.97323.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.14.8] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" , "Nancy T Dressing" References: <387F60E7.A02ABC62@pinehurst.net> <20000114190459.5176.qmail@hotmail.com> <001301bf5f11$e03adce0$639f140c@momsputer> Subject: Re: Wrong hand Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 03:03:00 -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: Nancy T Dressing To: Roger Pewick ; blml Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 10:34 PM Subject: Re: Wrong hand > Did I make it clear that no new auction occurred? Yup, you did. The auction was completed > and the original opening lead and dummy card were still on the table. > Offender played to the first trick (after the error was noted and the > offender took the correct hand out of the board) and play continued. No new > bidding took place, nor did any review of the bidding. No information about > the correct hand was received by any one at the table other than the > offender. I would still like to know a direct law that covers this > situation. Thanks, Nancy I pointed out that there were issues. By restoring the proper hand to the offender we now have a true deal. The auction is over so it is not reopened. The question remains as to if and how play is continued. I pointed out that there is information available about declarer's hand and that offender will not be able to reproduce his offending play. I think it is alright to continue play if all of the offending plays are reproduced after the correction [UI considerations exist] and I think the hand is unplayable when the retracted plays are not reproduced. As to the auction the calls made by the offender are equivalent to psychological calls, but being uncovered in rectification [essentially fielded psychs] puts the OS under the burden caused by extraneous information. To this end, I believe it is improper for player[s] to look at the corrected cards before choosing the option to play or not to play. I have every reason to believe that L17D applies directly and I thought I explained why. Do you mean something else when you employ the word 'directly'? If you feel otherwise, what are your reasons? Roger Pewick Houston, Texas > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Roger Pewick > To: blml > Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 2:05 PM > Subject: Re: Wrong hand > > > > L17D applies if during the auction a player with the wrong hand takes a > > call- and it indeed happened in this case! I do not see in the law the > > words ' until the play period has begun'. > > > > L17D definitely gives the TD the power to cancel the board. It also gives > > the NOS the power to cancel whether the TD wants to or not. I see several > > issues to be resolved to permit play to continue: > > > > 1. it is UI to the OS that the offender was bidding based on the wrong > hand. > > 2. The information gained about declarer's hand is UI to the OS. > > 3. Dealing with the resulting score if it judged that the OS gained an > > advantage. I do not like at all the award of an artificial score on a > board > > that all parties say they want to play out and then do. It is another > > matter if L16 is breached but in that case the score is adjusted. > > > > Personally, I am inclined to cancel the board as unplayable because > offender > > can not duplicate his retracted play. The OS has earned a fair PP. > > > > Roger Pewick > > Houston, Texas > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Nancy T Dressing > > To: Bridge Laws > > Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 11:46 AM > > Subject: Wrong hand > > > > > > > Yesterday I was called when declarer realized that there were 2 diamond > > > aces in the hand. The bidding had been completed and the opening > > > diamond lead faced. Declarer was surprised when RHO tried to win the > > > trick with the DA which was also in his hand. When I got to the table > > > it was obvious that RHO had blue cards when she should have had yellow > > > ones! Law 17D only seems to cover this situation while the auction is > > > taking place and here the auction was obviously over! Again, there were > > > 4 directors there, (declarer, declarer's partner, offender, and me.) > > > Declarer's partner said "You won't find this one in the book!" , I > > > suggested that I think I will and at this point suggested that OS should > > > receive an Ave- procedural penalty. They wanted to play the hand with > > > offender playing the correct hand with the bidding arrived at during the > > > auction. I said go ahead and call me back. In the meantime I searched > > > the law book but could not find anything relating to this problem > > > discovered during the play of the hand. > > > After the hand was over, declarer had bid and made 2 clubs. I suggested > > > they could take the table result or the ave- without looking at the > > > table result. Declarer elected the table result. After looking at the > > > score, OS stated they would have preferred the ave- as it would have > > > been a better score for them. We laughed at the whole scenario and > > > carried on - Everyone quite satisfied with the result. How far off base > > > was this or was it all OK? (and where is this situation covered in > > > TFLB?) > > > Thanks, Nancy > > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 16 03:26:29 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA17187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 03:26:29 +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 DAA17182 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 03:26:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-2inio9s.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.97.60]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA01335; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 11:26:06 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000115163707.006f8340@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: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 08:37:07 -0800 To: Niels Wendell Pedersen From: Henry Sun Subject: Re: reddemus in lectum ... Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:18 PM 1/14/00 +0100, you wrote: > >Niels thanks for posting the text of the two articles. observations from an acbler who prefers highly artificial methods...: > >----------------------------------------------------------------- > SYSTEMIC GERMS > By Alan TruscOtt > > >Unlike almost all the readers of this, I have read the convention >cards of the Bermuda Bowl partnerships. There are many >problems. The worst of them would be eliminated by the following >simple regulation: > >The first action by a partnership must EITHER guarantee 9 >high-card (4-3-2-1) points OR guarantee length (4+ cards) in a >specified suit. > >Many partnerships will demand, but I hope not get, exceptions for >the methods they favor. Some of the effects would be: > > >2. To bar opening one notrump bids if the minimum is below nine > points. edgar kaplan once observed that to bar any natural bid (natural in the sense of offering a place to play) is highly illegal. this comment was offered when the wbf was considering banning methods that permitted an opening bid with less than a king below average. (kaplan and rubens debated this issue in a bridge world editorial, and i felt that rubens had the better argument by far.) in part, acbl discussion revolved around whether a 1nt opening bid with 9 hcps made that opening bid a convention (the acbl decided that it did). >3. To bar opening bids, such as two spades, that show a weak > preempt in an unspecified suit. it would also bar opening bids such as 3nt showing an unspecified 4-level preempt in a minor, a bid so widely known (even if not commonly played) at to warrant a 'general convention card' rating by the acbl, meaning that it cannot be barred in any tournament unless the event has an upper limit of 20 masterpoints. >6. To bar Crash over strong club openings unless 9 points are > guaranteed. so i cannot make an ambiguous two-suited overcall of a strong club when holding, for example, qjt987; VOID; kqt9876; VOID because it doesn't have 9 hcps, but i can with 65432; k; k65432; k because it does have 9 hcps? and this in defense of a known to be strong opening bid that places my side at a considerable defensive disadvantage because opener is known to have 16 or more hcps? surely this is placing far too strong an emphasis on an arbitrary method of hand evaluation. >7. To bar two clubs over an opposing one notrump to show an > unspecified one-suiter unless 9 points are guaranteed. so that a capp 2c overcall cannot be made on xx; akjt987; xx; xx but can be made on k; 98765432; kx; kx? surely this falls under the same problem as #6 above, and the implication in #8 below. >8. To bar many of the methods that are used here over the > opposing one notrump unless 9 points or an anchor suit are > guaranteed. (In this area, almost every pair has a different > method.) > >11. This does NOT bar the Gambling 3NT opening, because it has > the 9-point minimum. but it would bar an acbl general convention, 3nt showing a broken minor. >If the WBF will adopt the regulation suggested above the great >majority of players will be happy. Players who dream up >conventions designed purely to disrupt the opponents' bidding >will have to mend their ways. as one who will probably never compete at the international level, my comments are more likely a reflection of wishful thinking, but i'd propose a rather different scenario: that full disclosure of such devices (eg the canape overcall) include a full suggested defense to be submitted to the wbf and approved by a duly constituted systems committee. if the committee deems the suggested defense incomplete, then the pair is barred from using the method. this would seem to cover one of truscott's main objections, that as things now stand it is the responsibility of the opponents to study the method and to develop countermeasures. while it must indeed be the responsibility of all participants to study the methods used by their opponents, it does seem unfair to force them to develop countermeasures to 57 different methods. under my proposal, this would no longer be the case. instead, it would be the responsibility of the pair in question to develop complete countermeasures. if they don't perform their due diligence in devising countermeasures to their destructive calls, then they don't receive permission to use them. obviously, this would also force participating teams to submit their pairs and methods sufficiently far in advance to insure that the systems committee has enough time to determine that adequate countermeasures are in place. one positive consequence of this is that participating teams may have extra time to study the methods and the proposed countermeasures. and it might also prevent the uncertainty that has developed in the past, as when the italian bridge federation dithered for months on whether to send all, or part of, or none of, the blue team to the 1970 bermuda bowl in stockholm, sweden. henry sun From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 16 05:28:29 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA17680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 05:28:29 +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 FAA17674 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 05:28:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 10:28:10 -0800 Message-ID: <00a201bf5f85$c3dd1bc0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200001141718.SAA01177@borsuk.math.auc.dk> Subject: Re: reddemus in lectum ... Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 10:24:26 -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: Niels Wendell Pedersen > Jean Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > >Don't panic, your curiosity will be gratified at: > > > > http://www.bermudabowl.com/results/bulletins.htm > > Here is a text version of those two articles. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > SYSTEMIC GERMS > By Alan TruscOtt > (snip of good stuff) > > Unlike almost all the readers of this, I have read the convention > cards of the Bermuda Bowl partnerships. There are many > problems. The worst of them would be eliminated by the following > simple regulation: > > The first action by a partnership must EITHER guarantee 9 > high-card (4-3-2-1) points OR guarantee length (4+ cards) in a > specified suit. That is too far out, and partially illegal per current Laws. I would prefer: A partnership's Initial one-level action must guarantee at keast 8 HCP (legal), and initial conventional bids that are not strong (15 HCP+) must have a known anchor suit, or one of two specified anchors. > > Many partnerships will demand, but I hope not get, exceptions for > the methods they favor. Some of the effects would be: Some of these are a bit illegal. I disagree, at least for a high-level game, with a few that would be legal. > 1. To bar Multi. (Highly controversial). This was manageable in > its original form, but the convention cards show that there are > many varieties. And that affects the opponents. Restrict the varieties if necessary, except those that are strong (15+ HCP), but don't bar the basic concept (one of two possible anchor suits). > > 2. To bar opening one notrump bids if the minimum is below nine > points. Illegal, just barely, as initial one-level actions can be controlled only if they show a king or less than average strength, which translates into 7 HCP. Below 8 HCP would be okay, but why not bar all such one-level initial actions by a partnership, since the Laws permit that? > > 3. To bar opening bids, such as two spades, that show a weak > preempt in an unspecified suit. In one of two specified suits should be okay for high-level games. > 4. To bar opening bids that show either a weak two in the next > suit or a strong hand. Much easier to defend against than Multi, so okay for high level. > > 5. To bar overcalls, such as the one spade overcall quoted above, > that can be weak and have no anchor suit. An anchor suit, or at least one of two possible anchors, should be specified. > > 6. To bar Crash over strong club openings unless 9 points are > guaranteed. Legal if you make that 8 HCP, per L40D. Any initial one-level action by a partnership can be so restricted, even though the ACBL restricts opening bids only. > > 7. To bar two clubs over an opposing one notrump to show an > unspecified one-suiter unless 9 points are guaranteed. Entirely unnecessary, since it does not interfere with the next hand's action (double is Stayman). Higher conventional actions should have a known suit, for use as a query bid by responder. However, I don't believe that a HCP minimum should be required for defensive actions that are not initial actions at the one level. > 8. To bar many of the methods that are used here over the > opposing one notrump unless 9 points or an anchor suit are > guaranteed. (In this area, almost every pair has a different > method.) An anchor suit, maybe two at high level, but no point restriction. > > 9. To bar strong-pass systems and ferts, which are now out of > fashion. Perfectly legal to bar these. > > 10. To bar an opening four-club bid showing a preempt in either > minor. (This is not Brown Sticker, because it is above 3NT.) Not necessary, IMO. Any bid showing one of two possible suits should be okay, at least at high levels. > > 11. This does NOT bar the Gambling 3NT opening, because it has > the 9-point minimum. Since the bid shows a willingness to play in notrump, it is debatable whether it is a convention, so better not to bar it. > > The WBF is understandably reluctant to do anything that > interferes with the Laws. But the Laws provide for regulation by > sponsoring bodies, modifying the Laws. False. The Laws can be supplemented, but not modified. With minor changes Alan's suggestions would all be legal. >Regulations are often imposed by NCBOs, and by the WBF itself >for world pairs events. > > If the WBF will adopt the regulation suggested above the great > majority of players will be happy. Players who dream up > conventions designed purely to disrupt the opponents' bidding > will have to mend their ways. This is not a total solution, but > Hamman's book will be much smaller next time around. Wealthy > teams, who can pay for a book, will have a reduced advantage. And > systemic germs will not slow the play down. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > A modest proposal > David Burn, Great Britain > [unwarranted off-the-target sarcasm aimed at the above, snipped.] Maybe there should be two games, one for the scientists who enjoy cryptology, and the other for those who just want to play a card game that is challenging enough without requiring a 500-page code book. No need to change the Laws, only regulations, including choice of options offered by the Laws (e.g., footnote to L40E2, concerning the use of external aids). Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 16 08:25:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA18292 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 08:25:28 +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 IAA18287 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 08:25:16 +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 129aa7-0003iu-00; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 22:17:59 +0100 Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 22:26:33 +0100 (MET DST) To: Subject: wrong board 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 let me ask your opinion about a decision I made on a tournament last weekend. West East xxx AKxxx AKQ109xx x Qx AK x AJ109x On a pair tournament the board was picked up by North because the play did not finish at the previous table (wrong, as it is North-South responsibility to move the boards to the next table but we all know this is very ususal). The bidding (N-S passed all the time) West East 1 Sp 2 H 3 Cl 4 NT 5 Cl 6 H (Actually both majors were divided 3-2 in N-S hands) However before the opening lead N recognized he picked up the wrong board from the previous table (it is also pretty usual) and called the director. I asked the players to return the card to the board and moved it to the right table. Obviously in the next round the board moved to this table but E-W was a different pair. I observed the bidding sequence. E-W bid to 6 Sp with the following sequence: West East 1 Sp 2 H 3 Cl 3 Sp 6 Sp. South was on lead and selected a diamond (the result was 1 down). However I believe South had UI as due to the first sequence he should have known the solid heart suit at West therefore if he would have selected a heart (after the heart lead the contract had no chance at all) as the opening lead, I would have adjusted the score. As South led a diamond I let the result stand. When E-W played the hand later in the session I observed them as well but they repeated their sequence and made 6 H. Any comments? Thanks. Andras Booc martaandras@uze.net From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 16 09:27:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA18497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 09:27:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from alpha.netvision.net.il (alpha.netvision.net.il [194.90.1.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA18492 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 09:27:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from eitan (RAS3-p73.nt.netvision.net.il [62.0.183.75]) by alpha.netvision.net.il (8.9.3/8.8.6) with SMTP id AAA31382 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 00:26:54 +0200 (IST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000116002654.0082d100@netvision.net.il> X-Sender: moranl@netvision.net.il X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 00:26:54 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Eitan Levy Subject: Re: wrong board In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Law 15C applies as the situation you describe is still during the auction period (see 17E). In the second auction (even though it's in a future round) a call differs so in the words of 15C - the director shall cancel the board - not may or can, but shall cancel. Law 15C does not give the TD the option of allowing the board to be played and to consider whether there might be (useful ) UI or not . As soon as west bids 3Sp in the second auction the board should be cancelled, and the question of UI will never arise. Eitan Levy >Dear All let me ask your opinion about a decision I made on a >tournament last weekend. > >West East >xxx AKxxx >AKQ109xx x >Qx AK >x AJ109x > >On a pair tournament the board was picked up by North because >the play did not finish at the previous table (wrong, as it is North-South >responsibility to move the boards to the next table but we all know >this is very ususal). >The bidding (N-S passed all the time) >West East > 1 Sp >2 H 3 Cl >4 NT 5 Cl >6 H > >(Actually both majors were divided 3-2 in N-S hands) > >However before the opening lead N recognized he picked up the wrong board >from the previous table (it is also pretty usual) and called the director. > >I asked the players to return the card to the board and moved it to the right table. >Obviously in the next round the board moved to this table but E-W was a different pair. >I observed the bidding sequence. E-W bid to 6 Sp with the following sequence: >West East > 1 Sp >2 H 3 Cl >3 Sp 6 Sp. > >South was on lead and selected a diamond (the result was 1 down). >However I believe South had UI as due to the first sequence he should >have known the solid heart suit at West therefore if he would have selected >a heart (after the heart lead the contract had no chance at all) >as the opening lead, I would have adjusted the score. >As South led a diamond I let the result stand. > >When E-W played the hand later in the session I observed them as well but >they repeated their sequence and made 6 H. > >Any comments? > >Thanks. > >Andras Booc >martaandras@uze.net > > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 16 09:43:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA18648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 09:43:51 +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 JAA18643 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 09:43:43 +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 RAA00164; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 17:43:23 -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: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 17:42:03 -0500 To: Martaandras@uze.net, From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: wrong board Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:26 PM +0100 1/15/00, Martaandras@uze.net wrote: >On a pair tournament the board was picked up by North because >the play did not finish at the previous table (wrong, as it is North-South >responsibility to move the boards to the next table but we all know >this is very ususal). >The bidding (N-S passed all the time) >West East > 1 Sp >2 H 3 Cl >4 NT 5 Cl >6 H > >(Actually both majors were divided 3-2 in N-S hands) > >However before the opening lead N recognized he picked up the wrong board >from the previous table (it is also pretty usual) and called the director. The question here is whether to apply L15A or L15C. L15A applies "If players play a board not deisgnated for them to play in the current round", and L15C applies if "during the auction period, the Director discovers that a contestant is playing a board not designated for him to play in the current round." Since the auction is not over until the opening lead is faced, L15C should apply. However, the remedy in L15C seems to be based on the assumption that the board is supposed to be played. I think your attempt to apply L15C as if it fit this situation is probably right. (The L15A ruling would be to let the wrong players play the board, score it normally, and give average-plus to the two pairs who did not get a chance to play the board. There doesn't seem to be any rule allowing the N-S and E-W who didn't get a chance to play the board to play it themselves; L15A1 allows only "the correct board" to be played.) >I asked the players to return the card to the board and moved it to the >right table. >Obviously in the next round the board moved to this table but E-W was a >different pair. >I observed the bidding sequence. E-W bid to 6 Sp with the following sequence: >West East > 1 Sp >2 H 3 Cl >3 Sp 6 Sp. Since you are ruling under L15C, the board should be cancelled when West bids 3S, as this is different from the bid against the same opponents in the previous auction. Award average-plus to E-W, average-minus to N-S. >When E-W played the hand later in the session I observed them as well but >they repeated their sequence and made 6 H. This result should stand. N-S passed throughout at both tables, so the second auction was the same as the first auction. (If N-S had intervened, then N-S should get average-plus, and E-W average as they were partly responsible for playing the wrong board.) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 16 14:07:20 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA19557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 14:07:20 +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 OAA19552 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 14:07:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.180.90] (helo=davidburn) by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 129g1o-00025E-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 03:06:56 +0000 Message-ID: <000701bf5fce$ca2cd260$5ab401d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200001141718.SAA01177@borsuk.math.auc.dk> <00a201bf5f85$c3dd1bc0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: reddemus in lectum ... Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 03:06:29 -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 Marvin French wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > SYSTEMIC GERMS > > By Alan TruscOtt > > > > (snip of good stuff) > > > > Unlike almost all the readers of this, I have read the convention > > cards of the Bermuda Bowl partnerships. There are many > > problems. The worst of them would be eliminated by the following > > simple regulation: > > > > The first action by a partnership must EITHER guarantee 9 > > high-card (4-3-2-1) points OR guarantee length (4+ cards) in a > > specified suit. > > That is too far out, and partially illegal per current Laws. I would prefer: > > A partnership's Initial one-level action must guarantee at least 8 HCP > (legal), and initial conventional bids that are not strong (15 HCP+) must > have a known anchor suit, or one of two specified anchors. And much else in the same vein. This is, of course, to miss the point entirely (pretty much as Truscott did). The question is not: which of Truscott's proposals are currently legal and which are not? The question is: ought the game at the highest levels to be regulated in terms of the use to which players may put legal calls in legal auctions, or ought it not? To concentrate on the detail of the regulations is to make the unwarranted assumption that regulations should exist at all. Contract bridge is about seventy years old. Since its inception, there have been a number of advances in the theory of bidding. In the beginning, curiously enough, was the strong club - since Harold S Vanderbilt invented such a device - but that was about all. None of the devices that are taken as axiomatic by current players existed in any form; when the takeout double was first conceived, it was the subject of vilification by people who regarded it as tantamount to cheating. However, by the time that Culbertson and later Goren began to mould the game into something like the shape that we recognise today, it had become universally accepted that: (a) there was considerable merit in using certain bids in a wholly artifical sense; (b) it was tactically sensible to attempt to disrupt enemy auctions by the use of pre-emptive bids and psychic calls of every kind. Both of these tenets are as true today as they were then; indeed, (b) is if anything more true, since constructive bidding among players of high standard is sufficiently advanced that a willingness to take risks in order to disrupt the opponents' auction is more or less mandatory for players wishing to compete at world championship level. Only in recent years has there been a backlash against the development of coded systems (even constructive ones) and artificial disruptive manoeuvres. In almost every case, the "reactionaries" have been world-class players who have suffered at the hands of those whom they regard as lesser mortals attempting to make up for their lack of natural talent by the use of unfamiliar methods that are difficult to counter. The current ACBL interdict against a psychic 2C opening happened because someone once got a good result by doing this against Sidney Silodor, who promptly used his official position to make it illegal. This shocking abuse of power, far from being universally condemned, has become more or less the mainstream official position. It is argued that the game would be "better" if such methods were outlawed, because they make it difficult for the average player to understand what is happening. This is true, but it is difficult for the average player to understand what is happening anyway. The reason is that the average player is taught only about natural bids, with the exception of "universal" conventions like Stayman, Blackwood and the takeout double. If it were made clear from an early stage that in truth, there is no intrinsic reason why one should not bid, say, spades to show hearts instead of bidding hearts to show hearts, the average player would be able to understand a great deal more about the game at championship level. But there are a large number of bridge writers and teachers with a vested interest in making sure that this does not happen. It is also argued that the game is the poorer for the fact that at world championships, players have to carry around written defences to enemy artificialities. This is not so - they don't have to do this at all. Of course, in order not to have to do it, they would need to spend some time learning what to do about such calls when they arose at the table. But this is too much like hard work, so it does not happen. Bridge is about to become an Olympic sport, or so we all hope. Olympic sportsmen and women train for five or six hours a day, every day, in order to perfect their skills. A tiny fraction of this effort would enable Bob Hamman or anybody else to deal with even so outlandish a device as a 1S overcall of 1D that showed a club suit or a heart suit. For some unfathomable reason, however, Truscott does not feel that this is an effort which Hamman should be called upon to make (and neither, by the sound of things, does Hamman). Marvin's suggestion for multi-way two-level openings is this: > Restrict the varieties if necessary, except those that are strong (15+ HCP), but > don't bar the basic concept (one of two possible anchor suits). Good idea. Why, if one is allowed to open 2D to show hearts or spades, should one not be allowed to overcall 1S to show clubs or hearts? Of course, the former device is familiar while the latter is not. So what? [Truscott] > > 2. To bar opening one notrump bids if the minimum is below nine > > points. [Marvin] > Illegal, just barely, as initial one-level actions can be controlled only if > they show a king or less than average strength, which translates into 7 HCP. > Below 8 HCP would be okay, but why not bar all such one-level initial actions > by a partnership, since the Laws permit that? Why not ban the strong club, since the Laws permit that also? Because we have all grown up with the strong club, and we know what it's about. By what right do we say: the game shall develop thus far and no further? [Truscott] > > 3. To bar opening bids, such as two spades, that show a weak > > preempt in an unspecified suit. [Marvin] > In one of two specified suits should be okay for high-level games. In one of four suits should be OK for any kind of game. There is no intrinsic difference between a 2S opening that shows a weak hand with either black suit and a 2S opening that shows a weak hand with any suit; both are equally easy (or difficult) to counter. I do not believe, as can be gathered, that there should be regulations of this kind at all, but if we are to have them, let us at least think them through sensibly. [Truscott] > > 5. To bar overcalls, such as the one spade overcall quoted above, > > that can be weak and have no anchor suit. [Marvin] > An anchor suit, or at least one of two possible anchors, should be specified. There is a world of difference between a call that guarantees a suit and one that can be based on one of two (or three, or four) anchor suits. Compare and contrast: S W N E 2S 3C P 3S P 3NT End S W N E 2D 3C P ? In both auctions, South has a weak two in spades; in the second, he has opened a Multi 2D. Now, East has no problem in the first auction in that he can cue bid 3S unambiguously to ask for a stopper. He cannot do this in the second auction, since he may want to bid "real" spades (when South has hearts). This is a real difficulty when dealing with multi-way actions - the lack of an unambiguous cue bid cannot always be overcome. As a result, even the world's best players cannot always bid their hands to the correct contract. The assumption is that therefore, these methods must be outlawed by regulation, otherwise people will look foolish. On what, apart from wounded pride, is this assumption based? [Truscott] > > 7. To bar two clubs over an opposing one notrump to show an > > unspecified one-suiter unless 9 points are guaranteed. [Marvin] > Entirely unnecessary, since it does not interfere with the next hand's action > (double is Stayman). Higher conventional actions should have a known suit, > for use as a query bid by responder. Why "should" responder have the right to a "query bid"? Why should not world-class partnerships have to devise ways around this difficulty? Don't tell me the answer to this - I already know it. [Marvin] > Not necessary, IMO. Any bid showing one of two possible suits > should be okay, at least at high levels. I don't know whether Marvin actually means this, or if he thinks that such bids are OK as long as the suits that may be held are not the suit bid. 2D showing a weak two in either major is not very difficult to defend against (but see above). 2H showing a weak two in either major is much more difficult. But this difficulty becomes present as soon as a bid can be based on more than one suit - there is no difference between two suits, three suits and four suits in this context. > > A modest proposal > > David Burn, Great Britain > > > [unwarranted off-the-target sarcasm aimed at the above, snipped.] Oh, well. > Maybe there should be two games, one for the scientists who enjoy cryptology, > and the other for those who just want to play a card game that is challenging > enough without requiring a 500-page code book. Quite. The game should be just difficult enough that I can cope with it, and no more difficult because then I can't. Future generations of bridge players need not expect to have to do any thinking of their own, because it has all been done for them. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 17 00:03:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA21148 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 00:03:14 +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 AAA21138 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 00:03:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-23-187.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.23.187]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA09866 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 14:02:54 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3881B042.B5FB25AB@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 12:49:22 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: bum claim References: <387EC57A.EA03D9C1@alltel.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk pamhad@netcomuk.co.uk wrote: > > On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 00:43:06 -0600, you wrote: > > > > >"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > >> an easy one I think, in DWS's absence > >> > >> Jxxx > >> > >> AQTxx K9xx claim by W (rest of hand trumps) > >> > >> - > >> > >> careless or irrational? > > Stupid/lazy (OK, careless if you prefer it) > > >> > >> club game, mps, competent mid-stake rubber bridge player > >> > >> I ruled 1 trick to the opponents, anyone disagree? > > > >No. When running a combined long suit with "no problems," it's normal to > >start with the high cards in the shorter hand. So the lead is the king, > >or to the king, discovering the void. Too late. Reverse the location of > >the E/W hands, however, and now the "normal" play of the king discovers > >the void with the lead in the correct hand for taking a finesse. So in > >that case, no trick to the opponents. Anyone disagree? > > Me > > As an intermediate player I would look at the two holdings and cash the A > or Q before claiming knowing I can always pick up 40 breaks either side - > OR I would miscount OR I would be careless. > Well, but this claim was not made by You, Pam, but by some player whose ability we do not know. In judging a claim of this sort, we must look at the player involoved. I am quite willing to believe that if you were the player, I should rule against you. But that is not an interesting fact for blml. As blml, we should look at the larger picture. And I am quit certain that at certain tables, it would be irrational to believe that the player would not be able to play this hand correctly. Nor would the fact of claiming be any indication of a careless miscounting. At some tables, hands like these are routinely claimed. The one comment that is important was the one from partner "sloppy, serves you right". That can show us (blml) that this is not such a table and that the claim ought to be discounted. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 17 00:03:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA21149 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 00:03:14 +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 AAA21139 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 00:03:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-23-187.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.23.187]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA09875 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 14:02:57 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3881B708.F43C5318@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 13:18:16 +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: wrong board References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martaandras@uze.net wrote: > > Dear All let me ask your opinion about a decision I made on a > tournament last weekend. > > West East > xxx AKxxx > AKQ109xx x > Qx AK > x AJ109x > > On a pair tournament the board was picked up by North because > the play did not finish at the previous table (wrong, as it is North-South > responsibility to move the boards to the next table but we all know > this is very ususal). > The bidding (N-S passed all the time) > West East > 1 Sp > 2 H 3 Cl > 4 NT 5 Cl > 6 H > > (Actually both majors were divided 3-2 in N-S hands) > > However before the opening lead N recognized he picked up the wrong board > from the previous table (it is also pretty usual) and called the director. > > I asked the players to return the card to the board and moved it to the right table. > Obviously in the next round the board moved to this table but E-W was a different pair. > I observed the bidding sequence. E-W bid to 6 Sp with the following sequence: > West East > 1 Sp > 2 H 3 Cl > 3 Sp 6 Sp. > > South was on lead and selected a diamond (the result was 1 down). > However I believe South had UI as due to the first sequence he should > have known the solid heart suit at West therefore if he would have selected > a heart (after the heart lead the contract had no chance at all) > as the opening lead, I would have adjusted the score. > As South led a diamond I let the result stand. > > When E-W played the hand later in the session I observed them as well but > they repeated their sequence and made 6 H. > > Any comments? > I believe Andras made the correct rulings. However, how many of you agree with me that the current Laws are deficient in this case? If the opening lead were to be faced, the board would simply be scored normally. Two other pairs would not be able to play the board, but could still play it against each other. Rather, the director now has to follow two other sets of bidding, and if anything happens, Av+ and Av- would still be in order. I would prefer it to have the laws say : "If the bidding has progressed beyond (a reasonable measure, say the first round or something), the bidding and play shall continue". I feel that this is closer to real bridge and I believe the TD's and computors are sufficiently able to deal with the situation so that they can also deal with it a bit more. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 17 00:56:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA21372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 00:56:56 +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 AAA21367 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 00:56:47 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id NAA24885 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 13:56:05 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 13:56 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: bum claim To: john@probst.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: John Probst wrote: > an easy one I think, in DWS's absence > > Jxxx > > > AQTxx K9xx claim by W (rest of hand trumps) > > - > > careless or irrational? > club game, mps, competent mid-stake rubber bridge player > I ruled 1 trick to the opponents, anyone disagree? > claimer's partner commented "sloppy, serves u right!" This may be cultural difference between duplicate and rubber. Amongst good rubber players I believe the correct form for the claim would be to spread the cards. With players of a slightly lesser standard spread the cards with the words "playing safe". With intermediate players then state "cashing the ace and finessing if necessary" and against poor players cash the ace and, if necessary state "finessing against North". the aim always being to get to the next hand as quickly as possible without insulting the intelligence of opponents. Playing in 4M I've fiarly often made/accepted a claim along the lines of "There are twelve tricks on a squeeze but I need a few minutes to work out the position" However, I wouldn't necessarily argue the ruling. It is sloppy to treat duplicate players like competent rubber players! Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 17 01:15:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA21457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 01:15:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from camelot.netcom.net.uk (root@camelot.netcom.net.uk [194.42.225.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA21452 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 01:15:43 +1100 (EST) From: pamhad@netcomuk.co.uk Received: from dialup-19-23.netcomuk.co.uk (dialup-19-23.netcomuk.co.uk [194.42.232.215]) by camelot.netcom.net.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA14682 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 14:15:12 GMT To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: bum claim Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 14:14:25 +0000 Reply-To: pamhad@netcomuk.co.uk Message-ID: References: <387EC57A.EA03D9C1@alltel.net> <3881B042.B5FB25AB@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3881B042.B5FB25AB@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 BAA21453 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 16 Jan 2000 12:49:22 +0100, Herman wrote: >I wrote >> As an intermediate player I would look at the two holdings and cash the A >> or Q before claiming knowing I can always pick up 40 breaks either side - >> OR I would miscount OR I would be careless. >> > >Well, but this claim was not made by You, Pam, but by some >player whose ability we do not know. > >In judging a claim of this sort, we must look at the player >involoved. >I am quite willing to believe that if you were the player, I >should rule against you. But that is not an interesting >fact for blml. > Now I begin to understand. There are some players who do not ever make careless mistakes or miscount and if this were such a player we can rule for him. These players, in addition, are not required to take the care we mortals take nor should they have to explain themselves nor should we ever expect them to be ruled against when an obvious line is there and they claim before making it clear that they are playing that way. They never get tired, they never get distracted and they never ever get it wrong. Seems fair enough - sorry I spoke. -- Pam Sussex, England From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 17 04:54:52 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA22571 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 04:54:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from cshore.com (term.cshore.com [206.165.153.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA22566 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 04:54:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from BillS ([208.46.135.25]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.5/64) id 7402000 ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 12:48:47 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000116125139.007b4790@cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 12:51:39 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Bill Segraves Subject: Re: reddemus in lectum ... In-Reply-To: <000701bf5fce$ca2cd260$5ab401d5@davidburn> References: <200001141718.SAA01177@borsuk.math.auc.dk> <00a201bf5f85$c3dd1bc0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have not followed the entire thread, so my apologies if these points have been made already. This thread revolves around a series of questions and there's not general agreement as to the answers to any of them. Imo, there'd be a far greater chance of reaching some common ground if the issues were broken down, e.g.: 1 - Are players inevitably disadvantaged by unfamiliar methods? 2 - Can this disadvantage be suitably mitigated by any reasonable form of advance preparation in a pairs event or other relatively short-match format? 3 - Is is appropriate that some pairs gain advantage simply by virtue of unfamiliarity that cannot be mitigated by reasonable preparation? 4 - Is it appropriate for a sponsoring organization to restrict methods such as to limit this advantage? To question #1, I would answer yes. Familiarity is always an advantage. Anyone who doubts this should try taking a quiz with their regular partner as to what their calls would mean through several rounds of auctions over various types of unfamiliar opposing methods. I've never seen anything to lead me to believe that players of any level can perform as well outside the realm of their partnership agreements as they can perform within a familiar context. If anyone truly doubts this, let's get some players of various levels and set up an experiment. Having an agreement, even an inferior agreement, is almost always superior to having no agreement. To question #2, I would answer no. This clearly overlaps partially with question #1, but I think it's worth looking at it separately, since it gets at a core issue of how long it would take to prepare for something unfamiliar. This is, imo, a very complex and interesting question, from the standpoint of bidding theory, and it's worth breaking it down into sub-questions: A - Is it possible to design a "universal defense" against various classes of opposing action that is sufficient to mitigate the disadvantage of unfamiliarity? So far as I've seen, the answer to this is no. It's not to hard to come up with a set of rules that suffice for providing a framework within which it's possible to bid reasonably accurately. However, these rules provide far from optimal bidding structure. Optimal solutions to even the simplest problems often require specific rather than general rules. B - Are provided defenses adequate to mitigate the advantage of unfamiliarity? In principle, I think the answer to this could be yes, but in practice I have strong doubts. If those defenses were tested and proven, *and* if they went enough rounds of the auction that unfamiliar follow-ups did not arise, then they might suffice. In practice, from what I've seen, provided defenses are often superficially described and technically inferior. Sometimes, they've never even really been tested. C - How long would it take for a pair to check and modify defenses? This obviously depends on how many things they have to do defend against. It generally only takes my partners and I a few minutes to invent, approve or modify a defense against an unfamiliar method. However, we often find holes when we go back and look at things again later. Furthermore, there are some problems that don't have any obvious solution, but require significant study. D - How much time may reasonably be allotted to preparation and review of notes on opposing methods? Depends on the methods and the event. A pairs event would take all day if 10 minutes were allotted between each round for review of the opposing cc. Similarly, it hardly seems practical within the context of a standard pairs event to have players leafing through several hundred pages of prepared notes. It would, however, imo, be interesting to have some pairs events with extra time allotted for this. Question #3 is the most interesting philosophical question, and imo comes down to the core question of whether the capacity to generate confusion in the opposing side with regard to their counter-methods is a bridge skill per se or an artefact of the imperfections of a timed event. As a heuristic device, suppose, for a moment, that my partner and I were consummately skilled at changing our methods each session, so that the opponents were always a step behind in their counter-measures. Suppose further that we are able to win events, as a result, that we would not be able to win if our opponents were given advance notice of our methods and time to prepare suitable countermeasures. Would this be acceptable? Is this a measure of bridge skill, or a measure of some other skill? Question #4 is the legal question, though it naturally flows, to a certain extent, from one's answer to question #3. Those who consider it a bridge skill are, in general, loathe to allow any restrictions on it. Some of those who do not consider it a bridge skill are willing to take strong measures to prevent the introduction of unfamiliar methods. Others are willing to cede considerable lattitude to SO's in deciding what may be appropriate measures to limit the advantages of unfamiliarity within the context of a given event. Return to lurk status. Cheers, Bill Segraves Guilford, CT From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 17 07:09:35 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA23038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 07:09:35 +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 HAA23030 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 07:09:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from pf9s05a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.165.250] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt7-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 129VQH-0005Dj-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 15:47:30 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: wrong board Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 20:14:32 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf605e$4cdb5c60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---Original Message----- From: Martaandras@uze.net To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Saturday, January 15, 2000 9:38 PM Subject: wrong board >Dear All let me ask your opinion about a decision I made on a >tournament last weekend. > >West East >xxx AKxxx >AKQ109xx x >Qx AK >x AJ109x > >On a pair tournament the board was picked up by North because >the play did not finish at the previous table (wrong, as it is North-South >responsibility to move the boards to the next table but we all know >this is very ususal). >The bidding (N-S passed all the time) >West East > 1 Sp >2 H 3 Cl >4 NT 5 Cl >6 H > >(Actually both majors were divided 3-2 in N-S hands) > >However before the opening lead N recognized he picked up the wrong board >from the previous table (it is also pretty usual) and called the director. > >I asked the players to return the card to the board and moved it to the right table. >Obviously in the next round the board moved to this table but E-W was a different pair. >I observed the bidding sequence. E-W bid to 6 Sp with the following sequence: >West East > 1 Sp >2 H 3 Cl >3 Sp 6 Sp. > >South was on lead and selected a diamond (the result was 1 down). >However I believe South had UI as due to the first sequence he should >have known the solid heart suit at West therefore if he would have selected >a heart (after the heart lead the contract had no chance at all) >as the opening lead, I would have adjusted the score. >As South led a diamond I let the result stand. > >When E-W played the hand later in the session I observed them as well but >they repeated their sequence and made 6 H. > >Any comments? Yes. I am sure you were right to move the board back to where it belonged for that round, but I am equally sure you should have cancelled the board on the next round as soon as the auction deffered from the first. It is not absolutely clear, Law15C speaks of the wrong players rather than the wrong board. However I interpret the intention to mean the same, as the circumstances are indeed the same. The board is cancelled for that round, and is replaced where it belongs. When, on the next round, it is correctly at the table where it was previously bid, as soon as the auction differs in any way, the TD has no option but to cancel the board and award an artificial score Law12A. When later in the movement, if the moving pair that bid to 6S meet the board again, then they must bid it as they previously did. Any change in the bidding from N/S or E/W results in another Law12A adjustment. I think that it would be better if when the auction has started, the board must be played, if it has not been previously played. Easy to share boards for that round. This way it will mean that later there is a round where E/W meet the board again. If there is a board in the movement that is mutually unplayed at that table, and will not be met by N/S then a board can be substituted. Otherwise just one Law 12A adjustment is necessary. Players come to play bridge, not to get Law12 scores, and Andras achieved that aim, but Law15C is quite specific in that once, in this case, N/S, have different information about the E/W hands, the board just cannot be played. I have had this happen when a table has picked up the wrong board from a relay and the problem of awarding Law12 scores later in the movement is horrendous. The difficulty of finding the traveller with N-1 scores and altering the pair numbers to keep the computer software happy! Cheers Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 17 09:00:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA23372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 09:00:47 +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 JAA23366 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 09:00:38 +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 WAA01406 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 22:45:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by office.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA09843 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 22:45:33 +0100 (CET) X-Authentication-Warning: office.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 22:45:31 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Did anybody ask the players? (was Re: WC:Truscott's "Systemic Germs" Proposal) In-Reply-To: <85tbmf$one$2@bnews.gigabell.net> Message-ID: References: <20000115053243.11860.00000339@ng-cr1.aol.com> <85tbmf$one$2@bnews.gigabell.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I can't find the exact text right now, but Truscott's article mentioned something along the lines of If this proposal is accepted, the majority of the players will be happier. What puzzles me is how Truscott came to this conclusion. Did he ask all the 240 or so players currently in Bermuda or is this just a guess? In the latter case, I suggest that one starts by asking the players who participate in the Olympiad this fall if they want more or less system restrictions (and if so, where). If the majority of the players believes that more (or less) restrictions are in order, then one can change the rules, if not, let's leave them as they are. 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 Jan 17 14:07:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA24317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 14:07:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA24311 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 14:07:11 +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 12A2VR-0002JL-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 03:07:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 03:05:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: bum claim In-Reply-To: <3881B042.B5FB25AB@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3881B042.B5FB25AB@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >> > >> >> an easy one I think, in DWS's absence >> >> >> >> Jxxx >> >> >> >> AQTxx K9xx claim by W (rest of hand trumps) >> >> >> >> - >> >> >> >> careless or irrational? snip >At some tables, hands like these are routinely claimed. > >The one comment that is important was the one from partner >"sloppy, serves you right". That can show us (blml) that >this is not such a table and that the claim ought to be >discounted. > I would expect the player in question to get this one right. But I think his partner nailed it in one: "sloppy, serves you right". In fact the player who claimed commented, "Fine, I might have thought there were only three out I suppose", with a huge grin. (implying he knows his safety plays but maybe can't count to 13). He certainly expected to lose the trick when the TD was called, and so would I in his position. [/humoUr ON] Of course if it were pam, I'd award her the contract 'cos she would find it 66.6% of the time by randomly cashing one of the top 3 honours [/humoUr OFF] 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 Jan 17 15:15:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA24513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:15:53 +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 PAA24508 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:15:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 20:15:38 -0800 Message-ID: <001d01bf60a1$816d7a60$16991e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Did anybody ask the players? (was Re: WC:Truscott's "Systemic Germs"Proposal) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 20:07:46 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > I can't find the exact text right now, but Truscott's article mentioned > something along the lines of > > If this proposal is accepted, the majority of the players will be > happier. > > What puzzles me is how Truscott came to this conclusion. Did he ask all > the 240 or so players currently in Bermuda or is this just a guess? > > In the latter case, I suggest that one starts by asking the players who > participate in the Olympiad this fall if they want more or less system > restrictions (and if so, where). > > If the majority of the players believes that more (or less) restrictions > are in order, then one can change the rules, if not, let's leave them as > they are. > That's like asking members of the U. S. Congress if they are in favor the relaxed rules that apply to campaign financing. Would it not be better to ask the general population of players how they feel about the matter? Whose game is it, anyway? -- Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 17 17:34:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA24892 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 17:34:50 +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 RAA24887 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 17:34:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from alltel.net (cras18p56.navix.net [207.91.7.58]) by mail.alltel.net (8.9.3/ALLTEL Messaging Service) with ESMTP id AAA00895 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 00:34:32 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3882B867.E6830944@alltel.net> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 00:36:23 -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: bum claim References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > In article <3881B042.B5FB25AB@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael > writes > >> > > >> >> an easy one I think, in DWS's absence > >> >> > >> >> Jxxx > >> >> > >> >> AQTxx K9xx claim by W (rest of hand trumps) > >> >> > >> >> - > >> >> > >> >> careless or irrational? > > snip > > >At some tables, hands like these are routinely claimed. > > > >The one comment that is important was the one from partner > >"sloppy, serves you right". That can show us (blml) that > >this is not such a table and that the claim ought to be > >discounted. > > > I would expect the player in question to get this one right. But I think > his partner nailed it in one: "sloppy, serves you right". > In fact the player who claimed commented, "Fine, I might have thought > there were only three out I suppose", with a huge grin. (implying he > knows his safety plays but maybe can't count to 13). He certainly > expected to lose the trick when the TD was called, and so would I in his I agree. "Sloppy" covers the field, including errors in counting as well as in technical card play. And world class experts can make mistakes. I still remember getting an excellent board about 17 years ago off the late Barry Crane because he forgot what contract we were in and misdefended the hand. Norm Hostetler From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 17 19:21:33 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA25070 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 19:21:33 +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 TAA25065 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 19:21:25 +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 JAA23628 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 09:20:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA15117 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 09:20:48 +0100 (CET) X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 09:20:44 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Did anybody ask the players? (was Re: WC:Truscott's "Systemic Germs"Proposal) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20000115053243.11860.00000339@ng-cr1.aol.com> <85tbmf$one$2@bnews.gigabell.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 17 Jan 2000, Marvin L. French wrote: > Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > > > I can't find the exact text right now, but Truscott's article > mentioned > > something along the lines of > > > > If this proposal is accepted, the majority of the players will > be > > happier. > > > > What puzzles me is how Truscott came to this conclusion. Did he > ask all > > the 240 or so players currently in Bermuda or is this just a > guess? > > > > In the latter case, I suggest that one starts by asking the > players who > > participate in the Olympiad this fall if they want more or less > system > > restrictions (and if so, where). > > > > If the majority of the players believes that more (or less) > restrictions > > are in order, then one can change the rules, if not, let's leave > them as > > they are. > > > That's like asking members of the U. S. Congress if they are in favor > the relaxed rules that apply to campaign financing. > > Would it not be better to ask the general population of players > how they feel about the matter? Whose game is it, anyway? More no than yes: The WBF events have their own set of rules regarding conventions and we are (at the moment) discussing these, we're not discussing what should apply to a local club game in Upper Bumpopo. Then, "standard methods" differ from one country to another and what is regarded a highly unusual, destructive method in one place, can be found (including defenses) in beginner's textbooks in another. The Multi-2D is a typical example of this. Not all publications have worldwide distributions and are translated into languages that are understood by the majority of players, so even if a method is carefully written up, the information may not be accessible to all players. A typical example was the Polish club (until Matula published his book). 99.9% of the players will never notice any of this though, since they only play in their own region. The WBF events are one of the few events where players from all over the world participate. Here the players, and not the officials, will have to deal with methods from all over the world. Finally, I agree that methods should be made understandable to all players everywhere. I don't think that restricting them is the way to go though. 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 Jan 17 20:51:12 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA25284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 20:51:12 +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 UAA25279 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 20:51:03 +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 KAA04441 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 10:52:15 +0100 Message-ID: <3882E5E2.92492892@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 10:50:26 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: Did anybody ask the players? (was Re: WC:Truscott's "Systemic Germs"Proposal) References: <001d01bf60a1$816d7a60$16991e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" pressed the following keys: > > Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > > > I can't find the exact text right now, but Truscott's article > mentioned > > something along the lines of > > > > If this proposal is accepted, the majority of the players will > be > > happier. > > > > What puzzles me is how Truscott came to this conclusion. Did he > ask all > > the 240 or so players currently in Bermuda or is this just a > guess? > > > > In the latter case, I suggest that one starts by asking the > players who > > participate in the Olympiad this fall if they want more or less > system > > restrictions (and if so, where). > > > > If the majority of the players believes that more (or less) > restrictions > > are in order, then one can change the rules, if not, let's leave > them as > they are. > > > That's like asking members of the U. S. Congress if they are in > favor > the relaxed rules that apply to campaign financing. > > Would it not be better to ask the general population of players > how they feel about the matter? Whose game is it, anyway? > > -- > Marv (Marvin L. French) No, why? There is a significance difference between players who treat bridge as a pass time and people who treat it as a a sport. Why an old lady at the local club should decide what methods may or may not be used when Hamman-Wolff play against Helgemo-Helness? The vast majority of people who play football for pleasure don't use the offside rule; does this mean that the offside rule should be suspended in MU-Real match? "Whose game is it?" This is how I see it. Local clubs can establish their own rules if their members want to do so. They can play their own game and be happy. In high level games, however, I see no reason apart from mental laziness to ban any methods (assuming there is enough time to preparea defense, of course). Look, Hamman doesn't like that 1S overcall. He does like, however, some artificial responses to his 1C opening (controls showing). Why? Why does the line should be drawn exactly there? The same goes to the Precision 1D catch-all opening. You might argue these methods are very common and players are familiar with them. I can assure you that in Poland you have a much bigger chance (I'd say 5:1 at least if not bigger) to meet 1D opening showing 0-7PC and any shape than a "prepared" 1D. I have been playing bridge for 10 years and I haven't met a _single_ pair playing a strong club with control responses. The system that I use in my regular partnership is Acol and we are probably the only pair in Poland using a 1C opening to show 4+C (this requires a pre-alert! some pairs change their defensive methods against us). Here this is certainly a system everyone is "unfamiliar" with. But the mere fact that a player from one country (even a very big one :))) may be unfamiliar with methods played in another one should not be a reason to ban those methods from a world class event. "I don't care what methods you use. Just let me know in advance and I'll prepare a defense myself (I don't need your help with it, I'll prepare a better one). Then we can start playing and I'll show you that no matter how complex your system is you don't have a slightest idea what this game is about" - this is my bridge philosophy. I am surprised that someone who is a serious candidate to become a world champion doesn't share it. -- *********************************************************************** - One school believes that high taxes are 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 Jan 18 00:53:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA26135 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 00:53:57 +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 AAA26130 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 00:53:50 +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, 17 Jan 2000 08:52:44 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000117085115.007e2510@mail.maine.rr.com> X-Sender: thg@mail.maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 08:51:15 -0500 To: From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Did anybody ask the players? (was Re: WC:Truscott's "Systemic Germs"Proposal) In-Reply-To: <001d01bf60a1$816d7a60$16991e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:07 PM 1/16/00 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >That's like asking members of the U. S. Congress if they are in >favor the relaxed rules that apply to campaign financing. > >Would it not be better to ask the general population of players >how they feel about the matter? Whose game is it, anyway? I have found the editorial (BW, October 1986) which Henry Sun mentioned a couple of days ago. A portion of Kaplan's: "Administrators sometimes just ignore the Laws, persisting in enforcing regulations they know to be illegal, Indeed, the two largest Zonal organizations, the ACBL and the European Bridge League (they have some 90% of the world's duplicate players between them), _both_ today forbod certain opening bids on fewer than some number of points -- in open contravention of the Laws. "Obviously, this contempt for the law-book is intolerable. The law-makers, having failed to convince either Zonal giant, chose to change their hat color to grey or yellow [from white -- a reference to Rubens' editorial], legalizing what was already the rule de facto ... This surrender may not be very courageous, but it is preferable to the lawless status quo." It would seem that precedent for following the masses has already been set. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 18 01:51:10 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA26330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 01:51:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from igngate.merck.de (igngate.merck.de [194.196.248.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA26325 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 01:51:02 +1100 (EST) From: James.Vickers@merck.de Received: from dedamsgnt02.merck.de (smtpgw.merck.de [155.250.248.234]) by igngate.merck.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA20327 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:50:18 +0100 (MET) X-Internal-ID: 3882E08F00001BEC Received: from dedamsg1.merck.de (155.250.248.233) by dedamsgnt02.merck.de (NPlex 2.0.123) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:50:17 +0100 Received: by dedamsg1.merck.de(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.5 (863.2 5-20-1999)) id C1256869.005154BC ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:48:21 +0100 X-Lotus-FromDomain: MERCK To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:49:53 +0100 Subject: Re: redress for N/S Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In response to the replies so far, yes a "super strong weak two" was what was explained, as was hopefully never in doubt after the given point-range. Henry Sun wrote: >it isn't clear to me why east's question was illegal, nor why west acted >naively. personally, i'd applaud the ethics of any west who chose to pass >after ui because i think that a balancing double would be a near 100% action. Many "doubl" readers considered hanging too good for East after such an obvious infraction. He has received a comprehensive reply to his first question, and has no right to ask a follow-up question which could draw his partner's attention to specific suits. If double was a near 100% action then West's chosen action of pass was a consequence of his partner's illegal action. Even though this action was taken in order to try to protect the opponents, it actually led to damage. Which is why I have some sympathy for: Marv: >L12C2 The most favorable result that was likely in the absence of the >infraction was +110 for N/S. Since this is the most unfavorable result >that was at all probable for E-W, assign -110 to them, along with a >stern lecture for East. If East should have known better, then report >the matter to C&E people. However, in order to invoke L12C2 you have to demonstrate that the offending side took action which could have been suggested over and above logical alternatives by the UI, and that is exactly what they avoided doing. So, unjust as it seems to me, I would feel I have to allow the law to stand. James Vickers (PS sorry about the line length, I really am at a loss as to how to adjust it.) Original message: **************** Hello again. Returning after a short break, I find this interesting case has the German news group "Doubl" in a bit of a spin, and would appreciate some comments: Teams, dealer N, N/S vul: 10 K Q J 9 7 J 7 6 2 J 6 2 6 5 4 2 N K Q 3 W E A 10 8 6 5 4 2 A Q 8 S K 4 A 10 8 5 4 9 7 A J 9 8 7 3 - 10 9 5 3 K Q 3 The auction: N E S W 2 H * pass pass ? * Alerted. East asked and was told "a super-weak two in hearts, 9-12 pts and 6 hearts". He enquired further as to whether it could only mean hearts, or if it could possibly be a weak two in spades (not a legal treatment in some parts of the world, but would have been here). South denied this possibility. West passed and 2H was defeated by two tricks. N/S were unhappy about the line of questioning, and called the TD to reserve their rights. West declared that after East's behaviour he was barred from bidding anyway (not true, of course, E/W are in need of some educating). How should the TD rule? Following the usual procedure for such cases, I would ask myself the following questions: Was UI transmitted? (Yes) Did offender's partner choose from among logical alternatives one which could have been suggested over and above others by the UI? (Not in my opinion, but arguable) Were the opponents damaged as a result? (Quite possibly) East's question could be interpreted as saying: "I can't believe you have a weak two in hearts as I have so many of them and not so many spades" and make a take-out double by West (to be converted to penalty) more attractive than a pass (logical alternative? To some players perhaps). But consider what happens if there had been no UI and West makes the normal double. East passes, and it would not be unreasonable for South to rescue to 2S and on a good day take eight tricks. East's question was undoubtably illegal, and West acted naively, albeit in good faith. It seems that as a result N/S have lost their chance to obtain a better score in 2S, even though West went out of his way not to act on the UI. Do N/S have a right to redress? If so, which law do you cite? James Vickers From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 18 03:41:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA26845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 03:41:14 +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 DAA26837 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 03:41:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from karma.isi.com (pixsv124.isi.com [192.73.222.73]) by hopper.isi.com (8.8.4/8.6.10) with ESMTP id IAA13095; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 08:40:26 -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 IAA24459; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 08:35:34 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard Willey" To: "Bill Segraves" , Subject: RE: reddemus in lectum ... Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 11:42:38 -0800 Message-ID: <000201bf6123$02dc39c0$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: <3.0.5.32.20000116125139.007b4790@cshore.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Bill Segraves has posted what I consider to be a thoughtful and well considered posting. Unfortunately, while I agree with many of the individual points that Bill has made, I think that he has failed to see the forest for the trees. (My initial reaction on reading his posting was "so-what") Heterogeneity is part and parcel of the game of bridge. It is by no means restricted to whatever coded meanings are defined for certain bidding sequences, but rather extends through bidding style, defensive methods, tendencies regarding pysches.... To me, any attempt to limit the ability to choose methods in one particular area comes across as arbitrary and capricious. Quite frankly, the entire discussion reminds me very much of the arguments surrounds "cultural relativism" which periodically explode here in the US. I think that the argument surround bidding restrictions is best understood as a "moral" argument rather than a technical one. Cathy Chua wrote an extremely interesting book entitled "Fair Play or Foul. Cheating at Bridge". In this book made some very interesting observations about different "styles" of bidding and how these map onto geographical regions. Chua proposed that there are certain players who place an enormously high "value" on constructive bidding. These players seem to believe that the side that holds the majority of the strength has a god given right to a clean and unobstructed auction to arrive at their par contract. Truscott's article is best understood as a religious argument to ban methods that make it more difficult to have a constructive auction. Chua originally argued that these bidding tendencies have a strong geographic component to them. I would suggest that that a more important consideration is probably the demographic diversity of the regulatory authorities. Whether one is looking at crops, herds, or political organizations, mono-cultures are not a good thing. Richard -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOINwriGkJ7YU62vZEQIxzQCcDwRZt1l9jl+I87BASOyMkAjpYM4AnRIi QA4mTmJqVCThgUbnICPS18Vy =QLtX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 18 03:46:57 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA26878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 03:46:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from iron.singnet.com.sg (smtp1.singnet.com.sg [165.21.7.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA26872 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 03:46:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from derrrr (58zulu460.singnet.com.sg [165.21.145.214]) by iron.singnet.com.sg (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA14945 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 00:46:35 +0800 (SGT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000118003853.007dacd0@pop.singnet.com.sg> X-Sender: yanhoon@pop.singnet.com.sg X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 00:38:53 +0800 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Derrick Subject: Re: reddemus in lectum ... In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20000116125139.007b4790@cshore.com> References: <000701bf5fce$ca2cd260$5ab401d5@davidburn> <200001141718.SAA01177@borsuk.math.auc.dk> <00a201bf5f85$c3dd1bc0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:51 PM 16/1/00 -0500, Bill Segraves wrote: >1 - Are players inevitably disadvantaged by unfamiliar methods? > >2 - Can this disadvantage be suitably mitigated by any reasonable form of >advance preparation in a pairs event or other relatively short-match format? > >3 - Is is appropriate that some pairs gain advantage simply by virtue of >unfamiliarity that cannot be mitigated by reasonable preparation? > >4 - Is it appropriate for a sponsoring organization to restrict methods >such as to limit this advantage? >A - Is it possible to design a "universal defense" against various classes >of opposing action that is sufficient to mitigate the disadvantage of >unfamiliarity? So far as I've seen, the answer to this is no. It's not to >hard to come up with a set of rules that suffice for providing a framework >within which it's possible to bid reasonably accurately. However, these >rules provide far from optimal bidding structure. Optimal solutions to >even the simplest problems often require specific rather than general rules. > > >B - Are provided defenses adequate to mitigate the advantage of >unfamiliarity? In principle, I think the answer to this could be yes, but >in practice I have strong doubts. If those defenses were tested and >proven, *and* if they went enough rounds of the auction that unfamiliar >follow-ups did not arise, then they might suffice. In practice, from what >I've seen, provided defenses are often superficially described and >technically inferior. Sometimes, they've never even really been tested. Let me pose a few questions of my own. Perhaps the issues should be: 1 - Are players disadvantaging themselves by not preparing/wanting/being able to defend against unfamiliar methods ? 2 - Given that generic defences ("a set of rules that suffice for providing a framework within which it's possible to bid reasonably accurately") are not difficult to come by, why should players expect to be provided with optimal soulutions against unfamiliar bids when their own constructive bidding and defences to "familiar" conventions/methods are probbably not "optimised" ? Would anyone dare claim that there are no holes in their constructive bidding and defences to "familiar conventions" ? 3 - Is it appropriate that some pairs who are too inflexible to defend against unfamiliar conventions be protected by system restrictions from having to do so ? Suppose for a moment that my partner and I are consummately skilled at defending unfamiliar conventions (having developed a set of good generic defences which we can adapt at will and/or having acquired a wide knowledge/experience of conventions so that most are no longer "unfamiliar"). Suppose further that we are deprived of the chance of winning events which we would have been able to win if we were not deprived of the chance to use this skill/experience because of system restrictions on the field. Would this be acceptable ? Is being able to adapt to unfamiliar situations not a desirable bridge skill ? 4 - Is it appropriate for a sponsoring organization to restrict methods such as to limit the use of this bridge skill and protect players who are too challenged by having to defend unfamiliar conventions ? regards Derrick From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 18 03:58:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA26922 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 03:58:27 +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 DAA26917 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 03:58:19 +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 LAA23422 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 11:58:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA14825 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 11:57:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 11:57:58 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200001171657.LAA14825@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: redress for N/S X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: James.Vickers@merck.de > However, in order to invoke L12C2 you have to demonstrate that the offending > side took action which could have been suggested over and above logical > alternatives by the UI, L16A is not the only one that leads to 12C2. I am not expressing an opinion on whether East's question was or was not in itself illegal, but if it was, there is no doubt that the score can be adjusted via 73B1. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 18 04:32:18 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA27083 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 04:32:18 +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 EAA27078 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 04:32:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 09:32:01 -0800 Message-ID: <004101bf6110$c3bedde0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200001141718.SAA01177@borsuk.math.auc.dk> <00a201bf5f85$c3dd1bc0$16991e18@san.rr.com> <000701bf5fce$ca2cd260$5ab401d5@davidburn> Subject: Re: reddemus in lectum ... Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 09:30:02 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > The question is not: which of > Truscott's proposals are currently legal and which are not? The > question is: ought the game at the highest levels to be regulated in > terms of the use to which players may put legal calls in legal > auctions, or ought it not? To concentrate on the detail of the > regulations That was illustrative, not a serious attempt to define a good set of regulations. We were just trying to show that a good game can exist without complete license for arcane conventions. > is to make the unwarranted assumption that regulations > should exist at all. If regulations should not exist, the Laws should be revised to say so. Until then, I'll consider that they can be warranted. > > Contract bridge is about seventy years old. Since its inception, there > have been a number of advances in the theory of bidding. In the > beginning, curiously enough, was the strong club - since Harold S > Vanderbilt invented such a device - but that was about all. None of > the devices that are taken as axiomatic by current players existed in > any form; when the takeout double was first conceived, it was the > subject of vilification by people who regarded it as tantamount to > cheating. It turned out that contract bridge was in need of some conventions in order to develop into a better game. Just because conventions are necessary for a good game does not mean that they should multiply in number and complexity without control. We know that taking vitamins is probably good for our health. Some people think that means the more vitamins you take, the better, when actually many are toxic when taken in excessive doses. > > However, by the time that Culbertson and later Goren began to mould > the game into something like the shape that we recognise today, it had > become universally accepted that: (a) there was considerable merit in > using certain bids in a wholly artifical sense; (b) it was tactically > sensible to attempt to disrupt enemy auctions by the use of > pre-emptive bids and psychic calls of every kind. Both of these tenets > are as true today as they were then; indeed, (b) is if anything more > true, since constructive bidding among players of high standard is > sufficiently advanced that a willingness to take risks in order to > disrupt the opponents' auction is more or less mandatory for players > wishing to compete at world championship level. Agreed, but the process seems to have gone too far. Tradition counts for something, and the tradition/spirit of the game has been until recently that external aids may not be consulted. With the numerous weird conventions being developed, requiring more study by opponents than was reasonable, the authorities felt they had to make a choice between controlling the conventions or allowing external bidding aids to counter them. Some of us think they made the wrong choice, but most of us think they had to make a choice. > > Only in recent years has there been a backlash against the development > of coded systems (even constructive ones) and artificial disruptive > manoeuvres. In almost every case, the "reactionaries" have been > world-class players who have suffered at the hands of those whom they > regard as lesser mortals attempting to make up for their lack of > natural talent by the use of unfamiliar methods that are difficult to > counter. I have noticed hereabouts that those who have the most complicated convention cards tend not to be very good at card play. This is a card game, after all, and the play of the cards should not become a less important part of the game than bidding. >The current ACBL interdict against a psychic 2C opening > happened because someone once got a good result by doing this against > Sidney Silodor, who promptly used his official position to make it > illegal. This shocking abuse of power, far from being universally > condemned, has become more or less the mainstream official position. Change of subject. Our topic is conventions, not psychs. Controlling psychs by hiding behind the power to control conventions is an abomination, indeed shocking. > > It is argued that the game would be "better" if such methods were > outlawed, because they make it difficult for the average player to > understand what is happening. This is true, but it is difficult for > the average player to understand what is happening anyway. The reason > is that the average player is taught only about natural bids, with the > exception of "universal" conventions like Stayman, Blackwood and the > takeout double. If it were made clear from an early stage that in > truth, there is no intrinsic reason why one should not bid, say, > spades to show hearts instead of bidding hearts to show hearts, the > average player would be able to understand a great deal more about the > game at championship level. But there are a large number of bridge > writers and teachers with a vested interest in making sure that this > does not happen. Sure, a huge conspiracy. You are assuming a lot more control than what we are contemplating. We conservatives are not against the development of new conventions. I have probably published more articles on new conventions than anyone in ACBL-land other than Danny Kleinman. Some of my ideas are not permitted on GCC, one is even illegal in Mid-Chart games, and it burns me up. However, none of them requires any great study by the opponents, and I would not dream of coming up with anything that would be so contrary to the spirit of the game. In short, disruption is fine, and scientific bidding is fine, but not when they turn this great card game into a cryptological exercise for opponents. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 18 05:48:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA27326 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 05:48:18 +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 FAA27321 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 05:48:11 +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 NAA23424 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 13:47:49 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000117134907.007158fc@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 13:49:07 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: bum claim In-Reply-To: <000b01bf5e9b$e1c21cc0$8084d9ce@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:30 AM 1/14/00 -0500, Craig wrote: >Yes...normal play would be the A or Q (or to them) which discovers any void >in time. Anything else would be irrational in my view. This leaves no room between "incorrect" and "irrational", whereas I would argue that the footnote to L69-71 is there specifically to remind us that there's a lot of room between them, and that that room is there even when correct play is relatively straightforward as opposed to difficult or esoteric. I cannot believe that the footnote applies only when the play in question is something so advanced that only an expert would be expected to get it right. Change AQ10xx opposite K9xx to AQ10xxx opposite K9x, and I don't think anyone would call starting with the K anything but "careless or inferior... but not irrational". 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 Jan 18 06:00:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA27418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 06:00:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA27412 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 05:59:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA24356 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 13:59:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000117140054.00718678@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 14:00:54 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: reddemus in lectum ... In-Reply-To: <200001141718.SAA01177@borsuk.math.auc.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:18 PM 1/14/00 +0100, Niels wrote: >Here is a text version of those two articles. > >----------------------------------------------------------------- > SYSTEMIC GERMS > By Alan TruscOtt [snipped] >----------------------------------------------------------------- > A modest proposal > David Burn, Great Britain [snipped] Thanks to Niels for supplying plain-text versions of these articles, and particular thanks to David for writing his excellent article. At least Mr. Truscott's title lets us know exactly where his bias lies. 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 Jan 18 06:08:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA27453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 06:08:02 +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 GAA27448 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 06:07:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA25166 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 14:07:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000117140853.00714754@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 14:08:53 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:53 PM 1/14/00 +0100, James.Vickers wrote: >Teams, dealer N, N/S vul: > > 10 > K Q J 9 7 > J 7 6 2 > J 6 2 > >6 5 4 2 N K Q >3 W E A 10 8 6 5 4 2 >A Q 8 S K 4 >A 10 8 5 4 9 7 > > A J 9 8 7 3 > - > 10 9 5 3 > K Q 3 > > >The auction: >N E S W >2 H * pass pass ? > >* Alerted. East asked and was told "a super-weak two in hearts, 9-12 pts and >6 hearts". He enquired further as to whether it could only mean hearts, or if it >could possibly be a weak two in spades (not a legal treatment in some parts of >the world, but would have been here). South denied this possibility. West passed >and 2H was defeated by two tricks. > >N/S were unhappy about the line of questioning, and called the TD to reserve >their rights. West declared that after East's behaviour he was barred from >bidding anyway (not true, of course, E/W are in need of some educating). >How should the TD rule? Following the usual procedure for such cases, I would >ask myself the following questions: > > Was UI transmitted? (Yes) > Did offender's partner choose from among logical alternatives one which could > have been suggested over and above others by the UI? (Not in my opinion, but > arguable) > Were the opponents damaged as a result? (Quite possibly) > >East's question could be interpreted as saying: "I can't believe you have a weak >two in hearts as I have so many of them and not so many spades" and make a >take-out double by West (to be converted to penalty) more attractive than a pass >(logical alternative? To some players perhaps). But consider what happens if >there had been no UI and West makes the normal double. East passes, and it would >not be unreasonable for South to rescue to 2S and on a good day take eight >tricks. > >East's question was undoubtably illegal, and West acted naively, albeit in good >faith. It seems that as a result N/S have lost their chance to obtain a better >score in 2S, even though West went out of his way not to act on the UI. Do N/S >have a right to redress? If so, which law do you cite? No. I agree with James' analysis entirely. N-S were damaged by West's *failure* to take advantage of the available UI. To claim redress is a travesty of the both the wording and intent of the law. 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 Jan 18 06:54:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA27606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 06:54:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA27600 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 06:54:14 +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 OAA29331 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 14:53:54 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000117145513.00720438@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 14:55:13 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: redress for N/S In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:49 PM 1/17/00 +0100, James.Vickers wrote: >Many "doubl" readers considered hanging too good for East after such an obvious >infraction. He has received a comprehensive reply to his first question, and has >no right to ask a follow-up question which could draw his partner's attention to >specific suits. Certainly true, and subject to disciplinary action (in the form of a penalty, or a hanging) if the appropriate authority (in the ACBL, a Conduct & Ethics Committee) deems it a sufficiently egregious violation of L73B as to justify action under L90 or L91. >If double was a near 100% action then West's chosen action of >pass was a consequence of his partner's illegal action. Even though this action >was taken in order to try to protect the opponents, it actually led to damage. But a C&E offense does not entitle the offender's opponents to an adjusted score. Transmission of UI, no matter how blatant a violation of L73B, does not bring L73F or L16 into play. Only use of the UI by the tranmitter's partner can do that. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 18 07:35:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA27802 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 07:35:35 +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 HAA27795 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 07:35:26 +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 PAA02694 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:35:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA15013 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:35:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:35:05 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200001172035.PAA15013@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: redress for N/S X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > But a C&E offense does not entitle the offender's opponents to an adjusted > score. Yes. > Transmission of UI, no matter how blatant a violation of L73B, does > not bring L73F or L16 into play. Only use of the UI by the tranmitter's > partner can do that. Oh, come on Eric. While the above is literally true, the issue is not about 73F1 or 16A. If you believe 73B1 was violated (and I am still not expressing an opinion on that), then just go through the standard litany, just as you would do for violation of any other law: 1. Was there an infraction? (And 73B1 is just as much a part of the FLB as any other law.) 2. Was there damage to the NOS? This has recently been interpreted as "Did they receive a worse score than they would have without the violation?" (It seems so, although the analysis was cursory.) 3. Is there a specific penalty? (No, not for 73B1.) If the answers are 'yes', 'yes', and 'no' respectively, then L12A1 tells us to give an assigned adjusted score. Perhaps it is worth emphasizing that the standard for finding an offense under L73B1 is stringent. L20F1 gives a player the right to ask questions, after all. Only when the phrasing of the question is egregiously informatory should a 73B1 violation be found. Perhaps it's also worth mentioning how this differs from an ordinary UI case. When there is no violation of 73B1, as normally there is not, and the receiver of the UI avoids taking any action suggested by the UI, then there's no infraction. In such cases, the OS keep their score, even if it happens to be a good one. Once a violation of 73B1 is found, though, there is nothing that prevents an adjusted score. If the NOS were damaged by an infraction, they are entitled to redress. Why should innocent players get a worse score when their opponents break the rules? What is 12A1 for? However, we only redress _damage_, and only if there has been an _infraction_. _Punishment_ is a separate matter, one for PP's and C&E sanctions. Again, I am making no judgment on whether there was a 73B1 violation in the case given. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 18 07:40:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA27824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 07:40:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [207.213.113.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA27819 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 07:40:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA30976; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 12:40:29 -0800 Message-Id: <200001172040.MAA30976@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: reddemus in lectum ... In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 16 Jan 2000 03:06:29 PST." <000701bf5fce$ca2cd260$5ab401d5@davidburn> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 12:40:26 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > Contract bridge is about seventy years old. Since its inception, there > have been a number of advances in the theory of bidding. In the > beginning, curiously enough, was the strong club - since Harold S > Vanderbilt invented such a device - but that was about all . . . Perhaps someone who knows more about bridge history can correct me on this, but didn't Vanderbilt's strong club come comparatively late? If memory serves, I thought Vanderbilt invented his strong club system only after several strong club systems (including Blue Team) had been around for a few years; and that strong club systems were predated by two-way club systems, including the Boland Club in which a club either showed a strong hand or a natural club opening. So should this convention should be considered "in the beginning"? Just an irrelevant nitpick..... -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 18 09:00:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA28085 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 09:00:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from fe050.worldonline.dk (fe050.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.206]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA28080 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 08:59:57 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <200001172159.IAA28080@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: (qmail 17318 invoked by uid 0); 17 Jan 2000 21:59:46 -0000 Received: from 103.ppp1-25.image.dk (HELO idefix) (212.54.70.103) by fe050.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 17 Jan 2000 21:59:46 -0000 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 22:59:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: redress for N/S Reply-to: jensogbodil@alesia.dk Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 11:57:58 -0500 (EST) > From: Steve Willner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: redress for N/S > > From: James.Vickers@merck.de > > However, in order to invoke L12C2 you have to demonstrate that the offending > > side took action which could have been suggested over and above logical > > alternatives by the UI, > > L16A is not the only one that leads to 12C2. This is true, but ... > I am not expressing an opinion on whether East's question was or was > not in itself illegal, but if it was, there is no doubt that the score > can be adjusted via 73B1. ... but L73B1 does not lead to L12. L73F1 does, but then West has to have chosen a logical alternative that was indicated by the UI - and that is basically the L16A route. As I see it, the TD has to follow this course: Was there an infraction? Let us assume that we will rule that East's line of questioning is considered an infraction of L73B1. Were the opponents damaged? Let us assume that we will rule that NS were likely to have gotten a better score if East had not committed his infraction. Do the laws give redress for this damage caused by an irregularity? Not they do not. So the TD can rule under L12A1 and adjust the score. I am not claiming that I would adjsut the score myself - I am just pointing out the path an adjustment should take in my opinion. In this case, I would not want to adjust the score. Assuming that we are in L73B1, we are ruling that East inadvertently passed information to West. The penalty for EW for this infraction is that West must not choose among LAs, etc. West has fulfilled the penalty. L72A5 seems to indicate that that is the end of the story, even though EW seem to profit from their infraction. Now, if we are in L73B2, the infraction is not inadvertent, and L72A5 does not apply. Then we adjust. We also hang East-West. Of course, we might be in L73B1, even if East's line of questioning is not considered "inadvertent" - provided that we don't rule that it is prearranged. In that case, I am not so sure. > > -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 18 10:01:24 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA28251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 10:01:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [207.213.113.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA28246 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 10:01:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA00709; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:01:01 -0800 Message-Id: <200001172301.PAA00709@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: reddemus in lectum ... In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 18 Jan 2000 00:38:53 PST." <3.0.6.32.20000118003853.007dacd0@pop.singnet.com.sg> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:00:58 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Derrick wrote: > 3 - Is it appropriate that some pairs who are too inflexible to defend > against unfamiliar conventions be protected by system restrictions from > having to do so ? > > Suppose for a moment that my partner and I are consummately skilled at > defending unfamiliar conventions (having developed a set of good generic > defences which we can adapt at will and/or having acquired a wide > knowledge/experience of conventions so that most are no longer > "unfamiliar"). Suppose further that we are deprived of the chance of > winning events which we would have been able to win if we were not deprived > of the chance to use this skill/experience because of system restrictions > on the field. Would this be acceptable ? Is being able to adapt to > unfamiliar situations not a desirable bridge skill ? No, it isn't. OK, that's just my opinion. But the only way to answer a question like that is with an opinion. The fact is, what skills are "desirable" or not for each game (and what importance they should have relative to other skills) is a more or less arbitrary decision. There's no "right" or "wrong" list of what skills are desirable. In American football, the ability to take someone out of a play by knocking them to the ground is a desirable skill. In basketball, it isn't, but the ability to take someone out of a play by standing in one place and blocking their advance is desirable. In golf, neither of these is a desirable skill. In some card games, such as poker, being able to use facial expressions, mannerisms and comments in an attempt to deceive the opponents is a desirable skill. In bridge, it isn't. There's nothing right or wrong or sacred or pure about this; it's just whatever people decided they wanted the game to be. My own opinion, similar to Marvin's (I think), is that card play and bidding *judgment* are, and should remain, the most desirable skills in the game and the ones that should be rewarded the most. Other skills, such as the ability to invent conventions, and memorize a complex bidding system, even when all the conventions are constructive, should be less important. If the game ever got to the point where it became a test to see who was better at conventions, and card play and judgment became secondary, I'd favor changes in the Laws and regulations to restore what I believe is the correct balance. I don't think things will ever get that far when just constructive conventions are involved, though. As for defending against destructive artificial conventions, my preference is that this skill be much less important than the ones I mentioned, or perhaps not important at all. So you and your partner are consummately skilled at defending unfamiliar conventions, and that skill doesn't gain you anything. So what? Someone else who is a good poker player may have the ability to make very convincing faces that could cause opponents to misjudge a hand. Is it fair to deprive this person of winning events that he might have won if he were able to use his skiill? Is it fair that someone who was a great tackle for the Raiders isn't allowed to use his skill to win at golf? OK, that's getting silly. But the point is that there are some skills that people have decided aren't and shouldn't be part of the game, and there's nothing unfair about the fact that someone might have those skills and not be able to use them. And if people decide that "ability to come with defenses against lots of artificial conventions" isn't a skill they wish to test or reward, that's just the way it is, and there's no reason to call it unfair or unacceptable or inappropriate. [P.S. I do not support Mr. Truscott's proposal.] -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 18 10:35:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA28387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 10:35:44 +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 KAA28382 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 10:35:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-2iniofc.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.97.236]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA31910; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 18:35:11 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000117234616.006dba74@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: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:46:16 -0800 To: Adam Beneschan From: Henry Sun Subject: Re: reddemus in lectum ... Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:40 PM 1/17/00 PST, you wrote: > >David Burn wrote: > >> Contract bridge is about seventy years old. Since its inception, there >> have been a number of advances in the theory of bidding. In the >> beginning, curiously enough, was the strong club - since Harold S >> Vanderbilt invented such a device - but that was about all . . . > >Perhaps someone who knows more about bridge history can correct me on >this, but didn't Vanderbilt's strong club come comparatively late? If >memory serves, I thought Vanderbilt invented his strong club system >only after several strong club systems (including Blue Team) had been >around for a few years; and that strong club systems were predated by >two-way club systems, including the Boland Club in which a club either >showed a strong hand or a natural club opening. So should this >convention should be considered "in the beginning"? > >Just an irrelevant nitpick..... > > -- Adam the vanderbilt club is, historically, a system that developed quite early in the course of things. i don't recall how early, but it certainly predated any of the three most popular strong clubs systems by decades (neapolitan/blue team; schenken; precision, in that order). it, and the vienna club system of paul stern, are to my knowledge the first two artificial 1c systems in the history of contract bridge. henry sun From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 18 14:32:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA29083 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 14:32:06 +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 OAA29078 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 14:31:58 +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, 17 Jan 2000 22:30:56 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000117222929.007b79a0@mail.maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@mail.maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 22:29:29 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: reddemus in lectum ... In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.20000117234616.006dba74@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:46 PM 1/17/00 -0800, Henry Sun wrote: >the vanderbilt club is, historically, a system that developed quite early >in the course of things. i don't recall how early, but it certainly >predated any of the three most popular strong clubs systems by decades >(neapolitan/blue team; schenken; precision, in that order). it, and >the vienna club system of paul stern, are to my knowledge the first >two artificial 1c systems in the history of contract bridge. As I pointed out privately to Adam, Vanderbilt's club methods were published in 1929. I recall reading a scoring table from the book which showed the value for a trick at notrumps to be 35 points. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 18 16:15:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA29279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 16:15:42 +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 QAA29274 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 16:15:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 21:15:27 -0800 Message-ID: <003101bf6173$06a875a0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <1.5.4.32.20000117234616.006dba74@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: reddemus in lectum ... Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 21:15:15 -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: Henry Sun > the vanderbilt club is, historically, a system that developed quite early > in the course of things. i don't recall how early, but it certainly > predated any of the three most popular strong clubs systems by decades > (neapolitan/blue team; schenken; precision, in that order). it, and > the vienna club system of paul stern, are to my knowledge the first > two artificial 1c systems in the history of contract bridge. > Vanderbilt published three books on the Vanderbilt Club System prior to 1934. The !C opening required about 16 points, and 1D was the negative response, etc., etc. It never caught on. The Vienna System came in 1935. Its strong opening was 1NT with 1C showing a hand of normal strength. The originator, Paul Stern, used the Bamberger point count (7-5-3-1), superior to the Work count for suit bidding. I can't resist quoting S. J. Simon (from *Why You Lose at Bridge*): "If a 'One Club' system suits you--stick to it. It will still be a filthy system, but if you like it, you will get your best results with it. For it is better to play a bad system well than a good system badly." Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 18 22:12:56 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA00426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 22:12:56 +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 WAA00420 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 22:12:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-89.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.89]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA09552 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 12:12:38 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38830624.D01B0FB2@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 13:08:04 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: bum claim References: <387EC57A.EA03D9C1@alltel.net> <3881B042.B5FB25AB@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Pam, Pamhad@netcomuk.co.uk wrote: > > On Sun, 16 Jan 2000 12:49:22 +0100, Herman wrote: > >I wrote > >> As an intermediate player I would look at the two holdings and cash the A > >> or Q before claiming knowing I can always pick up 40 breaks either side - > >> OR I would miscount OR I would be careless. > >> > > > >Well, but this claim was not made by You, Pam, but by some > >player whose ability we do not know. > > > >In judging a claim of this sort, we must look at the player > >involoved. > >I am quite willing to believe that if you were the player, I > >should rule against you. But that is not an interesting > >fact for blml. > > > > Now I begin to understand. > > There are some players who do not ever make careless mistakes or miscount > and if this were such a player we can rule for him. > > These players, in addition, are not required to take the care we mortals > take nor should they have to explain themselves nor should we ever expect > them to be ruled against when an obvious line is there and they claim > before making it clear that they are playing that way. They never get > tired, they never get distracted and they never ever get it wrong. > > Seems fair enough - sorry I spoke. No sarcasm needed. There was no derogatory comment intended in my previous post. If that came through as such, please forgive me and except my apologies. You are quite right when you wrote that you would not claim in this position, and that you would expect to be ruled against if you did. However, the claim Laws quite clearly stipulate "for the class of player involved". By your own admission, you are at least one class less than some other players. That is what I wanted to tell blml. This was not a "real" problem, where John would have stated if it were his Japanese ladies or the semi final of the Bermuda Bowl. Or was it ? (yes, might have been) Anyway, I have chosen to deal with it as a theoretical problem, and I have pointed out that the level of play is important in this kind of problem. But let's get back to your comments here. You write: > They never get > tired, they never get distracted and they never ever get it wrong. We must distinguish two separate problems here. Suppose you would have done this, and could convince the director that of course, you knew there are 13 cards in this suit. Would you expect the TD to rule against you, if he believes you ? Certainly not. Playing the Ace or Queen first is beginners stuff. "They never get it wrong". Nor would you, and besides, a claim is a sort of protection against silly mistakes. The other problem is what the claim shows of the mentality of the player. You say that you would never claim here, but would first cash the Ace. Others have stated the same. If that is true, then the mere fact of you claiming anyway, is evidence that there is something wrong. Maybe you had forgotten there are 13 cards in this suit. In that case of course you should be ruled against. OTOH, It seems to me that Zia would claim in such a position, and he would not expect to be ruled against. Not because he never makes a mistake, but because he expects that everyone can see that one should cash the ace first. So for Zia, the fact that he claims is not evidence that he forgot to count to 13. Now do you see the difference ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 19 00:18:19 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA00882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 00:18:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from cshore.com (term.cshore.com [206.165.153.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA00877 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 00:18:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from BillS ([208.46.135.95]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.5/64) id 8980600 ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 08:08:32 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000118081425.00822930@cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 08:14:25 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Bill Segraves Subject: Re: reddemus in lectum ... In-Reply-To: <200001172305.8523000@cshore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk An interesting spin on some of the issues, though I don't ultimately share the perspective. >1 - Are players disadvantaging themselves by not preparing/wanting/being >able to defend against unfamiliar methods ? I question whether players are able to prepare with reasonable effectiveness against an unlimited number of unfamiliar methods. What constitutes reasonable effectiveness and what are reasonable expectations given time constraints, number of potential opponents, etc. are the key questions. However, your core point, if I understand correctly, that players could do a better job of preparing themselves for the unfamiliar, is undoubtedly correct at most levels of the game. > >2 - Given that generic defences ("a set of rules that suffice for providing >a framework within which it's possible to bid reasonably accurately") are >not difficult to come by, why should players expect to be provided with >optimal soulutions against unfamiliar bids when their own constructive >bidding and defences to "familiar" conventions/methods are probbably not >"optimised" ? Would anyone dare claim that there are no holes in their >constructive bidding and defences to "familiar conventions" ? "Reasonably accurately" is a relative term, and should not be construed as being equivalent to "good enough to negate the disadvantages of unfamiliarity." By "reasonably accurately", I mean that one can get by without abject disasters most of the time. Imo, it's quite clear that a generic defense will rarely if ever be *anywhere close* to a strong pair's own methods vis a vis optimization. That both are imperfect does not in any way mean that both are equally imperfect. > >3 - Is it appropriate that some pairs who are too inflexible to defend >against unfamiliar conventions be protected by system restrictions from >having to do so ? > >Suppose for a moment that my partner and I are consummately skilled at >defending unfamiliar conventions (having developed a set of good generic >defences which we can adapt at will and/or having acquired a wide >knowledge/experience of conventions so that most are no longer >"unfamiliar"). Suppose further that we are deprived of the chance of >winning events which we would have been able to win if we were not deprived >of the chance to use this skill/experience because of system restrictions >on the field. Would this be acceptable ? Is being able to adapt to >unfamiliar situations not a desirable bridge skill ? This, I am very glad you brought to the table, and I have to admit I got a chuckle out of it. You've got me there. :) If this is a bridge skill that we want to reward, then we shouldn't be setting up events to ensure that players get time to prepare. It *would* simplify some matters - no more advance provision of convention cards, etc. It might bring in some other elements, such as espionage. ;)) [Perhaps even a good bridge movie would come out of it, with midnight break-ins, steamy seductions and pillow talk of "so, dearest, what does their 1S bid show?"] [Lest the humor-impaired think this is intended as an argument against the proposed model, it's not.] Frankly, I think it would be interesting, but it's not what I personally think of as being the desirable general model for competitive bridge. While I do consider system design and development to be an important part of the game, I prefer to set things up so that pairs are given the opportunity to design their defenses to opposing methods. One could, I think, make a reasonably sound argument that the spirit of full disclosure may not, in some cases, be fully consistent with the types of fragmentary information that can be provided on the fly, but my personal bias extends beyond that so I'll simply say that this is my bias. I won't go so far as to say it's not a bridge skill, or even a desirable bridge skill; I just wouldn't go out of my way to ensure that the conditions of contest reward it over other skills. > >4 - Is it appropriate for a sponsoring organization to restrict methods >such as to limit the use of this bridge skill and protect players who are >too challenged by having to defend unfamiliar conventions ? I would think that this would be an area where the sponsoring organization should be allowed to exercise discretion. If the sponsoring organization wants to have an event that tests this particular skill, that should be their option. If a sponsoring organization wants, under the powers granted to them under the laws, to set things up so that other bridge skills are not proportionately devalued by an emphasis on winning through the exploitation of opposing unfamiliarity with one's methods or through the capacity to defend against unfamiliar methods, then that should also be their option. Cheers, Bill S. aka Griffins From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 19 01:15:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA01102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 01:15:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from cshore.com (term.cshore.com [206.165.153.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA01097 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 01:14:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from BillS ([208.46.135.216]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.5/64) id 9029400 ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 09:09:02 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000118091503.00883e10@cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 09:15:03 -0500 To: "Richard Willey" (by way of bills@cshore.com) From: Bill Segraves Subject: RE: reddemus in lectum ... Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <200001172305.8523300@cshore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >I think that he has failed to see the forest for the >trees. I'm afraid I don't understand what you believe to be the forest. Perhaps the question below will help to clarify things. >To me, any >attempt to limit the ability to choose methods in one particular area >comes across as arbitrary and capricious. Does this mean that you would object to having *any* types of restrictions in *any* type of event? If not, how would those restrictions be designed so that they would be neither arbitrary nor capricious? Bill Segraves Guilford, CT From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 19 02:26:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA01493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 02:26:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [207.213.113.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA01487 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 02:26:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA15911; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 07:26:39 -0800 Message-Id: <200001181526.HAA15911@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: reddemus in lectum ... In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 17 Jan 2000 22:29:29 PST." <3.0.6.32.20000117222929.007b79a0@mail.maine.rr.com> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 07:26:39 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > At 03:46 PM 1/17/00 -0800, Henry Sun wrote: > >the vanderbilt club is, historically, a system that developed quite early > >in the course of things. i don't recall how early, but it certainly > >predated any of the three most popular strong clubs systems by decades > >(neapolitan/blue team; schenken; precision, in that order). it, and > >the vienna club system of paul stern, are to my knowledge the first > >two artificial 1c systems in the history of contract bridge. > > As I pointed out privately to Adam, Vanderbilt's club methods were > published in 1929. I recall reading a scoring table from the book which > showed the value for a trick at notrumps to be 35 points. > I think that, as far as the timing was concerned, I was confusing Vanderbilt's club with Schenken's system. I looked it up when I got home. The Boland club came a couple years later, Blackwood was invented in 1933, and they're not clear on when Stayman was invented (it was published in 1945 but the text implies it was invented in the early 30's). So it looks like David is probably right that the strong club was the first convention. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 19 02:28:11 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA01516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 02:28:11 +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 CAA01511 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 02:28:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from karma.isi.com (pixsv124.isi.com [192.73.222.73]) by hopper.isi.com (8.8.4/8.6.10) with ESMTP id HAA05285; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 07:27:23 -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 HAA02561; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 07:22:30 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard Willey" To: "Bill Segraves" Cc: Subject: RE: reddemus in lectum ... Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 10:29:37 -0800 Message-ID: <000201bf61e1$f9af14c0$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: <3.0.5.32.20000118091503.00883e10@cshore.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I wrote >>To me, any >>attempt to limit the ability to choose methods in one particular >>area comes across as arbitrary and capricious. And Bill replied >Does this mean that you would object to having *any* types of >restrictions in *any* type of event? If not, how would those >restrictions be designed so that they would be neither arbitrary nor >capricious? I believe that it would be best to adopt a completely bifurcated system. In my "perfect world", the vast majority of events should not have any kind of restrictions regarding choice of bidding system. Players should be allowed to adopt whatever system they want, up to and including strong pass or Brown Sticker type agreements. I would make two exceptions. First, I think that a special section should be set up for novices. In this section there should be no choice what-so-ever with respect to system. Everyone must conform to the same bidding standard. (I don't care what standard is adopted, so long as there is one. This standard should also provide the basis for an alert structure). I would not object to creating another section for players who want "protection" from the free form bidding available in the open pairs or open teams. If anyone really wants a major debate on these issues, I'm happy to oblige. For now I am just going to sketch out a framework of an arguments. First and foremost, I don't see any particular reason why it is necessary of possible to allow players to preserve PERFECT equity in their ability to bid over different types of bidding system. If we wanted a system based on perfect equity, bridge would collapse into a series of par contests. I think another poster during this thread made an excellent comment when he noted that most pairs don't adopt optimal or even near optimal agreements over "standard" bidding. How can they argue that they deserve perfect protection over some other set of methods. At the level of a world wide event like the Bermuda Bowl, the Olympiad, or a major international tournament, I think its perfectly reasonable to expect players to have done some work and developed generic sets of agreements over different classifications of bids. My partners and I don't have agreements to protect ourselves for every specific bid we might encounter. We do have agreements that cover hand types such as "Two suited hands with one known anchor suit. Anchor suit is bid directly" OR "Two suited hands with one known anchor suit. Anchor suit is NOT bid directly" I see no reason why it is unduly burdensome for other pairs to adopt similar methods. If we turn things down a notch and look at a regional or sectional tournament: Here in the US, I'd guess that 80%+ of all pairs play a 15-17 HCP 1N opener. If I am playing a weak NT, and the following auction occurs. 1C - (P) - 1S - (P) 2S The average pair doesn't understand the difference between this auction and the corresponding auction in standard. They certainly don't understand this auction nearly as well as my partner and I do. Honestly, if we want to protect these average players and preserve equity, the ONLY way to do so is to restrict bidding down to a single system. Finally, at the club level, the entire argument is moot since the National organizations don't control how the clubs operate. What I will say is that the only clubs that I attend are ones which allow players free latitude to use whatever methods they want. I am happy to say that nearly all the clubs I've gone to have been quite flexible in this regards. (And quite frankly, the ones that weren't are going to be gone in a very short amount of time) I'll readily admit that I am approaching this entire issue from a very different philosophical frame work than groups like the ACBL. As far as bridge players here in the US, I'm a baby (only 33). I do not believe that the game of bridge will ever be as popular as it was during its heyday. Quite frankly, there are far to many other activities competing for people's attention. I don't believe that we should be marketing bridge as a dumbed down game for the masses. TV was invented so I can kill time without thinking. What I want as a player is a challenging game that hasn't been completely sanitized for my protection. Richard -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOISxECGkJ7YU62vZEQIGtwCfckqBultXEjCMC9l5yRAjfRANa8IAoI/D Yfgn7R1qpT847Pr1L3vwdGfo =U2w5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 19 02:54:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA01576 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 02:54:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (smtp7.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.128.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA01571 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 02:54:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-242.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.242]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA00871 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 10:54:22 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <003801bf61cc$84c83840$f284d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Non-insufficient bid Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 10:55:59 -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 Incident at the club last night. EW novices who have probably never read the law book. NS fairly decent flight B players, both certified directors. ACBL venue. North deals and passes. East bids a diamond, South 1 heart and West one spade. North passes a second time. While east thinks briefly West becomes agitated and says "Oh no, I can't do that!, picks up her 1S bid at which point North calls director. As West continues to reach for a different bidding card South says "Please wait" but it is to no avail...she pulls out the 2S card and South calls "Director". The playing director, who has not seen these boards, arrives. North and West both start to say there has been an insufficient bid but South politely says "No there hasn't" "Oh you're right," says North, "it isn't insufficient, I shouldn't have called." "But I think we do have a Law 16 case," says South. "What's that," says the director, who usually would not notice if his Lawbook had fallen into super glue. "She showed a bidding card where he partner could see it, giving her unautorised information, and her partner's actions are constrained." The director discovered the FLB actually opened, and read the appropriate section. After both novices understood that they were not barred from the auction, a perfectly normal auction and result were obtained. (They declared obviating any question of lead penalties...and besides the suit had been named anyhow.) There followed a $^#%@%$ing smoking break, during which it occured to South that maybe this wasn't really just a UI case after all. Had West, by pulling out another bid card, actually been bidding out of turn? She was stopped from actually placing the bid card on the table...but it was clearly visible for all to see. If it was technically a BOOT, could North waive penalty and just let the auction continue? At least both novices learned to call the director rather than trying to fix things themselves...a valuable lesson. And the director discovered that there is printing inside TFLB! What say you all? -- Craig From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 19 03:35:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA01701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 03:35:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from igngate.merck.de (igngate.merck.de [194.196.248.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA01696 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 03:34:51 +1100 (EST) From: James.Vickers@merck.de Received: from dedamsgnt02.merck.de (smtpgw.merck.de [155.250.248.234]) by igngate.merck.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA22919 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 17:34:12 +0100 (MET) X-Internal-ID: 3882E08F00006354 Received: from dedamsg1.merck.de (155.250.248.233) by dedamsgnt02.merck.de (NPlex 2.0.123) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 17:34:11 +0100 Received: by dedamsg1.merck.de(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.5 (863.2 5-20-1999)) id C125686A.005AD825 ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 17:32:15 +0100 X-Lotus-FromDomain: MERCK To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 17:33:50 +0100 Subject: Re: Bum claim Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I quite agree with Pam, sarcasm and all. I have said this many times, and it is something we all know: when a player makes a claim they should accompany it with a statement explaining how they intend to take the tricks. Anyone who fails to do so either doesn't know how they intend to play or is too blase to comply with correct procedure. Sitting back, waving your master point certificate and waiting for the director to work out the best line of play for you, under the awed gaze of the spectators, is really no substitute. It is not up to the director to work out "how the play probably would have gone in absence of the claim" (as some people seem to assume). Why on earth should they? The onus is on the claimer to show they knew what was going on, if they fail to do so they must expect the ruling to go against them. One trick to the opponents. James Vickers Pam wrote: >Now I begin to understand. > >There are some players who do not ever make careless mistakes or miscount >and if this were such a player we can rule for him. > >These players, in addition, are not required to take the care we mortals >take nor should they have to explain themselves nor should we ever expect >them to be ruled against when an obvious line is there and they claim >before making it clear that they are playing that way. They never get >tired, they never get distracted and they never ever get it wrong. > >Seems fair enough - sorry I spoke. Original message: >"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > >> an easy one I think, in DWS's absence >> >> Jxxx >> >> AQTxx K9xx claim by W (rest of hand trumps) >> >> - >> >> careless or irrational? >> >> club game, mps, competent mid-stake rubber bridge player >> >> I ruled 1 trick to the opponents, anyone disagree? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 19 04:13:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA01774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 04:13:39 +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 EAA01769 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 04:13:32 +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; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 12:12:30 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000118121057.007df180@mail.maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@mail.maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 12:10:57 -0500 To: Adam Beneschan , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: reddemus in lectum ... Cc: adam@irvine.com In-Reply-To: <200001181526.HAA15911@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:26 AM 1/18/00 PST, Adam Beneschan wrote: >So it looks like David is probably right that the strong >club was the first convention. I suspect the takeout double predates the strong club. There were also conventions in Royal Auction, but that wasn't quite bridge. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 19 04:15:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA01821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 04:15:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from igngate.merck.de (igngate.merck.de [194.196.248.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA01815 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 04:15:10 +1100 (EST) From: James.Vickers@merck.de Received: from dedamsgnt02.merck.de (smtpgw.merck.de [155.250.248.234]) by igngate.merck.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA23887 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 18:14:33 +0100 (MET) X-Internal-ID: 3882E08F00006529 Received: from dedamsg1.merck.de (155.250.248.233) by dedamsgnt02.merck.de (NPlex 2.0.123) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 18:14:32 +0100 Received: by dedamsg1.merck.de(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.5 (863.2 5-20-1999)) id C125686A.005E882B ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 18:12:32 +0100 X-Lotus-FromDomain: MERCK To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 18:14:06 +0100 Subject: Bum claim 2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here's a genuine bum claim from last night that really shows my level of skill: K 10 8 - K Q 5 10 9 7 N - - W E - A 4 S 8 6 2 2 9 4 3 8 - K J J 7 6 Playing in no trumps with West on lead I (South) laid my hand down and claimed the rest, announcing that all my cards were high (thinking the diamond ace had been played). West protested, so I called the director who (incorrectly) allowed her to lead what she liked with my cards in full view. She decided to lead her diamond ace. I offered her a second chance, pointing out that if she led a spade she could be awarded more tricks on the grounds that the idiot declarer, thinking his hand is high, might cross to hand with a club and try to cash the diamonds, giving her two more spade tricks. She insisted on taking her ace (I don't really think she understood what I was trying to say to her), and I conceded one trick only. Had she returned a spade I would have made the straightforward play of discarding diamonds on the hearts and taking three club tricks for no further loser, but if I really think all my cards are high why should I not make the more convoluted play I suggested earlier? Had I been TD I would, of course, have not allowed any further play and awarded three tricks to E/W. What do you think? James Vickers From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 19 05:09:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA01973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 05:09:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [207.213.113.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA01968 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 05:09:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA18878; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 10:09:27 -0800 Message-Id: <200001181809.KAA18878@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Non-insufficient bid In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 18 Jan 2000 10:55:59 PST." <003801bf61cc$84c83840$f284d9ce@oemcomputer> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 10:09:27 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > Incident at the club last night. EW novices who have probably never read the > law book. NS fairly decent flight B players, both certified directors. ACBL > venue. > > North deals and passes. East bids a diamond, South 1 heart and West one > spade. North passes a second time. While east thinks briefly West becomes > agitated and says "Oh no, I can't do that!, picks up her 1S bid at which > point North calls director. As West continues to reach for a different > bidding card South says "Please wait" but it is to no avail...she pulls out > the 2S card and South calls "Director". > > The playing director, who has not seen these boards, arrives. North and West > both start to say there has been an insufficient bid but South politely says > "No there hasn't" "Oh you're right," says North, "it isn't insufficient, I > shouldn't have called." > > "But I think we do have a Law 16 case," says South. "What's that," says the > director, who usually would not notice if his Lawbook had fallen into super > glue. "She showed a bidding card where he partner could see it, giving her > unautorised information, and her partner's actions are constrained." > The director discovered the FLB actually opened, and read the appropriate > section. After both novices understood that they were not barred from the > auction, a perfectly normal auction and result were obtained. (They declared > obviating any question of lead penalties...and besides the suit had been > named anyhow.) > > There followed a $^#%@%$ing smoking break, during which it occured to South > that maybe this wasn't really just a UI case after all. Had West, by pulling > out another bid card, actually been bidding out of turn? She was stopped > from actually placing the bid card on the table...but it was clearly visible > for all to see. If it was technically a BOOT, could North waive penalty and > just let the auction continue? > > At least both novices learned to call the director rather than trying to fix > things themselves...a valuable lesson. And the director discovered that > there is printing inside TFLB! > > What say you all? At a tournament, I think I'd have to treat it as a BOOT. The ACBL bidding box regulations say, "A call is considered made when a bidding box card has been taken out of the box with apparent intent". However, under the circumstances (this being a club game and the offenders being novices), I might rule that 2S was not bid, and therefore Law 31 does not apply. I'm not sure that clubs are required to follow bidding box regulations to the letter. Since the Laws don't specify exactly what action a player must take to be considered to have made a "call", I have some leeway here. Yep, I'm probably abusing that leeway, and I wouldn't make this kind of ruling in 99.99% of cases, but the circumstances are special enough that I'm willing to do it here. Nobody was damaged by West's actions, and West was not attempting to change her mind, so I don't think justice would be served by enforcing a penalty for a harmless mistake against a novice in a club game. The UI laws don't apply because nothing about her hand could possibly have been suggested by West's pulling out the 2S card. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 19 06:15:00 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA02189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 06:15:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from cshore.com (term.cshore.com [206.165.153.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA02184 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 06:14:51 +1100 (EST) From: bills@cshore.com Received: from oemcomputer ([208.46.135.3]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.5/64) id 9340400 ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 14:05:40 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000118141204.007d6100@mail.cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@mail.cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 14:12:04 -0500 To: "Richard Willey" Subject: RE: reddemus in lectum ... Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <000201bf61e1$f9af14c0$1ec1e080@isi.com> References: <3.0.5.32.20000118091503.00883e10@cshore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>Does this mean that you would object to having *any* types of >>restrictions in *any* type of event? If not, how would those >>restrictions be designed so that they would be neither arbitrary nor >>capricious? Richard wrote: >I believe that it would be best to adopt a completely bifurcated >system. In my "perfect world", the vast majority of events should >not have any kind of restrictions regarding choice of bidding system. > Players should be allowed to adopt whatever system they want, up to >and including strong pass or Brown Sticker type agreements. > >I would make two exceptions. First, I think that a special section >should be set up for novices. In this section there should be no >choice what-so-ever with respect to system. Everyone must conform to >the same bidding standard. (I don't care what standard is adopted, >so long as there is one. This standard should also provide the basis >for an alert structure). I would not object to creating another >section for players who want "protection" from the free form bidding >available in the open pairs or open teams. That's fine if those are your preferences, so long as you recognize that players other than novices may have an interest in what they perceive as an element of equity, and that they may not consider the use of some restrictions as capricious. >If anyone really wants a major debate on these issues, I'm happy to >oblige. For now I am just going to sketch out a framework of an >arguments. > >First and foremost, I don't see any particular reason why it is >necessary of possible to allow players to preserve PERFECT equity in >their ability to bid over different types of bidding system. This is a straw man, isn't it? I can't speak for others and may have missed some comments, but has anyone indicated an expectation of *perfect* equity, or even the belief that it's attainable? Whether or not individuals agree on the appropriate balance between equity and freedom, for want of better terms, there's a big difference between seeking balance and seeking perfection. On the other side, it would appear that you are seeking perfect freedom, if I understand your comments correctly, and that you consider this the sine qua non. Are you willing to compromise on that to achieve some sort of balance? >If we >wanted a system based on perfect equity, bridge would collapse into a >series of par contests. I think another poster during this thread >made an excellent comment when he noted that most pairs don't adopt >optimal or even near optimal agreements over "standard" bidding. How >can they argue that they deserve perfect protection over some other >set of methods. See above re perfection in general. More specifically, I think it's clear that, while a given pairs' general partnership agreements and defenses to unfamiliar methods are each inevitably flawed, those flaws are almost always far more numerous and consequential in their defenses to unfamiliar opposing methods. I see this is as nearly tautological in the context of this discussion. Insofar as they are equivalently flawed, any disadvantage is not attributable to the unfamiliarity. Thus, I would see no reason to disallow the opposing method. Are we in disagreement as to semantics or logic here? >At the level of a world wide event like the Bermuda Bowl, the >Olympiad, or a major international tournament, I think its perfectly >reasonable to expect players to have done some work and developed >generic sets of agreements over different classifications of bids. Over some classes of bids, sure. But over all possible classes of bids? >My partners and I don't have agreements to protect ourselves for >every specific bid we might encounter. We do have agreements that >cover hand types such as > >"Two suited hands with one known anchor suit. Anchor suit is bid >directly" OR >"Two suited hands with one known anchor suit. Anchor suit is NOT bid >directly" > >I see no reason why it is unduly burdensome for other pairs to adopt >similar methods. Nor do I. When there's at least one known suit, things are really pretty easy. That does not mean that it's necessarily reasonable or possible to defend against *all* possible methods. >If we turn things down a notch and look at a regional or sectional >tournament: >Here in the US, I'd guess that 80%+ of all pairs play a 15-17 HCP 1N >opener. > >If I am playing a weak NT, and the following auction occurs. > >1C - (P) - 1S - (P) >2S > >The average pair doesn't understand the difference between this >auction and the corresponding auction in standard. They certainly >don't understand this auction nearly as well as my partner and I do. >Honestly, if we want to protect these average players and preserve >equity, the ONLY way to do so is to restrict bidding down to a single >system. So perfect equity and perfect freedom, for want of better terms, are mutually exclusive. You'll get no argument from me on that. Should we force everyone to the poles or seek a balance? >Finally, at the club level, the entire argument is moot since the >National organizations don't control how the clubs operate. What I >will say is that the only clubs that I attend are ones which allow >players free latitude to use whatever methods they want. I am happy >to say that nearly all the clubs I've gone to have been quite >flexible in this regards. (And quite frankly, the ones that weren't >are going to be gone in a very short amount of time) Are you saying that if perfect freedom is not attainable, you won't play, and any club that won't allow perfect freedom will go down the tubes? The fact that club attendance is waning allows people to attempt to correlate this with whatever demon they wish, but if that's what you're saying, I don't buy it. I value latitude far more than most, and would love to see more clubs and tournaments at midchart or higher. However, the majority of current club players would not vote for a completely open systems game. The vast majority of tables on OKB don't opt for a completely open systems game. Of the dozens of collegiate and other newer players Rick Townsend and I (mostly Rick) have mentored over the past several years, only a couple have expressed any objections even to the relatively restrictive status quo. >I'll readily admit that I am approaching this entire issue from a >very different philosophical frame work than groups like the ACBL. >As far as bridge players here in the US, I'm a baby (only 33). I do >not believe that the game of bridge will ever be as popular as it was >during its heyday. Quite frankly, there are far to many other >activities competing for people's attention. > >I don't believe that we should be marketing bridge as a dumbed down >game for the masses. TV was invented so I can kill time without >thinking. What I want as a player is a challenging game that hasn't >been completely sanitized for my protection. Does this have to be all or none? Bill Segraves Guilford, CT From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 19 06:27:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA02240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 06:27:17 +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 GAA02235 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 06:27:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 11:27:02 -0800 Message-ID: <00c501bf61e9$f74a9e40$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000118121057.007df180@mail.maine.rr.com> Subject: Re: reddemus in lectum ... Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 11:20:00 -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 Tim Goodwin wrote: >Adam Beneschan wrote: > >So it looks like David is probably right that the strong > >club was the first convention. > > I suspect the takeout double predates the strong club. > Since the takeout double (also called the informatory double) came from auction bridge, maybe the strong club was the first contract bridge convention. The bust response of 2NT opposite a forcing two bid was in use by 1931, but I don't know when it originated. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 19 07:02:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA02335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 07:02:45 +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 HAA02330 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 07:02:36 +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 12AepY-0007a6-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:02:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:00:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: bum claim In-Reply-To: <38830624.D01B0FB2@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <38830624.D01B0FB2@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes snip > >However, the claim Laws quite clearly stipulate "for the >class of player involved". By your own admission, you are >at least one class less than some other players. That is >what I wanted to tell blml. This was not a "real" problem, >where John would have stated if it were his Japanese ladies >or the semi final of the Bermuda Bowl. >Or was it ? (yes, might have been) >Anyway, I have chosen to deal with it as a theoretical >problem, and I have pointed out that the level of play is >important in this kind of problem. Agreed. It did happen, Thursday night at the Acol (above average game), the pair in question are better dummy players than most and essentially rubber bridge players. The player in question certainly did know the safety play. Japanese Ladies - 1 trick (but they always play *all* hands out) BB SF - 0 tricks (but I wouldn't expect to be called) > >But let's get back to your comments here. > >You write: > >> They never get >> tired, they never get distracted and they never ever get it wrong. > >We must distinguish two separate problems here. > >Suppose you would have done this, and could convince the >director that of course, you knew there are 13 cards in this >suit. >Would you expect the TD to rule against you, if he believes >you ? >Certainly not. Playing the Ace or Queen first is beginners >stuff. >"They never get it wrong". Nor would you, and besides, a >claim is a sort of protection against silly mistakes. > >The other problem is what the claim shows of the mentality >of the player. > >You say that you would never claim here, but would first >cash the Ace. Others have stated the same. >If that is true, then the mere fact of you claiming anyway, >is evidence that there is something wrong. Maybe you had >forgotten there are 13 cards in this suit. In that case of >course you should be ruled against. > >OTOH, It seems to me that Zia would claim in such a >position, and he would not expect to be ruled against. Not >because he never makes a mistake, but because he expects >that everyone can see that one should cash the ace first. > >So for Zia, the fact that he claims is not evidence that he >forgot to count to 13. But Zia would cash the A before claiming. When he doesn't there is a possibility he didn't count to 13. I'd probably rule in his favoUr, but I'd tell him to make it clear next time. -- 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 Jan 19 07:06:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA02352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 07:06:06 +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 HAA02347 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 07:05:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from default ([12.75.42.144]) by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with SMTP id <20000118200516.EEXV5516@default>; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:05:16 +0000 Message-ID: <015a01bf61ef$4dba5b80$902a4b0c@default> From: "Richard F Beye" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <387EC57A.EA03D9C1@alltel.net> <3881B042.B5FB25AB@village.uunet.be> <38830624.D01B0FB2@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: bum claim Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 14:04:51 -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: Herman De Wael > Hi Pam, > > Pamhad@netcomuk.co.uk wrote: > > > > On Sun, 16 Jan 2000 12:49:22 +0100, Herman wrote: > > >I wrote > > However, the claim Laws quite clearly stipulate "for the > class of player involved". By your own admission, you are > at least one class less than some other players. That is > what I wanted to tell blml. This was not a "real" problem, > where John would have stated if it were his Japanese ladies > or the semi final of the Bermuda Bowl. > Or was it ? (yes, might have been) > Anyway, I have chosen to deal with it as a theoretical > problem, and I have pointed out that the level of play is > important in this kind of problem. > Herman, I think you have missed Pam's point. She, a self-confessed intermediate, plays properly. Norm Hostetler, a very good player, plays it wrong (and continues to claim that his line is superior even though proven wrong). Seems as if careless or inferior lives in both worlds. I for one, think Pam got it exactly right the first time. Rick From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 19 07:14:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA02375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 07:14:13 +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 HAA02370 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 07:13:54 +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 12Af0b-0008EA-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:13:45 +0000 Message-ID: <4hGf0xAtkMh4EwVv@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:12:29 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Bum claim 2 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , James.Vickers@merck.de writes >Here's a genuine bum claim from last night that really shows my level of skill: > > K > 10 8 > - > K Q 5 > > 10 9 7 N - > - W E - > A 4 S 8 6 2 > 2 9 4 3 > > 8 > - > K J > J 7 6 > >Playing in no trumps with West on lead I (South) laid my hand down and claimed >the rest, announcing that all my cards were high (thinking the diamond ace had >been played). West protested, so I called the director who (incorrectly) allowed >her to lead what she liked with my cards in full view. 3 tricks. End of story. Shoot the TD. 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 Jan 19 07:29:05 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA02403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 07:29:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f271.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.49]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA02398 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 07:28:58 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 70859 invoked by uid 0); 18 Jan 2000 20:28:20 -0000 Message-ID: <20000118202820.70858.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 4.33.182.89 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 12:28:20 PST X-Originating-IP: [4.33.182.89] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: bum claim Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 12:28:20 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Herman De Wael >To: Bridge Laws >Subject: Re: bum claim >Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 13:08:04 +0100 > >However, the claim Laws quite clearly stipulate "for the >class of player involved". I think that a reasonable goal of the Laws would be to remove any and all references to the class of player involved. Whether or not this is an easy task is another matter; I can only see it as the fairer and less offensive thing to do. >By your own admission, you are >at least one class less than some other players. That is >what I wanted to tell blml. This was not a "real" problem, >where John would have stated if it were his Japanese ladies >or the semi final of the Bermuda Bowl. >Or was it ? (yes, might have been) >Anyway, I have chosen to deal with it as a theoretical >problem, and I have pointed out that the level of play is >important in this kind of problem. I disagree. Moreso, I would argue that the higher class of players would be so much more acute to the game that they could contruct a statement to accompany the claim which takes less time to say than for opponents to figure out on their own. e.g., Throw the ace and and say, "I can finesse either way for the jack if necessary." >We must distinguish two separate problems here. Reading further, I see it as one problem artificially divided into two. The problem as correctly stated should be whether or not claimer knew in advance of claiming how to do the right thing, not the pair of whether an expert would have made the mistake or whether a novice would have done it right. >Suppose you would have done this, and could convince the >director that of course, you knew there are 13 cards in this >suit. >Would you expect the TD to rule against you, if he believes >you ? >Certainly not. Playing the Ace or Queen first is beginners >stuff. >"They never get it wrong". Nor would you, and besides, a >claim is a sort of protection against silly mistakes. Protection against silly mistakes?!? So you not only realize the potential for abuse, but you take advantage of it! I thought that claiming was merely a convenience. >OTOH, It seems to me that Zia would claim in such a >position, and he would not expect to be ruled against. Not >because he never makes a mistake, but because he expects >that everyone can see that one should cash the ace first. > >So for Zia, the fact that he claims is not evidence that he >forgot to count to 13. > >Now do you see the difference ? If he can follow the rest of the rules of the game, he can accompany his claim with a sufficient statement. But now we are putting words and actions into a specific player's mouth, which we shouldn't. I boldly propose the following change, which while removing some conveniences of claiming, should eliminate abuse that was in favor of the claimer. (after hearing objections) 70B.4. Contestants to the claim can offer a line of play not inconsistant with the statement made per 68B nor irrational which guarantees the maximum number of tricks in their favor. Irrational, given our current example would be dropping the king on the lead of the ace, while anything outside that vein should be fair. This makes claiming less attractive in general, but it would require people to actually heed 68B, eliminating a good deal of confusion. It's so unfortunate, that the footnote, "'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved...." is ruled that a player of high standing couldn't be that careless rather than that by all means he could. You'll notice that the irrational qualifier is not qualified as "irrational for the class of player involved." By my thinking, the footnote is asking that directors do not take the class of player into consideration when making a ruling, although that's clearly not the case. -Todd ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 19 07:45:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA02442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 07:45:50 +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 HAA02437 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 07:45:42 +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 PAA16024 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 15:45:18 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000118154645.006be400@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 15:46:45 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: bum claim In-Reply-To: <00b001bf61e5$9d04b640$f284d9ce@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:55 PM 1/18/00 -0500, Craig wrote: >OK...I'll bite. Why wouldn't it be irrational? Looks like the only danger is >still jack 4 times and by starting with ace or queen you eliminate the only >possible bad result. How is the king not irrational for a decent player? For the same reason that it wouldn't be irrational to fail to draw trumps when one has the rest if the opponents don't get a ruff. For the same reason that it wouldn't be irrational to take a finesse for all but one of the rest when one has a marked throw-in that avoids it. For the same reason that it wouldn't be irrational to miss the double-guard delayed-duck throw-in clash squeeze when it's the only play for the contract. It's all a matter of degree. Law and precedent suggest that the standard for a play to be considered irrational is a very high one indeed. The example given in the laws for an irrational play is playing an opponent to hold a particular card when he has already shown out of the suit, which suggests to me that we need something approximating that level of inferiority before we label a line of play irrational for the purposes of L69-71. My personal standard is that a play is irrational if it is highly unlikely that it would be taken by a player who'd never seen the position before. We recently had a vigorous debate over the ACBL guideline which says that with four tricks to go, holding AKQ2 of a suit, it would be irrational to start with the 2 -- from which I conclude that that's at least close to a marginal case. I assert that a player at any level would be far less likely to carelessly lead the 2 from AKQ2 in that position than to start with the K in the problem position. For an experienced player, it is no less rational to start with the K than it is to claim in the first place without giving any indication that one intends to start from the other hand. It's pretty easy to put the A on the table before saying "I have the rest", and I would argue that a player who is careless enough to neglect to do so should be assumed to be careless enough to neglect to do the same thing when not claiming. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 19 08:03:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA02493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 08:03:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA02484 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 08:03:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Afm5-0006ZV-0Y for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 21:02:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 21:01:40 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: bum claim In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000118154645.006be400@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.20000118154645.006be400@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >At 01:55 PM 1/18/00 -0500, Craig wrote: > >>OK...I'll bite. Why wouldn't it be irrational? Looks like the only danger is >>still jack 4 times and by starting with ace or queen you eliminate the only >>possible bad result. How is the king not irrational for a decent player? > snip > >For an experienced player, it is no less rational to start with the K than >it is to claim in the first place without giving any indication that one >intends to start from the other hand. It's pretty easy to put the A on the >table before saying "I have the rest", and I would argue that a player who >is careless enough to neglect to do so should be assumed to be careless >enough to neglect to do the same thing when not claiming. > It is from this standpoint that UK TD's operate. 100% with Eric. > >Eric Landau elandau@cais.com -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 19 10:06:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA02881 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 10:06:20 +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 KAA02874 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 10:06:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-168.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.168]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA31302 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 17:24:22 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <003201bf6202$ff10a200$a884d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Re: bum claim Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 17:25:57 -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 And so I find myself in total disagreement with two of you I respect highly. I would think it to be insulting for an opponent to suggest that any player of quality did not have an obvious claim in this situation. I would never consider contesting it unless I thought the player was a complete doofus, and would not wish to socialize with anyone who would contest such an obvious claim. I would be very surprised if any good player would deign to question a statement-less claim in this setting if the opponent was anyone he respected. Claims are intended to save time and boredom; having to state the extremely obvious in a claim statement is time wasting and boring as well as demeaning to one's opponent, saying in effect, I think you are too much of a simpering jackass to see this on your own. To me, the play of the king is indeed irrational...very much the same as failing to take a PROVEN finesse, since there is always going to be a proven finesse on any 4-0 break if you play with even a modicum of sanity. (And 2 from AKQ2 is irrational also!) -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 4:13 PM Subject: Re: bum claim >In article <3.0.1.32.20000118154645.006be400@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau > writes >>At 01:55 PM 1/18/00 -0500, Craig wrote: >> >>>OK...I'll bite. Why wouldn't it be irrational? Looks like the only danger is >>>still jack 4 times and by starting with ace or queen you eliminate the only >>>possible bad result. How is the king not irrational for a decent player? >> >snip >> >>For an experienced player, it is no less rational to start with the K than >>it is to claim in the first place without giving any indication that one >>intends to start from the other hand. It's pretty easy to put the A on the >>table before saying "I have the rest", and I would argue that a player who >>is careless enough to neglect to do so should be assumed to be careless >>enough to neglect to do the same thing when not claiming. >> >It is from this standpoint that UK TD's operate. 100% with Eric. >> >>Eric Landau elandau@cais.com > >-- >John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 >451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou >London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk >+44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 19 11:01:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA02765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 09:40:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com ([207.213.113.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA02760 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 09:40:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA23981; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 14:39:08 -0800 Message-Id: <200001182239.OAA23981@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: bum claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 18 Jan 2000 15:46:45 PST." <3.0.1.32.20000118154645.006be400@pop.cais.com> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 14:39:08 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > I assert that a player at any level would be far less > likely to carelessly lead the 2 from AKQ2 in that position than to start > with the K in the problem position. I do not believe this assertion. At some levels (very good to expert), I believe it would be entirely automatic to start with the ace or queen in the layout AQTxx / K9xx. Personally, I think that even on a day when I am half asleep, can't remember whether declarer discarded in a suit, can't remember what my partner signalled on the first round of the suit, can't remember what my partner played on the last trick, can't remember what contract we're playing or how many spades I started with---I would *still*, with my eyes half-closed and unsure of whether I'm doing it consciously or in my dreams, start this suit with the ace, out of habit. Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe there are a fair number of good players out there who might forget and start this suit with the king. But this is beyond the realm of imagination for me. Seriously. > It's pretty easy to put the A on the > table before saying "I have the rest" . . . In this case, perhaps. But imagine a different hand where this layout (AQTxx / K9xx) is in a side suit, and declarer has to draw trumps first, and declarer lays down his hand and says "draw trumps and I have the rest". Of course, declarer *can't* put the ace of the side suit on the table in this case. Would you still rule that declarer might start the side suit with the king? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 19 12:46:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA03243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 12:46:38 +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 MAA03238 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 12:46:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from pa4s07a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.119.165] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt1-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12AkBd-0008NH-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 17:45:30 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Bum claim 2 Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 01:52:05 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf621f$c9a4eb40$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 8:24 PM Subject: Re: Bum claim 2 >In article , >James.Vickers@merck.de writes >>Here's a genuine bum claim from last night that really shows my level of skill: >> >> K >> 10 8 >> - >> K Q 5 >> >> 10 9 7 N - >> - W E - >> A 4 S 8 6 2 >> 2 9 4 3 >> >> 8 >> - >> K J >> J 7 6 >> >>Playing in no trumps with West on lead I (South) laid my hand down and claimed >>the rest, announcing that all my cards were high (thinking the diamond ace had >>been played). West protested, so I called the director who (incorrectly) allowed >>her to lead what she liked with my cards in full view. > >3 tricks. End of story. Shoot the TD. cheers john How noble.I would have given you 4/2. You must have had a bad night not to appeal this one, or was it at Blundelsands? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 19 19:08:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA03958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 19:08:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from nowhere.fragment.com (IDENT:root@nowhere.fragment.com [207.239.226.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA03953 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 19:07:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from nowhere.fragment.com (IDENT:jl8e@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nowhere.fragment.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id DAA31953 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 03:07:42 -0500 Message-Id: <200001190807.DAA31953@nowhere.fragment.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: reddemus in lectum ... In-Reply-To: Message from Adam Beneschan of "Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:00:58 PST." <200001172301.PAA00709@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 03:07:41 -0500 From: Julian Lighton Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <200001172301.PAA00709@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes: >Derrick wrote: >> Suppose for a moment that my partner and I are consummately skilled at >> defending unfamiliar conventions (having developed a set of good generic >> defences which we can adapt at will and/or having acquired a wide >> knowledge/experience of conventions so that most are no longer >> "unfamiliar"). Suppose further that we are deprived of the chance of >> winning events which we would have been able to win if we were not deprived >> of the chance to use this skill/experience because of system restrictions >> on the field. Would this be acceptable ? Is being able to adapt to >> unfamiliar situations not a desirable bridge skill ? > >No, it isn't. > >OK, that's just my opinion. But the only way to answer a question >like that is with an opinion. The fact is, what skills are >"desirable" or not for each game (and what importance they should have >relative to other skills) is a more or less arbitrary decision. [...] >My own opinion, similar to Marvin's (I think), is that card play and >bidding *judgment* are, and should remain, the most desirable skills >in the game and the ones that should be rewarded the most. Other >skills, such as the ability to invent conventions, and memorize a >complex bidding system, even when all the conventions are >constructive, should be less important. I would say that the ability to handle unfamiliar conventions centers around bidding judgement, both in theory (devising and evaluating your generic defenses may not be what most people consider "bidding judgement", but it still requires an understanding of bidding to do well.) and in practice. No set of agreements can solve your problems for you; the most they can do is give you the tools you need. >As for defending against destructive artificial conventions, my >preference is that this skill be much less important than the ones I >mentioned, or perhaps not important at all. So you and your partner >are consummately skilled at defending unfamiliar conventions, and that >skill doesn't gain you anything. So what? Someone else who is a good >poker player may have the ability to make very convincing faces that >could cause opponents to misjudge a hand. Is it fair to deprive this >person of winning events that he might have won if he were able to use >his skiill? Not the same thing. If you can handle yourself in an unfamilliar situation in the auction, it doesn't matter if it's due to a convention, a preempt, a psyche, or a guy pulling the wrong bidding card; you're still better off than the players who didn't put in their prep time. And so you should be. -- Julian Lighton jl8e@fragment.com "Height, Hell, Time, Haste, Terror, Tension Life, Death, Want, Waste, Mass Depression" -- Metallica From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 19 20:25:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA04080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 20:25:08 +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 UAA04075 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 20:24:55 +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 KAA03650 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 10:25:34 +0100 Message-ID: <388582A5.4B82A6A8@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 10:23:49 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: Bum claim References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk James.Vickers@merck.de pressed the following keys: > > I quite agree with Pam, sarcasm and all. I have said this many times, and it is > something we all know: when a player makes a claim they should accompany it with > a statement explaining how they intend to take the tricks. Anyone who fails to > do so either doesn't know how they intend to play or is too blase to comply with > correct procedure. Sitting back, waving your master point certificate and > waiting for the director to work out the best line of play for you, under the > awed gaze of the spectators, is really no substitute. > > It is not up to the director to work out "how the play probably would have gone > in absence of the claim" (as some people seem to assume). Why on earth should > they? The onus is on the claimer to show they knew what was going on, if they > fail to do so they must expect the ruling to go against them. > > One trick to the opponents. > > James Vickers > This has always been the way I see things. I have heard many players ask when the L70 was read to them: "So if a world champion miscounts trumps the Law will be there to save his ass, right?" And don't tell me it is impossible; I saw once Andrzej Wilkosz forget that a card in dummy was good. But, more important, I have never seen Wilkosz claim without a word when holding AQ10xx - Kxxx. I believe this to be true of most top class players. If we all learn to enclose a claim statement then automatically ruling one down in cases like this one won't hurt much those whose class is sufficient to know the this basic safety play. -- *********************************************************************** - One school believes that high taxes are 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 Jan 19 20:31:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA04101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 20:31:13 +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 UAA04095 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 20:30:22 +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 KAA04588 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 10:31:13 +0100 Message-ID: <388583F7.BCFD7A1A@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 10:29:27 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: Bum claim 2 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk James.Vickers@merck.de wrote: > > Here's a genuine bum claim from last night that really shows my level of skill: > > K > 10 8 > - > K Q 5 > > 10 9 7 N - > - W E - > A 4 S 8 6 2 > 2 9 4 3 > > 8 > - > K J > J 7 6 > > Playing in no trumps with West on lead I (South) laid my hand down and claimed > the rest, announcing that all my cards were high (thinking the diamond ace had > been played). West protested, so I called the director who (incorrectly) allowed > her to lead what she liked with my cards in full view. She decided to lead her > diamond ace. I offered her a second chance, pointing out that if she led a spade > she could be awarded more tricks on the grounds that the idiot declarer, > thinking his hand is high, might cross to hand with a club and try to cash the > diamonds, giving her two more spade tricks. She insisted on taking her ace (I > don't really think she understood what I was trying to say to her), and I > conceded one trick only. > > Had she returned a spade I would have made the straightforward play of > discarding diamonds on the hearts and taking three club tricks for no further > loser, but if I really think all my cards are high why should I not make the > more convoluted play I suggested earlier? > > Had I been TD I would, of course, have not allowed any further play and awarded > three tricks to E/W. What do you think? > > James Vickers Nothing in this world can prevent you from taking a trick for the sK and the cJ. They are all yours. -- *********************************************************************** - One school believes that high taxes are 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 Jan 19 23:14:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA04778 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 23:14:30 +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 XAA04762 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 23:14:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-13-139.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.13.139]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA09924 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 13:14:09 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3885A782.D09C8A86@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 13:01:06 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: bum claim References: <20000118202820.70858.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello Todd, and welcome to blml. Where do you hail from ? Your mail is timed with PST - that's California or more northerly if I am not mistaken ? Anyway, Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > >From: Herman De Wael > >To: Bridge Laws > >Subject: Re: bum claim > >Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 13:08:04 +0100 > > > >However, the claim Laws quite clearly stipulate "for the > >class of player involved". > > I think that a reasonable goal of the Laws would be to remove any and > all references to the class of player involved. Whether or not this is an > easy task is another matter; I can only see it as the fairer and less > offensive thing to do. > I feel that this would not be a good suggestion. Top players will claim differently than LOL's (who never claim at all). So the standard must necessarily differ. You cannot expect a top player to play out a hand until one side is high. Nor does he expect his top opponents to call the TD if he doesn't. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 19 23:14:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA04776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 23:14:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA04761 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 23:14:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-13-139.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.13.139]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA09908 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 13:14:06 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3885A6BA.2D83C8DD@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 12:57:46 +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: bum claim References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > But Zia would cash the A before claiming. When he doesn't there is a > possibility he didn't count to 13. I'd probably rule in his favoUr, but > I'd tell him to make it clear next time. > OK, compound the issue. Claimer (Zia or Pam or other) is in 3He. When he sees the table, he realises there are 13 tricks. He claims, without a single extra statement, and starts shouting at partner. The claim involves drawing trumps first, and all the rest are high, albeit that one has to play this suit in the correct manner. Is it irrational to not play the ace first ? I believe it is. Even for Pam. The interesting point of this discussion is not whether it is careless or irrational to not play the ace first, IF one knows there are 13 cards in this suit, but rather what the fact of claiming shows of claimer's mind. If it is the Japanese ladies, it shows they forgot there could be 13 spades in the suit. If it is the Bermuda Bowl, it shows just nothing. If one is in 3 in stead of 7, it also shows nothing. Through the comment of partner ("sloppy, serves you right") I deduce that at the Acol too, the claim shows that declarer forgot the safety play. But we should not draw a general conclusion from this and always rule against a declarer who says nothing about a suit divided AQ9xx - K10xx. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 19 23:14:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA04779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 23:14:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA04765 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 23:14:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-13-139.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.13.139]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA09958 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 13:14:13 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3885A85E.AE6F918E@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 13:04:46 +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: bum claim References: <3.0.1.32.20000118154645.006be400@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > > For an experienced player, it is no less rational to start with the K than > it is to claim in the first place without giving any indication that one > intends to start from the other hand. It's pretty easy to put the A on the > table before saying "I have the rest", and I would argue that a player who > is careless enough to neglect to do so should be assumed to be careless > enough to neglect to do the same thing when not claiming. > I agree completely, provided this is the first suit the player tackles. It is easy enough to draw the ace before claiming. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 20 00:11:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA04952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 00:11:12 +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 AAA04947 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 00:11:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA26766 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 08:10:42 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000119081215.0068a498@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 08:12:15 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: bum claim In-Reply-To: <003201bf6202$ff10a200$a884d9ce@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:25 PM 1/18/00 -0500, Craig wrote: >And so I find myself in total disagreement with two of you I respect highly. >I would think it to be insulting for an opponent to suggest that any player >of quality did not have an obvious claim in this situation. I would never >consider contesting it unless I thought the player was a complete doofus, >and would not wish to socialize with anyone who would contest such an >obvious claim. > >I would be very surprised if any good player would deign to question a >statement-less claim in this setting if the opponent was anyone he >respected. Claims are intended to save time and boredom; having to state the >extremely obvious in a claim statement is time wasting and boring as well as >demeaning to one's opponent, saying in effect, I think you are too much of a >simpering jackass to see this on your own. As a player, I agree with all that. I too would never question such a claim if the opponent was anyone I respected -- or even if the opponent was a complete stranger in circumstances in which it would be reasonable to assume that he was a halfway decent player. But if some a--hole of a bridge lawyer did choose to contest such a claim, he would, IMO, have the law on his side. As a director, I would certainly not wish to socialize with such a person, but I would feel compelled to rule in his favor. 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 Jan 20 00:24:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA04996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 00:24:52 +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 AAA04991 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 00:24:44 +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 IAA27871 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 08:24:22 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000119082556.0068a498@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 08:25:56 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: bum claim In-Reply-To: <200001182239.OAA23981@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:39 PM 1/18/00 PST, Adam wrote: >In this case, perhaps. But imagine a different hand where this layout >(AQTxx / K9xx) is in a side suit, and declarer has to draw trumps >first, and declarer lays down his hand and says "draw trumps and I >have the rest". Of course, declarer *can't* put the ace of the side >suit on the table in this case. Would you still rule that declarer >might start the side suit with the king? Yes. As I said in my reply to Craig's post, I wouldn't contest the claim if I were his opponent (unless he had done something to particularly p--s me off and I was trying to "get even"), but as a TD I would nevertheless be forced to rule as though he might get it wrong. He is, after all, supposed to say something along the lines of "draw trumps, make five club tricks on any layout, and take the rest". To rule otherwise would be to take the position that L68C is meaningless. I would read L68C and explain to the hapless claimer that I wasn't at all suggesting that he didn't know enough to start from the other side, but had no choice but to penalize him the trick for violating that law. 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 Jan 20 01:55:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA05338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 01:55:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (root@Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA05333 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 01:54:59 +1100 (EST) From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.2]) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA17288; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 09:54:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA103933686; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 09:54:46 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 09:54:30 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Non-insufficient bid To: adam@irvine.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > There followed a $^#%@%$ing smoking break, during which it occured to South > that maybe this wasn't really just a UI case after all. Had West, by pulling > out another bid card, actually been bidding out of turn? She was stopped > from actually placing the bid card on the table...but it was clearly visible > for all to see. If it was technically a BOOT, could North waive penalty and > just let the auction continue? > > At least both novices learned to call the director rather than trying to fix > things themselves...a valuable lesson. And the director discovered that > there is printing inside TFLB! > > What say you all? Adam replied < At a tournament, I think I'd have to treat it as a BOOT. The ACBL < bidding box regulations say, "A call is considered made when a bidding > box card has been taken out of the box with apparent intent". > However, under the circumstances (this being a club game and the > offenders being novices), I might rule that 2S was not bid, and > therefore Law 31 does not apply. Nobody was damaged by West's > actions, and West was not attempting to change her mind, so I don't > think justice would be served by enforcing a penalty for a harmless > mistake against a novice in a club game. [Laval Dubreuil] Fully agree. I use to apply Laws strictly, even to novices, saying "the faster they learn, the best it is for game and for them". But enough is enough. I will trust W if she tells me he tried to correct an "insufficient" bid and tell her gently she have to call TD every time something like this happens, before taking any action. Most regular player know less than nothing about Laws (or worst, think they know and try to rule at table) so I think at, club level, we have to give novices a chance when there is no damage to NOS. So I would have forget BOOT. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 20 02:01:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA05528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 02:01:20 +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 CAA05522 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 02:01:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 16:00:55 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id PAA19250 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 15:47:55 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: bum claim Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 15:51:19 +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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >But we should not draw a general conclusion from this and >always rule against a declarer who says nothing about a suit >divided AQ9xx - K10xx. Agreed. It is a very small precaution to cash the ace first, then claim. Or at least state that the ace be cashed first. It helps declarer in 3H with 13 tricks cool down, too ;-) -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 20 02:06:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA05141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 01:05:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from igngate.merck.de (igngate.merck.de [194.196.248.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA05136 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 01:04:40 +1100 (EST) From: James.Vickers@merck.de Received: from dedamsgnt02.merck.de (smtpgw.merck.de [155.250.248.234]) by igngate.merck.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA18467 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 15:03:55 +0100 (MET) X-Internal-ID: 3882E08F00009BE6 Received: from dedamsg1.merck.de (155.250.248.233) by dedamsgnt02.merck.de (NPlex 2.0.123) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 15:03:55 +0100 Received: by dedamsg1.merck.de(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.5 (863.2 5-20-1999)) id C125686B.004D1532 ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 15:01:56 +0100 X-Lotus-FromDomain: MERCK To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 15:03:26 +0100 Subject: Re: bum claim 2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne wrote: >How noble.I would have given you 4/2. >You must have had a bad night not to appeal this one, or was it at >Blundelsands? You've got me there, Anne, I don't know whether I would uphold an appeal for four tricks. Is discarding your last winner in a suit in which the defenders hold five outstanding cards out of twelve remaining "irrational", particularly when there is a perfectly safe way of discarding to keep control of all suits (even hearts, in case I'd miscounted them too)? Good point, but on reflection, appeal dismissed, money returned. Konrad wrote: >Nothing in this world can prevent you from taking >a trick for the sK and the cJ. They are all yours. I described the losing play as "convoluted", presumably an apt description if you can't see it. It is not, however irrational, given that South believes all his cards are winners. On a spade lead South could take the rest by discarding diamonds on dummy's hearts and taking three club tricks. He could lose three tricks by crossing to the club J and leading a diamond, giving West D ace and the last two spades, or lose two tricks by discarding clubs on the hearts and then crossing to the club J, assuming West discards correctly. There are other possible ways of playing. The last two are perfectly logical plays, given declarer's mistaken view of the situation. James Vickers Original message: **************** Here's a genuine bum claim from last night that really shows my level of skill: K 10 8 - K Q 5 10 9 7 N - - W E - A 4 S 8 6 2 2 9 4 3 8 - K J J 7 6 Playing in no trumps with West on lead I (South) laid my hand down and claimed the rest, announcing that all my cards were high (thinking the diamond ace had been played). West protested, so I called the director who (incorrectly) allowed her to lead what she liked with my cards in full view. She decided to lead her diamond ace. I offered her a second chance, pointing out that if she led a spade she could be awarded more tricks on the grounds that the idiot declarer, thinking his hand is high, might cross to hand with a club and try to cash the diamonds, giving her two more spade tricks. She insisted on taking her ace (I don't really think she understood what I was trying to say to her), and I conceded one trick only. Had she returned a spade I would have made the straightforward play of discarding diamonds on the hearts and taking three club tricks for no further loser, but if I really think all my cards are high why should I not make the more convoluted play I suggested earlier? Had I been TD I would, of course, have not allowed any further play and awarded three tricks to E/W. What do you think? James Vickers From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 20 03:43:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA05946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 03:43:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [207.213.113.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA05941 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 03:43:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA07372; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 08:42:49 -0800 Message-Id: <200001191642.IAA07372@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: bum claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 19 Jan 2000 08:25:56 PST." <3.0.1.32.20000119082556.0068a498@pop.cais.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 08:42:49 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk OK, I have a question for those who would award one trick to the defenders regardless of claimer's ability. In a trump contract, declarer has AQx in hand, Kxxxx in dummy, in a side suit. Trumps are gone, and declarer has only one loser in hand to dispose of. Dummy has only one possible entry outside this suit. Declarer cashes the ace and both follow; then he claims saying he will set the suit up with a ruff if necessary. The opponents now call the TD, saying that declarer didn't state the order in which he'd take his winners, and that playing the king before the queen (thus preventing him from getting to dummy to take the long winner) would be "careless", not "irrational", and that therefore the defense should get a trick. How do you rule? If you rule in declarer's favor on my example, what's the difference between this layout and the one in question, AQTxx / K9xx? Is there a fundamental difference between these two types of situations that would cause us to use different criteria for determining whether a line of play is careless or irrational? Or is the difference one of degree---i.e. you believe the correct play in my example is more "obvious" than the one John had to rule on, or something similar? If the former, what makes the two situations fundamentally different? And is there something in the Laws that would imply that the incorrect play is "irrational" in one case and "careless" in the other; or is the distinction based on some reasoning that isn't supported by the Laws? If the latter, how do we determine what's "more obvious"? Is it just a matter of opinion? In a case like this, do we simply accept or reject the claim based on whether the TD/AC think *they* might get it wrong out of carelessness at the table? Should TD's and AC's imagine what they personally might or might not do at the table out of carelessness? Or can we offer more objective, standardized criteria to determine whether a play is obvious enough to make other plays deemed irrational? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 20 05:10:05 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA06228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 05:10:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe50.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA06223 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 05:09:56 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 61605 invoked by uid 65534); 19 Jan 2000 18:09:17 -0000 Message-ID: <20000119180917.61604.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.14.55] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <200001191642.IAA07372@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: bum claim Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 12:09:34 -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 Adam, Your problem contains an incongruity. You state that trumps are gone and then you have declarer state he will ruff the suit if needed to pitch. If trumps are gone how can he ruff? Assuming he has trumps the two problems are a world apart. In the first there was no test for a 4-0 break. In your problem there was a test that guarantees that the suit would bring at least 4 tricks by ruffing or 5 because they break 3-2. He CLAIMED he would ruff out the suit AND cash the length winner in the event they don't break. He proved that the claim would work before he made his statement. His statement makes it clear he needed an entry after ruffing. Therefore he has adequately covered all the bases in his claim. In the first case he did not state how to start the suit nor how he was to play it. People who play it prove the order that they play the cards I do think that when there can be a problem [eg safety play] it is not enough to say nothing nor it is good enough to assume that a class of player would not make such and such an error. The answer must be that it is incumbent on claimer to provide the answers. If he chooses to provide the answer, " taking the safety play", it can be judged whether he knows it, and if he says nothing it is incumbent to not assume it would be done on this hand without convincing evidence. If claimer had tested the suit, either by leading or by statement, I would consider it convincing evidence- in the direction it points. Cheers Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: Adam Beneschan To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Cc: Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 10:42 AM Subject: Re: bum claim > > OK, I have a question for those who would award one trick to the > defenders regardless of claimer's ability. > > In a trump contract, declarer has AQx in hand, Kxxxx in dummy, in a > side suit. Trumps are gone, and declarer has only one loser in hand > to dispose of. Dummy has only one possible entry outside this suit. > Declarer cashes the ace and both follow; then he claims saying he will > set the suit up with a ruff if necessary. The opponents now call the > TD, saying that declarer didn't state the order in which he'd take his > winners, and that playing the king before the queen (thus preventing > him from getting to dummy to take the long winner) would be > "careless", not "irrational", and that therefore the defense should > get a trick. > > How do you rule? > > If you rule in declarer's favor on my example, what's the difference > between this layout and the one in question, AQTxx / K9xx? Is there a > fundamental difference between these two types of situations that > would cause us to use different criteria for determining whether a > line of play is careless or irrational? Or is the difference one of > degree---i.e. you believe the correct play in my example is more > "obvious" than the one John had to rule on, or something similar? > > If the former, what makes the two situations fundamentally different? > And is there something in the Laws that would imply that the incorrect > play is "irrational" in one case and "careless" in the other; or is > the distinction based on some reasoning that isn't supported by the > Laws? > > If the latter, how do we determine what's "more obvious"? Is it just > a matter of opinion? In a case like this, do we simply accept or > reject the claim based on whether the TD/AC think *they* might get it > wrong out of carelessness at the table? Should TD's and AC's imagine > what they personally might or might not do at the table out of > carelessness? Or can we offer more objective, standardized criteria > to determine whether a play is obvious enough to make other plays > deemed irrational? > > -- Adam > > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 20 05:36:42 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA06325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 05:36:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from camelot.netcom.net.uk (root@camelot.netcom.net.uk [194.42.225.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA06320 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 05:36:34 +1100 (EST) From: pamhad@netcomuk.co.uk Received: from dialup-20-09.netcomuk.co.uk (dialup-20-09.netcomuk.co.uk [194.42.233.9]) by camelot.netcom.net.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA03703 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 18:36:22 GMT To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: bum claim Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 18:35:29 +0000 Reply-To: pamhad@netcomuk.co.uk Message-ID: <0n0c8s8un9q8bncuomkedugqjp5idfc5tu@4ax.com> References: <3.0.1.32.20000119082556.0068a498@pop.cais.com> <200001191642.IAA07372@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200001191642.IAA07372@mailhub.irvine.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 FAA06321 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 19 Jan 2000 08:42:49 PST, Adam wrote: > >OK, I have a question for those who would award one trick to the >defenders regardless of claimer's ability. > >In a trump contract, declarer has AQx in hand, Kxxxx in dummy, in a >side suit. Trumps are gone, and declarer has only one loser in hand >to dispose of. Dummy has only one possible entry outside this suit. >Declarer cashes the ace and both follow; then he claims saying he will >set the suit up with a ruff if necessary. The opponents now call the >TD, saying that declarer didn't state the order in which he'd take his >winners, and that playing the king before the queen (thus preventing >him from getting to dummy to take the long winner) would be >"careless", not "irrational", and that therefore the defense should >get a trick. > >How do you rule? I rule the claimers statement clear. > >If you rule in declarer's favor on my example, what's the difference >between this layout and the one in question, AQTxx / K9xx? Is there a >fundamental difference between these two types of situations that >would cause us to use different criteria for determining whether a >line of play is careless or irrational? Or is the difference one of >degree---i.e. you believe the correct play in my example is more >"obvious" than the one John had to rule on, or something similar? > Yes. It's different. In the first case it is clear that declarer had counted the suit (cash the Ace, three missing, if remaining are 30 need to ruff one). In the second no effort was made to find out if the outstanding cards were 40 and no statement made as to what would be done about it. In the first case declarer demonstrated he wasn't asleep, distracted or careless. In the second he didn't. Had the first declarer claimed before cashing the A and without mentioning the possible break then rule against him too. >If the former, what makes the two situations fundamentally different? >And is there something in the Laws that would imply that the incorrect >play is "irrational" in one case and "careless" in the other; or is >the distinction based on some reasoning that isn't supported by the >Laws? > The big difference is that if I have a blind stop and do something stupid it's careless. If and expert has a blind spot and does something stupid it's "irrational". >If the latter, how do we determine what's "more obvious"? Nothing is "more obvious" than anything else. You have (to me) made a clear example of the difference. In both of your cases it shouldn't matter if declarer was Bob Hamman, John Probst or Me. >Is it just >a matter of opinion? In a case like this, do we simply accept or >reject the claim based on whether the TD/AC think *they* might get it >wrong out of carelessness at the table? Should TD's and AC's imagine >what they personally might or might not do at the table out of >carelessness? Or can we offer more objective, standardized criteria >to determine whether a play is obvious enough to make other plays >deemed irrational? It shouldn't BE a matter of opinion. It should be a matter of FACT. No director or AC should have to decide how "good" the player is in this circumstance any more than he should have to decide whether a revoke cost or gained. -- Pam Sussex, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 20 05:51:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA06363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 05:51:09 +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 FAA06358 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 05:51:01 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA28785 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 19:50:52 +0100 Received: from ip183.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.183), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda28782; Wed Jan 19 19:50:42 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: bum claim Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 19:50:42 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <3.0.1.32.20000119082556.0068a498@pop.cais.com> <200001191642.IAA07372@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200001191642.IAA07372@mailhub.irvine.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 FAA06359 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 19 Jan 2000 08:42:49 PST, Adam Beneschan wrote: >In a trump contract, declarer has AQx in hand, Kxxxx in dummy, in a >side suit. Trumps are gone, and declarer has only one loser in hand >to dispose of. Dummy has only one possible entry outside this suit. >Declarer cashes the ace and both follow; then he claims saying he will >set the suit up with a ruff if necessary. The opponents now call the >TD, saying that declarer didn't state the order in which he'd take his >winners, and that playing the king before the queen (thus preventing >him from getting to dummy to take the long winner) would be >"careless", not "irrational", and that therefore the defense should >get a trick. > >How do you rule? > >If you rule in declarer's favor on my example, what's the difference >between this layout and the one in question, AQTxx / K9xx? Is there a >fundamental difference between these two types of situations that >would cause us to use different criteria for determining whether a >line of play is careless or irrational? The two situations are different for me: in the former case, declarer has made it clear that he knows what is going on. He obviously knows how many cards are outstanding and he has a valid plan for setting up a trick. But in the latter case, declarer just might have thought that there were only three cards out (or not thought at all, but just assumed that the AKQ would draw all the outstanding cards). I would not dream of suggesting that an experienced player would play it incorrectly _if he knew that there were four cards out_, but sometimes even good players fall asleep and miscount. So the question is not about the technical ability to play the card combination correctly, but about the possibility that he does not know what is going on. All he needs to do is to say "I play the ace first" or "I play the suit safely" or "I can catch Jxxx both ways". And he really should learn to do so. My ruling in practice would depend on whether I was completely convinced that he had not miscounted. As a player, I would only contest the claim if I thought there was a real possibility of declarer having miscounted. This of course has the unfortunate effect that he is often not taught to claim properly. Another difference between the two situations is that the first declarer has taken some effort to fulfil his L68C obligations, while the second declarer has violated L68C. In practice this tends to mean that I'll worry less about possibly giving declarer a worse score than his bridge abilities deserve - after all, the whole problem arose because he violated L68C. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 20 06:37:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA06447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 06:37:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [207.213.113.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA06442 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 06:36:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA10085; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 11:36:39 -0800 Message-Id: <200001191936.LAA10085@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "blml" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: bum claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 19 Jan 2000 12:09:34 PST." <20000119180917.61604.qmail@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 11:36:39 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Adam, > > Your problem contains an incongruity. You state that trumps are gone and > then you have declarer state he will ruff the suit if needed to pitch. If > trumps are gone how can he ruff? I meant that opponents' trumps are gone. Sorry for any confusion. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 20 08:06:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA06739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 08:06:25 +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 IAA06734 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 08:06:16 +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 QAA02837 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 16:05:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA16805 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 16:05:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 16:05:51 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200001192105.QAA16805@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: bum claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > Through the comment of partner ("sloppy, serves you right") > I deduce that at the Acol too, the claim shows that declarer > forgot the safety play. This is a case where there's no substitute for being there, but given the personality described (good rubber bridge player), it seems much more likely that the sloppiness was in forgetting to _state_ the necessary play rather than forgetting it existed. If demanding full statements for even the most obvious claims is how the players wish to play -- and it's obvious that many on this list do wish to play that way -- that's fine. Personally, it never would have occurred to me to challenge the claim. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 20 09:58:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA07146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 09:58:07 +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 JAA07140 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 09:57:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from alltel.net (cras18p55.navix.net [207.91.7.57]) by mail.alltel.net (8.9.3/ALLTEL Messaging Service) with ESMTP id QAA01231; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 16:57:26 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <388641A9.F585674A@alltel.net> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 16:58:49 -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: Todd Zimnoch , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: bum claim References: <20000118202820.70858.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------DC1C04C255A064659231B35E" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --------------DC1C04C255A064659231B35E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Todd Zimnoch wrote: > I thought that claiming > was merely a convenience. > No, it's a requirement. See 74.B.4, which prohibits "prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent." Norm Hostetler --------------DC1C04C255A064659231B35E Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Todd Zimnoch wrote: 
I thought that claiming 
was merely a convenience.



