From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 1 00:18:25 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA24262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 00:18:25 +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 AAA24257 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 00:18:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from p60s09a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.137.97] helo=pacific) by cobalt3-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12FGhQ-0003zx-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 05:17:01 -0800 Message-ID: <001201bf6bed$28e6d1a0$618993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 13:09:05 -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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott >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. > ----------------- \x/ --------------- > >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). > > GE: +=+ I am trying to be careful not to suggest that there is a promulgated definition of 'equity'. Without such a definition the various opinions as to what it is can stand up in the communities where they are held. My personal opinion, and that shared in some circles in which I move, is one that I did put on blml in an earlier message. First, this asserts that the 'equity' involved is an equity between the sides at the table, not an abstract equity linked to some idea of the morality of the situation. It says that the object of the adjustment is not to punish, which means that the offenders do not have their share of the equity taken away in the score adjustment; if it is adjudged appropriate to punish this is done by a procedural penalty. Therefore the assessment is concerned with the possible legal choices and actions of the players from the instant prior to the infraction, and the effects of these incorporated proportionately in a single score adjustment awarded in common to both sides. The outcome is that the non-offending side receives an award representing the restoration of their expectations prior to the infraction; the offending side receives the reciprocal of that, less the amount of any procedural penalty applied (which probably requires that a PP should be applied with rather more regularity than has been the case under the procedures hitherto). Actually it seems to me that through arrival on different buses DB and I end up not far from each other in the same street. In the rulings and in appeals committees in Bermuda we took a significant step in the direction of this same street. (Joan reading this would perhaps know how far she feels I am right; and whether she shares my view that we ought to look more closely at a PP when we have awarded a 12C3 score.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 1 00:34:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA24332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 00:34:32 +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 AAA24327 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 00:34:25 +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 IAA14176 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 08:33:54 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000131083710.006ec2bc@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 08:37:10 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Defective claim or table result? In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000130205434.0079ee90@pop.singnet.com.sg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:54 PM 1/30/00 +0800, Derrick wrote: >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 ? Three tricks to N-S. L68D: "After any claim... play ceases. All play subsequent to a claim... shall be voided by the Director." So the ruling cannot be affected by what occurred after the claim; it must be the same regardless of whether N-S played on and failed to get their ruff, or played on and got their ruff, or didn't play on at all. We must rule as though the contestants hadn't played on, so the fact that South, when he did so, committed a presumably "egregious" error in failing to get his ruff cannot matter to the adjudicated outcome. 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 Feb 1 02:00:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA24928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 02:00:36 +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 CAA24876 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 02:00:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from p23s11a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.139.36] helo=pacific) by cobalt7-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12FAND-0001fR-00; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 06:31:44 +0000 Message-ID: <002001bf6bfb$7424df00$248b93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Adam Wildavsky" Cc: Subject: Re: Ruling in favor of the OS Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 13:36:25 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 03:22 Subject: Re: Ruling in favor of the OS >>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? > +=+ Whatever is extraordinary about it? At the meeting between the TDs and the Appeals Committee prior to each EBL tournament the Directors have long been instructed that they are to make the 'right' ruling, exercising the bridge judgement that the laws require them to exercise, and if this means they see no damage arising from an infraction they are to rule for the OS. They are specifically reminded that it is not their role to rule automatically for the NOS when there is an infraction. Kaplan asserted that few TDs in the ACBL had the expertise to carry out such an instruction. It is not a 12C matter; it is a CoP matter. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 1 02:07:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA24956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 02:07:38 +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 CAA24948 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 02:07:31 +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 12FIQ8-000NtY-0Y for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 15:07:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 03:12:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) In-Reply-To: <007701bf6b8d$0d6ef700$c05408c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <007701bf6b8d$0d6ef700$c05408c3@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes snip >> > >> 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 ~ +=+ > whilst this is a laudable intention, I fear the consequences. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 1 03:08:06 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA25285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 03:08:06 +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 DAA25280 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 03:07:58 +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 IAA03261; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 08:07:49 -0800 Message-Id: <200001311607.IAA03261@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Defective claim or table result? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 31 Jan 2000 08:37:10 PST." <3.0.1.32.20000131083710.006ec2bc@pop.cais.com> Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 08:07:49 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > At 08:54 PM 1/30/00 +0800, Derrick wrote: > > >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 ? > > Three tricks to N-S. L68D: "After any claim... play ceases. All play > subsequent to a claim... shall be voided by the Director." So the ruling > cannot be affected by what occurred after the claim; it must be the same > regardless of whether N-S played on and failed to get their ruff, or played > on and got their ruff, or didn't play on at all. We must rule as though > the contestants hadn't played on, so the fact that South, when he did so, > committed a presumably "egregious" error in failing to get his ruff cannot > matter to the adjudicated outcome. It seems to me that the problem is more complex. The Laws say that play subsequent to the claim is voided, but then what, if anything, can we assume happened after the claim? If *everything* that happens get voided, then does that mean they played the board, failed to agree on a result and failed to score the board, then went on to the next board? I suppose this is possible. I'm not sure what the Laws have to say about a situation like this. (Law 79A says the number of tricks shall be agreed on before all four hands are returned, and 79B says what happens if there's disagreement; but this Law doesn't say anything about what happens if there is neither agreement nor disagreement.) The other possibility is that, while the *play* is voided according to L68D, the contestants did agree on a score. I don't think the Laws specifically say that this is voided. In fact, I'm not at all clear on how the Laws handle this. My main question is, when they agreed on the score, does this constitute acquiescence? Looking at L69A, I suspect that it does, although I have doubts. If acquiescence did occur, then 69B kicks in, and the table result can get adjusted only if the defense's third trick "could not, in the Director's judgement, be lost by any normal [i.e. not irrational] play of the remaining cards." Grattan argued that it should be obvious for N-S to do the correct thing, but the fact that N-S played incorrectly when play was continued (illegally) is, I think, evidence that the incorrect play is not irrational for "fairly experienced" players such as N-S are. So if L69B applies, then the table result might have to stand. So I think we can make a case for letting the table result stand. I wonder if we can make a case for a split score? That's what my gut tells me is the result I'd *like* to see these players get: E-W get -100, N-S get -650. Of course, if the TD had been called as soon as North protested, this would be a no-brainer: 10 tricks to declarer. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 1 03:37:10 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA25382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 03:37:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin.axion.bt.co.uk (marvin.axion.bt.co.uk [132.146.16.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA25377 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 03:37:00 +1100 (EST) From: david.burn@bt.com Received: from cclmsent02.lon.bt.com by marvin (local) with ESMTP; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 16:34:29 +0000 Received: by cclmsent02.lon.bt.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.23) id ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 16:33:27 -0000 Message-ID: To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 16:33:16 -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 Grattan wrote: [GE] I am trying to be careful not to suggest that there is a promulgated definition of 'equity'. Without such a definition the various opinions as to what it is can stand up in the communities where they are held. My personal opinion, and that shared in some circles in which I move, is one that I did put on blml in an earlier message. First, this asserts that the 'equity' involved is an equity between the sides at the table, not an abstract equity linked to some idea of the morality of the situation. Quite so. If one took the view that no one ever commits an infraction on purpose, this would indeed be the equity that should be restored to both sides in all cases. But this simply is not true - people who break L74D2 by dithering in front of dummy's king-jack when they don't have the ace are not doing this by accident. [GE] It says that the object of the adjustment is not to punish, which means that the offenders do not have their share of the equity taken away in the score adjustment; if it is adjudged appropriate to punish this is done by a procedural penalty. The Laws go out of their way to provide us with mechanisms for not having to call people cheats while adjusting the score as if they were cheating. That is an expedient thing for the Laws to do, since players would otherwise be offended by perceived personal slurs when none is intended. (Of course, if we had a fixed-penalty system, there would be no need for most of this, but...). If we hand out procedural penalties, we assert that the player being penalised committed his infraction knowingly - that is, we call the player a cheat. Moreover, there would be the temptation to fall into what we might call the "Kaplan fallacy" - that of thinking that the enormity of an offence, and hence the size of an appropriate penalty, is a function of the size of the swing involved. [GE] The outcome is that the non-offending side receives an award representing the restoration of their expectations prior to the infraction; the offending side receives the reciprocal of that, less the amount of any procedural penalty applied (which probably requires that a PP should be applied with rather more regularity than has been the case under the procedures hitherto). Indeed. But who will bell the cat? I am not sure that directors at international level are ready to dish out procedural penalties which, in effect, accuse international players of cheating. I am completely sure that directors in clubs and local tournaments are not going to adopt such an approach. Do not get me wrong - I approve entirely in theory of the process that Grattan is suggesting, since I think it would produce the right result in the great majority of cases if correctly and consistently applied. And I freely concede that my way of producing the right result is not as clean or as well-founded as Grattan's suggestion, since my notion that one can apply L12C3 for the non-offenders and L12C2 for the offenders is at least questionable. [GE] Actually it seems to me that through arrival on different buses DB and I end up not far from each other in the same street. The way I do things - work out the equity, give the non-offenders that, then see if the offenders deserve to lose some or all of their equity - has the same effect as "give both sides the same weighted score and then penalise the offenders". The direct approach, which would explicitly give both sides the same score and then explicitly penalise the offenders, will naturally arrive at the same position in terms of result. But Grattan will have to tell the players that they are being penalised for cheating, whereas I will not; moreover, Grattan will have to draw up a tariff of procedural penalties for different types of offence and then ensure that this is consistently applied across the game, whereas I will not. The chief advantage of my method is that the score for the offenders is directly linked to the amount of equity they "deserve" to lose as a result of their infraction. That is, it produces the effect that Kaplan was striving for when he applied the fallacy referred to above, but it does so in a way that does not violate the notion that a procedural penalty is appropriate only for an offence against procedure. [GE] In the rulings and in appeals committees in Bermuda we took a significant step in the direction of this same street. (Joan reading this would perhaps know how far she feels I am right; and whether she shares my view that we ought to look more closely at a PP when we have awarded a 12C3 score.) Of course we *ought* - we ought to have done it long ago. But we haven't. We have chosen to fill the Laws with "could have knowns" and "demonstrably have been suggesteds" so that we don't have to call a cheat a cheat. If we're really going to attempt to reverse this trend, then I am all in favour. Just as soon as my bullet-proof body armour arrives, I will join the crusade. Until then, you will find me as usual in the middle of the boat, taking care not to do any rocking. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 1 04:30:24 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA25585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 04:30:24 +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 EAA25570 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 04:30:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-0-178.access.net.il [213.8.0.178] (may be forged)) by loger.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA01170; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 19:28:45 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3895C6A9.87EA7D20@zahav.net.il> Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 19:30:17 +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: Peter Gill CC: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Defective claim or table result? References: <006e01bf6b30$8f524900$cde0868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hehehehe David ..and Peter I see your sense of humor is still alive in that very cold and wet continent these days....... Why such a long explanation ? The play ceased and there is no table result.!!!!!! What a TD (I think TD = Tortured David ) and an AC (AC= Another Corpse) will decide afterwards is not relevant anymore... Dany Peter Gill wrote: > > >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 Tue Feb 1 07:17:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA26058 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 07:17:15 +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 HAA26053 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 07:17:07 +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 ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 12:16:59 -0800 Message-ID: <02e401bf6c28$038b0f80$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 12:12:07 -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 John Probst wrote: > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Marvin French wrote: > snip > >> > > >> 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"? > >> > >> > >+=+ 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 ~ +=+ > > > whilst this is a laudable intention, I fear the consequences. > The damage done to the fairness of matchpoint pair contests by the unearned windfalls coming from opposing mechanical infractions has always bothered me. It doesn't seem right that the NOS should get the benefit of these mistakes, which are not an integral part of the game. This is one area where "protecting the field" makes a lot of sense. We are trying to determine who bids and plays the best, not who is the luckiest. One huge plus for computerized bridge play is that revokes, LOOTs, BOOTs, etc., are made impossible by the software. The programmers realize that such mechanical errors are a detriment to the game, not a necessary ingredient. Maybe in one-on-one play, but not when there is a field of pairs comparing scores. Like John, while I applaud the idea of protecting the field by eliminating such windfalls, I would fear the consequences if the Laws were changed to permit it. Maybe some day we will all play tournament bridge with little hand-held voice-recognizing computers, hooked up together in a LAN created for the event. Then the problem will go away. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 1 07:59:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA26217 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 07:59:28 +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 HAA26211 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 07:59:21 +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 PAA23101 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 15:59:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA28361 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 15:59:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 15:59:08 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200001312059.PAA28361@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: david.burn@bt.com > 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. If this approach prevails, won't "avg+" for an artificial score become 50% or the average of one's score on the other boards? > The difficulty is, of > course, that we are dealing with a superposition of states, and we have no > way of collapsing the wave function. Apt. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 1 08:21:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA26288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 08:21:18 +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 IAA26283 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 08:21:10 +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 QAA23973 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 16:21:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA28396 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 16:21:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 16:21:04 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200001312121.QAA28396@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > The outcome is that the non-offending side receives > an award representing the restoration of their > expectations prior to the infraction; the offending side > receives the reciprocal of that, less the amount of any > procedural penalty applied (which probably requires > that a PP should be applied with rather more regularity > than has been the case under the procedures hitherto). I hope this will be thought through more carefully. At first glance, it sounds fair to restore this amount of 'equity', but keep in mind that you are also reducing variance. Thus the NOS is deprived of a chance to have an unusually good score, and their chance of winning the event is thereby reduced. Is this what you want? Further, if fairness is to be maintained, there will have to be a whole parallel set of rules prescribing the size of PP's for various infractions. Absent frequent PP's, there will be little if any incentive to avoid infractions. Finally, there is the philosophical question. Bridge is a game of mistakes. Why shouldn't the mistake of a law infraction result in a lower score, just as does the mistake of choosing a bad bid or wrong play? In most (all?) sports, an infraction of the rules gives the opposing side a useful advantage, i.e. at least an increased chance of scoring well. Why shouldn't the same apply to bridge? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 1 08:42:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA26339 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 08:42:07 +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 IAA26334 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 08:42:00 +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 NAA09657; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 13:41:51 -0800 Message-Id: <200001312141.NAA09657@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 31 Jan 2000 12:12:07 PST." <02e401bf6c28$038b0f80$16991e18@san.rr.com> Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 13:41:53 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin French wrote: > The damage done to the fairness of matchpoint pair contests by the > unearned windfalls coming from opposing mechanical infractions has > always bothered me. My view, as I've expressed a number of times, is that an established revoke (which is what the proposed law changes deal with) is not merely a mechanical infraction, it's a failure to pay attention. It's one thing to pull the wrong card out of your hand and play it, and then notice that it's not the card you intended to pull out, and correct it immediately if it's a revoke (or say "oh s***" if it's not a revoke). Of course, you call the TD as soon as you notice. But when you play the wrong card face up on the table and don't notice that it's the wrong card, you're not paying sufficient attention. And I still don't see how the "damage done to the fairness of matchpoint pair contests" is any worse than the damage done every time I don't pay sufficient attention and do something stupid (but legal) that gives my opponents an unearned windfall. (Unfortunately, I probably do this sort of damage to almost every matchpoint event I enter.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 1 09:34:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA26522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 09:34:38 +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 JAA26517 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 09:34:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from default.maine.rr.com ([24.95.20.29]) by mail.maine.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with SMTP id com for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 17:33:34 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000131173120.0080c3c0@mail.maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@mail.maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 17:31:20 -0500 To: From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) In-Reply-To: <02e401bf6c28$038b0f80$16991e18@san.rr.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:12 PM 1/31/00 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >One huge plus for computerized bridge play is that revokes, LOOTs, >BOOTs, etc., are made impossible by the software. The programmers >realize that such mechanical errors are a detriment to the game, >not a necessary ingredient. More likely it is easier to program in such a way that input from ony one players is expected at any one time. >Maybe some day we will all play tournament bridge with little >hand-held voice-recognizing computers, hooked up together in a LAN >created for the event. Then the problem will go away. Why voice recognizing? It would be much quieter if input was mechanical. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 1 10:19:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA26638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 10:19:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from fe170.worldonline.dk (fe170.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.199]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA26633 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 10:19:43 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <200001312319.KAA26633@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: (qmail 971 invoked by uid 0); 31 Jan 2000 23:19:32 -0000 Received: from 96.ppp1-28.image.dk (HELO idefix) (212.54.83.224) by fe170.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 31 Jan 2000 23:19:32 -0000 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 00:19:48 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT 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 Grattan wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jesper Dybdal > > 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. Not mine! I specifically went on record disliking the dubious legality. In general, I support giving the TDs the right to use the procedure authorized in L12C3. -- Jens og Bodil, hjemme http://www.alesia.dk/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 1 11:00:29 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA26808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 11:00:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA26803 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 11:00:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.230] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12FQjl-000Oth-00; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 00:00:05 +0000 Message-ID: <000701bf6c47$79128d40$e65408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: References: Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 22:06:51 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 31, 2000 4:33 PM Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) > --------- \x/ ---------- > > If one took the view that no one ever commits an infraction on > purpose, this would indeed be the equity that should be restored to both > sides in all cases. But this simply is not true - people who break L74D2 by > dithering in front of dummy's king-jack when they don't have the ace are not > doing this by accident. > -------- \x/ ---------- > > The Laws go out of their way to provide us with mechanisms for not having to > call people cheats while adjusting the score as if they were cheating. That > is an expedient thing for the Laws to do, since players would otherwise be > offended by perceived personal slurs when none is intended. (Of course, if > we had a fixed-penalty system, there would be no need for most of this, > but...). If we hand out procedural penalties, we assert that the player > being penalised committed his infraction knowingly - that is, we call the > player a cheat. Moreover, there would be the temptation to fall into what we > might call the "Kaplan fallacy" - that of thinking that the enormity of an > offence, and hence the size of an appropriate penalty, is a function of the > size of the swing involved. > ----------- \x/ ------------- > Indeed. But who will bell the cat? I am not sure that directors at > international level are ready to dish out procedural penalties which, in > effect, accuse international players of cheating. I am completely sure that > directors in clubs and local tournaments are not going to adopt such an > approach. Do not get me wrong - I approve entirely in theory of the process > that Grattan is suggesting, since I think it would produce the right result > in the great majority of cases if correctly and consistently applied. And I > freely concede that my way of producing the right result is not as clean or > as well-founded as Grattan's suggestion, since my notion that one can apply > L12C3 for the non-offenders and L12C2 for the offenders is at least > questionable. > ---------- \x/ ---------- > > The way I do things - work out the equity, give the non-offenders that, then > see if the offenders deserve to lose some or all of their equity - has the > same effect as "give both sides the same weighted score and then penalise > the offenders". The direct approach, which would explicitly give both sides > the same score and then explicitly penalise the offenders, will naturally > arrive at the same position in terms of result. > > But Grattan will have to tell the players that they are being penalised for > cheating, whereas I will not; moreover, Grattan will have to draw up a > tariff of procedural penalties for different types of offence and then > ensure that this is consistently applied across the game, whereas I will > not. The chief advantage of my method is that the score for the offenders is > directly linked to the amount of equity they "deserve" to lose as a result > of their infraction. That is, it produces the effect that Kaplan was > striving for when he applied the fallacy referred to above, but it does so > in a way that does not violate the notion that a procedural penalty is > appropriate only for an offence against procedure. > ----------- \x/ --------- > > Of course we *ought* - we ought to have done it long ago. But we haven't. We > have chosen to fill the Laws with "could have knowns" and "demonstrably have > been suggesteds" so that we don't have to call a cheat a cheat. If we're > really going to attempt to reverse this trend, then I am all in favour. Just > as soon as my bullet-proof body armour arrives, I will join the crusade. > Until then, you will find me as usual in the middle of the boat, taking care > not to do any rocking. > > David Burn > London, England +=+ Your arguments are reasonably put. It would be foolish to suppose that we can reach the Promised Land without toil and without mountains to climb. But we are