No, it's a requirement.  See 74.B.4, which prohibits "prolonging play
unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are
surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent."

Norm Hostetler

--------------DC1C04C255A064659231B35E--


From owner-bridge-laws  Thu Jan 20 10:02:50 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA07068
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 09:45:36 +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 JAA07062
	for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 09:45:24 +1100 (EST)
Received: from alltel.net (cras18p55.navix.net [207.91.7.57])
	by mail.alltel.net (8.9.3/ALLTEL Messaging Service) with ESMTP id QAA24176;
	Wed, 19 Jan 2000 16:45:08 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <38863EC6.16509595@alltel.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 16:46:30 -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 F Beye 
CC: Bridge Laws 
Subject: Re: bum claim
References:  <387EC57A.EA03D9C1@alltel.net>  <3881B042.B5FB25AB@village.uunet.be>  <38830624.D01B0FB2@village.uunet.be> <015a01bf61ef$4dba5b80$902a4b0c@default>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk



Richard F Beye wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Herman De Wael 
> >
> > Pamhad@netcomuk.co.uk wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 16 Jan 2000 12:49:22 +0100, Herman wrote:
> > > >I wrote
> >
> > However, the claim Laws quite clearly stipulate "for the
> > class of player involved".  By your own admission, you are
> > at least one class less than some other players.  That is
> > what I wanted to tell blml.  This was not a "real" problem,
> > where John would have stated if it were his Japanese ladies
> > or the semi final of the Bermuda Bowl.
> > Or was it ? (yes, might have been)
> > Anyway, I have chosen to deal with it as a theoretical
> > problem, and I have pointed out that the level of play is
> > important in this kind of problem.
> >
>
> Herman, I think you have missed Pam's point.
> She, a self-confessed intermediate, plays properly.  Norm Hostetler, a very
> good player, plays it wrong (and continues to claim that his line is
> superior even though proven wrong).  Seems as if careless or inferior lives
> in both worlds.
>
> I for one, think Pam got it exactly right the first time.
>

Now, Rick, I'm NOT saying that the "correct" way to play the hand is to start
with the king in dummy.  I don't believe that anything I said should suggest
that.  I said it was "normal" when you are running a solid suit to start with
the high cards in the short suit hand, and the standard we are to work with
defines "normal" as "careless or inferior for the class of player involved [see
below], but not irrational" [70.D, footnote].

If a player, for whatever reason, momentarily thought that there was no
possible way he could lose a trick in the suit, or perhaps does not think about
the matter at all, then starting with the king, intending to finish in the long
suit hand, is very plausible, though clearly "careless or inferior."  Would you
call such a play "irrational"?  Irrational for me would be playing low from
both hands on the first lead of the suit.  In the meantime, as long as it's a
reasonable presumption that he did think he could lose a trick in the suit (the
claim without a line certainly suggests that), then I think playing a high
honor from the short suit first would be chosen frequently enough to justify my
position.  I would award a trick to the defender.

In the expert field, I would expect Zia to simply lay down his cards and
defender Meckwell to glance at the hand and acquiesce.  But we don't have an
acquiesence here, we have an objection, so THIS defender does not believe that
THIS declarer is entitled to the credit for taking the superior line.  The
comment from dummy ("Serves you right") suggests that declarer's partner didn't
think so, either.  It is a very gray area trying to decide at what class a
player must be before my suggested inferior line dwindles to "irrational" in
the face of a defender who objects.

Norm Hostetler



From owner-bridge-laws  Thu Jan 20 10:08:53 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA07180
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 10:08:53 +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 KAA07175
	for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 10:08:40 +1100 (EST)
Received: from alltel.net (cras36p16.navix.net [205.242.158.19])
	by mail.alltel.net (8.9.3/ALLTEL Messaging Service) with ESMTP id RAA29211;
	Wed, 19 Jan 2000 17:08:15 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <38864432.B3EE8293@alltel.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 17:09:38 -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: Adam Beneschan 
CC: Bridge Laws Discussion List 
Subject: Re: bum claim
References: <200001191642.IAA07372@mailhub.irvine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Adam Beneschan wrote:

> OK, I have a question for those who would award one trick to the
> defenders regardless of claimer's ability.
>
> In a trump contract, declarer has AQx in hand, Kxxxx in dummy, in a
> side suit.  Trumps are gone, and declarer has only one loser in hand
> to dispose of.  Dummy has only one possible entry outside this suit.
> Declarer cashes the ace and both follow; then he claims saying he will
> set the suit up with a ruff if necessary.  The opponents now call the
> TD, saying that declarer didn't state the order in which he'd take his
> winners, and that playing the king before the queen (thus preventing
> him from getting to dummy to take the long winner) would be
> "careless", not "irrational", and that therefore the defense should
> get a trick.
>
> How do you rule?
>
> If you rule in declarer's favor on my example, what's the difference
> between this layout and the one in question, AQTxx / K9xx?  Is there a
> fundamental difference between these two types of situations that
> would cause us to use different criteria for determining whether a
> line of play is careless or irrational?  Or is the difference one of
> degree---i.e. you believe the correct play in my example is more
> "obvious" than the one John had to rule on, or something similar?

                            
Thank you, Adam, for establishing my point that it is NORMAL to start with
the honors in the short suit first.

Norm Hostetler


>
>
> If the former, what makes the two situations fundamentally different?
> And is there something in the Laws that would imply that the incorrect
> play is "irrational" in one case and "careless" in the other; or is
> the distinction based on some reasoning that isn't supported by the
> Laws?
>
> If the latter, how do we determine what's "more obvious"?  Is it just
> a matter of opinion?  In a case like this, do we simply accept or
> reject the claim based on whether the TD/AC think *they* might get it
> wrong out of carelessness at the table?  Should TD's and AC's imagine
> what they personally might or might not do at the table out of
> carelessness?  Or can we offer more objective, standardized criteria
> to determine whether a play is obvious enough to make other plays
> deemed irrational?
>
>                                 -- Adam


From owner-bridge-laws  Thu Jan 20 10:37:53 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA07287
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 10:37:53 +1100 (EST)
Received: from srv1.nms.cv.net (srv1.nms.cv.net [167.206.112.64])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA07282
	for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 10:37:44 +1100 (EST)
Received: from s1.nassau.cv.net (s1.optonline.net [167.206.112.6])
	by srv1.nms.cv.net (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA27985
	for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 18:37:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optonline.net (hunt176-249.optonline.net [167.206.176.249])
	by s1.nassau.cv.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA20461
	for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 18:37:31 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <38864A71.47AA5527@optonline.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 18:36:18 -0500
From: Joshua Fendel 
Reply-To: jfendel@optonline.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-AOL  (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Subject: revoke followed by claim
References: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

I was called to the table in the following situation (acbl club game, competent although
not expert players.

At trick 7, declarer (south), led a spade, which was won by east.  West played a heart on
this trick.  Tricks 8-10 were won by declarer.  Declarer (who had only small hearts and
spades in his hand) than conceded the remaining 3 tricks, and I was called to the table
since there was an established revoke at trick 7.

West's last 3 cards:
S   AJT

East's last 3 cards:
S  KQ
H   A

LAW 64A2 stipulates that "if an additional trick was won by the offending PLAYER with a
card that he could legally etc."

My question: since the declarer conceded the final three tricks, is there is a second trick
penalty?  It is clear that it is possible that west might or might not have won a trick.
As an additional question, even if west had all the winning cards in the remaining suits
and would have been forced to win a trick had play continued, is the concession of the
declarer to the defending SIDE the equivalent of West having won a subsequent trick.
How should one proceed when called to the table in a situation such as this? Does the fact
that West is also a director who understood that there was only a one trick penalty if he
did not win another trick have any bearing on the situation?  Several people have suggested
I should have attempted to establish the "normal" line of play, and rule accordingly.
Since, in the situation given, there are several "normal" lines, to whom should the benefit
of the doubt go.
Josh  Fendel





From owner-bridge-laws  Thu Jan 20 13:48:02 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07833
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 13:48:02 +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 NAA07825
	for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 13:47:53 +1100 (EST)
Received: from [213.1.187.14] (helo=davidburn)
	by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1)
	id 12B7dP-0000ZD-00
	for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 02:47:44 +0000
Message-ID: <004b01bf62f0$c6c781e0$0ebb01d5@davidburn>
From: "David Burn" 
To: 
References: <200001190807.DAA31953@nowhere.fragment.com>
Subject: Re: reddemus in lectum ... 
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 02:48:04 -0000
Organization: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Having started a hare, I suppose that I ought to try to keep pace (we
have only a couple of weeks before DWS returns and asks us what all
this has to do with the Laws in any case). It seems to me that, for
obvious reasons, bridge is in the same position as just about every
other sport in this respect: we and the paying public applaud those
who score goals, not those who prevent them from being scored. Lovers
of cricket, the sport about which I know most, tell with relish the
story of W G Grace, the greatest batter England has ever produced
(floruit 1865-1908, which says much about the state of English
cricket). On being dismissed first ball by an unknown bowler of tender
years, Grace solemnly rebuilt his wicket with the comment: "They've
come to watch me bat, not to watch you bowl". The only baseball
players of whom anyone outside the USA has ever heard are George
Herman "Babe" Ruth and Joe di Maggio - the former because he scored a
lot of runs, the latter because he scored rather more significantly in
the game of life. From the Four Mile Radius roughly to the plains of
Hindustan, no child grows up wanting to be a world-famous goalkeeper,
for there is no such thing - but shirts bearing the names Ronaldo or
Beckham are de rigueur even in the South American ghettos.

By the same token, the most heroic deeds in bridge do not involve
breaking contracts, or preventing the opponents from reaching makeable
games and slams. Whilst we may appreciate the aesthetic beauty of a
wonderful defence, our admiration is reserved first and foremost for
players whose courageous judgement leads them into delicate contracts
which make through technically precise play - or better still, through
some barefaced swindle. It is important to realise that though this is
in some way "natural", though the highest accolades are invariably
given to those who succeed in bidding and making contracts beyond the
reach of mere mortals, this is purely an emotional response. It has no
basis in logic or reason - and it should not in any way be pandered to
by Laws or regulations.

Moreover, it should be realised that bridge is a game in its infancy.
We should not presume to know what the "best" strategies in bidding
are, nor to legislate against those strategies whose aims are purely
"destructive" or "disruptive" - those very terms, by their pejorative
nature, are in themselves an indication of the extent to which our
emotions may govern the regulations that we make, unless we are very
careful. Rather, we should strive to create an environment in which
strategies live or die purely on their merits. It may well be that the
amorphous nature of a strong club opening renders systems based
thereon unsound - but how will we find out, if we make rules to
prevent defences which seek to exploit this weakness from being
played? It may well be that a 1S overcall of a 1D opening to show
hearts or clubs does not make bridge sense - but we will never know,
unless such methods are permitted without restriction and the world's
best players required to demonstrate their weaknesses by devising
effective counters. After seventy years, we have just about learned
that when the opponents bid a suit, we can ourselves bid that suit in
order to explore the best contract. We do not know yet what to do when
the opponents, instead of bidding that suit, make some other call
which deprives us of the ability to bid "their suit" in an artificial
sense. Just because we do not know what to do in that kind of
position, should we prevent future generations of bridge players from
making discoveries of their own?

David Burn
London, England



From owner-bridge-laws  Thu Jan 20 22:03:42 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA08925
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 22:03:42 +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 WAA08915
	for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 22:03:21 +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 MAA30730
	for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:00:47 +0100
Message-ID: <3886EA68.12A84AA9@omicron.comarch.pl>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 11:58:48 +0100
From: Konrad Ciborowski 
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: BLML 
Subject: Re: bum claim 2
References: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

James.Vickers@merck.de pressed the following keys:
> 
> Konrad wrote:
> >Nothing in this world can prevent you from taking
> >a trick for the sK and the cJ. They are all yours.
> 
> I described the losing play as "convoluted", presumably an apt description if
> you can't see it. It is not, however irrational, given that South believes all
> his cards are winners. On a spade lead South could take the rest by discarding
> diamonds on dummy's hearts and taking three club tricks. He could lose three
> tricks by crossing to the club J and leading a diamond, giving West D ace and
> the last two spades, or lose two tricks by discarding clubs on the hearts and
> then crossing to the club J, assuming West discards correctly. There are other
> possible ways of playing. The last two are perfectly logical plays, given
> declarer's mistaken view of the situation.
> 
> James Vickers
> 

     James, my dear James, this is exactly what I wrote (or at least 
I thought so). I rule that declarer will take to tricks for sK and cJ
et nihil supra. Playing a spade to the jack and cashing diamonds is
not irrational if declarer thinks all his diamonds are good. I'm
on your side, I'm the good guy. 
     I intended to be sarcasting; my commentary just showed the
willingness
to give _all_ the tricks to the defenders because, as a bridge player, 
this is what I firmly believe declarer deserves for his play (sorry!!). 
However, as a TD  (which I'm not, BTW), I can't do that. Sadly, nothing 
can prevent South from taking two tricks for the sK and the cJ. 

-- 
***********************************************************************

 - One school believes that high taxes are 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 Jan 21 00:01:24 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA09109
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 22:31:44 +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 WAA09099
	for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 22:31:29 +1100 (EST)
Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-166.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.166])
	by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA10750
	for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:29:38 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <3886EBE0.41BCE66C@village.uunet.be>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:05:04 +0100
From: Herman De Wael 
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bridge Laws 
Subject: Re: bum claim
References:  <3.0.1.32.20000119082556.0068a498@pop.cais.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Eric Landau wrote:
> 
> At 02:39 PM 1/18/00 PST, Adam wrote:
> 
> 
> Yes.  As I said in my reply to Craig's post, I wouldn't contest the claim
> if I were his opponent (unless he had done something to particularly p--s
> me off and I was trying to "get even"), but as a TD I would nevertheless be
> forced to rule as though he might get it wrong.  

Sorry Eric.  Either you also complain, or you don't rule
against.
Certainly as Director, you should not let your opponent get
away with something you know you should punish.
The mere fact that you would not contest should imply that
you should not rule against either.
And I don't mean that you don't contest because you want to
be "nice". I am assuming that you really mean to win your
tournament but would not contest this.

> He is, after all, supposed
> to say something along the lines of "draw trumps, make five club tricks on
> any layout, and take the rest".  

He is supposed to say that, but not doing so is no guarantee
for an adverse ruling.

> To rule otherwise would be to take the
> position that L68C is meaningless.  

No it would not.

> I would read L68C and explain to the
> hapless claimer that I wasn't at all suggesting that he didn't know enough
> to start from the other side, but had no choice but to penalize him the
> trick for violating that law.
> 

Well, you can't penalize him a trick for violating L68C.

You should read L68C, and then go in search for any
alternative line that is least successful and then determine
whether that line would be irrational.  If it is, there is
no correction.


-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html



From owner-bridge-laws  Fri Jan 21 00:36:03 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA09620
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 00:36:03 +1100 (EST)
Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA09615
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 00:35:54 +1100 (EST)
Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA07422 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 08:35:30 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000120083712.006d920c@pop.cais.com>
X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 08:37:12 -0500
To: Bridge Laws Discussion List 
From: Eric Landau 
Subject: Re: bum claim
In-Reply-To: <200001191642.IAA07372@mailhub.irvine.com>
References: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

At 08:42 AM 1/19/00 PST, Adam wrote:

>OK, I have a question for those who would award one trick to the
>defenders regardless of claimer's ability.
>
>In a trump contract, declarer has AQx in hand, Kxxxx in dummy, in a
>side suit.  Trumps are gone, and declarer has only one loser in hand
>to dispose of.  Dummy has only one possible entry outside this suit.
>Declarer cashes the ace and both follow; then he claims saying he will
>set the suit up with a ruff if necessary.  The opponents now call the
>TD, saying that declarer didn't state the order in which he'd take his
>winners, and that playing the king before the queen (thus preventing
>him from getting to dummy to take the long winner) would be
>"careless", not "irrational", and that therefore the defense should
>get a trick.
>
>How do you rule?

I allow the claim.

>If you rule in declarer's favor on my example, what's the difference
>between this layout and the one in question, AQTxx / K9xx?  Is there a
>fundamental difference between these two types of situations that
>would cause us to use different criteria for determining whether a
>line of play is careless or irrational?  Or is the difference one of
>degree---i.e. you believe the correct play in my example is more
>"obvious" than the one John had to rule on, or something similar?

The difference between this situation and the one in the original problem
is not based on the difference in the layouts; it's based on the difference
in the claim statements.  When declarer says that he will set up the suit
with a ruff if necessary, I will assume that he knows how to do that --
just as I would give him five tricks in the original case based on a
statement that he will take five tricks regardless of the lie, without
requiring him to specify the exact order in which he will play his cards in
order to do that.  Here, had he not mentioned the ruff, merely saying that
he will throw his loser on a club (or whatever), I'd rule against him.

>If the former, what makes the two situations fundamentally different?
>And is there something in the Laws that would imply that the incorrect
>play is "irrational" in one case and "careless" in the other; or is
>the distinction based on some reasoning that isn't supported by the
>Laws? 

The distinction between "irrational" and "careless" applies to L69-71.  The
distinction between the two cases here is based on L68C.  That law requires
a "statement of... the line of play... through which the claimer proposes
to win the tricks claimed".  In Adam's case, declarer's statement may have
been inexact or incomplete, but it was made.  In the original case there
was no statement at all; had declarer said as little as "I know how to play
the clubs" I would have believed him.

>If the latter, how do we determine what's "more obvious"?  Is it just
>a matter of opinion?  In a case like this, do we simply accept or
>reject the claim based on whether the TD/AC think *they* might get it
>wrong out of carelessness at the table?  Should TD's and AC's imagine
>what they personally might or might not do at the table out of
>carelessness?  Or can we offer more objective, standardized criteria
>to determine whether a play is obvious enough to make other plays
>deemed irrational?

When the right play is an easy one, as in these cases, it is "more obvious"
that a player who indicates that he is aware of the problem in the suit
knows how to solve it than that a player who fails to indicate that he is
aware of the problem realizes that he has 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  Fri Jan 21 02:18:28 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA09116
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 22:32:05 +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 WAA09111
	for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 22:31:52 +1100 (EST)
Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-166.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.166])
	by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA10887
	for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:30:22 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <3886EFA6.6E2E8AB7@village.uunet.be>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:21:10 +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: revoke followed by claim
References:  <38864A71.47AA5527@optonline.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Hello Josh,  welcome to BLML.

First post, I believe ?
You write ACBL, so I will put you in my statistics as US,
unless you now immediately shout "No Canada!".

Joshua Fendel wrote:
> 
> I was called to the table in the following situation (acbl club game, competent although
> not expert players.
> 
> At trick 7, declarer (south), led a spade, which was won by east.  West played a heart on
> this trick.  Tricks 8-10 were won by declarer.  Declarer (who had only small hearts and
> spades in his hand) than conceded the remaining 3 tricks, and I was called to the table
> since there was an established revoke at trick 7.
> 

The combination revoke and claim is now generally known to
BLML as the least clearly elaborated ruling.  Not even the
WBF has given guidelines.

> West's last 3 cards:
> S   AJT
> 
> East's last 3 cards:
> S  KQ
> H   A
> 
> LAW 64A2 stipulates that "if an additional trick was won by the offending PLAYER with a
> card that he could legally etc."
> 
> My question: since the declarer conceded the final three tricks, is there is a second trick
> penalty?  It is clear that it is possible that west might or might not have won a trick.

This has never been decided clearly.  In this case, I would
rule it extremely unlikely that West would not win a trick,
so I would have no problem in giving the second penalty
trick.  There are less clear examples though, and they have
not been well and truly solved.

> As an additional question, even if west had all the winning cards in the remaining suits
> and would have been forced to win a trick had play continued, is the concession of the
> declarer to the defending SIDE the equivalent of West having won a subsequent trick.

Yes, that one is clear.  A trick won after a claim is a
trick won, and can be transferred.

> How should one proceed when called to the table in a situation such as this? Does the fact
> that West is also a director who understood that there was only a one trick penalty if he
> did not win another trick have any bearing on the situation?  

No, because he would also have to prove he knew he revoked. 
If this can be proven, I would allow him to duck twice and
give all tricks to his partner, but if it can't, I rule that
he overtakes the Queen of Spades in the penultimate trick,
since he can see that his hand is now high.

> Several people have suggested
> I should have attempted to establish the "normal" line of play, and rule accordingly.

That is indeed the only sane suggestion, but sadly it is not
always possible.  The Laws have not yet switched the benefit
of the doubt from non-claimer to non-revoker, as they
should.

> Since, in the situation given, there are several "normal" lines, to whom should the benefit
> of the doubt go.

Well, according to the Laws, to the non-claiming side.  I
believe that is wrong and should be changed.  I rule
generally as if it has been.

> Josh  Fendel

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html


From owner-bridge-laws  Fri Jan 21 02:29:04 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA09081
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 22:30:42 +1100 (EST)
Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA09076
	for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 22:30:33 +1100 (EST)
Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-166.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.166])
	by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA10663
	for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:29:08 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <3886E838.E3693C60@village.uunet.be>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 11:49:28 +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: bum claim
References:  <387EC57A.EA03D9C1@alltel.net>  <3881B042.B5FB25AB@village.uunet.be>  <38830624.D01B0FB2@village.uunet.be> <015a01bf61ef$4dba5b80$902a4b0c@default> <38863EC6.16509595@alltel.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Norman Hostetler wrote:
> 
> >
> 
> Now, Rick, I'm NOT saying that the "correct" way to play the hand is to start
> with the king in dummy.  I don't believe that anything I said should suggest
> that.  I said it was "normal" when you are running a solid suit to start with
> the high cards in the short suit hand, and the standard we are to work with
> defines "normal" as "careless or inferior for the class of player involved [see
> below], but not irrational" [70.D, footnote].
> 
> If a player, for whatever reason, momentarily thought that there was no
> possible way he could lose a trick in the suit, or perhaps does not think about
> the matter at all, then starting with the king, intending to finish in the long
> suit hand, is very plausible, though clearly "careless or inferior."  Would you
> call such a play "irrational"?  Irrational for me would be playing low from
> both hands on the first lead of the suit.  In the meantime, as long as it's a
> reasonable presumption that he did think he could lose a trick in the suit (the
> claim without a line certainly suggests that), then I think playing a high
> honor from the short suit first would be chosen frequently enough to justify my
> position.  I would award a trick to the defender.
> 
> In the expert field, I would expect Zia to simply lay down his cards and
> defender Meckwell to glance at the hand and acquiesce.  But we don't have an
> acquiesence here, we have an objection, so THIS defender does not believe that
> THIS declarer is entitled to the credit for taking the superior line.  The
> comment from dummy ("Serves you right") suggests that declarer's partner didn't
> think so, either.  It is a very gray area trying to decide at what class a
> player must be before my suggested inferior line dwindles to "irrational" in
> the face of a defender who objects.
> 
> Norm Hostetler

Sorry Norm, but you are missing the point.

Claims are there to save time. (among other things)

When faced with the real playing problem, no sane player,
with more than one year expertise, will fail to correctly
execute AQ10xx - K9xx, provided he realises there are 4 of
them out.
Playing the King first is therefor irrational. For almost
everyone.

The real problem we are facing here is whether this player
knew there were four out.  If Zia claims this, there is no
problem in seeing that this is not proof that he has
miscounted a suit.  For some other players, this might be
evidence to that fact.

NOW it becomes merely careless.

Do you understand the difference ?

Come to think of it, I am starting to feel that this claim
should be allowed of more players than just Zia.  But
perhaps I am not remembering the original problem correctly
enough.

I believe that it is no mistake to claim without thinking,
and that the claim should be given, if a modest amount of
thinking would lead to the winning line.

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html



From owner-bridge-laws  Fri Jan 21 02:45:00 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA10158
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 02:45:00 +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 CAA10153
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 02:44:52 +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, 20 Jan 2000 10:43:52 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000120104213.007e2320@mail.maine.rr.com>
X-Sender: timg@mail.maine.rr.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 10:42:13 -0500
To: Bridge Laws 
From: Tim Goodwin 
Subject: Bermuda Bowl -- Appeals 6 and 7
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Appeals 6 & 7 appear in the Wednesday (#13) Bulletin.  I don't have a text
version, so I won't reproduce the appeals here -- you'll have to go to the
Bermuda Bowl site (www.bermudabowl.com) to read them.

In appeals case 6, the committee applied L12C3 and claim it is the forst
12C3 WBF decision.  It appears to me that the committee may have been
swayed by the novelty of the application rather than compelling bridge
reason to apply 12C3.  Isn't it routine for a defender with no entry to
duck a round of clubs?  Especially in a world championship.

In appeals case 7, the committee states:

"If a bridge player has been engaged in exteaneous, non-bridge-related
thought (e.g. finds himself daydreaming; or is unaware that his RHO has
bid) he has an obligation to state something to that effect (e.g. "No
problem.")"

Is this really an obligation under the Laws or is the committee just
stating what they think a player ought to do?

Tim


From owner-bridge-laws  Fri Jan 21 04:01:27 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA10266
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 03:25:00 +1100 (EST)
Received: from igngate.merck.de (igngate.merck.de [194.196.248.36])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA10261
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 03:24:47 +1100 (EST)
From: James.Vickers@merck.de
Received: from dedamsgnt02.merck.de (smtpgw.merck.de [155.250.248.234])
	by igngate.merck.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA21079
	for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 17:24:05 +0100 (MET)
X-Internal-ID: 3882E08F0000E596
Received: from dedamsg1.merck.de (155.250.248.233) by dedamsgnt02.merck.de (NPlex 2.0.123) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 17:24:05 +0100
Received: by dedamsg1.merck.de(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.5  (863.2 5-20-1999))  id C125686C.0059E85F ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 17:22:01 +0100
X-Lotus-FromDomain: MERCK
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Message-ID: 
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 17:23:33 +0100
Subject: Re: bum claim 2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Dear Konrad,

please accept my apologies. Your statement "they are all yours" confused me into
thinking you would give me (South) all the tricks if West were to lead a spade.
Several people I consulted seem to have a mental block about the situation
(though few experienced directors). I'm pleased to see you're not among them.

James

****************
James.Vickers@merck.de pressed the following keys:
>
> Konrad wrote:
> >Nothing in this world can prevent you from taking
> >a trick for the sK and the cJ. They are all yours.
>
> I described the losing play as "convoluted", presumably an apt description if
> you can't see it. It is not, however irrational, given that South believes all
> his cards are winners. On a spade lead South could take the rest by discarding
> diamonds on dummy's hearts and taking three club tricks. He could lose three
> tricks by crossing to the club J and leading a diamond, giving West D ace and
> the last two spades, or lose two tricks by discarding clubs on the hearts and
> then crossing to the club J, assuming West discards correctly. There are other
> possible ways of playing. The last two are perfectly logical plays, given
> declarer's mistaken view of the situation.
>
> James Vickers
>

     James, my dear James, this is exactly what I wrote (or at least
I thought so). I rule that declarer will take to tricks for sK and cJ
et nihil supra. Playing a spade to the jack and cashing diamonds is
not irrational if declarer thinks all his diamonds are good. I'm
on your side, I'm the good guy.
     I intended to be sarcasting; my commentary just showed the
willingness
to give _all_ the tricks to the defenders because, as a bridge player,
this is what I firmly believe declarer deserves for his play (sorry!!).
However, as a TD  (which I'm not, BTW), I can't do that. Sadly, nothing
can prevent South from taking two tricks for the sK and the cJ.



From owner-bridge-laws  Fri Jan 21 04:09:52 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA10358
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 04:09:52 +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 EAA10353
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 04:09:45 +1100 (EST)
Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA04739 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:09:22 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000120121106.006a1b00@pop.cais.com>
X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:11:06 -0500
To: Bridge Laws Discussion List 
From: Eric Landau 
Subject: Re: bum claim
In-Reply-To: <3886EBE0.41BCE66C@village.uunet.be>
References: 
 <3.0.1.32.20000119082556.0068a498@pop.cais.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

At 12:05 PM 1/20/00 +0100, Herman wrote:

>Eric Landau wrote:
>> 
>> At 02:39 PM 1/18/00 PST, Adam wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Yes.  As I said in my reply to Craig's post, I wouldn't contest the claim
>> if I were his opponent (unless he had done something to particularly p--s
>> me off and I was trying to "get even"), but as a TD I would nevertheless be
>> forced to rule as though he might get it wrong.  
>
>Sorry Eric.  Either you also complain, or you don't rule
>against.
>Certainly as Director, you should not let your opponent get
>away with something you know you should punish.
>The mere fact that you would not contest should imply that
>you should not rule against either.
>And I don't mean that you don't contest because you want to
>be "nice". I am assuming that you really mean to win your
>tournament but would not contest this.

As a "contestant", L69 gives me the right to "assent[] to an opponent's
claim... and raise no objection to it...".  That's not something the TD can
do, or not do, on my behalf; it's up to me.  L70 tells the TD how to rule
"on a contested claim"; if I don't contest, there can be no ruling under
L70.  So I see no reason why I can't allow a claim as a player that I would
reject as a TD.   I may choose to interpret "the class
of player involved" as meaning whether I think the player has any "class",
irrespective of his ability .

>> He is, after all, supposed
>> to say something along the lines of "draw trumps, make five club tricks on
>> any layout, and take the rest".  
>
>He is supposed to say that, but not doing so is no guarantee
>for an adverse ruling.

No guarantee, but no reason to think that it can't have any effect.

>> To rule otherwise would be to take the
>> position that L68C is meaningless.  
>
>No it would not.
>
>> I would read L68C and explain to the
>> hapless claimer that I wasn't at all suggesting that he didn't know enough
>> to start from the other side, but had no choice but to penalize him the
>> trick for violating that law.
>
>Well, you can't penalize him a trick for violating L68C.
>
>You should read L68C, and then go in search for any
>alternative line that is least successful and then determine
>whether that line would be irrational.  If it is, there is
>no correction.

I see no reason why my judgment as to the rationality of a particular line
by a particular player cannot be made in the light of the claimer's L68C
statement.


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 Jan 21 04:14:50 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA10385
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 04:14:50 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [207.213.113.50])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA10380
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 04:14:37 +1100 (EST)
Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4])
	by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA27829;
	Thu, 20 Jan 2000 09:14:25 -0800
Message-Id: <200001201714.JAA27829@mailhub.irvine.com>
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
CC: adam@irvine.com
Subject: Re: reddemus in lectum ...
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 20 Jan 2000 02:48:04 PST."
             <004b01bf62f0$c6c781e0$0ebb01d5@davidburn> 
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 09:14:26 PST
From: Adam Beneschan 
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

 
> Having started a hare, I suppose that I ought to try to keep pace (we
> have only a couple of weeks before DWS returns and asks us what all
> this has to do with the Laws in any case). It seems to me that, for
> obvious reasons, bridge is in the same position as just about every
> other sport in this respect: we and the paying public applaud those
> who score goals, not those who prevent them from being scored. Lovers
> of cricket, the sport about which I know most, tell with relish the
> story of W G Grace, the greatest batter England has ever produced
> (floruit 1865-1908, which says much about the state of English
> cricket). On being dismissed first ball by an unknown bowler of tender
> years, Grace solemnly rebuilt his wicket with the comment: "They've
> come to watch me bat, not to watch you bowl". 

Over here, however, people *do* show up at baseball games to watch a
great pitcher pitch, like Valenzuela or Ryan or Gooden at the high
points of their careers.

> . . . By the same token, the most heroic deeds in bridge do not involve
> breaking contracts, or preventing the opponents from reaching makeable
> games and slams. Whilst we may appreciate the aesthetic beauty of a
> wonderful defence, our admiration is reserved first and foremost for
> players whose courageous judgement leads them into delicate contracts
> which make through technically precise play - or better still, through
> some barefaced swindle. 

Don't know about this.  Personally, I admire brilliant defense as much
as brilliant play.  In places like the ACBL Bulletin, hands where
someone defended great seem to get a comparable amount of press (a
little less, but not greatly) to hands that show brilliant play.
(Note: I have *not* counted.)  I can't speak for anyone else, though.

It's interesting when someone makes a bid that makes life difficult
for the opponents, but this doesn't usually engender any admiration
from me, since doing so doesn't usually require a whole lot of
brilliance.  Guts, sometimes, but not brilliance.

> It is important to realise that though this is
> in some way "natural", though the highest accolades are invariably
> given to those who succeed in bidding and making contracts beyond the
> reach of mere mortals, this is purely an emotional response. It has no
> basis in logic or reason - and it should not in any way be pandered to
> by Laws or regulations.
>
> Moreover, it should be realised that bridge is a game in its infancy.
> We should not presume to know what the "best" strategies in bidding
> are, nor to legislate against those strategies whose aims are purely
> "destructive" or "disruptive" - those very terms, by their pejorative
> nature, are in themselves an indication of the extent to which our
> emotions may govern the regulations that we make, unless we are very
> careful. Rather, we should strive to create an environment in which
> strategies live or die purely on their merits. 

How about the strategy of hesitating to fool your opponent about
what's in your hand?  How about the strategy of using artificial bids
that you've discussed with partner, without telling the opponents
you're doing so, so that they think your bids are natural?  You can't
deny that those are "strategies" (and both are types of strategies
considered legitimate in other games).  Would you say that we should
allow these strategies, and let them live or die purely on their
merits?  No, of course not.  We've (whoever "we" is or was) decided
that we just don't want to play that way.  Is there any basis in logic
or reason for deciding that those strategies are to be disallowed?
Not really.  If we allowed such strategies, we'd still (probably) have
a playable game; most of us just wouldn't like it as much (probably).

So I think we have to admit that we ALREADY allow some strategies and
forbid others, and that the reasons for doing so are pretty arbitrary
ones along the lines of "that's not the game we want to play".  So if
allowing unlimited "destructive" conventions changes the nature of the
game by requiring that everyone become master bridge theorists to
figure out how to deflect the monkey wrenches getting thrown into
auctions, and if this change produces a game we like less, why would
there be anything wrong with restricting or banning them?  How would
this be any different than the dozens of other arbitrary decisions
Bridge has made about what should and should not be part of the game?

Now, I want to emphasize that I said "if".  I don't know for certain
whether allowing unlimited conventions has significantly changed the
nature of the Bermuda Bowl, or whether it will in the future, if more
players decide to try out interesting new conventions.  The fact that
some big-name players are complaining could be an indication that the
game has already transformed into something they believe is less
enjoyable, but it could also be the whinings of sore losers.  If the
decision were made to ban certain conventions at the Bermuda Bowl, I'd
hope it would come only if there's solid evidence that those
conventions are changing the nature of the game and rewarding skills
we don't particularly want rewarded, and only after the
decision-makers take great care to eliminate self-serving complaints
from consideration.

> It may well be that the
> amorphous nature of a strong club opening renders systems based
> thereon unsound - but how will we find out, if we make rules to
> prevent defences which seek to exploit this weakness from being
> played? It may well be that a 1S overcall of a 1D opening to show
> hearts or clubs does not make bridge sense - but we will never know,
> unless such methods are permitted without restriction and the world's
> best players required to demonstrate their weaknesses by devising
> effective counters. . . .

True, we may never know those things.  But it's incorrect to assume
that we should care.  There are some people who believe that bridge
should be a test to see who the best card players are, not what the
best system is.  And, yes, there are some people who think that
finding out what's the best bidding theory is very important.  (I'm in
the middle.)  So can we use logic and reason to figure out which group
is right?  No, no more than we can use logic and reason to determine
whether chicken tastes better than beef.  It's a personal preference,
nothing more.

Perhaps we should have two Bermuda Bowl events: one with some limits
on certain types of conventions, and one with no limits whatsoever.
Then one event can tell us who the best bridge players are, and the
other can tell us who the best bidding theorists are.  Then maybe
everyone will be happy.  (Ha.)

                                -- Adam

From owner-bridge-laws  Fri Jan 21 04:23:21 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA10451
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 04:23:21 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [207.213.113.50])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA10446
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 04:23:13 +1100 (EST)
Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4])
	by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA27971;
	Thu, 20 Jan 2000 09:23:00 -0800
Message-Id: <200001201723.JAA27971@mailhub.irvine.com>
To: Bridge Laws Discussion List 
CC: adam@irvine.com
Subject: Re: bum claim
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 19 Jan 2000 19:50:42 PST."
              
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 09:23:01 PST
From: Adam Beneschan 
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk


Jesper Dybdal wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Jan 2000 08:42:49 PST, Adam Beneschan
>  wrote:
> 
> >In a trump contract, declarer has AQx in hand, Kxxxx in dummy, in a
> >side suit.  Trumps are gone, and declarer has only one loser in hand
> >to dispose of.  Dummy has only one possible entry outside this suit.
> >Declarer cashes the ace and both follow; then he claims saying he will
> >set the suit up with a ruff if necessary.  The opponents now call the
> >TD, saying that declarer didn't state the order in which he'd take his
> >winners, and that playing the king before the queen (thus preventing
> >him from getting to dummy to take the long winner) would be
> >"careless", not "irrational", and that therefore the defense should
> >get a trick.
> >
> >How do you rule?
> >
> >If you rule in declarer's favor on my example, what's the difference
> >between this layout and the one in question, AQTxx / K9xx?  Is there a
> >fundamental difference between these two types of situations that
> >would cause us to use different criteria for determining whether a
> >line of play is careless or irrational?
> 
> The two situations are different for me: in the former case,
> declarer has made it clear that he knows what is going on.  He
> obviously knows how many cards are outstanding and he has a valid
> plan for setting up a trick.
> 
> But in the latter case, declarer just might have thought that
> there were only three cards out (or not thought at all, but just
> assumed that the AKQ would draw all the outstanding cards).  I
> would not dream of suggesting that an experienced player would
> play it incorrectly _if he knew that there were four cards out_,
> but sometimes even good players fall asleep and miscount.

Those who responded to my example seem to be saying that since
declarer mentioned the possibility of the 4-1 break, we can safely
assume that he is aware of the dummy entry situation and will not be
careless enough to mishandle the entry.  What one has to do with the
other, I haven't figured out yet.

I'll have to think about this.  It might make sense, and it might not.

                                -- Adam

From owner-bridge-laws  Fri Jan 21 04:52:59 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA10573
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 04:52:59 +1100 (EST)
Received: from Tandem.com (suntan.tandem.com [192.216.221.8])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA10568
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 04:52:51 +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 JAA29926
	for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 09:52:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by gateway.tandem.com (4.20/4.11)
        id AA23865; 20 Jan 0 09:51:10 -0800
Date: 20 Jan 0 09:48:00 -0800
Message-Id: <200001200951.AA23865@gateway.tandem.com>
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: bum claim
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

     I think the primary reason people (including me, of course) are
willing to admit this claim and are averse to allowing the other one
is that this declarer has a) indicated that he has seen and dealt
with the potential problem (this means we might be less likely to
agree with the claim if he had claimed before ascertaining that the
suit did not break 5-0), and b) stated a line.

     *Almost everyone* has indicated that they would have adjudicated
the prior claim in the favor of declarer if he had said something along
the lines of "playing the side-suit safely".  (We all seem to believe
that a declarer who knows enough to claim knows elementary safety plays,
although these are two different things.  In John's Japanese Ladies'
Game, one might wish to see the 'safely' demonstrated ).

     In my experience, BTW, experts *do* know how to claim, and can
(if desired by their opponents) claim with different levels of
explanation *depending on their perception of the level of their
opponents*.  (This often taught me how I was perceived by experts ).

    To my mind, 'establishing the long card, by ruffing if necessary'
is an unambiguous line.

Regards,
     WWFiv  (Wally Farley)

From owner-bridge-laws  Fri Jan 21 05:36:19 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA10798
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 05:36:19 +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 FAA10793
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 05:36:11 +1100 (EST)
From: pamhad@netcomuk.co.uk
Received: from dialup-19-11.netcomuk.co.uk (dialup-19-11.netcomuk.co.uk [194.42.232.203])
	by avalon.netcom.net.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA23899
	for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 18:35:35 GMT
To: Bridge Laws 
Subject: Re: bum claim
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 18:34:31 +0000
Reply-To: pamhad@netcomuk.co.uk
Message-ID: 
References:  <3.0.1.32.20000119082556.0068a498@pop.cais.com> <3886EBE0.41BCE66C@village.uunet.be>
In-Reply-To: <3886EBE0.41BCE66C@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 FAA10794
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:05:04 +0100, Herman wrote:

>Eric Landau wrote:
>> 
>
>> He is, after all, supposed
>> to say something along the lines of "draw trumps, make five club tricks on
>> any layout, and take the rest".  
>
>He is supposed to say that, but not doing so is no guarantee
>for an adverse ruling.

Best reason I've heard yet for claiming without statement assuming the
director rates you...



-- 
Pam
Sussex, England

From owner-bridge-laws  Fri Jan 21 06:16:28 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA10667
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 05:00:46 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mail.worldcom.ch (mail1.worldcom.ch [212.74.176.11])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA10661
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 05:00:37 +1100 (EST)
Received: from oemcomputer (portne003.worldcom.ch [212.74.142.3])
	by mail.worldcom.ch (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA15547
	for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 18:59:54 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000120190022.00864ea0@worldcom.ch>
X-Sender: fsb@worldcom.ch
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 19:00:22 +0100
To: 
From: Yvan Calame 
Subject: Re: Bermuda Bowl -- Appeals 6 and 7
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk


At 10:42 20.01.00 -0500, Tim wrote:
>Appeals 6 & 7 appear in the Wednesday (#13) Bulletin.  I don't have a text
>version, so I won't reproduce the appeals here -- you'll have to go to the
>Bermuda Bowl site (www.bermudabowl.com) to read them.

And here is #5 .

Yvan.


Appeal 5

Transnational teams, Round 2

Committee: Joan Gerard (Chair), Grattan Endicott, Nissan Rand.

Board no. 1. Dealer North. None Vul.
S 10 9 5 2
H K 5 3 2
D K Q 10 8 5
C --
S A J 8 6 4 S Q
H Q 9 8 6 H 10 4
D 4 D 9 7 3
C K 7 6 C A 9 8 5 4 3 2
S K 7 3
H A J 7
D A J 6 2
C Q J 10

West North East South
- Pass Pass 1NT
2C(a) 3C(b) Pass 3NT
All Pass

(a) Both minors or both majors.
(b) Majors; not alerted.

Result: NS +430.

The Director: ascertained that when the 3C bid was not alerted a
surprised East asked North whether it was natural, was told 'yes' and
repeated the question, getting the same answer. North said he had
difficulty in understanding his opponent's English and had taken the
question to be asking whether it showed the majors. The Director was
persuaded that there had been no infraction and allowed the table
result to stand.

The players: North maintained that East's pronunciation was difficult
to understand. East pointed out that a different explanation had been
given by South to West. East's difficulty was that if West had the
same explanation as he had (although inclined to distrust it) a double
by him would be for take out rather than showing the suit. He could
not double for this reason. During his remarks East used the word
'natural' more than once.

The Director in Charge: confirmed, upon committee enquiry, that the
convention used by West is permitted in this tournament.

The Committee: considered, without dissent, that East had been
damaged. All committee members understood the East player's speech
without difficulty; further, North, being asked the question twice,
would be expected to appreciate there might be a misunderstanding. He
had not written the explanation down for East, nor had he spoken it in
a way to use the word 'majors' himself. Nor, in fact, was it at all
clear that N-S really had an agreement.

Score adjustment was thus appropriate. The committee had in mind a
number of considerations and possibilities:

1. If East has the correct explanation and doubles to show clubs, with
CK.x.x West can be expected to lead them.

2. If they are led, East is likely to duck a round of the suit,
probably 80 or 90% of the time.

3. However, a number of East's peers could be expected not to double,
and a number could be expected not to play low on partner's lead of
the small club. It would not be equitable to allow East-West full
benefit, nor for North-South to suffer the full effects of an adverse
result.

The committee came to a range of expectancy of 50 to 60% that the
contract would go down. Its eventual decision, after substantial
discussion, was to award 3NT-1 (NS -50) fifty percent of the time and
3NT+1 (NS +430) fifty percent of the time(see Law 12C3).

Effect: In the other room East-West had scored -50 in 4 Clubs.

50% -50 -50 = minus 3 imps

50% +430 -50 = plus 9 imps

Net +3 in place of +9.

The non-offenders were given back six imps on the hand. As far as the
record is known, this is the first 12C3 decision by the WBF, certainly
the first since the WBF Code of Practice was published.



From owner-bridge-laws  Fri Jan 21 07:01:27 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA10641
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 04:58:27 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mail.worldcom.ch (mail1.worldcom.ch [212.74.176.11])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA10635
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 04:58:17 +1100 (EST)
Received: from oemcomputer (portne003.worldcom.ch [212.74.142.3])
	by mail.worldcom.ch (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA13160
	for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 18:57:30 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000120185758.0086e1b0@worldcom.ch>
X-Sender: fsb@worldcom.ch
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 18:57:58 +0100
To: 
From: Yvan Calame 
Subject: Re: Bermuda Bowl -- Appeals 6 and 7
In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000120104213.007e2320@mail.maine.rr.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk


At 10:42 20.01.00 -0500, Tim wrote:
>Appeals 6 & 7 appear in the Wednesday (#13) Bulletin.  I don't have a text
>version, so I won't reproduce the appeals here -- you'll have to go to the
>Bermuda Bowl site (www.bermudabowl.com) to read them.

Here is the text.

Yvan.

Appeal 7

Event: WTOTC, Round 4
Teams: Bulgaria (N/S) versus Sweden (E/W)

Committee: Bobby Wolff (chair, USA), Rich Colker (scribe, USA), Jean-
Paul Meyer (FRA)

Board 9. Dealer North. E/W Vul
S 9 8 6 3
H 5 3
D K Q 10
C A J 7 6
S K 10 7 S A Q J
H J 10 8 6 H A 7
D 4 3 2 D A 9 8 6 5
C 10 9 2 C Q 8 5
S 5 4 2
H K Q 9 4 2
D J 7
C K 4 3

West North East South
Nystrom Stamatov Stromberg Popov
- 1NT(1) Dble(2) 2H(3)
Pass Pass(4) 3D All Pass

(1) 9-12 HCP.
(2) 13+ HCP.
(3) Runout.
(4) Break in tempo.

Result: 3D by East went down one, plus 100 for N/S.

The Facts: E/W called the TD at the end of the match, explaining that
North had taken a long time to pass South's 2H bid. East stated that
this induced him to bid 3D rather than doubling since he could see no
reason for North to think other than if he were considering raising
with a heart fit. North told theTD that he had been thinking about his
system, whether 2H was natural or a transfer, but did not offer this
information to East during the auction. The TD adjusted the score to
2H doubled down one, minus 100 for N/S (Law 73F2).

The Appeal: N/S appealed the TDs' ruling. The Committee questioned
both sides about the events at the table. North said that his system
employed three different opening notrump ranges (9-12, 11-14 or 15-18
HCP, depending on seat and vulnerability), each using a different
runout method after a double.  It took him a few seconds (he estimated
about 10) to decide what his partner's 2H bid meant for this range (9-
12), as sometimes their runouts employed transfers (after a strong
notrump) and sometimes they were natural (as here).

After he passed, East asked about the meaning of 2H; North told him it
was natural (as his pass indicated). North said he was not a robot and
needed a few seconds to "establish the situation and to Alert or not."
He did not consider that his pass of 2H was out of normal tempo. He
further explained that at the conclusion of the play East asked about
his hesitation. He told him what he had been thinking about and no
attempt was made to call the TD while they were at the table. North
also said he was not aware that he was obliged to explain to East what
he was thinking about. East contended that North's hesitation was more
extended, lasting perhaps 20 seconds, and that he could think of no
reason for North's pause unless he had a heart fit and was considering
raising. He said this induced him to bid 3D rather than doubling. When
the Committee asked what a double would have meant E/W agreed that it
would have been unquestionably for takeout.

The Committee Decision: The Committee made several points in rendering
their decision.  First, regarding East's 3D bid, the Committee
believed that North's tempo should have had no effect on East's
action. East's hand clearly warranted a double regardless of the tempo
and 3D was simply too committal an action -- since West might hold
length in spades, clubs or both with attendant shortness in diamonds.

Therefore, E/W were not damaged by North's actions and deserved no
redress. Second, regarding North's actions, the Committee was in
agreement that a player is not required by law to disclose the content
of his thought process to his opponents - provided he is concerned
with legitimate bridge issues.

If a player has been engaged in extraneous, non bridge-related thought
(e.g., finds himself daydreaming; or is unaware that his RHO has bid)
he has an obligation to state something to that effect (e.g., "No
problem."). However, some members of the Committee (Wolff, Meyer) also
believed that a player behind screens who takes a significant amount
of time thinking about tangential bridge issues should inform his
screenmate of the reason for the delay (e.g., "I was trying to
remember our system.").

Extraneous delays, when unexplained, may be subject to score
adjustment if:

(1) they unduly influence the opponents to their detriment;

(2) they have no demonstrable bridge reason; and

(3) the player could have known at the time that his hesitation could
work to his advantage.

In this case, the Committee believed that North's hesitation was
neither seriously out of normal tempo nor was it likely to deceive the
opponents (since it is rare that a 9-12 notrump opener is permitted to
raise his partner's runout after a penalty double - regardless of his
trump holding). For these reasons the Committee reinstated the table
result of 3D by East down one, plus 100 for N/S.



From owner-bridge-laws  Fri Jan 21 07:00:33 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA11077
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 07:00:33 +1100 (EST)
Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA11072
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 07:00:25 +1100 (EST)
Received: from Panther1204.eiu.edu (Panther1204.eiu.edu [139.67.12.189])
	by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA25357
	for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 14:03:47 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000120135919.007be310@eiu.edu>
X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 13:59:19 -0600
To: Bridge Laws 
From: Grant Sterling 
Subject: Re: bum claim
In-Reply-To: 
References: <3886EBE0.41BCE66C@village.uunet.be>
 
 <3.0.1.32.20000119082556.0068a498@pop.cais.com>
 <3886EBE0.41BCE66C@village.uunet.be>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

At 06:34 PM 1/20/2000 +0000, pamhad@netcomuk.co.uk wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:05:04 +0100, Herman wrote:
>
>>Eric Landau wrote:
>>> 
>>
>>> He is, after all, supposed
>>> to say something along the lines of "draw trumps, make five club tricks on
>>> any layout, and take the rest".  
>>
>>He is supposed to say that, but not doing so is no guarantee
>>for an adverse ruling.
>
>Best reason I've heard yet for claiming without statement assuming the
>director rates you...

	But claiming without statement has two very serious drawbacks:
a) One loses out on any chance of making any unusual or brilliant [or
lucky] play oneself.  One is only allowed plays that are so obvious
the director thinks it would be irrational for you to miss them.
b) One risks discovering that the director doesn't rate you as highly
as you thought, giving the other side tricks they wouldn't have won
had you played the hand out or made a clear clarification statement.

	In any case, though, claiming without a statement never _gains_
you anything over claiming with a statement, unless you were about to
make an error on the hand so egregious that the director considers it
irrational and not merely careless.

	The law, like it or not, does not make the failure to issue a 
clarification statement automatic grounds for an adverse ruling.  {I,
personally, am happy with this, FWIW.}
 
>-- 
>Pam
>Sussex, England

	-Grant Sterling
	cfgcs@eiu.edu

From owner-bridge-laws  Fri Jan 21 07:12:40 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA11143
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 07:12:40 +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 HAA11138
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 07:12:32 +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, 20 Jan 2000 15:11:32 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000120150955.007ab720@mail.maine.rr.com>
X-Sender: thg@mail.maine.rr.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 15:09:55 -0500
To: 
From: Tim Goodwin 
Subject: Re: Bermuda Bowl -- Appeals 6 and 7
In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000120190022.00864ea0@worldcom.ch>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

At 07:00 PM 1/20/00 +0100, Yvan Calame wrote:
>
>At 10:42 20.01.00 -0500, Tim wrote:
>>Appeals 6 & 7 appear in the Wednesday (#13) Bulletin.  I don't have a text
>>version, so I won't reproduce the appeals here -- you'll have to go to the
>>Bermuda Bowl site (www.bermudabowl.com) to read them.
>
>And here is #5 .

Thanks, I must have gotten the number wrong.  This is the 12C3 case I was
talking about.

Tim


From owner-bridge-laws  Fri Jan 21 09:27:06 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA11564
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 09:27:06 +1100 (EST)
Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA11559
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 09:26:58 +1100 (EST)
Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by smtp1.san.rr.com
          (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35)
          with ESMTP id com for ;
          Thu, 20 Jan 2000 14:26:44 -0800
Message-ID: <00a301bf6395$6b556a20$16991e18@san.rr.com>
Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" 
From: "Marvin L. French" 
To: "Bridge Laws" 
References: <3.0.6.32.20000120104213.007e2320@mail.maine.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Bermuda Bowl -- Appeals 6 and 7
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 14:18:13 -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:

>
> In appeals case 7, the committee states:
>
> "If a bridge player has been engaged in extraneous, non-bridge-related
> thought (e.g. finds himself daydreaming; or is unaware that his RHO has
> bid) he has an obligation to state something to that effect (e.g. "No
> problem.")"
>
> Is this really an obligation under the Laws or is the committee just
> stating what they think a player ought to do?
>

I would think it is necessary in order to avoid an adjusted score in
accordance with:

L73F2. 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 L12C).

I see nothing wrong with the committee's statement, even if the choice of
words is not exactly what I would choose. It conveys the right message.
After hearing "No problem," a player would not have a good case if he didn't
believe it.

I once overcalled 1H with a KQJ suit and no outside entry for defense
against 3NT (Don't use weak jump overcalls). Partner led the suit, ducked,
established, and declarer ran some high cards. Trying to figure out my best
line of discarding in order to persuade declarer that he could endplay me, I
realized I was taking too much time, probably misleading him, and said,
"Sorry, I have no problem." Better to get a bad board than be accused of bad
ethics. Declarer smirked, "Yeah Marv, I know," thinking I was
coffee-housing, and tried for an endplay, down one instead of an overtrick.

Now, in a sense I did have a problem, but it is unlikely that I could have
"demonstrated" to an AC that my thinking time had a valid bridge reason, had
I said nothing. Perhaps I should have added emphatically, "I *really* don't
have a problem," but then I might as well have shown him my hand. I'm not
*that* ethical!

Marv (Marvin L. French)















From owner-bridge-laws  Fri Jan 21 09:38:57 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA11610
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 09:38:57 +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 JAA11605
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 09:38:49 +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 12BQDs-0002Ov-00; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 23:38:36 +0100
Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de
	(1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA136597915; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 23:38:35 +0100
Subject: Re: Bermuda Bowl -- Appeals 6 and 7
In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000120190022.00864ea0@worldcom.ch> from Yvan Calame
 at "Jan 20, 2000 07:00:22 pm"
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 23:38:35 +0100 (CET)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)]
Message-Id: 
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

[...]

>3. However, a number of East's peers could be expected not to double,
>and a number could be expected not to play low on partner's lead of
>the small club. It would not be equitable to allow East-West full
>benefit, nor for North-South to suffer the full effects of an adverse
>result.


*YIKES* 
Haven't they read 12B2???
This is obviuosly not a 12B3 case.


Thomas


From owner-bridge-laws  Fri Jan 21 15:53:56 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA12418
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 15:53:56 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA12412
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 15:53:42 +1100 (EST)
Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130)
	id 6FB27155C3; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 23:53:33 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 23:53:06 -0500
To: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de
From: Adam Wildavsky 
Subject: Re: Bermuda Bowl -- Appeal 5
Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

At 11:38 PM +0100 1/20/00, af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de wrote:
>*YIKES*
>Haven't they read 12B2???
>This is obviuosly not a 12B3 case.

I'm sure you mean 12C2 and 12C3. For reference, here's the exact text:

>C. Awarding an Adjusted Score
>
>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 favourable result that was likely had 
>the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most 
>unfavourable result that was at all probable. The scores awarded to 
>the two sides need not balance and may be assigned either in 
>matchpoints or by altering the total-point score prior to 
>matchpointing.
>
>3. Powers of Appeals Committee
>Unless Zonal Organisations specify otherwise, an appeals committee 
>may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to achieve equity.

What is it about 12C3 that makes you think it should not apply here? 
One of my objections to 12C3, though not my major objection, is that 
there is no objective way of knowing when it should apply. In 
particular, neither this Law now any other defines "equity". This 
means that the committee will apply it when they feel like doing so, 
and they will assign any result that feels right to them. This kind 
of procedure will lead to even less respect for committees than 
exists at present.

What should be the goal of the Laws, and so of directors and 
committees, if not to achieve Equity? The goal should be to achieve 
Justice. That is a topic for another post.

AW


From owner-bridge-laws  Fri Jan 21 18:34:24 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA12649
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 18:34:24 +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 SAA12644
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 18:34:17 +1100 (EST)
Received: from unid.rz.uniduesseldorf.de (actually Isis54.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de) 
          by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (local, PP);
          Fri, 21 Jan 2000 08:33:49 +0100
Message-ID: <001d01bf63e2$061a2a40$368a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.de>
From: Richard Bley 
To: af06 ,
        bridge-laws 
References: 
Subject: Re: Bermuda Bowl -- Appeals 6 and 7
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 08:34:09 +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

> [...]
>
> >3. However, a number of East's peers could be expected not to double,
> >and a number could be expected not to play low on partner's lead of
> >the small club. It would not be equitable to allow East-West full
> >benefit, nor for North-South to suffer the full effects of an adverse
> >result.
>
>
> *YIKES*
> Haven't they read 12C2???
> This is obviuosly not a 12C3 case.
>
The problem with 12C3 is, that an AC has the right to use it every time they
like. So in a sense, there is no way for an AC to make it wrong. Another
thing is to ask, if they did sth intelligent in Appeal Nr. 5. I personally
dont think so. The offending side was handled with too much care here. I
think, this stuff was not in the mind of the lawmakers when they made 12C3.
This is some sort of philosophical matter:
On one side is legal security (so everyone can guess before, what they will
decide)
On the other side is equity.
They have to find a balance here. I think they missed this balance here by
far.


Richard


From owner-bridge-laws  Fri Jan 21 19:36:19 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA12763
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 19:36:19 +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 TAA12758
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 19:36:12 +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 12BZY3-0004ej-00; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 09:36:03 +0100
Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de
	(1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA214303762; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 09:36:02 +0100
Subject: Re: Bermuda Bowl -- Appeal 5
In-Reply-To:  from Adam Wildavsky at "Jan
 20, 2000 11:53:06 pm"
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 09:36:02 +0100 (CET)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)]
Message-Id: 
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

>At 11:38 PM +0100 1/20/00, af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de wrote:
>>*YIKES*
>>Haven't they read 12B2???
>>This is obviuosly not a 12B3 case.
>
>I'm sure you mean 12C2 and 12C3. For reference, here's the exact text:

Yes.

>>C. Awarding an Adjusted Score
>>
>>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 favourable result that was likely had 
>>the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most 
>>unfavourable result that was at all probable. The scores awarded to 
>>the two sides need not balance and may be assigned either in 
>>matchpoints or by altering the total-point score prior to 
>>matchpointing.
>>
>>3. Powers of Appeals Committee
>>Unless Zonal Organisations specify otherwise, an appeals committee 
>>may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to achieve equity.
>
>What is it about 12C3 that makes you think it should not apply here? 

The AC decided that there was an infraction which damaged
the non offenders. It is easy to decide the score adjustment
according to 12C2. A 50%-60% likelihood as estimated by
the AC certainly qualifies as "most favourable", resp.
"most unfavourable" result. Not even close.

There is no reason at all to be generous to the offenders
and apply 12C3. Maybe the AC should have read 12B.
I don't think that this application of 12C3 is in accordance
with the lawmakers intent.


>What should be the goal of the Laws, and so of directors and 
>committees, if not to achieve Equity? 

After a clear infraction, "equity" IMHO is described
by 12C2. It is not "equity" if the AC decides
to let the non offenders be deprived of
their chance to make the right decision without the MI.
The offenders blew their own chances by providing MI.


Thomas

From owner-bridge-laws  Fri Jan 21 21:08:37 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA12914
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 21:08:37 +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 VAA12909
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 21:08:29 +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 KAA29753;
	Fri, 21 Jan 2000 10:08:20 GMT
Received: (from root@localhost)
	by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA19734;
	Fri, 21 Jan 2000 10:08:19 GMT
Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 10:08:18 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 KAA02184;
	Fri, 21 Jan 2000 10:08:17 GMT
Received: (from rmb1@localhost)
	by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id KAA15091;
	Fri, 21 Jan 2000 10:07:44 GMT
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 10:07:44 GMT
From: Robin Barker 
Message-Id: <200001211007.KAA15091@tempest.npl.co.uk>
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: Bermuda Bowl -- Appeals 6 and 7
Cc: fsb@worldcom.ch
X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk


> At 07:00 PM 1/20/00 +0100, Yvan Calame wrote:
> >
> >At 10:42 20.01.00 -0500, Tim wrote:
> >>Appeals 6 & 7 appear in the Wednesday (#13) Bulletin.  I don't have a text
> >>version, so I won't reproduce the appeals here -- you'll have to go to the
> >>Bermuda Bowl site (www.bermudabowl.com) to read them.
> >
> >And here is #5 .
> 
> Thanks, I must have gotten the number wrong.  This is the 12C3 case I was
> talking about.


The bulletins have not yet printed appeal 6.
Perhaps Yvan (fsb@worldcom.ch) has the text.

Also, does any one have details of the ruling in the Orbis Venice Cup final
which gave rise to the fractions 0.25/0.75 and so (in some sense) decided 
the result.

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  Fri Jan 21 22:02:42 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA13048
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 22:02:42 +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 WAA13038
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 22:02:31 +1100 (EST)
Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-92.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.92])
	by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA10544
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 12:02:21 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <38883C87.D2EE76D8@village.uunet.be>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 12:01:27 +0100
From: Herman De Wael 
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bridge Laws 
Subject: A small one
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

This was not a ruling, I was kibitzing the table (Yes I
know, a TD should not do so, but I am allowed my bit of fun
as well, especially when I'm not being paid !)

Declarer is in 6 Spades, after a long, convoluted and too
high an auction.

The lead is a small diamond, and dummy puts down AKQxxx in
that suit.

It is clear to everyone that the contract is far too high.

"There is a chance" says a kibitzer (another one, not me, of
course).

"A small one" says declarer.

As dummy goes for the small diamond, declarer is quick
enough to say that he meant a small chance.
Everyone agrees that this is indeed the case.

But suppose they still ask for a ruling ?

Law references, please.

In case you are wondering, declarer has the nine of diamonds
singleton and there are far too many losers for him to try
something on this first round of play.
Next declarer had not yet played.

Post-mortem : the contract went two down anyway, although he
might have gone for just one down.
There was in fact a (very small) chance, something like
exactly KJx in one hand and some other finesses.

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html


From owner-bridge-laws  Fri Jan 21 22:39:48 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA13143
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 22:39:48 +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 WAA13138
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 22:39:39 +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 LAA03970
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:39:31 GMT
Received: (from root@localhost)
	by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA01209
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:39:30 GMT
Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:39:29 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 LAA16407
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:39:28 GMT
Received: (from rmb1@localhost)
	by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id LAA16973
	for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:38:56 GMT
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:38:56 GMT
From: Robin Barker 
Message-Id: <200001211138.LAA16973@tempest.npl.co.uk>
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: A small one
X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk


> "There is a chance" says a kibitzer (another one, not me, of
> course).
> 
> "A small one" says declarer.
> 
> As dummy goes for the small diamond, declarer is quick
> enough to say that he meant a small chance.
> Everyone agrees that this is indeed the case.
> 
> But suppose they still ask for a ruling ?
> 
> Law references, please.

L46B
In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be
played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer's
different intention is incontrovertible):

I rule that declarer has not called for a card, or has made an erroneous 
call when declarer incontrovertibily had a different intention, declarer
may now make his intented call for a card.

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  Fri Jan 21 23:24:10 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA13235
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 23:24:10 +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 XAA13230
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 23:24:02 +1100 (EST)
Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-106.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.106])
	by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA27138
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 13:23:52 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <3888451C.92D0FC3B@village.uunet.be>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 12:38:04 +0100
From: Herman De Wael 
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bridge Laws 
Subject: Re: bum claim
References:  <3.0.1.32.20000119082556.0068a498@pop.cais.com> <3886EBE0.41BCE66C@village.uunet.be> 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

pamhad@netcomuk.co.uk wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:05:04 +0100, Herman wrote:
> 
> >Eric Landau wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> He is, after all, supposed
> >> to say something along the lines of "draw trumps, make five club tricks on
> >> any layout, and take the rest".
> >
> >He is supposed to say that, but not doing so is no guarantee
> >for an adverse ruling.
> 
> Best reason I've heard yet for claiming without statement assuming the
> director rates you...
> 

Oh no, absolutely not.

More often than not, a careless claim will be on cards where
there are still more possibilities.  And you would lose
those.  But they don't get to blml.
The fact that we are talking such a lot about claims is
because there is a small minority of careless claims that
ought to be given anyway.
I believe this is such a careless claim.  But the
carelessness of the claim soes not prove that the play that
would have happened without the claim would be careless as
well.

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html



From owner-bridge-laws  Fri Jan 21 23:24:32 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA13242
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 23:24:32 +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 XAA13237
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 23:24:23 +1100 (EST)
Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-106.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.106])
	by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA27175
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 13:24:01 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <3888471D.B681105B@village.uunet.be>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 12:46:37 +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: bum claim
References: <200001201723.JAA27971@mailhub.irvine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Adam Beneschan wrote:
> 
> 
> Those who responded to my example seem to be saying that since
> declarer mentioned the possibility of the 4-1 break, we can safely
> assume that he is aware of the dummy entry situation and will not be
> careless enough to mishandle the entry.  What one has to do with the
> other, I haven't figured out yet.
> 
> I'll have to think about this.  It might make sense, and it might not.
> 
>                                 -- Adam

Adam is on the right track.

In his example, the player indicates that he has counted the
suit before claiming.  A majority of us rule that it is
irrational for him not to play the suit correctly.

In the original example, the player has not indicated that
he has counted the suit.  Yet I believe that the same
majority would rule in that case that it would be irrational
for the player not to play the suit correctly, PROVIDED he
counts the suit in the first place.
That leaves us with a second question.  Given that we know
that the player did not count the suit before claiming,
would we call it irrational or merely careless if he did not
count the cards before actually playing ?

I believe that it would be irrational for a player not to
count this suit (nine cards with three top honours - better
cash a double honour first) before actually playing from it.

The situtation reminds me of the famous "Strange Claim". 
There too, we ruled that although claimer did not make a
careful plan before claiming, he would do before playing,
and we ruled that he would follow that plan, and not even
the one he mistakenly stated.

A careless claim is not proof that the play must be
careless!
-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html



From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 22 00:01:36 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA13304
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 23:31:01 +1100 (EST)
Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA13289
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 23:30:49 +1100 (EST)
Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-23-216.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.23.216])
	by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA28614
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 13:30:37 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <38884B6E.C194A182@village.uunet.be>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 13:05:02 +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: Bermuda Bowl -- Appeals 6 and 7
References: <3.0.6.32.20000120104213.007e2320@mail.maine.rr.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Tim Goodwin wrote:
> 
> Appeals 6 & 7 appear in the Wednesday (#13) Bulletin.  I don't have a text
> version, so I won't reproduce the appeals here -- you'll have to go to the
> Bermuda Bowl site (www.bermudabowl.com) to read them.
> 
> In appeals case 6, the committee applied L12C3 and claim it is the forst (sic : I presume fIrst)
> 12C3 WBF decision.  

The WBF are mistaken, as I claim precedence.

Lille, appeal 9 (Bulletin nr8), Junior Teams, AC consisting
of Steen Moeller, Grattan Endicott and Herman De Wael.

ruling : 12C3 : 75% of +100, 25% of -650, to both sides.

If Grattan was reporting in Bermuda, he was mistaken.


-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html



From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 22 00:24:28 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA13473
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 00:24:28 +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 AAA13468
	for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 00:24:21 +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, 21 Jan 2000 08:23:17 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000121082135.007b7da0@mail.maine.rr.com>
X-Sender: thg@mail.maine.rr.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 08:21:35 -0500
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
From: Tim Goodwin 
Subject: Re: Bermuda Bowl -- Appeal 5
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

At 11:53 PM 1/20/00 -0500, Adam Wildavsky wrote:

>2. ... the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favourable result
that was likely had the irregularity not occurred

>3. Powers of Appeals Committee
>Unless Zonal Organisations specify otherwise, an appeals committee 
>may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to achieve equity.
>
>What is it about 12C3 that makes you think it should not apply here? 
>One of my objections to 12C3, though not my major objection, is that 
>there is no objective way of knowing when it should apply. In 
>particular, neither this Law now any other defines "equity".

It seems to me that "the most favorable result that was likely" and
"equity" will often be different results.  In the case under discussion, it
seems clear to me that it was likely the non-offending side would defend
accurately against 3NT, indeed the committee assigned a 50% likelihood to
that result.  That sounds "likely" to me, but maybe it would have had to be
51% to be "likely".

Tim


From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 22 01:06:16 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA13593
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 01:06:16 +1100 (EST)
Received: from hunter2.int.kiev.ua (hunter2.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.101])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA13588
	for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 01:05:52 +1100 (EST)
Received: from svk.int.kiev.ua (pc168.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.168])
	by hunter2.int.kiev.ua (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA05904
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 16:07:13 +0200 (EET)
Message-ID: <010d01bf6418$190f77a0$a8047bc3@svk.int.kiev.ua>
From: "Sergey Kapustin" 
To: "BLML" 
Subject: Re: A small one
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 16:01:46 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
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
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by hunter2.int.kiev.ua id QAA05904
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id BAA13589
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Herman DE WAEL wrote:


>This was not a ruling, I was kibitzing the table (Yes I
>know, a TD should not do so, but I am allowed my bit of fun
>as well, especially when I'm not being paid !)
>
>Declarer is in 6 Spades, after a long, convoluted and too
>high an auction.
>
>The lead is a small diamond, and dummy puts down AKQxxx in
>that suit.
>
>It is clear to everyone that the contract is far too high.
>
>"There is a chance" says a kibitzer (another one, not me, of
>course).
>
>"A small one" says declarer.
>
>As dummy goes for the small diamond, declarer is quick
>enough to say that he meant a small chance.
>Everyone agrees that this is indeed the case.
>
>But suppose they still ask for a ruling ?
>
>Law references, please.
>
>In case you are wondering, declarer has the nine of diamonds
>singleton and there are far too many losers for him to try
>something on this first round of play.
>Next declarer had not yet played.
>
>Post-mortem : the contract went two down anyway, although he
>might have gone for just one down.
>There was in fact a (very small) chance, something like
>exactly KJx in one hand and some other finesses.
>
>--
>Herman DE WAEL



Few years ago I have read an article (don't remember were and when)
absolutely like Herman's case.
In that story Dummy asked Declarer "Cup of coffee?" and Declarer answered "A
small, please".
In that story TD ruled L46B (except when declarer’s different intention is
incontrovertible).

Let us suppose the stories had continues: defender was quick enough to play
his card.
What about defender's card? Is it penalty?

Law 50
         A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender
is a
         penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise. The Director
shall
        award an adjusted score, in lieu of the rectifications below,
        when he deems that Law 72B1 applies.

In our cases IMO TD "designates otherwise."

What about UI and AI for defender's partner and for declarer?

Sergey Kapustin




From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 22 01:23:23 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA13301
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 23:30:58 +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 XAA13286
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 23:30:45 +1100 (EST)
Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-23-216.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.23.216])
	by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA28595
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 13:30:33 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <3888451C.92D0FC3B@village.uunet.be>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 12:38:04 +0100
From: Herman De Wael 
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bridge Laws 
Subject: Re: bum claim
References:  <3.0.1.32.20000119082556.0068a498@pop.cais.com> <3886EBE0.41BCE66C@village.uunet.be> 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

pamhad@netcomuk.co.uk wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:05:04 +0100, Herman wrote:
> 
> >Eric Landau wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> He is, after all, supposed
> >> to say something along the lines of "draw trumps, make five club tricks on
> >> any layout, and take the rest".
> >
> >He is supposed to say that, but not doing so is no guarantee
> >for an adverse ruling.
> 
> Best reason I've heard yet for claiming without statement assuming the
> director rates you...
> 

Oh no, absolutely not.

More often than not, a careless claim will be on cards where
there are still more possibilities.  And you would lose
those.  But they don't get to blml.
The fact that we are talking such a lot about claims is
because there is a small minority of careless claims that
ought to be given anyway.
I believe this is such a careless claim.  But the
carelessness of the claim soes not prove that the play that
would have happened without the claim would be careless as
well.

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html



From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 22 02:13:41 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA13303
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 23:31:01 +1100 (EST)
Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA13287
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 23:30:48 +1100 (EST)
Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-23-216.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.23.216])
	by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA28600
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 13:30:35 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <3888471D.B681105B@village.uunet.be>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 12:46:37 +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: bum claim
References: <200001201723.JAA27971@mailhub.irvine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Adam Beneschan wrote:
> 
> 
> Those who responded to my example seem to be saying that since
> declarer mentioned the possibility of the 4-1 break, we can safely
> assume that he is aware of the dummy entry situation and will not be
> careless enough to mishandle the entry.  What one has to do with the
> other, I haven't figured out yet.
> 
> I'll have to think about this.  It might make sense, and it might not.
> 
>                                 -- Adam

Adam is on the right track.

In his example, the player indicates that he has counted the
suit before claiming.  A majority of us rule that it is
irrational for him not to play the suit correctly.

In the original example, the player has not indicated that
he has counted the suit.  Yet I believe that the same
majority would rule in that case that it would be irrational
for the player not to play the suit correctly, PROVIDED he
counts the suit in the first place.
That leaves us with a second question.  Given that we know
that the player did not count the suit before claiming,
would we call it irrational or merely careless if he did not
count the cards before actually playing ?

I believe that it would be irrational for a player not to
count this suit (nine cards with three top honours - better
cash a double honour first) before actually playing from it.

The situtation reminds me of the famous "Strange Claim". 
There too, we ruled that although claimer did not make a
careful plan before claiming, he would do before playing,
and we ruled that he would follow that plan, and not even
the one he mistakenly stated.

A careless claim is not proof that the play must be
careless!
-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html



From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 22 02:32:29 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA13309
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 23:31:05 +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 XAA13302
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 23:30:56 +1100 (EST)
Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-23-216.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.23.216])
	by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA28642
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 13:30:42 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <38884E6C.BA00F58C@village.uunet.be>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 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: When to apply L12C3
References:  
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Following Adam's suggestion, I have made it another thread.

Adam Wildavsky wrote:
> 
> At 11:38 PM +0100 1/20/00, af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de wrote:
> >*YIKES*
> >Haven't they read 12B2???
> >This is obviuosly not a 12B3 case.
> 
> I'm sure you mean 12C2 and 12C3. For reference, here's the exact text:
> 
[snip]
> 
> What is it about 12C3 that makes you think it should not apply here?
> One of my objections to 12C3, though not my major objection, is that
> there is no objective way of knowing when it should apply. In
> particular, neither this Law now any other defines "equity". This
> means that the committee will apply it when they feel like doing so,
> and they will assign any result that feels right to them. This kind
> of procedure will lead to even less respect for committees than
> exists at present.
> 
> What should be the goal of the Laws, and so of directors and
> committees, if not to achieve Equity? The goal should be to achieve
> Justice. That is a topic for another post.
> 
> AW

L12C3 and L12C2 are exact opposites.

In L12C2, it is said that the best result should be given.
L12C3 gives an average of results.  But this is restricted
to AC's.
And to DiC of WBF events.  And to any TD who appeals his own
decision.
So to anyone.

I interpret this as meaning that one should always give the
average score as set out in L12C3, and that L12C2 is only
there to guide TD's into giving easy rulings. (except in the
ACBL of course).

However.

I believe we should not give any weight to the actual result
obtained at the table, if it turns out that the offenders
have done something specially bad.

I would reserve L12C3 for something like : We forget the
actual happenings, but we average for all the other
happenings.
Such as, now NOs has passed, but without the MI, they reach
6 or 7.  Give them some average of those two.
As opposed to, now they are in 4, but without the MI they
would be in 4 or 6.  I say give them 100% of 6.
-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html


From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 22 03:37:13 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA14330
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 03:37:13 +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 DAA14325
	for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 03:37:03 +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 12Bh3O-000592-00; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 17:36:54 +0100
Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de
	(1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA281392613; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 17:36:53 +0100
Subject: Re: When to apply L12C3
In-Reply-To: <38884E6C.BA00F58C@village.uunet.be> from Herman De Wael at "Jan
 21, 2000 01:17:48 pm"
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 17:36:53 +0100 (CET)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)]
Message-Id: 
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Herman de Wael wrote:
>I believe we should not give any weight to the actual result
>obtained at the table, if it turns out that the offenders
>have done something specially bad.
>
>I would reserve L12C3 for something like : We forget the
>actual happenings, but we average for all the other
>happenings.
>Such as, now NOs has passed, but without the MI, they reach
>6 or 7.  Give them some average of those two.
>As opposed to, now they are in 4, but without the MI they
>would be in 4 or 6.  I say give them 100% of 6.

Yep.


Thomas

From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 22 03:51:18 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA14385
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 03:51:18 +1100 (EST)
Received: from hotmail.com (f23.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.23])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA14380
	for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 03:51:10 +1100 (EST)
Received: (qmail 16570 invoked by uid 0); 21 Jan 2000 16:50:32 -0000
Message-ID: <20000121165032.16569.qmail@hotmail.com>
Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP;
	Fri, 21 Jan 2000 08:50:32 PST
X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226]
From: "Michael Farebrother" 
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: bum claim
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 16:50:32 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk


>Adam Beneschan wrote:
> >
> >
> > Those who responded to my example seem to be saying that since
> > declarer mentioned the possibility of the 4-1 break, we can safely
> > assume that he is aware of the dummy entry situation and will not > > be 
>careless enough to mishandle the entry.  What one has to do
> > with the other, I haven't figured out yet.
> >
Well, at least he's mentioned *something* related to the possible 4-1.
The "all mine" declarer didn't point out that they're still all hers even if 
4-0.  "Playing the A", playing the A, "picking up J fourth in either hand, 
if necessary" would be all I needed to flip the balance - some sort of claim 
statement that shows me that she is aware.

All you "anyone who's played for a year should automatically make the safe 
play" people haven't played in my club :-).  In fact, I can't guarantee that 
I would make that play (I will now, of course).  And I'm one of the *better* 
players at that club.  I wouldn't trust any except about 3 people to do this 
automatically, and they know better than to scare the mundanes - they'll 
play the ace first.

Yes, I know the "usual suspect" game at the YC is slightly higher quality.

I rule on this line simply because I want to encourage claims with clear 
statements according to the laws.  If you provide a statement, I'll be 
lenient, especially if you show that you're thinking.  "All mine" gets 
harshly treated - and a suggestion that "provide a statement in future, it 
only takes 2 seconds" might minimize further rulings against.

Anyway, I was fantasizing on my way to work today, and came up with a 
situation that might be between the two deals above.

Axxx Kxx QJxx xx - xxxx Axxx AK xxx.  Assume the spots are as inconvenient 
as possible.

W     N     E     S    MPs, all vul.
           1NT*   X    * - 12-14 (KS 3QT opening)
XX*   AP               * - "+760 plus +400/overtrick"

South leads CJ, CQ, all follow.  CK, spade pitch,  North shows out, East 
claims "making 1".  The opponents constest.

Do you give it to him, given that the entries can be badly muddled?
(ok, so it's like the "strange claim".  But at least here, there's no 
possibilites.  If East keeps his communication open, he gets 7 tricks.  If 
not, he doesn't.)

I probably wouldn't play again with someone who contested this claim, but 
there's at least an 1160-point swing riding on the decision.  Your call?  
And if you'll give it to some, but not others, how good does East have to be 
for mucking up the communications to be "irrational" rather than "careless"?

Michael.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 22 04:05:48 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA14478
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 04:05:48 +1100 (EST)
Received: from hotmail.com (f81.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.81])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA14462
	for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 04:05:40 +1100 (EST)
Received: (qmail 65854 invoked by uid 0); 21 Jan 2000 17:04:59 -0000
Message-ID: <20000121170459.65853.qmail@hotmail.com>
Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP;
	Fri, 21 Jan 2000 09:04:59 PST
X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226]
From: "Michael Farebrother" 
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Subject: Convention?
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 17:04:59 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

I am attempting to add some disruptive bidding to my EHAA structure (ok, so 
I don't need to.  But I want to try it, and it fits well).

I want to play a third-seat 1NT opener as 8+, "we don't have game".  The 
ACBL allows this, but bans all conventions afterwards (which I don't mind, 
as we don't need any :-).  But I got to thinking...

If dealer responds 3C to this 1NT, he must have an invitational hand of some 
sort (as 2C would be natural and to play).  However, the only invitational 
hand partner can have is a 10-12 point (4441) (this is known from system - 
his pass denies 10 points unless 4441, and several other hands, as well).  
Obviously, he can't have a club singleton (because that would be 
conventional), nor can he have a known singleton (because that would also be 
conventional - or would it?)

So, I feel I'd have to alert the 3C call, "4441, 10-12, with 4 clubs".    
But it is logic based on previous action, not system.  Would it still be a 
convention?

What about a 3D call?  Again, by inference, it must show 4441, 10-12, with 4 
diamonds.  Very likely, it denies 4 clubs, otherwise you'd bid 4C for 
safety's sake.  Now, I have a call "4=4=4=1, 10-12", which definately sounds 
like a convention, but it isn't - it's just the only possible hand for that 
bid.

What sayeth the masses?  Convention? or Die^H^H^Hnot[1]?

Michael.

[1] - sorry, I'm propsmaster for a show in two weeks.  One of the running 
gags is the new game show for "people too annoying to live", "Live or Die!"  
The host comes on, and asks the audience whether the character in question 
should live or die.  It's ok - we can handle each response, each time it 
comes up.  But I can't get it out of my head.  mdf
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 22 05:43:14 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA14745
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 05:43:14 +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 FAA14740
	for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 05:43:03 +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 SAA06443 for ;
	  Fri, 21 Jan 2000 18:42:23 GMT
Message-ID: <00a501bf643f$477db080$cd307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie>
From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" 
To: 
Subject: Claim or Rovoke?
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 18:42:29 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

In a top class international IMP event, declarer is in 4H.  Eight tricks
have been played, declarer has lost two tricks and everyone knows the end
position.  Declarer calls for a Club from Dummy.  A defender holding a Club
and two master trumps, attempts to speed things up by showing the two master
trumps to his opponent thereby claiming two tricks and conceding three for
4H minus one.

Declarer however calls the TD insisting that the defender has revoked on
this ninth trick and has led a trump to the tenth trick thereby establishing
the revoke for 4H plus one!

How do you rule?

Best regards,
Fearghal.



From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 22 05:47:13 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA14798
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 05:47:13 +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 FAA14793
	for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 05:47:05 +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 SAA07409 for ;
	  Fri, 21 Jan 2000 18:46:18 GMT
Message-ID: <00a701bf643f$d37a7b40$cd307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie>
From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" 
To: 
Subject: Psyche or not?
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 18:46:26 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

You are third in hand at Pairs, Non-Vul versus Vul holding
J10432     K642     Q7     93
You open One Spade.

Is this a Psyche?

Best regards,
Fearghal.




From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 22 06:00:38 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA14821
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 06:00:38 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [207.213.113.50])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA14816
	for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 06:00:30 +1100 (EST)
Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4])
	by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA17387;
	Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:00:17 -0800
Message-Id: <200001211900.LAA17387@mailhub.irvine.com>
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
CC: adam@irvine.com
Subject: Re: Convention?
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 21 Jan 2000 17:04:59 PST."
             <20000121170459.65853.qmail@hotmail.com> 
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:00:14 PST
From: Adam Beneschan 
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk


Michael Farebrother wrote:
 
> I am attempting to add some disruptive bidding to my EHAA structure (ok, so 
> I don't need to.  But I want to try it, and it fits well).
> 
> I want to play a third-seat 1NT opener as 8+, "we don't have game".  The 
> ACBL allows this, but bans all conventions afterwards (which I don't mind, 
> as we don't need any :-).  But I got to thinking...
> 
> If dealer responds 3C to this 1NT, he must have an invitational hand of some 
> sort (as 2C would be natural and to play).  

Wait a minute...if the 1NT opener means "we don't have game", then
what is 3C invitational to?  Invitational to a part-score?
Invitational to -800?  Invitational to come over to the 3C bidder's
pad after the event is over?

:) :) OK, OK.  I assume you meant "we probably don't have game" or
something like that.


> However, the only invitational 
> hand partner can have is a 10-12 point (4441) (this is known from system - 
> his pass denies 10 points unless 4441, and several other hands, as well).  
> Obviously, he can't have a club singleton (because that would be 
> conventional), nor can he have a known singleton (because that would also be 
> conventional - or would it?)
> 
> So, I feel I'd have to alert the 3C call, "4441, 10-12, with 4 clubs".    
> But it is logic based on previous action, not system.  Would it still be a 
> convention?
> 
> What about a 3D call?  Again, by inference, it must show 4441, 10-12, with 4 
> diamonds.  Very likely, it denies 4 clubs, otherwise you'd bid 4C for 
> safety's sake.  Now, I have a call "4=4=4=1, 10-12", which definately sounds 
> like a convention, but it isn't - it's just the only possible hand for that 
> bid.
> 
> What sayeth the masses?  Convention? or Die^H^H^Hnot[1]?

My first thought was that this would not be a convention.  I think
there are some cases where someone could get around the rules by
coming up with contorted logic to argue that a certain convention is
really an inference.  But in this case, the logic is too simple, since
a hand with 10+ HCP would (apparently) have opened 1NT or a 5-card
suit if possible.

However, there's a problem with this.  If you can come up with a
4-4-4-1 hand with 10 HCP that would be considered invitational, then
surely there would be a 5-4-3-1 hand with 9 HCP and a good enough suit
that would also be considered invitational, but that wouldn't have
been opened?  Or do such hands simply not exist in your system?  If
you said your agreement was defined strictly in terms of the Work
point count, so that Kxxx x xxxx AKxx was considered invitational and
Kxxx x xxx AKxxx was not, despite the fact that this seems to defy
bridge logic, I guess you could get away with having your system and
your inferences; I don't think I could really rule against you.

3C would clearly be a convention if it showed a specific singleton.

 
> Michael.
> 
> [1] - sorry, I'm propsmaster for a show in two weeks.  One of the running 
> gags is the new game show for "people too annoying to live", "Live or Die!"  
> The host comes on, and asks the audience whether the character in question 
> should live or die.  It's ok - we can handle each response, each time it 
> comes up.  But I can't get it out of my head.  mdf

Well, we already have a new TV game show for people too annoying to
live.  Unfortunately, instead of deciding whether they should live or
die, we give them a million dollars.

Of course, one could argue that anyone who wins a million dollars
simply for knowing that the Sun is 93 million miles away from the
Earth is _a priori_ too annoying to live regardless of their
personality.  

                                -- Adam


From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 22 07:09:43 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA15009
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 07:09:43 +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 HAA15004
	for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 07:09:35 +1100 (EST)
Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-72.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.72])
	by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA02292
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:50:39 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <007c01bf6448$d1e916c0$4884d9ce@oemcomputer>
From: "Craig Senior" 
To: 
Subject: Re: Claim or Rovoke?
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:50:48 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

How about throw the BL out on his ear and never let him in the club again?

--
Craig

-----Original Message-----
From: Fearghal O'Boyle 
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au 
Date: Friday, January 21, 2000 2:02 PM
Subject: Claim or Rovoke?


>In a top class international IMP event, declarer is in 4H.  Eight tricks
>have been played, declarer has lost two tricks and everyone knows the end
>position.  Declarer calls for a Club from Dummy.  A defender holding a Club
>and two master trumps, attempts to speed things up by showing the two
master
>trumps to his opponent thereby claiming two tricks and conceding three for
>4H minus one.
>
>Declarer however calls the TD insisting that the defender has revoked on
>this ninth trick and has led a trump to the tenth trick thereby
establishing
>the revoke for 4H plus one!
>
>How do you rule?
>
>Best regards,
>Fearghal.
>
>


From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 22 07:46:37 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA15077
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 07:46:37 +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 HAA15072
	for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 07:46:29 +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 UAA34248 for ;
	  Fri, 21 Jan 2000 20:45:50 GMT
Message-ID: <00b901bf6450$89a1b220$cd307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie>
From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" 
To: 
Subject: Re: Claim or Rovoke
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 20:46:03 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Craig answered:
How about throw the BL out on his ear and never let him in the club again?

--
Craig


I agree completely.  What makes this even harder to swallow is that it
happened in the Europeans in Malta and the TD agreed with declarer!

Best regards,
Fearghal.
-----Original Message-----
From: Fearghal O'Boyle 
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au 
Date: Friday, January 21, 2000 2:02 PM
Subject: Claim or Rovoke?


>In a top class international IMP event, declarer is in 4H.  Eight tricks
>have been played, declarer has lost two tricks and everyone knows the end
>position.  Declarer calls for a Club from Dummy.  A defender holding a Club
>and two master trumps, attempts to speed things up by showing the two
master
>trumps to his opponent thereby claiming two tricks and conceding three for
>4H minus one.
>
>Declarer however calls the TD insisting that the defender has revoked on
>this ninth trick and has led a trump to the tenth trick thereby
establishing
>the revoke for 4H plus one!
>
>How do you rule?
>
>Best regards,
>Fearghal.
>
>




From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 22 07:57:17 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA15106
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 07:57:17 +1100 (EST)
Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (root@Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA15101
	for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 07:57:09 +1100 (EST)
From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA
Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.2])
	by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA09004;
	Fri, 21 Jan 2000 15:56:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP
	(1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA210628182; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 15:56:22 -0500
X-Openmail-Hops: 1
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 15:56:06 -0500
Message-Id: 
Subject: RE: Psyche or not?
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, tsvecfob@iol.ie
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 HAA15102
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk


    
   You are third in hand at Pairs, Non-Vul versus Vul holding
   J10432     K642     Q7     93
   You open One Spade.
    
   Is this a Psyche?
    
   Best regards,
   Fearghal.
   [Laval Dubreuil]   
   Cannot be called a psyche (1D or 1 N should be).
   IMHO, surely not a good and winning bid.
    
   But what relation with Laws ? This player decided to
   open 1S and there is no problem as long as his
   partner bid normally, as their system is, without
   secret agreement...
    
   Laval Du Breuil
   Quebec City
    
    
   

From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 22 08:08:56 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA15142
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 08:08:56 +1100 (EST)
Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA15137
	for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 08:08:48 +1100 (EST)
Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by smtp1.san.rr.com
          (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35)
          with ESMTP id com for ;
          Fri, 21 Jan 2000 13:08:38 -0800
Message-ID: <013d01bf6453$a4b43580$16991e18@san.rr.com>
Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" 
From: "Marvin L. French" 
To: 
References:  <3.0.6.32.20000121082135.007b7da0@mail.maine.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Bermuda Bowl -- Appeal 5
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 13:06:01 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Tim Goodwin wrote:

> At 11:53 PM 1/20/00 -0500, Adam Wildavsky wrote:
>
> >2. ... the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favourable result
> that was likely had the irregularity not occurred
>
> >3. Powers of Appeals Committee
> >Unless Zonal Organisations specify otherwise, an appeals committee
> >may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to achieve equity.
> >
> >What is it about 12C3 that makes you think it should not apply here?
> >One of my objections to 12C3, though not my major objection, is that
> >there is no objective way of knowing when it should apply. In
> >particular, neither this Law now any other defines "equity".
>
> It seems to me that "the most favorable result that was likely" and
> "equity" will often be different results.  In the case under discussion,
it
> seems clear to me that it was likely the non-offending side would defend
> accurately against 3NT, indeed the committee assigned a 50% likelihood to
> that result.  That sounds "likely" to me, but maybe it would have had to
be
> 51% to be "likely".

>
For the umpteenth time, I repeat: The "most favorable result that was
likely" may not be a likely result. The ACBL LC guideline is at least 1
chance in 3, which is hardly "likely."

Moreover, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable may be quite
improbable (only 1 chance in 6, per the LC)

Marv (Marvin L. French)






From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 22 08:19:03 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA15173
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 08:19:03 +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 IAA15163
	for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 08:18:54 +1100 (EST)
Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-77.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.77])
	by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA03324;
	Fri, 21 Jan 2000 16:18:27 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <001b01bf6455$14b57fa0$4d84d9ce@oemcomputer>
From: "Craig Senior" 
To: , ,
        
Subject: Re: Psyche or not?
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 16:18:34 -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

If this is NOT a psych, isn't it illegal in the ACBL and certain other
venues that do not permit an opening one bid more than a king below average
strength? But why would it not be a psych if it were a gross and deliberate
violation of partnership agreement? Surely they don't agree to open 6HCP
hands at the one level unless they are playing some complex forcing pass
system with a spade as the fert.

--
Craig


-----Original Message-----
From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA 
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ;
tsvecfob@iol.ie 
Date: Friday, January 21, 2000 4:10 PM
Subject: RE: Psyche or not?


>
>
>   You are third in hand at Pairs, Non-Vul versus Vul holding
>   J10432     K642     Q7     93
>   You open One Spade.
>
>   Is this a Psyche?
>
>   Best regards,
>   Fearghal.
>   [Laval Dubreuil]
>   Cannot be called a psyche (1D or 1 N should be).
>   IMHO, surely not a good and winning bid.
>
>   But what relation with Laws ? This player decided to
>   open 1S and there is no problem as long as his
>   partner bid normally, as their system is, without
>   secret agreement...
>
>   Laval Du Breuil
>   Quebec City
>
>
>


From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 22 08:19:00 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA15169
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 08:19:00 +1100 (EST)
Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA15162
	for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 08:18:52 +1100 (EST)
Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by smtp1.san.rr.com
          (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35)
          with ESMTP id com for ;
          Fri, 21 Jan 2000 13:18:44 -0800
Message-ID: <015401bf6455$0d930580$16991e18@san.rr.com>
Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" 
From: "Marvin L. French" 
To: 
References: <20000121170459.65853.qmail@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Convention?
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 13:13:41 -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 Farebrother wrote:

> I am attempting to add some disruptive bidding to my EHAA structure (ok,
so
> I don't need to.  But I want to try it, and it fits well).
>
> I want to play a third-seat 1NT opener as 8+, "we don't have game".  The
> ACBL allows this, but bans all conventions afterwards

Please quote the applicable regulation for those of us who are not familiar
with it.

Marv (Marvin L. French)






From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 22 08:29:48 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA15221
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 08:29:48 +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 IAA15216
	for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 08:29:40 +1100 (EST)
Received: from c06310 (user-2ivehra.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.71.106])
	by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA28358
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 16:29:30 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000121162654.011ffbf8@pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 16:26:54 -0500
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
From: "Michael S. Dennis" 
Subject: Re: Psyche or not?
In-Reply-To: <00a701bf643f$d37a7b40$cd307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

At 06:46 PM 1/21/00 -0000, Fearghal wrote:
>You are third in hand at Pairs, Non-Vul versus Vul holding
>J10432     K642     Q7     93
>You open One Spade.
>
>Is this a Psyche?

That depends. Is this the normal systemic bid in your partnership? Would
your partner expect and allow for this hand in his follow-up sequences? If
so, then it is not a psyche. However, this may constitute an illegal
agreement in some venues, and almost certainly would require an alert of
some sort in most jurisdictions, I would guess. 

I can say that in my own partnerships, and in any partnership methods with
which I am familiar, an opening 1-bid with a ratty 6-count would certainly
be regarded as psychic.

Mike Dennis

From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 22 08:37:59 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA15245
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 08:37:59 +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 IAA15240
	for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 08:37:51 +1100 (EST)
Received: from karma.isi.com (pixsv124.isi.com [192.73.222.73]) by hopper.isi.com (8.8.4/8.6.10) with ESMTP id NAA20489 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 13:37:13 -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 NAA29074
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 13:32:15 -0800 (PST)
From: "Richard Willey" 
To: 
Subject: RE: Psyche or not?
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 16:39:34 -0800
Message-ID: <001001bf6471$275ab000$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
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <001b01bf6455$14b57fa0$4d84d9ce@oemcomputer>
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

From:	owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
[mailto:owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Craig
Senior
Sent:	Friday, January 21, 2000 1:19 PM
To:	Laval_DUBREUIL@uqss.uquebec.ca; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au;
tsvecfob@iol.ie
Subject:	Re: Psyche or not?

>If this is NOT a psych, isn't it illegal in the ACBL and certain
>other venues that do not permit an opening one bid more than a king
>below average strength? But why would it not be a psych if it were a
>gross and deliberate violation of partnership agreement? Surely they
>don't agree to open 6HCP hands at the one level unless they are
>playing some complex forcing pass system with a spade as the fert.

Funny you should mention this.
Two weeks ago I was playing in the Flight A KO at the Newton
Sectional.

In second seat I was dealt (approximately) and promptly opened 1H

x
KQxx
xx
QTxxxx

While partner and I were not playing a strong pass/Fert base system,
we were using methods based on 1M opening showing extremely light
distributional hands.  At the close of play, the Director was called
and informed that our partnership agreements specifically allowed a
systematic 1H opening on this hand.

The Director just shrugged his shoulders and said to get on with the
game.
Just a reference point for the rest of you.

Richard

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use 

iQA/AwUBOIj8RSGkJ7YU62vZEQLCVACbBRAM5x6JEpWaCoq0VLH+gNLMFqMAoOt4
lVG4kUSJ5YsZKr5hXxO/VxsL
=wm6T
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 22 09:09:05 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA15316
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 09:09:05 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [207.213.113.50])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA15310
	for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 09:08:58 +1100 (EST)
Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4])
	by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA20453;
	Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:08:44 -0800
Message-Id: <200001212208.OAA20453@mailhub.irvine.com>
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
CC: adam@irvine.com
Subject: Re: Claim or Rovoke
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 21 Jan 2000 20:46:03 PST."
             <00b901bf6450$89a1b220$cd307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> 
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:08:45 PST
From: Adam Beneschan 
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk


Fearghal wrote:
 
> Craig answered:
> How about throw the BL out on his ear and never let him in the club again?
> 
> --
> Craig
> 
> 
> I agree completely.  What makes this even harder to swallow is that it
> happened in the Europeans in Malta and the TD agreed with declarer!