put where we are to surmount the difficulties, not to cave in when we face them, and solutions shall be found. I do not fear the 'cheat' word because I think we will be making no such accusation; penalties for breaches of correct procedure make no remark as to motivation - we cover lapses of attention, carelessness, malice, ignorance, thoughtlessness, stupidity, all with the one umbrella - "your procedure was contrary to law and is subject for this reason to a penalty", without any allegation as to how it chanced to occur. It is hardly wise to pursue detail here and now. Grattan Endicott Liverpool, Merseyside. +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 1 11:42:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA26927 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 11:42:23 +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 LAA26922 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 11:42:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.247] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12FROQ-0000Df-00; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 00:42:07 +0000 Message-ID: <004501bf6c4d$581de8e0$e65408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: References: <200001312319.KAA26633@octavia.anu.edu.au> Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 00:38:39 -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 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 31, 2000 11:19 PM Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda > Not mine! I specifically went on record disliking the dubious > legality. In general, I support giving the TDs the right to use the > procedure authorized in L12C3. > +=+ OK and I did not have you in mind. In the meantime, let's just allow that the project is going ahead despite the failure of the WBFLC to grant the request of the Lausanne Group for a Law change. That was our preferred route, but since the gate is not open we are going by a different path with WBF approval. On the basis of the Geneva judgment there is nothing dubious about the legality; and I do not think views we express on blml count for much on the subject of legality when the 'supreme court' has decided it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 1 11:47:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA26954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 11:47:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from fb02.eng00.mindspring.net (fb02.eng00.mindspring.net [207.69.229.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA26949 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 11:47:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2iveieg.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.208]) by fb02.eng00.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA30121 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 19:47:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000131194430.01225364@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 19:44:30 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Automatic penalties and UI In-Reply-To: <002c01bf6b0a$d58e9700$b25408c3@dodona> References: <46c69ssqgd6fujtj7i5kcqj35abpbu0vb5@bilbo.dit.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:19 AM 1/30/00 -0000, Grattan wrote: >----- 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? Surprisingly, yes. It is necessary also to establish that the UI suggested the actual action taken over the less successful LA's. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 1 13:17:38 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA27118 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 13:17:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com [139.134.5.164]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA27113 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 13:17:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ca407916 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 12:16:17 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-94-178.tmns.net.au ([139.134.94.178]) by mail4.bigpond.com (Claudes-Cheesy-MailRouter V2.7 7/1293008); 01 Feb 2000 12:16:15 Message-ID: <00e701bf6c5a$0a0ace40$b25e868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Defective claim or table result? Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 13:14:14 +1100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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, David here, masquerading as Peter Gill. Adam B wrote >Eric Landau wrote: >> Three tricks to N-S. L68D: "After any claim... play ceases. All play >> subsequent to a claim... shall be voided by the Director." So the ruling >> cannot be affected by what occurred after the claim; it must be the same >> regardless of whether N-S played on and failed to get their ruff, or played >> on and got their ruff, or didn't play on at all. We must rule as though >> the contestants hadn't played on, so the fact that South, when he did so, >> committed a presumably "egregious" error in failing to get his ruff cannot >> matter to the adjudicated outcome. Yes, agreed. >It seems to me that the problem is more complex. The Laws say that >play subsequent to the claim is voided, but then what, if anything, >can we assume happened after the claim? > >If *everything* that happens get voided, then does that mean they >played the board, failed to agree on a result and failed to score the >board, then went on to the next board? I suppose this is possible. >I'm not sure what the Laws have to say about a situation like this. >(Law 79A says the number of tricks shall be agreed on before all four >hands are returned, and 79B says what happens if there's disagreement; >but this Law doesn't say anything about what happens if there is >neither agreement nor disagreement.) The number of tricks made in the voided play was agreed so there was no breach of L79A. Irrelevant of course. Anyway, play is voided does not mean everything is voided. >The other possibility is that, while the *play* is voided according to >L68D, the contestants did agree on a score. I don't think the Laws >specifically say that this is voided. In fact, I'm not at all clear >on how the Laws handle this. My main question is, when they agreed on >the score, does this constitute acquiescence? Looking at L69A, I >suspect that it does, although I have doubts. If acquiescence did >occur, then 69B kicks in, and the table result can get adjusted only >if the defense's third trick "could not, in the Director's judgement, >be lost by any normal [i.e. not irrational] play of the remaining >cards." Grattan argued that it should be obvious for N-S to do the >correct thing, but the fact that N-S played incorrectly when play was >continued (illegally) is, I think, evidence that the incorrect play is >not irrational for "fairly experienced" players such as N-S are. So >if L69B applies, then the table result might have to stand. What is the point of all this? We have a long-term agreed normal procedure. L68D says play is voided - OK, that means the *play* after the claim did not happen for rulings purposes. But where does L69A come into it? The non-claimers did not assent to anything. Furthermore, this type of argument in other situations where it is relevant [unlike here] is one of the many reaons why I dislike the NAmerican method of testing for damage during a hand by asking a player what he would do. He might do one thing, he might do another, and giving one particular view **and commiting him to it** is not fair. In this case we have seen what actually happened. All that proves is that it is possible to miss the correct defence not that the players will every time or in different circumstances. What different circumstances? Play after a claim is diifferent because the non-claimers know something more about the hand. >So I think we can make a case for letting the table result stand. I >wonder if we can make a case for a split score? That's what my gut >tells me is the result I'd *like* to see these players get: E-W get >-100, N-S get -650. Why? Surely it is time that this list realised the difference between penalties and equity. Despite the Scope and mutlifarioius strange posts on BLML the Laws do cover penalty situations. The correct result here by Law is clearly NS+100 under L70. Both sides were plonkers, true, but that is because neither side followed correct procedure, and that is a matter for L90A [sorry Marv]. Fine them as much as you like, but don't mangle a contested claim ruling. Anyway, if you want to make a claim for a split score, first find me a Law that permits it. >Of course, if the TD had been called as soon as North protested, this >would be a no-brainer: 10 tricks to declarer. Exactly - that is why it still is. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 1 13:21:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA27140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 13:21:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com [139.134.5.164]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA27134 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 13:21:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id sa408010 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 12:20:34 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-94-178.tmns.net.au ([139.134.94.178]) by mail4.bigpond.com (Claudes-Manipulative-MailRouter V2.7 7/1293910); 01 Feb 2000 12:20:33 Message-ID: <00f801bf6c5a$a3c7cce0$b25e868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Defective claim or table result? Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 13:18:32 +1100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Hehehehe David ..and Peter > >I see your sense of humor is still alive in that very cold and wet >continent these days....... Why such a long explanation ? > >The play ceased and there is no table result.!!!!!! I suppose a thought it might be helpful to actually give a ruling when asked rather than a useless and uninformative comment. >What a TD (I think TD = Tortured David ) and an AC (AC= Another Corpse) >will decide afterwards is not relevant anymore... Very helpful. David Stevenson From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 1 14:12:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA27309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 14:12:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from southgate.cyberway.com.sg (southgate.cyberway.com.sg [203.116.1.188]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA27302 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 14:12:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from derrickh.cteru.gov.sg ([203.116.18.228]) by southgate.cyberway.com.sg (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA16051; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 11:11:29 +0800 (SST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000201110509.007b1100@pop.singnet.com.sg> X-Sender: yanhoon@pop.singnet.com.sg X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 11:05:09 +0800 To: "Peter Gill" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" From: derrick heng Subject: Re: Defective claim or table result? In-Reply-To: <00e701bf6c5a$0a0ace40$b25e868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 13:14 01/02/00 +1100, Peter Gill wrote: > Hi, David here, masquerading as Peter Gill. > >Adam B wrote >>It seems to me that the problem is more complex. The Laws say that >>play subsequent to the claim is voided, but then what, if anything, >>can we assume happened after the claim? >> >>If *everything* that happens get voided, then does that mean they >>played the board, failed to agree on a result and failed to score the >>board, then went on to the next board? I suppose this is possible. >>I'm not sure what the Laws have to say about a situation like this. >>(Law 79A says the number of tricks shall be agreed on before all four >>hands are returned, and 79B says what happens if there's disagreement; >>but this Law doesn't say anything about what happens if there is >>neither agreement nor disagreement.) > > The number of tricks made in the voided play was agreed so there >was no breach of L79A. Irrelevant of course. Anyway, play is voided >does not mean everything is voided. > > >>The other possibility is that, while the *play* is voided according to >>L68D, the contestants did agree on a score. I don't think the Laws >>specifically say that this is voided. In fact, I'm not at all clear >>on how the Laws handle this. My main question is, when they agreed on >>the score, does this constitute acquiescence? Looking at L69A, I >>suspect that it does, although I have doubts. If acquiescence did >>occur, then 69B kicks in, and the table result can get adjusted only >>if the defense's third trick "could not, in the Director's judgement, >>be lost by any normal [i.e. not irrational] play of the remaining >>cards." Grattan argued that it should be obvious for N-S to do the >>correct thing, but the fact that N-S played incorrectly when play was >>continued (illegally) is, I think, evidence that the incorrect play is >>not irrational for "fairly experienced" players such as N-S are. So >>if L69B applies, then the table result might have to stand. > > What is the point of all this? We have a long-term agreed normal >procedure. L68D says play is voided - OK, that means the *play* >after the claim did not happen for rulings purposes. But where does >L69A come into it? The non-claimers did not assent to anything. > I believe the point Adam is trying to make and which deserves clarification is whether the act of playing on and assenting to the result of the play (i.e. 5H making 5) constitutes acquiecence of the claim. In which case one would arguably have to rule under retracted acquiecence. I would argue not as this acceptance of the result of "non-bridge" after the claim by the defenders was likely made in ignorance of their rights under the law on claims. Opinions? regards Derrick From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 1 16:55:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA27772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 16:55:33 +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 QAA27766 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 16:55:25 +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 ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 21:55:17 -0800 Message-ID: <033801bf6c78$c6b21c60$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: L12C2 Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 21:53:42 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Would some kind linguist help me with my French-to-English translations of these words from the French version of the Laws? (Without regard to the English from which they were taken, please.) - le camp non fautif marque le résultat le plus favorable qu'il aurait pu vraisemblablement obtenir si l'irrégularité n'avait pas eu lieu, the non-offending side is assigned the most favorable result that it could likely have obtained if the irregularity had not occurred. - le camp fautif marque le résultat défavorable le plus probable. the offending side is assigned the result with the greatest probability of being the most unfavorable. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 1 17:04:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA27812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 17:04:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA27807 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 17:04:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 22:03:58 -0800 Message-ID: <033e01bf6c79$fd6a2da0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200001312141.NAA09657@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 22:02:53 -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 > Marvin French wrote: > > > The damage done to the fairness of matchpoint pair contests by the > > unearned windfalls coming from opposing mechanical infractions has > > always bothered me. > > My view, as I've expressed a number of times, is that an established > revoke (which is what the proposed law changes deal with) is not > merely a mechanical infraction, it's a failure to pay attention. It's > one thing to pull the wrong card out of your hand and play it, and > then notice that it's not the card you intended to pull out, and > correct it immediately if it's a revoke (or say "oh s***" if it's not > a revoke). Of course, you call the TD as soon as you notice. But > when you play the wrong card face up on the table and don't notice > that it's the wrong card, you're not paying sufficient attention. And > I still don't see how the "damage done to the fairness of matchpoint > pair contests" is any worse than the damage done every time I don't > pay sufficient attention and do something stupid (but legal) that > gives my opponents an unearned windfall. (Unfortunately, I probably > do this sort of damage to almost every matchpoint event I enter.) > Then you think computer programmers are wrong to preclude the possibility of mechanical errors by players? I've never heard that opinion before. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 1 17:18:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA27846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 17:18:35 +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 RAA27841 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 17:18:28 +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 ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 22:18:21 -0800 Message-ID: <034401bf6c7b$ff029600$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000131173120.0080c3c0@mail.maine.rr.com> Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 22:17:15 -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 Tim Goodwin wrote: > At 12:12 PM 1/31/00 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: > >One huge plus for computerized bridge play is that revokes, LOOTs, > >BOOTs, etc., are made impossible by the software. The programmers > >realize that such mechanical errors are a detriment to the game, > >not a necessary ingredient. > > More likely it is easier to program in such a way that input from ony one > players is expected at any one time. > > >Maybe some day we will all play tournament bridge with little > >hand-held voice-recognizing computers, hooked up together in a LAN > >created for the event. Then the problem will go away. > > Why voice recognizing? It would be much quieter if input was mechanical. Of course you must whisper, which will be a challenge to the software people. I was thinking of a small-monitor no-keyboard device that could be carried in a purse. Besides, the most frequent objection that I hear in regard to computer bridge is from people who have keyboard phobia. While they are dying out fast, there are too many around to make normal keyboard input the standard. Maybe a small bridge-dedicated keyboard (with pips, etc.) would be satisfactory to them. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 1 18:46:02 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA28086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 18:46:02 +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 SAA28081 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 18:45:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.177.152] (helo=davidburn) by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12FY0Q-0003Hp-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 07:45:46 +0000 Message-ID: <002d01bf6c87$ac042200$98b101d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200001312121.QAA28396@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 07:40:53 -0000 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve wrote: > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > The outcome is that the non-offending side receives > > an award representing the restoration of their > > expectations prior to the infraction; the offending side > > receives the reciprocal of that, less the amount of any > > procedural penalty applied (which probably requires > > that a PP should be applied with rather more regularity > > than has been the case under the procedures hitherto). > > I hope this will be thought through more carefully. At first glance, > it sounds fair to restore this amount of 'equity', but keep in mind > that you are also reducing variance. Thus the NOS is deprived of a > chance to have an unusually good score, and their chance of winning the > event is thereby reduced. Is this what you want? Well, the NOS is also deprived of a chance to have an unusually bad score, and their chance of winning the event is thereby increased. I have always thought that the best we can do is to restore as far as possible equity in a single deal, and leave the result of the event to look after itself. Technically, when one awards a weighted aggregate score (say, 60% of plus 620 and 40% of minus 100), one might convert that not merely to an IMP average but to a Victory Point average if that is the method of scoring - but that has always seemed to me to be going too far. > Further, if fairness is to be maintained, there will have to be a whole > parallel set of rules prescribing the size of PP's for various > infractions. Absent frequent PP's, there will be little if any > incentive to avoid infractions. It's not so much a question of "frequent" - these PPs would have to be applied every time they were "earned" in order for the system to be at all effective. Moreover, there is a difficulty with penalties of fixed size (note that this is not the same as a fixed-penalty system). If the size of the penalty is less than the size of the potential gain from an infraction, then there will be no incentive to avoid committing an infraction on a particular occasion. Of course, we ought not to be talking in terms of incentives if we hold to the belief that no one breaks the rules on purpose anyway. > Finally, there is the philosophical question. Bridge is a game of > mistakes. Why shouldn't the mistake of a law infraction result in a > lower score, just as does the mistake of choosing a bad bid or wrong > play? In most (all?) sports, an infraction of the rules gives the > opposing side a useful advantage, i.e. at least an increased chance > of scoring well. Why shouldn't the same apply to bridge? A law infraction will result in a lower score for the offenders, not merely the chance of one. The same cannot, of course, be said of a misbid or a misplay - while those often result in lower scores, this does not always happen. Moreover, the non-offending side will probably receive an advantage from the fact that their result will always match their expectation; if I received 25% of the matchpoints every time I bid a 25% game, I would be a more successful player than I am. You may tell me that I ought to bid better, but I'm afraid it's too late for that! David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 1 20:02:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA28582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 20:02:28 +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 UAA28577 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 20:02:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.106] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12FZ9V-0008qi-00; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 08:59:13 +0000 Message-ID: <003b01bf6c92$ca8063a0$6a5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Gill" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" , "derrick heng" References: <3.0.5.32.20000201110509.007b1100@pop.singnet.com.sg> Subject: Re: Defective claim or table result? Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 08:59:51 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Peter Gill ; Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2000 3:05 AM Subject: Re: Defective claim or table result? > > At 13:14 01/02/00 +1100, Peter Gill wrote: > > Hi, David here, masquerading as Peter Gill. > > > >Adam B wrote > > > > > The number of tricks made in the voided play was agreed so there > >was no breach of L79A. Irrelevant of course. Anyway, play is voided > >does not mean everything is voided. > > +=+ Since the play did not take place there was nothing to agree to. As far as I am concerned we are sitting with a disputed claim to be resolved by the Director and nothing 'happened' after the claim was disputed. The players have no power to agree to something outside of the laws and if they pretend to do so the Director must disregard it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 1 20:15:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA28720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 20:15:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from front2m.grolier.fr (front2m.grolier.fr [195.36.216.52]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA28714 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 20:15:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from club-internet.fr (ppp-175-17.velizy.club-internet.fr [195.36.175.17]) by front2m.grolier.fr (8.9.3/No_Relay+No_Spam_MGC990224) with ESMTP id KAA15079; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 10:11:34 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3896A4BA.F558D017@club-internet.fr> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 10:17:46 +0100 From: maxlamen X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [fr] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Marvin L. French" CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L12C2 X-Priority: 1 (Highest) References: <033801bf6c78$c6b21c60$16991e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all! I'm french (but not Marvin)."Club referee",- the lowest level in France as a matter of "TD"-, I read carefully all mails but the level is really too high for me. Here is how I would translate L12C2: not really "word to word" but almost. Bridgely yours Patrick LABORDE "Marvin L. French" a écrit : > Would some kind linguist help me with my French-to-English > translations of these words from the French version of the Laws? > (Without regard to the English from which they were taken, > please.) > > - le camp non fautif marque le résultat le plus favorable qu'il > aurait pu vraisemblablement obtenir si l'irrégularité n'avait pas > eu lieu, > > the non-offending side is assigned the most favorable result that > it could likely have obtained if the irregularity had not > occurred. (mlm) Not "it", but "he", ie the non-offending side. > > > - le camp fautif marque le résultat défavorable le plus probable. > > the offending side is assigned the result with the greatest > probability of being the most unfavorable. (mlm) the offending side is assigned the most probable unfavorable result > Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 1 20:51:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA29017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 20:51:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from front4.grolier.fr (front4.grolier.fr [194.158.96.54]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA29010 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 20:51:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from club-internet.fr (ppp-175-127.velizy.club-internet.fr [195.36.175.127]) by front4.grolier.fr (8.9.3/No_Relay+No_Spam_MGC990224) with ESMTP id KAA29592; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 10:51:28 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3896AD25.9D225DE3@club-internet.fr> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 10:53:42 +0100 From: maxlamen X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [fr] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Marvin L. French" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L12C2 X-Priority: 1 (Highest) References: <033801bf6c78$c6b21c60$16991e18@san.rr.com> <3896A4BA.F558D017@club-internet.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Re! According to "Robert and Collins Compact" dictionnary: Vraisemblablement(french)= in all likelihood, in all probability, probably Probable(french)= probable, likely. The French Code was firstly a translation (see Preface to French Edition) before being set definitively. As far as I know there were great discussions on the differences between probable and likely. Bridgely yours Patrick LABORDE maxlamen a écrit : > Hi all! > > I'm french (but not Marvin)."Club referee",- the lowest level in France as a matter of > "TD"-, I read carefully all mails but the level is really too high for me. > Here is how I would translate L12C2: not really "word to word" but almost. > > Bridgely yours > > Patrick LABORDE > > "Marvin L. French" a écrit : > > > Would some kind linguist help me with my French-to-English > > translations of these words from the French version of the Laws? > > (Without regard to the English from which they were taken, > > please.) > > > > - le camp non fautif marque le résultat le plus favorable qu'il > > aurait pu vraisemblablement obtenir si l'irrégularité n'avait pas > > eu lieu, > > > > the non-offending side is assigned the most favorable result that > > it could likely have obtained if the irregularity had not > > occurred. > > (mlm) Not "it", but "he", ie the non-offending side. > > > > > > > - le camp fautif marque le résultat défavorable le plus probable. > > > > the offending side is assigned the result with the greatest > > probability of being the most unfavorable. > > (mlm) the offending side is assigned the most probable unfavorable result > > > Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 1 20:58:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA29085 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 20:58:03 +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 UAA29078 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 20:57:53 +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 JAA21610 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 09:57:10 GMT Message-ID: <3896AE0E.C6FB337C@meteo.fr> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 10:57:34 +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: L12C2 References: <033801bf6c78$c6b21c60$16991e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" a écrit : > > Would some kind linguist help me with my French-to-English > translations of these words from the French version of the Laws? > (Without regard to the English from which they were taken, > please.) I can understand pretty well what is the meaning of the french text, but i am not sure to be able to express it by an english translation! > > - le camp non fautif marque le résultat le plus favorable qu'il > aurait pu vraisemblablement obtenir si l'irrégularité n'avait pas > eu lieu, > > the non-offending side is assigned the most favorable result that > it could likely have obtained if the irregularity had not > occurred. agreed > > - le camp fautif marque le résultat défavorable le plus probable. > > the offending side is assigned the result with the greatest > probability of being the most unfavorable. it's rather: "... the result which has the greatest probability among the list of unfavorable results" maybe the French text is not, in this instance, an accurate transposition of the writing of L12. JP Rocafort > > Marv (Marvin L. French) -- ___________________________________________________ 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 Feb 1 22:13:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA29752 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 22:13:25 +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 WAA29747 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 22:13:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from pb8s01a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.161.185] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt11-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12FExY-0001Cl-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 11:25:33 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Helpful? Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 11:19:49 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf6ca6$40da9120$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 Club game N/S are husband and wife who do not play together often. N/S average club players, E/W good tournament players. N leads H10.from 10965. Dummy hits with KJ84. Declarer W asks S if the lead of the 10 promises an honour. Answer = Yes. Dummy plays small, S plays small and Dec wins HA. Later in the game, Dec plays a small H towards dummy N plays H5,and S, looking at now bare HQ, and realising that she should have said "No", offers the gratuitous "Do not take the finesse" Their agreement is 10 from internal sequence, top of bad suit, HiLo from doubletons, 10 from 10/9 etc. Dec, takes the finesse, loses to the HQ and calls the TD. He claims he was given misinformation. How do you rule? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 00:13:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA00453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 00:13:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.maine.rr.com (mail.maine.rr.com [204.210.65.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA00448 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 00:13:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from default.maine.rr.com ([24.95.20.29]) by mail.maine.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with SMTP id com; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 08:12:14 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000201080958.007d5100@mail.maine.rr.com> X-Sender: thg@mail.maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 08:09:58 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: Tim Goodwin Subject: input device In-Reply-To: <034401bf6c7b$ff029600$16991e18@san.rr.com> References: <3.0.6.32.20000131173120.0080c3c0@mail.maine.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:17 PM 1/31/00 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: > >Of course you must whisper, which will be a challenge to the software >people. I was thinking of a small-monitor no-keyboard device that could be >carried in a purse. > >Besides, the most frequent objection that I hear in regard to computer >bridge is from people who have keyboard phobia. While they are dying out >fast, there are too many around to make normal keyboard input the standard. >Maybe a small bridge-dedicated keyboard (with pips, etc.) would be >satisfactory to them. A small device (like a PalmPilot) could have a pen for input directly to the screen. Character recognition is getting better and better. Some old folks may object to keyboard input, but us young folks still know how to use a pen and we generally don't have new technology phobia. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 00:17:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA00488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 00:17:36 +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 AAA00477 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 00:17:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-25-120.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.25.120]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA22823 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 14:17:18 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3896DA7F.4E239668@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 14:07:11 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk david.burn@bt.com wrote: > [snip, you've read it] I agree with David. Almost. The NOs deserve the equitable result, probably upped somewhat in their favour, just to tell them that we believe them to be better than the field. The Os deserve the reverse treatment. But it would IMHO be wrong to always give them 0% of the better score, as DB suggests (that's what L12C2 gives). That too is a penalty that is linked to the enormity of the offence. How about something like : Field are 90% in game making, 45% of the time, failing 45%. Other 10% divided between some strange extreem results. Equity is 50% of making and 50% of failing. NOs get 60% of making and 40% of failing. Os get 30% of making and 70% of failing. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 00:17:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA00487 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 00:17:36 +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 AAA00475 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 00:17:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-25-120.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.25.120]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA22807 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 14:17:16 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3896D8C3.1EAC2E77@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 13:59:47 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) References: <001201bf6bed$28e6d1a0$618993c3@pacific> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > GE: > +=+ I am trying to be careful not to suggest that there > is a promulgated definition of 'equity'. Without such a > definition the various opinions as to what it is can > stand up in the communities where they are held. I agree that we should be careful in defining equity, and allow AC's to reach their decisions on their own, and perhaps draw our conclusions from what they decide. But I do not agree that this is needed to allow different communities to come up with different ideas of equity. > My personal opinion, and that shared in some > circles in which I move, is one that I did put on blml in > an earlier message. First, this asserts that the 'equity' > involved is an equity between the sides at the table, > not an abstract equity linked to some idea of the > morality of the situation. It says that the object of the > adjustment is not to punish, which means that the > offenders do not have their share of the equity taken > away in the score adjustment; if it is adjudged > appropriate to punish this is done by a procedural > penalty. Therefore the assessment is concerned with > the possible legal choices and actions of the players > from the instant prior to the infraction, and the effects > of these incorporated proportionately in a single > score adjustment awarded in common to both sides. > The outcome is that the non-offending side receives > an award representing the restoration of their > expectations prior to the infraction; the offending side > receives the reciprocal of that, less the amount of any > procedural penalty applied (which probably requires > that a PP should be applied with rather more regularity > than has been the case under the procedures hitherto). > Actually it seems to me that through arrival on > different buses DB and I end up not far from each > other in the same street. In the rulings and in appeals > committees in Bermuda we took a significant step > in the direction of this same street. (Joan reading this > would perhaps know how far she feels I am right; and > whether she shares my view that we ought to look more > closely at a PP when we have awarded a 12C3 score.) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I agree that equity is the result which is fair to either side. Whether the OS should receive 'equity' or something less is another matter. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 00:59:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA00783 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 00:59:13 +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 AAA00778 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 00:59:00 +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 OAA21350 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 14:56:25 +0100 Message-ID: <3896E5CB.A9ED6CE1@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 14:55:23 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: LOOT and a revoke Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I was about to put "an easy one" in the subject field but I recalled that some time ago John did something similar and started a thread long as a life sentence. So let it be a difficult and a complex Law problem :))) Last week my partner was declarer in 2D. At some point she played the ten of clubs from dummy taken by her RHO with the jack. So far so good. Losing this trick didn't seem to upset my dear vis-à-vis as she called for a low club from dummy. Her RHO failed to notice that and, being the proud possessor of the previous trick, attempted to cash the Ace of spades a few seconds later. Yes, you guessed it. He still had some small club in his hand. It looks to me that by putting his spade ace on the table he accepted the LOOT. So it means he revoked. That's the way I see things but I'd like some back up from the BLML learned men. It was a very friendly tournament, nobody besides me noticed anything, they played to board to the end, wrote down some result and everybody was happy. But supposed declarer calls the TD and asks for a ruling. What then? -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Feb 2 01:23:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA00891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 01:23:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin.axion.bt.co.uk (marvin.axion.bt.co.uk [132.146.16.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA00886 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 01:23:19 +1100 (EST) From: david.burn@bt.com Received: from chqlubnt02.lon.bt.com by marvin (local) with ESMTP; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 14:21:21 +0000 Received: by chqlubnt02.lon.bt.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.23) id ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 14:21:05 -0000 Message-ID: To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Helpful? Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 14:20:54 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.23) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne wrote: Club game N/S are husband and wife who do not play together often. N/S average club players, E/W good tournament players. N leads H10.from 10965. Dummy hits with KJ84. Declarer W asks S if the lead of the 10 promises an honour. Answer = Yes. This, while true, is not helpful. The lead of the ten always promises an honour. Dummy plays small, S plays small and Dec wins HA. Later in the game, Dec plays a small H towards dummy N plays H5,and S, looking at now bare HQ, and realising that she should have said "No", offers the gratuitous "Do not take the finesse" Their agreement is 10 from internal sequence, top of bad suit, HiLo from doubletons, 10 from 10/9 etc. Dec, takes the finesse, loses to the HQ and calls the TD. He claims he was given misinformation. How do you rule? Anne He was told nothing but the truth. That he chose to ignore it is his fault. Result stands, and declarer fined to the full extent of the Law for wasting official time. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 01:43:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA01000 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 01:43:24 +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 BAA00985 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 01:37:51 +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 PAA30303 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 15:36:29 +0100 Message-ID: <3896EF2F.6DE76B6C@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 15:35:27 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: Defective claim or table result? References: <00e701bf6c5a$0a0ace40$b25e868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Gill pressed the following keys: > > Furthermore, this type of argument in other situations where it is > relevant [unlike here] is one of the many reaons why I dislike the > NAmerican method of testing for damage during a hand by asking > a player what he would do. He might do one thing, he might do another, > and giving one particular view **and commiting him to it** is not fair. > In > this case we have seen what actually happened. All that proves is that > it is possible to miss the correct defence not that the players will > every > time or in different circumstances. > An excellent point, David (Peter?). Getting back to the rulling just imagine what happens when the play continues and someone makes a revoke or leads out of turn etc. Do we really want to take all this into account? By regarding the subsequent play as non-existent we simplify the whole ruling. This is anyway what the lawmakers wanted us to do: "play ceases". N'est-ce pas? -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Feb 2 02:03:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA00770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 00:57:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.69]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA00765 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 00:57:25 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.8.) id y.4e.127719f (3934); Tue, 1 Feb 2000 08:56:39 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4e.127719f.25c84017@aol.com> Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 08:56:39 EST Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda To: jensogbodil@alesia.dk, 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 1/31/00 6:21:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, JensOgBodil@alesia.dk writes: > Not mine! I specifically went on record disliking the dubious > legality. In general, I support giving the TDs the right to use the > procedure authorized in L12C3. > So, here I go again. Promised myself to only read, and I'm replying. What is "dubious legality" supposed to mean? When a Committee of the WBF, charged with doing exactly what it did, does, that, I guess that's "dubious legality" rather than dislke of what they did. I guess I'll have to agree with Grattan on this, most of the postings on this vein were from those who didn't like the substance. Of course not you, -- you said otherwise. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 02:05:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA01233 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 02:05:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin.axion.bt.co.uk (marvin.axion.bt.co.uk [132.146.16.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA01227 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 02:05:30 +1100 (EST) From: david.burn@bt.com Received: from cryndent01.mww.bt.com by marvin (local) with ESMTP; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 15:02:48 +0000 Received: by cryndent01.mww.bt.