How about throw the TD out on his ear and never let him direct again?

                                -- Adam

(who's beginning to think that my first response about making declarer
wear a scarlet W for Weasel was way too lenient)

From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 22 09:21:00 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA15269
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 08:44:49 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [207.213.113.50])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA15264
	for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 08:44:39 +1100 (EST)
Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4])
	by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA20067;
	Fri, 21 Jan 2000 13:44:24 -0800
Message-Id: <200001212144.NAA20067@mailhub.irvine.com>
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
CC: adam@irvine.com
Subject: Re: Claim or Rovoke?
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 21 Jan 2000 18:42:29 PST."
             <00a501bf643f$477db080$cd307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> 
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 13:44:25 PST
From: Adam Beneschan 
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk


Fearghal O'Boyle wrote:
 
> In a top class international IMP event, declarer is in 4H.  Eight tricks
> have been played, declarer has lost two tricks and everyone knows the end
> position.  Declarer calls for a Club from Dummy.  A defender holding a Club
> and two master trumps, attempts to speed things up by showing the two master
> trumps to his opponent thereby claiming two tricks and conceding three for
> 4H minus one.
> 
> Declarer however calls the TD insisting that the defender has revoked on
> this ninth trick and has led a trump to the tenth trick thereby establishing
> the revoke for 4H plus one!
> 
> How do you rule?

I rule that declarer must wear a scarlet W, for Weasel, for the
duration of the event.

Okay, maybe the Laws don't give me this power.  But this seems like
such a cut-and-dried situation that I don't see what the problem is,
and I believe an allegedly top-class declarer who tries to make a
problem out of it is the worst sort of Bridge Lawyer.  You didn't say
whether the cards were held so that defender's partner could have seen
its face; if not, neither trump was even played and therefore no
revoke could have occurred.  But even if it did, it doesn't matter
because Law 68A says a claim has occurred.

If the actual events at the table are enough to make the TD doubt
whether the defender intended to claim or actually intended to play
the heart and lead another one (highly unlikely), obviously we at BLML
who weren't there can't give a ruling.

                                -- Adam


From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 22 10:29:23 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA15260
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 08:40:47 +1100 (EST)
Received: from hotmail.com (f120.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.120])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA15255
	for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 08:40:39 +1100 (EST)
Received: (qmail 91293 invoked by uid 0); 21 Jan 2000 21:39:58 -0000
Message-ID: <20000121213958.91292.qmail@hotmail.com>
Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP;
	Fri, 21 Jan 2000 13:39:58 PST
X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226]
From: "Michael Farebrother" 
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: Convention?
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 21:39:58 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

>From: Adam Beneschan 
>Michael Farebrother wrote:
>
> > I am attempting to add some disruptive bidding to my EHAA
> > structure (ok, so I don't need to.  But I want to try it, and it
> > fits well).
> >
> > I want to play a third-seat 1NT opener as 8+, "we don't have
> > game".  The ACBL allows this, but bans all conventions afterwards
> > (which I don't mind, as we don't need any :-).  But I got to
> > thinking...
> >
> > If dealer responds 3C to this 1NT, he must have an invitational > hand 
>of some sort (as 2C would be natural and to play).
>
>Wait a minute...if the 1NT opener means "we don't have game", then
>what is 3C invitational to?  Invitational to a part-score?
>Invitational to -800?  Invitational to come over to the 3C bidder's
>pad after the event is over?
>
>:) :) OK, OK.  I assume you meant "we probably don't have game" or
>something like that.
>
Also, made me think.  It could be what is systemically played after 1NT 
(10-12, here) - to play, and preemptive.  OTOH, we'd probably have opened 
that 3C (or 2C :-).

>My first thought was that this would not be a convention.  I think
>there are some cases where someone could get around the rules by
>coming up with contorted logic to argue that a certain convention is
>really an inference.  But in this case, the logic is too simple, >since a 
>hand with 10+ HCP would (apparently) have opened 1NT or a >5-card suit if 
>possible.
>
In fact, not to do so would be a psych.  So sayeth the system.

>However, there's a problem with this.  If you can come up with a
>4-4-4-1 hand with 10 HCP that would be considered invitational, then
>surely there would be a 5-4-3-1 hand with 9 HCP and a good enough >suit 
>that would also be considered invitational, but that wouldn't >have been 
>opened?

Not with EHAA - the 5431 hand would be opened 2(5-cd).  A pass will show:

0-5 any (except certain hands with few enough losers to open 3x-4x).
6-9 balanced (no 5-card suit).
10-12 4441.

All other hands systemically *must* be opened.

And yes, unfortunately, this does rest too strongly on Work count - because 
if it is relaxed at all, we fall afoul of the "No conventions, ever" 
regulation of the GCC. (2 bids are 6-12 HCP, 1NT is 10-12, bal).  I don't 
make the rules - I just play in 'em.

>Or do such hands simply not exist in your system?  If
>you said your agreement was defined strictly in terms of the Work
>point count, so that Kxxx x xxxx AKxx was considered invitational and
>Kxxx x xxx AKxxx was not, despite the fact that this seems to defy
>bridge logic, I guess you could get away with having your system and
>your inferences; I don't think I could really rule against you.
>
Well, as I said, Kxxx x xxx AKxxx would have been opened 2C the first time 
(in fact, according to the examples in Eric L.'s book, Kxx xx QJx 86432 
would be opened 2C).  And since the 4441 10-12 comes up so rarely (compared 
to the other things in pass) I would expect the top end of "we don't have 
game" to be 15, maybe a bad 16 or so (we're allowed to use judgement on the 
top end :-).

Sorry - I'm using an unfamiliar system without explanation.  See the EHAA 
introduction on DWS's site:

http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/ehaa_faq.htm .

Michael -- no more bridge beyond this point, watch your feet --

> > [1] - sorry, I'm propsmaster for a show in two weeks.  One of the
> >running gags is the new game show for "people too annoying to
> >live", "Live or Die!"
>
Oh, and for anyone who cares, info for the show is at         
http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~fass/ .

>Well, we already have a new TV game show for people too annoying to
>live.  Unfortunately, instead of deciding whether they should live or
>die, we give them a million dollars.
>
Oh, trust me, that guy's the first one on the block.  Our writers may be 
amateur, but they aren't stupid :-).

>Of course, one could argue that anyone who wins a million dollars
>simply for knowing that the Sun is 93 million miles away from the
>Earth is _a priori_ too annoying to live regardless of their
>personality.
>
I'm not so sure about that.  Anybody who can make $1E6 (US, no less) for 
knowing how far the Sun is from the Earth (and can do the km->mi conversion, 
if necessary) should go ahead and do it.  I'll applaud her.  The person (and 
company behind the person) stupid enough to give her the opportunity, 
however...

(Context for non-ACBL'ers - "new" game show in the States, hosted by someone 
previously known only for being Kathie Lee Gifford's straightman, "Who wants 
to be a Millionaire".  It's "The $64,000 question", updated 30 years by 
snazzy lighting, computer effects, and dumbing down the questions.)
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 22 11:10:44 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA15615
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 11:10:44 +1100 (EST)
Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA15610
	for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 11:10:37 +1100 (EST)
Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by smtp1.san.rr.com
          (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35)
          with ESMTP id com for ;
          Fri, 21 Jan 2000 16:10:25 -0800
Message-ID: <017201bf646d$02de5000$16991e18@san.rr.com>
Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" 
From: "Marvin L. French" 
To: 
References: <20000121170459.65853.qmail@hotmail.com> <015401bf6455$0d930580$16991e18@san.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Convention?
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 16:08:51 -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

Michael is right, of course. My poor eyesight missed the "1NT"  and read the
sentence as "third seat opener."

Sorry, Michael,

Marv (Marvin L. French)



> Michael Farebrother wrote:
>
> > I am attempting to add some disruptive bidding to my EHAA structure (ok,
> so
> > I don't need to.  But I want to try it, and it fits well).
> >
> > I want to play a third-seat 1NT opener as 8+, "we don't have game".  The
> > ACBL allows this, but bans all conventions afterwards
>
> Please quote the applicable regulation for those of us who are not
familiar
> with it.
>
> Marv (Marvin L. French)
>
>
>
>
>


From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 22 11:38:35 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA15654
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 11:38:35 +1100 (EST)
Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA15649
	for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 11:38:28 +1100 (EST)
Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by smtp1.san.rr.com
          (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35)
          with ESMTP id com for ;
          Fri, 21 Jan 2000 16:38:20 -0800
Message-ID: <01b901bf6470$e8fd6aa0$16991e18@san.rr.com>
Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" 
From: "Marvin L. French" 
To: 
References: <001001bf6471$275ab000$1ec1e080@isi.com>
Subject: Re: Psyche or not?
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 16:37:41 -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

From: Richard Willey
\
> Funny you should mention this.
> Two weeks ago I was playing in the Flight A KO at the Newton
> Sectional.
>
> In second seat I was dealt (approximately) and promptly opened 1H
>
> x
> KQxx
> xx
> QTxxxx
>
> While partner and I were not playing a strong pass/Fert base system,
> we were using methods based on 1M opening showing extremely light
> distributional hands.  At the close of play, the Director was called
> and informed that our partnership agreements specifically allowed a
> systematic 1H opening on this hand.
>
> The Director just shrugged his shoulders and said to get on with the
> game.
> Just a reference point for the rest of you.
>
Typical example of TDs not enforcing ACBL regulations. He should have said
that your practice is not allowed in ACBL events. Your agreed minimum must
be at least 8 HCP. I certainly would not object to your playing this system
against me, and in fact I'd be delighted.

Marv (Marvin L. French)













From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 22 12:34:09 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA15803
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 12:34:09 +1100 (EST)
Received: from kallisti.iag.net (mailhub2.iag.net [204.27.210.15])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA15798
	for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 12:34:02 +1100 (EST)
Received: (qmail 7758 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2000 02:36:12 -0000
Received: from pm11-009.wnpk.fl.iag.net (HELO clairenrobert) (207.30.73.9)
  by mailhub2.iag.net with SMTP; 22 Jan 2000 02:36:12 -0000
Message-Id: <3.0.32.20000121203032.006c756c@pop3.iag.net>
X-Sender: clairele@pop3.iag.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 20:30:36 -0500
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
From: Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren 
Subject: Re: Psyche or not?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

At 04:37 PM 1/21/00 -0800, you wrote:
>From: Richard Willey
>\
>> Funny you should mention this.
>> Two weeks ago I was playing in the Flight A KO at the Newton
>> Sectional.
>>
>> In second seat I was dealt (approximately) and promptly opened 1H
>>
>> x
>> KQxx
>> xx
>> QTxxxx
>>
>> While partner and I were not playing a strong pass/Fert base system,
>> we were using methods based on 1M opening showing extremely light
>> distributional hands.  At the close of play, the Director was called
>> and informed that our partnership agreements specifically allowed a
>> systematic 1H opening on this hand.
>>
>> The Director just shrugged his shoulders and said to get on with the
>> game.
>> Just a reference point for the rest of you.
>>
>Typical example of TDs not enforcing ACBL regulations. He should have said
>that your practice is not allowed in ACBL events. Your agreed minimum must
>be at least 8 HCP. I certainly would not object to your playing this system
>against me, and in fact I'd be delighted.
>

Me too, and to be honest i really dont see how 

J
KQ32
32
QT5432

is allowed while 

T
KQT9
T9
QT9876

isnt 

obviously M. Works  evaluation method "works"

Robert

>Marv (Marvin L. French)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 22 12:58:11 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA15842
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 12:58:11 +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 MAA15837
	for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 12:57:59 +1100 (EST)
Received: from alltel.net (cras18p73.navix.net [207.91.7.75])
	by mail.alltel.net (8.9.3/ALLTEL Messaging Service) with ESMTP id TAA22686
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 19:57:49 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <38890EED.43514CB6@alltel.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 19:59:09 -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: bum claim
References: <200001201723.JAA27971@mailhub.irvine.com> <3888471D.B681105B@village.uunet.be>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk



Herman De Wael wrote:

>                 

> . . . . the player indicates that he has counted the
> suit before claiming.  A majority of us rule that it is
> irrational for him not to play the suit correctly.

How did you arrive at a "majority"?  Did you count?  It seemed to me that
there were quite a number of people who were prepared to award a trick to
the defense.

> In the original example, the player has not indicated that
> he has counted the suit.  Yet I believe that the same
> majority would rule in that case that it would be irrational
> for the player not to play the suit correctly, PROVIDED he
> counts the suit in the first place.
> That leaves us with a second question.  Given that we know
> that the player did not count the suit before claiming,
> would we call it irrational or merely careless if he did not
> count the cards before actually playing ?
>
> I believe that it would be irrational for a player not to
> count this suit (nine cards with three top honours - better
> cash a double honour first) before actually playing from it.

                    

Here you're trying to argue that, although we know he didn't count his
cards, it would be irrational for him not to do so, therefore he is entitled
to the rest of the tricks.  Give me a break, Herman.  That's the most absurd
argument I've seen in a long time on blml.  Let's start by ruling on what
actually occurs at the table, and leave the would have, could have, should
have possibilities alone.  As you state, the evidence strongly suggests that
he either did not count the suit, or miscounted the suit.  If a player
believes that he has absolutely no losers in a suit, provided only that he
plays the three top honors first, then it doesn't matter which honor he
starts with, since they are all equal, and it might as well be the king as
any other.

You and I clearly disagree on what constitutes irrational play.  Perhaps
everybody in Belgium has expert status and even sound asleep and dead drunk
to boot could be relied upon to take the safety play from AQTxxx opposite
K9xx, just in case there's a 14th card in the suit.  But in this country, if
a player so loses concentration that he miscounts a critical suit, I'm not
about to give him credit now for automatically waking up in time to play the
suit correctly.  And from the pool of players who believe that they
absolutely have no losers in the suit, I am willing to bet that at least 25%
will start with the king.  One trick for the defense.

Norm Hostetler



From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 22 13:28:17 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA15895
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 13:28:17 +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 NAA15889
	for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 13:28:07 +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 VAA22347
	for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 21:27:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from willner@localhost)
	by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id VAA19842
	for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 21:27:59 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 21:27:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Steve Willner 
Message-Id: <200001220227.VAA19842@cfa183.harvard.edu>
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: bum claim
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

> From: Norman Hostetler 
> the evidence strongly suggests that
> he either did not count the suit, or miscounted the suit.  

What evidence was that?  I don't recall anything of the sort.

Those of us who weren't there can't be sure, of course, but John's
narrative suggests to me that the player carelessly neglected to make a
claim statement.  That would be quite normal for a rubber bridge player,
I think.

The majority opinion seems to be that a claim accompanied by even a
vague statement will be accepted, but if there is no statement at all,
the claim will be viewed in the least favorable light possible.  That
rule is at least unambiguous, but I wonder if it is what the majority
really intend.

Personally, I'd rather decide whether the situation is a flawed claim
or a flawed (or nonexistent) claim statement.  In John's case, the
_claim_ was perfectly sound.  We can _speculate_ that declarer might
have miscounted or otherwise played irrationally had he played on, and
the absence of a claim statement gives no refutation.

From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 22 16:34:36 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA16243
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 16:34:36 +1100 (EST)
Received: from hotmail.com (oe24.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.17])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA16238
	for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 16:34:28 +1100 (EST)
Received: (qmail 96598 invoked by uid 65534); 22 Jan 2000 05:33:50 -0000
Message-ID: <20000122053350.96597.qmail@hotmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [209.206.12.107]
From: "Roger Pewick" 
To: "blml" 
References: <200001220227.VAA19842@cfa183.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: bum claim
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 23:34:18 -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


[soap box]

I do think that the taking of tricks is the life blood of this game.  Any
player that neglects to adequately protect his tricks ought to be, and
rightfully so, subject to the bridge equivalent of physical trauma to a
person as is wounded by a projectile, whether it be in his hairdoo or his
heart.  One must not escape the fact that between the loss of a trick via
carelessness and the loss of blood,  it is the loss of a trick that is  more
tragic  to the bridge player.

[exit soap box]

Roger Pewick
Houston, Texas

----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Willner 
To: 
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: bum claim


> > From: Norman Hostetler 
> > the evidence strongly suggests that
> > he either did not count the suit, or miscounted the suit.
>
> What evidence was that?  I don't recall anything of the sort.
>
> Those of us who weren't there can't be sure, of course, but John's
> narrative suggests to me that the player carelessly neglected to make a
> claim statement.  That would be quite normal for a rubber bridge player,
> I think.
>
> The majority opinion seems to be that a claim accompanied by even a
> vague statement will be accepted, but if there is no statement at all,
> the claim will be viewed in the least favorable light possible.  That
> rule is at least unambiguous, but I wonder if it is what the majority
> really intend.
>
> Personally, I'd rather decide whether the situation is a flawed claim
> or a flawed (or nonexistent) claim statement.  In John's case, the
> _claim_ was perfectly sound.  We can _speculate_ that declarer might
> have miscounted or otherwise played irrationally had he played on, and
> the absence of a claim statement gives no refutation.
>


From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 22 20:03:32 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA16551
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 20:03:32 +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 UAA16546
	for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 20:03:23 +1100 (EST)
Received: from [212.140.100.111] (helo=davidburn)
	by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1)
	id 12BwRq-00054O-00
	for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 09:03:10 +0000
Message-ID: <000f01bf64b7$93ac5240$6f648cd4@davidburn>
From: "David Burn" 
To: 
References: <200001220227.VAA19842@cfa183.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: bum claim
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 09:03:39 -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

Steve Willner wrote:

> The majority opinion seems to be that a claim accompanied by even a
> vague statement will be accepted, but if there is no statement at
all,
> the claim will be viewed in the least favorable light possible.
That
> rule is at least unambiguous, but I wonder if it is what the
majority
> really intend.

I sincerely hope that it is what the majority intend - I have been
arguing for this position for some time. The trouble is that
otherwise, one has to start drawing completely arbitrary lines.
Suppose a player claims, making no statement, in this position:

S: AQ932     S: K654
H: 3         H: A2

Would one give the defenders a trick if South started with SJ1087? In
this position:

S: AQ932     S: J7654
H: 2         H: A

suppose West claims, announcing that he will play South for the king.
Would one give the defenders a trick if South started with SK108? And
so forth. Unless there is a simple principle which covers all
situations, TDs and ACs are always going to have to make subjective
decisions, and will ipso facto get an unacceptable proportion of those
wrong. I forget who it was that said the Laws ought not to contain a
reference to the class of player involved, but he was absolutely
right.

David Burn
London, England



From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 22 22:19:32 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA16912
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 22:19:32 +1100 (EST)
Received: from marge.inter.net.il (marge.inter.net.il [192.116.202.27])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA16906
	for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 22:19:22 +1100 (EST)
Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-3-159.access.net.il [213.8.3.159] (may be forged))
	by marge.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA07720;
	Sat, 22 Jan 2000 13:17:21 +0200 (IST)
Message-ID: <388991E7.64F64471@zahav.net.il>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 13:17:59 +0200
From: Dany Haimovici 
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en-US,fr,Hebrew,en,ro,ru
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sergey Kapustin 
CC: BLML 
Subject: Re: A small one
References: <010d01bf6418$190f77a0$a8047bc3@svk.int.kiev.ua>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Well  ...life is more interesting and spectacular even than Krilov's
fables..
I read Krilov and La Fontaine and Esop ... I believe all of them learnt 
from the popular traditions and cleverness , in spite of the fact 
that none of them played bridge -> as much as we know it today.

>From my experience as player and TD I can tell you all that there are
more unbelievable situations : the question is who is the TD and who
are the players (or .......jungle beings..) involved. Without quoting
exactly the case - to avoid bad feelings from the (?  jungle beings .?)
there was a happening , at a National contest , when a ridiculous 
joke - definition of a card - ended at the police station .......

Don't care , I wasn't the TD there , but the 2 of the 3 involved <.....>
were not able to overcome that until these days . In order
to find a right way to get out from such situations , I suggest the TD
to learn how the representatives of many countries reacted when 
Mr. Hrushtchev knocked with his shoe on the UN desk.......  As a friend
told me , many of them felt the chemical effect too, almost suffocated ;
maybe their behavior was better than most of bridge players , otherwise
we could resume back to La Fontaine :"...Maitre Renard , par l'odeur
alleche..." would open the world war five ...(worst than fourth)

Have a nice week-end , and let the writers use their true life 
imagination.

Dany




Sergey Kapustin wrote:
> 
> Herman DE WAEL wrote:
> 
> >This was not a ruling, I was kibitzing the table (Yes I
> >know, a TD should not do so, but I am allowed my bit of fun
> >as well, especially when I'm not being paid !)
> >
> >Declarer is in 6 Spades, after a long, convoluted and too
> >high an auction.
> >
> >The lead is a small diamond, and dummy puts down AKQxxx in
> >that suit.
> >
> >It is clear to everyone that the contract is far too high.
> >
> >"There is a chance" says a kibitzer (another one, not me, of
> >course).
> >
> >"A small one" says declarer.
> >
> >As dummy goes for the small diamond, declarer is quick
> >enough to say that he meant a small chance.
> >Everyone agrees that this is indeed the case.
> >
> >But suppose they still ask for a ruling ?
> >
> >Law references, please.
> >
> >In case you are wondering, declarer has the nine of diamonds
> >singleton and there are far too many losers for him to try
> >something on this first round of play.
> >Next declarer had not yet played.
> >
> >Post-mortem : the contract went two down anyway, although he
> >might have gone for just one down.
> >There was in fact a (very small) chance, something like
> >exactly KJx in one hand and some other finesses.
> >
> >--
> >Herman DE WAEL
> 
> Few years ago I have read an article (don't remember were and when)
> absolutely like Herman's case.
> In that story Dummy asked Declarer "Cup of coffee?" and Declarer answered "A
> small, please".
> In that story TD ruled L46B (except when declarer’s different intention is
> incontrovertible).
> 
> Let us suppose the stories had continues: defender was quick enough to play
> his card.
> What about defender's card? Is it penalty?
> 
> Law 50
>          A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender
> is a
>          penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise. The Director
> shall
>         award an adjusted score, in lieu of the rectifications below,
>         when he deems that Law 72B1 applies.
> 
> In our cases IMO TD "designates otherwise."
> 
> What about UI and AI for defender's partner and for declarer?
> 
> Sergey Kapustin

From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 22 22:30:51 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA16960
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 22:30:51 +1100 (EST)
Received: from marge.inter.net.il (marge.inter.net.il [192.116.202.27])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA16955
	for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 22:30:42 +1100 (EST)
Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-3-159.access.net.il [213.8.3.159] (may be forged))
	by marge.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA11591;
	Sat, 22 Jan 2000 13:30:22 +0200 (IST)
Message-ID: <388994F5.3D7CF8D7@zahav.net.il>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 13:31:01 +0200
From: Dany Haimovici 
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en-US,fr,Hebrew,en,ro,ru
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Fearghal O'Boyle" 
CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: Claim or Rovoke
References: <00b901bf6450$89a1b220$cd307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Please Fearghal , will you be so kind to tell us who were the
involved  <......>   the  TD   and the player . I promise that 
Adam's pray will be fulfilled and even more.

Thanks a priori
Dany


Fearghal O'Boyle wrote:
> 
> Craig answered:
> How about throw the BL out on his ear and never let him in the club again?
> 
> --
> Craig
> 
> I agree completely.  What makes this even harder to swallow is that it
> happened in the Europeans in Malta and the TD agreed with declarer!
> 
> Best regards,
> Fearghal.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fearghal O'Boyle 
> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au 
> Date: Friday, January 21, 2000 2:02 PM
> Subject: Claim or Rovoke?
> 
> >In a top class international IMP event, declarer is in 4H.  Eight tricks
> >have been played, declarer has lost two tricks and everyone knows the end
> >position.  Declarer calls for a Club from Dummy.  A defender holding a Club
> >and two master trumps, attempts to speed things up by showing the two
> master
> >trumps to his opponent thereby claiming two tricks and conceding three for
> >4H minus one.
> >
> >Declarer however calls the TD insisting that the defender has revoked on
> >this ninth trick and has led a trump to the tenth trick thereby
> establishing
> >the revoke for 4H plus one!
> >
> >How do you rule?
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Fearghal.
> >
> >

From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 22 22:42:15 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA17007
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 22:42:15 +1100 (EST)
Received: from loger.inter.net.il (loger.inter.net.il [192.116.202.32])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA17002
	for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 22:42:05 +1100 (EST)
Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-3-159.access.net.il [213.8.3.159] (may be forged))
	by loger.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA23123;
	Sat, 22 Jan 2000 13:38:23 +0200 (IST)
Message-ID: <388996EA.1CE8E3EC@zahav.net.il>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 13:39:23 +0200
From: Dany Haimovici 
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en-US,fr,Hebrew,en,ro,ru
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Fearghal O'Boyle" 
CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: Psyche or not?
References: <00a701bf643f$d37a7b40$cd307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

I am not sure I understand the question : do you ask if - considering
good bridge players - the bidder has some psychiatric problems or
if the "action" is considered psyche by the Bridge Laws...??

Dany

Fearghal O'Boyle wrote:
> 
> You are third in hand at Pairs, Non-Vul versus Vul holding
> J10432     K642     Q7     93
> You open One Spade.
> 
> Is this a Psyche?
> 
> Best regards,
> Fearghal.

From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 23 00:20:29 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA17273
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 00:20:29 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail1.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.192])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA17268
	for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 00:20:20 +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 NAA29936;
	  Sat, 22 Jan 2000 13:13:09 GMT
Message-ID: <004901bf64da$79b7ccc0$cd307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie>
From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" 
To: "Dany Haimovici" 
Cc: 
Subject: Re: Claim or Rovoke
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 13:13:16 -0000
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Hi Dany

At the table, the players felt aggrieved but didn't appeal the decision
feeling it was tehnically correct.
The defender showed his two master trumps to everyone.  I just raised the
matter out of general curiosity and do not wish to dig up old skeletons.

For discussion purposes I offered an over-simplified one-sided version of
the incident.  As one correspondent has already pointed out it may not have
been 100% clear to the TD that the defender was not revoking.

Best regards,
Fearghal

-----Original Message-----
From: Dany Haimovici 
To: Fearghal O'Boyle 
Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au 
Date: 22 January 2000 11:46
Subject: Re: Claim or Rovoke


>Please Fearghal , will you be so kind to tell us who were the
>involved  <......>   the  TD   and the player . I promise that
>Adam's pray will be fulfilled and even more.
>
>Thanks a priori
>Dany
>
>
>Fearghal O'Boyle wrote:
>>
>> Craig answered:
>> How about throw the BL out on his ear and never let him in the club
again?
>>
>> --
>> Craig
>>
>> I agree completely.  What makes this even harder to swallow is that it
>> happened in the Europeans in Malta and the TD agreed with declarer!
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Fearghal.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Fearghal O'Boyle 
>> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au 
>> Date: Friday, January 21, 2000 2:02 PM
>> Subject: Claim or Rovoke?
>>
>> >In a top class international IMP event, declarer is in 4H.  Eight tricks
>> >have been played, declarer has lost two tricks and everyone knows the
end
>> >position.  Declarer calls for a Club from Dummy.  A defender holding a
Club
>> >and two master trumps, attempts to speed things up by showing the two
>> master
>> >trumps to his opponent thereby claiming two tricks and conceding three
for
>> >4H minus one.
>> >
>> >Declarer however calls the TD insisting that the defender has revoked on
>> >this ninth trick and has led a trump to the tenth trick thereby
>> establishing
>> >the revoke for 4H plus one!
>> >
>> >How do you rule?
>> >
>> >Best regards,
>> >Fearghal.
>> >
>> >
>
>


From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 23 01:15:59 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA17521
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 01:15:59 +1100 (EST)
Received: from smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (smtp7.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.128.51])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA17516
	for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 01:15:50 +1100 (EST)
Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-33qti42.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.200.130])
	by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA11571;
	Sat, 22 Jan 2000 09:15:09 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000122142612.007153d4@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: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 06:26:12 -0800
To: "Marvin L. French" 
From: Henry Sun 
Subject: Re: Psyche or not?
Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

At 04:37 PM 1/21/00 -0800, you wrote:

>Typical example of TDs not enforcing ACBL regulations. He should have said
>that your practice is not allowed in ACBL events. Your agreed minimum must
>be at least 8 HCP. I certainly would not object to your playing this system
>against me, and in fact I'd be delighted.
>
>Marv (Marvin L. French)
>
having helped richard, in some small way, put together his system, i raise
this question:

his systemic agreement IS that a 1M opening bid shows hands in the (roughly)
8-11 hcps range.  that he evaluated x; kqxx; xx;;qtxxxx as being an 8 hcp
hand is a matter of evaluation.

so i'd guess, in the absence of knowledge - and it is so much easier to guess
from a place of ignorance - that opening that specific 7 point hand is not
a violation of acbl regulation because the partnership agreement is 8.

i admit that this might be another case of 8 hcps means 8 hcps, just as a
10-12 1nt opener can, for all intents and purposes, never be opened on 9
hcps.

henry sun


From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 23 01:36:48 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA17621
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 01:36:48 +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 BAA17616
	for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 01:36:38 +1100 (EST)
Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-33qti42.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.200.130])
	by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA06142;
	Sat, 22 Jan 2000 09:36:23 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000122144726.00736ddc@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: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 06:47:26 -0800
To: "Marvin L. French" 
From: Henry Sun 
Subject: Re: Redress for N/S?
Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

i don't normally like to revive dead threads, but...

in a private conversation i had with marv, i referenced the bridge world
discussion of improper questions.  i have by chance located the issue in
question (march 1982), which reads, in part:

"When the Committee judges that North's question [during the auction]
may have given information to SOuth, and that the action taken by
South could have been suggested by the qeustion, they should certainly
disallow any action that was highly unnatural, and certainly allow
any virtually automatic one....  A Committee should apply the '75%
Rule,' disallowing a merely reasonable choice, when North did something
wrong.

For example, suppose the auction goes:

West   North   East   South
--     --      2h*    p
2s     p       3c     p
3h     p       p      3s

*weak

As we will see, North has asked a question along the way....

Case One: When West responded 2s, North asked East, 'What does that
mean?'  'It's forcing,' East replied.  'Does it show spades?'  'Yes,
in theory, but it's forcing so he could have anything.'  Well, North
showed a lot of interest in the two-sapde bid - may South bid 3s 
later?...  The three-spade bid on hand (b) [kqt975; 72; qj8; 93] is
'reasonable' - and here it should be allowed, even though north's
question made it more attractive, since North did nothing wrong.

Case Two: After West's two-spade bid, North asked 'What does that
mean?' East replied, 'It's natural, showing spades in theory, but
it's forcing so he could have anything.'  North continued, 'Are you
allowed to raise spades?' 'Yes, but not to game.'  'Could two
spades be psychic, short spades with a heart fit?' 'Sure, it could
be anything - it's forcing.'  Well, here North has stepped over
the line: he asked for a full explanation, got one, and then continued
with unneccessary and suggestive questions, violating correct
procedure.  South may still profit from his 'nearly qutomatic' three-
spade bid on hand (a) [qjt9863; 85; a2; 64].  However, if his
'reasonable' 3s bid on (b) turns out right the score should be
adjusted....  The '75% rule' is in effect.'

This raises two questions:

as to the situation in question, I would consider a balancing double
by west [recall that his hand was xxxx; x; aqx; axxxx] to be virtually
automatic.  if this evaluation is correct, and if the bridge world's
position is correct, then no grounds for an adjusted score would
exist.  is this correct?

more generally, the appeals committee series from which this snippet
was taken was written in the early 1980s, before the updating of the
laws in 1987 and 1997.  can that series still be relied upon for a
currently accurate interpretation of the laws?

thanks,

henry


From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 23 01:42:16 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA17646
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 01:42:16 +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 BAA17641
	for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 01:42:08 +1100 (EST)
Received: from karma.isi.com (pixsv140.isi.com [192.73.222.89]) by hopper.isi.com (8.8.4/8.6.10) with ESMTP id GAA00452 for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 06:41:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rwilleypc (csdial3 [192.103.52.194])
	by karma.isi.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3/Mailout 991117 TroyC) with SMTP id GAA02460
	for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 06:36:31 -0800 (PST)
From: "Richard Willey" 
To: 
Subject: RE: Psyche or not?
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 09:43:51 -0800
Message-ID: <000201bf6500$3e86f2e0$c23467c0@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
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.20000122142612.007153d4@mindspring.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Importance: Normal
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


- -----Original Message-----
From:	owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
[mailto:owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Henry Sun
Sent:	Saturday, January 22, 2000 6:26 AM
To:	Marvin L. French
Cc:	bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Subject:	Re: Psyche or not?

At 04:37 PM 1/21/00 -0800, you wrote:

>>Typical example of TDs not enforcing ACBL regulations. He should
>>have said that your practice is not allowed in ACBL events. Your
>>agreed minimum must be at least 8 HCP. I certainly would not object
>>to your playing this system against me, and in fact I'd be
>>delighted.
>>
>>Marv (Marvin L. French)
>>
>having helped richard, in some small way, put together his system, i
>raise this question:
>
>his systemic agreement IS that a 1M opening bid shows hands in the
>(roughly) 8-11 hcps range.  that he evaluated x; kqxx; xx;;qtxxxx as
>being an 8 hcp hand is a matter of evaluation.
>
>so i'd guess, in the absence of knowledge - and it is so much easier
>to guess from a place of ignorance - that opening that specific 7
>point hand is not a violation of acbl regulation because the
>partnership agreement is 8.  
>
>i admit that this might be another case of 8 hcps means 8 hcps, just
>as a 10-12 1nt opener can, for all intents and purposes, never be
>opened on 9 hcps.

It was for just these reasons that I made the opening bid.
My partner in the event and I are off the opinion that the ACBL
regulation in question is severely flawed.
In the first place, it is highly questionable whether or not "A King
Less than Average Strength" is equivalent to "Less than 8 HCP".
Furthermore, it is completely unclear how the ACBL notion of a
deviation interacts with the 8 HCP limit on opening bids.

I deliberately made the opening, cognizant of the fact that the ACBL
does not allow the bid.  At the close of the hand, I informed the
opponents of what I had done, and they were kind enough to have
called the Director on me.

My goal was to be ruled against by the Director and then to use this
as a vehicle to challenge the regulation.
Oh well, maybe some other time.

RIchard

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use 

iQA/AwUBOInsVSGkJ7YU62vZEQKyRQCg+xXjs7Yz4jok+lpP5EKMZ7IQvjkAn0/g
zS/A84AobzmQneroqEsAKEH2
=ZKnO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 23 02:01:51 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA17562
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 01:21:46 +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 BAA17555
	for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 01:21:33 +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 OAA35344 for ;
	  Sat, 22 Jan 2000 14:20:53 GMT
Message-ID: <016101bf64e3$eb3c13c0$cd307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie>
From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" 
To: 
Subject: Re: bum claim
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 14:21:02 -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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

> >"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote:
> >
> >> an easy one I think, in DWS's absence
> >>
> >>         Jxxx
> >>
> >> AQTxx        K9xx      claim by W (rest of hand trumps)
> >>
> >>         -
> >>
> >> careless or irrational?
>
> Stupid/lazy (OK, careless if you prefer it)
>
> >>
> >> club game, mps, competent mid-stake rubber bridge player
> >>
> >> I ruled 1 trick to the opponents, anyone disagree?



We take the class of player into account.
For most club players it would be careless to start with the King but it
would not be not irrational.
Hence 1 trick to the opponents.

Best regards,
Fearghal.



From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 23 04:22:15 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA18321
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 04:22:15 +1100 (EST)
Received: from ns2.san.rr.com (ns2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.3])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA18316
	for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 04:22:07 +1100 (EST)
Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com
          (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35)
          with ESMTP id com for ;
          Sat, 22 Jan 2000 09:21:58 -0800
Message-ID: <001901bf64fd$2fb110a0$16991e18@san.rr.com>
Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" 
From: "Marvin L. French" 
To: 
References: <3.0.32.20000121203032.006c756c@pop3.iag.net>
Subject: Re: Psyche or not?
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 09:21:53 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Bad day for me, I can't even count points. I should have stood in bed. I
didn't see that d*** jack of spades when commenting previously..

This shows how ridiculous the ACBL regulation is, but according to some a
simple rule must occasionally look ridiculous, like a two-trick revoke
penalty for a revoke that actually did no damage.

Marv

>
> J
> KQ32
> 32
> QT5432
>
> is allowed while
>
> T
> KQT9
> T9
> QT9876
>
> isnt
>
> obviously M. Works  evaluation method "works"
>
> Robert
>



From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 23 05:36:09 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA18498
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 05:36:09 +1100 (EST)
Received: from ns2.san.rr.com (ns2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.3])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA18493
	for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 05:36:02 +1100 (EST)
Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com
          (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35)
          with ESMTP id com for ;
          Sat, 22 Jan 2000 10:35:55 -0800
Message-ID: <004b01bf6507$842ecfa0$16991e18@san.rr.com>
Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" 
From: "Marvin L. French" 
To: 
References: <00a701bf643f$d37a7b40$cd307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> <388996EA.1CE8E3EC@zahav.net.il>
Subject: Re: Psyche or not?
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 10:35:49 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk


From: Dany Haimovici

> I am not sure I understand the question : do you ask if - considering
> good bridge players - the bidder has some psychiatric problems or
> if the "action" is considered psyche by the Bridge Laws...??
>
> Dany
>
> Fearghal O'Boyle wrote:
> >
> > You are third in hand at Pairs, Non-Vul versus Vul holding
> > J10432     K642     Q7     93
> > You open One Spade.
> >
> > Is this a Psyche?
> >
No, but it may be a psychic bid.

A Psyche (two syllables in my dictionary) is the reincarnation of a famous
Greek lady, or perhaps a statue of her. The word Psyche, or psyche, does not
occur in the Laws, which refer to psychic calls, or psychic bids, which
suggest the short form "psych," without an e.

Marv (Marvin L. French)












From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 23 06:25:53 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA18564
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 06:25:53 +1100 (EST)
Received: from marge.inter.net.il (marge.inter.net.il [192.116.202.27])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA18559
	for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 06:25:43 +1100 (EST)
Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-7-132.access.net.il [213.8.7.132] (may be forged))
	by marge.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA12993;
	Sat, 22 Jan 2000 21:25:25 +0200 (IST)
Message-ID: <388A044A.561779AC@zahav.net.il>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 21:26:02 +0200
From: Dany Haimovici 
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en-US,fr,Hebrew,en,ro,ru
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Fearghal O'Boyle" 
CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: Claim or Rovoke
References: <004901bf64da$79b7ccc0$cd307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

I respect your "preference" not to dig in the Malta decisions'
wardrobe , but it should say a lot about the TD - "hir" knowledge or 
"hir" spiritual mood...(hir= He or She) . Anyway it isn't fair to
write any opinion without knowing all the details.

Dany

P.S.  I hope it wasn't a Maradonalike problem........


Fearghal O'Boyle wrote:
> 
> Hi Dany
> 
> At the table, the players felt aggrieved but didn't appeal the decision
> feeling it was tehnically correct.
> The defender showed his two master trumps to everyone.  I just raised the
> matter out of general curiosity and do not wish to dig up old skeletons.
> 
> For discussion purposes I offered an over-simplified one-sided version of
> the incident.  As one correspondent has already pointed out it may not have
> been 100% clear to the TD that the defender was not revoking.
> 
> Best regards,
> Fearghal
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dany Haimovici 
> To: Fearghal O'Boyle 
> Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au 
> Date: 22 January 2000 11:46
> Subject: Re: Claim or Rovoke
> 
> >Please Fearghal , will you be so kind to tell us who were the
> >involved  <......>   the  TD   and the player . I promise that
> >Adam's pray will be fulfilled and even more.
> >
> >Thanks a priori
> >Dany
> >
> >
> >Fearghal O'Boyle wrote:
> >>
> >> Craig answered:
> >> How about throw the BL out on his ear and never let him in the club
> again?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Craig
> >>
> >> I agree completely.  What makes this even harder to swallow is that it
> >> happened in the Europeans in Malta and the TD agreed with declarer!
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Fearghal.
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Fearghal O'Boyle 
> >> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au 
> >> Date: Friday, January 21, 2000 2:02 PM
> >> Subject: Claim or Rovoke?
> >>
> >> >In a top class international IMP event, declarer is in 4H.  Eight tricks
> >> >have been played, declarer has lost two tricks and everyone knows the
> end
> >> >position.  Declarer calls for a Club from Dummy.  A defender holding a
> Club
> >> >and two master trumps, attempts to speed things up by showing the two
> >> master
> >> >trumps to his opponent thereby claiming two tricks and conceding three
> for
> >> >4H minus one.
> >> >
> >> >Declarer however calls the TD insisting that the defender has revoked on
> >> >this ninth trick and has led a trump to the tenth trick thereby
> >> establishing
> >> >the revoke for 4H plus one!
> >> >
> >> >How do you rule?
> >> >
> >> >Best regards,
> >> >Fearghal.
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >

From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 23 11:20:53 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA19042
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 11:20:53 +1100 (EST)
Received: from hotmail.com (f93.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.93])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA19037
	for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 11:20:46 +1100 (EST)
Received: (qmail 33290 invoked by uid 0); 23 Jan 2000 00:20:08 -0000
Message-ID: <20000123002008.33289.qmail@hotmail.com>
Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP;
	Sat, 22 Jan 2000 16:20:08 PST
X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226]
From: "Michael Farebrother" 
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: Convention?
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 00:20:08 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

>From: "Marvin L. French" 

>Michael is right, of course. My poor eyesight missed the "1NT"  and read 
>the
>sentence as "third seat opener."
>
>Sorry, Michael,
>
No problem, of course.  I have misread my share of messages before now, and 
will do so again.

Michael.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 23 18:00:03 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA19662
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 18:00:03 +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 RAA19657
	for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 17:59:55 +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 12CGzx-00010W-00; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 07:59:45 +0100
Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de
	(1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA099250784; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 07:59:44 +0100
Subject: Re: Claim or Rovoke?
In-Reply-To: <00a501bf643f$477db080$cd307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> from "Fearghal
 O'Boyle" at "Jan 21, 2000 06:42:29 pm"
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 07:59:44 +0100 (CET)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)]
Message-Id: 
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

>In a top class international IMP event, declarer is in 4H.  Eight tricks
>have been played, declarer has lost two tricks and everyone knows the end
>position.  Declarer calls for a Club from Dummy.  A defender holding a Club
>and two master trumps, attempts to speed things up by showing the two master
>trumps to his opponent thereby claiming two tricks and conceding three for
>4H minus one.
>
>Declarer however calls the TD insisting that the defender has revoked on
>this ninth trick and has led a trump to the tenth trick thereby establishing
>the revoke for 4H plus one!
>
>How do you rule?

I rule that defender's two high trumps are 
major penalty cards *heehee*. Score adjusted
to 4H-1 :-))). I furthermore fine
the bridge lawyer for violation of 74A1 and
74A2 and apply law 91 :-))).



Thomas



From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 23 20:12:34 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA19777
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 20:12:34 +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 UAA19772
	for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 20:12:27 +1100 (EST)
Received: from unid.rz.uniduesseldorf.de (actually Isis104.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de) 
          by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (local, PP);
          Sun, 23 Jan 2000 10:11:47 +0100
Message-ID: <00cf01bf6582$0d1e32e0$688a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.de>
From: Richard Bley 
To: "Fearghal O'Boyle" ,
        bridge-laws 
References: <00b901bf6450$89a1b220$cd307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie>
Subject: Re: Claim or Rovoke
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 10:13:01 +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: Fearghal O'Boyle 
To: bridge-laws 
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: Claim or Rovoke


> Craig answered:
> How about throw the BL out on his ear and never let him in the club again?
>
> --
> Craig
>
>
> I agree completely.  What makes this even harder to swallow is that it
> happened in the Europeans in Malta and the TD agreed with declarer!
>
One of the most difficult task in such events as Bermuda, Venice, World
Championships and so on seems to me that you are not getting "overargued" by
some guys which everybody knows. They try to get the best of it with nearly
every legal tool they can approach.
Beware of the wolves!!

(of course the decision is incredible, even when TD wasnt sure what happened
(revoke and play or just claiming).

Richard


From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 24 09:09:34 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21502
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 09:09:34 +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 JAA21497
	for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 09:09:25 +1100 (EST)
From: Schoderb@aol.com
Received: from Schoderb@aol.com
	by imo23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id p.a7.1322a56 (4198)
	 for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 17:08:42 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: 
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 17:08:42 EST
Subject: Law 12C3
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Having read the BLML postings on this subject I am again amazed at the 
pervasive lack of facts, understanding, and knowledge of the Laws and the 
intent of the Code of Practice.  Comments such as "Schoder wants to take over 
the world" "It is illegal," etc., are so far off base that they don't deserve 
answer. Reading the Code with care would seem to me to be a prerequisite to 
finding fault with it's provisions.
However, I think those thinking individuals (as opposed to those knee jerk 
responses of some self styled savants of this BLML) might wish to hear my 
thoughts and clarifications. If any of this offends you, please use the 
delete key forthwith.

I have no desire to take over the world, nor does the WBFLC (in my opinion) 
wish to do something illegal, wrong, or fattening.  The Law provides for 
appeals to Directors' rulings.  It does not, as has become the damaging and 
misleading custom in selected NCBOs, apply to appeals to what happened at the 
table WITHOUT A RULING TO APPEAL. I'm tired of arriving at a table and being 
greeted with "I appeal this result....I appeal their actions....etc." without 
having yet made a ruling!  I and many of my colleagues, are fully aware that 
poor TD rulings over many years has caused disintegration to a great degree. 
Bad rulings, thoughtless actions, knee jerk ruling "in favor of the 
non-offending side," etc., have resulted in that we are often faced with no 
trust, confidence, or respect from the players. We have brought it upon 
ourselves, but it doesn't have to stay that way. The Law provides for appeals 
to TD rulings (Law 92A). When I hear the word "appeal" before opening my 
mouth I also know that the players are really asking that peers of theirs 
review what has happened.  The Code of Practice for Appeals Committees places 
great responsibility upon TDs to make good rulings. In Bermuda we 
accomplished this by consultation. 

What is overlooked in many of the BLML postings is that these rulings are now 
made AT WBF LEVEL BY APPROPRIATE CONSULTATION WITH EXPERTS in Laws, bidding, 
play, etc., before the ruling is presented to the players.  In order to 
provide an AC with an appealed ruling, sensibly arrived at, contested by the 
appellants, we take our time, arrive at consensus, and rule as best we are 
able to.  This, in  extremely rare instances, requires that we have access to 
all necessary tools including 12C3 to do the job correctly.  Conscientious, 
trained and skilled TDs together with expert consultants, can make good 
rulings that are accepted by the players.  The 4 (or was it 5?) TOTAL appeals 
in the entire Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup from the first hand of the round 
robins to the last hand of the Finals makes it clear that those players were 
a lot happier with TD performance than had ever been the case before. This 
ratio of rulings made to rulings appealed has never happened before in my 
almost 30 years with the WBF!   There were at from 4 to 6 bridge judgement 
rulings in each session of  20 or 16 boards in these prestigious events.  
When only 4 were contested, and there were less than 10 for the entire 
tournament including the Transnational Teams , we must be on the right track.
The Code requirement to the AC  to start from a presumption that the TD 
ruling is correct directly stems from the facts that: 
1.  It is the ruling being appealed, not the situation.
 2. The players have had a review which included evaluation and testimony by 
experts. 
and 3. The Law has been applied, as it was written and intended and not as it 
has been bastardized by passing the buck directly to ACs.
Those of you who read the Law that says in 93B what to do WHEN THERE IS AN 
APPEALS COMMITTEE AVAILABLE , need to unmuddy your thinking by realizing that 
Law 92 applies before 93 kicks in. 
TD education, better rulings throught this method, and getting back on track 
to apply the Laws is sadly in need of much work.  The morass in which some 
NCBOs find themselves vis-a-vis appeals is, to me, to a great degree 
self-inflicted.  Concern by TDs to do a better job is of much greater 
importance than the arcane efforts to find where the WBFLC, in its full 
authority by WBF ByLaws, found that extending 12C3 on a trial basis to 
include the CTD is illegal.
Please also bear in mind that at least in Bermuda we were keenly aware that 
12C3 is not a free standing provision of Law 12, but a step available to take 
AFTER 12C1 and 12C2 are applied and found lacking in equity. It is very 
rarely applicable.

The AC did change some rulings when they and the appellants were not in 
agreement, but mostly because we, the TDs, had not gotten the facts fully 
correct before making the rulings, or our colsultations were lacking in 
accuracy.  That is our failing, not the system's, and will be rectified as we 
refine our procedures.  The thinking that TDs should be parrots of the 
"recipe" Laws of the book, and pass the "judgement" Laws to an AC directly 
without Ruling as correctly as they are able to is wrong.  If you can't do 
this job right, go sell shoes.

I would welcome comments, suggestions and help to improve our attempts at 
improvement, either on BLML or directly. I am reluctant to give much time to 
telling me how wrong the WBFLC is when I look around the membership of that 
committee, the backgrounds of its members, the minutes of the meetings, and 
the advice of legal counsels.

Kojak

From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 24 12:27:22 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA21937
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 12:27:22 +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 MAA21932
	for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 12:27:12 +1100 (EST)
Received: from [129.1.165.180] (dhcp165-180.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.180])
	by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA06489
	for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 20:26:59 -0500 (EST)
X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 20:25:34 -0500
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
From: "David J. Grabiner" 
Subject: Is it ethical to negate a penalty?
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk


In the January 18 World Championship bulletin, there is an article praising
the sportsmanship of a player who could have made his contract by
exploiting a penalty card (a defender had corrected a revoke), but chose
not to do so.

When is this allowed and ethical?

What declarer did was not waiving the penalty, but it had the same effect;
he deliberately played to make one fewer trick than he could have made
under the rules.  L72A3 says that a player may not waive a penalty on his
own initiative "in duplicate tournaments", but may ask the Director to do
so, which the Director will do for cause.

What does "in duplicate tournaments" mean here?  Elsewhere in the Laws, it
is usually interpreted to exclude clubs.  Here, I could see it as allowing
a player to waive a penalty in a knockout because there is no field to
protect; however, the play in question occurred in the round-robin of the
Bermuda Bowl.

And "for cause" is not clarified.  I have assumed that the Director should
only waive a penalty if a non-offender or non-player is partly responsible
for the infraction.



From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 24 13:02:08 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA22006
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 13:00:11 +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 MAA21986
	for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 12:59:58 +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 12CYn9-000EeL-0C
	for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 01:59:44 +0000
Message-ID: <83F+BdAvr6i4EwMP@probst.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 01:29:19 +0000
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
From: "John (MadDog) Probst" 
Reply-To: "John Probst" 
Subject: Re: bum claim
In-Reply-To: <3885A6BA.2D83C8DD@village.uunet.be>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a 
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

In article <3885A6BA.2D83C8DD@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael
 writes
>If one is in 3 in stead of 7, it also shows nothing. 

And I'd award 6, if a trick could be lost by a careless but not
irrational play.
>
>Through the comment of partner ("sloppy, serves you right")
>I deduce that at the Acol too, the claim shows that declarer
>forgot the safety play.

Declarer knew the safety play, he forgot to mention it. - but as he said
later "It's true I might have miscounted the suit"
>
>But we should not draw a general conclusion from this and
>always rule against a declarer who says nothing about a suit
>divided AQ9xx - K10xx.
>
I must admit I hadn't expected us to have a gzillion posting thread on
this one.  Perhaps I should post "An easy one" more often.

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 Jan 24 13:18:12 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA22052
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 13:18:12 +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 NAA22047
	for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 13:18:04 +1100 (EST)
Received: from alltel.net (cras18p77.navix.net [207.91.7.79])
	by mail.alltel.net (8.9.3/ALLTEL Messaging Service) with ESMTP id UAA12633
	for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 20:17:54 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <388BB69C.D3CF903C@alltel.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 20:19:09 -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@octavia.anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: bum claim
References: <200001220227.VAA19842@cfa183.harvard.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk



Steve Willner wrote:

> > From: Norman Hostetler 
> > the evidence strongly suggests that
> > he either did not count the suit, or miscounted the suit.
>
> What evidence was that?  I don't recall anything of the sort.

                            

There are two pieces of evidence.  One is implied by the careless claim and
the other by the comments of the other players.  In my experience, when a
declarer makes no statement about the order of card play in a suit where he
can be defeated on an unlikely but possible lie of the cards, he has not
thought about this possibility.  There are two primary reasons (at less than
expert levels) for this thoughtlessness: 1) He did not count or miscounted
the suit and believes that he cannot be defeated on any line of play,
provided that he plays his three top honors first, or 2) He did not think
enough about the suit to consider the play implications of a 4-0 split,
which occurs often enough that anybody should take it into account.  The
first explanation is the one which is almost always offered as an excuse.
It is similar to making a claim without a statement when a small trump is
still outstanding.  The second piece of evidence stems from the the
implications of the opponent's action in calling the director and the remark
"serves you right" from declarer's partner.  Clearly, neither of these
players thought declarer's ability so good that he should be granted the
correct line of play automatically.  I have trouble believing that a player
thus known to make careless errors has here taken the 4-0 break into account
and thought the correct line of play so obvious that he need say nothing
when making a claim.  Therefore I return to my first piece of evidence,
which tells me that there is a high probability that the lack of a claim
statement means that declarer did not think he could possibly lose a trick
by playing out the top three honors, and the primary reason for that
miscalculation stems from miscounting or failure to count.

Norm Hostetler


From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 24 14:01:18 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA22007
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 13:00:12 +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 MAA21988
	for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 12:59:59 +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 12CYnC-00088z-0W
	for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 01:59:47 +0000
Message-ID: 
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 01:59:00 +0000
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
From: "John (MadDog) Probst" 
Reply-To: "John Probst" 
Subject: Re: Claim or Rovoke?
In-Reply-To: <00a501bf643f$477db080$cd307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a 
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

In article <00a501bf643f$477db080$cd307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie>, Fearghal
O'Boyle  writes
>In a top class international IMP event, declarer is in 4H.  Eight tricks
>have been played, declarer has lost two tricks and everyone knows the end
>position.  Declarer calls for a Club from Dummy.  A defender holding a Club
>and two master trumps, attempts to speed things up by showing the two master
>trumps to his opponent thereby claiming two tricks and conceding three for
>4H minus one.
>
>Declarer however calls the TD insisting that the defender has revoked on
>this ninth trick and has led a trump to the tenth trick thereby establishing
>the revoke for 4H plus one!
>
>How do you rule?
>
>Best regards,
>Fearghal.
>
>
Tell declarer to FOAD. 4H-1 and a PP if he *ever* tries it again.

 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 Jan 24 14:02:19 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA22009
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 13:00:12 +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 MAA21989
	for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 12:59:59 +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 12CYnC-000EeL-0C
	for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 01:59:48 +0000
Message-ID: 
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 01:52:02 +0000
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
From: "John (MadDog) Probst" 
Reply-To: "John Probst" 
Subject: Re: Convention?
In-Reply-To: <017201bf646d$02de5000$16991e18@san.rr.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a 
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

In article <017201bf646d$02de5000$16991e18@san.rr.com>, "Marvin L.
French"  writes
>Michael is right, of course. My poor eyesight missed the "1NT"  and read the
>sentence as "third seat opener."
>
>Sorry, Michael,
>
>Marv (Marvin L. French)
>
>
>
>> Michael Farebrother wrote:
>>
>> > I am attempting to add some disruptive bidding to my EHAA structure (ok,
>> so
>> > I don't need to.  But I want to try it, and it fits well).
>> >
>> > I want to play a third-seat 1NT opener as 8+, "we don't have game".  The
>> > ACBL allows this, but bans all conventions afterwards
>>
>> Please quote the applicable regulation for those of us who are not
>familiar
>> with it.
>>
>> Marv (Marvin L. French)
>>
Jump shifts facing a ferdinand where you'd open 10-12 NT and 5/6 card
weak 2's in 1st and 2nd are interesting.

P P 1H P 2S.   Is this a convention, or unassailable bridge logic?

P P 1H P 2N      looks more of a convention however

chs john
-- 
John (MadDog) Probst|   /|_    FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947
451 Mile End Road   |  /  @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798,  OKb ChienFou
London E3 4PA       | /\    __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk
+44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\  /--            |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk

From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 24 14:41:45 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA22205
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 14:41:45 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA22200
	for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 14:41:35 +1100 (EST)
Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130)
	id 4B33A3103F; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 22:41:17 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 22:41:15 -0500
To: Schoderb@aol.com
From: Adam Wildavsky 
Subject: Re: Law 12C3
Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

>I would welcome comments, suggestions and help to improve our 
>attempts at improvement, either on BLML or directly.

Here goes...

>The 4 (or was it 5?)

4 appeared in the Daily Bulletin, numbered 1-4. 5, 7, and 8 were from 
the Transnational teams. As far as I can tell no number 6 appeared.

Of appeals 1-4, on the first three the committee sustained the TD's 
ruling, while on the fourth they overturned the TD's ruling but in my 
view were wrong to do so.

>TOTAL appeals in the entire Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup from the 
>first hand of the round robins to the last hand of the Finals makes 
>it clear that those players were a lot happier with TD performance 
>than had ever been the case before.

You and the directing staff should be congratulated on that account. 
I'd like to see this information published routinely. It's easy to 
forget, seeing only the decisions that were appealed, that there were 
many more that were not appealed.

>Please also bear in mind that at least in Bermuda we were keenly 
>aware that 12C3 is not a free standing provision of Law 12, but a 
>step available to take AFTER 12C1 and 12C2 are applied and found 
>lacking in equity. It is very rarely applicable.

Can you help me understand why it is rarely applicable? I've read the 
Law, which I posted here recently and will not repeat. I've also read 
the relevant portion of the CoP, which I will repeat:

>Law 12C3
>
>This section of the laws operates unless the Zonal Authority elects 
>otherwise. It applies in WBF tournaments. The purpose of this law is 
>to enable an appeals committee to form a view as to what is an 
>equitable outcome in the score, and to implement that outcome, if it 
>considers that the mechanical application of Lawl2C2 does not 
>produce a fair answer for one or both of the sides involved. It 
>makes the appeals committee the final arbiter of equity.

I don't understand how 12C2 could be "unfair", since I understand 
"fair" as meaning "applying equally to all participants". I expect 
the committee is using it as a synonym for "equitable", and that they 
should not have introduced a new term here unnecessarily.

Whether a 12C2 adjustment might be inequitable I can't say, since 
neither the laws nor the CoP define what "equity" is. I would 
appreciate hearing your view.

AW


From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 24 15:02:09 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA22008
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 13:00:12 +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 MAA21987
	for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 12:59:58 +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 12CYn9-00088z-0W
	for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 01:59:44 +0000
Message-ID: <3318BhAvv6i4EwMd@probst.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 01:33:35 +0000
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
From: "John (MadDog) Probst" 
Reply-To: "John Probst" 
Subject: Re: bum claim
In-Reply-To: <200001192105.QAA16805@cfa183.harvard.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a 
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

In article <200001192105.QAA16805@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner
 writes
>> From: Herman De Wael 
>> Through the comment of partner ("sloppy, serves you right")
>> I deduce that at the Acol too, the claim shows that declarer
>> forgot the safety play.
>
>This is a case where there's no substitute for being there, but given
>the personality described (good rubber bridge player), it seems much
>more likely that the sloppiness was in forgetting to _state_ the
>necessary play rather than forgetting it existed.
>
>If demanding full statements for even the most obvious claims is how
>the players wish to play -- and it's obvious that many on this list do
>wish to play that way -- that's fine.  Personally, it never would have
>occurred to me to challenge the claim.

the problem is we forget just how bad Mr & Mrs Guggenheim are.

Mrs Guggenheim contested the claim because she thought she HAD a trick
in the suit, and *would never have known* that there is a 100% line. It
was unlucky that claimer was competent and forgot to make his statement.
Against the player in question I'd not have called the TD but told him
to clarify his claim so that he protects himself against Mrs Guggenheim.

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 Jan 24 18:32:46 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA22716
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 18:32:46 +1100 (EST)
Received: from ns2.san.rr.com (ns2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.3])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA22711
	for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 18:32:38 +1100 (EST)
Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com
          (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35)
          with ESMTP id com for ;
          Sun, 23 Jan 2000 23:32:29 -0800
Message-ID: <003c01bf663d$288f9580$16991e18@san.rr.com>
Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" 
From: "Marvin L. French" 
To: 
References: 
Subject: Re: Is it ethical to negate a penalty?
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 23:32:00 -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 Grabiner wrote:

>
> In the January 18 World Championship bulletin, there is an article
praising
> the sportsmanship of a player who could have made his contract by
> exploiting a penalty card (a defender had corrected a revoke), but chose
> not to do so.
>
> When is this allowed and ethical?
>
> What declarer did was not waiving the penalty, but it had the same effect;
> he deliberately played to make one fewer trick than he could have made
> under the rules.  L72A3 says that a player may not waive a penalty on his
> own initiative "in duplicate tournaments", but may ask the Director to do
> so, which the Director will do for cause.

I don't see that not exploiting a penalty card is the same as waiving a
penalty. The penalty has been paid according to whatever language in L50
applies. Iit has not been waived just because declarer does not take the
fullest advantage of the situation..

This reminds me of Reese's opinion that one should not select the most
severe penalty for an opposing infraction if a lesser penalty will restore
equity. That's not waiving either.

Not off the subject, I hope, is that LHO's acceptance of a call or play out
of rotation (by bidding or playing after it) is allowed by the Laws, and a
TD cannot forbid it. This is not "waiving a penalty," because there is no
penalty prescribed for the accepted action.

Also possibly pertinent is the right of a declarer to let a defender pick up
and restore to his/her hand without penalty a card that was exposed during
the auction, rather than treat it as a penalty card during the play. The
ACBL does not regard this right as appropriate, and has instructed ACBL TDs
to ignore this provision of L24.

Marv (Marvin L. French)





From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 24 18:44:36 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA22796
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 18:44:36 +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 SAA22789
	for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 18:44:28 +1100 (EST)
Received: by stat.ee id HAA25321; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 07:43:34 GMT
Received: from ESA-Message_Server by stat.ee
	with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 09:52:21 +0200
Message-Id: 
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 09:45:17 +0200
From: Aavo Heinlo 
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Subject: Non-informative break in tempo
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Dealer S, NS vulnerable, pairs
S  975
H  876
D  K9
C  AKQJT6
             N
             S
S  A86
H  A95
D  AQS864
C  9

Bidding:
S         W           N             E
1D      p            3NT        p
6D      p            7NT        p...

1D - 12-13 balanced or 
         11-16 with 4+ diamonds
         or 11-16 any 4441
3T - contract, as a rule no
        4+ majors, either strong
        balanced or solid minor
6D - there was break in tempo,
         out of system, but from
         bridge logic good diamonds
         and 3 aces

Question: if the TD is called and
the break in tempo is pointed out
will the result stand?

Aavo Heinlo

Tel +372 6259217
E-mail aavo.heinlo@stat.ee
         

From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 24 19:54:47 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA22899
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 19:54:47 +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 TAA22894
	for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 19:54:38 +1100 (EST)
Received: from fb03w204.unimuenster.de (actually FB03W204.UNI-MUENSTER.DE) 
          by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP);
          Mon, 24 Jan 2000 08:22:37 +0100
Message-ID: <002101bf663b$f79b0aa0$4a54b080@unimuenster.de>
From: Richard Bley 
To: Schoderb , bridge-laws 
References: 
Subject: Re: Law 12C3
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 08:23:52 +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="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id TAA22895
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

starting remark: 
My english is not as good as it (maybe) sounds. The tone is sometimes harsh or seems ironic when this is not intended. Maybe this is a problem for many TD´s which are contributing here. Apologize for this. 

: However, I think those thinking individuals (as opposed to those knee jerk 
: responses of some self styled savants of this BLML) might wish to hear my 
: thoughts and clarifications. If any of this offends you, please use the 
: delete key forthwith.
: 
I appreciate your effort very much (for contributing to this list and not to be an scaredy-cat in telling us what you think). Thanks for this.

: I have no desire to take over the world, nor does the WBFLC (in my opinion) 
: wish to do something illegal, wrong, or fattening.  The Law provides for 
: appeals to Directors' rulings.  It does not, as has become the damaging and 
: misleading custom in selected NCBOs, apply to appeals to what happened at the 
: table WITHOUT A RULING TO APPEAL. I'm tired of arriving at a table and being 
: greeted with "I appeal this result....I appeal their actions....etc." without 
: having yet made a ruling!  I and many of my colleagues, are fully aware that 
: poor TD rulings over many years has caused disintegration to a great degree. 

This seems true up to a point. But I have the feeling, that decisions at high-level tournaments are getting better and better. 

: Bad rulings, thoughtless actions, knee jerk ruling "in favor of the 
: non-offending side," etc., have resulted in that we are often faced with no 
: trust, confidence, or respect from the players. We have brought it upon 
: ourselves, but it doesn't have to stay that way. 

Cannot say anything else then: Yes indeed.

The Law provides for appeals 
: to TD rulings (Law 92A). When I hear the word "appeal" before opening my 
: mouth I also know that the players are really asking that peers of theirs 
: review what has happened.  The Code of Practice for Appeals Committees places 
: great responsibility upon TDs to make good rulings. In Bermuda we 
: accomplished this by consultation. 
: 
: What is overlooked in many of the BLML postings is that these rulings are now 
: made AT WBF LEVEL BY APPROPRIATE CONSULTATION WITH EXPERTS in Laws, bidding, 
: play, etc., before the ruling is presented to the players.  In order to 
: provide an AC with an appealed ruling, sensibly arrived at, contested by the 
: appellants, we take our time, arrive at consensus, and rule as best we are 
: able to.  This, in  extremely rare instances, requires that we have access to 
: all necessary tools including 12C3 to do the job correctly.  


Yes indeed again. 12C3 should be used only in VERY rare circumstances. This is true for the AC and even for the TDs (when they are allowed to use it).


Conscientious, 
: trained and skilled TDs together with expert consultants, can make good 
: rulings that are accepted by the players.  

Probably even better then most AC could make I think. 

: The 4 (or was it 5?) TOTAL appeals 
: in the entire Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup from the first hand of the round 
: robins to the last hand of the Finals makes it clear that those players were 
: a lot happier with TD performance than had ever been the case before. This 
: ratio of rulings made to rulings appealed has never happened before in my 
: almost 30 years with the WBF!   

Congratulations to the whole stuff of TD´s for this excellent effort. For this ratio you not only have to make good decisions, but you have to "sell" them in a convincing attitude. Very fine.


There were at from 4 to 6 bridge judgement 
: rulings in each session of  20 or 16 boards in these prestigious events.  
: When only 4 were contested, and there were less than 10 for the entire 
: tournament including the Transnational Teams , we must be on the right track.
: The Code requirement to the AC  to start from a presumption that the TD 
: ruling is correct directly stems from the facts that: 
: 1.  It is the ruling being appealed, not the situation.
:  2. The players have had a review which included evaluation and testimony by 
: experts. 
: and 3. The Law has been applied, as it was written and intended and not as it 
: has been bastardized by passing the buck directly to ACs.
: Those of you who read the Law that says in 93B what to do WHEN THERE IS AN 
: APPEALS COMMITTEE AVAILABLE , need to unmuddy your thinking by realizing that 
: Law 92 applies before 93 kicks in. 
: TD education, better rulings throught this method, and getting back on track 
: to apply the Laws is sadly in need of much work.  The morass in which some 
: NCBOs find themselves vis-a-vis appeals is, to me, to a great degree 
: self-inflicted.  Concern by TDs to do a better job is of much greater 
: importance than the arcane efforts to find where the WBFLC, in its full 
: authority by WBF ByLaws, found that extending 12C3 on a trial basis to 
: include the CTD is illegal.
: Please also bear in mind that at least in Bermuda we were keenly aware that 
: 12C3 is not a free standing provision of Law 12, but a step available to take 
: AFTER 12C1 and 12C2 are applied and found lacking in equity. It is very 
: rarely applicable.
: 
Yes again. This is what probably is intended by the lawmakers. "lacking equity" means that at first you have to try 12C1/12C2 if this is not reaching enough equity than take 12C3 CAREFUL.

: The AC did change some rulings when they and the appellants were not in 
: agreement, but mostly because we, the TDs, had not gotten the facts fully 
: correct before making the rulings, or our colsultations were lacking in 
: accuracy.  That is our failing, not the system's, and will be rectified as we 
: refine our procedures.  The thinking that TDs should be parrots of the 
: "recipe" Laws of the book, and pass the "judgement" Laws to an AC directly 
: without Ruling as correctly as they are able to is wrong.  If you can't do 
: this job right, go sell shoes.
: 
Well there is a systemic problem with TDs. If they would play as good as the players of the bermuda, they probably wouldnt direct tournaments but playing as a pro  ;-). Anyway that is the reason why they should consult other experts. 

: I would welcome comments, suggestions and help to improve our attempts at 
: improvement, either on BLML or directly. I am reluctant to give much time to 
: telling me how wrong the WBFLC is when I look around the membership of that 
: committee, the backgrounds of its members, the minutes of the meetings, and 
: the advice of legal counsels.
: 

Richard


From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 24 23:55:48 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA23371
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 23:55:48 +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 XAA23366
	for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 23:55:40 +1100 (EST)
Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-23-28.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.23.28])
	by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA13333
	for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 13:55:30 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <388AD7DE.B72B3163@village.uunet.be>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 11:28:46 +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: bum claim
References: <200001201723.JAA27971@mailhub.irvine.com> <3888471D.B681105B@village.uunet.be> <38890EED.43514CB6@alltel.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Norman Hostetler wrote:
> 
> Herman De Wael wrote:
> 
> >                 
> 
> > . . . . the player indicates that he has counted the
> > suit before claiming.  A majority of us rule that it is
> > irrational for him not to play the suit correctly.
> 
> How did you arrive at a "majority"?  Did you count?  It seemed to me that
> there were quite a number of people who were prepared to award a trick to
> the defense.
> 

In the case that Adam presented ?
I do not recall anyone writing that the play could go
differently.
Some die-hards perhaps want to rule because the claim
statement is not yet complete enough to their liking, but
that is why I only wrote majority, and not all.

> > In the original example, the player has not indicated that
> > he has counted the suit.  Yet I believe that the same
> > majority would rule in that case that it would be irrational
> > for the player not to play the suit correctly, PROVIDED he
> > counts the suit in the first place.
> > That leaves us with a second question.  Given that we know
> > that the player did not count the suit before claiming,
> > would we call it irrational or merely careless if he did not
> > count the cards before actually playing ?
> >
> > I believe that it would be irrational for a player not to
> > count this suit (nine cards with three top honours - better
> > cash a double honour first) before actually playing from it.
> 
>                     
> 
> Here you're trying to argue that, although we know he didn't count his
> cards, it would be irrational for him not to do so, therefore he is entitled
> to the rest of the tricks.  

Yes, indeed.

> Give me a break, Herman.  That's the most absurd
> argument I've seen in a long time on blml.  Let's start by ruling on what
> actually occurs at the table, and leave the would have, could have, should
> have possibilities alone.  As you state, the evidence strongly suggests that
> he either did not count the suit, or miscounted the suit.  If a player
> believes that he has absolutely no losers in a suit, provided only that he
> plays the three top honors first, then it doesn't matter which honor he
> starts with, since they are all equal, and it might as well be the king as
> any other.
> 

Now you are again confusing the issues.  According to you,
the play of the King is merely careless, not irrational.  I
allow you that view.
IMO, it would be irrational, but perhaps "the class of
player involved" is needed to determine that.

But that was not what we were discussing.

What I am arguing is that just because the player is
careless enough not to provide a claim statement with his
claim, does not mean that plays which would be called
irrational now become merely careless.

> You and I clearly disagree on what constitutes irrational play.  Perhaps
> everybody in Belgium has expert status and even sound asleep and dead drunk
> to boot could be relied upon to take the safety play from AQTxxx opposite
> K9xx, just in case there's a 14th card in the suit.  But in this country, if
> a player so loses concentration that he miscounts a critical suit, I'm not
> about to give him credit now for automatically waking up in time to play the
> suit correctly.  

Nor do I.

What we differ upon is the fact that you consider the
careless claim to be proof of the fact that the player has
miscounted the suit, and should "wake up", while I consider
him to simply NOT have counted the suit.

Of course from a theoretical point of view, we cannot know
which of the two is the case.  We should ask the player.

Now I agree with you that if the player tells the TD, "I
thought the spades were high", the TD should rule against
the player.
Perhaps you can agree with me that if the player tells the
TD, "Sorry, I did not count the spades, I thought the play
was over", then you might rule inhis favour.

Now perhaps this is just a regional thing.  Probably where
you play, all claims are accompanied by a careful claim
statement (as they should).  In such an environment, the
absence of a statement can be considered proof of something
wrong.
But where I play, the majority of claims is accompanied by
... nothing. Sometimes not even a statement of the number of
tricks.  In our enviromnent, the absence of a claim
statement is proof of nothing, and so perhaps that is why I
seem less severe on claimers.

But don't despair, I am just as severe on bad claims as the
rest of you. But not on bad claim statements.

> And from the pool of players who believe that they
> absolutely have no losers in the suit, I am willing to bet that at least 25%
> will start with the king.  One trick for the defense.
> 
> Norm Hostetler

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html


From owner-bridge-laws  Tue Jan 25 00:09:05 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA23400
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 00:09:05 +1100 (EST)
Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA23395
	for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 00:08:58 +1100 (EST)
Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA06548 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 08:08:31 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000124081046.0068de28@pop.cais.com>
X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 08:10:46 -0500
To: Bridge Laws Discussion List 
From: Eric Landau 
Subject: Re: Convention?
In-Reply-To: <20000121170459.65853.qmail@hotmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

At 05:04 PM 1/21/00 GMT, Michael wrote:

>I am attempting to add some disruptive bidding to my EHAA structure (ok, so 
>I don't need to.  But I want to try it, and it fits well).
>
>I want to play a third-seat 1NT opener as 8+, "we don't have game".  The 
>ACBL allows this, but bans all conventions afterwards (which I don't mind, 
>as we don't need any :-).  But I got to thinking...
>
>If dealer responds 3C to this 1NT, he must have an invitational hand of some 
>sort (as 2C would be natural and to play).  However, the only invitational 
>hand partner can have is a 10-12 point (4441) (this is known from system - 
>his pass denies 10 points unless 4441, and several other hands, as well).  
>Obviously, he can't have a club singleton (because that would be 
>conventional), nor can he have a known singleton (because that would also be 
>conventional - or would it?)
>
>So, I feel I'd have to alert the 3C call, "4441, 10-12, with 4 clubs".    
>But it is logic based on previous action, not system.  Would it still be a 
>convention?
>
>What about a 3D call?  Again, by inference, it must show 4441, 10-12, with 4 
>diamonds.  Very likely, it denies 4 clubs, otherwise you'd bid 4C for 
>safety's sake.  Now, I have a call "4=4=4=1, 10-12", which definately sounds 
>like a convention, but it isn't - it's just the only possible hand for that 
>bid.
>
>What sayeth the masses?  Convention? or Die^H^H^Hnot[1]?

I don't see how an inference from a set of purely natural agreements can be
considered a convention.  At the table, I would make this clear by
explaining (in reply to an inquiry about the alert) the chain of
inferences:  "Since 2C would show clubs, he must have a maximum pass to
jump.  He can't be balanced, since he didn't open a 10-12 NT.  He can't
have five or more clubs, or he'd have opened 2C.  So he must be 4-4-4-1
with clubs."


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 Jan 25 00:13:14 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA23435
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 00:13:14 +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 AAA23430
	for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 00:13:05 +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 IAA06825 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 08:12:41 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000124081458.006db958@pop.cais.com>
X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 08:14:58 -0500
To: Bridge Laws Discussion List 
From: Eric Landau 
Subject: Re: Claim or Rovoke?
In-Reply-To: <00a501bf643f$477db080$cd307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

At 06:42 PM 1/21/00 -0000, Fearghal wrote:

>In a top class international IMP event, declarer is in 4H.  Eight tricks
>have been played, declarer has lost two tricks and everyone knows the end
>position.  Declarer calls for a Club from Dummy.  A defender holding a Club
>and two master trumps, attempts to speed things up by showing the two master
>trumps to his opponent thereby claiming two tricks and conceding three for
>4H minus one.
>
>Declarer however calls the TD insisting that the defender has revoked on
>this ninth trick and has led a trump to the tenth trick thereby establishing
>the revoke for 4H plus one!
>
>How do you rule?

4H-1.  Defender's action was a claim.  L68A: "A contestant... claims...
when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim)."


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 Jan 25 00:35:57 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA23527
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 00:35:57 +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 AAA23522
	for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 00:35:50 +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 ;
          Mon, 24 Jan 2000 08:33:13 -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 ;
          Mon, 24 Jan 2000 08:26:16 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: <003c01bf663d$288f9580$16991e18@san.rr.com>
References: 
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 08:27:45 -0500
To: 
From: Ed Reppert 
Subject: Re: Is it ethical to negate a penalty?
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

At 2:32 AM -0500 1/24/00, Marvin L. French wrote:
>The
>ACBL does not regard this right as appropriate, and has instructed ACBL TDs
>to ignore this provision of L24.

Can they do that? (He asked naively. :)

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/AwUBOIxVKL2UW3au93vOEQI6iwCgpWnlgGHLxHC7lh/qullwcVS6uf8An0qh
Dc+NLiV8lKRy4rOPW0myqXVF
=CmS9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From owner-bridge-laws  Tue Jan 25 00:40:37 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA23559
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 00:40:37 +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 AAA23554
	for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 00:40:30 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mailout2.nyroc.rr.com ([24.92.226.165])
          by mailhop1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223
          ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com;
          Mon, 24 Jan 2000 08:37:53 -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;
          Mon, 24 Jan 2000 08:30:57 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: 
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 08:35:42 -0500
To: Aavo Heinlo 
From: Ed Reppert 
Subject: Re: Non-informative break in tempo
Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

At 2:45 AM -0500 1/24/00, Aavo Heinlo wrote:

>Question: if the TD is called and
>the break in tempo is pointed out
>will the result stand?

I don't do very well with these, but I'll take a shot anyway.

I think the result should stand, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out
I'm wrong - there is, after all, the "if it hesitates, shoot it" school of
thought. :-)

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

From owner-bridge-laws  Tue Jan 25 01:13:13 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA23636
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 01:13:13 +1100 (EST)
Received: from hotmail.com (oe22.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.15])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA23630
	for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 01:13:03 +1100 (EST)
Received: (qmail 33431 invoked by uid 65534); 24 Jan 2000 14:12:25 -0000
Message-ID: <20000124141225.33430.qmail@hotmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [209.206.13.166]
From: "Roger Pewick" 
To: "blml" 
References: 
Subject: Re: Non-informative break in tempo
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 08:12:48 -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


Examining the 7N call in isolation, the 6D call [AI] suggests that all of
the suits are well heeled except clubs.  The hesitation suggests that S is
worried if N has the balanced hand instead of a solid suit.  Imo this UI
does not provide inferences that 7N is suggested over a LA because a grand
is not as likely to be successful without the strong major suit holdings
needed opposite a balanced 3N and the huddle suggests that those major suit
honors may not be present.  7N is plainly a sound bid on this auction.

Not trying to raise a ruckus, but..

Looking at the S hand it seems obvious that he was considering the risk that
N does or does not have a solid suit and the choice of 6D is predicated on
the gamble that N has a solid suit.

But looking at the values S had for 6D, if N had a balanced 3N,  6D looks
crazy [just how many players would up and bid 6D on this auction given the
DK is not present and there is no first round control of clubs?].   It would
be likely that the indicated capacity of the cards could be exceeded because
S needs a big source of tricks [solid suit from N] to make slam on his
cards.  And the 6D call looks highly suspect given the limited values held.
So, at this point, if there is any need for concern, it would be about
whether the 6D call was in fact a fortuitous guess- or was it really all
that much of a gamble?   For instance, was there extraneous information [it
would not take much of a mannerism/ variation in tempo to provide that kind
of an inference] that could have suggested that N more likely held a solid
suit type for his 3N?  If so, there is the question as to whether 6D ought
to be allowed to stand.

Roger Pewick
Houston, Texas

----- Original Message -----
From: Aavo Heinlo 
To: 
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2000 1:45 AM
Subject: Non-informative break in tempo


> Dealer S, NS vulnerable, pairs
> S  975
> H  876
> D  K9
> C  AKQJT6
>              N
>              S
> S  A86
> H  A95
> D  AQS864
> C  9
>
> Bidding:
> S         W           N             E
> 1D      p            3NT        p
> 6D      p            7NT        p...
>
> 1D - 12-13 balanced or
>          11-16 with 4+ diamonds
>          or 11-16 any 4441
> 3T - contract, as a rule no
>         4+ majors, either strong
>         balanced or solid minor
> 6D - there was break in tempo,
>          out of system, but from
>          bridge logic good diamonds
>          and 3 aces
>
> Question: if the TD is called and
> the break in tempo is pointed out
> will the result stand?
>
> Aavo Heinlo
>
> Tel +372 6259217
> E-mail aavo.heinlo@stat.ee
>
>


From owner-bridge-laws  Tue Jan 25 01:53:38 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA23753
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 01:53:38 +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 BAA23746
	for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 01:53:30 +1100 (EST)
Received: from timberlands.demon.co.uk ([194.222.74.191])
	by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
	id 12Ckrp-0004iG-0K
	for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 14:53:21 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Martin Pool 
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 13:06:48 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: unsubscibe
Message-ID: <4985680ab0MartinPool@timberlands.demon.co.uk>
User-Agent: Pluto/1.13f (RISC-OS/4.02)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk



-- 
Martin Pool

From owner-bridge-laws  Tue Jan 25 02:22:53 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA24000
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 02:22:53 +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 CAA23995
	for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 02:22:44 +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 PAA16554;
	Mon, 24 Jan 2000 15:22:35 GMT
Received: (from root@localhost)
	by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA03456;
	Mon, 24 Jan 2000 15:22:34 GMT
Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 15:22:33 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 PAA02984;
	Mon, 24 Jan 2000 15:22:31 GMT
Received: (from rmb1@localhost)
	by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id PAA20773;
	Mon, 24 Jan 2000 15:21:53 GMT
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 15:21:53 GMT
From: Robin Barker 
Message-Id: <200001241521.PAA20773@tempest.npl.co.uk>
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, ereppert@rochester.rr.com
Subject: Re: Is it ethical to negate a penalty?
X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

> At 2:32 AM -0500 1/24/00, Marvin L. French wrote:
> >The ACBL does not regard this right as appropriate, 
> >and has instructed ACBL TDs to ignore this provision of L24.
> 
> Can they do that? (He asked naively. :)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ed

The ACBL can instruct its TDs to explain the L24 options to declarer
(i.e. not to treat cards exposed during the auction as penalty cards),
and to explain the ACBL "anti-dumping" regulations, requiring you to 
play to win at all times, and further that the ACBL has the opinion
that not treating cards as penalty is rarely/never playing to win.  

You can see that the alternative of instructing the TDs not to mention
the L24 option appears much easier and just as legal.

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  Tue Jan 25 02:36:17 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA24052
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 02:36:17 +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 CAA24024
	for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 02:30:50 +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 KAA29408
	for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 10:29:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from willner@localhost)
	by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA21680
	for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 10:29:04 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 10:29:04 -0500 (EST)
From: Steve Willner 
Message-Id: <200001241529.KAA21680@cfa183.harvard.edu>
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: bum claim
X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

> From: "David Burn" 
> I sincerely hope that it is what the majority intend 
...
> Suppose a player claims, making no statement, in this position:
> 
> S: AQ932     S: K654
> H: 3         H: A2
> Would one give the defenders a trick if South started with SJ1087?

I'm still trying to understand the (apparent) majority position.

You give a trick to the defenders if declarer makes no statement.
(Why not two tricks, declarer cashing H-A and three top spades?)

Do you also give a trick if declarer makes a vague statement like
"Playing spades in the obvious way?"

> S: AQ932     S: J7654
> H: 2         H: A
> suppose West claims, announcing that he will play South for the king.
> Would one give the defenders a trick if South started with SK108?

Well, would one?  In your approach, I cannot tell.  South has made a
statement, although a vague one.  I am sure that in practice some TD's
will grant the claim and others will deny it.

> The trouble is that otherwise, one has to start drawing completely
> arbitrary lines.

I don't see why.  In my preferred approach, there is no ambiguity or
problem.  The first is a flawed claim _unless_ the prior play has ruled
out the possibility that North could have all four missing cards.  The
second is a correct claim as long as South does indeed have the S-K.
Quite likely you can find examples where there are problems, but these
two are not hard.

The key point is to get away from the notion of ruling on "how the play
might go if it were continued."  That has little support in the Laws.
I agree that the "class of player" business should be removed.  We have
no need of that.

From owner-bridge-laws  Tue Jan 25 02:38:09 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA24077
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 02:38:09 +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 CAA24072
	for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 02:37:23 +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 KAA29754
	for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 10:37:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from willner@localhost)
	by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA21690
	for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 10:37:10 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 10:37:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Steve Willner 
Message-Id: <200001241537.KAA21690@cfa183.harvard.edu>
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: Redress for N/S?
X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

> From: Henry Sun 
>  i have by chance located the issue in
> question (march 1982), which reads, in part:
> 
> "When the Committee judges that North's question [during the auction]
> may have given information to SOuth, and that the action taken by
> South could have been suggested by the qeustion....

The BW article was correct under the 1975 Laws, but please note that
the relevant rules changed in 1987.  Some of us think the 1975 rules
were better, but they are no longer in effect.

From owner-bridge-laws  Tue Jan 25 03:08:53 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA24152
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 03:08:53 +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 DAA24147
	for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 03:08:44 +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 LAA01021
	for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 11:08:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from willner@localhost)
	by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA21748
	for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 11:08:35 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 11:08:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Steve Willner 
Message-Id: <200001241608.LAA21748@cfa183.harvard.edu>
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: Law 12C3
X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

> From: Schoderb@aol.com

Thanks very much for providing us with facts based on actual experience.

> I'm tired of arriving at a table and being 
> greeted with "I appeal this result....I appeal their actions....etc." without 
> having yet made a ruling!

Good grief!  I don't see a smiley, so maybe you aren't joking.  Obviously
I don't play at the level where this happens.

>  In order to 
> provide an AC with an appealed ruling, sensibly arrived at, contested by the 
> appellants, we take our time, arrive at consensus, and rule as best we are 
> able to.

Now if other NCBO's and SO's would do the same....

> need to unmuddy your thinking by realizing that 
> Law 92 applies before 93 kicks in. 

Obviously true, but I don't understand the relevance.  The WBF
procedure for L12C3 is authorized by the footnote in L93B.  Many of us
had failed to notice the footnote's existence.

> Please also bear in mind that at least in Bermuda we were keenly aware that 
> 12C3 is not a free standing provision of Law 12, but a step available to take 
> AFTER 12C1 and 12C2 are applied and found lacking in equity. It is very 
> rarely applicable.

It would be nice if the next edition of the Laws spelled out just when
and how L12C3 is to be applied.

From owner-bridge-laws  Tue Jan 25 03:57:29 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA24295
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 03:57:29 +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 DAA24290
	for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 03:57:20 +1100 (EST)
From: Schoderb@aol.com
Received: from Schoderb@aol.com
	by imo11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id i.23.83c7e2 (4309);
	Mon, 24 Jan 2000 11:56:04 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <23.83c7e2.25bdde23@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 11:56:03 EST
Subject: Re: Law 12C3
To: willner@cfa.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 1/24/00 11:10:11 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
willner@CFA.HARVARD.EDU writes:

> Obviously true, but I don't understand the relevance.  The WBF
>  procedure for L12C3 is authorized by the footnote in L93B.  Many of us
>  had failed to notice the footnote's existence.

The problem I was addressing is when a Law is "picked out" without proper 
frame of reference and then applied.  It is all too easy to "see" equity and 
go to 12C3 without first going through 12C1 ,and 2. I have sat in on ACs 
where the attitude was, "well, we have to adjust, but we have to do equity, 
so let's apply 12C3....."  A wrong approach, since applying 12C2 may well 
have given the equity they were looking for.  In Bermuda, the AC chairs were 
careful to avoid this trap, and apparently have much the same respect for an 
orderly progression which in rare cases ends up with a 12C3 adjustment.

The words, "fair" "unfair" "equity" "equitable" are used loosely and 
interchangeably to mean more or less the same thing --  when the Laws don't 
arrive at an adjustment that the TD or AC are "comfortable" with.  It is 
sometimes necessary to advise the ACs of Law 12B to get back on the track of 
ruling the game.

Kojak

From owner-bridge-laws  Tue Jan 25 04:28:51 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24388
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 04:28:51 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [207.213.113.50])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA24383
	for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 04:28:39 +1100 (EST)
Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4])
	by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA08031;
	Mon, 24 Jan 2000 09:28:18 -0800
Message-Id: <200001241728.JAA08031@mailhub.irvine.com>
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
CC: adam@irvine.com
Subject: Re: Is it ethical to negate a penalty?
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 24 Jan 2000 15:21:53 PST."
             <200001241521.PAA20773@tempest.npl.co.uk> 
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 09:28:18 PST
From: Adam Beneschan 
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk


Robin Barker wrote:
 
> > At 2:32 AM -0500 1/24/00, Marvin L. French wrote:
> > >The ACBL does not regard this right as appropriate, 
> > >and has instructed ACBL TDs to ignore this provision of L24.
> > 
> > Can they do that? (He asked naively. :)
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Ed
> 
> The ACBL can instruct its TDs to explain the L24 options to declarer
> (i.e. not to treat cards exposed during the auction as penalty cards),
> and to explain the ACBL "anti-dumping" regulations, requiring you to 
> play to win at all times, and further that the ACBL has the opinion
> that not treating cards as penalty is rarely/never playing to win.  

Hmmm . . . Marvin said that the ACBL doesn't consider declarer's
option to let defender pick up exposed cards as an "appropriate"
right, but he didn't specifically mention the anti-dumping
regulations.  

Does the ACBL actually have this opinion, that refusing to extract the
maximum possible penalty is a violation of regulations?

If so, how far does this go?  If, for example, my opponent lays down
AQTxx opposite K9xx and claims without a claim statement, am I
violating regulations if I don't call the TD and contest the claim?
Since the majority seems to feel that the TD should award me a trick
in that situation, am I therefore "not playing to win" if I do the
sportsmanlike thing and acquiesce?  Do ACBL regulations now imply that
all players must become, to use Eric's eloquent description,
"a**holes"?

                                -- Adam


From owner-bridge-laws  Tue Jan 25 06:57:10 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA24799
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 06:57:10 +1100 (EST)
Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (root@Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA24794
	for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 06:57:02 +1100 (EST)
From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA
Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.2])
	by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA16087
	for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 14:56:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP
	(1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA180143811; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 14:56:51 -0500
X-Openmail-Hops: 1
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 14:56:42 -0500
Message-Id: 
Subject: Premature play by a defender
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 GAA24795
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Hi BLMrs,

South playing a NT contract, at trick twelve remaining cards are:  

                   North
                   S ---
                   H 8
                   D 4
                   C ---
West                       East
S --                          S --
H --                          H --
D 8                          D 10
C 6                          C 10
                  South
                  S 10
                  H ---
                  D ---
                  C 8

S played S10. W discarded C6, than put D8 faced down on
table before E played to the current trick. Called to the table,
the TD was told by E that he knows from previous C tricks
that his partner has no more C and he will keep C10 anyway.

As I read the first sentence in Law 68: "a claim or a
concession must refer to tricks other than one in progress"
I understand that trick twelve has no relation with this Law.
So I would rule "Premature play by a defender" (Law 57)
and allow declarer to (57A3) "forbid offender's partner to play
a card of an other suit" ie forbid a D discard if he is awaken....

As for trick 13, no prob....

Comments please.

Laval Du Breuil   
Quebec City




From owner-bridge-laws  Tue Jan 25 06:57:50 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA24810
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 06:57:50 +1100 (EST)
Received: from ns2.san.rr.com (ns2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.3])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA24804
	for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 06:57:43 +1100 (EST)
Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com
          (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35)
          with ESMTP id com for ;
          Mon, 24 Jan 2000 11:57:35 -0800
Message-ID: <00a401bf66a5$3a92cf00$16991e18@san.rr.com>
Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" 
From: "Marvin L. French" 
To: 
References: <200001241537.KAA21690@cfa183.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Redress for N/S?
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 11:55:47 -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

Steve Willner wrote:

> > From: Henry Sun 
> >  i have by chance located the issue in
> > question (march 1982), which reads, in part:
> >
> > "When the Committee judges that North's question [during the auction]
> > may have given information to SOuth, and that the action taken by
> > South could have been suggested by the qeustion....
>
> The BW article was correct under the 1975 Laws, but please note that
> the relevant rules changed in 1987.  Some of us think the 1975 rules
> were better, but they are no longer in effect.
>
Don't agree with this.

In 1975 the questioning of an individual call was permitted, but this was
changed to "opponents' auction" in 1987. Lille interpretation #9 reaffirmed
that L20F1 permits a request for "a full explanation of the opponents'
auction," meaning "an explanation of the whole auction," not  for the
meaning of a particular call. I take this to mean that East should have
asked about the N/S understandings in regard to weak two bids without
concentrating on the heart suit in his questioning.

The footnote to L20F1 specifically states that L16 may apply to such
questioning, so I don't understand how the BW statement is now wrong.

I don't understand either why "What did three clubs mean?" (per 1975) is
superior to the current "Please explain your auction."

Marv (Marvin L. French)








From owner-bridge-laws  Tue Jan 25 07:58:34 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA24993
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 07:58:34 +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 HAA24988
	for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 07:58:26 +1100 (EST)
Received: from [128.206.98.1] (mu-098001.dhcp.missouri.edu [128.206.98.1]) by umc-mail01.missouri.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21)
	id DCC8VTDL; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 14:58:18 -0600
X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.20000122144726.00736ddc@mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 14:59:53 -0600
To: 
From: "Robert E. Harris" 
Subject: Re: Redress for N/S?
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Henry Sun wrote
(snip)

>as to the situation in question, I would consider a balancing double
>by west [recall that his hand was xxxx; x; aqx; axxxx] to be virtually
>automatic.  if this evaluation is correct, and if the bridge world's
>position is correct, then no grounds for an adjusted score would
>exist.  is this correct?
>

So, didn't east's persistent questioning suggest to the ethical west that
he should not double?  This sort of situation has a double-edged quality:
the transmission of UI gets partner to not do what one wants partner to do,
unless it gets partner to not do what one wants partner to not do.  Here
(after the UI), if partner doubles, and it gets left in for a bad NS
result, the score is likely to be adjusted.  So the ethical partner does
not double, the contract stays 2H, which ought to suit east very well.
Didn't the UI cause west to take just the action east wanted?

So the careful east asks little or nothing when a balancing double is
wanted, but sends UI when it is not wanted?

Or am I being stupid?

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  Tue Jan 25 08:22:49 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA25068
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 08:22:49 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [207.213.113.50])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA25063
	for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 08:22:42 +1100 (EST)
Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4])
	by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA11928;
	Mon, 24 Jan 2000 13:22:30 -0800
Message-Id: <200001242122.NAA11928@mailhub.irvine.com>
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
CC: adam@irvine.com
Subject: Re: Premature play by a defender
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 24 Jan 2000 14:56:42 PST."
              
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 13:22:31 PST
From: Adam Beneschan 
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

> 
> Hi BLMrs,
> 
> South playing a NT contract, at trick twelve remaining cards are:  
> 
>                    North
>                    S ---
>                    H 8
>                    D 4
>                    C ---
> West                       East
> S --                          S --
> H --                          H --
> D 8                          D 10
> C 6                          C 10
>                   South
>                   S 10
>                   H ---
>                   D ---
>                   C 8
> 
> S played S10. W discarded C6, than put D8 faced down on
> table before E played to the current trick. Called to the table,
> the TD was told by E that he knows from previous C tricks
> that his partner has no more C and he will keep C10 anyway.
> 
> As I read the first sentence in Law 68: "a claim or a
> concession must refer to tricks other than one in progress"
> I understand that trick twelve has no relation with this Law.
> So I would rule "Premature play by a defender" (Law 57)
> and allow declarer to (57A3) "forbid offender's partner to play
> a card of an other suit" ie forbid a D discard if he is awaken....
> 
> As for trick 13, no prob....
> 
> Comments please.

West put the D8 face down??  Nowhere in Law 45 can this be considered
a "play"; nowhere in Law 68 can this be considered a "claim" or
"concession".  So what's the problem?  I don't get it.

If this had occurred earlier in the hand, West's action may constitute
UI to East, since it may indicate either that West expects to win the
trick and knows what he plans to lead to the next trick (impossible
here), or that West knows enough about what's going on that he knows
what card he's going to play to the next trick.  This may give East UI
about West's hand.  Here, however, the fact that West knows what he
will play to trick 13 gives only the information that West knows the
basic rules of the game.

                                -- Adam



From owner-bridge-laws  Tue Jan 25 08:48:52 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA25165
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 08:48:52 +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 IAA25160
	for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 08:48:41 +1100 (EST)
Received: (from smtpd@localhost)
	by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA10113
	for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 22:48:28 +0100
Received: from ip1.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.1), claiming to be "jd-private.internal"
 via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda10111; Mon Jan 24 22:48:25 2000
From: Jesper Dybdal  
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: Law 12C3
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 22:48:25 +0100
Organization: at home
Message-ID: 
References: 
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 IAA25161
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 23 Jan 2000 17:08:42 EST, Schoderb@aol.com wrote:

>I'm tired of arriving at a table and being 
>greeted with "I appeal this result....I appeal their actions....etc." without 
>having yet made a ruling!

I've never experienced that.  Danish players seem to know that
the primary thing is a TD ruling.

>What is overlooked in many of the BLML postings is that these rulings are now 
>made AT WBF LEVEL BY APPROPRIATE CONSULTATION WITH EXPERTS in Laws, bidding, 
>play, etc., before the ruling is presented to the players.  In order to 
>provide an AC with an appealed ruling, sensibly arrived at, contested by the 
>appellants, we take our time, arrive at consensus, and rule as best we are 
>able to.  This, in  extremely rare instances, requires that we have access to 
>all necessary tools including 12C3 to do the job correctly.

If we ignore the formalities and the desirability of having laws
that are actually followed, then I agree: it is clear from what
you tell us that these World Championships have had benefit from
that regulation.

But the WBF level is not the only place where TDs to their job
carefully and well.  It actually happens once in a while around
the world that a good TD, after consultation, would like to give
a good ruling, using "all necessary tools including 12C3".

It bothers me that the WBF makes a law that forbids a TD to do so
in, for instance, a Danish championship, but then decides that it
can break that law itself because its TDs and consultants are
good.

Such events have a negative impact on the respect for the laws:
if the WBF itself can ignore a law because they consider it a bad
law in the circumstances, why shouldn't we do the same?

If this regulation in Bermuda was just an early application of a
law change that will be announced very shortly, then I think it
is fine.  But if the rest of us have to go on using the current
L12C3 for a prolonged period, then it does look somewhat like a
case of legislators who put themselves above the laws they make
for others.  (I don't know exactly who made that regulation: if
the WBFLC was not involved, then my preceding statement is of
course only true if "the legislators" is considered to be the WBF
as an organization, and the WBFLC itself is then probably not to
blame.)

>  Conscientious, 
>trained and skilled TDs together with expert consultants, can make good 
>rulings that are accepted by the players.

Exactly.  And not only at World Championships.

We completely agree that it is a good thing for a competent TD to
be allowed to give the right ruling.  Indeed, I find it very much
wrong that he is not always allowed to do so.

The rules applied by TDs and ACs need to be the same, unless we
want the unfortunate situation where many rulings are appealed
automatically.  And I do not want that situation any more than
you do.

It makes no great difference to me whether L12C3 is removed
completely or made usable for TDs, but we do need one of the two
changes.

And the point is that we need it at all levels: with a good TD,
we will then get good rulings, with a bad TD we will not get
worse rulings than the ones we get now.

Of course, TDs will need instructions on when and how to apply
L12C3 if they are given the right to do so: I would prefer that
part of those instructions be written into the law book.  For
instance in the form of a L12C3 that says clearly that its
purpose is to allow assigning weighted averages of possible
scores when the direct application of L12C2 gives a result that
is considered to be far from equity.

I agree with you that L12C3 should be used rarely: otherwise,
L12C2 becomes completely meaningless.

> The thinking that TDs should be parrots of the 
>"recipe" Laws of the book, and pass the "judgement" Laws to an AC directly 
>without Ruling as correctly as they are able to is wrong.  If you can't do 
>this job right, go sell shoes.

I couldn't agree more.  But L12C3 sometimes forbids the TD to
give the best ruling.

>I am reluctant to give much time to 
>telling me how wrong the WBFLC is when I look around the membership of that 
>committee, the backgrounds of its members, the minutes of the meetings, and 
>the advice of legal counsels.

I think that most of us on BLML, even when we criticize specific
WBFLC decisions strongly, are perfectly aware that the members of
the WBFLC are intelligent and sensible persons who happen to have
a very difficult job.  It is unavoidable that such a committee,
no matter how competent its individual members are, will
sometimes make decisions which can afterwards be seen to be
wrong.  When I criticize the decisions of the WBFLC, it does not
in any way imply a criticism of the competence of its individual
members.
-- 
Jesper Dybdal, Denmark .
http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish).

From owner-bridge-laws  Tue Jan 25 10:17:27 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA25394
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 10:17:27 +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 KAA25389
	for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 10:17:19 +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 SAA15228;
	Mon, 24 Jan 2000 18:16:56 -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: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 18:15:11 -0500
To: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
From: "David J. Grabiner" 
Subject: Re: Premature play by a defender
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

At 2:56 PM -0500 1/24/00, Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote:
>Hi BLMrs,
>
>South playing a NT contract, at trick twelve remaining cards are:
>
>                   North
>                   S ---
>                   H 8
>                   D 4
>                   C ---
>West                       East
>S --                          S --
>H --                          H --
>D 8                          D 10
>C 6                          C 10
>                  South
>                  S 10
>                  H ---
>                  D ---
>                  C 8
>
>S played S10. W discarded C6, than put D8 faced down on
>table before E played to the current trick. Called to the table,
>the TD was told by E that he knows from previous C tricks
>that his partner has no more C and he will keep C10 anyway.

If he put the card *face down* on the table, it wasn't played, and there is
no penalty, but East has the UI that West knows what card he will play to
the 13th trick.  (If West placed it as a played card, East may have the UI
that West expects to win the 13th trick; there would probably still be no
penalty.)

If West put it *face up* on the table, it is played (L45C1) but not led
unless the Director deems that it was, and in this situation, the card was
not led.  Instead, it is a penalty card; I would say it is minor since West
exposed the card but did not deliberately play it.  It is thus UI to East,
and this UI takes effect at trick 12 even though the title of L45E says
"fifth card played to trick".

>So I would rule "Premature play by a defender" (Law 57)
>and allow declarer to (57A3) "forbid offender's partner to play
>a card of an other suit" ie forbid a D discard if he is awaken....

Is L57A applicable?  I suppose it is, because West's illegal play was "out
of turn before his partner has played."  The rule may have been intended to
penalize West for playing before his partner when his turn was after
partner's turn, though, so I could see not applying L57A under the spirit
of the rules.  (If West had played two cards together, there would be no
L57A penalty, only a UI penalty from the penalty card.)

If L57A is not applied, or if declarer has miscounted and forbids East from
discarding a heart under L57A, then East still has UI from partner's
penalty card; if East might not know who has the club and who has the
diamond, then either discard is a LA and he must discard the club at trick
12.  However, if West has previously shown out in clubs (as appears to be
the case), then the UI is irrelevant.




From owner-bridge-laws  Tue Jan 25 11:01:43 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA25528
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 11:01:43 +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 LAA25523
	for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 11:01:35 +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 TAA28966
	for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 19:01:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from willner@localhost)
	by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA22360
	for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 19:01:26 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 19:01:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Steve Willner 
Message-Id: <200001250001.TAA22360@cfa183.harvard.edu>
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: Redress for N/S?
X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

> From: "Marvin L. French" 
> The footnote to L20F1 specifically states that L16 may apply to such
> questioning, so I don't understand how the BW statement is now wrong.

The change I meant was in L16.  There are no longer two kinds of UI,
"normal UI" subject to a 75% rule and "invidious UI" subject to a 25%
rule.  All UI is treated as "invidious UI" now.

L20F1 changed in 1987, but it seems to me it was only better phrasing,
not a substantive change.  In 1997 there was a substantive change,
which might have an effect on which questions one deems illegal for
L73B1 purposes.  I don't think it has any effect on L16A decisions.

From owner-bridge-laws  Tue Jan 25 14:04:35 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA25906
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 14:04:35 +1100 (EST)
Received: from ns2.san.rr.com (ns2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.3])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA25901
	for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 14:04:27 +1100 (EST)
Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com
          (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35)
          with ESMTP id com for ;
          Mon, 24 Jan 2000 19:04:15 -0800
Message-ID: <00cc01bf66e0$d5e31600$16991e18@san.rr.com>
Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" 
From: "Marvin L. French" 
To: 
References: <200001241521.PAA20773@tempest.npl.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Is it ethical to negate a penalty?
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 18:54:34 -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

Robin Barker wrote:

  >Ed Repper wrote:


>>    Marvin L. French wrote:
> > >The ACBL does not regard this right as appropriate,
> > >and has instructed ACBL TDs to ignore this provision of L24.
> >
> > Can they do that? (He asked naively. :)

And no doubt tongue-in-cheek. The instruction is illegal if you go by the
Laws, but the ACBL does illegal things without fear of repercussions from
its superior organization, the WBF..
>
> The ACBL can instruct its TDs to explain the L24 options to declarer
> (i.e. not to treat cards exposed during the auction as penalty cards),
> and to explain the ACBL "anti-dumping" regulations, requiring you to
> play to win at all times, and further that the ACBL has the opinion
> that not treating cards as penalty is rarely/never playing to win.
>
> You can see that the alternative of instructing the TDs not to mention
> the L24 option appears much easier and just as legal.
>
For one thing, L24 does not allow TDs to make the decision, only declarer.
All the TD can do is require that an exposed card be left face up on the
table until the auction is over, and, if it is an honor card, require that
the partner of the offender pass throughout the auction. That is the
penalty, a severe one, which an opponent will not be allowed to waive
without good reason.

When the auction is over, the declarer decides, after the TD explains the
options (which he must do per L10C1, no choice), to either allow the
opponent to pick the card up with no further penalty, or to leave it on the
table as a penalty card during the play.

I am sure the lawmakers had some good reason for writing L24 the way it
reads, and it is not in our place, or the ACBL's, to second-guess them.
Perhaps they felt that the passing requirement was enough of a penalty,
letting declarer decide on any further punishment. My tendency would be to
say "Pick it up" if it seems that the passing requirement has hurt the
opponents, but otherwise to treat it as a penalty card during the play. It
seems like the sporting thing to do, even though sportsmanship seems to be
generally out of fashion these days.

If we don't like the Law, we can petition the LC to change it. Choosing to
disregard Laws that we don't like leads to chaos. I like it.

Marv (Marvin L. French)




From owner-bridge-laws  Tue Jan 25 14:22:04 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA25956
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 14:22:04 +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 OAA25951
	for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 14:21:55 +1100 (EST)
Received: from p50s12a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.124.81] helo=vnmvhhid)
	by cobalt11-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1)
	id 12CaGh-0002au-00
	for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 03:34:20 +0000
From: "Anne Jones" 
To: "BLML" 
Subject: Re: Law 12C3
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 03:28:07 -0000
Message-ID: <01bf66e4$32cf8260$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk


-----Original Message-----
From: Jesper Dybdal 
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au 
Date: Monday, January 24, 2000 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: Law 12C3


>On Sun, 23 Jan 2000 17:08:42 EST, Schoderb@aol.com wrote:
>
>>I'm tired of arriving at a table and being
>>greeted with "I appeal this result....I appeal their actions....etc."
without
>>having yet made a ruling!
>
>I've never experienced that.  Danish players seem to know that
>the primary thing is a TD ruling.

I must admit that in Wales, this is the usually the case, but last weekend
proved
that not all players are "au fait" with all correct procedures.
A graded event,section 1 Life Masters and above. Big notices explaining
seating
arrangements. Kick off time 2.0pm, announcements made, play starts at
2.01pm.
Two pairs late in 7 table sect 1,but were known to be in the building. First
to arrive
(a) sits at only empty table it can see, and starts the auction. 20 secs
later second
 pair (b) has read the notices and wants to sit there.TD intervenes and
moves
 pair (a) to correct seat with instructions to report when board is met
again,
instructs pair (b) to wait so that auction can be supervised.
Pair (a) try to start an argument about the penalising of pair (b) for being
later
than they were, and want to appeal the TD ruling that a ruling at another
table
was not their business. Before they had sat at the correct table for round
1, one
player was shouting "APPEAL"
Kojak, don't shout at me, I do control "them" quite well really, but note
that the
other sections (lesser mortals) were all seated by 1.56pm.
Good fun isn't it!
Anne





From owner-bridge-laws  Tue Jan 25 17:38:20 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA26281
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 17:38:20 +1100 (EST)
Received: from ns2.san.rr.com (ns2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.3])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA26276
	for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 17:38:12 +1100 (EST)
Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com
          (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35)
          with ESMTP id com for ;
          Mon, 24 Jan 2000 22:38:04 -0800
Message-ID: <00f501bf66fe$b00c84c0$16991e18@san.rr.com>
Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" 
From: "Marvin L. French" 
To: 
References: <200001250001.TAA22360@cfa183.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Redress for N/S?
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 22:28:27 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk



Steve Willner wrote:

> > From: "Marvin L. French" 
> > The footnote to L20F1 specifically states that L16 may apply to such
> > questioning, so I don't understand how the BW statement is now wrong.
>
> The change I meant was in L16.  There are no longer two kinds of UI,
> "normal UI" subject to a 75% rule and "invidious UI" subject to a 25%
> rule.  All UI is treated as "invidious UI" now.

What Laws are you reading from? I can't find anything like that in any
version, and I still don't see what was wrong with the BW statement.

>
> L20F1 changed in 1987, but it seems to me it was only better phrasing,
> not a substantive change.

Changing the word "call" to "auction" was certainly substantive. Before 1987
you could inquire as to the meaning of a call, which was changed in 1987 to
permit only "an explanation of the opponents' auction." This was supposed to
help stop the unethical questioning of individual calls. The change also
applied to questions during the play.

Some careless person forgot to change the title of L20 and L20F to accord
with their contents. It's supposed to be "Review and Explanation of
Auction," not "Review and Explanation of Calls."

> In 1997 there was a substantive change,
> which might have an effect on which questions one deems illegal for
> L73B1 purposes.  I don't think it has any effect on L16A decisions.

The change was not substantive, although DWS and others interpreted it as
such. Even Ralph Cohen thought the change was substantive, but Grattan
explained that it was not. The WBFLC cleared this up at Lille, and I see
that DWS has removed a comment to the contrary from his technical summary of
the 1997 Laws as a result.

All the 1997 change did was to add a parenthetical statement (subordinate to
the clause that contains it) to the effect that, within the context of an
explanation of auction, a player can ask about the meaning of calls
available but not made as well as those that were made. This was to kill off
an old notion that a player can question only the actual auction.

This is a good law, and the current inclination to return to the pre-1987
version is misguided. The 1987 change was made for very good reasons.

Marv (Marvin L. French)













From owner-bridge-laws  Tue Jan 25 19:55:05 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA26531
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 19:55:05 +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 TAA26522
	for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 19:52:19 +1100 (EST)
Received: by stat.ee id IAA23985; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 08:51:15 GMT
Received: from ESA-Message_Server by stat.ee
	with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 11:00:18 +0200
Message-Id: 
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 10:52:48 +0200
From: Aavo Heinlo 
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: Non-informative break in tempo
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

>Roger Pewick answered: 
>Examining the 7N call in isolation, the 6D call [AI] suggests that
>all of
>the suits are well heeled except clubs.  The hesitation suggests
>that S is
>worried if N has the balanced hand instead of a solid suit.  Imo
>this UI
>does not provide inferences that 7N is suggested over a LA
>because a grand
>is not as likely to be successful without the strong major suit
>holdings
>needed opposite a balanced 3N and the huddle suggests that
>those major suit
>honors may not be present.  7N is plainly a sound bid on this
>auction.

>Not trying to raise a ruckus, but..

>Looking at the S hand it seems obvious that he was
>considering the risk that
>N does or does not have a solid suit and the choice of 6D is
>predicated on
>the gamble that N has a solid suit.

>But looking at the values S had for 6D, if N had a balanced 3N, 
>6D looks
>crazy [just how many players would up and bid 6D on this
>auction given the
>DK is not present and there is no first round control of clubs?].  
>It would
>be likely that the indicated capacity of the cards could be
>exceeded because
>S needs a big source of tricks [solid suit from N] to make slam
>on his
>cards.  And the 6D call looks highly suspect given the limited
>values held.
>So, at this point, if there is any need for concern, it would be
>about
>whether the 6D call was in fact a fortuitous guess- or was it
>really all
>that much of a gamble?   For instance, was there extraneous
>information [it
>would not take much of a mannerism/ variation in tempo to
>provide that kind
>of an inference] that could have suggested that N more likely
>held a solid
>suit type for his 3N?  If so, there is the question as to whether
>6D ought
>to be allowed to stand.

>Roger Pewick
>Houston, Texas

Both, N&S are gun-bidders. 3NT from S 
was instant, no mannerism whatsofever.
The possibility of good minor is not part of
their system. 3NT is described as contract
only.
N took only few seconds instead of normal
half second.
Firstly N had to decide will he take a risk
and found that opposite balanced 12HCP 
the 6D have some merit, against 15HCP
it seems rather good.
Then he had to find next bid and he
find that Axx, Axx, AQJxxx,x is exactly
described by 6D. So he did.

Aavo Heinlo




----- Original Message -----
From: Aavo Heinlo 
To: 
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2000 1:45 AM
Subject: Non-informative break in tempo


>> Dealer S, NS vulnerable, pairs
>> S  975
>> H  876
>> D  K9
>> C  AKQJT6
>>              N
>>              S
>> S  A86
>> H  A95
>> D  AQS864
>> C  9
>>
>> Bidding:
>> S         W           N             E
>> 1D      p            3NT        p
>> 6D      p            7NT        p...
>>
>> 1D - 12-13 balanced or
>>          11-16 with 4+ diamonds
>>          or 11-16 any 4441
>> 3T - contract, as a rule no
>>         4+ majors, either strong
>>         balanced or solid minor
>> 6D - there was break in tempo,
>>          out of system, but from
>>          bridge logic good diamonds
>>          and 3 aces
>>
>> Question: if the TD is called and
>> the break in tempo is pointed out
>> will the result stand?
>>
>> Aavo Heinlo
>>
>> Tel +372 6259217
>> E-mail aavo.heinlo@stat.ee


From owner-bridge-laws  Tue Jan 25 21:08:30 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA26679
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 21:08:30 +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 VAA26674
	for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 21:08:23 +1100 (EST)
Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-118.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.118])
	by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA18942
	for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 11:08:14 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <388C5296.A4375D24@village.uunet.be>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 14:24:38 +0100
From: Herman De Wael 
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bridge Laws 
Subject: Re: bum claim
References: <200001220227.VAA19842@cfa183.harvard.edu> <388BB69C.D3CF903C@alltel.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

One should think all has been said in this thread, but I
could not resist commenting on one piece of what :

Norman Hostetler wrote:
> 
> There are two primary reasons (at less than
> expert levels) for this thoughtlessness: 

> 1) He did not count or miscounted
> the suit and believes that he cannot be defeated on any line of play,
> provided that he plays his three top honors first, or 

> 2) He did not think
> enough about the suit to consider the play implications of a 4-0 > split,
> which occurs often enough that anybody should take it into account.  

There is a third possibility, or if you intended this in
your nr1), it should not be grouped in there :

3) He did not count the suit at all, and claimed on the
"general" feeling that everything should be high.

I know this is a very dangerous thing to do, but I have done
it.
As a TD, I admit that it can be done.
As a player, captain and director, I do not advise it of
anyone, because it may fail more often than you think.

But as a TD, I accept it and deal with the claim on its
merits.  That includes making a non-irrational plan for the
play of the hand, and seeing if any such plan will work.

OK ?
-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html



From owner-bridge-laws  Wed Jan 26 00:05:31 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA27146
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 00:05:31 +1100 (EST)
Received: from hotmail.com (oe19.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.123])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA27138
	for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 00:05:23 +1100 (EST)
Received: (qmail 98612 invoked by uid 65534); 25 Jan 2000 13:04:45 -0000
Message-ID: <20000125130445.98611.qmail@hotmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [209.206.12.225]
From: "Roger Pewick" 
To: "blml" ,
        "Aavo Heinlo" 
References: 
Subject: Re: Non-informative break in tempo
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 07:05:08 -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


----- Original Message -----
From: Aavo Heinlo 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 2:52 AM
Subject: Re: Non-informative break in tempo


> >Roger Pewick answered:
> >Examining the 7N call in isolation, the 6D call [AI] suggests that
> >all of
> >the suits are well heeled except clubs.  The hesitation suggests
> >that S is
> >worried if N has the balanced hand instead of a solid suit.  Imo
> >this UI
> >does not provide inferences that 7N is suggested over a LA
> >because a grand
> >is not as likely to be successful without the strong major suit
> >holdings
> >needed opposite a balanced 3N and the huddle suggests that
> >those major suit
> >honors may not be present.  7N is plainly a sound bid on this
> >auction.
>
> >Not trying to raise a ruckus, but..
>
> >Looking at the S hand it seems obvious that he was
> >considering the risk that
> >N does or does not have a solid suit and the choice of 6D is
> >predicated on
> >the gamble that N has a solid suit.
>
> >But looking at the values S had for 6D, if N had a balanced 3N,
> >6D looks
> >crazy [just how many players would up and bid 6D on this
> >auction given the
> >DK is not present and there is no first round control of clubs?].
> >It would
> >be likely that the indicated capacity of the cards could be
> >exceeded because
> >S needs a big source of tricks [solid suit from N] to make slam
> >on his
> >cards.  And the 6D call looks highly suspect given the limited
> >values held.
> >So, at this point, if there is any need for concern, it would be
> >about
> >whether the 6D call was in fact a fortuitous guess- or was it
> >really all
> >that much of a gamble?   For instance, was there extraneous
> >information [it
> >would not take much of a mannerism/ variation in tempo to
> >provide that kind
> >of an inference] that could have suggested that N more likely
> >held a solid
> >suit type for his 3N?  If so, there is the question as to whether
> >6D ought
> >to be allowed to stand.
>
> >Roger Pewick
> >Houston, Texas
>
> Both, N&S are gun-bidders. 3NT from S
> was instant, no mannerism whatsofever.
> The possibility of good minor is not part of
> their system.

copy, BOLD,  and paste:

> >> 3T - contract, as a rule no
> >>         4+ majors, either strong
> >>         balanced or SOLID MINOR

Still, not to cause a ruckus, your fact is not consistent.  I was merely
pointing out that if there was a problem, it could be with 6D and from what
you described, there is nothing that would bring me to a conclusion that
there was a problem.

and in this event, N-S are my heros.  They play fair. They are tough.  I
want them for opponents and maybe for team mates.

Roger Pewick
Houston, Texas



3NT is described as contract
> only.
> N took only few seconds instead of normal
> half second.
> Firstly N had to decide will he take a risk
> and found that opposite balanced 12HCP
> the 6D have some merit, against 15HCP
> it seems rather good.
> Then he had to find next bid and he
> find that Axx, Axx, AQJxxx,x is exactly
> described by 6D. So he did.
>
> Aavo Heinlo
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Aavo Heinlo 
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2000 1:45 AM
> Subject: Non-informative break in tempo
>
>
> >> Dealer S, NS vulnerable, pairs
> >> S  975
> >> H  876
> >> D  K9
> >> C  AKQJT6
> >>              N
> >>              S
> >> S  A86
> >> H  A95
> >> D  AQS864
> >> C  9
> >>
> >> Bidding:
> >> S         W           N             E
> >> 1D      p            3NT        p
> >> 6D      p            7NT        p...
> >>
> >> 1D - 12-13 balanced or
> >>          11-16 with 4+ diamonds
> >>          or 11-16 any 4441
> >> 3T - contract, as a rule no
> >>         4+ majors, either strong
> >>         balanced or solid minor
> >> 6D - there was break in tempo,
> >>          out of system, but from
> >>          bridge logic good diamonds
> >>          and 3 aces
> >>
> >> Question: if the TD is called and
> >> the break in tempo is pointed out
> >> will the result stand?
> >>
> >> Aavo Heinlo
> >>
> >> Tel +372 6259217
> >> E-mail aavo.heinlo@stat.ee
>
>


From owner-bridge-laws  Wed Jan 26 00:31:07 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA27263
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 00:31:07 +1100 (EST)
Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (root@Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA27257
	for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 00:30:59 +1100 (EST)
From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA
Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.2])
	by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA12275;
	Tue, 25 Jan 2000 08:30:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP
	(1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA046057048; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 08:30:48 -0500
X-Openmail-Hops: 1
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 08:30:35 -0500
Message-Id: 
Subject: RE: Premature play by a defender
To: adam@irvine.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk


   
   > 
   > Hi BLMrs,
   > 
   > South playing a NT contract, at trick twelve remaining cards are:  
   > 
   >                    North
   >                    S ---
   >                    H 8
   >                    D 4
   >                    C ---
   > West                       East
   > S --                          S --
   > H --                          H --
   > D 8                          D 10
   > C 6                          C 10
   >                   South
   >                   S 10
   >                   H ---
   >                   D ---
   >                   C 8
   > 
   > S played S10. W discarded C6, than put D8 faced down on
   > table before E played to the current trick. Called to the table,
   > the TD was told by E that he knows from previous C tricks
   > that his partner has no more C and he will keep C10 anyway.
   > 
   > As I read the first sentence in Law 68: "a claim or a
   > concession must refer to tricks other than one in progress"
   > I understand that trick twelve has no relation with this Law.
   > So I would rule "Premature play by a defender" (Law 57)
   > and allow declarer to (57A3) "forbid offender's partner to play
   > a card of an other suit" ie forbid a D discard if he is awaken....
   > 
   > As for trick 13, no prob....
   > 
   > Comments please.
   
   West put the D8 face down??  Nowhere in Law 45 can this be considered
   a "play"; nowhere in Law 68 can this be considered a "claim" or
   "concession".  So what's the problem?  I don't get it.
   
   If this had occurred earlier in the hand, West's action may
   constitute
   UI to East, since it may indicate either that West expects to win the
   trick and knows what he plans to lead to the next trick (impossible
   here), or that West knows enough about what's going on that he knows
   what card he's going to play to the next trick.  This may give East
   UI
   about West's hand.  Here, however, the fact that West knows what he
   will play to trick 13 gives only the information that West knows the
   basic rules of the game.
[Laval Dubreuil]  
   
   [Laval Dubreuil]  West put D8 FACED UP.......sleeping....
   
   Sorry
   
   I know W did not play prematurely to current trick but to next
   one. It is a concession to 13th trick, but what about 12th...
   Laval Du Breuil 
   
   

From owner-bridge-laws  Wed Jan 26 02:15:54 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA27765
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 02:15:54 +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 CAA27758
	for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 02:15:44 +1100 (EST)
Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-23-58.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.23.58])
	by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA00699
	for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 16:15:34 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <388D7CB0.378ED27A@village.uunet.be>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 11:36:32 +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: bum claim
References: <200001241529.KAA21680@cfa183.harvard.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Steve Willner wrote:
> 
> 
> The key point is to get away from the notion of ruling on "how the play
> might go if it were continued."  That has little support in the Laws.

hm ?

Then how will you determine a claim, if not by checking how
the play would progress ?
Of course that is what we must do.
We should list all possible ways of how the play might go. 
Then delete all those that would be irrational.  Then award
the least number to the claiming side.

> I agree that the "class of player" business should be removed.  We have
> no need of that.

Yes we do.
-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html


From owner-bridge-laws  Wed Jan 26 03:38:47 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA28144
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 03:38:47 +1100 (EST)
Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (root@Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA28139
	for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 03:38:34 +1100 (EST)
From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA
Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.2])
	by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA21304
	for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 11:38:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP
	(1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA106308300; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 11:38:20 -0500
X-Openmail-Hops: 1
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 11:38:00 -0500
Message-Id: 
Subject: Premature play - 2nd try
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 DAA28140
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Hi BLMrs,

Sorry, I posted my first message too fast...and asleep...

South playing a NT contract, at trick twelve remaining cards are:   

                   North
                   S ---
                   H 8
                   D 4
                   C ---
West                       East
S --                          S --
H --                          H --
D 8                          D 10
C 6                          C 10
                  South
                  S 10
                  H ---
                  D ---
                  C 8

S played S10. W discarded C6, than put D8 faced UP on
table before E played to the current trick. Called to the table,
the TD was told by E that he knows from previous C tricks
that his partner has no more C and he will keep C10 anyway.

As I read the first sentence in Law 68: "a claim or a
concession must refer to tricks other than one in progress"
I understand that trick twelve has no relation with this Law.

Law 57A "When a defender leads to the next trick before
his partner has played to the current trick" could be applied
but I think D8 is more a concession than a lead to 13th trick.

To restore equity, I would like to rule on Law 57 on trick
twelve and allow declarer to (57A3) "forbid offender's partner
to play a card of an other suit" ie forbid a D discard (if he is
more awaken than I was when writing my first message).

As for trick 13, no prob....

Comments please.

Laval Du Breuil    
Quebec City



From owner-bridge-laws  Wed Jan 26 04:24:01 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA28327
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 04:24:01 +1100 (EST)
Received: from loger.inter.net.il (loger.inter.net.il [192.116.202.32])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA28322
	for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 04:23:51 +1100 (EST)
Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-1-42.access.net.il [213.8.1.42] (may be forged))
	by loger.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA12227;
	Tue, 25 Jan 2000 19:22:45 +0200 (IST)
Message-ID: <388DDC33.B0A9A11A@zahav.net.il>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 19:24:03 +0200
From: Dany Haimovici 
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en-US,fr,Hebrew,en,ro,ru
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Schoderb@aol.com
CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: Law 12C3
References: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Thank you for this interesting review.

I believe that the procedures you told us are the best way to implement
Law 12C3 and all the Laws . I believe that TON is your best partner to
this point of view because I had the great honor to work with him 
for the last 5 years (every year he was the CTD at Tel-Aviv int. fest.)
and he lead this general approach during these years.

I order to make any ruling , the TD has to get the most possible
information at the table .
As much as I understand the TD's tasks , one of the most important is to
make a ruling that will permit play to continue ( see L85B , if I
remember..), even if he is not sure/satisfied by the data he collected .
Theoretically , there should be no appeal instance if the TD is
professional (again theoretically) . But even then , the lawmakers are
aware that it is more important to let the play continue than to gather
all the facts and data in a limited amount of time .

There are 2 "families" of ruling : A - mechanics (dealing with
procedures) and B - bridge judgment.
I believe that the original idea of the clever people who make the laws
was to give - accordingly - two possibilities to redress a ruling , when
the TD couldn't have (because had no time to collect them all or people
forgot to tell or for any other reason ) all the relevant data when he
"HAD" to make that ruling with no delay :

If the ruling was from family A - he can rectify it by law 82C.
If the ruling was from family B - he can reconsider it at the end 
of the contest by Law 93 . The appearance of the Appeals Committee -
it is just a logical guess - was due to two situations :
....a) at the end of the session the TD was very busy to collect the
score sheets and compute the results and arrange the tables etc...
....b) at high level contests the TD - and some intergalactic champs -
felt that his bridge level is not high enough to argue with 
those sharks....so let them take all the time to get all the data and
opinions and fight among themself...(this is not sarcastic) .
 
The TD has the discretionary power to adjust the score - practically
without any limits . The AC got it too by L12C3 .
I believe that the last adjustment of L12C3 and the Bermuda CoC are the
result of the successful implementation of the right approach . I am
very that your experience at The 2000 B&V was as you told .

But the real trouble , by my experience, is at National and regional
level contests , where the players are of very different levels and
worst , coming from the clubs' contests , where the ruling and all the
procedures are not so aiaiai....I leave it for another serious
discussion in order to find the way to implement the WBF's method to
improve the procedures . The WBFLC and the WBF made already the first
step , being the first "personal example" at the 2000 B&V Cups.

Dany



Schoderb@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Having read the BLML postings on this subject I am again amazed at the
> pervasive lack of facts, understanding, and knowledge of the Laws and the
> intent of the Code of Practice.  Comments such as "Schoder wants to take over
> the world" "It is illegal," etc., are so far off base that they don't deserve
> answer. Reading the Code with care would seem to me to be a prerequisite to
> finding fault with it's provisions.
> However, I think those thinking individuals (as opposed to those knee jerk
> responses of some self styled savants of this BLML) might wish to hear my
> thoughts and clarifications. If any of this offends you, please use the
> delete key forthwith.
> 
> I have no desire to take over the world, nor does the WBFLC (in my opinion)
> wish to do something illegal, wrong, or fattening.  The Law provides for
> appeals to Directors' rulings.  It does not, as has become the damaging and
> misleading custom in selected NCBOs, apply to appeals to what happened at the
> table WITHOUT A RULING TO APPEAL. I'm tired of arriving at a table and being
> greeted with "I appeal this result....I appeal their actions....etc." without
> having yet made a ruling!  I and many of my colleagues, are fully aware that
> poor TD rulings over many years has caused disintegration to a great degree.
> Bad rulings, thoughtless actions, knee jerk ruling "in favor of the
> non-offending side," etc., have resulted in that we are often faced with no
> trust, confidence, or respect from the players. We have brought it upon
> ourselves, but it doesn't have to stay that way. The Law provides for appeals
> to TD rulings (Law 92A). When I hear the word "appeal" before opening my
> mouth I also know that the players are really asking that peers of theirs
> review what has happened.  The Code of Practice for Appeals Committees places
> great responsibility upon TDs to make good rulings. In Bermuda we
> accomplished this by consultation.
> 
> What is overlooked in many of the BLML postings is that these rulings are now
> made AT WBF LEVEL BY APPROPRIATE CONSULTATION WITH EXPERTS in Laws, bidding,
> play, etc., before the ruling is presented to the players.  In order to
> provide an AC with an appealed ruling, sensibly arrived at, contested by the
> appellants, we take our time, arrive at consensus, and rule as best we are
> able to.  This, in  extremely rare instances, requires that we have access to
> all necessary tools including 12C3 to do the job correctly.  Conscientious,
> trained and skilled TDs together with expert consultants, can make good
> rulings that are accepted by the players.  The 4 (or was it 5?) TOTAL appeals
> in the entire Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup from the first hand of the round
> robins to the last hand of the Finals makes it clear that those players were
> a lot happier with TD performance than had ever been the case before. This
> ratio of rulings made to rulings appealed has never happened before in my
> almost 30 years with the WBF!   There were at from 4 to 6 bridge judgement
> rulings in each session of  20 or 16 boards in these prestigious events.
> When only 4 were contested, and there were less than 10 for the entire
> tournament including the Transnational Teams , we must be on the right track.
> The Code requirement to the AC  to start from a presumption that the TD
> ruling is correct directly stems from the facts that:
> 1.  It is the ruling being appealed, not the situation.
>  2. The players have had a review which included evaluation and testimony by
> experts.
> and 3. The Law has been applied, as it was written and intended and not as it
> has been bastardized by passing the buck directly to ACs.
> Those of you who read the Law that says in 93B what to do WHEN THERE IS AN
> APPEALS COMMITTEE AVAILABLE , need to unmuddy your thinking by realizing that
> Law 92 applies before 93 kicks in.
> TD education, better rulings throught this method, and getting back on track
> to apply the Laws is sadly in need of much work.  The morass in which some
> NCBOs find themselves vis-a-vis appeals is, to me, to a great degree
> self-inflicted.  Concern by TDs to do a better job is of much greater
> importance than the arcane efforts to find where the WBFLC, in its full
> authority by WBF ByLaws, found that extending 12C3 on a trial basis to
> include the CTD is illegal.
> Please also bear in mind that at least in Bermuda we were keenly aware that
> 12C3 is not a free standing provision of Law 12, but a step available to take
> AFTER 12C1 and 12C2 are applied and found lacking in equity. It is very
> rarely applicable.
> 
> The AC did change some rulings when they and the appellants were not in
> agreement, but mostly because we, the TDs, had not gotten the facts fully
> correct before making the rulings, or our colsultations were lacking in
> accuracy.  That is our failing, not the system's, and will be rectified as we
> refine our procedures.  The thinking that TDs should be parrots of the
> "recipe" Laws of the book, and pass the "judgement" Laws to an AC directly
> without Ruling as correctly as they are able to is wrong.  If you can't do
> this job right, go sell shoes.
> 
> I would welcome comments, suggestions and help to improve our attempts at
> improvement, either on BLML or directly. I am reluctant to give much time to
> telling me how wrong the WBFLC is when I look around the membership of that
> committee, the backgrounds of its members, the minutes of the meetings, and
> the advice of legal counsels.
> 
> Kojak

From owner-bridge-laws  Wed Jan 26 05:13:54 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA28508
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 05:13:54 +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 FAA28503
	for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 05:13:45 +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 NAA17234;
	Tue, 25 Jan 2000 13:13:14 -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: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 13:12:03 -0500
To: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
From: "David J. Grabiner" 
Subject: Re: Premature play - 2nd try
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

At 11:38 AM -0500 1/25/00, Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote:

>S played S10. W discarded C6, than put D8 faced UP on
>table before E played to the current trick. Called to the table,
>the TD was told by E that he knows from previous C tricks
>that his partner has no more C and he will keep C10 anyway.

>Law 57A "When a defender leads to the next trick before
>his partner has played to the current trick" could be applied
>but I think D8 is more a concession than a lead to 13th trick.

L57A also applies when a defender plays out of turn before partner has
played.  The D8 was shown to partner, so unless it was a concession of the
13th trick, it was played, and partner had not yet played to the trick.




From owner-bridge-laws  Wed Jan 26 06:01:05 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA28632
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 06:01:05 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [207.213.113.50])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA28627
	for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 06:00:54 +1100 (EST)
Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4])
	by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA30476;
	Tue, 25 Jan 2000 11:00:43 -0800
Message-Id: <200001251900.LAA30476@mailhub.irvine.com>
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
CC: adam@irvine.com
Subject: Re: Premature play by a defender
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 24 Jan 2000 18:15:11 PST."
              
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 11:00:40 PST
From: Adam Beneschan 
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk


David Grabiner wrote:
 
> At 2:56 PM -0500 1/24/00, Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote:
> >Hi BLMrs,
> >
> >South playing a NT contract, at trick twelve remaining cards are:
> >
> >                   North
> >                   S ---
> >                   H 8
> >                   D 4
> >                   C ---
> >West                       East
> >S --                          S --
> >H --                          H --
> >D 8                          D 10
> >C 6                          C 10
> >                  South
> >                  S 10
> >                  H ---
> >                  D ---
> >                  C 8
> >
> >S played S10. W discarded C6, than put D8 faced [up] on
> >table before E played to the current trick. Called to the table,
> >the TD was told by E that he knows from previous C tricks
> >that his partner has no more C and he will keep C10 anyway.
>
> If West put it *face up* on the table, it is played (L45C1) but not led
> unless the Director deems that it was, and in this situation, the card was
> not led.  Instead, it is a penalty card; I would say it is minor since West
> exposed the card but did not deliberately play it.  It is thus UI to East,
> and this UI takes effect at trick 12 even though the title of L45E says
> "fifth card played to trick".
> 
> >So I would rule "Premature play by a defender" (Law 57)
> >and allow declarer to (57A3) "forbid offender's partner to play
> >a card of an other suit" ie forbid a D discard if he is awaken....
> 
> Is L57A applicable?  I suppose it is, because West's illegal play was "out
> of turn before his partner has played."  The rule may have been intended to
> penalize West for playing before his partner when his turn was after
> partner's turn, though, so I could see not applying L57A under the spirit
> of the rules.  (If West had played two cards together, there would be no
> L57A penalty, only a UI penalty from the penalty card.)

I've always assume L57A applies to one defender playing to the
*current* trick ahead of his partner, not to a defender playing a card
that's supposed to be to the next trick.

I don't think L57A applies here.  This is either a penalty card/UI
case or a concession case.  I'm not sure whether it matters which,
though.  If it's a concession, we let East play correctly only if to
do otherwise would be irrational.  If it's a penalty card, we let East
play correctly only if to do otherwise is not a "logical alternative".


> If L57A is not applied, or if declarer has miscounted and forbids East from
> discarding a heart under L57A, then East still has UI from partner's
> penalty card; if East might not know who has the club and who has the
> diamond, then either discard is a LA and he must discard the club at trick
> 12.  However, if West has previously shown out in clubs (as appears to be
> the case), then the UI is irrelevant.

If West has previously shown out in clubs, we've got other problems,
since West still has a club left at trick 12.

If declarer previously showed out in diamonds, I'd let East play
correctly since it's obviously pointless to keep the D10.

If neither is the case, I suppose there are some sequences of play
where East would be able to infer, with such a degree of confidence
that the alternative would be irrational, that declarer's last card is
a club.  It would have to be a situation where declarer would have
clearly played the hand differently if declarer held the hand with D8
instead of C8.

                                -- Adam



From owner-bridge-laws  Wed Jan 26 07:02:56 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA28808
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 07:02:56 +1100 (EST)
Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA28802
	for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 07:02:44 +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 PAA22761
	for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 15:02:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from willner@localhost)
	by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA23019
	for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 15:02:31 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 15:02:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Steve Willner 
Message-Id: <200001252002.PAA23019@cfa183.harvard.edu>
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: Redress for N/S?
X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

SW> The change I meant was in L16.  There are no longer two kinds of UI,
SW> "normal UI" subject to a 75% rule and "invidious UI" subject to a 25%
SW> rule.  All UI is treated as "invidious UI" now.
 
> From: "Marvin L. French" 
> What Laws are you reading from? I can't find anything like that in any
> version, and I still don't see what was wrong with the BW statement.

Have another look at the 1975 Laws, Marv.  The "logical alternative"
business didn't exist!  Instead, we had L16C2, which under certain
conditions gave the TD the right to assign an adjusted score "if he
considers that the result could have been affected by the illegal
information."  The BW article was an _interpretation_ of this law, to
wit, if the UI was something normal (e.g., proper answer to a
question), the restrictions were mild, but if the UI was something
invidious (e.g., mannerism or hesitation), the restriction was severe
as in the present L16A.

The distinction between normal and invidious UI went away in 1987 when
the present L16A was adopted.  Now, if you have UI that suggests one
logical alternative over another, you have to pick the least-suggested
LA.  (But you don't have to pick anything that isn't a LA.)

I think Marv's interpretation of the L20F1 history is probably correct.

I'm still intending to respond to Jesper re L73B1, but it won't be
today.

From owner-bridge-laws  Wed Jan 26 08:18:25 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA29009
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 08:18:25 +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 IAA29004
	for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 08:18:17 +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 NAA10995
	for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 13:18:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from bbo@localhost)
	by king.halcyon.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA01713;
	Tue, 25 Jan 2000 13:18:09 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 13:18:09 -0800 (PST)
From: "Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" 
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Subject: LOOT - Simultaneous Leads?
In-Reply-To: <200001251900.LAA30476@mailhub.irvine.com>
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk


At a friendly club game in Green Valley, Arizona recently, we had an odd
sort of situation present itself.  The auction was a routine NT opening on
my right, followed by either a routine Stayman or a transfer sequence [or
just a 2NT maybe - not sure now], and then 3NT by opener, pass - pass -
pass.

I was the opening leader and had no problem, owning five spades to the KJ
that I always knew I was going to lead from.  In a matter of one or two
seconds at most, my opening small spade was out there, face down for an
instant, and as this was not the kind of auction which ever needs a
'question period', I flipped it over, picking up pen and cc in the next
motion to enter the contract in it. All this happened in much less time than
it takes to tell it.

When I looked up, dummy had not put any cards down, declarer was pointing at
the Spade Q sitting face up in front of partner, and talk of a lead out of
turn ensued.  I didn't see it go down on the table at all, but it seemed
apparent that pard thought she was on lead and led face up, rather than
following to my lead before dummy was faced.  As it looked to me, her
play was at best simultaneous to mine, if not actually subsequent to
it.  Seemed like it would take her bit longer to decide on Q from Qx than it
took me to lead fourth-of-my-longest-and-strongest.

Director comes, and it soon is apparent that nobody at the table is aware of
the exact timing or order of play.  [Seems a good looking lady passed by the
table right near the end of the auction - I didn't notice!] I suggested
maybe looking at the simultaneous leads and plays section.  Anyway the 5S
sits in front of me, the QS in front of pard.

I should add that the face-down opening lead was not apparently followed to
the letter of the law at all times in this friendly club.  Face-up happened
regularly, as well as face-down. 

Take it from there!

Richard B. Odlin


From owner-bridge-laws  Wed Jan 26 12:42:43 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA29535
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 12:42:43 +1100 (EST)
Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (root@Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA29530
	for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 12:42:34 +1100 (EST)
From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA
Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.2])
	by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA13842;
	Tue, 25 Jan 2000 20:42:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP
	(1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA248760939; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 20:42:19 -0500
X-Openmail-Hops: 1
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 20:42:05 -0500
Message-Id: 
Subject: RE: LOOT - Simultaneous Leads?
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: bbo@halcyon.com, 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 MAA29531
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Richard B, Odlin wrote:
    
   At a friendly club game in Green Valley, Arizona recently, we had an
   odd
   sort of situation present itself.  The auction was a routine NT
   opening on
   my right, followed by either a routine Stayman or a transfer sequence
   [or
   just a 2NT maybe - not sure now], and then 3NT by opener, pass - pass
   -
   pass.
    
   I was the opening leader and had no problem, owning five spades to
   the KJ
   that I always knew I was going to lead from.  In a matter of one or
   two
   seconds at most, my opening small spade was out there, face down for
   an
   instant, and as this was not the kind of auction which ever needs a
   'question period', I flipped it over, picking up pen and cc in the
   next
   motion to enter the contract in it. All this happened in much less
   time than
   it takes to tell it.
    
   When I looked up, dummy had not put any cards down, declarer was
   pointing at
   the Spade Q sitting face up in front of partner, and talk of a lead
   out of
   turn ensued.  I didn't see it go down on the table at all, but it
   seemed
   apparent that pard thought she was on lead and led face up, rather
   than
   following to my lead before dummy was faced.  As it looked to me, her
   play was at best simultaneous to mine, if not actually subsequent to
   it.  Seemed like it would take her bit longer to decide on Q from Qx
   than it
   took me to lead fourth-of-my-longest-and-strongest.
    
   [Laval Dubreuil]   
   I had something like this recently and ruled on Law 58A:
   "A lead made simultaneously with player's legal lead is deemed to be
   subsequent to".
    
   So the legal lead is yours (small S) and SQ becomes a major penalty
   card
   (lead out of turn or card prematurely exposed is the same) that must
   be
   played at first legal opportunity, ie on first trick, as required by
   Law 50D1.
    
   Laval Du Breuil
    
   PS: The case I had was more exciting. W made the legal lead with CA
   agains 6S and was ready to cash CK.  But E made a simultaneous
   "opening lead" with DJ.
    
   Called to table, I applied Law 58 and ruled DJ as a major penalty
   card.
   I then gave declarer options according to Law 50 (Forbid D lead on
   2nd
   trick, require D lead or let W choose his next lead. As you can
   imagine,
   declarer required D, discarded a C on dummy's D and made his chelem.
   Applying such Laws is dangerous when W is a former boxer...  
   

From owner-bridge-laws  Wed Jan 26 14:14:21 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA29794
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 14:14:21 +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 OAA29789
	for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 14:14:13 +1100 (EST)
From: Schoderb@aol.com
Received: from Schoderb@aol.com
	by imo27.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id 5.ae.80ab53 (3704);
	Tue, 25 Jan 2000 22:13:00 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: 
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 22:12:59 EST
Subject: Re: bum claim
To: hermandw@village.uunet.be, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

In a message dated 1/25/00 5:11:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
hermandw@village.uunet.be writes:

> OK ?
No.  Kojak

From owner-bridge-laws  Wed Jan 26 14:15:34 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA29801
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 14:15:34 +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 OAA29796
	for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 14:15:26 +1100 (EST)
From: Schoderb@aol.com
Received: from Schoderb@aol.com
	by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id 5.7a.ca1d84 (3704);
	Tue, 25 Jan 2000 22:13:43 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <7a.ca1d84.25bfc066@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 22:13:42 EST
Subject: Re: bum claim
To: hermandw@village.uunet.be, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

In a message dated 1/25/00 10:18:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
hermandw@village.uunet.be writes:

> Yes we do.
Yes.  Kojak

From owner-bridge-laws  Wed Jan 26 17:51:55 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA00331
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 17:51:55 +1100 (EST)
Received: from pub_notes.pub.gov.sg ([203.120.199.3])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA00326
	for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 17:51:48 +1100 (EST)
From: gregory@pub.gov.sg
Received: by pub_notes.pub.gov.sg(Lotus SMTP MTA v1.06 (346.8 3-18-1997))  id 48256872.0025C0EF ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 14:52:22 +0800
X-Lotus-FromDomain: PUB
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Message-ID: <48256872.0025AFF8.00@pub_notes.pub.gov.sg>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 14:52:18 +0800
Subject: unsubscibe
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk




--
Christopher Gregory



From owner-bridge-laws  Wed Jan 26 21:04:22 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA00786
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 21:04:22 +1100 (EST)
Received: from maggie.inter.net.il (maggie.inter.net.il [192.116.202.28])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA00781
	for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 21:04:12 +1100 (EST)
Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-1-136.access.net.il [213.8.1.136] (may be forged))
	by maggie.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA02832;
	Wed, 26 Jan 2000 12:05:21 +0200 (IST)
Message-ID: <388EC6AB.8CE8DE07@zahav.net.il>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 12:04:27 +0200
From: Dany Haimovici 
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en-US,fr,Hebrew,en,ro,ru
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" 
CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: LOOT - Simultaneous Leads?
References: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Dear Richard

It will be irresponsible to answer a clear-cut ruling , without 
collecting all possible information at table.
This is why ..(go on bellow)...I can't take it from here

"Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" wrote:
> 
......
 Take it from there!
> 
> Richard B. Odlin

If the facts will be undoubtedly to the "simultaneous" , then
I"ll rule accordingly to Law 58A - it will be considered subsequent
and practically "nothing happened".

If there will be strong evidence for LOOT ,  then rule it.

Dany

From owner-bridge-laws  Wed Jan 26 21:04:48 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA00793
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 21:04:48 +1100 (EST)
Received: from maggie.inter.net.il (maggie.inter.net.il [192.116.202.28])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA00788
	for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 21:04:40 +1100 (EST)
Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-1-136.access.net.il [213.8.1.136] (may be forged))
	by maggie.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA02892;
	Wed, 26 Jan 2000 12:05:31 +0200 (IST)
Message-ID: <388EC6BD.2FD9FDD9@zahav.net.il>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 12:04:45 +0200
From: Dany Haimovici 
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en-US,fr,Hebrew,en,ro,ru
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA
CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: Premature play - 2nd try
References: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Mon cher Ami Laval .........

Mon Dieu

I am very sorry that in spite of all my request - and of many other
people here - some of us are not able to describe all the facts gathered
at the table , in order to ask us for a serious and responsible opinion
for ruling . I'll post in 2-3 days a proposal for the "form" to open a
thread on BLML.

About your "trouble" here , there are two very different cases :
1-> If the card is faced . on the table or on the roof ...I don't
hesitate even less than a trillionth of second to let declarer win the
last trick .
2-> if the card is put on the table , on my girl friend's knees or 
the defender pulls his ear or cleans his nose in a very peculiar way
I have to decide what was the meaning of those very unethical acts 
and rule accordingly , after a long inquiry , helped by all the cops
around

Cheers friendly

Dany




Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote:
> 
> Hi BLMrs,
> 
> Sorry, I posted my first message too fast...and asleep...
> 
> South playing a NT contract, at trick twelve remaining cards are:
> 
>                    North
>                    S ---
>                    H 8
>                    D 4
>                    C ---
> West                       East
> S --                          S --
> H --                          H --
> D 8                          D 10
> C 6                          C 10
>                   South
>                   S 10
>                   H ---
>                   D ---
>                   C 8
> 
> S played S10. W discarded C6, than put D8 faced UP on
> table before E played to the current trick. Called to the table,
> the TD was told by E that he knows from previous C tricks
> that his partner has no more C and he will keep C10 anyway.
> 
> As I read the first sentence in Law 68: "a claim or a
> concession must refer to tricks other than one in progress"
> I understand that trick twelve has no relation with this Law.
> 
> Law 57A "When a defender leads to the next trick before
> his partner has played to the current trick" could be applied
> but I think D8 is more a concession than a lead to 13th trick.
> 
> To restore equity, I would like to rule on Law 57 on trick
> twelve and allow declarer to (57A3) "forbid offender's partner
> to play a card of an other suit" ie forbid a D discard (if he is
> more awaken than I was when writing my first message).
> 
> As for trick 13, no prob....
> 
> Comments please.
> 
> Laval Du Breuil
> Quebec City

From owner-bridge-laws  Wed Jan 26 23:01:17 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA01127
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 23:01:17 +1100 (EST)
Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA01121
	for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 23:01:09 +1100 (EST)
Received: from [195.8.84.87] (helo=dodona)
	by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
	id 12DR86-0007bU-00; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 12:00:58 +0000
Message-ID: <001801bf67f5$2b907880$575408c3@dodona>
From: "Grattan Endicott" 
To: 
Subject: Disclaimer and all that.
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 11:39:00 -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 EndicottFrom the minutes of the WBFLC in Bermuda (to be published shortly):

"The Secretary undertook to seek publication of a disclaimer on the
WBF web to the effect that no opinion, unless the recorded corporate
decision of the committee, should be considered to have the authority
of  a committee decision. Directors seeking guidance should refer to
their respective NCBOs."





From owner-bridge-laws  Wed Jan 26 23:01:26 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA01133
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 23:01:26 +1100 (EST)
Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA01128
	for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 23:01:18 +1100 (EST)
Received: from [195.8.84.87] (helo=dodona)
	by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
	id 12DR89-0007bU-00; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 12:01:01 +0000
Message-ID: <001a01bf67f5$2d44df40$575408c3@dodona>
From: "Grattan Endicott" 
To: "Jesper Dybdal" , 
References:  
Subject: Re: Law 12C3
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 11:58:19 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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, January 24, 2000 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: Law 12C3


>
> It bothers me that the WBF makes a law that forbids a TD to do so
> in, for instance, a Danish championship, but then decides that it
> can break that law itself because its TDs and consultants are
> good.
>
+=+ The EBL will shortly announce its adoption of the WBF Code
of Practice. The necessary formula is being put together.
        The following extract is from the minutes of the WBFLC in
Bermuda: "The committee was reluctant to make the change [in
Law 12C3] at this time, preferring to leave it until the next major
revision. However, it was agreed that in the meantime the
committee would raise no challenge to the manner in which the
WBF had made the arrangement in the current championships,
and given this approach in WBF events the committee does not
see reason to object when Zonal or national organizations give
the Chief Director the power on an experimental basis."
         The EBL will adopt the form of directive published by the
appeals committee in Bermuda.     ~ Grattan ~ +=+


From owner-bridge-laws  Wed Jan 26 23:25:27 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA01206
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 23:25:27 +1100 (EST)
Received: from hera.frw.uva.nl (HERA.frw.uva.nl [145.18.122.36])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA01201
	for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 23:25:15 +1100 (EST)
Received: from jppals (DHCP-ivip-121.frw.uva.nl [145.18.125.121])
	by hera.frw.uva.nl (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA11121
	for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 13:25:05 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <200001261225.NAA11121@hera.frw.uva.nl>
X-Organisation: Faculty of Environmental Sciences
                    University of Amsterdam
                    Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130
                    NL-1018 VZ Amsterdam
X-Phone:        +31 20 525 5820
X-Fax:          +31 20 525 5822
From: "Jan Peter Pals" 
Organization: FMG
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 13:23:18 +0100
Subject: Conventional bid out of rotation
Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals
X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals
X-pmrqc: 1
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b)
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

North is dealer, East opens 2h out of turn.
This is conventional, showing 8-11 HCP with hearts and an 
unspecified second suit. 
South does not accept, North opens 1d, and East overcalls 1h. 
Assume that East does not make any other bids.
Now, is West obliged to pass "when next time it is his turn to call" 
(L31a2a) or "whenever it is his turn to call" (L31a2b)??
Would a provision concerning conventional bids similar to L27 be in 
order here?


From owner-bridge-laws  Thu Jan 27 00:05:42 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA01336
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 00:05:42 +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 AAA01331
	for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 00:05:35 +1100 (EST)
Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ;
	Wed, 26 Jan 2000 14:05:10 +0100
Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id OAA23489 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 14:01:05 +0100
From: "Martin Sinot" 
To: 
Subject: RE: LOOT - Simultaneous Leads?
Date:   Wed, 26 Jan 2000 14:03:54 +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)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
In-Reply-To: 
Importance: Normal
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin wrote:

>At a friendly club game in Green Valley, Arizona recently, we had an odd
>sort of situation present itself.  The auction was a routine NT opening on
>my right, followed by either a routine Stayman or a transfer sequence [or
>just a 2NT maybe - not sure now], and then 3NT by opener, pass - pass -
>pass.
>
>I was the opening leader and had no problem, owning five spades to the KJ
>that I always knew I was going to lead from.  In a matter of one or two
>seconds at most, my opening small spade was out there, face down for an
>instant, and as this was not the kind of auction which ever needs a
>'question period', I flipped it over, picking up pen and cc in the next
>motion to enter the contract in it. All this happened in much less time
than
>it takes to tell it.
>
>When I looked up, dummy had not put any cards down, declarer was pointing
at
>the Spade Q sitting face up in front of partner, and talk of a lead out of
>turn ensued.  I didn't see it go down on the table at all, but it seemed
>apparent that pard thought she was on lead and led face up, rather than
>following to my lead before dummy was faced.  As it looked to me, her
>play was at best simultaneous to mine, if not actually subsequent to
>it.  Seemed like it would take her bit longer to decide on Q from Qx than
it
>took me to lead fourth-of-my-longest-and-strongest.
>
>Director comes, and it soon is apparent that nobody at the table is aware
of
>the exact timing or order of play.  [Seems a good looking lady passed by
the
>table right near the end of the auction - I didn't notice!] I suggested
>maybe looking at the simultaneous leads and plays section.  Anyway the 5S
>sits in front of me, the QS in front of pard.
>
>I should add that the face-down opening lead was not apparently followed to
>the letter of the law at all times in this friendly club.  Face-up happened
>regularly, as well as face-down.
>
>Take it from there!
>
>Richard B. Odlin

If it cannot be determined who played first, we obviously have a
simultaneous
play by two players. L58A then says that if one of the two plays was in
turn,
then that lead goes first. Which means that the small spade was led.
Partner's
SQ is then out of turn, becomes a major penalty card and hence the third
card in the first trick.

--
Martin Sinot
Nijmegen
martin@spase.nl


From owner-bridge-laws  Thu Jan 27 02:39:33 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA01779
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 02:39:33 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [207.213.113.50])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA01774
	for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 02:39:25 +1100 (EST)
Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4])
	by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA15024;
	Wed, 26 Jan 2000 07:39:13 -0800
Message-Id: <200001261539.HAA15024@mailhub.irvine.com>
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
CC: adam@irvine.com
Subject: Re: Conventional bid out of rotation
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 26 Jan 2000 13:23:18 PST."
             <200001261225.NAA11121@hera.frw.uva.nl> 
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 07:39:12 PST
From: Adam Beneschan 
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk


Jan Peter Pals wrote:
 
> North is dealer, East opens 2h out of turn.
> This is conventional, showing 8-11 HCP with hearts and an 
> unspecified second suit. 
> South does not accept, North opens 1d, and East overcalls 1h. 
> Assume that East does not make any other bids.
> Now, is West obliged to pass "when next time it is his turn to call" 
> (L31a2a) or "whenever it is his turn to call" (L31a2b)??

L29C says that the provision of L31 applies to "the denominations
specified", rather than the denominations named.  The only suit
specified is hearts, since the second suit is unspecified; therefore,
I'd rule that the 1H bid has repeated the denomination of the
out-of-rotation called, West is barred for only one round, and no lead
penalties apply.  L16C2 still applies, however; the information about
East's specific HCP range and the information that he has a second
suit are UI to West.  (If East later has a chance to bid the second
suit, that information of course becomes AI, although specific
distributional information may still be UI.  For example, if the
actual auction could show just 5-4 in the two suits, but the illegal
2H opening showed 5-5, the information that East's suit is 5 cards is
UI to West.)

                                -- Adam


From owner-bridge-laws  Thu Jan 27 02:49:17 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA01805
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 02:49:17 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [207.213.113.50])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA01800
	for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 02:49:09 +1100 (EST)
Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4])
	by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA15147;
	Wed, 26 Jan 2000 07:48:54 -0800
Message-Id: <200001261548.HAA15147@mailhub.irvine.com>
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
CC: adam@irvine.com
Subject: Non-established Revoke and Claim
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 07:48:54 PST
From: Adam Beneschan 
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk


I believe this subject has come up before on BLML, but I don't
remember what the result was.

What happens when a player revokes and the non-offending side
immediately claims after the revoke?  According to L63, the revoke has
not been established.  What happens?

   xxxx
   KJT9
   Qxx
   xx

   AKxxx
   xxxx
   KJx
   A

In 4S, South wins the club lead, draws trumps in two rounds, and leads
a heart.  West, who is asleep, plays a diamond, and South immediately
faces his hand, conceding the three obvious tricks.  Then everyone
discovers the revoke.

How does the TD rule?
                                -- Adam



From owner-bridge-laws  Thu Jan 27 03:31:16 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA01949
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 03:31:16 +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 DAA01944
	for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 03:31:08 +1100 (EST)
Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz)
	by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4)
	id 12DVLP-0003bu-00
	for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 17:30:59 +0100
Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000126172802.019b8290@mail.a2000.nl>
X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32)
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 17:28:02 +0100
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
From: Anton Witzen 
Subject: Re: Conventional bid out of rotation
In-Reply-To: <200001261539.HAA15024@mailhub.irvine.com>
References: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

At 07:39 AM 1/26/00 PST, you wrote:
>
>Jan Peter Pals wrote:
> 
>> North is dealer, East opens 2h out of turn.
>> This is conventional, showing 8-11 HCP with hearts and an 
>> unspecified second suit. 
>> South does not accept, North opens 1d, and East overcalls 1h. 
>> Assume that East does not make any other bids.
>> Now, is West obliged to pass "when next time it is his turn to call" 
>> (L31a2a) or "whenever it is his turn to call" (L31a2b)??
>
>L29C says that the provision of L31 applies to "the denominations
>specified", rather than the denominations named.  The only suit
>specified is hearts,

No adam, 2H=H+minor.
So in my opinion, unless E has named all his minors there is a 
lead penalty for all of them for W.
And, W shall have to pass during the bidding i think
 since the second suit is unspecified, and not named in the first (proper)
bid of E.
regards, 
anton

>I'd rule that the 1H bid has repeated the denomination of the
>out-of-rotation called, West is barred for only one round, and no lead
>penalties apply.  L16C2 still applies, however; the information about
>East's specific HCP range and the information that he has a second
>suit are UI to West.  (If East later has a chance to bid the second
>suit, that information of course becomes AI, although specific
>distributional information may still be UI.  For example, if the
>actual auction could show just 5-4 in the two suits, but the illegal
>2H opening showed 5-5, the information that East's suit is 5 cards is
>UI to West.)
>
>                                -- Adam
>
>
Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl)
Tel: 020 7763175
2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1
1053 SB Amsterdam
ICQ 7835770

From owner-bridge-laws  Thu Jan 27 03:32:41 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA01956
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 03:32:41 +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 DAA01951
	for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 03:32:23 +1100 (EST)
Received: from p90s04a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.164.145] helo=pacific)
	by cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1)
	id 12D3gb-0002pB-00; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 10:59:04 +0000
Message-ID: <002e01bf681a$81babac0$91a493c3@pacific>
From: "Grattan Endicott" 
To: "Bridge Laws" 
Subject: A 12C3 ruling not appealed.
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 16:25:57 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002B_01BF681A.81BABAC0"
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_002B_01BF681A.81BABAC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Grattan Endicott; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 03:33:15 +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 QAA29627;
	Wed, 26 Jan 2000 16:33:03 GMT
Received: (from root@localhost)
	by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA10571;
	Wed, 26 Jan 2000 16:33:02 GMT
Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 16:33:01 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 QAA09341;
	Wed, 26 Jan 2000 16:32:58 GMT
Received: (from rmb1@localhost)
	by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id QAA21790;
	Wed, 26 Jan 2000 16:32:18 GMT
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 16:32:18 GMT
From: Robin Barker 
Message-Id: <200001261632.QAA21790@tempest.npl.co.uk>
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: Non-established Revoke and Claim
Cc: adam@irvine.com
X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk


> I believe this subject has come up before on BLML, but I don't
> remember what the result was.
> 
> What happens when a player revokes and the non-offending side
> immediately claims after the revoke?  According to L63, the revoke has
> not been established.  What happens?
> 
>    xxxx
>    KJT9
>    Qxx
>    xx
> 
>    AKxxx
>    xxxx
>    KJx
>    A
> 
> In 4S, South wins the club lead, draws trumps in two rounds, and leads
> a heart.  West, who is asleep, plays a diamond, and South immediately
> faces his hand, conceding the three obvious tricks.  Then everyone
> discovers the revoke.
> 
> How does the TD rule?
>                                 -- Adam

This sort of problem won't go away, it seems (I was asked about a similar
case last night).  And there is the other problem of assessing the L64A2
revoke penalty when there is a (claim and) concession by NOS.

The concensus is that the revoke is not established and that the laws do
not tells us to do with the claim; or perhaps the laws do tell us what 
to do with the claim but the result is not what we want.

I think the right approach is to appeal to L12A1 and award declarer the
most number of tricks that is likely (which is probably the same as:
the most number of tricks on normal play).

In this case, declarer loses two/three tricks depending on who has HQ.
(Unless there is a normal line I have missed which picks up HQxx with
East.)

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  Thu Jan 27 04:09:37 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA02069
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 03:42:26 +1100 (EST)
Received: from cobalt3-he.global.net.uk (cobalt3-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.163])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA02062
	for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 03:42:11 +1100 (EST)
Received: from pdfs08a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.88.224] helo=pacific)
	by cobalt3-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1)
	id 12DVVL-0001xu-00; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 08:41:16 -0800
Message-ID: <000601bf681b$dfa1ecc0$e05893c3@pacific>
From: "Grattan Endicott" 
To: , "Adam Beneschan" 
Cc: 
Subject: Re: Non-established Revoke and Claim
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 16:37:39 -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 4.72.3110.1
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk


Grattan Endicott
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au 
Cc: adam@irvine.com 
Date: 26 January 2000 16:00
Subject: Non-established Revoke and Claim


>
>I believe this subject has come up before on BLML, but I don't
>remember what the result was.
>
>What happens when a player revokes and the non-offending side
>immediately claims after the revoke?  According to L63, the revoke has
>not been established.  What happens?
>
>   xxxx
>   KJT9
>   Qxx
>   xx
>
>   AKxxx
>   xxxx
>   KJx
>   A
>
>In 4S, South wins the club lead, draws trumps in two rounds, and leads
>a heart.  West, who is asleep, plays a diamond, and South immediately
>faces his hand, conceding the three obvious tricks.  Then everyone
>discovers the revoke.
>
>How does the TD rule?
>                                -- Adam
>
+=+
I will quote a Bermuda decision when I get home. Essentially it
is confirmed the revoke is not established and must be corrected,
the TD then determines the claim as equitably as possible, ruling
against the revoker where there is doubt.          ~ Grattan ~
+=+


From owner-bridge-laws  Thu Jan 27 04:37:19 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA02359
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 04:37:19 +1100 (EST)
Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA02354
	for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 04:37:09 +1100 (EST)
Received: (from smtpd@localhost)
	by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA15047
	for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 18:37:00 +0100
Received: from ip1.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.1), claiming to be "jd-private.internal"
 via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda15044; Wed Jan 26 18:36:49 2000
From: Jesper Dybdal  
To: "Bridge Laws" 
Subject: Re: A 12C3 ruling not appealed.
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 18:36:50 +0100
Organization: at home
Message-ID: 
References: <002e01bf681a$81babac0$91a493c3@pacific>
In-Reply-To: <002e01bf681a$81babac0$91a493c3@pacific>
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 EAA02355
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 16:25:57 -0000, "Grattan Endicott"
 wrote:

>+=+ This goes down in history as the first 12C3 
>ruling by the Chief Director, I believe. Certainly 
>the first on record.  Ironic when you see what 
>teams are involved!  The players accepted the 
>ruling and did not appeal it.     ~ Grattan ~ +=+

Please do not post attached word processor documents to BLML,
Grattan.  Not everybody can read WordPerfect files.

Here it is converted to plain text:

>12C3 RULING
>
>Event: Bermuda Bowl, Semi-Finals, Segment 5
>Teams: USA 2 (N/S) versus USA 1 (E/W)
>
>        Board 8; Dealer West; None Vul
>        *S* J 6 5 3
>        *H* 9 5
>        *D* J 10 5 4
>        *C* A 5 3
>*S* --                  *S* A 10 9 2
>*H* A 8 7 6 3           *H* K Q 2
>*D* A Q 9 7 3           *D* K 6 2
>*C* K 10 7              *C* J 9 2
>        *S* K Q 8 7 4
>        *H* J 10 4
>        *D* 8
>        *C* Q 8 6 4
>
>West    North   East    South
>Soloway Rosenberg Hamman Mahmood
>1*H*    Pass    2NT(1)  Pass
>3*D*(2) Pass    3*H*    Pass
>4*D*    Pass    4NT(3)  Pass
>5*H*    All Pass
>(1) Game forcing heart raise
>(2) Natural
>(3) East to North: spade cue-bid; West to South: no explanation
>
>Opening Lead: *C*3
>Result: 5*H* made five, plus 450 for E/W.
>Result at Other Table: 6*H* down two, minus 100 for E/W.
>
>The Facts: During the auction East explained his 4NT bid to
>North as a spade cue-bid. West offered no Alert or explanation
>of 4NT to South. After the auction South asked West what 4NT had
>meant and was then told that it had been a spade cue-bid. The TD
>was not called at that time and play continued. Against 5*H*
>North led the *C*3 with the result that eleven tricks were
>made. At the end of the hand South called the TD and stated that
>had he been given the correct information about the meaning of
>4NT he would have doubled for a spade lead. The TDs took the
>matter under advisement, consulting five expert players on
>South's likely action over 4NT. Four of the five consultants
>said they would not have doubled 4NT for a spade lead due to the
>danger that they might find themselves defending 4NT
>redoubled. The TDs used this input to rule that the assigned
>score for each side would be the appropriate reciprocal of 80%
>of plus 450 and 20% of minus 50. It was noted that several of
>the players consulted believed that declarer would play South
>for the *C*A as well as his spade values if he doubled 4NT. The
>TDs therefore assigned reciprocal scores to the two sides
>considering: the times when 5*H* would make on a club lead (plus
>450), the times when declarer would take the right view in clubs
>after a spade lead (plus 450), and the remaining times when he
>would take the wrong view in clubs after a spade lead (minus
>50). The exact percentages assigned to the various lines were
>not available at the time of this write-up.

-- 
Jesper Dybdal, Denmark .
http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish).

From owner-bridge-laws  Thu Jan 27 04:58:37 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA02419
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 04:58:37 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [207.213.113.50])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA02414
	for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 04:58:28 +1100 (EST)
Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4])
	by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA16931;
	Wed, 26 Jan 2000 09:58:10 -0800
Message-Id: <200001261758.JAA16931@mailhub.irvine.com>
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
CC: adam@irvine.com
Subject: Re: Conventional bid out of rotation
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 26 Jan 2000 17:28:02 PST."
             <3.0.2.32.20000126172802.019b8290@mail.a2000.nl> 
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 09:58:05 PST
From: Adam Beneschan 
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk


Anton Witzen wrote:
 
> At 07:39 AM 1/26/00 PST, you wrote:
> >
> >Jan Peter Pals wrote:
> > 
> >> North is dealer, East opens 2h out of turn.
> >> This is conventional, showing 8-11 HCP with hearts and an 
> >> unspecified second suit. 
                        ^^^^
> >> South does not accept, North opens 1d, and East overcalls 1h. 
> >> Assume that East does not make any other bids.
> >> Now, is West obliged to pass "when next time it is his turn to call" 
> >> (L31a2a) or "whenever it is his turn to call" (L31a2b)??
> >
> >L29C says that the provision of L31 applies to "the denominations
> >specified", rather than the denominations named.  The only suit
> >specified is hearts,
> 
> No adam, 2H=H+minor.

Oh.  Then there was MI---i.e. Jan didn't state the agreement
correctly.  Is there a Law about this?  If a BLML'er makes a ruling
based on MI, do the Laws say the BLML'er may retract his post and
substitute another one?  :) :)

> So in my opinion, unless E has named all his minors there is a 
> lead penalty for all of them for W.
> And, W shall have to pass during the bidding i think
>  since the second suit is unspecified, and not named in the first (proper)
> bid of E.

The Laws don't say what "specified" means where it's used in L29C and
L26A.  I think it's clear that if a bid relates to a completely
unspecified denomination, no denomination is specified; but if it
relates to an "unspecified minor", or an "unspecified red suit" or
something like that, one could reasonably go either way in assuming
that neither suit or both suits are specified for the purposes of
those Laws.  Have any official clarifications been made on this
matter?  If not, your way is probably better---i.e. assume both suits
are specified.  But if East later has a chance to bid the minor, we
should assume that minor is the one specified by the withdrawn 2H call
for the purpose of applying L26A (and therefore no lead penalty
applies).

                                -- Adam

From owner-bridge-laws  Thu Jan 27 05:41:41 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA02532
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 05:41:41 +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 FAA02527
	for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 05:41:34 +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, 26 Jan 2000 13:40:27 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000126133832.00817100@mail.maine.rr.com>
X-Sender: thg@mail.maine.rr.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 13:38:32 -0500
To: "Bridge Laws" 
From: Tim Goodwin 
Subject: Re: A 12C3 ruling not appealed.
In-Reply-To: 
References: <002e01bf681a$81babac0$91a493c3@pacific>
 <002e01bf681a$81babac0$91a493c3@pacific>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

At 06:36 PM 1/26/00 +0100, Jesper Dybdal wrote:
>Please do not post attached word processor documents to BLML,
>Grattan.  Not everybody can read WordPerfect files.

How about simply: "Please don't attach files."

Tim


From owner-bridge-laws  Thu Jan 27 07:28:36 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA02928
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 07:28:36 +1100 (EST)
Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA02923
	for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 07:28:24 +1100 (EST)
Received: from [195.8.84.154] (helo=dodona)
	by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
	id 12DZ2j-000Etj-00; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 20:27:58 +0000
Message-ID: <003201bf683b$feef0660$9a5408c3@dodona>
From: "Grattan Endicott" 
To: 
Cc: 
References: <000601bf681b$dfa1ecc0$e05893c3@pacific>
Subject: Re: Non-established Revoke and Claim
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 20:18:06 -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 ================================
> "Change is the law of life. And those who look
> only to the past or the present are certain to
> miss the future."  _ John F. Kennedy (1963)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Beneschan 
> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au 
> Cc: adam@irvine.com 
> Date: 26 January 2000 16:00
> Subject: Non-established Revoke and Claim
>
>
> >
> >I believe this subject has come up before on BLML, but I don't
> >remember what the result was.
> >
> >What happens when a player revokes and the non-offending side
> >immediately claims after the revoke?  According to L63, the revoke has
> >not been established.  What happens?
> >
> >   xxxx
> >   KJT9
> >   Qxx
> >   xx
> >
> >   AKxxx
> >   xxxx
> >   KJx
> >   A
> >
> >In 4S, South wins the club lead, draws trumps in two rounds, and leads
> >a heart.  West, who is asleep, plays a diamond, and South immediately
> >faces his hand, conceding the three obvious tricks.  Then everyone
> >discovers the revoke.
> >
> >How does the TD rule?
> >                                -- Adam
> >
> +=+
> I will quote a Bermuda decision when I get home. Essentially it
> is confirmed the revoke is not established and must be corrected,
> the TD then determines the claim as equitably as possible, ruling
> against the revoker where there is doubt.          ~ Grattan ~
> +=+
>
+=+ Here, from home (can't think why I was at my desk after
arriving from Bermuda this morning), is the text:

       "The Committee gave its attention to Law 63A3 and noted
that if a defender revokes and Declarer then claims, whereupon
a defender disputes the claim so there is no acquiescence, the
revoke has not been established. The Director must allow
correction of the revoke and then determine the claim as
equitably as possible, adjudicating any margin of doubt against
the revoker."   (Meeting of 12th January, minute 3)

     " There was further discussion concerning Law 63 and its
relationship with Law 69. It was noted that Law 63 indicates
how acquiescence may occur and Law 69 defines the time
limits for it."    (ibid. 4)          ~ G ~    +=+








From owner-bridge-laws  Thu Jan 27 07:28:24 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA02922
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 07:28:24 +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 HAA02915
	for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 07:28:09 +1100 (EST)
Received: from [195.8.84.154] (helo=dodona)
	by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
	id 12DZ2l-000Etj-00
	for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 20:27:59 +0000
Message-ID: <003301bf683b$ffe944e0$9a5408c3@dodona>
From: "Grattan Endicott" 
To: 
References: <3.0.6.32.20000109091424.008c48f0@mail.ultra.net.au><013301bf5a41$2ce459c0$16991e18@san.rr.com><019001bf5b8e$ccf73560$bd2b4b0c@default><008a01bf5c45$42792e40$ab2b4b0c@default><3.0.1.32.20000114082311.0070d5c4@pop.cais.com> 
Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 20:28:20 -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: Eric Landau 
Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List 
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 9:24 PM
Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda


> The Laws as written allow the use of 12C3 only for appeals, not for
> initial rulings. I think that was a poor decision by the lawmakers,
> since it will necessarily result in too many appeals. It was the
> lawmakers' decision to make, however, and I fail to see how it can
> properly be unmade without changing the Laws.
>
> While as I said I consider the use of differing Laws for initial
> decisions and appealed decisions a mistake it's not one I'm concerned
> about. I think it is dwarfed by the more serious mistake of putting
> 12C3 on the books in the first place.
>
> AW
>
+=+ I have been interested to read this thread since returning today!
Law 80F had nothing to do with it. The procedure was established
as a 'prequel' in the appeal process, under Law 80G and with the
objective of allowing better rulings with consequent reduction of
the likelihood of appeals. It was drafted by me and approved by the
Chairman of the Appeals Committee.[ 'volition' - the making of a
definite choice or decision regarding a course of action ] ; its source
was the Appeals Committee in pursuance of the policy set out in
the Code of Practice established in Lausanne. The Code of Practice
stood part of the Conditions of Contest in Bermuda and the
precedent is now available to all regulating authorities (with the
acquiescence of the Laws Committee and the desire of the WBF
more generally).
       Equity may be considered to be the even-handed balance of
redress (eschewing, as the 'Scope of the Laws' intends, any
concept of punishment) between the two sides at the table when
the offender's action is unaccepted and from the instant prior to
the infraction the Director can look to a plurality of credible
outcomes.                                 ~ Grattan ~ +=+




From owner-bridge-laws  Thu Jan 27 08:43:21 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA03289
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 08:43:21 +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 IAA03284
	for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 08:43:09 +1100 (EST)
Received: from [195.8.86.248] (helo=dodona)
	by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
	id 12DaDN-000KNp-00; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 21:43:01 +0000
Message-ID: <000401bf6846$7b43bee0$f85608c3@dodona>
From: "Grattan Endicott" 
To: "Bridge Laws" ,
        "Tim Goodwin" 
References: <002e01bf681a$81babac0$91a493c3@pacific><002e01bf681a$81babac0$91a493c3@pacific> <3.0.6.32.20000126133832.00817100@mail.maine.rr.com>
Subject: Re: A 12C3 ruling not appealed.
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 21:10:20 -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 
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: A 12C3 ruling not appealed.


> At 06:36 PM 1/26/00 +0100, Jesper Dybdal wrote:
> >Please do not post attached word processor documents to BLML,
> >Grattan.  Not everybody can read WordPerfect files.
>
> How about simply: "Please don't attach files."
>
> Tim
>
+=+ Well, sorry, that is the form I had it in. The WordPerfect is not
mine. If you are not interested please delete. I do not have time
just now to retype someone else's material.
                                                  ~ G ~ +=+




From owner-bridge-laws  Thu Jan 27 11:20:32 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA03893
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:20:32 +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 LAA03888
	for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:20:23 +1100 (EST)
Received: from [213.1.132.198] (helo=davidburn)
	by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1)
	id 12DcfS-0005ye-00
	for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 00:20:11 +0000
Message-ID: <001501bf685c$2448e460$c68401d5@davidburn>
From: "David Burn" 
To: "Bridge Laws" 
References: <002e01bf681a$81babac0$91a493c3@pacific> 
Subject: Re: A 12C3 ruling not appealed.
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 00:19:12 -0000
Organization: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Jesper wrote:

> Please do not post attached word processor documents to BLML,
> Grattan.  Not everybody can read WordPerfect files.

I guess that for those who can, the attachment is better than nothing.
Those who can't might just ignore it. I for one would have been a bit
miffed to read Grattan's message, and then not know what it was about!

> >At the end of the hand South called the TD and stated that
> >had he been given the correct information about the meaning of
> >4NT he would have doubled for a spade lead. The TDs took the
> >matter under advisement, consulting five expert players on
> >South's likely action over 4NT.

What this appears to me to mean is:

The TD convened an ad hoc appeals committee. When they told him what
(in their judgement) would happen, and about how often it would happen
in all likelihood, the TD gave that as his ruling.

Whereas I don't see the practical difference between doing that and
convening a "real" appeals committee (which at the Bermuda Bowl would
consist of at least five expert players), I am glad that the
protagonists were happy with the outcome and that there was, as Kojak
would tell us, "no appeal". Of course there was an appeal - it just
happened before the ruling rather than after it, but that's perfectly
OK. I had worried that the "new" power given to the CTD to apply L12C3
on his own initiative might lead to a new process. What it appears to
have led to is exactly the same process, but in a more palatable
order. Plus, as the French say in a philosophy older than ours and an
idiom more succinct, ca change.

I must say that having read the appeals cases in the Bulletins, I was
very much impressed by the rulings given at the table and by the ACs;
this case (which did not apear in the Bulletins) is another where what
should have happened did happen. Well done the WBF, well done Kojak -
a giant step for bridgekind.

David Burn
London, England




From owner-bridge-laws  Thu Jan 27 11:44:51 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA04015
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:44:51 +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 LAA04009
	for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:44:43 +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 TAA05518;
	Wed, 26 Jan 2000 19:44:32 -0500 (EST)
X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: <000401bf6846$7b43bee0$f85608c3@dodona>
References: 
 <002e01bf681a$81babac0$91a493c3@pacific><002e01bf681a$81babac0$91a493c3@pa
 cific> <3.0.6.32.20000126133832.00817100@mail.maine.rr.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 19:35:52 -0500
To: "Grattan Endicott" ,
        "Bridge Laws" ,
        "Tim Goodwin" 
From: "David J. Grabiner" 
Subject: Re: A 12C3 ruling not appealed.
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

At 9:10 PM +0000 1/26/00, Grattan Endicott wrote:

>+=+ Well, sorry, that is the form I had it in. The WordPerfect is not
>mine. If you are not interested please delete. I do not have time
>just now to retype someone else's material.

It isn't necessary to retype a file in most cases; go into the program
which created it (or another program which can read it; Microsoft Word will
try to read WordPerfect files), and then re-save it in a universal format
(plain text is best; RTF can also be read by most word processors.)




From owner-bridge-laws  Thu Jan 27 13:10:19 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA04258
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 13:10:19 +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 NAA04252
	for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 13:09:58 +1100 (EST)
Received: from [195.8.84.238] (helo=dodona)
	by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
	id 12DeNV-000DHp-00; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 02:09:45 +0000
Message-ID: <003501bf686b$be88f7e0$ee5408c3@dodona>
From: "Grattan Endicott" 
To: 
Subject: Appeal no 13 - an appreciable concession!
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 02:07:41 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002C_01BF686B.4B1ACC20"
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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_002C_01BF686B.4B1ACC20
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Appeal no Grattan Endicott
Appeal no










 Grattan Endicott<Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''=
''''''''''''''''''''''''
"The=20
vitality of a new movement in art or letters can be
pretty accurately =
gauged=20
by the fury it=20
arouses."
          =
             =

-  Logan Pearsall Smith=20
(1931)
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D


 


 


 


Appeal no. =
13


 


Transnational Teams   =



 


Committee: Bobby Wolff (Chair), =
Ernesto=20
d’Orsi, =20
Nissan


           &n=
bsp;        =20
Rand.


 


Players: Ron Smith (North)   Kyle Larsen (South)   =
USA


           &n=
bsp;  =20
Gene Simpson (East) Hamish Bennett (West)=20
USA


 


Board 4       Game all      Dealer =

West


 


           &nbs=
p;   =20
       =20
J 10=20
2


           &nbs=
p;   =20
       =20
K Q J=20
3


           &nbs=
p;   =20
       =20
A Q 9=20
4


           &nbs=
p;   =20
       =20
9 =
6


9 5 =
             &nbs=
p;   =20
       =20
Q 8 4


A =
10 6 5          =20
       =20
void


        =
5 2  =20
           &nbs=
p;   =20
       =20
K 10 8 7 6 3


        =
Q 10 7 5 2        =
        =
A K J=20
3


           &nbs=
p;   =20
       =20
A K 7 6=20
3


           &nbs=
p;   =20
       =20
9 8 7 4 2=20



           &nbs=
p;   =20
       =20
J


           &nbs=
p;   =20
       =20
8 4=20



 


West        =
        =
       =20
North     =20
       =20
East         =
       =20
South


  =20
P          =20
       =20
  1D             &nbs=
p;   =20
   P           &nbs=
p; =20
       =20
   =20
1S


  =20
P          =20
       =20
  1NT         =20
   P              =
        =
    2C=20
(a)


  =20
P          =20
       =20
  3S             &nbs=
p;   =20
   P             =20
       =20
    4S


  =20
All pass


 


(a)         =20
double=20
checkback


 


Defence took two club tricks, =
shifted to=20
Spade, declarer drew all three rounds of trumps and claimed four, saying =
“you=20
get the Heart Ace”. East/West acquiesced (Law 69A). After the =
match, E/W=20
approached the Director saying they believed they should get another =
trick=20
because they would get a second Heart trick. Expert players were =
consulted by=20
the Director (WBF Code of Practice procedure) and four of seven played =
the Heart=20
Ace when a small Heart was led at trick 6. The play was ruled to be at =
worst=20
inferior, not irrational. Under Law 69B the acquiescence could not be=20
withdrawn.


 


The players: had nothing relevant =
to add to=20
these facts.


 


The Committee: agreed that the =
Director had=20
ruled correctly.


The Chairman remarked: “Since =
the word=20
‘irrational’ should be, and has been, interpreted in a =
bridge context to be a=20
wild emotional action which is also contrary to any bridge logic the =
committee=20
has no option but to allow the claimed contract to be made. Having said =
this it=20
is the committee’s recommendation that declarer consider a =
concession of one=20
down since (a) the contract cannot be made by simple but adequate =
defense, and=20
(b) to concede would be the moral and ethical action and thus within the =
spirit=20
of the game.”


 


The players: Declarer immediately =
conceded=20
down one and the committee authorized a change of score=20
accordingly.


 


 


------=_NextPart_000_002C_01BF686B.4B1ACC20--


From owner-bridge-laws  Thu Jan 27 14:16:25 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA04499
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:16:25 +1100 (EST)
Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA04494
	for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:16:16 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mindspring.com (user-2inisp7.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.115.39])
	by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA01069
	for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 22:16:06 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <388FBA37.95101B6@mindspring.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 19:23:35 -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: Appeal no 13 - an appreciable concession!
References: <003501bf686b$be88f7e0$ee5408c3@dodona>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk


Comments imbedded

> Appeal no. 13
> 
>  
> 
> Transnational Teams   
> 
>  
> 
> Committee: Bobby Wolff (Chair), Ernesto d’Orsi,  Nissan
> 
>                      Rand.
> 
>  
> 
> Players: Ron Smith (North)   Kyle Larsen (South)   USA
> 
>                Gene Simpson (East) Hamish Bennett (West) USA
> 
>  
> 
> Board 4       Game all      Dealer West
> 
>  
> 
>                         J 10 2
> 
>                         K Q J 3
> 
>                         A Q 9 4
> 
>                         9 6
> 
>       9 5                           Q 8 4
> 
>       A 10 6 5                   void
> 
>         5 2                           K 10 8 7 6 3
> 
>         Q 10 7 5 2                A K J 3
> 
>                         A K 7 6 3
> 
>                         9 8 7 4 2 
> 
>                         J
> 
>                         8 4 
> 
>  
> 
> West                        North              East                 South
> 
>    P                     1D                     P                          1S
> 
>    P                     1NT             P                          2C (a)
> 
>    P                     3S                     P                          4S
> 
>    All pass
> 
>  
> 
> (a)          double checkback
> 
>  
> 
> Defence took two club tricks, shifted to Spade, declarer drew all three
> rounds of trumps and claimed four, saying “you get the Heart Ace”.
> East/West acquiesced (Law 69A). After the match, E/W approached the
> Director saying they believed they should get another trick because they
> would get a second Heart trick. Expert players were consulted by the
> Director (WBF Code of Practice procedure) and four of seven played the
> Heart Ace when a small Heart was led at trick 6. The play was ruled to be at
> worst inferior, not irrational. Under Law 69B the acquiescence could not be
> withdrawn.

Good procedure. Good ruling. I hesitate to say so, but I would routinely
duck the heart ace here. Four out of seven top-class players apparently
disagree with me. This is why consultation is such a good idea, and why
the directors are to be saluted for making the extra effort to make sure
they got this ruling right.

> 
>  
> 
> The players: had nothing relevant to add to these facts.
> 
>  
> 
> The Committee: agreed that the Director had ruled correctly.
> 
> The Chairman remarked: “Since the word ‘irrational’ should be, and has
> been, interpreted in a bridge context to be a wild emotional action which is
> also contrary to any bridge logic the committee has no option but to allow
> the claimed contract to be made. 

Emotional? Hmmm. 

Having said this it is the committee’s
> recommendation that declarer consider a concession of one down since (a)
> the contract cannot be made by simple but adequate defense, and (b) to
> concede would be the moral and ethical action and thus within the spirit of
> the game.”
> 

My reaction to this, as a player, would likely be emotional, perhaps
even irrational. Why is conceding "moral and ethical"? The implication
is that not doing so would not be. I have no problem with Rosenberg's
suggestion in The Bridge World that he would allow an opponent to pick
up a LOOT without penalty when he combines it with the understanding
that he has no problem with those who would not. I personally would not
*accept* such a waiver and would insist that the opponent take maximum
advantage. 

Short version: I think that playing by the rules is ethical. If some
appeals committee told me otherwise, I'd be really aggravated.

--JRM

From owner-bridge-laws  Thu Jan 27 15:27:19 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA04714
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 15:27:19 +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 PAA04708
	for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 15:27:13 +1100 (EST)
Received: from c06310 (user-2iveibg.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.112])
	by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA15977
	for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 23:27:01 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000126232424.0120c7f8@pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 23:24:24 -0500
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
From: "Michael S. Dennis" 
Subject: Re: Appeal no 13 - an appreciable concession!
In-Reply-To: <003501bf686b$be88f7e0$ee5408c3@dodona>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

At 02:07 AM 1/27/00 -0000, Grattan wrote:
                   
>    Defence took two club
>tricks, shifted to  Spade, declarer drew all three rounds of trumps and
>claimed four, saying “you  get the Heart Ace”. East/West
>acquiesced (Law 69A). After the match, E/W  approached the Director saying
>they believed they should get another trick  because they would get a
>second Heart trick. Expert players were consulted by  the Director (WBF
>Code of Practice procedure) and four of seven played the Heart  Ace when a
>small Heart was led at trick 6. The play was ruled to be at worst 
>inferior, not irrational. Under Law 69B the acquiescence could not be 
>withdrawn.   The players: had nothing relevant to add to  these facts.  
>The Committee: agreed that the Director had  ruled correctly. The Chairman
>remarked: “Since the word  ‘irrational’ should be, and
>has been, interpreted in a bridge context to be a  wild emotional action
>which is also contrary to any bridge logic the committee  has no option but
>to allow the claimed contract to be made. Having said this it  is the
>committee’s recommendation that declarer consider a concession of one
> down since (a) the contract cannot be made by simple but adequate defense,
>and  (b) to concede would be the moral and ethical action and thus within
>the spirit  of the game.”   The players: Declarer immediately
>conceded  down one and the committee authorized a change of score 
>accordingly.     

Is there someone out there who is prepared to defend Bobby Wolff? This
seems like a perfect addition to the collection of arrogant and dubious
decisions he authored in Lille. 

It is completely inappropriate for the AC Chair to lecture players in this
way or to suggest that players should  feel an ethical obligation to forgo
advantages stipulated for them in the Laws. If Mr. Wolff doesn't like the
effect of the Laws, then he should use his considerable influence to get
them changed, rather than continuing to abuse his responsibilities as AC
Chair to push his own contra-legal agendas. Moreover, it is not completely
clear that N/S have the legal right to concede a trick at this point,
although such niceties are obviously of little interest to this Chairman.

I share John Mayne's sense that the decision of a player to effectively
waive a penalty (by failing to exploit the advantage gained thereby, for
example) is a personal matter, and that nobody should be criticized for
taking full advantage of their legally stipulated options.

Mike Dennis

From owner-bridge-laws  Thu Jan 27 16:56:18 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA04938
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 16:56:18 +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 QAA04932
	for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 16:56:10 +1100 (EST)
Received: (from root@localhost)
	by precision.math.ntu.edu.tw (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07380;
	Thu, 27 Jan 2000 13:56:55 +0800
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 13:56:55 +0800
Message-Id: <200001270556.NAA07380@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw>
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
From: btu@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw
Subject: Comments?
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Hello, guys, what would you think of this as (a) a director and (b) a kibitzer?

Bd: 1   S:974           North   East    South   West
DLR: N  H:8		pass    pass	 2H -a  pass-b
V: none D:AQT964	pass     2S -c	pass     4S -d
        C:T86		pass    pass    pass
S:KJT52         S:AQ86
H:KQ965         H:T7		a: undisciplined, 0-12, 5/6H
D:              D:KJ872		b: 3-5sec after stop card picked up
C:AJ4           C:32		c: very slow, 20 seconds plus
        S:3			d: immediate.
        H:AJ432
        D:53			Making four.  Director called.  Facts
	C:KQ975			agreed by all as above.



From owner-bridge-laws  Thu Jan 27 17:09:31 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA04982
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 17:09:31 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA04977
	for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 17:09:23 +1100 (EST)
Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130)
	id 39BB230F59; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 01:09:14 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: <003501bf686b$be88f7e0$ee5408c3@dodona>
References: <003501bf686b$be88f7e0$ee5408c3@dodona>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 01:06:46 -0500
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
From: Adam Wildavsky 
Subject: Re: Appeal no 13 - an appreciable concession!
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Thank you for bringing this to our attention, Grattan. It didn't 
please me read it, but it brings up an important point.

>Having said this it is the committee's recommendation that declarer 
>consider a concession of one down since (a) the contract cannot be 
>made by simple but adequate defense, and (b) to concede would be the 
>moral and ethical action and thus within the spirit of the game."

The is the most despicable thing I've ever heard a committee say. By 
my lights it is *immoral* to urge a player to act against his own 
best interest under the Laws. Further, it is not the committee's 
responsibility to teach morality or ethics, a good thing since 
they've demonstrated how poorly suited they are to the task.

I can't imagine why the committee chose to place South in a position 
where half the bridge world would consider his choice improper no 
matter which decision he made. I find no fault with South's 
concession, since he found himself in an untenable position. The 
fault lies squarely with those who placed him there.

There is one bright spot. I am pleased the committee considered 
themselves bound by the Laws, even one whose application here neither 
they nor I liked. That's a pleasant change from some cases we've 
discussed.

AW


From owner-bridge-laws  Thu Jan 27 19:00:55 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA05351
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 19:00:55 +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 TAA05345
	for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 19:00:49 +1100 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id qa477298 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 17:57:58 +1000
Received: from CWIP-T-002-p-223-60.tmns.net.au ([139.134.223.60]) by mail3.bigpond.com (Claudes-Sparking-MailRouter V2.7 5/19398); 27 Jan 2000 17:57:57
Message-ID: <01b601bf689b$fff61480$3cdf868b@gillp.bigpond.com>
From: "Peter Gill" 
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" 
Subject: Re: Comments?
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 18:56:20 +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

Btu wrote:
>Hello, guys, what would you think of this as
>(a) a director and (b) a kibitzer?
>
Bd: 1   Dlr N  Nil Vul

                S:974               North   East    South    West
                H:8                    pass   pass       2H -a pass-b
                D:AQT964       pass    2S -c     pass   4S -d
                C:T86               pass    pass      pass
S:KJT52            S:AQ86
H:KQ965           H:T7           a: undisciplined, 0-12, 5/6H
D:-                      D:KJ872    b: 3-5sec after stop card picked up
C:AJ4                C:32           c: very slow, 20 seconds plus
                S:3                        d: immediate.
                H:AJ432
                D:53                      Making four.  Director called.
                C:KQ975              Facts agreed by all as above.
>
>

My (PG's) comments as a Director:

1. I think that (b) is a hesitation by West.

2. I think that hesitation (b) makes 2S by East more attractive.

3. LAs to 2S? Pass and 3D, probably. Is Pass by a passed
hand a LA? This may depend on the class of players involved.
After 4S had been made, I would tend to revert the contract to
2H by South, making about five tricks, NS minus about 150.

4. West's failure to make a slam try over 2S? I think this is OK
because East is a passed hand and the long hearts are of
dubious value.

5. As a kibitzer, I remain silent, unless asked by the Director
to provide some information.

6. It may be useful to send the email to yourself first, and
tidy up the spacing using the space bar before sending it
to the group. Having been a "layout offender" myself, that's
what I usually do, even if it consumes a few minutes.

Peter Gill
Sydney Australia.



From owner-bridge-laws  Thu Jan 27 19:53:51 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA05478
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 19:53:51 +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 TAA05473
	for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 19:53:43 +1100 (EST)
Received: from [195.8.84.209] (helo=dodona)
	by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
	id 12DkgG-0004Wi-00; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 08:53:33 +0000
Message-ID: <001801bf68a4$275d1480$d15408c3@dodona>
From: "Grattan Endicott" 
To: "John R. Mayne" 
Cc: 
References: <003501bf686b$be88f7e0$ee5408c3@dodona> <388FBA37.95101B6@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Appeal no 13 - an appreciable concession!
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 08:51:52 -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
Cc: 
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2000 3:23 AM
Subject: Re: Appeal no 13 - an appreciable concession!


-------------   \x/   ---------------
My reaction to this, as a player, would likely be emotional, perhaps
even irrational. Why is conceding "moral and ethical"? The implication
is that not doing so would not be. I have no problem with Rosenberg's
suggestion in The Bridge World that he would allow an opponent to pick
up a LOOT without penalty when he combines it with the understanding
that he has no problem with those who would not. I personally would not
*accept* such a waiver and would insist that the opponent take maximum
advantage.

Short version: I think that playing by the rules is ethical. If some
appeals committee told me otherwise, I'd be really aggravated.

+=+ You would find some comfort in the Code of Practice, as
indeed might also the committee:
        "A player who has conformed to the laws and regulations
is not subject to criticism. This does not preclude encouragement
of a generous attitude to opponents, especially in the exchange
of information behind screens."          ~~ Grattan ~~    +=+




From owner-bridge-laws  Thu Jan 27 20:15:30 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA05539
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 20:15:30 +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 UAA05534
	for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 20:15:22 +1100 (EST)
Received: from [195.8.84.133] (helo=dodona)
	by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
	id 12Dl1E-00068K-00; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 09:15:13 +0000
Message-ID: <002f01bf68a7$2e2ea820$d15408c3@dodona>
From: "Grattan Endicott" 
To: , "Adam Wildavsky" 
References: <003501bf686b$be88f7e0$ee5408c3@dodona> 
Subject: Re: Appeal no 13 - an appreciable concession!
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 09:15:27 -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: Thursday, January 27, 2000 6:06 AM
Subject: Re: Appeal no 13 - an appreciable concession!


> Thank you for bringing this to our attention, Grattan. It didn't
> please me read it, but it brings up an important point.
>
+=+ I think two comments ought to be made: first, it is
not necessarily the case that the committee was
unanimous in every detail of it; second that Bobby
asked me to try to get this one into the final daily
Bulletin - there was no space so I have hono(u)red
his wish by posting it to blml.
       In my mind there is a distinction between 'ethical'
and 'moral'; the first is linked in bridge to the proprieties
and may be construed as a question of fact; the second,
for me, is a concept of desirable social attitudes in
the world at large and is a matter of personal opinion,
judgment and belief.         ~ Grattan ~ +=+












From owner-bridge-laws  Thu Jan 27 21:20:13 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA05755
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 21:20:13 +1100 (EST)
Received: from hera.frw.uva.nl (HERA.frw.uva.nl [145.18.122.36])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA05750
	for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 21:20:04 +1100 (EST)
Received: from jppals (DHCP-ivip-121.frw.uva.nl [145.18.125.121])
	by hera.frw.uva.nl (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA05221;
	Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:19:54 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <200001271019.LAA05221@hera.frw.uva.nl>
X-Organisation: Faculty of Environmental Sciences
                    University of Amsterdam
                    Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130
                    NL-1018 VZ Amsterdam
X-Phone:        +31 20 525 5820
X-Fax:          +31 20 525 5822
From: "Jan Peter Pals" 
Organization: FMG
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:18:06 +0100
Subject: Re: Conventional bid out of rotation
Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals
CC: adam@irvine.com
X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals
X-pmrqc: 1
Priority: normal
In-reply-to: <200001261758.JAA16931@mailhub.irvine.com>
References: Your message of "Wed, 26 Jan 2000 17:28:02 PST."             <3.0.2.32.20000126172802.019b8290@mail.a2000.nl> 
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b)
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Anton wrote:
> > No adam, 2H=H+minor.

Adam:
> Oh.  Then there was MI---i.e. Jan didn't state the agreement
> correctly.  

Er.... I did. Hearts and an unspecified second suit. Maybe I should 
have added that this might also have been spades.
Anton assumed that it was a 'Muiderberg', a weak opening bid
on 5-4 M-m (very popular in the NL), but it was not.

Adam:
> The Laws don't say what "specified" means where it's used in
> L29C and L26A.  I think it's clear that if a bid relates to a
> completely unspecified denomination, no denomination is
> specified;

IMO the difference between 'denominations named' and 
denominations specified' specifically relates to transfer bids or 
conventional bids indicating two-suiters (Roman overcalls, unusual 
NT and the like). 

Adam:
> So in my opinion, unless E has named all his minors there is a 
> lead penalty for all of them for W.
> And, W shall have to pass during the bidding i think
> since the second suit is unspecified, and not named in the first
> (proper) bid of E.

I agree with this reasoning (read 'suits' in stead of 'mionrs')

JP

From owner-bridge-laws  Thu Jan 27 21:35:08 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA05815
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 21:35:08 +1100 (EST)
Received: from maggie.inter.net.il (maggie.inter.net.il [192.116.202.28])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA05809
	for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 21:34:41 +1100 (EST)
Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-3-199.access.net.il [213.8.3.199] (may be forged))
	by maggie.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA20624;
	Thu, 27 Jan 2000 12:34:37 +0200 (IST)
Message-ID: <38901F10.F77C933C@zahav.net.il>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 12:33:52 +0200
From: Dany Haimovici 
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en-US,fr,Hebrew,en,ro,ru
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Grattan Endicott 
CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, Adam Beneschan 
Subject: Re: Non-established Revoke and Claim
References: <000601bf681b$dfa1ecc0$e05893c3@pacific>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

oh.....

I am happy that at least the B & L won ...!!!!!!!!
BL is not what all of you think ..I mean Brains & Logic ...hahahahaha

Dany


Grattan Endicott wrote:
> 
> Grattan Endicott ================================
> "Change is the law of life. And those who look
> only to the past or the present are certain to
> miss the future."  _ John F. Kennedy (1963)
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Beneschan 
> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au 
> Cc: adam@irvine.com 
> Date: 26 January 2000 16:00
> Subject: Non-established Revoke and Claim
> 
> >
> >I believe this subject has come up before on BLML, but I don't
> >remember what the result was.
> >
> >What happens when a player revokes and the non-offending side
> >immediately claims after the revoke?  According to L63, the revoke has
> >not been established.  What happens?
> >
> >   xxxx
> >   KJT9
> >   Qxx
> >   xx
> >
> >   AKxxx
> >   xxxx
> >   KJx
> >   A
> >
> >In 4S, South wins the club lead, draws trumps in two rounds, and leads
> >a heart.  West, who is asleep, plays a diamond, and South immediately
> >faces his hand, conceding the three obvious tricks.  Then everyone
> >discovers the revoke.
> >
> >How does the TD rule?
> >                                -- Adam
> >
> +=+
> I will quote a Bermuda decision when I get home. Essentially it
> is confirmed the revoke is not established and must be corrected,
> the TD then determines the claim as equitably as possible, ruling
> against the revoker where there is doubt.          ~ Grattan ~
> +=+

From owner-bridge-laws  Thu Jan 27 21:36:42 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA05835
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 21:36:42 +1100 (EST)
Received: from maggie.inter.net.il (maggie.inter.net.il [192.116.202.28])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA05830
	for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 21:36:20 +1100 (EST)
Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-3-199.access.net.il [213.8.3.199] (may be forged))
	by maggie.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA20743;
	Thu, 27 Jan 2000 12:35:12 +0200 (IST)
Message-ID: <38901F33.366350D5@zahav.net.il>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 12:34:27 +0200
From: Dany Haimovici 
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en-US,fr,Hebrew,en,ro,ru
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: btu@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw
CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: Comments?
References: <200001270556.NAA07380@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

I don't know to kibbitz......so I"ll try to express my opinion as a TD.

The easy problem : from the moment east bid 2SP....west will bid 4Sp 
101% ........

How much took west to act=call after the stop was withdrawn is an
important issue :  IMHO  if it took 5-7  sec more , I don't see any
problem ; if it was a long thought , more than 1o sec , it is UI.

Why west thought 20 sec is clear - he had to evaluate what to do -
why did he bid 2Sp and didn't dbl....have to make a new doctorate ,
inquiring E-W's bidding system and getting a full explanation.

Conclusion : the most important data for me is "how much time did
west wait after the stop back in the bb...", and then ruling.
As the facts told here , I let result stand.

Dany


btu@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw wrote:
> 
> Hello, guys, what would you think of this as (a) a director and (b) a kibitzer?
> 
> Bd: 1   S:974           North   East    South   West
> DLR: N  H:8             pass    pass     2H -a  pass-b
> V: none D:AQT964        pass     2S -c  pass     4S -d
>         C:T86           pass    pass    pass
> S:KJT52         S:AQ86
> H:KQ965         H:T7            a: undisciplined, 0-12, 5/6H
> D:              D:KJ872         b: 3-5sec after stop card picked up
> C:AJ4           C:32            c: very slow, 20 seconds plus
>         S:3                     d: immediate.
>         H:AJ432
>         D:53                    Making four.  Director called.  Facts
>         C:KQ975                 agreed by all as above.

From owner-bridge-laws  Thu Jan 27 21:37:36 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA05849
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 21:37:36 +1100 (EST)
Received: from maggie.inter.net.il (maggie.inter.net.il [192.116.202.28])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA05826
	for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 21:35:51 +1100 (EST)
Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-3-199.access.net.il [213.8.3.199] (may be forged))
	by maggie.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA20679;
	Thu, 27 Jan 2000 12:34:53 +0200 (IST)
Message-ID: <38901F21.6CA035A7@zahav.net.il>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 12:34:09 +0200
From: Dany Haimovici 
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en-US,fr,Hebrew,en,ro,ru
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jan Peter Pals 
CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: Conventional bid out of rotation
References: <200001261225.NAA11121@hera.frw.uva.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Hi Jan

First question : "criminal's" partner is compelled to pass for his first
turn Only (Law 31A2...).
Second question: there is no basic problem with conventional bids when
there is "bid out of rotation" - that is solved by law 31 - the trouble
is with "insufficient bids" (L27 and all the ramifications)......
I don't go on with the details of ruling , which are clear and a little
bit lengthy...

Dany


Jan Peter Pals wrote:
> 
> North is dealer, East opens 2h out of turn.
> This is conventional, showing 8-11 HCP with hearts and an
> unspecified second suit.
> South does not accept, North opens 1d, and East overcalls 1h.
> Assume that East does not make any other bids.
> Now, is West obliged to pass "when next time it is his turn to call"
> (L31a2a) or "whenever it is his turn to call" (L31a2b)??
> Would a provision concerning conventional bids similar to L27 be in
> order here?

From owner-bridge-laws  Thu Jan 27 23:18:43 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA06225
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 23:18:43 +1100 (EST)
Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.4])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA06220
	for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 23:18:35 +1100 (EST)
From: RCraigH@aol.com
Received: from RCraigH@aol.com
	by imo14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id p.5a.970efc (4541)
	 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 07:17:52 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <5a.970efc.25c19170@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 07:17:52 EST
Subject: Re: Comments?
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 45
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

In a message dated 01/27/2000 12:59:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
btu@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw writes:

<< Hello, guys, what would you think of this as (a) a director and (b) a 
kibitzer?
 
 Bd: 1   S:974           North   East    South   West
 DLR: N  H:8        pass    pass     2H -a  pass-b
 V: none D:AQT964   pass     2S -c  pass     4S -d
         C:T86      pass    pass    pass
 S:KJT52         S:AQ86
 H:KQ965         H:T7       a: undisciplined, 0-12, 5/6H
 D:              D:KJ872        b: 3-5sec after stop card picked up
 C:AJ4           C:32       c: very slow, 20 seconds plus
         S:3            d: immediate.
         H:AJ432
         D:53           Making four.  Director called.  Facts
    C:KQ975         agreed by all as above.
  >>

A) As a director, I do not adjust.   The stop card seems to have worked 
properly.  3-5 seconds is not outside normal range at all, in my experience.  
Thus, no UI.  

Tell me there is a 20 second hesitation over the 2H call and there is UI.  
Ten seconds, UI.  3-5?  No.

The 20 second hesitation by fourth hand is a clear violation of tempo.  
However, it is not at all clear that the hesitation suggested a particular 
action, such as bidding on, as opposed to passing.  In fact, looking at 
second hand, one would assume that the hesitation was between pass and 2S.  
So, no violation to bid 4S.  It does not seem required by the rules to force 
the strong second hand, after deciding to pass first time, to bid past game.

B) as a kibitzer, I disagree with every east-west action until the final 
pass.  I would overcall 2S.  I would want to take action with fourth hand, 
but could not bring myself to do anything because everything is an overbid or 
misdirectional.

Craig Hemphill

From owner-bridge-laws  Fri Jan 28 00:38:18 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA06520
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 00:38:18 +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 AAA06512
	for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 00:38:10 +1100 (EST)
Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-135.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.135])
	by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA15947
	for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:37:54 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <38900684.28AAB40A@village.uunet.be>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 09:49:08 +0100
From: Herman De Wael 
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bridge Laws 
Subject: Re: A 12C3 ruling not appealed.
References: <002e01bf681a$81babac0$91a493c3@pacific>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Grattan Endicott wrote:
> 
> Grattan Endicott ================================
> "Change is the law of life. And those who look
> only to the past or the present are certain to
> miss the future."  _ John F. Kennedy (1963)
> 
> +=+ This goes down in history as the first 12C3
> ruling by the Chief Director, I believe. Certainly
> the first on record.  Ironic when you see what
> teams are involved!  The players accepted the
> ruling and did not appeal it.     ~ Grattan ~ +=+
> 

I find this a very strange case to be the first.
I would have expected it to be about some 50/50 thing, but
no, the very first time the directors apply their new
powers, they rule only 20% change.

Is this a trend ?

"We don't think you're fully damaged because there is only a
small chance you would get the correct result, but hey,
let's give you some compensation after all ..."

At first sight I did not like it but I can see that it might
work.

However, I would prefer it if it were like this:

"You have been damaged, so we will rule you will act to your
best possibilities.  That is not enough for a score change,
however, since offenders have a good possibility of getting
it right after all.  So we give you only partial redress."

But that was not the case here.

In this case, it was ruled that south, who had MI, would not
necessarily give the lead directing double.  That was part
of the reason for the partial redress.  I'm not sure I agree
with that application.

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html



From owner-bridge-laws  Fri Jan 28 00:38:14 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA06515
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 00:38:14 +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 AAA06508
	for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 00:38:06 +1100 (EST)
Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-135.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.135])
	by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA15958
	for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:37:56 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <389008B8.9C4B486F@village.uunet.be>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 09:58:32 +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: Comments?
References: <200001270556.NAA07380@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

btu@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw wrote:
> 
> Hello, guys, what would you think of this as (a) a director and (b) a kibitzer?
> 
> Bd: 1   S:974           North   East    South   West
> DLR: N  H:8             pass    pass     2H -a  pass-b
> V: none D:AQT964        pass     2S -c  pass     4S -d
>         C:T86           pass    pass    pass
> S:KJT52         S:AQ86
> H:KQ965         H:T7            a: undisciplined, 0-12, 5/6H
> D:              D:KJ872         b: 3-5sec after stop card picked up
> C:AJ4           C:32            c: very slow, 20 seconds plus
>         S:3                     d: immediate.
>         H:AJ432
>         D:53                    Making four.  Director called.  Facts
>         C:KQ975                 agreed by all as above.


I am not a very expert player, so I won't comment on the
decision of East to "not pass".  I think it rather normal to
balance in this position (partner has at least 10 points,
maybe a lot more).

I will comment on his choice of 2Sp rather than double.
Double is clearly the alternative suggested by the
hesitation.
If this guys doubles, hanging and quartering is not enough.

Result stands (IMHO).

I don't understand why I should answer as a kibitzer, or
what I should say as one.

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html



From owner-bridge-laws  Fri Jan 28 00:56:42 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA06598
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 00:56:42 +1100 (EST)
Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA06591
	for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 00:56:35 +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 IAA13056 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 08:56:07 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000127085849.006e9704@pop.cais.com>
X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 08:58:49 -0500
To: Bridge Laws Discussion List 
From: Eric Landau 
Subject: Re: A 12C3 ruling not appealed.
In-Reply-To: 
References: <000401bf6846$7b43bee0$f85608c3@dodona>
 <002e01bf681a$81babac0$91a493c3@pacific>
 <002e01bf681a$81babac0$91a493c3@pa cific>
 <3.0.6.32.20000126133832.00817100@mail.maine.rr.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

At 07:35 PM 1/26/00 -0500, David wrote:

>It isn't necessary to retype a file in most cases; go into the program
>which created it (or another program which can read it; Microsoft Word will
>try to read WordPerfect files), and then re-save it in a universal format
>(plain text is best; RTF can also be read by most word processors.)

RTF can be read by most word processors, but not by many mail clients.
Plain (ASCII) text should be used for all posts.


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 Jan 28 01:14:07 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA06685
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 01:14:07 +1100 (EST)
Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA06678
	for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 01:13:58 +1100 (EST)
Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47])
	by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1)
	id 12DpgB-0002lx-0Y
	for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:13:48 +0000
Message-ID: 
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 13:49:41 +0000
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
From: "John (MadDog) Probst" 
Reply-To: "John Probst" 
Subject: Re: Comments?
In-Reply-To: <200001270556.NAA07380@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a 
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

In article <200001270556.NAA07380@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw>,
btu@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw writes
>Hello, guys, what would you think of this as (a) a director and (b) a kibitzer?
>
>Bd: 1   S:974           North   East    South   West
>DLR: N  H:8            pass    pass     2H -a  pass-b
>V: none D:AQT964       pass     2S -c  pass     4S -d
>        C:T86          pass    pass    pass
>S:KJT52         S:AQ86
>H:KQ965         H:T7           a: undisciplined, 0-12, 5/6H
>D:              D:KJ872                b: 3-5sec after stop card picked up
>C:AJ4           C:32           c: very slow, 20 seconds plus
>        S:3                    d: immediate.
>        H:AJ432
>        D:53                   Making four.  Director called.  Facts
>       C:KQ975                 agreed by all as above.
>
>

Last time I balanced with this sort of hand in this auction the
opponents said partner had hesitated when he hadn't (He had a clearcut
pass and counted to 10 before passing) and grattan confiscated my Ł5-00
for a frivolous 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  Fri Jan 28 01:56:31 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA06906
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 01:56:31 +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 BAA06901
	for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 01:56:24 +1100 (EST)
Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-33qtknj.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.210.243])
	by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA13010;
	Thu, 27 Jan 2000 09:56:00 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000127150707.00728c58@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, 27 Jan 2000 07:07:07 -0800
To: btu@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw
From: Henry Sun 
Subject: Re: Comments?
Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

At 01:56 PM 1/27/00 +0800, you wrote:
>Hello, guys, what would you think of this as (a) a director and (b) a kibitzer?
>
>Bd: 1   S:974           North   East    South   West
>DLR: N  H:8		pass    pass	 2H -a  pass-b
>V: none D:AQT964	pass     2S -c	pass     4S -d
>        C:T86		pass    pass    pass
>S:KJT52         S:AQ86
>H:KQ965         H:T7		a: undisciplined, 0-12, 5/6H
>D:              D:KJ872		b: 3-5sec after stop card picked up
>C:AJ4           C:32		c: very slow, 20 seconds plus
>        S:3			d: immediate.
>        H:AJ432
>        D:53			Making four.  Director called.  Facts
>	C:KQ975			agreed by all as above.
>
>
if by '3-5 seconds after stop card picked up' you mean that additional time
was taken beyond the 10-15 seconds that would be normal, then i would rule
that a break in tempo had occured and that east's actions were, accordingly,
restricted to obviously correct calls.

however, i would consider a balancing double by east to be such a call, and
the fact that east bid 2s suggests, in the absence of further information,
that he was determining whether he could, in fact, take a call in the
face of partner's hesitation.  certainly his 2s overcall doesn't look like
a call that a hesitation indicates, so i don't see that east has used any
of the ui that is available from west's hesitation.

so i'd rule that the result stand and encourage ns to appeal if they believed
that it could be demonstrated that passing with the east hand is a logical
alternative to balancing.

henry sun


From owner-bridge-laws  Fri Jan 28 02:43:24 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA07218
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 02:43:24 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [207.213.113.50])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA07212
	for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 02:43:16 +1100 (EST)
Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4])
	by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA03828;
	Thu, 27 Jan 2000 07:43:04 -0800
Message-Id: <200001271543.HAA03828@mailhub.irvine.com>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" 
CC: adam@irvine.com
Subject: Re: Comments?
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 27 Jan 2000 18:56:20 PST."
             <01b601bf689b$fff61480$3cdf868b@gillp.bigpond.com> 
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 07:43:04 PST
From: Adam Beneschan 
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk


Peter Gill wrote:
 
> Btu wrote:
> >Hello, guys, what would you think of this as
> >(a) a director and (b) a kibitzer?
> >
> Bd: 1   Dlr N  Nil Vul
> 
>                 S:974               North   East    South    West
>                 H:8                    pass   pass       2H -a pass-b
>                 D:AQT964       pass    2S -c     pass   4S -d
>                 C:T86               pass    pass      pass
> S:KJT52            S:AQ86
> H:KQ965           H:T7           a: undisciplined, 0-12, 5/6H
> D:-                      D:KJ872    b: 3-5sec after stop card picked up
> C:AJ4                C:32           c: very slow, 20 seconds plus
>                 S:3                        d: immediate.
>                 H:AJ432
>                 D:53                      Making four.  Director called.
>                 C:KQ975              Facts agreed by all as above.
> 
> 6. It may be useful to send the email to yourself first, and
> tidy up the spacing using the space bar before sending it
> to the group. Having been a "layout offender" myself, that's
> what I usually do, even if it consumes a few minutes.

When I got btu's original e-mail, the layout was perfect.  And my mail
reader is a simple one that doesn't understand formatting characters
or try to do anything fancy.  It just takes the text it receives and
spits it out onto the screen as is.  But the layout got pretty mangled
in your response to it.  I don't think the problem is at btu's end
here. 

                                -- Adam


From owner-bridge-laws  Fri Jan 28 04:11:15 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA07465
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 04:11:15 +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 EAA07459
	for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 04:11:06 +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 MAA19053
	for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 12:10:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from willner@localhost)
	by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA24623
	for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 12:11:01 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 12:11:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Steve Willner 
Message-Id: <200001271711.MAA24623@cfa183.harvard.edu>
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: A 12C3 ruling not appealed.
X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

> From: "David J. Grabiner" 
> It isn't necessary to retype a file in most cases; go into the program
> which created it (or another program which can read it; Microsoft Word will
> try to read WordPerfect files), and then re-save it in a universal format
> (plain text is best; RTF can also be read by most word processors.)

In Word, "MSDOS text with line breaks" is generally best.  I'm not sure
about WordPerfect, but I would _guess_ that "ASCII (DOS) Delimited
Text" would be the one to try.  My second guess would be "ASCII (DOS)
Text."

From owner-bridge-laws  Fri Jan 28 04:34:54 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA07634
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 04:34:54 +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 EAA07629
	for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 04:34:47 +1100 (EST)
Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-222.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.222])
	by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA01809;
	Thu, 27 Jan 2000 12:34:37 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <003701bf68ec$dabaa9a0$de84d9ce@oemcomputer>
From: "Craig Senior" 
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" ,
        "Adam Beneschan" 
Cc: 
Subject: Re: Comments?
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 12:35:05 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Well, the original email was so garbled that I found it totally unreadable.
If Peter hadn't claned it up, I would have had to delete the whole thread.
Peter's response was perfectly clear in every respect. I am using Outlook
Express.

Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Beneschan 
To: Bridge Laws Mailing List 
Cc: adam@irvine.com 
Date: Thursday, January 27, 2000 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: Comments?


>
>Peter Gill wrote:
>
>> Btu wrote:
>> >Hello, guys, what would you think of this as
>> >(a) a director and (b) a kibitzer?
>> >
>> Bd: 1   Dlr N  Nil Vul
>>
>>                 S:974               North   East    South    West
>>                 H:8                    pass   pass       2H -a pass-b
>>                 D:AQT964       pass    2S -c     pass   4S -d
>>                 C:T86               pass    pass      pass
>> S:KJT52            S:AQ86
>> H:KQ965           H:T7           a: undisciplined, 0-12, 5/6H
>> D:-                      D:KJ872    b: 3-5sec after stop card picked up
>> C:AJ4                C:32           c: very slow, 20 seconds plus
>>                 S:3                        d: immediate.
>>                 H:AJ432
>>                 D:53                      Making four.  Director called.
>>                 C:KQ975              Facts agreed by all as above.
>>
>> 6. It may be useful to send the email to yourself first, and
>> tidy up the spacing using the space bar before sending it
>> to the group. Having been a "layout offender" myself, that's
>> what I usually do, even if it consumes a few minutes.
>
>When I got btu's original e-mail, the layout was perfect.  And my mail
>reader is a simple one that doesn't understand formatting characters
>or try to do anything fancy.  It just takes the text it receives and
>spits it out onto the screen as is.  But the layout got pretty mangled
>in your response to it.  I don't think the problem is at btu's end
>here.
>
>                                -- Adam
>


From owner-bridge-laws  Fri Jan 28 05:02:30 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA07781
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 05:02:30 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [207.213.113.50])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA07775
	for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 05:02:17 +1100 (EST)
Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4])
	by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA05827;
	Thu, 27 Jan 2000 10:02:06 -0800
Message-Id: <200001271802.KAA05827@mailhub.irvine.com>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" 
CC: adam@irvine.com
Subject: Re: Comments?
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 27 Jan 2000 12:35:05 PST."
             <003701bf68ec$dabaa9a0$de84d9ce@oemcomputer> 
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 10:02:07 PST
From: Adam Beneschan 
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk


I wrote:
 
> When I got btu's original e-mail, the layout was perfect.  And my mail
> reader is a simple one that doesn't understand formatting characters
> or try to do anything fancy.  It just takes the text it receives and
> spits it out onto the screen as is.  But the layout got pretty mangled
> in your response to it.  I don't think the problem is at btu's end
> here.

and Craig responded:

> Well, the original email was so garbled that I found it totally unreadable.
> If Peter hadn't claned it up, I would have had to delete the whole thread.
> Peter's response was perfectly clear in every respect. I am using Outlook
> Express.

OK, I figured it out: btu's original e-mail had dreaded TAB CHARACTERS
in it!!!  My simple e-mail reader, which doesn't handle all the fancy
control sequences that other word processing programs pollute text
with, *does* handle tabs and apparently interprets them the same way
btu's does, but I can imagine that they might befuddle more
sophisticated e-mail readers.

The lesson: Please, don't use tabs in BLML posts.

                                -- Adam

From owner-bridge-laws  Fri Jan 28 06:20:25 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA08045
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 06:20:25 +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 GAA08038
	for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 06:20:17 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mailout2.nyroc.rr.com ([24.92.226.165])
          by mailhop1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223
          ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com
          for ;
          Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:17:38 -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 ;
          Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:10:38 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: <200001261225.NAA11121@hera.frw.uva.nl>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:10:34 -0500
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
From: Ed Reppert 
Subject: Re: Conventional bid out of rotation
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

>Now, is West obliged to pass "when next time it is his turn to call"
>(L31a2a) or "whenever it is his turn to call" (L31a2b)??

31A2a, because the second suit was not specified by the original call.

>Would a provision concerning conventional bids similar to L27 be in
>order here?

No.

IMHO, of course. :-)

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/AwUBOJCaYL2UW3au93vOEQIpogCfbviq1MxdgzIO0YIAPvMhMRJg40QAn21I
XYVTpRaDBuSAKn6P5KImTJSJ
=hxqt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From owner-bridge-laws  Fri Jan 28 06:42:56 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA08142
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 06:42:56 +1100 (EST)
Received: from hotmail.com (f255.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.28])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA08137
	for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 06:42:49 +1100 (EST)
Received: (qmail 71033 invoked by uid 0); 27 Jan 2000 19:42:10 -0000
Message-ID: <20000127194210.71032.qmail@hotmail.com>
Received: from 4.33.182.89 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP;
	Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:42:10 PST
X-Originating-IP: [4.33.182.89]
From: "Todd Zimnoch" 
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Subject: Off topic (Was: Comments?)
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:42:10 PST
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

     This is off-topic as well as arcane.  The simple explanation is that 
different programs interpret a tab-space as any number of spaces as they 
wish.  If you mix the two, you can't expect the layout to look the same on 
all mail readers.

     Also, in regards to which file format to resave an attachment to...  
Just cut from the word processor and paste into the mail program.  Most 
modern OSes can handle that.

-Todd

>From: "Craig Senior" 
>To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" ,        
>"Adam Beneschan" 
>CC: 
>Subject: Re: Comments?
>Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 12:35:05 -0500
>
>Well, the original email was so garbled that I found it totally unreadable.
>If Peter hadn't claned it up, I would have had to delete the whole thread.
>Peter's response was perfectly clear in every respect. I am using Outlook
>Express.
>
>Craig
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Adam Beneschan 
>To: Bridge Laws Mailing List 
>Cc: adam@irvine.com 
>Date: Thursday, January 27, 2000 10:53 AM
>Subject: Re: Comments?
>
>
> >
> >Peter Gill wrote:
> >
> >> Btu wrote:
> >> >Hello, guys, what would you think of this as
> >> >(a) a director and (b) a kibitzer?
> >> >
> >> Bd: 1   Dlr N  Nil Vul
> >>
> >>                 S:974               North   East    South    West
> >>                 H:8                    pass   pass       2H -a pass-b
> >>                 D:AQT964       pass    2S -c     pass   4S -d
> >>                 C:T86               pass    pass      pass
> >> S:KJT52            S:AQ86
> >> H:KQ965           H:T7           a: undisciplined, 0-12, 5/6H
> >> D:-                      D:KJ872    b: 3-5sec after stop card picked up
> >> C:AJ4                C:32           c: very slow, 20 seconds plus
> >>                 S:3                        d: immediate.
> >>                 H:AJ432
> >>                 D:53                      Making four.  Director 
>called.
> >>                 C:KQ975              Facts agreed by all as above.
> >>
> >> 6. It may be useful to send the email to yourself first, and
> >> tidy up the spacing using the space bar before sending it
> >> to the group. Having been a "layout offender" myself, that's
> >> what I usually do, even if it consumes a few minutes.
> >
> >When I got btu's original e-mail, the layout was perfect.  And my mail
> >reader is a simple one that doesn't understand formatting characters
> >or try to do anything fancy.  It just takes the text it receives and
> >spits it out onto the screen as is.  But the layout got pretty mangled
> >in your response to it.  I don't think the problem is at btu's end
> >here.
> >
> >                                -- Adam
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


From owner-bridge-laws  Fri Jan 28 11:28:06 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA08915
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 11:28:06 +1100 (EST)
Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl (utopia.a2000.nl [62.108.1.115] (may be forged))
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA08910
	for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 11:27:58 +1100 (EST)
Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz)
	by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4)
	id 12DzGO-0007X9-00
	for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 01:27:48 +0100
Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000128012450.019ce100@mail.a2000.nl>
X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32)
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 01:24:50 +0100
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
From: Anton Witzen 
Subject: Re: Comments?
In-Reply-To: <389008B8.9C4B486F@village.uunet.be>
References: <200001270556.NAA07380@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

At 09:58 AM 1/27/00 +0100, you wrote:
>btu@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw wrote:
>> 
>> Hello, guys, what would you think of this as (a) a director and (b) a
kibitzer?
>> 
>> Bd: 1   S:974           North   East    South   West
>> DLR: N  H:8             pass    pass     2H -a  pass-b
>> V: none D:AQT964        pass     2S -c  pass     4S -d
>>         C:T86           pass    pass    pass
>> S:KJT52         S:AQ86
>> H:KQ965         H:T7            a: undisciplined, 0-12, 5/6H
>> D:              D:KJ872         b: 3-5sec after stop card picked up
>> C:AJ4           C:32            c: very slow, 20 seconds plus
>>         S:3                     d: immediate.
>>         H:AJ432
>>         D:53                    Making four.  Director called.  Facts
>>         C:KQ975                 agreed by all as above.
>
>
>I am not a very expert player, so I won't comment on the
>decision of East to "not pass".  I think it rather normal to
>balance in this position (partner has at least 10 points,
>maybe a lot more).
>
>I will comment on his choice of 2Sp rather than double.
>Double is clearly the alternative suggested by the
>hesitation.

without hesitation D is rather standard  in 4th position i think.
The question is, if W always waits 10 seconds after a stop card. If he
usually bids fast, now he gives extra information. If he alwasy waits, then
i dont see much difference between 10 and 13 seconds. This information is
for the TD very important i think.


>If this guys doubles, hanging and quartering is not enough.
>
you mean that a 3 seconds extra pause gives enough information? Perhaps it
is better then if we know the level of the players before we decide. I dont
need more time than  less than 1 second to place the D on the table in this
bidding sequence.
Did the TD ask E what he was thinking??????
regards,
anton


>Result stands (IMHO).
>
>I don't understand why I should answer as a kibitzer, or
>what I should say as one.
>
>-- 
>Herman DE WAEL
>Antwerpen Belgium
>http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html
>
>
>
Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl)
Tel: 020 7763175
2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1
1053 SB Amsterdam
ICQ 7835770

From owner-bridge-laws  Fri Jan 28 11:29:34 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA08939
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 11:29:34 +1100 (EST)
Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl (utopia.a2000.nl [62.108.1.115] (may be forged))
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA08933
	for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 11:29:26 +1100 (EST)
Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz)
	by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4)
	id 12DzHq-0007cT-00
	for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 01:29:18 +0100
Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000128012621.019b7a20@mail.a2000.nl>
X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32)
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 01:26:21 +0100
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
From: Anton Witzen 
Subject: Re: A 12C3 ruling not appealed.
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000127085849.006e9704@pop.cais.com>
References: 
 <000401bf6846$7b43bee0$f85608c3@dodona>
 <002e01bf681a$81babac0$91a493c3@pacific>
 <002e01bf681a$81babac0$91a493c3@pa cific>
 <3.0.6.32.20000126133832.00817100@mail.maine.rr.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

At 08:58 AM 1/27/00 -0500, you wrote:
>At 07:35 PM 1/26/00 -0500, David wrote:
>
>>It isn't necessary to retype a file in most cases; go into the program
>>which created it (or another program which can read it; Microsoft Word will
>>try to read WordPerfect files), and then re-save it in a universal format
>>(plain text is best; RTF can also be read by most word processors.)
>
>RTF can be read by most word processors, but not by many mail clients.
>Plain (ASCII) text should be used for all posts.
>
>

just a copy and past sequence will do i think (5 seconds effort in word :)))
regards,
anton

>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
>
>
Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl)
Tel: 020 7763175
2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1
1053 SB Amsterdam
ICQ 7835770

From owner-bridge-laws  Fri Jan 28 11:47:02 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA09006
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 11:47:02 +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 LAA08999
	for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 11:46:52 +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 TAA08867
	for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 19:46:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from willner@localhost)
	by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA25325
	for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 19:46:52 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 19:46:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Steve Willner 
Message-Id: <200001280046.TAA25325@cfa183.harvard.edu>
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: Comments?
X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

> From: btu@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw
>  b: 3-5sec after stop card picked up

What are the stop card regulations in Taiwan, and what, exactly,
happened?  If the stop card was left out for 10 seconds and then
picked up, and West waited an extra 3-5 seconds, it's not obvious
whether it gives any useful UI or not.  Still, if this is the
scenario, 3-5 seconds is a lot longer than the normal 1-2, so
there might well be some UI present, depending on West's normal
tempo in skip bid situations.

If the stop card was left out only 5-7 seconds, and then West took 3-5
more, there's no useful UI unless Taiwan has unusual regulations.
Remember, 10 s is a _very_ long time.

> From: "Peter Gill" 
> 2. I think that hesitation (b) makes 2S by East more attractive.

Relative to which LA's?

> 3. LAs to 2S? Pass and 3D, probably.

Surely double, too.  What is the definition of LA in Taiwan?  It's not
obvious to me that anything other than double qualifies, except in the
ACBL and similar jurisdictions.  (I'm not sure 3D qualifies even in the
ACBL, but pass probably does.)  I agree with Anton that double is the
normal, expected call.

I don't see that the hesitation suggests 2S over double.  It might
suggest 2S over pass, but I don't really think so.  Couldn't West
have a penalty double, or a dubious notrump bid, or a near-takeout-
double short in spades?

On several counts, I don't think we have enough information to give
a ruling, but the above are some of the things to think about.

From owner-bridge-laws  Fri Jan 28 22:32:46 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA10691
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 22:32:46 +1100 (EST)
Received: from cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk (cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk [195.147.248.165])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA10686
	for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 22:32:37 +1100 (EST)
Received: from pe7s01a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.113.232] helo=pacific)
	by cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1)
	id 12E9co-0007QC-00; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 03:31:38 -0800
Message-ID: <016101bf6982$f7e35900$e87193c3@pacific>
From: "Grattan Endicott" 
To: "David Burn" ,
        "Bridge Laws" 
Subject: Re: A 12C3 ruling not appealed.
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 11:22:17 -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: 27 January 2000 00:35
Subject: Re: A 12C3 ruling not appealed.


>What this appears to me to mean is:
>
>The TD convened an ad hoc appeals committee. When they told him what
>(in their judgement) would happen, and about how often it would happen
>in all likelihood, the TD gave that as his ruling.
>
+=+ After matching it to the Law and his view of the facts+=+
>
>Whereas I don't see the practical difference between doing that and
>convening a "real" appeals committee (which at the Bermuda Bowl would
>consist of at least five expert players), I am glad that the
>protagonists were happy with the outcome and that there was, as Kojak
>would tell us, "no appeal". Of course there was an appeal - it just
>happened before the ruling rather than after it, but that's perfectly
>OK. I had worried that the "new" power given to the CTD to apply L12C3
>on his own initiative might lead to a new process. What it appears to
>have led to is exactly the same process, but in a more palatable
>order. Plus, as the French say in a philosophy older than ours and an
>idiom more succinct, ca change.
>
+=+ I think David has the flavour of it. We were fortunate to be
able to set the example with a team of highly competent Directors
who not only play and understand the game but also apply 
common sense and diligence in unaccustomed situations. +=+
>
>I must say that having read the appeals cases in the Bulletins, I was
>very much impressed by the rulings given at the table and by the ACs;
>this case (which did not apear in the Bulletins) is another where what
>should have happened did happen. Well done the WBF, well done Kojak -
>a giant step for bridgekind.
>
+=+ Yes, Kojak and his colleagues did do well, and I will accept
the plaudit on behalf of the Lausanne Group whose search for a
way to reduce and advance the appeals procedures has had
this initial success. What we now hope for is the extension of the
success around the world; we need from zonal and national 
authorities the same attention to, and concern for, the project. 
 What we do not need is inflexible adherence to the old thinking 
and rejection out of hand of progress into the new millennium 
(whenever that is). :-))  Thank you, David, for your kind and 
understanding perception.                          ~ Grattan ~  +=+ 



From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 29 00:34:46 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA11140
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 00:34:46 +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 AAA11135
	for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 00:34:38 +1100 (EST)
Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA19846 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 08:34:09 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000128083700.006e38f4@pop.cais.com>
X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 08:37:00 -0500
To: Bridge Laws Discussion List 
From: Eric Landau 
Subject: Re: Comments?
In-Reply-To: <200001280046.TAA25325@cfa183.harvard.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

At 07:46 PM 1/27/00 -0500, Steve wrote:

>What are the stop card regulations in Taiwan, and what, exactly,
>happened?  If the stop card was left out for 10 seconds and then
>picked up, and West waited an extra 3-5 seconds, it's not obvious
>whether it gives any useful UI or not.  Still, if this is the
>scenario, 3-5 seconds is a lot longer than the normal 1-2, so
>there might well be some UI present, depending on West's normal
>tempo in skip bid situations.

There are undoubtedly some players out there whose sense of timing is so
finely accurate that 11-12 seconds might constitute "normal tempo" after a
skip bid while 13-15 seconds might be "unmistakable hesitation", but for
most mere mortals this simply isn't the case.  One wonders how much less
time spent on rulings and appeals, and how many fewer opportunities to
create hard feelings, there would be if players and ACs didn't concern
themselves with splitting hairs over 2-3 seconds' thought.  It is valid in
theory to contend that "there might well be some UI present, depending on
West's normal tempo", but can we really expect our TDs and ACs to be so
conversant with the personality traits of every player who comes before
them as to justify trying to make such judgments?

I suggest that it would be enlightening for us to occasionally ask a random
friend to engage in an experiment in which we ask them, while thinking
about something substantive rather than counting time, to say something in
what they think is 10 seconds from our mark, and time their response.

Let's worry about the players who make it manifestly obvious that they're
not thinking about what to bid but are simply counting time, and then act
after exactly 10 seconds, and not about the players who are obviously
considering their call, and then act after 5 seconds, or 15.


Eric Landau                     elandau@cais.com
APL Solutions, Inc.             elandau@acm.org
1107 Dale Drive                 (301) 589-4621
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607     Fax (301) 589-4618


From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 29 01:13:24 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA11275
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 01:13:24 +1100 (EST)
Received: from cobalt1-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt1-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.161])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA11270
	for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 01:13:13 +1100 (EST)
Received: from p1as05a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.85.27] helo=pacific)
	by cobalt1-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1)
	id 12EC90-0005KZ-00
	for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 14:13:02 +0000
Message-ID: <000b01bf6999$676ef160$1b5593c3@pacific>
From: "Grattan Endicott" 
To: "Bridge Laws" 
Subject: Law interpretation (43B2-c-)
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 14:08:29 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk


Grattan Endicott; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 02:35:59 +1100 (EST)
Received: from p2as06a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.118.43] helo=pacific)
	by cobalt11-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1)
	id 12Dr9f-00089f-00; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 15:48:20 +0000
Message-ID: <000401bf69a4$f8baadc0$2b7693c3@pacific>
From: "Grattan Endicott" 
To: "bridge-laws" 
Subject: Laws 26A and 26B
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 15:27:57 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk


Grattan Endicott; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 02:59:07 +1100 (EST)
From: dburn@btinternet.com
Received: from actinium ([194.75.226.69] helo=btinternet.com)
	by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1)
	id 12EDnU-00034x-00; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 15:58:56 +0000
Reply-to: dburn@btinternet.com
To: "Grattan Endicott" 
Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 15:58:54 GMT
Subject: Re: Law interpretation (43B2-c-)
X-Mailer: DMailWeb Web to Mail Gateway 2.2s, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm
Message-id: <3891bcbe.910.0@btinternet.com>
X-User-Info: 193.113.139.186
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Grattan wrote:

"The question of the 'two trick penalty in Law 64', 
see Law 43B2(c) was revisited. It was agreed
that the wording of the minute in Ocho Rios 
requires amendment. Accordingly the committee 
confirmed its position that the legal card which is 
substituted for the first card determines the 
ownership of the revoke trick. This card is played
subsequently to the revoke. Law 64 is then to be
applied, so that there may be a two trick penalty
but not necessarily so."

I can't find a 43B2(c), but there's a 43B2(b) which has to do with penalties
for an illegal "no hearts, partner?" question. I still don't understand the
WBF position - let me see if I can get at it via an example.

South leads the ace of spades, West ruffs with the two of hearts, North and
East play spades. Then East asks West if he has any spades; West finds one.
South has now won the "revoke" trick, so there is going to be a one-trick penalty
under L64A2. That is fine as far as it goes - assuming I have it right - but
suppose West had got king and another spade at the point he ruffed. He will
substitute his small spade under South's ace. But since he could legally have
played the king under South's ace, will he have to transfer the trick he later
wins with the king of spades under L64A2? This seems more than a bit rough,
since it does not do what I think the WBFLC is trying to do, viz: arrive at
the same result as would have been arrived at had the question not been asked
and the revoke gone established and not corrected. For example, consider this
endgame (North and East immaterial):

West
K2
2
A
A
       South
       AQ
       None
       32
       3

Hearts trump. South (foolishly) leads the ace of spades. West ruffs, cashes
his minor-suit aces, and makes the last two tricks with the king and three of
spades. Five tricks to EW. But the revoke trick and one other are returned to
NS, who end up with two tricks under L64A.

Hearts trump. South leads the ace of spades. West ruffs, but East asks if West
has spades. West follows small and claims. Four tricks to EW, but two tricks
(the one-trick revoke penalty and the trick won with the king of spades) still
have to be transferred to NS, so NS end up with three tricks. It follows that,
in terms of result at any rate, it is a worse crime to ask the Dreaded Question
than it is to revoke!

David Burn
London, England

From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 29 03:32:55 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA11909
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 03:32:55 +1100 (EST)
Received: from cobalt7-he.global.net.uk (cobalt7-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.167])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA11904
	for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 03:32:45 +1100 (EST)
Received: from pc7s01a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.97.200] helo=pacific)
	by cobalt7-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1)
	id 12E6OD-00068V-00; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 08:04:21 +0000
Message-ID: <000601bf69ac$e6cab940$c86193c3@pacific>
From: "Grattan Endicott" 
To: 
Cc: 
Subject: Re: Law interpretation (43B2-c-)
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 16:24:06 -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 4.72.3110.1
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk


Grattan Endicott
To: Grattan Endicott 
Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au 
Date: 28 January 2000 16:13
Subject: Re: Law interpretation (43B2-c-)


>Grattan wrote:
>
>"The question of the 'two trick penalty in Law 64', 
>see Law 43B2(c) >

>I can't find a 43B2(c), but there's a 43B2(b) >
>
+=+ Yes: should have qualified that the -c- reference
in the Ocho Rios minute is now -b-. Sorry. 
                                   ~ Grattan ~                   +=+


From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 29 04:08:59 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA12065
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 04:08:59 +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 EAA12059
	for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 04:08:52 +1100 (EST)
Received: (qmail 47724 invoked by uid 65534); 28 Jan 2000 17:08:14 -0000
Message-ID: <20000128170814.47723.qmail@hotmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [209.206.13.247]
From: "Roger Pewick" 
To: "blml" 
References: <3.0.1.32.20000128083700.006e38f4@pop.cais.com>
Subject: Re: Comments?
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 11:08:39 -0600
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk


----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Landau 
To: Bridge Laws Discussion List 
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2000 7:37 AM
Subject: Re: Comments?


> At 07:46 PM 1/27/00 -0500, Steve wrote:
>
> >What are the stop card regulations in Taiwan, and what, exactly,
> >happened?  If the stop card was left out for 10 seconds and then
> >picked up, and West waited an extra 3-5 seconds, it's not obvious
> >whether it gives any useful UI or not.  Still, if this is the
> >scenario, 3-5 seconds is a lot longer than the normal 1-2, so
> >there might well be some UI present, depending on West's normal
> >tempo in skip bid situations.
>
> There are undoubtedly some players out there whose sense of timing is so
> finely accurate that 11-12 seconds might constitute "normal tempo" after a
> skip bid while 13-15 seconds might be "unmistakable hesitation", but for
> most mere mortals this simply isn't the case.  One wonders how much less
> time spent on rulings and appeals, and how many fewer opportunities to
> create hard feelings, there would be if players and ACs didn't concern
> themselves with splitting hairs over 2-3 seconds' thought.  It is valid in
> theory to contend that "there might well be some UI present, depending on
> West's normal tempo", but can we really expect our TDs and ACs to be so
> conversant with the personality traits of every player who comes before
> them as to justify trying to make such judgments?
>
> I suggest that it would be enlightening for us to occasionally ask a
random
> friend to engage in an experiment in which we ask them, while thinking
> about something substantive rather than counting time, to say something in
> what they think is 10 seconds from our mark, and time their response.
>
> Let's worry about the players who make it manifestly obvious that they're
> not thinking about what to bid but are simply counting time, and then act
> after exactly 10 seconds, and not about the players who are obviously
> considering their call, and then act after 5 seconds, or 15.

The skip bid pause I should think has two objectives closely tied together.

The first is to provide the next player with a reasonable amount of non
tempo sensitive time to consider his future actions and act without
expectation of scrutiny.  It is notable that this objective can be subverted
by the contestant's behavior.

The other objective is that the other contestants also use that same non
tempo sensitive time to consider their future actions so that they are able
to act in normal tempo.  Now if they are indeed doing so, they will tend to
be less concerned with some one else's behavior, speaking from a practical
point of view.

The primary characteristic of the skip bid pause is that it is ritualistic
in nature.  It is an act to be performed the same way each time.  I am sure
that the 10 second length was selected because it is not an unreasonable
expectation for players to successfully comply while not being a boorish
delay of the proceedings.  Further, the pause should not provide distraction
to the players.

But being practical and from observation of behavior, when one is in serious
contemplation for a designated 10 seconds, there is a range of times he
might spend which gravitate around that 10 second objective.  Statistically,
the error might reasonably be between 30 and 40%, or a range of 7 to 15
seconds.  It is within this range that one would expect is not tempo
sensitive for a contestant in thought.

For a player that appears to only be counting, to not pause for the full 10
seconds is to deprive, and unfairly so, the rest of the contestants of the
non tempo sensitive time to which they are entitled.  And for such a
contestant, it is not so much the length of pause that makes UI available,
it is the behavior.

And for those whose wheels seem obviously to be turning, they are entitled
to the non tempo sensitive time, and breaching it on either end makes UI
available, and contrary to Eric's assertion, and it is relevant.  To that
purpose, it is the occasions where the player does indeed act within the
expected non tempo sensitive range that he avoids intense scrutiny; while it
is they who act outside the expected time range who draw scrutiny upon
themselves.


Roger Pewick
Houston, Texas

> Eric Landau                     elandau@cais.com
> APL Solutions, Inc.             elandau@acm.org
> 1107 Dale Drive                 (301) 589-4621
> Silver Spring MD 20910-1607     Fax (301) 589-4618
>
>


From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 29 04:40:08 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA12270
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 04:40:08 +1100 (EST)
Received: from imo-d05.mx.aol.com (imo-d05.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.37])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA12265
	for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 04:40:01 +1100 (EST)
From: Schoderb@aol.com
Received: from Schoderb@aol.com
	by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id 5.6.170bb0f (3310);
	Fri, 28 Jan 2000 12:37:11 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <6.170bb0f.25c32dc7@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 12:37:11 EST
Subject: Re: A 12C3 ruling not appealed.
To: hermandw@village.uunet.be, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
CC: Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk, gester@globalnet.co.uk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 45
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

In a message dated 1/27/00 8:40:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
hermandw@village.uunet.be writes:
 snip..... 
>  I find this a very strange case to be the first.
>  I would have expected it to be about some 50/50 thing, but
>  no, the very first time the directors apply their new
>  powers, they rule only 20% change.

It's probably a waste of time and against my better judgment but I can't stop 
myself from responding. It appears to me that you don't fully comprehend the 
Code of Practice for Appeals Committees, it's effect on the way in which TDs 
are to rule, nor the provisions and application of Law 12 in it's entirety.
>  
>  Is this a trend ?

Is this a veiled insult, a trap question, or just serious lack of 
understanding?
>  
>  "We don't think you're fully damaged because there is only a
>  small chance you would get the correct result, but hey,
>  let's give you some compensation after all ..."

Where do the quotes on these words come from?  I can't find them in the 
postings or writeups I've read.  Did I miss something? Did you invent 
something?  What is a "correct result?" Do you persist in your opinion of a 
correct result in the face of expert player testimony that West would have 
gotten it right and made the contract most of the time since South would need 
the Ace of clubs to make double of 4NT the expert call?
>  
>  At first sight I did not like it but I can see that it might
>  work.

A possible light on the horizon ?
>  
>  However, I would prefer it if it were like this:
>  
>  "You have been damaged, so we will rule you will act to your
>  best possibilities.  That is not enough for a score change,
>  however, since offenders have a good possibility of getting
>  it right after all.  So we give you only partial redress."

Who are you quoting here? Are you giving lessons or suggesting to someone how 
to properly phrase a ruling? To whom? Or are you using a suspect style of 
argument in which you attribute clearly inferior words to another, and then 
shine and impress with your more appropriate wording?

>  
>  But that was not the case here.

Really?  Are you serious?
>  
>  In this case, it was ruled that south, who had MI, would not
>  necessarily give the lead directing double.  That was part
>  of the reason for the partial redress.  I'm not sure I agree
>  with that application.

Your reasoning escapes me. In one paragraph you state what you would prefer 
and in the very next one you're not sure you agree with that application.  Is 
this a stream of consciousness rather than a held opinion?

It was clear 4 of 5 of the expert players consulted would not make a lead 
directing double (with or without the correct information from the opponent) 
because of the danger of playing 4NT doubled and redoubled by strongly 
bidding opponents of world class caliber. Not being of that genre of TDs who 
place themselves equal to or above players of world reknown and proven level 
of  bridge judgment, we TDs (please, notice the plural in "TDs" though I 
accept the ultimate responsibility)  arrived at the consensus reflected in 
the ruling. 
>  
Sorry that you were dissatisfied, but of much greater importance is that the 
PLAYERS, all many times world champions including the leading player in the 
world, were satisfied with the ruling and opinions of their peers. That is 
what counts to me, and makes me think  we ALL got it right that time.

You are certainly entitled to your opinions, as I am equally entitled to 
comment on them when they are I think they are at best misleading and ill 
conceived.

Kojak
 

From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 29 08:16:50 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA13076
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 08:16:50 +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 IAA13070
	for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 08:16:38 +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, 28 Jan 2000 16:15:39 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000128161337.00801480@mail.maine.rr.com>
X-Sender: thg@mail.maine.rr.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 16:13:37 -0500
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
From: Tim Goodwin 
Subject: Re: A 12C3 ruling not appealed.
In-Reply-To: <6.170bb0f.25c32dc7@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

At 12:37 PM 1/28/00 EST, Schoderb@aol.com wrote:
>Sorry that you were dissatisfied, but of much greater importance is that the 
>PLAYERS, all many times world champions including the leading player in the 
>world, were satisfied with the ruling and opinions of their peers.

Weren't the players invovled Hamman-Soloway and Rosenberg-Zia?  What "many"
world championships have Zia and Rosenberg won?  I'm not suggesting they
are not world class -- they would certainly be on my list of top ten
partnerships in the world.

Tim


From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 29 09:58:31 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA13536
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 09:58:31 +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 JAA13525
	for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 09:58:09 +1100 (EST)
Received: from [195.8.86.172] (helo=dodona)
	by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
	id 12EKKs-000MLH-00; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 22:57:50 +0000
Message-ID: <001b01bf69e3$458b1a20$5e5608c3@dodona>
From: "Grattan Endicott" 
To: 
References: <200001091624.DAA14808@octavia.anu.edu.au> <01ed01bf5ad6$c7dfd720$16991e18@san.rr.com>
Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 22:56:05 -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, January 09, 2000 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda


. > Let's keep in mind that this is not official WBF policy until, or
> unless, the WBFLC confirms it. As I understand it, when the WBF acts
> as an SO for an event its pronouncements for the event do not have
> the force of law for all SOs.
>
+=+ The WBFLC is a subcommittee of the WBF Executive Council
and the Code of Practice is initiated at the latter level. Indeed the Code
is not a subject for the WBFLC.    Further, the requirement is to
publish it to all NCBOs and Zonal Authorities in the hope that it "will
quickly be adopted, worldwide". The EBL has stepped in quickly
and I am currently consulting as to its circulation to Zone 1 NCBOs
as a document "adopted by the European Bridge League". We just
need a little breathing space to get it out (and Anna Gudge to stop
being indisposed).          ~ Grattan ~ +=+

p.s. I still find those who hear me remarkably deaf when I repeat
ad nauseam that an overriding decision of the parent body
establishes for the WBFLC that only regulations made under
Law 80F are subject to the limitation in 80F.



From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 29 10:19:16 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA13717
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 10:19:16 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA13712
	for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 10:19:09 +1100 (EST)
Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130)
	id 7DAF031026; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 18:19:00 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 18:19:00 -0500
To: James.Vickers@merck.de
From: Adam Wildavsky 
Subject: Re: Redress for N/S?
Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

At 6:53 PM +0100 1/14/00, James.Vickers@merck.de wrote:
>Hello again. Returning after a short break, I find this interesting 
>case has the
>German news group "Doubl" in a bit of a spin, and would appreciate some
>comments:

This should be a simple case. It is clear to me what the ruling 
should be, but I'm having trouble finding unambiguous support for my 
view in the laws. I'd appreciate any help!

I won't repeat the facts. East asked a question which resulted in 
unauthorized information to West. West "bent over backwards" to avoid 
taking advantage of the unauthorized information.

>    Was UI transmitted? (Yes)
>    Did offender's partner choose from among logical alternatives one 
>which could
>    have been suggested over and above others by the UI? (Not in my 
>opinion, but
>    arguable)

You left out the word "demonstrably". Even so, it should be clear to 
all of us that West did not choose such an alternative. We need ask 
no further questions.

>    Were the opponents damaged as a result? (Quite possibly)

This is irrelevant. Since no actionable infraction has been 
committed, there can be no adjustment.

>East's question was undoubtably illegal, and West acted naively, 
>albeit in good
>faith.

Was East's question illegal? He is entitled under Law 20F1 to ask 
whatever he wishes at his turn to call. Law 73B1 seems to say, 
though, that some questions are improper. I'd say they may be 
technically illegal, but the only penalty that can be assessed is 
under 73F1, which makes it clear that the -actionable- infraction is 
taking advantage of unauthorized information. This is covered with 
under Law 73C:

"C. Player Receives Unauthorised Information from Partner
When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his 
partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, 
special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully 
avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side."

West did avoid taking advantage - case closed.

To see why I reason that this must be the intent of the Laws, 
consider Law 0 and West's action. Law 0 ("The Laws are primarily 
designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress 
for damage") implies that there should no automatic penalty for 
transmitting unauthorized information, and Law 73 does not specify 
one. Instead it makes it clear that it is illegal to -act- on the 
unauthorized information. The genius of the Laws in this situation is 
that they make it in a player's best interest to act ethically.

We all know the argument - I expect most of us have explained it many 
times. West may not choose from among logical alternatives one 
demonstrably suggested by the UI because, if he does poorly, he will 
keep poor result, but if he does well his score will be adjusted. As 
a matter of justice, then, West must be protected once he chooses an 
alternative clearly permitted by the Laws. He may get a poor result 
at the table, but he no longer risks an adjusted score.

>It seems that as a result N/S have lost their chance to obtain a better
>score in 2S, even though West went out of his way not to act on the UI. Do N/S
>have a right to redress?

No.

AW


From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 29 10:47:25 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA13767
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 10:47:25 +1100 (EST)
Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA13762
	for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 10:47:16 +1100 (EST)
Received: from [195.8.86.119] (helo=dodona)
	by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
	id 12EL6V-0001aK-00
	for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 23:47:03 +0000
Message-ID: <00e601bf69ea$2572af80$5e5608c3@dodona>
From: "Grattan Endicott" 
To: 
References: <3.0.6.32.20000109091424.008c48f0@mail.ultra.net.au><013301bf5a41$2ce459c0$16991e18@san.rr.com><019001bf5b8e$ccf73560$bd2b4b0c@default>  <008a01bf5c45$42792e40$ab2b4b0c@default> <03c501bf5c60$d7436fc0$16991e18@san.rr.com>
Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 23:24:56 -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 EndicottInteresting. L12C3 has no title in the ACBL and European versions of
>the Laws. The English version has a title: "Powers of Appeals
>Committee," at least in the version available on the internet (via
>ACBL web site, my path to it). Oddly enough the title is shown in a
>faint text instead of the bold text used elsewhere, which I suppose
>means that it is an "emendation" inserted by someone. It does look
>as though L12C3 *should* have a title, and that the absence of one
>is just an oversight. Since it was a late addition to the Laws,
>after a footnote version was considered and rejected, that's not
>surprising.

+=+ There is a misstatement here that should be gently
corrected. To quote a minute of the WBFLC (18 Oct 87):
"The Committee held:
1. ............(omissis).............
2. The next reprinting of the Laws include a footnote
appended to Law 12C2 (in reference to 'Director')
as follows: "An Appeals Committee may vary an assigned
adjusted score in order to do equity". In the meantime
organisations are authorised to adopt this procedure.
3. .........etc. ............."

Law 12C3 was the conversion in 1997 into the body
of the laws of an existing footnote in the 1987 Laws.
                 ~ Grattan ~ +=+


From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 29 15:08:50 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA14350
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 15:08:50 +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 PAA14345
	for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 15:08:41 +1100 (EST)
Received: from alltel.net (cras36p69.navix.net [205.242.158.72])
	by mail.alltel.net (8.9.3/ALLTEL Messaging Service) with ESMTP id WAA06290;
	Fri, 28 Jan 2000 22:08:27 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <38926821.5DF4F877@alltel.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 22:10:09 -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
To: Herman De Wael 
CC: Bridge Laws 
Subject: Re: bum claim
References: <200001220227.VAA19842@cfa183.harvard.edu> <388BB69C.D3CF903C@alltel.net> <388C5296.A4375D24@village.uunet.be>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk



Herman De Wael wrote:

> One should think all has been said in this thread, but I
> could not resist commenting on one piece of what :
>
> Norman Hostetler wrote:
> >
> > There are two primary reasons (at less than
> > expert levels) for this thoughtlessness:
>
> > 1) He did not count or miscounted
> > the suit and believes that he cannot be defeated on any line of play,
> > provided that he plays his three top honors first, or
>
> > 2) He did not think
> > enough about the suit to consider the play implications of a 4-0 > split,
> > which occurs often enough that anybody should take it into account.
>
> There is a third possibility, or if you intended this in
> your nr1), it should not be grouped in there :
>
> 3) He did not count the suit at all, and claimed on the
> "general" feeling that everything should be high.
>
> I know this is a very dangerous thing to do, but I have done
> it.
> As a TD, I admit that it can be done.
> As a player, captain and director, I do not advise it of
> anyone, because it may fail more often than you think.
>
> But as a TD, I accept it and deal with the claim on its
> merits.  That includes making a non-irrational plan for the
> play of the hand, and seeing if any such plan will work.
>
> OK ?

Sorry, not OK.  I did deliberately include both miscounting and not counting in
the same category, because I see no significant difference in these two
"sloppy" practices.  My rulings at the table would be identical for each.

Norm Hostetler


From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 29 16:05:54 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA14512
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 16:05:54 +1100 (EST)
Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37] (may be forged))
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA14507
	for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 16:05:46 +1100 (EST)
Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by smtp1.san.rr.com
          (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35)
          with ESMTP id com for ;
          Fri, 28 Jan 2000 21:05:36 -0800
Message-ID: <010201bf6a16$76c65f40$16991e18@san.rr.com>
Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" 
From: "Marvin L. French" 
To: 
References: <3.0.6.32.20000109091424.008c48f0@mail.ultra.net.au><013301bf5a41$2ce459c0$16991e18@san.rr.com><019001bf5b8e$ccf73560$bd2b4b0c@default>  <008a01bf5c45$42792e40$ab2b4b0c@default> <03c501bf5c60$d7436fc0$16991e18@san.rr.com> <00e601bf69ea$2572af80$5e5608c3@dodona>
Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 21:05:24 -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

Grattan quotes me without attribution, as follows:

> ============================================
> >Interesting. L12C3 has no title in the ACBL and European versions of
> >the Laws. The English version has a title: "Powers of Appeals
> >Committee," at least in the version available on the internet (via
> >ACBL web site, my path to it). Oddly enough the title is shown in a
> >faint text instead of the bold text used elsewhere, which I suppose
> >means that it is an "emendation" inserted by someone. It does look
> >as though L12C3 *should* have a title, and that the absence of one
> >is just an oversight. Since it was a late addition to the Laws,
> >after a footnote version was considered and rejected, that's not
> >surprising.
>
> +=+ There is a misstatement here that should be gently
> corrected.

What is the misstatement, please? I read right here on BLML that Kaplan
rejected the footnote idea and that is why it became an optional law in
1997.

 To quote a minute of the WBFLC (18 Oct 87):
> "The Committee held:
> 1. ............(omissis).............
> 2. The next reprinting of the Laws include a footnote
> appended to Law 12C2 (in reference to 'Director')
> as follows: "An Appeals Committee may vary an assigned
> adjusted score in order to do equity". In the meantime
> organisations are authorised to adopt this procedure.
> 3. .........etc. ............."
>
> Law 12C3 was the conversion in 1997 into the body
> of the laws of an existing footnote in the 1987 Laws.
>                  ~ Grattan ~ +=+

In "the next reprinting"? When did that happen, please? "Existing footnote"?
I see no such footnote in the body of the 1987 laws. A revised version of
the Laws came out in September 1990, with no footnote. Did the ACBL omit it
in the printing?-

Marv (Marvin L. French)










From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 29 17:34:01 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA14686
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 17:34:01 +1100 (EST)
Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37] (may be forged))
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA14681
	for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 17:33:54 +1100 (EST)
Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by smtp1.san.rr.com
          (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35)
          with ESMTP id com for ;
          Fri, 28 Jan 2000 22:33:45 -0800
Message-ID: <012301bf6a22$c6511c60$16991e18@san.rr.com>
Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" 
From: "Marvin L. French" 
To: 
References: <200001091624.DAA14808@octavia.anu.edu.au> <01ed01bf5ad6$c7dfd720$16991e18@san.rr.com> <001b01bf69e3$458b1a20$5e5608c3@dodona>
Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 22:32:40 -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

Grattan Endicott wrote:

> ============================================
>  "Mr. Wignall informed the committee that the late General
> Counsel had advised him that the committee is a sub-committee
> of the Executive Council and its decisions are subject to
> ratification by the Executive Council"
>                                           (minuted, 11th January 2000).

As has always been understood, but the right to ratify does not normally
include the right to initiate.

> ===========================================

>       Marvin L. French wrote:>
>
> . > Let's keep in mind that this is not official WBF policy until, or
> > unless, the WBFLC confirms it. As I understand it, when the WBF acts
> > as an SO for an event its pronouncements for the event do not have
> > the force of law for all SOs.

Evidently the CoP was intended for more than WBF-sponsored events, but even
so it does not automatically have the force of law outside such events.
> >
> +=+ The WBFLC is a subcommittee of the WBF Executive Council
> and the Code of Practice is initiated at the latter level.

It is not a subcommittee, it is a committee. Looking at the By-laws of the
WBF, I see under the Laws Committe entry::

-- The function and duty of this Committee shall be to consider and take
account of all matters relating to the international laws of bridge. The
Committee shall make what ever changes in the laws it deems appropriate,
subject to approval by the Executive. The Committee shall interpret the
laws; shall periodically review the laws; and at least once each decade
shall make a comprehensive study and updating of the entire laws
structure. --

"Whatever" is one word over here. While the WBF EC indeed has the
constitutional right to do anything that its committees can do, it seems
strange to establish a committee for some purpose and then say, "We are
going to do your job for you."

> Indeed the Code
> is not a subject for the WBFLC.

Read the by-law again: "to consider and take account of all matters relating
to the international laws of bridge."

> Further, the requirement is to
> publish it to all NCBOs and Zonal Authorities in the hope that it "will
> quickly be adopted, worldwide". The EBL has stepped in quickly
> and I am currently consulting as to its circulation to Zone 1 NCBOs
> as a document "adopted by the European Bridge League". We just
> need a little breathing space to get it out (and Anna Gudge to stop
> being indisposed).

> p.s. I still find those who hear me remarkably deaf when I repeat
> ad nauseam that an overriding decision of the parent body
> establishes for the WBFLC that only regulations made under
> Law 80F are subject to the limitation in 80F.

So the EC can write regulations that conflict with the Laws, because they
are not made under L80F? Nauseous indeed.

Anyway, back to L12C3. The CoP says "it is desired" (by whom, one wonders)
"that L12C3 be amended to extend the powers it currently gives to appeals
committees also to Chief Directors....[The question of a law change is being
pursued.]"

Until that law change is made, I don't see how it can be legal to implement
it. Oops, I forgot, things done by the EC outside the Laws are not subject
to the Laws.

Marv (Marvin L. French)













From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 29 21:27:38 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA15125
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 21:27:38 +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 VAA15120
	for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 21:27:30 +1100 (EST)
Received: from [195.8.86.59] (helo=dodona)
	by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
	id 12EV63-000Bl4-00; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 10:27:16 +0000
Message-ID: <001101bf6a43$958f1ac0$3b5608c3@dodona>
From: "Grattan Endicott" 
To: "Marvin L. French" ,
        
References: <200001091624.DAA14808@octavia.anu.edu.au> <01ed01bf5ad6$c7dfd720$16991e18@san.rr.com> <001b01bf69e3$458b1a20$5e5608c3@dodona> <012301bf6a22$c6511c60$16991e18@san.rr.com>
Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 10:26:15 -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 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, January 29, 2000 6:32 AM
Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda


> Grattan Endicott wrote:
>
> > ============================================
> >  "Mr. Wignall informed the committee that the late General
> > Counsel had advised him that the committee is a sub-committee
> > of the Executive Council and its decisions are subject to
> > ratification by the Executive Council"
> >                                           (minuted, 11th January 2000).
>
> As has always been understood, but the right to ratify does not normally
> include the right to initiate.
>
> > ===========================================
>
Marv:
> Until that law change is made, I don't see how it can be legal to
implement
> it. Oops, I forgot, things done by the EC outside the Laws are not subject
> to the Laws.
>
+=+ Wilful misrepresentation. Things done by *any* regulating authority
under the authority of other sections of the laws than 80F are separate
from and not governed by 80F. Amongst sections that may be involved
are 40D, 80E and 80G. Each regulation is subject to the section of the
Law under which it is made.  This was settled in rejecting an
appeal by Kaplan against the regulations in Geneva; the ruling bears the
stamp of a joint hearing by the Executive Council and the Rules and
Regulations Committee and the WBFLC has no power to overturn it.
      I understand that you do not like the way things are going, and
you are entitled to your point of view. But the process is going
ahead, especially after its highly successful introduction in Bermuda.
[The 'desire' was expressed by the Group summoned to Lausanne
to look at ways of overcoming the trend in appeals matters, and the
group worked on the original draft of the Code and approved it,
with Executive backing, in its current form. They expressed their
desire within the body of the document.]      ~ Grattan ~ +=+


From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 29 22:17:29 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA15183
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 22:17:29 +1100 (EST)
Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA15178
	for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 22:17:21 +1100 (EST)
Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-25-220.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.25.220])
	by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA17587;
	Sat, 29 Jan 2000 12:16:58 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <3892C483.1043094@village.uunet.be>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 11:44:19 +0100
From: Herman De Wael 
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Norman Hostetler ,
        Bridge Laws 
Subject: Re: bum claim
References: <200001220227.VAA19842@cfa183.harvard.edu> <388BB69C.D3CF903C@alltel.net> <388C5296.A4375D24@village.uunet.be> <38926821.5DF4F877@alltel.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Norman Hostetler wrote:
> 
> >
> > But as a TD, I accept it and deal with the claim on its
> > merits.  That includes making a non-irrational plan for the
> > play of the hand, and seeing if any such plan will work.
> >
> > OK ?
> 
> Sorry, not OK.  I did deliberately include both miscounting and not counting in
> the same category, because I see no significant difference in these two
> "sloppy" practices.  My rulings at the table would be identical for each.
> 
> Norm Hostetler

Sorry Norm, but I believe that is not the intent of the
Laws.

First of all, I agree that it is sometimes hard to
distinguish between miscounting and not counting, and I
would agree that the TD should assume the former, not the
latter.  That not the same as saying that he cannot accept
the latter.

If the Director determines that the player has not "counted"
the cards, and he further determines that it would be
irrational for that player not to count the cards before
embarking on the play, and he further determines that it
would be irrational not to play the cards in some manner,
then is it not equitable to allow the claim ?

Particularly if there is some reason behind the faulty
claim, other than "obvious miscounting".

Yesterday I was in 5 clubs, missing two aces and the king of
trumps.  I finessed the King, and it was onside.  With a
huge sigh of relief, I finessed again, and ... put on the
ace.
I noticed my error immediately but of course did not retract
the card. In stead, I claimed for one down.

I am certain that under careful analysis, there might well
be found a way of going two down.  I am equally certain that
it would require some sort of irrational play on my part.

The point I am trying to make is that my claim does not show
that I was not aware of there still being some unblocking
maneuvers to do (style KJx opposite QT), not that it showed
that I could ever handle that suit in some silly manner.

I am equally certain that if I had claimed before taking the
second finesse (with some sufficient statement about the
rest of play), I would have gotten the contract.  The claim
prevents me from making silly mistakes such as going for a
finesse and then not taking it.

Silly mistakes do happen, you say ?  Yes indeed, but they
are irrational nevertheless, and thus exempt from
consideration when deciding on a claim.

I don't remember if you are long enough with us, Norm, to
remember the "strange claim".  Everyone should take a look
at David Stevenson's pages and reread it sometimes.
The important principle in that case is that it was judged
irrational for the player involved to actually follow the
line he had mistakenly "announced" in his claim.  The
"announced" line (which would have included overtaking the
Jack on J opposite AKQ9) would have worked (the ten
dropping) but was far inferior to some other possible lines
of getting to the other hand. since one of those lines did
not work, the claim was judged (in almost unanimous
blml-mode) to be faulty.

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html



From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 29 22:17:46 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA15197
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 22:17:46 +1100 (EST)
Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA15185
	for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 22:17:38 +1100 (EST)
Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-25-220.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.25.220])
	by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA17609
	for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 12:17:21 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <3892C5E7.5645647F@village.uunet.be>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 11:50:15 +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 12C3 ruling not appealed.
References: <016101bf6982$f7e35900$e87193c3@pacific>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Grattan Endicott wrote:
> 
> >
> >I must say that having read the appeals cases in the Bulletins, I was
> >very much impressed by the rulings given at the table and by the ACs;
> >this case (which did not apear in the Bulletins) is another where what
> >should have happened did happen. Well done the WBF, well done Kojak -
> >a giant step for bridgekind.
> >
> +=+ Yes, Kojak and his colleagues did do well, and I will accept
> the plaudit on behalf of the Lausanne Group whose search for a
> way to reduce and advance the appeals procedures has had
> this initial success. What we now hope for is the extension of the
> success around the world; we need from zonal and national
> authorities the same attention to, and concern for, the project.
>  What we do not need is inflexible adherence to the old thinking
> and rejection out of hand of progress into the new millennium
> (whenever that is). :-))  Thank you, David, for your kind and
> understanding perception.                          ~ Grattan ~  +=+

I second the motion to applaude Kojak and his team.

But I would like to issue a fair warning.  This method,
working as it is, is not a working method for anything less
than a world championships.  Because consider the manpower
involved: a highly competent director, a world-class staff
to help, and FIVE expert players, at call for just such an
emergency, and, I presume, not members of the AC that could
still be needed.
At the majority of other tournaments, if there are expert
players available, these are playing, and we should not
disturb them.  The AC members usually have other duties as
well, and are available at certain moments of the day, but
not at the precise moment the TD needs to have expert
advice.

So if the use of L12C3 by the TD is subject to the
availability of enough experts, I do not see it working more
generally.


-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html



From owner-bridge-laws  Sat Jan 29 22:18:13 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA15212
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 22:18:13 +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 WAA15207
	for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 22:18:05 +1100 (EST)
Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-25-220.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.25.220])
	by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA17627;
	Sat, 29 Jan 2000 12:17:41 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <3892C9F9.B3D21841@village.uunet.be>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 12:07:37 +0100
From: Herman De Wael 
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Schoderb@aol.com, Bridge Laws 
Subject: Re: A 12C3 ruling not appealed.
References: <6.170bb0f.25c32dc7@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 1/27/00 8:40:12 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> hermandw@village.uunet.be writes:
>  snip.....
> >  I find this a very strange case to be the first.
> >  I would have expected it to be about some 50/50 thing, but
> >  no, the very first time the directors apply their new
> >  powers, they rule only 20% change.
> 
> It's probably a waste of time and against my better judgment but I can't stop
> myself from responding. It appears to me that you don't fully comprehend the
> Code of Practice for Appeals Committees, it's effect on the way in which TDs
> are to rule, nor the provisions and application of Law 12 in it's entirety.

Maybe I don't, but aren't we all here to try and learn ?

> >
> >  Is this a trend ?
> 
> Is this a veiled insult, a trap question, or just serious lack of
> understanding?

No ?

> >
> >  "We don't think you're fully damaged because there is only a
> >  small chance you would get the correct result, but hey,
> >  let's give you some compensation after all ..."
> 
> Where do the quotes on these words come from?  I can't find them in the
> postings or writeups I've read.  

This is my interpretation of what the TD says to the
players.  I am quite certain that you would not use these
words, nor would I, but they sum up what the ruling says.

> Did I miss something? Did you invent
> something?  What is a "correct result?" Do you persist in your opinion of a
> correct result in the face of expert player testimony that West would have
> gotten it right and made the contract most of the time since South would need
> the Ace of clubs to make double of 4NT the expert call?

The write-up failed to show what the percentages for south
making the double and for west for finding the correct line
were.  I interpreted the 20% to be the result of both.  
Are you telling me that South would almost certain have
doubled, and that west was judged to find the correct line
80% of the time?  In which case the ruling is as I would
interpret L12C3.  If however you judged south's chance of
doubling at 40%, and West's chance of finding the correct
line at 50% (which also results in 20% damage) then I feel
the ruling to be less correct.  But that is just my very
humble opinion, and I am trying to find out whether it is
right or wrong.


> >
> >  At first sight I did not like it but I can see that it might
> >  work.
> 
> A possible light on the horizon ?
> >
> >  However, I would prefer it if it were like this:
> >
> >  "You have been damaged, so we will rule you will act to your
> >  best possibilities.  That is not enough for a score change,
> >  however, since offenders have a good possibility of getting
> >  it right after all.  So we give you only partial redress."
> 
> Who are you quoting here? 

myself.

> Are you giving lessons or suggesting to someone how
> to properly phrase a ruling? To whom? Or are you using a suspect style of
> argument in which you attribute clearly inferior words to another, and then
> shine and impress with your more appropriate wording?
> 

Certainly not.  I am again trying to word a ruling, short
and obviously not as it should be worded.

> >
> >  But that was not the case here.
> 
> Really?  Are you serious?
> >
> >  In this case, it was ruled that south, who had MI, would not
> >  necessarily give the lead directing double.  That was part
> >  of the reason for the partial redress.  I'm not sure I agree
> >  with that application.
> 
> Your reasoning escapes me. In one paragraph you state what you would prefer
> and in the very next one you're not sure you agree with that application.  Is
> this a stream of consciousness rather than a held opinion?
> 

My opinion is that if the NOs would act differently, they
should get full redress for that, or none at all if the
different action is only minorly possible (*).  Only actions
of the Os should be weighted.
But that is just my opinion.  I am quite willing to accept
that you think otherwise, and if that is a WBF decision,
will follow it.

(*) sorry, could not think of a better expression.

> It was clear 4 of 5 of the expert players consulted would not make a lead
> directing double (with or without the correct information from the opponent)
> because of the danger of playing 4NT doubled and redoubled by strongly
> bidding opponents of world class caliber. Not being of that genre of TDs who
> place themselves equal to or above players of world reknown and proven level
> of  bridge judgment, we TDs (please, notice the plural in "TDs" though I
> accept the ultimate responsibility)  arrived at the consensus reflected in
> the ruling.

So indeed the 20% is the likelihood for south making the
double ?
In which case you did not discount anything for West finding
the correct play after all ?  Curiouser and Curiouser.

> >
> Sorry that you were dissatisfied, but of much greater importance is that the
> PLAYERS, all many times world champions including the leading player in the
> world, were satisfied with the ruling and opinions of their peers. 
That is not really an argument.
If I regularly award Av+/Av+ for a revoke, I am quite
certain that both pairs remain happy.  But that does not
make it a good ruling.
Sorry, stupid argument, I know, but yet.
Isn't it quite possible that the players realise that some
sort of in-between is the correct result, and are simply
happy that you provided them with it, without them needing
to spend time before an appeal committee ?  Now that may
well be a good thing for the semi final of the BB, as
directed by someone of your reputation and standing, but
that is hardly the yardstick I am able to use in the Belgian
first division.

> That is
> what counts to me, and makes me think  we ALL got it right that time.
> 

I am not questioning that you got it right.  By definition
you did.
I am trying to deduce from your ruling the application of
L12C3, whether the TD is allowed to give it or only the AC.

> You are certainly entitled to your opinions, as I am equally entitled to
> comment on them when they are I think they are at best misleading and ill
> conceived.
> 

And I am very happy that you take the time to enlighten
little old me.

> Kojak
> 

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html


From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 30 00:41:23 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA15584
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 00:41:23 +1100 (EST)
Received: from imo-d05.mx.aol.com (imo-d05.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.37])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA15579
	for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 00:41:15 +1100 (EST)
From: Schoderb@aol.com
Received: from Schoderb@aol.com
	by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.8.) id 5.28.12c5290 (4212);
	Sat, 29 Jan 2000 08:40:01 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <28.12c5290.25c447b0@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 08:40:00 EST
Subject: Re: A 12C3 ruling not appealed.
To: hermandw@village.uunet.be, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 45
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

In a message dated 1/29/00 6:18:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
hermandw@village.uunet.be writes:


Snip

> But I would like to issue a fair warning.  This method,
>  working as it is, is not a working method for anything less
>  than a world championships.  Because consider the manpower
>  involved: a highly competent director, a world-class staff
>  to help, and FIVE expert players, at call for just such an
>  emergency, and, I presume, not members of the AC that could
>  still be needed.
>  At the majority of other tournaments, if there are expert
>  players available, these are playing, and we should not
>  disturb them.  The AC members usually have other duties as
>  well, and are available at certain moments of the day, but
>  not at the precise moment the TD needs to have expert
>  advice.
>  
>  So if the use of L12C3 by the TD is subject to the
>  availability of enough experts, I do not see it working more
>  generally.

Certainly true in many cases and one of the problems to be solved. However, 
it is not only the 12C3 rulings that are consulted.  All rulings involving 
bridge judgment are consulted. It appears that the players find themselves 
satisfied to a great degree when this time is taken. Just a thought, but as 
one works at lower levels with less expert players available, isn't the 
action of one's peers also less expert?
I'm fully aware that we have tried a new process to do a good job of applying 
the Laws.  There will be refinements, changes, and improvements. I don't know 
how much of an ogre the AC system is in other zones, but I can assure you 
that the ACBL is also working hard toward improvement.  The use of TD panels 
and consultation to review rulings in place of ACs in less-than-National 
events at the NABCs is also an approach.  Personally I think getting it right 
before the ruling is better.  The ultimate is to have TDs that are also 
expert players - probably wishful thinking.  An important point to me in a 
Code of Practice for Appeals Committees is that it returns the process to an 
orderly, stepwise procedure wherein an appeal of a TD ruling is what the AC 
considers and rules upon -- not an original review of the happening at the 
table.  That, to me, is what the Laws have said all along.

You are not a "little old me."

Kojak
>  
>  
>  -- 

From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 30 00:48:07 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA15613
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 00:48:07 +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 AAA15608
	for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 00:47:59 +1100 (EST)
Received: from [62.172.60.217] (helo=davidburn)
	by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1)
	id 12EYE5-0005yH-00
	for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 13:47:45 +0000
Message-ID: <000d01bf6a5f$187c4d20$d93cac3e@davidburn>
From: "David Burn" 
To: "Bridge Laws" 
References: <016101bf6982$f7e35900$e87193c3@pacific> <3892C5E7.5645647F@village.uunet.be>
Subject: Re: A 12C3 ruling not appealed.
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 13:45:23 -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

Herman wrote:

> But I would like to issue a fair warning.  This method,
> working as it is, is not a working method for anything less
> than a world championships.  Because consider the manpower
> involved: a highly competent director, a world-class staff
> to help, and FIVE expert players, at call for just such an
> emergency, and, I presume, not members of the AC that could
> still be needed.
> At the majority of other tournaments, if there are expert
> players available, these are playing, and we should not
> disturb them.  The AC members usually have other duties as
> well, and are available at certain moments of the day, but
> not at the precise moment the TD needs to have expert
> advice.
>
> So if the use of L12C3 by the TD is subject to the
> availability of enough experts, I do not see it working more
> generally.

What appears to me to have happened in Bermuda is this:

A ruling that required the judgement of expert players to determine an
equitable outcome (using, if necessary, 12C3) was required.
The CTD used whatever expert players were available to assist him in
determining an equitable outcome before returning to the table and
giving his ruling "of first instance". If no experts had been
available, the CTD could have used his own best judgement in restoring
equity - but this was not necessary.
The judgement of the players at the table coincided sufficiently with
the judgement of the experts consulted by the CTD for no further
appeal to be deemed necessary, so there was none.

This seems to be to be a practice that can be adopted to some extent
in most tournaments. However, it may be the case that expert players
are not available to be consulted by the CTD until after the session
ends. In that case, there is a (minor) procedural problem: rulings
which may lead to score adjustment on a board should ideally be given
while the session is in progress, so that the players "know the score"
while they are playing. In that case, however, the position is no
worse than the current position, where (in effect) the players have to
wait until the end of the session to find out what the "expert panel"
determines the score should be. Moreover, there may be sufficient
playing expertise among the directing staff that a 12C3 ruling can be
given without disrupting the other players. After all, it is only when
players of very high standard (or directors who are all hopeless
players) are involved that the directing staff are not always going to
be able to reach a bridge judgement acceptable to the players.

I do not think that, in the case quoted from Bermuda, there was any
question of deciding that the non-offenders were entitled to some
arbitrary small amount of compensation. Rather, the amount of
compensation given was in direct proportion to the amount of damage
that had (potentially) been caused by the infraction.

David Burn
London, England



From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 30 02:03:18 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA15668
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 01:01:17 +1100 (EST)
Received: from loger.inter.net.il (loger.inter.net.il [192.116.202.32])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA15663
	for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 01:00:58 +1100 (EST)
Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-5-190.access.net.il [213.8.5.190] (may be forged))
	by loger.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA10878
	for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 15:59:55 +0200 (IST)
Message-ID: <3892F2B4.5F7B8B19@zahav.net.il>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 16:01:24 +0200
From: Dany Haimovici 
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en-US,fr,Hebrew,en,ro,ru
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" 
Subject: D-BLML list - the clever friends - January 2000
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

Here is the 17th 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  Sun Jan 30 02:15:01 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA16082
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 02:15:01 +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 CAA16077
	for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 02:14:54 +1100 (EST)
Received: (qmail 10899 invoked by uid 65534); 29 Jan 2000 15:14:15 -0000
Message-ID: <20000129151415.10898.qmail@hotmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [209.206.13.187]
From: "Roger Pewick" 
To: "blml" 
References: <200001091624.DAA14808@octavia.anu.edu.au> <01ed01bf5ad6$c7dfd720$16991e18@san.rr.com> <001b01bf69e3$458b1a20$5e5608c3@dodona> <012301bf6a22$c6511c60$16991e18@san.rr.com> <001101bf6a43$958f1ac0$3b5608c3@dodona>
Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 09:14:47 -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


Grattan,

It is my understanding that the matter of conducting tournaments has made
movement in an improved direction.  I think that such a state of affairs is
worth endorsing.  I have reason to believe that most of the debate over the
Bermuda condition of contest was about the matter, if you will, of dotting
the i's and crossing the t's.  As such, is it the view of the Bridge
Authorities that the laws will be revised to make such a reflection?

Roger Pewick
Houston, Texas

----- Original Message -----
From: Grattan Endicott 
To: Marvin L. French ;

Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2000 4:26 AM
Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda


>
> Grattan Endicott
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
> "The vitality of a new movement in art or letters can be
> pretty accurately gauged by the fury it arouses."
>                        -  Logan Pearsall Smith (1931)
> ============================================

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Marvin L. French 
> To: 
> Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2000 6:32 AM
> Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda
>
>
> > Grattan Endicott wrote:

> As has always been understood, but the right to ratify does not normally
> > include the right to initiate.
> >
> > > ===========================================
> >
> Marv:
> > Until that law change is made, I don't see how it can be legal to
> implement
> > it. Oops, I forgot, things done by the EC outside the Laws are not
subject
> > to the Laws.
> >
> +=+ Wilful misrepresentation. Things done by *any* regulating authority
> under the authority of other sections of the laws than 80F are separate
> from and not governed by 80F. Amongst sections that may be involved
> are 40D, 80E and 80G. Each regulation is subject to the section of the
> Law under which it is made.  This was settled in rejecting an
> appeal by Kaplan against the regulations in Geneva; the ruling bears the
> stamp of a joint hearing by the Executive Council and the Rules and
> Regulations Committee and the WBFLC has no power to overturn it.
>       I understand that you do not like the way things are going, and
> you are entitled to your point of view. But the process is going
> ahead, especially after its highly successful introduction in Bermuda.
> [The 'desire' was expressed by the Group summoned to Lausanne
> to look at ways of overcoming the trend in appeals matters, and the
> group worked on the original draft of the Code and approved it,
> with Executive backing, in its current form. They expressed their
> desire within the body of the document.]      ~ Grattan ~ +=+
>
>


From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 30 04:50:51 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA16524
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 04:50:51 +1100 (EST)
Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37] (may be forged))
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA16519
	for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 04:50:42 +1100 (EST)
Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by smtp1.san.rr.com
          (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35)
          with ESMTP id com for ;
          Sat, 29 Jan 2000 09:50:33 -0800
Message-ID: <016101bf6a81$4fb2b320$16991e18@san.rr.com>
Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" 
From: "Marvin L. French" 
To: 
References: <200001091624.DAA14808@octavia.anu.edu.au> <01ed01bf5ad6$c7dfd720$16991e18@san.rr.com> <001b01bf69e3$458b1a20$5e5608c3@dodona> <012301bf6a22$c6511c60$16991e18@san.rr.com> <001101bf6a43$958f1ac0$3b5608c3@dodona>
Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 09:50:13 -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 wrote:

> From: Marvin L.

> > Until that law change is made, I don't see how it can be legal to
> implement
> > it. Oops, I forgot, things done by the EC outside the Laws are not
subject
> > to the Laws.
> >
> +=+ Wilful misrepresentation. Things done by *any* regulating authority
> under the authority of other sections of the laws than 80F are separate
> from and not governed by 80F. Amongst sections that may be involved
> are 40D, 80E and 80G. Each regulation is subject to the section of the
> Law under which it is made.

Perhaps L80F should be reworded, as it seems to govern *all* regulations by
an SO, whose duties and powers are:

"To publish and announce regulations that are supplementary to, but not in
conflict with, these Laws."

I interpret this as saying that even though "each regulation is subject to
the section of the Law under which it is made," that does not make it
independent of the global governance of L80F.

Your interpretation is very handy, as it permits an SO to forbid (per L40D)
the psyching of a convention, in violation of L40A and L73E.

It would also permit, as an example, a regulation regarding L20F1 (e.g.,
require that all calls must be explained) to conflict with L75C ("need not
disclose....).

This can't be right.

Marv (Marvin L. French)















From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 30 04:53:44 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA16543
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 04:53:44 +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 EAA16538
	for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 04:53:36 +1100 (EST)
Received: (from smtpd@localhost)
	by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA23357
	for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 18:53:26 +0100
Received: from ip123.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.123), claiming to be "jd-private.internal"
 via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda23354; Sat Jan 29 18:53:17 2000
From: Jesper Dybdal  
To: 
Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 18:53:16 +0100
Organization: at home
Message-ID: 
References: <200001091624.DAA14808@octavia.anu.edu.au> <01ed01bf5ad6$c7dfd720$16991e18@san.rr.com> <001b01bf69e3$458b1a20$5e5608c3@dodona>
In-Reply-To: <001b01bf69e3$458b1a20$5e5608c3@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 EAA16539
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 28 Jan 2000 22:56:05 -0000, "Grattan Endicott"
 wrote:

>p.s. I still find those who hear me remarkably deaf when I repeat
>ad nauseam that an overriding decision of the parent body
>establishes for the WBFLC that only regulations made under
>Law 80F are subject to the limitation in 80F.

Which seems to me to lead us into rather muddy waters:

As I understand it, this decision says that if a regulation is
not made under L80F then it is allowed to be in conflict with the
laws.  But if a regulation may be in conflict with the laws, why
should we care at all whether the laws allow that regulation?

For instance, the decision seems to allow us to make a regulation
under for instance L80E which is in conflict with the laws -
including L80E.  This makes L80F meaningless.

I find it difficult to understand what the limitations on
regulations, if any, really are.  It seems to me that in reality
there are no limits at all, but why is L80F then in the book?
-- 
Jesper Dybdal, Denmark .
http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish).

From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 30 05:25:03 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA16626
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 05:25:03 +1100 (EST)
Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA16618
	for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 05:24:54 +1100 (EST)
Received: (from smtpd@localhost)
	by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA23426
	for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 19:24:46 +0100
Received: from ip16.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.16), claiming to be "jd-private.internal"
 via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda23424; Sat Jan 29 19:24:44 2000
From: Jesper Dybdal  
To: "bridge-laws" 
Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 19:24:44 +0100
Organization: at home
Message-ID: 
References: <000401bf69a4$f8baadc0$2b7693c3@pacific>
In-Reply-To: <000401bf69a4$f8baadc0$2b7693c3@pacific>
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 FAA16619
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 28 Jan 2000 15:27:57 -0000, "Grattan Endicott"
 wrote:

>"It was agreed to look in any major review of 
>the laws at a possibility of merging the
>procedures under Laws 26A and 26B.

Did the committee discuss the general problem with the new L16C2
in relation to automatic penalty laws like this?

With the new L16C2, there is no need for a L26 at all.

Another example that was recently discussed in the DBF's WWW
discussion forum is L30: pass out of turn.

The offender himself is forced to pass, but has given UI by his 
-- 
Jesper Dybdal, Denmark .
http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish).

From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 30 05:26:24 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA16645
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 05:26:24 +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 FAA16638
	for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 05:26:14 +1100 (EST)
Received: (from smtpd@localhost)
	by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA23433
	for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 19:26:06 +0100
Received: from ip16.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.16), claiming to be "jd-private.internal"
 via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda23431; Sat Jan 29 19:26:06 2000
From: Jesper Dybdal  
To: "bridge-laws" 
Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 19:26:06 +0100
Organization: at home
Message-ID: 
References: <000401bf69a4$f8baadc0$2b7693c3@pacific> 
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 FAA16640
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 29 Jan 2000 19:24:44 +0100, Jesper Dybdal
 wrote:

>The offender himself is forced to pass, but has given UI by his 

This was sent half-finished by mistake: please ignore the last
three lines of that message!

I'll post that case as a separate thread.
-- 
Jesper Dybdal, Denmark .
http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish).

From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 30 06:05:11 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA16733
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 06:05:11 +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 GAA16727
	for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 06:05:01 +1100 (EST)
Received: (from smtpd@localhost)
	by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA23507
	for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 20:04:46 +0100
Received: from ip110.virnxr3.ras.tele.dk(195.215.245.110), claiming to be "jd-private.internal"
 via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda23504; Sat Jan 29 20:04:42 2000
From: Jesper Dybdal  
To: Bridge Laws List 
Subject: Automatic penalties and UI
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 20:04:42 +0100
Organization: at home
Message-ID: <46c69ssqgd6fujtj7i5kcqj35abpbu0vb5@bilbo.dit.dk>
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 GAA16728
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

An example of the general problem with the new L16C2 in relation
to automatic penalty laws was recently discussed in the DBF's WWW
discussion forum: L30, pass out of turn.

The offender himself is forced to pass, but has given UI by his
pass.  The special nature of the "partner must pass" situation
can make it very difficult to judge which calls are logical
alternatives and which are suggested by UI.

The hand that caused the discussion was
      Jxx, Jxx, J1098xx, x
not vulnerable against vulnerable.  With this hand sitting south,
the bidding started with pass from dealer east, pass from north,
not accepted by east.  (The TD incorrectly ruled that north had
to pass throughout and not just on the first round, but the
principle is the same.)

Which logical alternatives are there, and which of them are
suggested by the UI that partner does not have an opening hand?

The LAs seem to me to be 1D, 2D, 3D, and possibly some outright
psyche variants (such as 2S or 3C).  He bid 3D, opponents got to
4NT and went one down, adjusted to 3UT winning because the TD
considered that 3D was suggested by the UI.  I agree with that,
but it is difficult for many players to understand that partner
is forced to pass and they still are not allowed to bid anything
they like.

To make it worse, take a hypothetical case: a hand like
    Kx, KQ10xxx, Kxx, xxx

Partner is forced to pass.  Without UI, some players will
routinely open 4H, other players will consider it and not do it,
and some players would never dream of gambling on game (if you
disagree with that, please imagine a hand that is weaker or
stronger to fit that situation).

With the UI that partner does not have an opening hand, you will
have to open 4H if it can be considered a logical alternative.

There are two problems with that:
(a) In some fields, it can be very difficult for the TD to judge
whether 4H is a logical alternative: 4H may be completely obvious
to some of the players and totally out of the question for the
rest.
(b) It will be very difficult to explain to the player who opens
a modest 1H, competes in 2H, and makes 9 tricks that his score
will be adjusted to a minus score on the basis of his opening 4H.

This situation could be improved in three ways:
(1) Go back to the old (1987) L16C.
(2) Remove the forced pass penalty completely.  The NOS is
adequately protected against damage by the POOT being UI.
(3) Change L30 so that it is the offender's partner that has to
pass.  Then the partner of a forced pass is always free to bid as
he likes.

Generally, I think that we should either get the old L16C back or
have a major revision of all automatic penalties in the light of
the new L16C.

This was one example; L26 is another penalty that is not needed
with the current L16C; penalty cards are unnecessary and
unreasonable with the current L16C; and I am sure there are many
other examples.

Personally, I think I would prefer to get the old L16C back,
possibly with exceptions in a few specific situations, and
possibly with the addition of a general L64C-like law covering
all automatic penalties.
-- 
Jesper Dybdal, Denmark .
http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish).

From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 30 06:06:48 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA16755
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 06:06:48 +1100 (EST)
Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA16744
	for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 06:06:37 +1100 (EST)
Received: (from smtpd@localhost)
	by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA23530
	for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 20:06:26 +0100
Received: from ip28.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.28), claiming to be "jd-private.internal"
 via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpdb23525; Sat Jan 29 20:06:21 2000
From: Jesper Dybdal  
To: 
Subject: Re: Appeal no 13 - an appreciable concession!
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 20:06:22 +0100
Organization: at home
Message-ID: 
References: <003501bf686b$be88f7e0$ee5408c3@dodona>
In-Reply-To: <003501bf686b$be88f7e0$ee5408c3@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 GAA16746
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 27 Jan 2000 02:07:41 -0000, "Grattan Endicott"
 wrote:

>The Chairman remarked: "Since the word 'irrational' should be, and has been, interpreted in a bridge context to be a wild emotional action which is also contrary to any bridge logic the committee has no option but to allow the claimed contract to be made. Having said this it is the committee's recommendation that declarer consider a concession of one down since (a) the contract cannot be made by simple but adequate defense, and (b) to concede would be the moral and ethical action and thus within the spirit of the game."

I agree with this Chairman's obvious opinion that L69B has a
tendency to penalize the acquiescing side quite unreasonably.
The typical reaction I've seen to L69B rulings is "This can't be
true" from all four players.

But that is no more a reason not to follow L69B than a
corresponding opinion of the revoke penalty is a reason to not
penalize revokes.

I do not see which law allows declarer to concede a trick after
the match that he has earlier claimed and received.

Does the CTD at a World Championship check AC rulings for
legality?  If so, was this one really found legal?
-- 
Jesper Dybdal, Denmark .
http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish).

From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 30 06:06:48 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA16754
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 06:06:48 +1100 (EST)
Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA16745
	for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 06:06:37 +1100 (EST)
Received: (from smtpd@localhost)
	by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA23529
	for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 20:06:26 +0100
Received: from ip28.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.28), claiming to be "jd-private.internal"
 via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda23525; Sat Jan 29 20:06:21 2000
From: Jesper Dybdal  
To: Bridge Laws 
Subject: Re: A 12C3 ruling not appealed.
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 20:06:21 +0100
Organization: at home
Message-ID: <1ha69sgt1ene0k04pmk5tut0ajur56gn29@bilbo.dit.dk>
References: <016101bf6982$f7e35900$e87193c3@pacific> <3892C5E7.5645647F@village.uunet.be>
In-Reply-To: <3892C5E7.5645647F@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 GAA16747
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 29 Jan 2000 11:50:15 +0100, Herman De Wael
 wrote:

>So if the use of L12C3 by the TD is subject to the
>availability of enough experts, I do not see it working more
>generally.

Allowing the use of L12C3 even without experts will surely not be
a problem: if a TD uses L12C3 to give a bad ruling that needs to
be appealed, what is the likelihood that his L12C2 ruling would
not also have needed an appeal?

We really do need the rules to be same regardless of whether they
are applied by a TD or an AC.
-- 
Jesper Dybdal, Denmark .
http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish).

From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 30 08:36:30 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17112
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 08:36:30 +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 IAA17104
	for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 08:36:21 +1100 (EST)
Received: from [195.8.84.224] (helo=dodona)
	by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
	id 12EfXF-0004UZ-00; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 21:36:01 +0000
Message-ID: <000201bf6aa1$02b5a1c0$e05408c3@dodona>
From: "Grattan Endicott" 
To: "Roger Pewick" ,
        "blml" 
References: <200001091624.DAA14808@octavia.anu.edu.au> <01ed01bf5ad6$c7dfd720$16991e18@san.rr.com> <001b01bf69e3$458b1a20$5e5608c3@dodona> <012301bf6a22$c6511c60$16991e18@san.rr.com> <001101bf6a43$958f1ac0$3b5608c3@dodona> <20000129151415.10898.qmail@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 20:00:53 -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
To: blml 
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2000 3:14 PM
Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda


>
> It is my understanding that the matter of conducting tournaments has made
> movement in an improved direction.  I think that such a state of affairs
is
> worth endorsing.  I have reason to believe that most of the debate over
the
> Bermuda condition of contest was about the matter, if you will, of dotting
> the i's and crossing the t's.  As such, is it the view of the Bridge
> Authorities that the laws will be revised to make such a reflection?
>
> Roger Pewick
> Houston, Texas
>
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

+=+ Hi Roger!
       I am in the process of rephrasing the reference in
the Code of Practice to a change in Law 12C3. At the
moment what I have drafted is this:

   "The Laws Committee not having so far changed
Law 12C3, the Appeals Committee at the World
Championships in Bermuda, January 2000, issued
the following directive to the Chief Tournament
Director:
      << As part of the arrangements under Law 80G
the Appeals Committee requires the Chief Director of
his own volition, as a preliminary in the appeals
process, to consider whether an adjustment in
accordance with the provisions of Law 12C3 would
be appropriate. If so, in pursuance of the terms of
the WBF Code of Practice he is authorized to make
such an adjustment before the players are given the
ruling in order to achieve equity as he judges it. Such
a score adjustment may be appealed to the Appeals
Committee on the same basis as an appeal of any
other ruling, but the fact that a judgemental ruling by
the Director is made with these enhanced powers,
and after consultation with colleagues and expert
opinion, means that appeals committees will require
strong evidence that puts it beyond reasonable
doubt a ruling should be varied.>>
      The WBF Laws Committee will return to the
question of Law 12C3 at a future time. In the
meantime it has stated that it finds it acceptable
if other regulating authorities adopt this method
of achieving the intention of the Code of Practice."

The Laws Committee is reluctant to make changes,
except for necessity, before a review in 2002-2005;
it has acquiesced in the wish of the parent body that
the adventure entered upon shall go forward
notwithstanding. I have to be restrained in my
comments but the WBFLC is aware of my
impatience with its majority view. What is well
worthy of praise here is the wholehearted way
in which ACBL members of the appeals
committee in Bermuda embraced an unfamiliar
procedure. It worked well because the Directors,
the players, and the appeals committee members,
all combined to good effect, and because the
Lausanne Group had devised a basis that worked.
No review of the Lausanne product took place in
Bermuda; there is a pencilled-in appointment to do
it in Maastricht but if progress continues to be so
encouraging the document could be left untouched.
How it might be used in domestic tournaments and
Zonal championships is left for the respective
regulating bodies to consider; I am available to
discuss their questions and I am sure Kojak will
gladly speak from the Director's angle. For the
moment at least we are on a roll, and I think
much of what we have read on blml merely
reflects the natural reluctance of mankind when
it is dragged through a hedge onto a different
boulevard.

Er, what was the question?   :-)))   ~ G ~ +=+

















From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 30 08:36:49 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17133
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 08:36:49 +1100 (EST)
Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA17120
	for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 08:36:36 +1100 (EST)
Received: from [195.8.84.224] (helo=dodona)
	by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
	id 12EfXU-0004UZ-00; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 21:36:16 +0000
Message-ID: <000501bf6aa1$0bb5b580$e05408c3@dodona>
From: "Grattan Endicott" 
To: "Jesper Dybdal" ,
        "bridge-laws" 
References: <000401bf69a4$f8baadc0$2b7693c3@pacific> 
Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 21:25:04 -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: bridge-laws 
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2000 6:24 PM
Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B


> On Fri, 28 Jan 2000 15:27:57 -0000, "Grattan Endicott"
>  wrote:
>
> >"It was agreed to look in any major review of
> >the laws at a possibility of merging the
> >procedures under Laws 26A and 26B.
>
> Did the committee discuss the general problem with the new L16C2
> in relation to automatic penalty laws like this?
>
> With the new L16C2, there is no need for a L26 at all.
>
+=+   I understand your point. Necessity may not be
the issue; desirability of a mechanical ruling rather
than a judgemental ruling could be the question.
      No. Not discussed. The mood of the committee
was not disposed to look at anything unless there
was a reason to do so now. And what was looked
at led to no change of law. There were a couple of
changes of interpretation and application of law.
    Even the law change that had 9 to 2 support was
not engaged in; put it back to 2005, they said, and
I went on the record over that since I do not
understand the inertia that allows a nonsense
to persist for years.           ~ Grattan ~  +=+










From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 30 08:36:42 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17125
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 08:36:42 +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 IAA17111
	for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 08:36:27 +1100 (EST)
Received: from [195.8.84.224] (helo=dodona)
	by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
	id 12EfXJ-0004UZ-00; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 21:36:05 +0000
Message-ID: <000301bf6aa1$0508b980$e05408c3@dodona>
From: "Grattan Endicott" 
To: "Marvin L. French" ,
        
References: <200001091624.DAA14808@octavia.anu.edu.au> <01ed01bf5ad6$c7dfd720$16991e18@san.rr.com> <001b01bf69e3$458b1a20$5e5608c3@dodona> <012301bf6a22$c6511c60$16991e18@san.rr.com> <001101bf6a43$958f1ac0$3b5608c3@dodona> <016101bf6a81$4fb2b320$16991e18@san.rr.com>
Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 20:25:41 -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, January 29, 2000 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda


> Grattan wrote:
>
> > From: Marvin L.
>
>
> Your interpretation is very handy, as it permits an SO to forbid (per
L40D)
> the psyching of a convention, in violation of L40A and L73E.
>
+=+ Not my interpretation but a judgement in session
of the highest world bridge authority, handed down by
its then President.  The opinion was first expressed
during the deliberations by the President (Dennis
Howard) and it was crucial in the final judgement of
the appeal.
The "global governance of 80F" was found not to exist,
80F being accorded no greater status than any other
section of the laws. It is there to provide a general
authority to regulate outside of any authority to regulate
for specific purposes granted in other sections of
the laws.                   +=+  ~ Grattan ~



From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 30 08:36:47 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17132
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 08:36:47 +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 IAA17116
	for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 08:36:34 +1100 (EST)
Received: from [195.8.84.224] (helo=dodona)
	by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
	id 12EfXO-0004UZ-00; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 21:36:11 +0000
Message-ID: <000401bf6aa1$0866d8a0$e05408c3@dodona>
From: "Grattan Endicott" 
To: "Jesper Dybdal" , 
References: <200001091624.DAA14808@octavia.anu.edu.au> <01ed01bf5ad6$c7dfd720$16991e18@san.rr.com> <001b01bf69e3$458b1a20$5e5608c3@dodona> 
Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 20:43:28 -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


Grattan Endicott
To: 
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2000 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda


>
> As I understand it, this decision says that if a regulation is
> not made under L80F then it is allowed to be in conflict with the
> laws.  But if a regulation may be in conflict with the laws, why
> should we care at all whether the laws allow that regulation?
>
+=+ [See my parallel response to Marv F.]
       Look through the other end of the telescope!
Various sections of the Laws authorize regulation
of specific matters and each of these sections states
any limitation of the power granted. None of them
says 'Subject to Law 80F' or like words. 80F
comes along as a sweeper to cover what may be
done about regulation of the remainder of subjects
not independently treated in the laws.
                                            ~ Grattan ~   +=+







From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 30 08:37:00 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17139
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 08:37:00 +1100 (EST)
Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA17134
	for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 08:36:51 +1100 (EST)
Received: from [195.8.84.224] (helo=dodona)
	by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
	id 12EfXY-0004UZ-00; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 21:36:20 +0000
Message-ID: <000601bf6aa1$0e320020$e05408c3@dodona>
From: "Grattan Endicott" 
To: "Marvin L. French" ,
        
References: <200001091624.DAA14808@octavia.anu.edu.au> <01ed01bf5ad6$c7dfd720$16991e18@san.rr.com> <001b01bf69e3$458b1a20$5e5608c3@dodona> <012301bf6a22$c6511c60$16991e18@san.rr.com> <001101bf6a43$958f1ac0$3b5608c3@dodona> <016101bf6a81$4fb2b320$16991e18@san.rr.com>
Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 21:35:30 -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


Grattan Endicott
To: 
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2000 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda


>
> > From: Marvin L.
>

From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 30 10:06:15 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA17362
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 10:06:15 +1100 (EST)
Received: from hotmail.com (oe11.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.115])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA17357
	for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 10:06:07 +1100 (EST)
Received: (qmail 31984 invoked by uid 65534); 29 Jan 2000 23:05:29 -0000
Message-ID: <20000129230529.31983.qmail@hotmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [209.206.13.62]
From: "Roger Pewick" 
To: "blml" ,
        "Grattan Endicott" 
References: <200001091624.DAA14808@octavia.anu.edu.au> <01ed01bf5ad6$c7dfd720$16991e18@san.rr.com> <001b01bf69e3$458b1a20$5e5608c3@dodona> <012301bf6a22$c6511c60$16991e18@san.rr.com> <001101bf6a43$958f1ac0$3b5608c3@dodona> <20000129151415.10898.qmail@hotmail.com> <000201bf6aa1$02b5a1c0$e05408c3@dodona>
Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 17:05:55 -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

Thank you for the report.


Roger Pewick
Houston, Texas

----- Original Message -----
From: Grattan Endicott 
To: Roger Pewick ; blml

Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2000 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda


>
> Grattan Endicott
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
> "The vitality of a new movement in art or letters can be
> pretty accurately gauged by the fury it arouses."
>                        -  Logan Pearsall Smith (1931)
> ============================================
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Roger Pewick 
> To: blml 
> Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2000 3:14 PM
> Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda
>
>
> >
> > It is my understanding that the matter of conducting tournaments has
made
> > movement in an improved direction.  I think that such a state of affairs
> is
> > worth endorsing.  I have reason to believe that most of the debate over
> the
> > Bermuda condition of contest was about the matter, if you will, of
dotting
> > the i's and crossing the t's.  As such, is it the view of the Bridge
> > Authorities that the laws will be revised to make such a reflection?
> >
> > Roger Pewick
> > Houston, Texas
> >
>
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
>
> +=+ Hi Roger!
>        I am in the process of rephrasing the reference in
> the Code of Practice to a change in Law 12C3. At the
> moment what I have drafted is this:
>
>    "The Laws Committee not having so far changed
> Law 12C3, the Appeals Committee at the World
> Championships in Bermuda, January 2000, issued
> the following directive to the Chief Tournament
> Director:
>       << As part of the arrangements under Law 80G
> the Appeals Committee requires the Chief Director of
> his own volition, as a preliminary in the appeals
> process, to consider whether an adjustment in
> accordance with the provisions of Law 12C3 would
> be appropriate. If so, in pursuance of the terms of
> the WBF Code of Practice he is authorized to make
> such an adjustment before the players are given the
> ruling in order to achieve equity as he judges it. Such
> a score adjustment may be appealed to the Appeals
> Committee on the same basis as an appeal of any
> other ruling, but the fact that a judgemental ruling by
> the Director is made with these enhanced powers,
> and after consultation with colleagues and expert
> opinion, means that appeals committees will require
> strong evidence that puts it beyond reasonable
> doubt a ruling should be varied.>>
>       The WBF Laws Committee will return to the
> question of Law 12C3 at a future time. In the
> meantime it has stated that it finds it acceptable
> if other regulating authorities adopt this method
> of achieving the intention of the Code of Practice."
>
> The Laws Committee is reluctant to make changes,
> except for necessity, before a review in 2002-2005;
> it has acquiesced in the wish of the parent body that
> the adventure entered upon shall go forward
> notwithstanding. I have to be restrained in my
> comments but the WBFLC is aware of my
> impatience with its majority view. What is well
> worthy of praise here is the wholehearted way
> in which ACBL members of the appeals
> committee in Bermuda embraced an unfamiliar
> procedure. It worked well because the Directors,
> the players, and the appeals committee members,
> all combined to good effect, and because the
> Lausanne Group had devised a basis that worked.
> No review of the Lausanne product took place in
> Bermuda; there is a pencilled-in appointment to do
> it in Maastricht but if progress continues to be so
> encouraging the document could be left untouched.
> How it might be used in domestic tournaments and
> Zonal championships is left for the respective
> regulating bodies to consider; I am available to
> discuss their questions and I am sure Kojak will
> gladly speak from the Director's angle. For the
> moment at least we are on a roll, and I think
> much of what we have read on blml merely
> reflects the natural reluctance of mankind when
> it is dragged through a hedge onto a different
> boulevard.
>
> Er, what was the question?   :-)))   ~ G ~ +=+
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 30 12:19:45 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA17660
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 12:19:45 +1100 (EST)
Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37] (may be forged))
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA17654
	for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 12:19:37 +1100 (EST)
Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by smtp1.san.rr.com
          (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35)
          with ESMTP id com; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 17:19:23 -0800
Message-ID: <016901bf6ac0$01e652c0$16991e18@san.rr.com>
Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" 
From: "Marvin L. French" 
To: 
Cc: , 
Subject: L12C2 interpretation
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 17:18:58 -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

Browsing through the Vancouver casebook (viewable by ACBL members on the
ACBL web site), I came across the following words written by David
Stevenson:

"It is important that L12C2 be understood by all Directors and Committees.
When the Panel said 'the Panel believed that ten (tricks) were most likely'
they showed a serious ignorance of the Law. Law 12C2 says 'the most
favorable result that was likely' and that is not the same thing. Suppose a
player would make ten tricks 50% of the time, eleven tricks 40% of the time
and twelve tricks 10% of the time. How would we rule? One in ten is not a
likely result, so we do not give him twelve tricks, but both the other two
are 'likely' results. The most favorable is eleven tricks, so that is what
we would assign. Note, however, that it is not the 'most likely' result."

That explains L12C2 pretty well, and I might have written those words
myself. (I think maybe I did.) "The most favorable result that was likely"
may not be the most likely of the favorable results. If the lawmakers
intended the latter meaning, they would have written "...the most likely of
the favorable results that might have ensued had the irreglarity not
occurred." Anyone who thinks the two wordings mean the same thing is not
sufficiently acquainted with the English language and its idiomatic usages.

Colker's reply:

"Well, David, we do things just a tiny bit different over here. In your
example, I would agree that the results with 40% and 50% likelihoods are
similar enough to be considered "tied" for most likely, so we would choose
the more favorable of them for the non-offenders."

So if two percentage probablilities are within, what? 10%?, they are to be
considered equal? Interesting. Colker continues:

"But change the probabilities a bit and make the two favorites 55% and 35%
and we now assign the 55% result. The fact that 35% result used to qualify
as "likely" because its probability is non-negligible is no longer
relevant."

What made it "no longer relevant"? The commonsense guideline issued by the
ACBL LC was that a 1/3 probability is the threshold for determining "the
most favorable result that was likely" for the NOS. Either the LC has
changed its guideline or Rich Colker has decided that it is the ACBL AC's
right to devise guidelines for L12C2. Has the LC delegated this
responsibility to them? Rich continues:

"Now don't misunderstand us. We aren't distorting the wording of Law L12C2
by exchanging "most likely" for "likely" out of an ignorance of the
difference. Rather, we are interpreting a "likely" result (which Edgar told
us we are entitled to do) as any result which is not significantly less
likely than another. So any result which is judged among the most likely
qualifies. If there is a clear favorite, we assign it. If more than one are
contenders, we assign the one which is "most favorable" for the
non-offenders. The bottom line is, Committees can decide for themselves what
constitutes a likely result."

I had to read this a number of times to understand it, but using the
previous language I see it probably means this: Decide on the potential
favorable results and take the one that was most likely, which may not be
the most favorable. If two or more favorable results have approximately
(within 10%?) the same probability, assign the most favorable result in that
set.

So, the misreading of L12C2 is to be perpetuated, and the NABC AC thinks it
has the power to interpret the Laws. Rich is fond of saying that "Kaplan
said it was okay," as for instance his former contention that a PP had to be
used to penalize the OS when the NOS have done something stupid enough to
annul redress. I am getting skeptical about these undocumented Kaplan
assurances, but maybe EK sometimes told people what they wanted to hear. I
wonder if Rich will apply the same logic to the score for an OS,
disregarding the LC's 1/6 probability guideline for a qualifying unfavorable
result. I suppose so, if he wants to be consistent.

The English language is pretty tricky at times. Let me give an example:

I decide that I am going to drive 100 mph along a busy freeway. What is the
worst result that is likely? Let's say the probabilities are:

(1) 10% that I get killed
(2) 20% that I total my car, am badly injured, but survive
(3) 45% that I damage my car, with little or no injury to myself
(4) 25% that nothing bad happens.

So which is the  worst result that is likely? Most people familiar with the
English language would say (1). The ACBL LC would say that (1) is too
improbable, and choose (2).  It is not the most likely of the unfavorable
results, but it is the most unfavorable result that was likely.

Rich evidently would choose (3), because it is the most likely of the
unfavorable results. That is indeed "distorting the wording of L12C2."

Marv (Marvin L. French)




















From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 30 13:15:38 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA17782
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 13:15:38 +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 NAA17777
	for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 13:15:31 +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 VAA19636
	for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 21:15:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from willner@localhost)
	by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id VAA26953
	for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 21:15:38 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 21:15:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Steve Willner 
Message-Id: <200001300215.VAA26953@cfa183.harvard.edu>
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

> From: "Grattan Endicott" 
> For the
> moment at least we are on a roll, and I think
> much of what we have read on blml merely
> reflects the natural reluctance of mankind when
> it is dragged through a hedge onto a different
> boulevard.

>From all reports, the first clause seems to be right.

The second, as an attempt to attribute motives to others, is more
dubious.  I think there are people who would like the written rules to
be followed or changed, not ignored.

Couldn't the whole "L12C3 by the TD" problem have been avoided if the
rules for appeals had been made under the L93 footnote instead of under
L80G?  Surely the WBF is a zonal authority for the purpose of L93.  In
fact, the wording of the procedure is very strange in several respects,
however happy the results of its application might have been.  This
suggests to me that the procedure needs an improved explanation, not
necessarily any practical changes.  I have no doubt that getting the
ruling right in the first place -- in any contest -- is far superior to
even the best appeals process.

Perhaps we on BLML are the only ones who worry about the niceties of
getting the wording right, but on the other hand, in the real world,
most TD's make decisions based only on the wording and with considerably
less skill and experience than Kojak.  So maybe there is merit in
getting the words right after all.

From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 30 13:26:24 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA17816
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 13:26:24 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA17811
	for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 13:26:16 +1100 (EST)
Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130)
	id 2F9FE30F0F; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 21:26:08 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: <003301bf683b$ffe944e0$9a5408c3@dodona>
References: 
 <3.0.6.32.20000109091424.008c48f0@mail.ultra.net.au><013301bf5a41$2ce459c0
 $16991e18@san.rr.com><019001bf5b8e$ccf73560$bd2b4b0c@default><008a01bf5c45$42792e40$ab2b4b0c@default><3.0.1.32.20000114082311.0070d5c4@pop.cais.com>
 
 <003301bf683b$ffe944e0$9a5408c3@dodona>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 21:26:07 -0500
To: Grattan Endicott 
From: Adam Wildavsky 
Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda
Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

At 8:28 PM +0000 1/26/00, Grattan wrote:
>        Equity may be considered to be the even-handed balance of
>redress (eschewing, as the 'Scope of the Laws' intends, any
>concept of punishment) between the two sides at the table when
>the offender's action is unaccepted and from the instant prior to
>the infraction the Director can look to a plurality of credible
>outcomes.

I can't be the only one who had trouble parsing this. Let me put it 
in my own words and see if I have it right. Please bear in mind that 
I am asking only in order to improve my own understanding - I remain 
convinced that we are well served by 12C2.

1. Equity means the likely result had the infraction not occurred.

2. If there is no single likely result then an Equitable score is 
arrived at by taking the weighted average of the scores that would be 
produced by each possible "credible" result.

Does this mean (to put it in familiar terms) each result that is 
judged "at all probable"?

3. In considering what the Equitable score should be, no action taken 
subsequent to the infraction is directly relevant, nor is the 
infraction itself.

Does even-handed mean that any doubtful points are *not* to be 
resolved in favor of the NOS? You didn't mention separate criteria 
for the OS and NOS, so I presume that separate adjustments for each, 
as in 12C2, are not considered Equitable.

AW


From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 30 13:33:24 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA17846
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 13:33:24 +1100 (EST)
Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA17841
	for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 13:33:16 +1100 (EST)
Received: from [195.99.47.59] (helo=davidburn)
	by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1)
	id 12EkAk-00014i-00
	for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 02:33:06 +0000
Message-ID: <001901bf6ac9$f31b8120$3b2f63c3@davidburn>
From: "David Burn" 
To: 
References: <016901bf6ac0$01e652c0$16991e18@san.rr.com>
Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 02:26:06 -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

Marvin wrote a lot, the import of which was that there is a difference
between the most favourable of likely results and the most likely of
favourable results. This is of course true, and the ACBL is of course
wrong to assign the latter rather than the former in any case.

However, now that TDs can use L12C3, the question is likely to become
irrelevant (which would be a favourable result). If a player will make
12 tricks x% of the time, 11 tricks y% of the time and 10 tricks
(100-x-y)% of the time, then he should be awarded x% of the score for
12 tricks, y% of the score for 11 tricks, and (100-x-y)% of the score
for 10 tricks. That is what happened in Bermuda, where misinformed
defenders were given 20% of the score for declarer making 10 tricks
and 80% of the score for declarer making 11 tricks, even though a 20%
chance is not "likely" according to the guidelines.

To do this is to preserve as far as possible the "equity" of a
non-offending side in a particular board, and should become the normal
way of ruling in such cases.

On another of Marvin's points, I am in a position to confirm at first
hand the Kaplan view that procedural penalties should be used to
punish an offending side where score adjustment is deemed not to hurt
them sufficiently. In an appeal some years ago at the now defunct
Macallan tournament, a pair from Iceland had committed some infraction
by which a pair from Brazil were held not to have been damaged. The
score stood, but the Icelanders were penalised about half the
resulting 13-IMP swing, presumably for having names that were too long
to fit on the appeal form. When I, a very junior member of the appeals
committee, questioned this decision by its Chairman (Edgar Kaplan), I
was told that the size of a procedural penalty varied according to the
enormity of the damage that would have been done had it been
considered that there was any. I went, as one that hath been stunned,
and is of sense forlorn...

David Burn
London, England



From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 30 14:34:47 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA17925
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 14:34:47 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA17915
	for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 14:34:39 +1100 (EST)
Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130)
	id 24C4015544; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 22:34:29 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: <001901bf6ac9$f31b8120$3b2f63c3@davidburn>
References: <016901bf6ac0$01e652c0$16991e18@san.rr.com>
 <001901bf6ac9$f31b8120$3b2f63c3@davidburn>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 22:20:39 -0500
To: "David Burn" 
From: Adam Wildavsky 
Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation
Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

At 2:26 AM +0000 1/30/00, David Burn wrote:
>To do this (12C3) is to preserve as far as possible the "equity" of a
>non-offending side in a particular board, and should become the normal
>way of ruling in such cases.

I hope not. It is not yet normal, or even permitted, in the ACBL. I 
like to think the question as to whether or not it is desirable is an 
open one here on the BLML.

To see one reason I oppose 12C3 consider this: Are you also concerned 
with preserving the "equity" of an offending side? If so, why are you 
concerned? It seems clear to me that it is important for offenders to 
be at risk for the maximum amount of their possible gain, in order to 
provide an incentive to stay within the Laws.

AW


From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 30 14:34:46 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA17924
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 14:34:46 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA17914
	for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 14:34:38 +1100 (EST)
Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130)
	id 0DB7A15546; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 22:34:27 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: <23.83c7e2.25bdde23@aol.com>
References: <23.83c7e2.25bdde23@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 22:34:06 -0500
To: Kojak 
From: Adam Wildavsky 
Subject: Re: Law 12C3
Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

At 11:56 AM -0500 1/24/00, Kojak  wrote:
>The problem I was addressing is when a Law is "picked out" without proper
>frame of reference and then applied.  It is all too easy to "see" equity and
>go to 12C3 without first going through 12C1 ,and 2. I have sat in on ACs
>where the attitude was, "well, we have to adjust, but we have to do equity,
>so let's apply 12C3....."  A wrong approach, since applying 12C2 may well
>have given the equity they were looking for.  In Bermuda, the AC chairs were
>careful to avoid this trap, and apparently have much the same respect for an
>orderly progression which in rare cases ends up with a 12C3 adjustment.

Did the DIC and committee in Appeal 5, and the DIC in "A 12C3 ruling 
not appealed", consider 12C2 before moving on to 12C3? I see no 
evidence of it in the writeups.

I see 12C3 having been applied twice in Bermuda out of two 
opportunities. Granted, this number is not statistically significant, 
and there may have been applications of 12C2 that have not been 
published, but it doesn't make application of 12C3 seem rare. I hope 
you can understand my confusion.

>The words, "fair" "unfair" "equity" "equitable" are used loosely and
>interchangeably to mean more or less the same thing --  when the Laws don't
>arrive at an adjustment that the TD or AC are "comfortable" with.  It is
>sometimes necessary to advise the ACs of Law 12B to get back on the track of
>ruling the game.

What are the criteria for a TD or an AC to feel comfortable with a 
12C2 adjustment? The law is the law - what would make me feel 
uncomfortable about it if it had been applied properly?

This is important not just for directors and committee members. 
Players must know too, since they need a way of judging whether to 
appeal a ruling made under 12C2 or 12C3.

AW


From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 30 18:52:51 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA18424
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 18:52:51 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.3])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA18419
	for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 18:52:45 +1100 (EST)
Received: from xtra.co.nz ([203.96.107.58]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz
          (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with ESMTP
          id <20000130075728.NDGX21196.mta2-rme@xtra.co.nz>
          for ;
          Sun, 30 Jan 2000 20:57:28 +1300
Message-ID: <3893EE9A.C174D0CB@xtra.co.nz>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 20:56:11 +1300
From: Bruce Small 
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: BLML 
Subject: law 25 again
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Hi All
Sorry to bring this up again and I've no doubt this variation has been
discussed somewhere but couldn't put my finger on it.
 Bd 11 Nil S
hands irrelevant
Bidding       N      E     S      W
                                    p      1C(1)         (1) precision
16+ any
                   p      1D(2)p      1H(3)         (2) negative 0-7 any
(3) 19+ any
                   p      2H(4)p      3H              (4) 5-7 5+ hearts
                   p      3S     p       4C(5)         (5) ace asking
                   p      4H(6)p       4S (7)         (6) one  (7) king
asking
                   p       p      p*                        *at the
point that S had passed out E said ops I've
                                                                  made
an inadvertant bid Director please. Director
                                                                  ruled
that you can't make an inadvertant pass bid

stands. East argued that he was thinking ahead to pass
                                                                  5H and
that he confused his no king reply with pass.
                                                                  He was
truly horrified to see the pass (written bidding) All players agree that
it was obvious that there had been no delay in thought
The final pass had been made and E played in a 4/1 spade contract only
going three light for bottom board.
1) E argued that it was an inadvertant pass TD argued it was a stupid
mistake. Who is right?
2) He further argued that under 25B2b2 he should have been allowed to
substitute a call in which case he would have bid 5H which makes six for
average score then reverts to average- so a 40% board.
3) If this is correct then what score do the NO side get after a
successful appeal by E.

Thanks in advance

Bruce


From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 30 21:14:11 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA18658
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 21:14:11 +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 VAA18648
	for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 21:13:52 +1100 (EST)
Received: from [195.8.84.178] (helo=dodona)
	by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
	id 12ErMJ-00008B-00; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 10:13:31 +0000
Message-ID: <002c01bf6b0a$d58e9700$b25408c3@dodona>
From: "Grattan Endicott" 
To: "Jesper Dybdal" ,
        "Bridge Laws List" 
References: <46c69ssqgd6fujtj7i5kcqj35abpbu0vb5@bilbo.dit.dk>
Subject: Re: Automatic penalties and UI
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 09:19:45 -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: Bridge Laws List 
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2000 7:04 PM
Subject: Automatic penalties and UI

---------------  \x/  --------------------------

> The hand that caused the discussion was
>       Jxx, Jxx, J1098xx, x
> not vulnerable against vulnerable.  With this hand sitting south,
> the bidding started with pass from dealer east, pass from north,
> not accepted by east.  (The TD incorrectly ruled that north had
> to pass throughout and not just on the first round, but the
> principle is the same.)
>
> Which logical alternatives are there, and which of them are
> suggested by the UI that partner does not have an opening hand?
>
> The LAs seem to me to be 1D, 2D, 3D, and possibly some outright
> psyche variants (such as 2S or 3C).  He bid 3D, opponents got to
> 4NT and went one down, adjusted to 3UT winning because the TD
> considered that 3D was suggested by the UI.  I agree with that,
> but it is difficult for many players to understand that partner
> is forced to pass and they still are not allowed to bid anything
> they like.
>
> To make it worse, take a hypothetical case: a hand like
>     Kx, KQ10xxx, Kxx, xxx
>
> -- ---------------\x/ ---------------------
> Jesper Dybdal, Denmark .
> http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish).
>
>
+=+ It seems to me that in a great majority of these
instances there will be logical alternatives to anything
that the player chooses to do. So when he gets a good
result opponents are damaged and the score will be
adjusted. If and when there is no logical alternative
there is no damage and no score adjustment.
     Am I overlooking something?
                                                 ~ Grattan ~ +=+


From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 30 21:14:12 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA18659
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 21:14:12 +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 VAA18649
	for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 21:13:57 +1100 (EST)
Received: from [195.8.84.178] (helo=dodona)
	by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
	id 12ErMN-00008B-00; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 10:13:36 +0000
Message-ID: <002d01bf6b0a$d824d240$b25408c3@dodona>
From: "Grattan Endicott" 
To: "Jesper Dybdal" 
Cc: 
References: <016101bf6982$f7e35900$e87193c3@pacific> <3892C5E7.5645647F@village.uunet.be> <1ha69sgt1ene0k04pmk5tut0ajur56gn29@bilbo.dit.dk>
Subject: Re: A 12C3 ruling - answering the call.
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 10:11:46 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2000 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: A 12C3 ruling not appealed.


> On Sat, 29 Jan 2000 11:50:15 +0100, Herman De Wael
>  wrote:
>
> >So if the use of L12C3 by the TD is subject to the
> >availability of enough experts, I do not see it working more
> >generally.
>
> Allowing the use of L12C3 even without experts will surely not be
> a problem: if a TD uses L12C3 to give a bad ruling that needs to
> be appealed, what is the likelihood that his L12C2 ruling would
> not also have needed an appeal?
>
> We really do need the rules to be same regardless of whether they
> are applied by a TD or an AC.
> --
> Jesper Dybdal, Denmark .
> http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish).
>
+=+ The way I would like to think about it is this:
       1. The WBF Executive has decided to urge the
application of the Code of Practice throughout the
whole world of tournament bridge. It should be
accepted this will happen and we should start from
here.
       2. Yes, there are difficulties to be overcome in
moving its methods down to national, regional,
district and club levels. The answer is not to dig
ourselves into a trench of dogged refusal to
contemplate the task. We need constructive help
from everyone, and perhaps especially from those
whose attitudes are negative about change.
    3. The European Bridge League has already
opted to promote the method actively in Europe.
Some of us are due to get together in Paris shortly
to initiate a Tournament Director training programme
across Zone 1 - probably by devising a seminar
that will be conducted in three to five regional
locations each easy of access from a number of
countries. [If anyone has ideas what might be
suitable locations, and which countries they would
cover in each instance, no-one will object to
receiving suggestions.Think of towns conveniently
placed and of what accommodation is
available in which to hold the seminar. Not too
expensively. And this is not a competition! :-)]
    4. I have a note that the seminar should include
discussion of aspects of the CoP and of Director
application of 12C3. Not merely at the higher
tournament levels.
   5. The retention of appeal to a committee meets
anxieties about the collection of facts by the Director
and about any loss balance in making a judgement
close to the action (or occasionally by a Director
who fails to separate his feelings from his judgement).
   6. It is naturally my hope that other organizations
will also hear the trumpet sound.
                                        ~ Grattan ~ +=+


















From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 30 22:24:38 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA18787
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 22:24:38 +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 WAA18777
	for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 22:24:25 +1100 (EST)
Received: from [195.8.86.154] (helo=dodona)
	by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
	id 12EsSd-0007Bn-00; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 11:24:08 +0000
Message-ID: <007301bf6b14$b29e4ce0$b25408c3@dodona>
From: "Grattan Endicott" 
To: "Adam Wildavsky" 
Cc: 
References: <3.0.6.32.20000109091424.008c48f0@mail.ultra.net.au><013301bf5a41$2ce459c0$16991e18@san.rr.com><019001bf5b8e$ccf73560$bd2b4b0c@default><008a01bf5c45$42792e40$ab2b4b0c@default><3.0.1.32.20000114082311.0070d5c4@pop.cais.com><003301bf683b$ffe944e0$9a5408c3@dodona> 
Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 11:19:30 -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


Grattan Endicott
To: Grattan Endicott 
Cc: 
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2000 2:26 AM
Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda


> At 8:28 PM +0000 1/26/00, Grattan wrote:
> >        Equity may be considered to be the even-handed balance of
> >redress (eschewing, as the 'Scope of the Laws' intends, any
> >concept of punishment) between the two sides at the table when
> >the offender's action is unaccepted and from the instant prior to
> >the infraction the Director can look to a plurality of credible
> >outcomes.
>
> I can't be the only one who had trouble parsing this. Let me put it
> in my own words and see if I have it right. Please bear in mind that
> I am asking only in order to improve my own understanding - I remain
> convinced that we are well served by 12C2.
>
------------------    \x/    ---------------
>
> AW
>
+=+ See message despatched concomitantly.  ~ G ~ +=+


From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 30 22:24:39 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA18788
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 22:24:39 +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 WAA18778
	for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 22:24:26 +1100 (EST)
Received: from [195.8.86.154] (helo=dodona)
	by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
	id 12EsSh-0007Bn-00
	for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 11:24:11 +0000
Message-ID: <007401bf6b14$b4cfd2e0$b25408c3@dodona>
From: "Grattan Endicott" 
To: 
References: <016901bf6ac0$01e652c0$16991e18@san.rr.com><001901bf6ac9$f31b8120$3b2f63c3@davidburn> 
Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more)
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 11:23:54 -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: David Burn 
Cc: 
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2000 3:20 AM
Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation


> At 2:26 AM +0000 1/30/00, David Burn wrote:
> >To do this (12C3) is to preserve as far as possible the "equity" of a
> >non-offending side in a particular board, and should become the normal
> >way of ruling in such cases.
>
Then Adam wrote:
> I hope not. It is not yet normal, or even permitted, in the ACBL. I
> like to think the question as to whether or not it is desirable is an
> open one here on the BLML.
>
> To see one reason I oppose 12C3 consider this: Are you also concerned
> with preserving the "equity" of an offending side? If so, why are you
> concerned? It seems clear to me that it is important for offenders to
> be at risk for the maximum amount of their possible gain, in order to
> provide an incentive to stay within the Laws.
>
> AW
>
+=+ There, concisely, lies the difference of philosophy,
and of the bridge cultures from which we come, that
is the basis of argument and counter-argument. To
quote a written statement by E.K. : "The offending
side has its rights as well as the non-offenders."  This
view seems, to some of us, not to have been adopted
in the part of the world where Adam plays his bridge.
    The 12C3 philosophy is that, in the instant before the
infraction occurred, each of the two sides had a given
expectancy of the outcome of the board. This was
made up of the subsequent choices and actions that
were available. 'Redress for damage'* calls for the
restoration of the said expectancy to each of the
parties.. This is the object of score adjustment in
judgemental rulings. Punishment for abuse of the laws
and proprieties of the game, when judged appropriate,
is a matter for a procedural penalty.

[* 'Scope and Interpretation of the Laws']
                               ~ Grattan ~  +=+

{ "The committee noted the final words of "The
Scope of the Laws". It noted that score adjustment
is for the purpose of redressing damage to a
non-offending side and to take away any advantage
from the offending side, not for punishment of
offenders."  -- WBFLC minute, 20th Jan 2000.}













From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 30 22:49:36 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA18823
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 22:49:36 +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 WAA18818
	for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 22:49:29 +1100 (EST)
Received: from [195.99.60.180] (helo=davidburn)
	by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1)
	id 12Esqv-0002yK-00; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 11:49:13 +0000
Message-ID: <001901bf6b17$977350c0$b43c63c3@davidburn>
From: "David Burn" 
To: "Adam Wildavsky" 
Cc: 
References: <016901bf6ac0$01e652c0$16991e18@san.rr.com><001901bf6ac9$f31b8120$3b2f63c3@davidburn> 
Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 10:11:54 -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

Adam wrote:

> At 2:26 AM +0000 1/30/00, David Burn wrote:
> >To do this (12C3) is to preserve as far as possible the "equity" of
a
> >non-offending side in a particular board, and should become the
normal
> >way of ruling in such cases.
>
> I hope not. It is not yet normal, or even permitted, in the ACBL. I
> like to think the question as to whether or not it is desirable is
an
> open one here on the BLML.
>
> To see one reason I oppose 12C3 consider this: Are you also
concerned
> with preserving the "equity" of an offending side? If so, why are
you
> concerned? It seems clear to me that it is important for offenders
to
> be at risk for the maximum amount of their possible gain, in order
to
> provide an incentive to stay within the Laws.

I have always thought (and usually ruled) that the treatment of the
offending side is satisfactory under L12C2. That is: the non-offenders
get an average of the outcomes of the results they would have got had
there been no irregularity; the offenders get all of the worst result
that was at all probable. To put this another way: I want the
non-offenders to have, as far as possible, their "bridge result",
while the offenders receive the shortest shrift I can give them.

This is, perhaps, not wholly consistent with the notion that the Laws
are there only to redress damage and not to punish malefactors - but I
agree with Adam when he says that offenders should be at risk of
receiving a worse result than the reciprocal of that awarded to the
non-offenders. They have, if you like, "Lost equity" by committing an
infraction. What I do "feels right" to me - and, since I have not been
sacked as a referee by my NCBO, I expect it's OK with them also.

David Burn
London, England



From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 30 22:50:20 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA18840
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 22:50:20 +1100 (EST)
Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37] (may be forged))
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA18835
	for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 22:50:13 +1100 (EST)
Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by smtp1.san.rr.com
          (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35)
          with ESMTP id com for ;
          Sun, 30 Jan 2000 03:50:04 -0800
Message-ID: <01b001bf6b18$1b2d3d40$16991e18@san.rr.com>
Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" 
From: "Marvin L. French" 
To: 
References: <016901bf6ac0$01e652c0$16991e18@san.rr.com> <001901bf6ac9$f31b8120$3b2f63c3@davidburn>
Subject: PPs
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 03:44:16 -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


David Burn wrote:

>
> On another of Marvin's points, I am in a position to confirm at
first
> hand the Kaplan view that procedural penalties should be used to
> punish an offending side where score adjustment is deemed not to
hurt
> them sufficiently.

Thus began the use of PPs, in existence at least since the early
1930s, for disciplinary purposes. One wonders why the name was
changed (corrected?) from Disciplinary Penalties to Procedural
Penalties in the1975 version of the Laws. Anyone know? Perhaps it
is time to undo that change, and to add an item 9. to L90B in
order to shut me up:

9. Insufficiently Penalized Infractions
    Infractions for which the prescribed penalty is deemed to be
insufficient punishment

And then delete the last sentence in The Scope of the Laws:

The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for
irregularities, but for redress of damage.

Marv (Marvin L. French)
aka Cato










From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 30 22:53:35 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA18859
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 22:53:35 +1100 (EST)
Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA18854
	for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 22:53:27 +1100 (EST)
Received: from kooijman (unknown [195.241.171.41])
	by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP
	id 0AA4636C8F; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 12:53:14 +0100 (MET)
Message-ID: <002401bf6b17$a3c6d540$29abf1c3@kooijman>
From: "ton kooijman" 
To: "Grattan Endicott" ,
        "Jesper Dybdal" ,
        "bridge-laws" 
Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 12:46:17 +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

On a question from Jesper Grattan wrote:


>+=+   I understand your point. Necessity may not be
>the issue; desirability of a mechanical ruling rather
>than a judgemental ruling could be the question.
>      No. Not discussed. The mood of the committee
>was not disposed to look at anything unless there
>was a reason to do so now. And what was looked
>at led to no change of law. There were a couple of
>changes of interpretation and application of law.
>    Even the law change that had 9 to 2 support was
>not engaged in; put it back to 2005, they said, and
>I went on the record over that since I do not
>understand the inertia that allows a nonsense
>to persist for years.           ~ Grattan ~  +=+
>


Here the angry impatient young man speaks, but accuracy asks for some
remarks.
The LC agreed that major changes need to wait till a new edition of the laws
will be published. So we did not vote for a law change resulting in a 9 to 2
in favour of that change (it was law 25b we talked about). I wanted to know
the opinion of the LC about once a call is made it can't be changed anymore
(a deliberate call that is) and that resulted in this outcome. I really
object against the suggestion that we agreed in allowing nonsense to persist
for years.

'In lawmaking wisdom prevails over ambition'  ~ton kooijman~ (normally
supported by Grattan Endicot)

ton


>
>
>
>
>
>
>


From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 30 23:10:31 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA18918
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 23:10:31 +1100 (EST)
Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37] (may be forged))
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA18913
	for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 23:10:24 +1100 (EST)
Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by smtp1.san.rr.com
          (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35)
          with ESMTP id com; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 04:10:14 -0800
Message-ID: <01c301bf6b1a$ec448b20$16991e18@san.rr.com>
Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" 
From: "Marvin L. French" 
To: "Marvin L. French" ,
        
Cc: , 
References: <016901bf6ac0$01e652c0$16991e18@san.rr.com>
Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 04:04:04 -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


From: Marvin L. French

> The English language is pretty tricky at times. Let me give an
example:
>
> I decide that I am going to drive 100 mph along a busy freeway.
What is the
> worst result that is likely? Let's say the probabilities are:
>
> (1) 10% that I get killed
> (2) 20% that I total my car, am badly injured, but survive
> (3) 45% that I damage my car, with little or no injury to myself
> (4) 25% that nothing bad happens.
>
> So which is the  worst result that is likely? Most people
familiar with the
> English language would say (1). The ACBL LC would say that (1)
is too
> improbable, and choose (2).  It is not the most likely of the
unfavorable
> results, but it is the most unfavorable result that was likely.
>
> Rich evidently would choose (3), because it is the most likely
of the
> unfavorable results. That is indeed "distorting the wording of
L12C2."
>
Whoops! Change those probabilities to 5%, 35%, 50% and 10%, to
accord with the LC's guideline of a 1/3 probability threshold for
"the most [adjective] result that was likely."

My original aim when composing the above was to illustrate "the
most unfavorable result that was at all probable," for which the
threshold is 1/6. That seemed slightly off-subject, so I went to
the "likely" language for the NOs and forgot to revise the
percentages accordingly.

Marv (Marvin L. French)






From owner-bridge-laws  Sun Jan 30 23:32:54 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA18992
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 23:32:54 +1100 (EST)
Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA18987
	for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 23:32:47 +1100 (EST)
Received: from kooijman (unknown [195.241.171.88])
	by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP
	id 2B4AA36CDD; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 13:32:26 +0100 (MET)
Message-ID: <003701bf6b1d$1e587340$29abf1c3@kooijman>
From: "ton kooijman" 
To: "Marvin L. French" ,
        
Cc: , 
Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 13:25:28 +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

Interesting issue about L12B; among more  Marvin French wrote:



>The English language is pretty tricky at times. Let me give an example:
>
>I decide that I am going to drive 100 mph along a busy freeway. What is the
>worst result that is likely? Let's say the probabilities are:
>
>(1) 10% that I get killed
>(2) 20% that I total my car, am badly injured, but survive
>(3) 45% that I damage my car, with little or no injury to myself
>(4) 25% that nothing bad happens.
>
>So which is the  worst result that is likely? Most people familiar with the
>English language would say (1).

Good example of the problems arising when interpreting a language. In the
Netherlands we understand 'most favorable result that was likely' as not to
include (1) and (2) and I am surprised that Marvin writes that for English
people it does include (1). We would choose (1) when 'most unfavorable at
all probable' is the criterion'.

Do English people support Marvin's view?

ton




The ACBL LC would say that (1) is too
>improbable, and choose (2).  It is not the most likely of the unfavorable
>results, but it is the most unfavorable result that was likely.


Is 20% 'likely'?

ton

>
>Rich evidently would choose (3), because it is the most likely of the
>unfavorable results. That is indeed "distorting the wording of L12C2."
>
>Marv (Marvin L. French)



From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 31 00:00:29 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA19060
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 00:00:29 +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 AAA19055
	for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 00:00:22 +1100 (EST)
Received: from derrrr (as003655.singnet.com.sg [165.21.181.245])
	by copper.singnet.com.sg (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA18817
	for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 21:00:11 +0800 (SGT)
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000130205434.0079ee90@pop.singnet.com.sg>
X-Sender: yanhoon@pop.singnet.com.sg
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 20:54:34 +0800
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
From: Derrick 
Subject: Defective claim or table result? 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Hi to all

Would appreciate your opinions on the following:

Team of 4 Knockout 
Segment 2 out of 4

Brd 21: Dealer N 
Both vul
               S T987642                                   
               H 54                 
               D 63                
               C A4                     
      S AQ3           S KJ          
      H KT63          H QJ982           
      D AK            D T72            
      C KQJ9          C T62         
               S 5              
               H A7                  
               D QJ9854               
               C 8753                   
                                     
Contract: 5H by E

Lead: Spade 5

E claims the contract after the lead, stating : drawing trumps and
conceding 2 Aces

North contests the claim/protests.

This is a "private" type of KO match and no independent Directors around.
All the players agree to play on and NS fail to find the club entry for the
spade ruff.
All 4 players are fairly experienced and 1 (claimer) is knowledgeable about
the laws, serving as director for club/national tournaments regularly (in
Singapore)

NS's team captain finds out what happens when scoring up the segment and
requests for a ruling from a director who arrives on the scene subsequently.

How do you rule ? 


Director's ruling : table result stands

Ruling appealed. Director's ruling upheld.

Comments ? 










From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 31 00:50:24 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA19210
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 00:50:24 +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 AAA19205
	for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 00:50:09 +1100 (EST)
Received: from [195.8.84.8] (helo=dodona)
	by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
	id 12EujO-000MS3-00; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 13:49:34 +0000
Message-ID: <003b01bf6b29$03f3be40$485408c3@dodona>
From: "Grattan Endicott" 
To: "ton kooijman" 
Cc: 
References: <002401bf6b17$a3c6d540$29abf1c3@kooijman>
Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 13:50:06 -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: Grattan Endicott ; Jesper Dybdal
; bridge-laws 
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2000 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B


> On a question from Jesper Grattan wrote:
>
>
> >+=+   I understand your point. Necessity may not be
> >the issue; desirability of a mechanical ruling rather
> >than a judgemental ruling could be the question.
> >      No. Not discussed. The mood of the committee
> >was not disposed to look at anything unless there
> >was a reason to do so now. And what was looked
> >at led to no change of law. There were a couple of
> >changes of interpretation and application of law.
> >    Even the law change that had 9 to 2 support was
> >not engaged in; put it back to 2005, they said, and
> >I went on the record over that since I do not
> >understand the inertia that allows a nonsense
> >to persist for years.           ~ Grattan ~  +=+
> >
>
>
> Here the angry impatient young man speaks,

       +==+   Flattery, indeed! :-)    I would have
perhaps suggested 'geriatric revolutionary'. +=+

but accuracy asks for some
> remarks.
> The LC agreed that major changes need to wait till a new edition of the
laws
> will be published. So we did not vote for a law change resulting in a 9 to
2
> in favour of that change (it was law 25b we talked about). I wanted to
know
> the opinion of the LC about once a call is made it can't be changed
anymore
> (a deliberate call that is) and that resulted in this outcome. I really
> object against the suggestion that we agreed in allowing nonsense to
persist
> for years.
>
> 'In lawmaking wisdom prevails over ambition'  ~ton kooijman~ (normally
> supported by Grattan Endicott)
>
> ton
>
+=+ To quote the minutes of 20 Jan 2000:

        "A question was asked as to how many rulings based
on Law 25B had been given in the current tournament. The
Chief Director replied that there had been at least six. The
Chairman reminded the committee that it had been agreed
to put consideration of the subject back to the major review
of the laws, envisaged to occur in the period 2002-2005.
The Secretary recorded his reservation that he did not
consider it in the best interests of bridge that the committee,
having an overwhelming balance of opinion that Law 25B
is seriously flawed and needs to be deleted or radically
altered, should do nothing about it until the year 2005."

I agree you are right when you say no vote was taken,
only a show of hands to express opinion. (There was
no motion to vote on.)  Whilst loyally abiding by the
committee's decision I do not change my view that
wisdom has not prevailed in this, and the committee has
recognized that its members may express their personal
opinions as such. Perhaps you object to the word
'nonsense', if so maybe you failed to interpret the
language of diplomacy used in committee.
                                                ~ Grattan ~ +=+




From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 31 01:19:14 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA19309
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 01:19:14 +1100 (EST)
Received: from michael.gym (gatekeeper.asn-linz.ac.at [193.170.68.253])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA19303
	for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 01:19:01 +1100 (EST)
Received: from eduhi.at (petrus2.konvent [192.168.1.116])
	by michael.gym (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA08655
	for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 15:27:42 +0100
Message-ID: <38944828.ADC7A81D@eduhi.at>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 15:18:16 +0100
From: Petrus Schuster OSB 
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [de] (WinNT; I)
X-Accept-Language: de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: BLML 
Subject: Re: Automatic penalties and UI
References: <46c69ssqgd6fujtj7i5kcqj35abpbu0vb5@bilbo.dit.dk> <002c01bf6b0a$d58e9700$b25408c3@dodona>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk



Grattan Endicott schrieb:
> 
> Grattan Endicott ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
> "The vitality of a new movement in art or letters can be
> pretty accurately gauged by the fury it arouses."
>                        -  Logan Pearsall Smith (1931)
> ============================================
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jesper Dybdal 
> To: Bridge Laws List 
> Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2000 7:04 PM
> Subject: Automatic penalties and UI
> 
> ---------------  \x/  --------------------------
> 
> > The hand that caused the discussion was
> >       Jxx, Jxx, J1098xx, x
> > not vulnerable against vulnerable.  With this hand sitting south,
> > the bidding started with pass from dealer east, pass from north,
> > not accepted by east.  (The TD incorrectly ruled that north had
> > to pass throughout and not just on the first round, but the
> > principle is the same.)
> >
> > Which logical alternatives are there, and which of them are
> > suggested by the UI that partner does not have an opening hand?
> >
> > The LAs seem to me to be 1D, 2D, 3D, and possibly some outright
> > psyche variants (such as 2S or 3C).  He bid 3D, opponents got to
> > 4NT and went one down, adjusted to 3UT winning because the TD
> > considered that 3D was suggested by the UI.  I agree with that,
> > but it is difficult for many players to understand that partner
> > is forced to pass and they still are not allowed to bid anything
> > they like.
> >
> > To make it worse, take a hypothetical case: a hand like
> >     Kx, KQ10xxx, Kxx, xxx
> >
> > -- ---------------\x/ ---------------------
> > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark .
> > http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish).
> >
> >
> +=+ It seems to me that in a great majority of these
> instances there will be logical alternatives to anything
> that the player chooses to do. So when he gets a good
> result opponents are damaged and the score will be
> adjusted. If and when there is no logical alternative
> there is no damage and no score adjustment.
>      Am I overlooking something?
>                                                  ~ Grattan ~ +=+
Maybe...
In the examples cited (esp. the second one) both passing (no game) and
bidding (sacrifice) are logical alternatives sugested by the POOT.
So *whatever* offender's partner does will result at least in Av+ for
non-offenders.
This however creates random results which are to the detriment of the
game.
Petrus

From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 31 03:03:32 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA19339
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 01:28:22 +1100 (EST)
Received: from michael.gym (gatekeeper.asn-linz.ac.at [193.170.68.253])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA19334
	for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 01:28:14 +1100 (EST)
Received: from eduhi.at (petrus2.konvent [192.168.1.116])
	by michael.gym (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA08679
	for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 15:37:01 +0100
Message-ID: <38944A58.7A25926A@eduhi.at>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 15:27:36 +0100
From: Petrus Schuster OSB 
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [de] (WinNT; I)
X-Accept-Language: de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: BLML 
Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation
References: <016901bf6ac0$01e652c0$16991e18@san.rr.com>
	 <001901bf6ac9$f31b8120$3b2f63c3@davidburn> 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk



Adam Wildavsky schrieb:
> 
> At 2:26 AM +0000 1/30/00, David Burn wrote:
> >To do this (12C3) is to preserve as far as possible the "equity" of a
> >non-offending side in a particular board, and should become the normal
> >way of ruling in such cases.
> 
> I hope not. It is not yet normal, or even permitted, in the ACBL. I
> like to think the question as to whether or not it is desirable is an
> open one here on the BLML.
> 
> To see one reason I oppose 12C3 consider this: Are you also concerned
> with preserving the "equity" of an offending side? If so, why are you
> concerned? It seems clear to me that it is important for offenders to
> be at risk for the maximum amount of their possible gain, in order to
> provide an incentive to stay within the Laws.
> 
> AW
This, IMO, misses the point: 
As all infractions are prima facie deemed inadvertent there is no need
to provide an incentive "to stay within the Laws". Deliberate
infractions will be punished under L72B2 (by burning at the stake? :)).
Petrus

From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 31 03:10:00 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA20153
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 03:10:00 +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 DAA20148
	for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 03:09:52 +1100 (EST)
Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-33qthgj.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.198.19])
	by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA16295;
	Sun, 30 Jan 2000 11:08:26 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000130161936.0073b828@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, 30 Jan 2000 08:19:36 -0800
To: Derrick 
From: Henry Sun 
Subject: Re: Defective claim or table result? 
Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

At 08:54 PM 1/30/00 +0800, you wrote:
>Hi to all
>
>Would appreciate your opinions on the following:
>
>Team of 4 Knockout 
>Segment 2 out of 4
>
>Brd 21: Dealer N 
>Both vul
>               S T987642                                   
>               H 54                 
>               D 63                
>               C A4                     
>      S AQ3           S KJ          
>      H KT63          H QJ982           
>      D AK            D T72            
>      C KQJ9          C T62         
>               S 5              
>               H A7                  
>               D QJ9854               
>               C 8753                   
>                                     
>Contract: 5H by E
>
>Lead: Spade 5
>
>E claims the contract after the lead, stating : drawing trumps and
>conceding 2 Aces
>
>North contests the claim/protests.
>
>This is a "private" type of KO match and no independent Directors around.
>All the players agree to play on and NS fail to find the club entry for the
>spade ruff.

this play, especially after the stated line (draw trumps and concede 2 aces;
where could north's entry be if not in clubs?) seems to me to border on the
irrational.  ew gave ns a chance to defeat the contract; ns failed to do
so.  so i would let the table result stand.

however, my understanding from the acbl is that one declarer claims, play
stops (unlike this example) and the director determines the likely result,
subject to appeal.  so had this hand arisen in the acbl, i'd expect a
ruling of 5h down 1, upheld by the appeals committee if so appealed.

the failure to stop play, assuming that is a legal requirement in the
laws and not simply an acbl peculiarity, strikes me as being the basic
cause for the problem.

henry sun


From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 31 04:05:54 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA20227
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 03:25:08 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA20219
	for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 03:24:53 +1100 (EST)
Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130)
	id 1F25515543; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 11:24:41 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: <007401bf6b14$b4cfd2e0$b25408c3@dodona>
References: 
 <016901bf6ac0$01e652c0$16991e18@san.rr.com><001901bf6ac9$f31b8120$3b2f63c3
 @davidburn> 
 <007401bf6b14$b4cfd2e0$b25408c3@dodona>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 11:24:42 -0500
To: "Grattan Endicott" 
From: Adam Wildavsky 
Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more)
Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

At 11:23 AM +0000 1/30/00, Grattan wrote:
>  > At 2:26 AM +0000 1/30/00, David Burn wrote:
>  > >To do this (12C3) is to preserve as far as possible the "equity" of a
>  > >non-offending side in a particular board, and should become the normal
>  > >way of ruling in such cases.
>  >
>Then Adam wrote:
>  > I hope not. It is not yet normal, or even permitted, in the ACBL. I
>  > like to think the question as to whether or not it is desirable is an
>  > open one here on the BLML.
>  >
>  > To see one reason I oppose 12C3 consider this: Are you also concerned
>  > with preserving the "equity" of an offending side? If so, why are you
>  > concerned? It seems clear to me that it is important for offenders to
>  > be at risk for the maximum amount of their possible gain, in order to
>  > provide an incentive to stay within the Laws.
>  >
>  > AW
>
>+=+ There, concisely, lies the difference of philosophy,
>and of the bridge cultures from which we come, that
>is the basis of argument and counter-argument. To
>quote a written statement by E.K. : "The offending
>side has its rights as well as the non-offenders."

I don't disagree, but I don't see how it's relevant here.

>This view seems, to some of us, not to have been adopted in the part 
>of the world where Adam plays his bridge.

I can't see how this is relevant to our discussion either.

>The 12C3 philosophy is that, in the instant before the
>infraction occurred, each of the two sides had a given
>expectancy of the outcome of the board. This was
>made up of the subsequent choices and actions that
>were available. 'Redress for damage'* calls for the
>restoration of the said expectancy to each of the
>parties..

Why? This concept is not found within the Laws, and it is 
specifically repudiated by 12C2.

You and I understand Law 0 quite differently. As I read it, it shows 
that intent of the Laws is, in the main, to restrict adjustment to 
cases in which damage results. In "The Bridge World" Chris Compton 
has proposed changing the Laws to provide automatic penalties for 
infractions such as misinformation, even when there is no damage as a 
result. Law 0 makes it clear that the current Laws intend such 
automatic penalties only where explicitly stated, such as for revokes.

AW


From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 31 04:19:25 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA19552
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 01:48:15 +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 BAA19544
	for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 01:48:06 +1100 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id da962367 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 00:46:30 +1000
Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-224-205.tmns.net.au ([139.134.224.205]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Trouble-Free-MailRouter V2.7 9/862361); 31 Jan 2000 00:46:29
Message-ID: <006e01bf6b30$8f524900$cde0868b@gillp.bigpond.com>
From: "Peter Gill" 
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" 
Subject: Re: Defective claim or table result? 
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 01:44:48 +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




>Hi to all

  Hi Derrick.  David Stevenson here in Oz, masquerading as Peter Gill!


>Would appreciate your opinions on the following:
>
>Team of 4 Knockout
>Segment 2 out of 4
>
>Brd 21: Dealer N
>Both vul
>               S T987642
>               H 54
>               D 63
>               C A4
>      S AQ3            S KJ
>      H KT63           H QJ982
>      D AK               D T72
>      C KQJ9          C T62
>               S 5
>               H A7
>               D QJ9854
>               C 8753
>
>Contract: 5H by E
>
>Lead: Spade 5
>
>E claims the contract after the lead, stating : drawing trumps and
>conceding 2 Aces
>
>North contests the claim/protests.
>
>This is a "private" type of KO match and no independent Directors
around.
>All the players agree to play on and NS fail to find the club entry for
the
>spade ruff.
>All 4 players are fairly experienced

    On a claim, ***play***   ***ceases***.  How can they possibly claim
to be
experienced players when they make beginner-level mistakes?

>and 1 (claimer) is knowledgeable about
>the laws, serving as director for club/national tournaments regularly
(in
>Singapore)

   Unbelievable.  How can he be experienced when he allowed play to
continue?


   After a claim play ceases.  Allowing play to continue after a claim
is at the
 same level as after the thirteenth trick picking up the first four
cards,
 shuffling them, and playing four more tricks.  It's just not bridge.


>NS's team captain finds out what happens when scoring up the segment
and
>requests for a ruling from a director who arrives on the scene
subsequently.

  First touch of sanity.


>How do you rule ?

  One down, of course.  Warn both sides to play to the laws in future.
If they
are experiened then I would fine both sides if it weas a league match,
say
0.5 VP.

  As to the actual hand, the defence might have found their ruff.  Doubt
in
contested claims is decided in favour of the non-claimer.  The fact that
the
players in defiance of the Laws and common-sense had a few tricks of
non-bridge as practice does not change that.



  In case anyone is wondering what these players should have done: once
there was a claim, play ceases.  If they cannot find a suitable arbiter,
they
should write down the position and submit it to the authorites with a
request
for a ruling.


>Director's ruling : table result stands

  Not in accordance with the Laws of the game.


>Ruling appealed. Director's ruling upheld.

  Ditto.


>Comments ?

  Shoot the lot of them.





  Why is it cold and wet in Australia?

  Why was I got up for a 7.30 start TWICE?

  Good fun, anyway.  See you later.



From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 31 04:57:30 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA20671
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 04:57:30 +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 EAA20663
	for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 04:57:22 +1100 (EST)
Received: (from smtpd@localhost)
	by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA26306
	for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 18:57:12 +0100
Received: from ip126.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.126), claiming to be "jd-private.internal"
 via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda26302; Sun Jan 30 18:57:06 2000
From: Jesper Dybdal  
To: Bridge Laws List 
Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 18:57:06 +0100
Organization: at home
Message-ID: 
References: <200001091624.DAA14808@octavia.anu.edu.au> <01ed01bf5ad6$c7dfd720$16991e18@san.rr.com> <001b01bf69e3$458b1a20$5e5608c3@dodona> <012301bf6a22$c6511c60$16991e18@san.rr.com> <001101bf6a43$958f1ac0$3b5608c3@dodona> <20000129151415.10898.qmail@hotmail.com> <000201bf6aa1$02b5a1c0$e05408c3@dodona>
In-Reply-To: <000201bf6aa1$02b5a1c0$e05408c3@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 EAA20666
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 29 Jan 2000 20:00:53 -0000, "Grattan Endicott"
 wrote:

>For the
>moment at least we are on a roll, and I think
>much of what we have read on blml merely
>reflects the natural reluctance of mankind when
>it is dragged through a hedge onto a different
>boulevard.

My impression of the BLML writing on the subject is not one of
reluctance to the change.

My impression is that most of the writing on the subject,
including my own, has been concerned with the question of the
legality of the way the change was implemented in Bermuda, not
with resistance to the change itself.
-- 
Jesper Dybdal, Denmark .
http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish).

From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 31 04:57:35 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA20676
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 04:57:35 +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 EAA20667
	for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 04:57:25 +1100 (EST)
Received: (from smtpd@localhost)
	by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA26307
	for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 18:57:12 +0100
Received: from ip126.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.126), claiming to be "jd-private.internal"
 via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpdb26302; Sun Jan 30 18:57:07 2000
From: Jesper Dybdal  
To: Bridge Laws List 
Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 18:57:07 +0100
Organization: at home
Message-ID: 
References: <200001091624.DAA14808@octavia.anu.edu.au> <01ed01bf5ad6$c7dfd720$16991e18@san.rr.com> <001b01bf69e3$458b1a20$5e5608c3@dodona>  <000401bf6aa1$0866d8a0$e05408c3@dodona>
In-Reply-To: <000401bf6aa1$0866d8a0$e05408c3@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 EAA20672
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 29 Jan 2000 20:43:28 -0000, "Grattan Endicott"
 wrote:

>+=+ [See my parallel response to Marv F.]
>       Look through the other end of the telescope!
>Various sections of the Laws authorize regulation
>of specific matters and each of these sections states
>any limitation of the power granted. None of them
>says 'Subject to Law 80F' or like words. 80F
>comes along as a sweeper to cover what may be
>done about regulation of the remainder of subjects
>not independently treated in the laws.
>                                            ~ Grattan ~   +=+

We require the laws to give a mandate for a specific type of
regulation, yet that regulation can override the laws.  Not just
some specific laws, but the laws in general, probably including
those laws that provide the mandate for regulations.

It seems to me that an SO can make any regulation whatsoever,
and, when asked about its legality, say "This is a regulation
under L80E.  If you do not find that the wording of L80E
authorizes such a regulation, don't worry: such regulations are
allowed to be in conflict with the laws, and this one is in
conflict with certain laws - one of which happens to be L80E
itself."

The example is of course ridiculous, but I hope it can still
serve to explain how the legality of regulations seem to be
defined in a circular way.

It seems rather obvious to me that the laws ought to define
specifically any areas in which regulation may be in conflict
with the laws, and that those areas definitely should not include
the laws that mandate regulations themselves.

(Don't misunderstand me: I realize perfectly well that I'm
splitting hairs here, and that this is very far from being on the
top of the list of problems with the laws.)
-- 
Jesper Dybdal, Denmark .
http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish).

From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 31 06:12:14 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA21091
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 06:12:14 +1100 (EST)
Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37] (may be forged))
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA21085
	for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 06:12:06 +1100 (EST)
Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by smtp1.san.rr.com
          (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35)
          with ESMTP id com for ;
          Sun, 30 Jan 2000 11:11:57 -0800
Message-ID: <01ef01bf6b55$d4350560$16991e18@san.rr.com>
Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" 
From: "Marvin L. French" 
To: 
References: <003701bf6b1d$1e587340$29abf1c3@kooijman>
Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 11:01:43 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk


From: ton kooijman

> among more  Marvin French wrote:
>
> >The English language is pretty tricky at times. Let me give an
example:
> >
> >I decide that I am going to drive 100 mph along a busy freeway.
What is the
> >worst result that is likely? Let's say the probabilities are:
> >
> >(1) 10% that I get killed
> >(2) 20% that I total my car, am badly injured, but survive
> >(3) 45% that I damage my car, with little or no injury to
myself
> >(4) 25% that nothing bad happens.

I corrected these to 5%, 35%, 50% and 10%, respectively.
> >
> >So which is the  worst result that is likely? Most people
familiar with the
> >English language would say (1).
>
> Good example of the problems arising when interpreting a
language. In the
> Netherlands we understand 'most favorable result that was
likely' as not to
> include (1) and (2) and I am surprised that Marvin writes that
for English
> people it does include (1). We would choose (1) when 'most
unfavorable at
> all probable' is the criterion'.
>
The likely set of unfavorable results (not the set of likely
unfavorable results) consists of (1) (2) and (3). The most
unfavorable result in that set is (1), while the most likely
unfavorable result is (3).

The ACBL LC decided that a result with less than 1/3 probability
was not likely enough to be included in the likely set of results
to be considered, which is why I changed 20% to 35%. Using the 1/3
guideline only (2) and (3) are included, with (2) the most
unfavorable.

Consider this: If a favorable result has to be likely in order to
be assigned per L12C2, then a single possibility that has less
than 50% probability (using that for the "likely" threshold) could
not be assigned. For instance, an infraction prevents the NOS from
reaching a 40% game, the OS buying the contract instead. Would
anyone say that the NOS should not be assigned the game score per
L12C2 because that is not a likely result? The answer is yes,
believe it or not, since at least one high-level TD in this area
would award average plus because there is no "likely" favorable
result.

Others would say that the game score should be assigned, going by
the rule that within the set, possibly a one-member set, of
favorable results it is the most likely that must be awarded. That
result doesn't have to be likely, only the most likely. I believe
that constitutes a misinterpretation of L12C2.

The placement of the modifier "most" makes a big difference in the
(idiomatic English) meaning of L12C2. The most favorable result
that was likely may not be the most likely favorable result. If
the latter better expresses the intended meaning, as Rich and ton
seem to believe, then those are the words that should be used in
the next revision of the Laws.

I am reminded of S. J. Simon's words to the effect that one should
try for the best result possible, not for the best possible
result.

Marv (Marvin L. French)






From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 31 06:22:15 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA21132
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 06:22:15 +1100 (EST)
Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37] (may be forged))
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA21127
	for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 06:22:08 +1100 (EST)
Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by smtp1.san.rr.com
          (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35)
          with ESMTP id com for ;
          Sun, 30 Jan 2000 11:21:59 -0800
Message-ID: <01fc01bf6b57$3b2e9aa0$16991e18@san.rr.com>
Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" 
From: "Marvin L. French" 
To: 
References: <016901bf6ac0$01e652c0$16991e18@san.rr.com><001901bf6ac9$f31b8120$3b2f63c3@davidburn>  <007401bf6b14$b4cfd2e0$b25408c3@dodona>
Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more)
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 11:17:53 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk


Grattan Endicott wrote:
>
> { "The committee noted the final words of "The
> Scope of the Laws". It noted that score adjustment
> is for the purpose of redressing damage to a
> non-offending side and to take away any advantage
> from the offending side, not for punishment of
> offenders."  -- WBFLC minute, 20th Jan 2000.}
>
The revoke laws have the same purpose, but that does not mean they
should be modified to permit only the redress of damage.

Are we to look forward to a change in L64C, from "deems that the
non-offending side is insuffiently compensated" to "deems that the
non-offending side is either excessively or insufficiently
compensated"?

Marv (Marvin L. French)






From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 31 08:47:21 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA21462
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 08:47:21 +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 IAA21457
	for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 08:47:04 +1100 (EST)
Received: from [195.8.86.167] (helo=dodona)
	by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
	id 12F2B8-000LuU-00; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 21:46:42 +0000
Message-ID: <000d01bf6b6b$abfe36a0$a75608c3@dodona>
From: "Grattan Endicott" 
To: , "Derrick" 
References: <3.0.6.32.20000130205434.0079ee90@pop.singnet.com.sg>
Subject: Re: Defective claim or table result? 
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 14:04:40 -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, January 30, 2000 12:54 PM
Subject: Defective claim or table result?


> Hi to all
>
> Would appreciate your opinions on the following:
>
> Team of 4 Knockout
> Segment 2 out of 4
>
> Brd 21: Dealer N
> Both vul
>                S T987642
>                H 54
>                D 63
>                C A4
>       S AQ3           S KJ
>       H KT63          H QJ982
>       D AK            D T72
>       C KQJ9          C T62
>                S 5
>                H A7
>                D QJ9854
>                C 8753
>
> Contract: 5H by E
>
> Lead: Spade 5
>
> E claims the contract after the lead, stating : drawing trumps and
> conceding 2 Aces
>
> North contests the claim/protests.
>
+=+ South wants a ruff. East tells him that his side have two Aces.
South can see three Aces. Is it possible to deduce where North
might have an entry to give him his ruff?
       Since any play after the claim is void in my view the contract
must be adjudged one down.            ~ Grattan ~  +=+






From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 31 10:05:30 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA21602
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 10:05:30 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA21597
	for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 10:05:22 +1100 (EST)
Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130)
	id 6ABA230F96; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 18:05:11 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: <001901bf6b17$977350c0$b43c63c3@davidburn>
References: 
 <016901bf6ac0$01e652c0$16991e18@san.rr.com><001901bf6ac9$f31b8120$3b2f63c3
 @davidburn> 
 <001901bf6b17$977350c0$b43c63c3@davidburn>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 18:05:19 -0500
To: "David Burn" 
From: Adam Wildavsky 
Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation
Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

At 10:11 AM +0000 1/30/00, David Burn wrote:
>I have always thought (and usually ruled) that the treatment of the
>offending side is satisfactory under L12C2. That is: the non-offenders
>get an average of the outcomes of the results they would have got had
>there been no irregularity; the offenders get all of the worst result
>that was at all probable. To put this another way: I want the
>non-offenders to have, as far as possible, their "bridge result",
>while the offenders receive the shortest shrift I can give them.

Where do you find this in 12C2? Are you saying that as a director you 
use the part of 12C2 you approve of and discard the section with 
which you do not approve?

>This is, perhaps, not wholly consistent with the notion that the Laws
>are there only to redress damage and not to punish malefactors - but
>I agree with Adam when he says that offenders should be at risk of
>receiving a worse result than the reciprocal of that awarded to the
>non-offenders. They have, if you like, "Lost equity" by committing an
>infraction.

This is redress, not punishment. If an infraction keeps the NOS from 
bidding a game they'd have made 60% of the time the redress is that 
they are assigned the score for making their game. In order to retain 
their 40% chance of beating the contract at the table the OS had to 
avoid committing their infraction, so that a valid table result could 
be achieved.

This adjustment must be made for both sides. How can we tell the NOS 
we're giving them a score that takes into account their going down in 
a game that they'd have made more often than not? They deserved the 
chance to try and make it, and their opponents deprived them of that 
chance. Another way of looking at it is that the NOS deserved the 
chance to make their opponents lead and defend without error. By 
committing their infraction the OS obviated the need to defend a 
contract that would be expensive were it successful. The proper 
redress is to award the score for its success, to one or both sides 
depending on the Law 12C2 criteria.

If we judge that the offense was committed knowingly then we assess a 
procedural penalty in addition - that's punishment. Similarly if the 
offense was committed knowingly we may assess a procedural penalty 
even if no damage resulted. Doing so consistently is problematic 
since the director may not be called, or called back, when there's no 
damage.

12C2 defines, indirectly, what an adjusted score "punishment", as 
opposed to a procedural penalty punishment, would consist of. If we 
assigned an unfavorable result that was not even "at all probable" 
that would be punishment, not redress.

AW


From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 31 10:43:28 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA21688
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 10:43:28 +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 KAA21683
	for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 10:43:19 +1100 (EST)
Received: (from smtpd@localhost)
	by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA26932
	for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 00:43:11 +0100
Received: from ip105.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.105), claiming to be "jd-private.internal"
 via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda26930; Mon Jan 31 00:43:06 2000
From: Jesper Dybdal  
To: Bridge Laws List 
Subject: Re: Automatic penalties and UI
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 00:43:06 +0100
Organization: at home
Message-ID: 
References: <46c69ssqgd6fujtj7i5kcqj35abpbu0vb5@bilbo.dit.dk>
In-Reply-To: <46c69ssqgd6fujtj7i5kcqj35abpbu0vb5@bilbo.dit.dk>
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 KAA21684
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 29 Jan 2000 20:04:42 +0100, I wrote:

>An example of the general problem with the new L16C2 in relation
>to automatic penalty laws was recently discussed in the DBF's WWW
>discussion forum: L30, pass out of turn.

Just to make sure that the general problem does not drown in an
example, I'd like to explain it in general terms:

There are many irregularities that do their damage by giving the
offender's partner information that he should not have had: lead
out of turn, call out of turn, unestablished revoke, etc.

The laws can choose to deal with this problem in one or both of
the following ways:
(a) Prescribe an automatic penalty which will either make it
impossible to use the information or will compensate for the
advantage the information can be expected to give.
(b) Make the withdrawn action UI to offender's partner.

The advantages of (a) are that the TD won't have to make bridge
judgments all the time and that automatic penalties are easily
understood and accepted by players.

The advantages of (b) are that it comes closer to equity and that
UI is the "natural" mechanism of the laws to deal with
information that a player should not have had.

In the 1987 laws, (a) and not (b) was generally used: i.e.,
automatic penalties, the withdrawn action is AI.

Many laws were therefore designed to issue automatic penalties to
compensate for the information offender's partner had received.
Since they had to provide full compensation even though the
information was AI to the offender, they generally tended to
(1) be so severe that the offender very often received a score
below equity, and
(2) be very complicated in order to reduce the effect of (1)
while still compensating adequately for the AI.

A perfect example of (2) is the penalty card laws: far too often
the TD carefully explains the penalty card laws to an
inexperienced declarer who then gets so confused that he ends up
misplaying and going down in a contract that he would have won
without the irregularity.

In the 1997 laws, the withdrawn actions were made UI.  But the
automatic penalty laws were neither removed, simplified, nor made
less severe.  So we now have both (a) and (b), even though the
(a) penalties are designed to work without (b).

This gives us all the disadvantages of (a) together with part of
the disadvantages of (b), while not giving us the full advantages
of either.

This leads to
* Unreasonably severe penalties in some cases when (a) and (b)
are combined.
* Inconsistencies, of which the worst IMO is the very strange
interpretation of the penalty card laws that the WBFLC has
prescribed (see the note at the end of this message for details
if you don't know what I'm talking about here).
* The automatic penalty laws are still complicated.

It seems to me that one of three paths can be followed to repair
this undesirable situation:
(I) Go back to the old L16C.
(II) Keep the new L16C and remove most of the automatic
penalties.
(III) The middle road: keep L16C and revise the automatic penalty
laws (possibly removing a few) accordingly to make them simpler
so that they become a good companion for L16C.

(I) could be fine (but I would still want simplifications of some
penalties); (II) is equitable, but impossible in practice because
of the amount of judgment rulings it would lead to; (III) could
be a good solution.

I would like to elaborate a little on what I mean by (III): when
the information is UI, the function of an automatic penalty
should no longer be to ensure full compensation to the NOS in all
cases.  Instead, its function should be to ensure that a L16A
judgment ruling is needed only rarely.  I.e., it should provide
full compensation in most cases, but can leave some cases to be
handled by a L16A adjustment.  This means that the automatic
penalties can be made simpler and less severe, reducing or
removing the disadvantages (1) and (2) mentioned above.

To take the current major penalty card laws as an example:
(I) would mean going back to the 1987 state, which IMO has no
problem with logic or consistency; it does have the problem that
it is too complicated for players to understand.
(II) would mean removing the penalty card concept altogether: a
shown card is withdrawn and is UI to partner.  We would then need
more TDs and ACs!
(III) could for instance mean that a shown card is withdrawn and
is UI to partner, and that declarer in addition has the right to
forbid or require the lead of the suit the first time the partner
is on lead.  This is simple and understandable and will probably
only rarely require a L16A adjustment.

----

Note about the penalty card problem:

The WBFLC said at Lille:

    "Information arising from possession of a Penalty Card.

    Information that the player must play the penalty card
    as the law requires is authorised and partner may
    vhoose the card to lead from the suit on the basis of
    that knowledge (e.g. may lead small from K Q J x when
    partner's penalty card is the Ace). Information based
    on sight of partner's penalty card is unauthorised so
    that, for example, the player may not choose to lead
    the suit if the suit is suggested by the penalty card
    and play of a different suit is a logical alternative."

This means that the information that partner has the card can
legally be used for certain purposes (not leading the K when
partner has the A as penalty card), but not for other purposes
(such as planning the defense in general).  However, it is the
same information in the two cases: from the information that
partner will play the A if I play the K, I can deduce that
partner has the A, that declarer does not have it, and possibly
many other interesting things about their hands.

So this is a whole new concept where it is not information but
specific uses of it that are authorized or not.  It therefore
destroys the fundamental property of bridge that you are allowed
to make logical deductions from any authorized information.  That
is IMO a serious problem.
-- 
Jesper Dybdal, Denmark .
http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish).

From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 31 10:44:27 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA21702
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 10:44:27 +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 KAA21697
	for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 10:44:19 +1100 (EST)
Received: (from smtpd@localhost)
	by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA26938
	for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 00:44:11 +0100
Received: from ip105.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.105), claiming to be "jd-private.internal"
 via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda26935; Mon Jan 31 00:44:02 2000
From: Jesper Dybdal  
To: Bridge Laws List 
Subject: Re: Automatic penalties and UI
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 00:44:02 +0100
Organization: at home
Message-ID: <94j99s8mlk78n11p4hh9k1sf3dkm9askdo@bilbo.dit.dk>
References: <46c69ssqgd6fujtj7i5kcqj35abpbu0vb5@bilbo.dit.dk> <002c01bf6b0a$d58e9700$b25408c3@dodona>
In-Reply-To: <002c01bf6b0a$d58e9700$b25408c3@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 KAA21698
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 30 Jan 2000 09:19:45 -0000, "Grattan Endicott"
 wrote:

>+=+ It seems to me that in a great majority of these
>instances there will be logical alternatives to anything
>that the player chooses to do. 

Not to "anything", I hope!  There must always be at least one
logical alternative that  cannot demonstrably have been suggested
over any of the others - otherwise there is no legal call.

>So when he gets a good
>result opponents are damaged and the score will be
>adjusted. If and when there is no logical alternative
>there is no damage and no score adjustment.
>     Am I overlooking something?

(a) This is just about impossible to explain to any ordinary
bridge player who has just been penalized by a forced pass and is
now penalized "again".  In the Danish WWW discussion forum, it
took quite some time before we had been able to explain it to all
the participants in the discussion - and those participants were
good and intelligent players with a fairly good understanding of
the UI laws.

(b) L30 was designed at a time when L16C was different.  IMO it
does not work well with the new L16C.

See also my overview of the general L16C/automatic penalty
situation, posted a moment ago.
-- 
Jesper Dybdal, Denmark .
http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish).

From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 31 11:09:52 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA21756
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 11:09:52 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA21749
	for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 11:09:44 +1100 (EST)
Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130)
	id 2B41C15552; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 19:09:37 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: <38944A58.7A25926A@eduhi.at>
References: <016901bf6ac0$01e652c0$16991e18@san.rr.com>	
 <001901bf6ac9$f31b8120$3b2f63c3@davidburn>
  <38944A58.7A25926A@eduhi.at>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 19:09:42 -0500
To: Petrus Schuster OSB 
From: Adam Wildavsky 
Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation
Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Petrus Schuster OSB wrote:
>Adam Wildavsky schrieb:
>  >
>  > At 2:26 AM +0000 1/30/00, David Burn wrote:
>  > >To do this (12C3) is to preserve as far as possible the "equity" of a
>  > >non-offending side in a particular board, and should become the normal
>  > >way of ruling in such cases.
>  >
>  > I hope not. It is not yet normal, or even permitted, in the ACBL. I
>  > like to think the question as to whether or not it is desirable is an
>  > open one here on the BLML.
>  >
>  > To see one reason I oppose 12C3 consider this: Are you also concerned
>  > with preserving the "equity" of an offending side? If so, why are you
>  > concerned? It seems clear to me that it is important for offenders to
>  > be at risk for the maximum amount of their possible gain, in order to
>  > provide an incentive to stay within the Laws.
>  >
>  > AW

>This, IMO, misses the point:
>As all infractions are prima facie deemed inadvertent there is no need
>to provide an incentive "to stay within the Laws". Deliberate
>infractions will be punished under L72B2 (by burning at the stake? :)).
>Petrus

You're mistaken when you think one implies the other. This is an 
important point, and one easy to miss!

One of Edgar's great contributions to the Laws was the principle that 
we need not judge an infraction intentional in order to adjust the 
score. So yes, we can assume infractions are inadvertent until shown 
otherwise. That does not mean that that any particular infraction is 
in fact inadvertent, just that we need not take the matter into 
account in considering our adjustment. To say that most infractions 
are in fact inadvertent is another matter altogether. That would be 
tantamount to saying that bridge players lack free will.

We can all agree that we would prefer for players to act ethically. 
It is our responsibility, then, whether writing or interpreting the 
Laws, to do our best to see that the Laws encourage ethical behavior 
and discourage unethical behavior. Can that be controversial?

AW


From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 31 11:26:19 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA21826
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 11:26:19 +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 LAA21821
	for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 11:26:08 +1100 (EST)
Received: from p21s13a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.125.34] helo=vnmvhhid)
	by cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1)
	id 12EnMv-0007dz-00
	for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 05:57:53 +0000
From: "Anne Jones" 
To: "BLML" 
Subject: Re: law 25 again
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 23:16:04 -0000
Message-ID: <01bf6b77$fad7f340$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk


-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Small 
To: BLML 
Date: Sunday, January 30, 2000 8:04 AM
Subject: law 25 again


>Hi All
>Sorry to bring this up again and I've no doubt this variation has been
>discussed somewhere but couldn't put my finger on it.
> Bd 11 Nil S
>hands irrelevant
>Bidding       N      E     S      W
>                                    p      1C(1)         (1) precision
>16+ any
>                   p      1D(2)p      1H(3)         (2) negative 0-7 any
>(3) 19+ any
>                   p      2H(4)p      3H              (4) 5-7 5+ hearts
>                   p      3S     p       4C(5)         (5) ace asking
>                   p      4H(6)p       4S (7)         (6) one  (7) king
>asking
>                   p       p      p*                        *at the
>point that S had passed out E said ops I've
>                                                                  made
>an inadvertant bid Director please. Director
>                                                                  ruled
>that you can't make an inadvertant pass bid
>
>stands. East argued that he was thinking ahead to pass
>                                                                  5H and
>that he confused his no king reply with pass.
>                                                                  He was
>truly horrified to see the pass (written bidding) All players agree that
>it was obvious that there had been no delay in thought
>The final pass had been made and E played in a 4/1 spade contract only
>going three light for bottom board.
>1) E argued that it was an inadvertant pass TD argued it was a stupid
>mistake. Who is right?

IMO the TD is correct. It was a stupid mistake made after considering
 whether he should sign off in 5H or bid 6H. cf. WBFLC Lille re Law 25B.

>2) He further argued that under 25B2b2 he should have been allowed to
>substitute a call in which case he would have bid 5H which makes six for
>average score then reverts to average- so a 40% board.
>3) If this is correct then what score do the NO side get after a
>successful appeal by E.

This is exactly the situation which was considered when the lawmakers
penned Law 25b (IIUC)

The bid was not inadvertent, but he may request permission to make a
 delayed and deliberate change of call under Law 25B and If the change of 
call was not accepted by LHO, at penalty of the best result of 40% on the
 board. His opponents would achieve the actual table result -480(680).

However this is not what happened, LHO was not given the option, so 
there is no going back.What we now have is an error by the TD and this
 is corrected by application of Law 82C. 60% to each side.

Anne




From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 31 12:46:10 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA22027
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 12:46:10 +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 MAA22019
	for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 12:46:01 +1100 (EST)
Received: from [195.8.84.192] (helo=dodona)
	by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
	id 12F5uM-000KSI-00; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 01:45:39 +0000
Message-ID: <007701bf6b8d$0d6ef700$c05408c3@dodona>
From: "Grattan Endicott" 
To: "Marvin L. French" ,
        
References: <016901bf6ac0$01e652c0$16991e18@san.rr.com><001901bf6ac9$f31b8120$3b2f63c3@davidburn>  <007401bf6b14$b4cfd2e0$b25408c3@dodona> <01fc01bf6b57$3b2e9aa0$16991e18@san.rr.com>
Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 00:53:52 -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, January 30, 2000 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more)


>
> Grattan Endicott wrote:
> >
> > { "The committee noted the final words of "The
> > Scope of the Laws". It noted that score adjustment
> > is for the purpose of redressing damage to a
> > non-offending side and to take away any advantage
> > from the offending side, not for punishment of
> > offenders."  -- WBFLC minute, 20th Jan 2000.}
> >
> The revoke laws have the same purpose, but that does not mean they
> should be modified to permit only the redress of damage.
>
> Are we to look forward to a change in L64C, from "deems that the
> non-offending side is insuffiently compensated" to "deems that the
> non-offending side is either excessively or insufficiently
> compensated"?
>
> Marv (Marvin L. French)
>
+=+ One of the subjects for the major law review is a
proposal that an established revoke shall be dealt with
wholly by the principle in Law 64C, i.e. by the
restoration of the lost equity        ~ Grattan ~ +=+


From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 31 12:46:22 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA22035
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 12:46:22 +1100 (EST)
Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA22028
	for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 12:46:13 +1100 (EST)
Received: from [195.8.84.192] (helo=dodona)
	by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
	id 12F5uS-000KSI-00; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 01:45:44 +0000
Message-ID: <007801bf6b8d$109c4220$c05408c3@dodona>
From: "Grattan Endicott" 
To: "Marvin L. French" 
Cc: 
References: <003701bf6b1d$1e587340$29abf1c3@kooijman> <01ef01bf6b55$d4350560$16991e18@san.rr.com>
Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 01:12:28 -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


Grattan Endicott
To: 
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2000 7:01 PM
Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation


>
> From: ton kooijman
>
> > among more  Marvin French wrote:
> >
> The placement of the modifier "most" makes a big difference in the
> (idiomatic English) meaning of L12C2. The most favorable result
> that was likely may not be the most likely favorable result. If
> the latter better expresses the intended meaning, as Rich and ton
> seem to believe, then those are the words that should be used in
> the next revision of the Laws.
>
+=+ But only if the lawmakers persist with 12C2. It could
well be outmoded in a few years' time.   I was surprised
that the bulk of what I had drafted went down so well
with the Lausanne Group and, with the modifications
they made plus the skilful nursing by Kojak in Bermuda,
the Group can take pleasure in the progress to date of
their baby.          ~ Grattan ~ +=+





From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 31 12:55:57 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA22132
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 12:55:57 +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 MAA22126
	for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 12:55:49 +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 UAA28787;
	Sun, 30 Jan 2000 20:55:19 -0500 (EST)
X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: <01bf6b77$fad7f340$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 20:45:03 -0500
To: "Anne Jones" ,
        "BLML" 
From: "David J. Grabiner" 
Subject: Re: law 25 again
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

At 11:16 PM +0000 1/30/00, Anne Jones wrote:

[delayed change of call should have been allowed]

>The bid was not inadvertent, but he may request permission to make a
> delayed and deliberate change of call under Law 25B and If the change of
>call was not accepted by LHO, at penalty of the best result of 40% on the
> board. His opponents would achieve the actual table result -480(680).
>
>However this is not what happened, LHO was not given the option, so
>there is no going back.What we now have is an error by the TD and this
> is corrected by application of Law 82C. 60% to each side.

I don't think L82C is supposed to work that way.  When the TD makes an
error, he awards an adjusted score according to what would have happened
had there been no error, considering both sides as non-offending for that
purpose; thus the score to be awarded is the most favorable result that was
likely had there been no error by the TD.  Average-plus can only be awarded
if the TD's error makes any result unobtainable

In this case, offender would have changed the call to 5H, which scores
+480, and there is only one likely result, which gives the offenders the
worse of +480 or average-minus, and the non-offenders -480.

L82C might come into play if there were more than one likely result.
Suppose it was likely that 5H would make either five or six.  Then the
offenders would be awarded the worse of +480 or average-minus, and the
non-offenders -450.



From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 31 13:03:37 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA22047
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 12:46:35 +1100 (EST)
Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA22037
	for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 12:46:26 +1100 (EST)
Received: from [195.8.84.192] (helo=dodona)
	by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
	id 12F5ud-000KSI-00; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 01:45:55 +0000
Message-ID: <007a01bf6b8d$175b8da0$c05408c3@dodona>
From: "Grattan Endicott" 
To: "Adam Wildavsky" 
Cc: 
References: <016901bf6ac0$01e652c0$16991e18@san.rr.com><001901bf6ac9$f31b8120$3b2f63c3@davidburn> <007401bf6b14$b4cfd2e0$b25408c3@dodona> 
Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 01:44:40 -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 12C3 philosophy is that, in the instant before the
> >infraction occurred, each of the two sides had a given
> >expectancy of the outcome of the board. This was
> >made up of the subsequent choices and actions that
> >were available. 'Redress for damage'* calls for the
> >restoration of the said expectancy to each of the
> >parties..
>
A.W.:
> Why? This concept is not found within the Laws, and it is
> specifically repudiated by 12C2.
>
>
+=+ The correspondence prior to Ocho Rios, in which
the need for arrangements to relax the rigidity of 12C2
was discussed, establishes that what I have said above
was being done (in Europe at least) without clear
authorization. Kaplan agreed to support introduction
of the option so that bridge authorities would have
the right to choose which path they wished to follow.
My impression is that gradually the view is gaining
ground outside of Europe also that 12C2 is often
tyrannical in its effects. EK wanted 12C3 restricted to
ACs because he had a low view of the capabilities
of TDs, an attitude not shared by the EBL which,
as long as I can recall, has told its TDs to make the
judgements that lead to rulings in favour of the OS in
a significant percentage of the cases.
                                     ~ Grattan ~ +=+



From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 31 13:29:34 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA22203
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 13:29:34 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA22198
	for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 13:29:27 +1100 (EST)
Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130)
	id 23A1930F97; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 21:29:20 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: <007801bf6b8d$109c4220$c05408c3@dodona>
References: <003701bf6b1d$1e587340$29abf1c3@kooijman>
 <01ef01bf6b55$d4350560$16991e18@san.rr.com>
 <007801bf6b8d$109c4220$c05408c3@dodona>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 21:29:29 -0500
To: "Grattan Endicott" 
From: Adam Wildavsky 
Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation
Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

>+=+ But only if the lawmakers persist with 12C2. It could
>well be outmoded in a few years' time.   I was surprised
>that the bulk of what I had drafted went down so well
>with the Lausanne Group and, with the modifications
>they made plus the skilful nursing by Kojak in Bermuda,
>the Group can take pleasure in the progress to date of
>their baby.          ~ Grattan ~ +=+

So, you mean to out and out replace 12C2 with 12C3. Why not come out 
and say so? This would have saved us all some time. You can't doubt 
that I will oppose such replacement, but it will be an easier 
argument to frame, on both sides.

AW


From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 31 13:50:07 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA22046
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 12:46:35 +1100 (EST)
Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA22036
	for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 12:46:26 +1100 (EST)
Received: from [195.8.84.192] (helo=dodona)
	by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
	id 12F5uZ-000KSI-00; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 01:45:51 +0000
Message-ID: <007901bf6b8d$14ccf380$c05408c3@dodona>
From: "Grattan Endicott" 
To: "Jesper Dybdal" 
Cc: 
References: <200001091624.DAA14808@octavia.anu.edu.au> <01ed01bf5ad6$c7dfd720$16991e18@san.rr.com> <001b01bf69e3$458b1a20$5e5608c3@dodona> <012301bf6a22$c6511c60$16991e18@san.rr.com> <001101bf6a43$958f1ac0$3b5608c3@dodona> <20000129151415.10898.qmail@hotmail.com> <000201bf6aa1$02b5a1c0$e05408c3@dodona> 
Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 01:14:10 -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: Bridge Laws List 
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2000 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda


> On Sat, 29 Jan 2000 20:00:53 -0000, "Grattan Endicott"
>  wrote:
>
>
> My impression of the BLML writing on the subject is not one of
> reluctance to the change.
>
> My impression is that most of the writing on the subject,
> including my own, has been concerned with the question of the
> legality of the way the change was implemented in Bermuda, not
> with resistance to the change itself.
> --
> Jesper Dybdal, Denmark .
> http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish).
>
+=+ My cynical mind, perhaps, but it has seemed
to me that a major part of the writing was
questioning the legality because the writer is
opposed to the procedure and its philosophy.  But
it is academic; it was done, it has WBF Executive
approval, the WBFLC has recorded its
acquiescence, and the EBL is proceeding with
it also. What is more, although some people are
uncomfortable with the Geneva judgement, it
comes from a higher authority than the WBFLC
and it prevails.
      Meanwhile change of Law 12C3 is on
a back burner (and, since such is the will,
those going ahead are choosing an alternative
route without waiting for it); the important thing
is not to let the deferral divert the subject of
changing the law into a cul-de-sac, although
it may prove immaterial if the CoP continues
its take-off.                    ~ Grattan ~ +=+



From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 31 14:03:37 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA22239
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 13:43:11 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA22230
	for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 13:43:03 +1100 (EST)
Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130)
	id CF2FA30FAE; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 21:42:49 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com
Message-Id: 
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 21:42:50 -0500
To: "Grattan Endicott" 
From: Adam Wildavsky 
Subject: Re: Ruling in favor of the OS
Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

>EK wanted 12C3 restricted to ACs because he had a low view of the 
>capabilities of TDs, an attitude not shared by the EBL which, as 
>long as I can recall, has told its TDs to make the judgements that 
>lead to rulings in favour of the OS in a significant percentage of 
>the cases.
>                                     ~ Grattan ~ +=+

What an extraordinary statement! I can't guess what you mean by it. 
Where is this EBL policy documented?

If it's important to our 12C discussion, please elaborate.

AW


From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 31 15:12:28 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA22238
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 13:43:10 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA22228
	for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 13:42:58 +1100 (EST)
Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130)
	id A8E3E30FA3; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 21:42:48 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: <007a01bf6b8d$175b8da0$c05408c3@dodona>
References: 
 <016901bf6ac0$01e652c0$16991e18@san.rr.com><001901bf6ac9$f31b8120$3b2f63c3
 @davidburn>
 <007401bf6b14$b4cfd2e0$b25408c3@dodon
 a> 
 <007a01bf6b8d$175b8da0$c05408c3@dodona>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 21:38:21 -0500
To: "Grattan Endicott" 
From: Adam Wildavsky 
Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more)
Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

>G.E. :
>  > >The 12C3 philosophy is that, in the instant before the
>  > >infraction occurred, each of the two sides had a given
>  > >expectancy of the outcome of the board. This was
>  > >made up of the subsequent choices and actions that
>  > >were available. 'Redress for damage'* calls for the
>  > >restoration of the said expectancy to each of the
>  > >parties..

>A.W. :
>  > Why? This concept is not found within the Laws, and it is
>  > specifically repudiated by 12C2.

>G.E. :
>+=+ The correspondence prior to Ocho Rios, in which
>the need for arrangements to relax the rigidity of 12C2
>was discussed, establishes that what I have said above
>was being done (in Europe at least) without clear
>authorization. Kaplan agreed to support introduction
>of the option so that bridge authorities would have
>the right to choose which path they wished to follow.
>My impression is that gradually the view is gaining
>ground outside of Europe also that 12C2 is often
>tyrannical in its effects.

I've gone on record as saying that I believe the Laws applied by 
directors and ACs should be the same. The question at hand is what 
those Laws should be.

I see nothing tyrannical in 12C3, but the word has several meanings. 
I expect you mean, as above, that it's rigid, and that it keeps 
directors and committees from ruling according to their feelings. To 
my mind that's a good thing!

In any case I'm not well placed to argue against adjusting to restore 
"Equity" until I'm certain know what you mean by it. I asked you to 
clarify your position, but unless I've missed something you have not.

AW


From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 31 15:13:49 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA22218
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 13:33:03 +1100 (EST)
Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (tk1.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.13])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA22213
	for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 13:32:57 +1100 (EST)
Received: from julie (p294-tnt5.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.195.54])
	by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id PAA00828
	for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 15:32:50 +1300
Message-ID: <001701bf6b93$40a23500$0100a8c0@ihug.co.nz>
From: "Julie Atkinson" 
To: 
Subject: Fw: law 25 again and now L 82C
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 15:31:16 +1300
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 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk


----- Original Message -----
From: Julie Atkinson 
To: Anne Jones 
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2000 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: law 25 again and now L 82C


> I had an almost identical situation come up at our National Congress here,
> and (much shame and embarrassment) made the same mistake and then (more
> shame and embarrassment) the same ruliong under 82C. As was kindly pointed
> out to me at the subsequent appeal, where does it require a 60/60 result
> under 82C. The inadvertant/ mistaken bidder was only going to obtain 40%
> under the correct ruling at best and the opps were presumably going to get
a
> fairly good result. In my situation this was 99% of matchpoints and in the
> end it was the actual result that would have been obtained for the
original
> offending side and  the most likely favourable for non offenders.
>
>
> Julie atkinson
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Anne Jones 
> To: BLML 
> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2000 12:16 PM
> Subject: Re: law 25 again
>
>
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bruce Small 
> > To: BLML 
> > Date: Sunday, January 30, 2000 8:04 AM
> > Subject: law 25 again
> >
> >
> > >Hi All
> > >Sorry to bring this up again and I've no doubt this variation has been
> > >discussed somewhere but couldn't put my finger on it.
> > > Bd 11 Nil S
> > >hands irrelevant
> > >Bidding       N      E     S      W
> > >                                    p      1C(1)         (1) precision
> > >16+ any
> > >                   p      1D(2)p      1H(3)         (2) negative 0-7
any
> > >(3) 19+ any
> > >                   p      2H(4)p      3H              (4) 5-7 5+ hearts
> > >                   p      3S     p       4C(5)         (5) ace asking
> > >                   p      4H(6)p       4S (7)         (6) one  (7) king
> > >asking
> > >                   p       p      p*                        *at the
> > >point that S had passed out E said ops I've
> > >                                                                  made
> > >an inadvertant bid Director please. Director
> > >                                                                  ruled
> > >that you can't make an inadvertant pass bid
> > >
> > >stands. East argued that he was thinking ahead to pass
> > >                                                                  5H
and
> > >that he confused his no king reply with pass.
> > >                                                                  He
was
> > >truly horrified to see the pass (written bidding) All players agree
that
> > >it was obvious that there had been no delay in thought
> > >The final pass had been made and E played in a 4/1 spade contract only
> > >going three light for bottom board.
> > >1) E argued that it was an inadvertant pass TD argued it was a stupid
> > >mistake. Who is right?
> >
> > IMO the TD is correct. It was a stupid mistake made after considering
> >  whether he should sign off in 5H or bid 6H. cf. WBFLC Lille re Law 25B.
> >
> > >2) He further argued that under 25B2b2 he should have been allowed to
> > >substitute a call in which case he would have bid 5H which makes six
for
> > >average score then reverts to average- so a 40% board.
> > >3) If this is correct then what score do the NO side get after a
> > >successful appeal by E.
> >
> > This is exactly the situation which was considered when the lawmakers
> > penned Law 25b (IIUC)
> >
> > The bid was not inadvertent, but he may request permission to make a
> >  delayed and deliberate change of call under Law 25B and If the change
of
> > call was not accepted by LHO, at penalty of the best result of 40% on
the
> >  board. His opponents would achieve the actual table result -480(680).
> >
> > However this is not what happened, LHO was not given the option, so
> > there is no going back.What we now have is an error by the TD and this
> >  is corrected by application of Law 82C. 60% to each side.
> >
> > Anne
> >
> >
> >
> >
>


From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 31 16:43:54 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA22676
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 16:43:54 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA22671
	for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 16:43:45 +1100 (EST)
Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130)
	id CA5E6155FF; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 00:43:36 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: <199904080450.AAA22662@primus.ac.net>
References: <370BDE74.EB4EACE3@home.com>
 
 <3.0.5.32.19990407172331.00aab780@cable.mail.a2000.nl>
 <199904080450.AAA22662@primus.ac.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 00:43:44 -0500
To: Linda Trent 
From: Adam Wildavsky 
Subject: Re: "Poster child" for ACs
Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

At 12:53 AM -0400 4/8/99, Linda Trent wrote:

>At 3:51 AM -0400 3/30/99, Adam Wildavsky wrote:
>>Open Pairs II. 2nd final session.
>>
>>Brd 20      KT3
>>Dlr W       K932
>>Vl Both     Q64
>>             865
>>     98542       AQ76
>>     J5          A874
>>     T982        AK
>>     K2          A97
>>             J
>>             QT6
>>             J753
>>             QJT43
>>
>>P   P 2N P
>>3H! P 3S P
>>3N  P 4S all pass
>>
>>East (an inexperienced player) hesitated for ten seconds before 
>>completing the transfer. The facts were not in dispute. The 
>>director was called after the dummy was faced. 2NT showed 20-21 HCP.

>So...
>
>If you are always going to bid game with this hand (which sort of seems to
>me to be West's position) would it be hopeless to start with Stayman and if
>pard bids 3S raise to four, but bid 3NT after any other response?  I don't
>think I particularly want to be in 4S unless partner has four.  That's what
>I think I might have done.
>
>But, I'm not qualified to be on NABC+ committees.

Don't be so sure!

I just read the writeup on the ACBL WWW site. I see that Ron Gerard 
makes the same point. It's something I didn't consider in bringing 
the case.

I also noted a puzzling remark from Bart Bramley, who finds the 
director call "distasteful" and yet would adjust the score for the 
OS. How does he imagine the adjustment will be made if no one calls 
the director?

AW


From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 31 17:12:10 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA22748
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 17:12:10 +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 RAA22740
	for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 17:12:00 +1100 (EST)
Received: (qmail 12034 invoked by uid 65534); 31 Jan 2000 06:11:21 -0000
Message-ID: <20000131061121.12033.qmail@hotmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [209.206.12.196]
From: "Roger Pewick" 
To: "blml" 
References: <016901bf6ac0$01e652c0$16991e18@san.rr.com><001901bf6ac9$f31b8120$3b2f63c3@davidburn>  <007401bf6b14$b4cfd2e0$b25408c3@dodona> <01fc01bf6b57$3b2e9aa0$16991e18@san.rr.com> <007701bf6b8d$0d6ef700$c05408c3@dodona>
Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 00:11:46 -0600
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk


----- Original Message -----
From: Grattan Endicott 
To: Marvin L. French ;

Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2000 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more)


>
> Grattan Endicott ----- Original Message -----
> From: Marvin L. French 
> To: 
> Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2000 7:17 PM
> Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more)

> > Grattan Endicott wrote:


> > Marv (Marvin L. French)
> >
> +=+ One of the subjects for the major law review is a
> proposal that an established revoke shall be dealt with
> wholly by the principle in Law 64C, i.e. by the
> restoration of the lost equity        ~ Grattan ~


As Grattan points out, the subject is to be studied, apparently not with
forethought that it would be implemented without a satisfactory evaluation.
And perhaps the conclusion will turn out that it is unlikely to be
satisfactory in resolving what the remedy ought to be.   However, the normal
impetus behind such studies is that serious consideration of the proposal
that already exists.

I am inclined to believe that adjudicating all revokes in terms of equity
presents two difficulties that in my mind will not be suitably resolved.
First is the finding of what one is after, the word that comes to mind is
equity.  I would think that whatever concept is adopted that a significant
proportion of players will find reason eventually to be disenchanted with
it.  The other is putting to words a specification of the thing that is
being adjusted to.  Further,  in the event that such a specification is
composed that it would not be clear enough to be followed by all.

I point out that during the play of the hand that a revoke effects itself as
a severe disruption no less than twice.  In the end the director is summoned
to adjudicate.  But unkindest of all, the bridge problems that inundate the
players after the revoke tend to be numerous which can, and do, consume
significant portions of the time allotted for play. Perhaps it is the intent
of the game to make all effort subsequent the revoke to not have meaning, at
least until the director returns with the adjusted score.   The concept of
extending the time taken to establish a result, coupled with the fact that
the differing opinions of the bridge judgement involved in ruling is likely
to  develop additional reasons for appeals.  Given players' proclivity to
revoke, such observations lend support for a mechanical approach for as many
cases as practical.

Roger Pewick
Houston, Texas



From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 31 18:07:06 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA22879
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 18:07:06 +1100 (EST)
Received: from mta02.mail.mel.aone.net.au (mta02.mail.au.uu.net [203.2.192.82])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA22874
	for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 18:07:01 +1100 (EST)
Received: from andrew ([203.61.32.149]) by mta02.mail.mel.aone.net.au
          with SMTP
          id <20000131070655.UXUJ16213.mta02.mail.mel.aone.net.au@andrew>
          for ;
          Mon, 31 Jan 2000 18:06:55 +1100
From: "Andrew & Pippa Hooper" 
To: 
Subject: 
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 17:11:26 +1000
Message-ID: <000601bf6bba$636c6340$95203dcb@andrew>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01BF6C0E.35187340"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
Importance: Normal
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0007_01BF6C0E.35187340
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

subscribe

------=_NextPart_000_0007_01BF6C0E.35187340
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable







subscribe


------=_NextPart_000_0007_01BF6C0E.35187340--


From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 31 20:58:42 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA23277
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 20:58:42 +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 UAA23272
	for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 20:58:34 +1100 (EST)
Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ;
	Mon, 31 Jan 2000 10:58:07 +0100
Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id KAA16610 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 10:57:03 +0100
From: "Martin Sinot" 
To: "'BLML'" 
Subject: RE: law 25 again
Date:   Mon, 31 Jan 2000 10:58:57 +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
In-Reply-To: 
Importance: Normal
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Bruce Small wrote:

>Hi All
>Sorry to bring this up again and I've no doubt this variation has been
>discussed somewhere but couldn't put my finger on it.
> Bd 11 Nil S
>hands irrelevant
>Bidding       N     E     S     W
>                          p     1C(1)     (1) precision 16+ any
>              p     1D(2) p     1H(3)     (2) negative 0-7 any
>              p     2H(4) p     3H        (3) 19+ any
>              p     3S    p     4C(5)     (4) 5-7 5+ hearts
>              p     4H(6) p     4S(7)     (5) ace asking
>              p     p     p*              (6) one  (7) king asking
>
>*at the point that S had passed out E said ops I've made
>an inadvertant bid Director please. Director ruled
>that you can't make an inadvertant pass bid
>stands. East argued that he was thinking ahead to pass 5H and
>that he confused his no king reply with pass. He was
>truly horrified to see the pass (written bidding) All players agree
>that it was obvious that there had been no delay in thought
>The final pass had been made and E played in a 4/1 spade contract only
>going three light for bottom board.

>1) E argued that it was an inadvertant pass TD argued it was a stupid
>mistake. Who is right?

It is widely agreed that L25A refers to purely mechanical errors, i.e.
the hand (or the mouth) does something other than the mind. Often caused
by sticky bidding cards, or the hand placed next to the intended bid. Now
to begin with, the pass cards are in a different section of the bidding
box than the bids, so it looks not inadvertent to begin with. More
important, however, is East's story. He was one step ahead in the bidding
in his mind, so at the moment of his pass, he really meant to pass, however
stupid it was. So the TD is right. Sorry, East.

>2) He further argued that under 25B2b2 he should have been allowed to
>substitute a call in which case he would have bid 5H which makes six for
>average score then reverts to average- so a 40% board.

That would have been the case had South not passed. But we don't
arrive at that stage, for the non-25A cases cannot be corrected
after LHO calls - which South did.

>3) If this is correct then what score do the NO side get after a
>successful appeal by E.

East's appeal will be unsuccessful. See above.

-- 
Martin Sinot
Nijmegen
martin@spase.nl


From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 31 21:11:42 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA23381
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 21:11:42 +1100 (EST)
Received: from cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk (cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk [195.147.248.165])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA23375
	for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 21:11:32 +1100 (EST)
Received: from p82s06a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.166.131] helo=vnmvhhid)
	by cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1)
	id 12FDmz-0003Bk-00
	for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 02:10:34 -0800
From: "Anne Jones" 
To: "BLML" 
Subject: Re: law 25 again
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 10:17:33 -0000
Message-ID: <01bf6bd4$63871860$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 J. Grabiner 
To: Anne Jones ; BLML

Date: Monday, January 31, 2000 2:06 AM
Subject: Re: law 25 again


>At 11:16 PM +0000 1/30/00, Anne Jones wrote:
>
>[delayed change of call should have been allowed]
>
>>The bid was not inadvertent, but he may request permission to make a
>> delayed and deliberate change of call under Law 25B and If the change of
>>call was not accepted by LHO, at penalty of the best result of 40% on the
>> board. His opponents would achieve the actual table result -480(680).
>>
>>However this is not what happened, LHO was not given the option, so
>>there is no going back.What we now have is an error by the TD and this
>> is corrected by application of Law 82C. 60% to each side.
>
>I don't think L82C is supposed to work that way.  When the TD makes an
>error, he awards an adjusted score according to what would have happened
>had there been no error, considering both sides as non-offending for that
>purpose; thus the score to be awarded is the most favorable result that was
>likely had there been no error by the TD.  Average-plus can only be awarded
>if the TD's error makes any result unobtainable
>
>In this case, offender would have changed the call to 5H, which scores
>+480, and there is only one likely result, which gives the offenders the
>worse of +480 or average-minus, and the non-offenders -480.
>
>L82C might come into play if there were more than one likely result.
>Suppose it was likely that 5H would make either five or six.  Then the
>offenders would be awarded the worse of +480 or average-minus, and the
>non-offenders -450.

I have just replied to Julie's posting. Had South not called we would be
talking in terms of the unlikelyhood of South accepting the substituted
call,
and awarding E/W the 40% they were going to get with a correct ruling, and
N/S the result they would have got if they had defended 5H.
However, having read the question again, I think it is too late for Law 25B.
Give the TD an apology. He got it right.
Anne



From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 31 21:11:52 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA23389
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 21:11:52 +1100 (EST)
Received: from cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk (cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk [195.147.248.165])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA23383
	for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 21:11:44 +1100 (EST)
Received: from p82s06a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.166.131] helo=vnmvhhid)
	by cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1)
	id 12FDn1-0003Bk-00; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 02:10:36 -0800
From: "Anne Jones" 
To: "Julie Atkinson" ,
        "BLML" 
Subject: Re: law 25 again and now L 82C
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 10:18:01 -0000
Message-ID: <01bf6bd4$73ecc9c0$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: Julie Atkinson 
To: Anne Jones 
Date: Monday, January 31, 2000 2:31 AM
Subject: Re: law 25 again and now L 82C


>I had an almost identical situation come up at our National Congress here,
>and (much shame and embarrassment) made the same mistake and then (more
>shame and embarrassment) the same ruliong under 82C. As was kindly pointed
>out to me at the subsequent appeal, where does it require a 60/60 result
>under 82C. The inadvertant/ mistaken bidder was only going to obtain 40%
>under the correct ruling at best and the opps were presumably going to get
a
>fairly good result. In my situation this was 99% of matchpoints and in the
>end it was the actual result that would have been obtained for the original
>offending side and  the most likely favourable for non offenders.

Now that you mention it, I think I've been here before. I am sure you are
right.
It is most unlikely that South would have accepted the change of call.
However this also teaches me not to make rulings after getting home from a
Junior
International Banquet.
I have just read the question again.
South had passed so it was too late for a Law25B ruling. The TD was right.
Anne


From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 31 22:05:48 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA23628
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 22:05:48 +1100 (EST)
Received: from babelbrox.axion.bt.co.uk (babelbrox.axion.bt.co.uk [132.146.16.6])
	by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA23623
	for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 22:05:39 +1100 (EST)
From: david.burn@bt.com
Received: from chqlubnt02.lon.bt.com by babelbrox.axion.bt.co.uk (local) 
          with ESMTP; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 11:04:06 +0000
Received: by chqlubnt02.lon.bt.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.23) 
          id ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 11:03:42 -0000
Message-ID: 
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 11:03:32 -0000
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.23)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk

Adam wrote:

[DB]
>I have always thought (and usually ruled) that the treatment of the
>offending side is satisfactory under L12C2. That is: the non-offenders
>get an average of the outcomes of the results they would have got had
>there been no irregularity; the offenders get all of the worst result
>that was at all probable. To put this another way: I want the
>non-offenders to have, as far as possible, their "bridge result",
>while the offenders receive the shortest shrift I can give them.

[AW]
Where do you find this in 12C2? Are you saying that as a director you 
use the part of 12C2 you approve of and discard the section with 
which you do not approve?

I should go on record as saying that I am not now and have never been a
tournament director. If I were, I would use L12C2 in the way in which the
Laws prescribe - that is, I would award to a non-offending side that
(single) result I considered the most favourable of likely results, and to
an offending side that (single) result I considered the least favourable of
at all probable results. If I estimated that a result would occur as often
as one time in three, I would consider it for the non-offenders; if I
estimated that a result would occur as often as one time in six, I would
consider it for the offenders. So far, I trust I would have done nothing to
arouse the wrath of Marvin French, Adam Wildavsky, or anybody else (except
possibly the offending side, and I do not care about them).

But I am not, thankfully, a tournament director. Nor do I live in the United
States. So I am at liberty to use L12C3 in order to "do equity", and that is
what I try to do. What I said above was intended to indicate that I consider
equity under L12C3 is well served simply by applying the provisions of L12C2
to the offending side. That is, the offending side continues to receive the
least favourable of at all probable results. As a referee, I can use L12C2
to stick the offenders with a rotten score, and L12C3 to give the
non-offenders what they would have received had they not been offended
against.

This is an approach to which alternatives are possible. The tone of several
messages from Grattan and others appears to indicate support for the notion
that there is a single "equitable" result on any given deal (which may be a
weighted score), and that in all cases both sides should receive this
result. If the Laws, as I suspect, are to move further in the direction of
being an equity-based system, this is the approach that I expect to prevail,
and I will of course adjust my own practices in line with it when this
occurs.

[DB]
>This is, perhaps, not wholly consistent with the notion that the Laws
>are there only to redress damage and not to punish malefactors - but
>I agree with Adam when he says that offenders should be at risk of
>receiving a worse result than the reciprocal of that awarded to the
>non-offenders. They have, if you like, "lost equity" by committing an
>infraction.

[AW]
This is redress, not punishment. If an infraction keeps the NOS from 
bidding a game they'd have made 60% of the time the redress is that 
they are assigned the score for making their game. 

How can they be given as "redress" 100% of something, when they'd have got
only 60% of it (and 40% of something worse) had there been no infraction? To
provide "redress" is to give back that which has been taken away. What has
been taken away is 60% of the score for +620 and 40% of the score for -100,
and that is what in equity should be given back.

[AW]
In order to retain their 40% chance of beating the contract at the table the
OS had to 
avoid committing their infraction, so that a valid table result could 
be achieved.

Quite so. That is why, in my view, the offenders should receive 100% of the
score for -620. By committing an infraction, they have lost their right to a
shot at 40% of plus 100.

[AW]
This adjustment must be made for both sides. How can we tell the NOS 
we're giving them a score that takes into account their going down in 
a game that they'd have made more often than not? 

Because that is our best shot at restoring equity. The difficulty is, of
course, that we are dealing with a superposition of states, and we have no
way of collapsing the wave function. Like Schrodinger's cat, the
non-offenders have been placed by the infraction in a position where their
score on the board is "plus 620 or minus 100" but we will never know which -
so we give them both according to our estimate of the respective
probabilities.

[AW]
They deserved the 
chance to try and make it, and their opponents deprived them of that 
chance. 

Precisely. So, their "equity" in the board is their chance of making it
times the reward for making it, minus their chance of going down times the
penalty for going down. I know Grattan keeps not defining equity, but that
is what it means - ask any backgammon player. That equity is what should be
restored to them (since they are the non-offending side).

[AW]
Another way of looking at it is that the NOS deserved the 
chance to make their opponents lead and defend without error. By 
committing their infraction the OS obviated the need to defend a 
contract that would be expensive were it successful. 

Oh, quite so. In determining the probability that the game contract would
have made, one does not use only a double-dummy evaluation of its chances.
One takes into account as far as possible the chance of a poor opening lead,
or a misdefence - and if one takes as dim a view of the offending side as I
do, one is generous in these assessments. But the non-offenders should not,
in equity as the word is used in English, receive all of something because
of an infraction when they would not necessarily have received any of it had
there been no infraction.

[AW]
The proper redress is to award the score for its success, to one or both
sides 
depending on the Law 12C2 criteria.

No, it is not. The proper redress is to give them back that which has been
taken away; that is what the word means. What has been taken away is only an
expectation, and the value of that expectation should be calculated before
being returned to the non-offenders.

[AW]
If we judge that the offense was committed knowingly then we assess a 
procedural penalty in addition - that's punishment. 

With that, of course, I agree entirely. There is a school of thought which
holds that a side given a worse score under L12 has been "punished enough",
and "further penalties" would not be appropriate. Only when they feel that
there is no damage requiring redress do practitioners of this school turn
their minds to the question of procedural penalty. This approach may have
been based on Kaplan's idiosyncratic view of the purpose of procedural
penalties; it has no basis in law or sense, and its eradication from the
game is much to be desired.

David Burn
London, England


From owner-bridge-laws  Mon Jan 31 23:03:31 2000
Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA23927
	for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 23:03:31 +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 XAA23922
	for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 23:03:23 +1100 (EST)
Received: from p36s06a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.166.55] helo=pacific)
	by cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1)
	id 12EruJ-0000yL-00
	for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 10:48:40 +0000
Message-ID: <001401bf6be2$c1b04980$37a693c3@pacific>
From: "Grattan Endicott" 
To: "Bridge Laws" 
Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 11:57:10 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Sender: owner-bridge-laws
Precedence: bulk


Grattan Endicott
To: Grattan Endicott 
Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au 
Date: 31 January 2000 02:41
Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation


>>+=+ But only if the lawmakers persist with 12C2. It could
>>well be outmoded in a few years' time.   I was surprised
>>that the bulk of what I had drafted went down so well
>>with the Lausanne Group and, with the modifications
>>they made plus the skilful nursing by Kojak in Bermuda,
>>the Group can take pleasure in the progress to date of
>>their baby.          ~ Grattan ~ +=+
>
>So, you mean to out and out replace 12C2 with 12C3. Why not come out 
>and say so? This would have saved us all some time. You can't doubt 
>that I will oppose such replacement, but it will be an easier 
>argument to frame, on both sides.
>
>AW
>
+=+ Oh, I don't mean to do anything except let
        time take its course and see where we arrive.
                                       ~ Grattan ~ +=+