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.23) id ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 15:02:44 -0000 Message-ID: To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: LOOT and a revoke Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 15:02:31 -0000 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.23) 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 CAA01229 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Konrad wrote: I was about to put "an easy one" in the subject field but I recalled that some time ago John did something similar and started a thread long as a life sentence. So let it be a difficult and a complex Law problem :))) Last week my partner was declarer in 2D. At some point she played the ten of clubs from dummy taken by her RHO with the jack. So far so good. Losing this trick didn't seem to upset my dear vis-à-vis as she called for a low club from dummy. Her RHO failed to notice that and, being the proud possessor of the previous trick, attempted to cash the Ace of spades a few seconds later. Yes, you guessed it. He still had some small club in his hand. It looks to me that by putting his spade ace on the table he accepted the LOOT. So it means he revoked. That's the way I see things but I'd like some back up from the BLML learned men. It was a very friendly tournament, nobody besides me noticed anything, they played to board to the end, wrote down some result and everybody was happy. But supposed declarer calls the TD and asks for a ruling. What then? It is to be hoped that the TD will locate L41C: "If it was properly the turn to lead of an opponent of the player who led out of turn, that opponent may make his proper lead to the trick of the infraction without his card being deemed played to the irregular lead. When this occurs, the proper lead stands, and all cards played in error to this trick may be withdrawn without penalty." This may indeed be an easy one! David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 02:31:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA01309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 02:31:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com [139.134.5.164]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA01304 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 02:31:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ya429440 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 01:26:03 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-224-13.tmns.net.au ([139.134.224.13]) by mail4.bigpond.com (Claudes-Unconscious-MailRouter V2.7 7/1450118); 02 Feb 2000 01:26:03 Message-ID: <000c01bf6cc8$57cee8a0$0de0868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Defective claim or table result? Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 02:23:50 +1100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: derrick heng >I believe the point Adam is trying to make and which deserves clarification >is whether the act of playing on and assenting to the result of the play >(i.e. 5H making 5) constitutes acquiecence of the claim. > >In which case one would arguably have to rule under retracted acquiecence. But it isn't. They did not assent to the claim. You cannot take a Law about a specific situation and apply it to something totally and completely different. At no time did they assent **to the claim**. >I would argue not as this acceptance of the result of "non-bridge" after >the claim by the defenders was likely made in ignorance of their rights >under the law on claims. No, that's irrelevant. They did not acquiesce because they did not assent to the actual claim - and that is what acquiescence is according to the Law. Guess who! From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 02:37:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA01339 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 02:37:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [207.213.113.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA01334 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 02:37:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA25398; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 07:36:49 -0800 Message-Id: <200002011536.HAA25398@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 31 Jan 2000 22:02:53 PST." <033e01bf6c79$fd6a2da0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 07:36:50 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Marvin French wrote: > > > > > The damage done to the fairness of matchpoint pair contests by the > > > unearned windfalls coming from opposing mechanical infractions has > > > always bothered me. > > > > My view, as I've expressed a number of times, is that an established > > revoke (which is what the proposed law changes deal with) is not > > merely a mechanical infraction, it's a failure to pay attention. It's > > one thing to pull the wrong card out of your hand and play it, and > > then notice that it's not the card you intended to pull out, and > > correct it immediately if it's a revoke (or say "oh s***" if it's not > > a revoke). Of course, you call the TD as soon as you notice. But > > when you play the wrong card face up on the table and don't notice > > that it's the wrong card, you're not paying sufficient attention. And > > I still don't see how the "damage done to the fairness of matchpoint > > pair contests" is any worse than the damage done every time I don't > > pay sufficient attention and do something stupid (but legal) that > > gives my opponents an unearned windfall. (Unfortunately, I probably > > do this sort of damage to almost every matchpoint event I enter.) > > > Then you think computer programmers are wrong to preclude the possibility of > mechanical errors by players? I've never heard that opinion before. No, I think it's fine for programs like OKBridge to prevent these kinds of infractions from taking place. Yes, this means that in F2F bridge, there will be a few more "errors" than on OKBridge. Yes, on OKBridge, players are protected from such errors being committed at other tables, while remaining unprotected from legal stupidities; while in F2F bridge, matchpoint players may suffer from both legal and illegal stupidities occurring at other tables. No, this doesn't bother me. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 03:00:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA01451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 03:00:28 +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 DAA01444 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 03:00:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from meteo.fr (rubis.meteo.fr [137.129.5.28]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA12221 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 15:59:29 GMT Message-ID: <389702FA.D4A84601@meteo.fr> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 16:59:54 +0100 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: LOOT and a revoke References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk david.burn@bt.com a écrit : > > Konrad wrote: > > I was about to put "an easy one" in the subject > field but I recalled that some time ago John did something > similar and started a thread long as a life sentence. > So let it be a difficult and a complex Law problem :))) > Last week my partner was declarer in 2D. At some point > she played the ten of clubs from dummy taken by her RHO with the > jack. So far so good. > Losing this trick didn't seem to upset my dear vis-à-vis > as she called for a low club from dummy. Her RHO failed to notice > that and, being the proud possessor of the previous trick, > attempted to cash the Ace of spades a few seconds later. > Yes, you guessed it. He still had some small club in his hand. > It looks to me that by putting his spade ace on the table > he accepted the LOOT. So it means he revoked. That's the way I > see things but I'd like some back up from the BLML learned men. > It was a very friendly tournament, nobody besides me > noticed anything, they played to board to the end, wrote down > some result and everybody was happy. But supposed declarer > calls the TD and asks for a ruling. What then? > > It is to be hoped that the TD will locate L41C: i doubt 41C will be very helpful to that TD; maybe 53C? JP Rocafort > > "If it was properly the turn to lead of an opponent of the player who led > out of turn, that opponent may make his proper lead to the trick of the > infraction without his card being deemed played to the irregular lead. When > this occurs, the proper lead stands, and all cards played in error to this > trick may be withdrawn without penalty." > > This may indeed be an easy one! > > David Burn > London, England -- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 03:05:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA01481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 03:05:48 +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 DAA01476 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 03:05:37 +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 RAA16195 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 17:05:05 +0100 Message-ID: <389703F3.B465CBFC@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 17:04:03 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: L12C2 References: <033801bf6c78$c6b21c60$16991e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > Would some kind linguist help me with my French-to-English > translations of these words from the French version of the Laws? > (Without regard to the English from which they were taken, > please.) > > - le camp non fautif marque le résultat le plus favorable qu'il > aurait pu vraisemblablement obtenir si l'irrégularité n'avait pas > eu lieu, > > the non-offending side is assigned the most favorable result that > it could likely have obtained if the irregularity had not > occurred. > > - le camp fautif marque le résultat défavorable le plus probable. > > the offending side is assigned the result with the greatest > probability of being the most unfavorable. > > Marv (Marvin L. French) This is exactly a problem I posted on bridge@cena.fr some time ago. I believe this is a major error in the French translation. If you want another one: the French translation of the L70C2 - the expression "fort probable". This is my little hobby: I like to trace little differences between the translation and the original. The Polish translation, for instance, has a problem with L25 and the word "inadvertent" that is untranslatable to Polish. It is translated as "without a pause for thought" which is not exactly what it means. -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Krakow, Poland From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 03:31:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA01608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 03:31:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.emr.ca [132.156.47.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA01603 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 03:31:50 +1100 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA07158 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 11:31:36 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200002011631.LAA07158@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Vanderbilt hesitation ruling - not appealed To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 11:31:35 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Not exactly timely but an interesting one I think. >From the finals of the Vanderbilt (major North American KO.) Never appealed since it was moot. I'd be interested in hearing what others think. The relevant hand (West, Mike Becker) A87 Q AJ75 AKJ85 Becker Kamil 1C 1S 2D 2H (1) 2S (2) 3H (3) 4H (4) 4S (5) 5S 6S (1) artificial: potentially weak. All attempts to sign off start here as do any strong hands that can't be easily described. (2) non forcing. Most frequently 3=1=4=5 (though other shapes with 3 Spades and longer clubs than diamonds possible). A hand too strong for a single raise but too weak to invite game strongly (usually 16 to 18 HCP) (3) natural: Slam try, longer spades than hearts (4) encouraging: either both or neither minor suit aces (5) break in tempo. Director rolled the contract back to 4S. Becker-Kamil can I think be presumed to know their methods. The issue is as I see it whether pass of 4S is a LA. Quoting Jeff Rubens now, "If you write down some East hands worth a slam-try with only five-five, you'll see that it is clearly wrong for opener to pass four spades. The issue, really, is whether opener should drive to five or to six." And yet Becker gave a pretty good description of the hand (right down to the fact that 4H is encouraging) and partner signed off. It feels wrong to permit a bid over a slow sign-off. It may be clearly wrong on reflection to pass, but it's the kind of "mistake" that even players as good as Becker make all the time. And yet it doesn't feel right to assume that it's a LA for Becker. Perhaps the answer lies in one of Bobby Wolff's comments (1994 Appeals book) in a hesitation Blackwood case. (Almost a direct quote) Partner's hesitation denies the player the right to make an aggressive expert judgment. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 03:35:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA01626 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 03:35:20 +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 DAA01621 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 03:35:13 +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 IAA26260; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 08:35:04 -0800 Message-Id: <200002011635.IAA26260@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Defective claim or table result? In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 02 Feb 2000 02:23:50 PST." <000c01bf6cc8$57cee8a0$0de0868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 08:35:03 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Guess who wrote: > From: derrick heng > > >I believe the point Adam is trying to make and which deserves > clarification > >is whether the act of playing on and assenting to the result of the > play > >(i.e. 5H making 5) constitutes acquiecence of the claim. > > > >In which case one would arguably have to rule under retracted > acquiecence. > > But it isn't. They did not assent to the claim. You cannot take a > Law about a specific situation and apply it to something totally and > completely different. At no time did they assent **to the claim**. I agree. I should have read the words in L69A more carefully. I assume that if the players agreed (illegally) to play it out, and after a few tricks (in which they missed their opportunity for the ruff) N-S said something to the effect that they now see that the claim was valid, then L69 *would* take effect? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 03:52:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA01705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 03:52:38 +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 DAA01700 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 03:52:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id LAA19099 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 11:52:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA29192 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 11:52:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 11:52:11 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200002011652.LAA29192@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Defective claim or table result? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > David here, masquerading as Peter Gill. > But where does > L69A come into it? The non-claimers did not assent to anything. Well, they assented to "playing it out," an illegal procedure (presuming this "home" match was being played under the Laws of _Duplicate_ Contract Bridge.) No doubt their intent at the time was to accept the number of tricks given by the (illegal) play. Whether this constitutes an "acquiescence" under L69A is not so clear to me, but I don't think it would be crazy to rule that it does. Or maybe the acquiescence came at the end of the (illegal) play, when the score for eleven tricks was agreed. At any rate, while we can debate the legal effects, I don't see how we can deny that the non-claimers assented to _something_. Of course even if you decide acquiescence has occured, you may still rule 10 tricks under L71C. (I would, ignoring the results of the illegal play for the reasons David gives.) I think a medium PP to whichever side suggested "play it out" and a small PP to the other side for agreeing would not be out of place. Although if the conditions of contest failed to spell out a procedure for obtaining a ruling, maybe it's the organizers, not the players, who deserve the PP. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 04:18:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA01835 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 04:18:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA01830 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 04:18:28 +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 MAA20568 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 12:18:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA29244 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 12:18:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 12:18:22 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200002011718.MAA29244@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > Well, the NOS is also deprived of a chance to have an unusually bad > score, and their chance of winning the event is thereby increased. No, not in a matchpoint event or perhaps Swiss with a large field. Increasing the variance increasese the chance to be first or last and decreases the chance to come in the middle. > Of course, we ought > not to be talking in terms of incentives if we hold to the belief that > no one breaks the rules on purpose anyway. I'd phrase it in terms of the amount of care one takes to avoid breaking the rules. If you give me incentive, I'll be careful. If there's no incentive, I won't worry so much about following correct procedure. > A law infraction will result in a lower score for the offenders, not > merely the chance of one. Are we talking about the same proposal? I understood the score was to be returned to "equity," i.e. the (best estimate of the) score as it would have been without the infraction. This is not a lower score for the offenders; it merely takes away any advantage the infraction might have given. In other sports, the NOS are given an advantage: free kick or shot, field position, OS loses a player temporarily, or sometimes points added to the score. This is far more than merely cancelling the advantage from the infraction. > if I received 25% of the matchpoints every time I > bid a 25% game, I would be a more successful player than I am. As noted above, I don't think this is correct in terms of winning events. When one of those 25% games comes home, you have a much- increased chance to win. (Of course when it fails, you have a somewhat-increased chance to be last.) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 04:23:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA01030 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 01:50:27 +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 BAA01025 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 01:50:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from BillS ([208.46.135.30]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.5/64) id 9034700 ; Tue, 01 Feb 2000 09:20:23 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000201092556.0083a040@cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 09:25:56 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Bill Segraves Subject: Re: L12C2 Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <033801bf6c78$c6b21c60$16991e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id BAA01026 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >- le camp fautif marque le résultat défavorable le plus probable. > >the offending side is assigned the result with the greatest >probability of being the most unfavorable. The offending side is assigned the most probable of the unfavorable results. Amicalement, Bill Segraves Guilford, CT From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 04:43:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA01934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 04:43:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from fb02.eng00.mindspring.net (fb02.eng00.mindspring.net [207.69.229.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA01927 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 04:42:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-142.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.142]) by fb02.eng00.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA15279; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 12:42:34 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <005801bf6cdb$d168b0c0$8e84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , Subject: Re: Helpful? Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 12:43:13 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: david.burn@bt.com >Anne wrote: > >Club game >N/S are husband and wife who do not play together often. >N/S average club players, E/W good tournament players. >N leads H10.from 10965. Dummy hits with KJ84. >Declarer W asks S if the lead of the 10 promises an honour. >Answer = Yes. > (DB)>This, while true, is not helpful. The lead of the ten always promises an >honour. ### As would the lead of the ace or the king or the queen or the jack! And the lead of the 9 or 8 etc always promises a spot card and the lead of a two always promises a duece. :-) >Dummy plays small, S plays small and Dec wins HA. >Later in the game, Dec plays a small H towards dummy >N plays H5,and S, looking at now bare HQ, and realising that she >should have said "No", offers the gratuitous "Do not take >the finesse" >Their agreement is 10 from internal sequence, top of bad >suit, HiLo from doubletons, 10 from 10/9 etc. >Dec, takes the finesse, loses to the HQ and calls the TD. ### Absolutely a double shot! >He claims he was given misinformation. ### Not so. >How do you rule? >Anne > (DB)>He was told nothing but the truth. That he chose to ignore it is his fault. >Result stands, and declarer fined to the full extent of the Law for wasting >official time. ### But my impression of the ethics of the alleged offender rises...I might suggest to him that he call me in future when he feels he may have given MI rather than try to correct it by interjecting advice to declarer. Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 05:03:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA01598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 03:30:29 +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 DAA01593 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 03:30:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 17:29:50 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id RAA25884 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 17:28:23 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: LOOT and a revoke Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 17:29:47 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk david.burn@bt.com wrote: >It is to be hoped that the TD will locate L41C: > >"If it was properly the turn to lead of an opponent of the player who led >out of turn, that opponent may make his proper lead to the trick of the >infraction without his card being deemed played to the irregular lead. When >this occurs, the proper lead stands, and all cards played in error to this >trick may be withdrawn without penalty." > >This may indeed be an easy one! > >David Burn >London, England umm, you mean L53C, right? -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 05:26:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA01575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 03:29:09 +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 DAA01570 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 03:28:55 +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 RAA19616 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 17:28:06 +0100 Message-ID: <38970957.C65F3786@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 17:27:03 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: LOOT and a revoke References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn pressed the following keys: > It is to be hoped that the TD will locate L41C: I hope he won't. The Law you quoted is L53C. :)) I read the L53A and failed to see the footnote. Thanks a lot. -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Krakow, Poland From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 05:50:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA02196 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 05:50:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA02191 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 05:50:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.138.15] (helo=davidburn) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12FiNn-0006Ik-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 18:50:36 +0000 Message-ID: <002b01bf6ce5$456c4fa0$0f8a01d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <033801bf6c78$c6b21c60$16991e18@san.rr.com> <3896A4BA.F558D017@club-internet.fr> Subject: Re: L12C2 Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 18:50:28 -0000 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin wrote: > - le camp fautif marque le résultat défavorable le plus probable. > > the offending side is assigned the result with the greatest > probability of being the most unfavorable. I am not sure what this means in English, let alone French. Results cannot have a relative probability of being unfavourable, only a relative (and an absolute) probability that they will occur. If, for example, there is considered to be an 0.001% chance that the offending side will score -1400 and a 99.999% chance that it will score +50, it would (under the above rule) be assigned -1400 because that result is the most unfavourable (with probability 1.0). Of course, that is not what should happen. As far as I can see, the French words above mean "the offending side scores the most probable unfavourable result", which is emphatically not what is required. If it is considered that the offending side would score -50 with probability 70% and -800 with probability 30%, both results being "unfavourable", then the above interpretation would lead to an assignment of -50 (the most probable unfavourable result) whereas the law requires an assignment of -800 (the most unfavourable result that is at all probable). What the English version of the law is construed as meaning is: The offending side receives the most unfavourable of all results that would occur with a probability greater than X [where the value of X is a matter for the Sponsoring Organisation]. The English idiom "at all probable" expresses this quite well; "at all probable" means "with a probability that is small but not insignificant". I do not know if there is a concise way to render this meaning in French; "le resultat probable le plus defavorable" does not seem to me to allow consideration of results that will occur less than 50% of the time, while "le resultat possible le plus defavorable" would allow consideration of results that would not occur in practice more than one time in several hundred. But if an acceptable word or phrase could be substituted for "probable" or "possible" in those two expressions, it would get the job done. Marvin's words, I fear, will not. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 05:54:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA02225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 05:54:36 +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 FAA02213 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 05:54:27 +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 ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 10:54:19 -0800 Message-ID: <03fe01bf6ce5$8c4b02e0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <033801bf6c78$c6b21c60$16991e18@san.rr.com> <3896AE0E.C6FB337C@meteo.fr> Subject: Re: L12C2 Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 10:47:02 -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 (Outlook Express not reliable in regard to quote marks) From: Jean Pierre Rocafort (to whom my thanks) <"Marvin L. French" a écrit : > > Would some kind linguist help me with my French-to-English > translations of these words from the French version of the Laws? > (Without regard to the English from which they were taken, > please.) JP: I can understand pretty well what is the meaning of the french text, but i am not sure to be able to express it by an english translation! > > - le camp non fautif marque le résultat le plus favorable qu'il > aurait pu vraisemblablement obtenir si l'irrégularité n'avait pas > eu lieu, > > the non-offending side is assigned the most favorable result that > it could likely have obtained if the irregularity had not > occurred. JP: agreed Good, then the French have it right. The result need not be likely, merely the one likely to have been the most favorable result. > > - le camp fautif marque le résultat défavorable le plus probable. > > the offending side is assigned the result with the greatest > probability of being the most unfavorable. JP: it's rather: "... the result which has the greatest probability among the list of unfavorable results" maybe the French text is not, in this instance, an accurate transposition of the writing of L12. Surely not. Perhaps this would be correct: - le camp fautif marque le résultat le plus défavorable Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 05:54:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA02224 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 05:54:35 +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 FAA02214 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 05:54:27 +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 ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 10:54:19 -0800 Message-ID: <03ff01bf6ce5$8c9eef40$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3896DA7F.4E239668@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 10:52:32 -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 Herman De Wael wrote: > How about something like : > > Field are 90% in game making, 45% of the time, failing 45%. > Other 10% divided between some strange extreme results. > > Equity is 50% of making and 50% of failing. > NOs get 60% of making and 40% of failing. > Os get 30% of making and 70% of failing. > David Stevenson convinced me long ago that a TD/AC has no business looking at what the field has done. How often a TD has told me, "Well, everyone else bid game," when opponents obviously have used UI to get to game. That isn't right. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 06:03:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA01372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 02:42:34 +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 CAA01367 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 02:42:24 +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 HAA25480; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 07:42:12 -0800 Message-Id: <200002011542.HAA25480@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Defective claim or table result? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 01 Feb 2000 13:14:14 PST." <00e701bf6c5a$0a0ace40$b25e868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 07:42:13 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > >So I think we can make a case for letting the table result stand. I > >wonder if we can make a case for a split score? That's what my gut > >tells me is the result I'd *like* to see these players get: E-W get > >-100, N-S get -650. > > Why? Surely it is time that this list realised the difference between > penalties and equity. Despite the Scope and mutlifarioius strange > posts on BLML the Laws do cover penalty situations. The correct > result here by Law is clearly NS+100 under L70. Both sides were > plonkers, true, but that is because neither side followed correct > procedure, and that is a matter for L90A [sorry Marv]. Fine them as > much as you like, but don't mangle a contested claim ruling. You're right. Your solution, which is to give the players the legally correct score and then shoot them, is better. Really, my comment about a split score was intended facetiously. Sorry---the smiley key on my keyboard is broken. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 06:14:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA02319 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 06:14:47 +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 GAA02314 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 06:14:38 +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 ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 11:14:29 -0800 Message-ID: <041d01bf6ce8$5d2ff620$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <4e.127719f.25c84017@aol.com> Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 11:11:14 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kojak wrote: > JensOgBodil@alesia.dk writes: > > > Not mine! I specifically went on record disliking the dubious > > legality. In general, I support giving the TDs the right to use the > > procedure authorized in L12C3. > > > > So, here I go again. Promised myself to only read, and I'm replying. > What is "dubious legality" supposed to mean? When a Committee of the WBF, > charged with doing exactly what it did, does, that, I guess that's "dubious > legality" rather than dislke of what they did. I guess I'll have to agree > with Grattan on this, most of the postings on this vein were from those who > didn't like the substance. Of course not you, -- you said otherwise. Is it only in the U. S. that the executive and legislative bodies, who make the laws, must abide by the laws? Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 06:20:37 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA02361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 06:20:37 +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 GAA02356 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 06:20:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.138.15] (helo=davidburn) by gadolinium with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12FiqS-0001pB-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 19:20:12 +0000 Message-ID: <003b01bf6ce9$683d70a0$0f8a01d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200002011718.MAA29244@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 19:20:29 -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 Steve wrote: > > From: "David Burn" > > Well, the NOS is also deprived of a chance to have an unusually bad > > score, and their chance of winning the event is thereby increased. [SW] > No, not in a matchpoint event or perhaps Swiss with a large field. > Increasing the variance increasese the chance to be first or last and > decreases the chance to come in the middle. This is really a question of the utility factor of an adjustment of the kind we have been discussing. Two scenarios are possible: (1) A pair receives an adjustment of the "60% of plus 620, 40% of minus 100" variety. It finishes second in the event by 10 match points. If it had scored plus 620, it would have won; if it had scored minus 100, it would have finished fourth. Since, in the nature of human beings, no one cares who finished second through last, while everyone loves a winner, this pair is going to be hugely aggrieved that it did not get its 60% shot at 620. (2) A pair receives an adjustment as above. It wins the event by 10 match points. If it had scored plus 620, it would have won by a lot more; if it had scored minus 100, it would have finished last (or second - they are the same thing). This pair is now going to be hugely relieved that it did not get its 40% shot at minus 100. The pair who actually finished second, though, is going to do some moaning. Since it appears to me that both scenarios are equiprobable (and not, in fact, very likely at all), it does not seem to me worth worrying about either of them. As I have said, we should strive to do equity in respect of what we can manage - the result of a single deal - and not worry about what we cannot manage - the role that the single deal plays in determining the result of the tournament. [DALB] > > Of course, we ought > > not to be talking in terms of incentives if we hold to the belief that > > no one breaks the rules on purpose anyway. [SW] > I'd phrase it in terms of the amount of care one takes to avoid > breaking the rules. If you give me incentive, I'll be careful. If > there's no incentive, I won't worry so much about following correct > procedure. "To be honest, as this world goes, is to be one man picked out of ten thousand". (Shakespeare, Hamlet). But there, at any rate, speaks an honest man. In the Utopia assumed by those who advocate a system based entirely upon equity, players take scrupulous care to follow correct procedure regardless of the fact that there is no incentive for them to do so. Since the world does not actually work like that, an equity-based system appears to me unsatisfactory. [DB] > > A law infraction will result in a lower score for the offenders, not > > merely the chance of one. [SW] > Are we talking about the same proposal? I understood the score was to > be returned to "equity," i.e. the (best estimate of the) score as it > would have been without the infraction. This is not a lower score for > the offenders; it merely takes away any advantage the infraction might > have given. Grattan's system is based on assigning a score that is the (single) equitable result for both sides, and then (probably) penalising the offenders. Mine is based on assigning to the non-offenders a result corresponding to their expectation absent the infraction, and to the offenders a result corresponding to the worst that would (in "all probability") have happened to them without the infraction. I don't think either of us has advocated simply assigning the equitable result to both sides (though this position has been advocated by others). Of course, if Grattan deems the infraction not worthy of penalty, or if I deem that the worst possible result for the offenders is the same as the equitable result for the non-offenders, then we will both simply restore the equitable result. > In other sports, the NOS are given an advantage: free kick or shot, > field position, OS loses a player temporarily, or sometimes points > added to the score. This is far more than merely cancelling the > advantage from the infraction. Now, that's a splendid idea. In cases where there is considered to have been an infraction, the non-offending side should be permitted to draw a card at random from the hand of a member of the offending side, such card to be a major penalty card. [SW] > As noted above, I don't think this is correct in terms of winning > events. When one of those 25% games comes home, you have a much- > increased chance to win. (Of course when it fails, you have a > somewhat-increased chance to be last.) You haven't seen me play. I need them all to make before I win anything. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 06:38:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA01254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 02:08:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from dent.axion.bt.co.uk (dent.axion.bt.co.uk [132.146.16.161]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA01248 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 02:08:20 +1100 (EST) From: david.burn@bt.com Received: from cryndent01.mww.bt.com by dent (local) with ESMTP; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 15:05:41 +0000 Received: by cryndent01.mww.bt.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.23) id ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 15:05:32 -0000 Message-ID: To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: LOOT and a revoke Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 15:05:11 -0000 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.23) 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 CAA01249 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I, foolishly, wrote: > Konrad wrote: > > I was about to put "an easy one" in the subject > field but I recalled that some time ago John did something > similar and started a thread long as a life sentence. > So let it be a difficult and a complex Law problem :))) > Last week my partner was declarer in 2D. At some point > she played the ten of clubs from dummy taken by her RHO with the > jack. So far so good. > Losing this trick didn't seem to upset my dear vis-à-vis > as she called for a low club from dummy. Her RHO failed to notice > that and, being the proud possessor of the previous trick, > attempted to cash the Ace of spades a few seconds later. > Yes, you guessed it. He still had some small club in his hand. > It looks to me that by putting his spade ace on the table > he accepted the LOOT. So it means he revoked. That's the way I > see things but I'd like some back up from the BLML learned men. > It was a very friendly tournament, nobody besides me > noticed anything, they played to board to the end, wrote down > some result and everybody was happy. But supposed declarer > calls the TD and asks for a ruling. What then? > > It is to be hoped that the TD will locate L41C: > > "If it was properly the turn to lead of an opponent of the player who led > out of turn, that opponent may make his proper lead to the trick of the > infraction without his card being deemed played to the irregular lead. > When this occurs, the proper lead stands, and all cards played in error to > this trick may be withdrawn without penalty." > > This may indeed be an easy one! > Though it will be more difficult if the TD does use 41C. He would be better advised to use 53C instead. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 06:56:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA02501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 06:56:56 +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 GAA02496 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 06:56:45 +1100 (EST) From: bills@cshore.com Received: from oemcomputer ([208.46.135.102]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.5/64) id 9422100 ; Tue, 01 Feb 2000 14:36:21 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000201144257.007e8a60@mail.cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@mail.cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 14:42:57 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" Subject: Re: L12C2 Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <03fe01bf6ce5$8c4b02e0$16991e18@san.rr.com> References: <033801bf6c78$c6b21c60$16991e18@san.rr.com> <3896AE0E.C6FB337C@meteo.fr> 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 GAA02497 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> - le camp fautif marque le résultat défavorable le plus probable. >> >> the offending side is assigned the result with the greatest >> probability of being the most unfavorable. > >JP: it's rather: "... the result which has the greatest probability among >the list of unfavorable results" >maybe the French text is not, in this instance, an accurate >transposition of the writing of L12. > >Surely not. The french is incontrovertably different from the english. >Perhaps this would be correct: > >- le camp fautif marque le résultat le plus défavorable This is also different. Closer would be "le camp fautif marque le plus defavorable des resultats probables." I will defer to the native speakers as to whether this is adequate. Amicalement, Bill Segraves Guilford, CT From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 07:03:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA01990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 04:54:39 +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 EAA01983 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 04:54:31 +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 MAA04684; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 12:49:34 -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, 1 Feb 2000 12:47:56 -0500 To: david.burn@bt.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Helpful? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 2:20 PM +0000 2/1/00, david.burn@bt.com wrote: >Anne wrote: > >Club game >N/S are husband and wife who do not play together often. >N/S average club players, E/W good tournament players. >N leads H10.from 10965. Dummy hits with KJ84. >Declarer W asks S if the lead of the 10 promises an honour. >Answer = Yes. > >This, while true, is not helpful. The lead of the ten always promises an >honour. A player is supposed to give full disclosure when asked any question. In this case, the intended meaning of the question is clear to everyone at the table, "Does it promise a higher honor?" >Dummy plays small, S plays small and Dec wins HA. >Later in the game, Dec plays a small H towards dummy >N plays H5,and S, looking at now bare HQ, and realising that she >should have said "No", offers the gratuitous "Do not take >the finesse" South has an obligation to correct her misinformation, and she has attempted to do so (although not quite following proper procedure). I would give this South credit for fulfilling her obligation, as she acted in good faith. An experienced player might be fined for not following proper procedure. >Dec, takes the finesse, loses to the HQ and calls the TD. >He claims he was given misinformation. >He was told nothing but the truth. That he chose to ignore it is his fault. Agreed. If he had declined the finesse and lost a trick as a result, he would have had an adjustment and South would have been fined for coffeehousing. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 07:40:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA02699 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 07:40:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from praseodumium.btinternet.com (praseodumium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA02693 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 07:40:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.130.23] (helo=davidburn) by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12Fk6D-0003Tq-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 20:40:33 +0000 Message-ID: <000d01bf6cf4$a1924140$178201d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3896DA7F.4E239668@village.uunet.be> <03ff01bf6ce5$8c9eef40$16991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 20:40:50 -0000 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > How about something like : > > > > Field are 90% in game making, 45% of the time, failing 45%. > > Other 10% divided between some strange extreme results. > > > > Equity is 50% of making and 50% of failing. > > NOs get 60% of making and 40% of failing. > > Os get 30% of making and 70% of failing. > > > David Stevenson convinced me long ago that a TD/AC has no business looking > at what the field has done. > > How often a TD has told me, "Well, everyone else bid game," when opponents > obviously have used UI to get to game. That isn't right. > He has yet to convince me (though, to be fair, he has not tried). If we are supposed to rule on the basis that a logical alternative is an action that would have been taken by x% of a player's peers, then it seems to me reasonable to consult the large sample we have available of the player's peers - that is, to look at what the field has done. Of course, we are not (depending on the jurisdiction in which we happen to be) necessarily supposed to do this. We are supposed to deem a logical alternative one that would be "considered" by x% of the player's peers. It may be that all the other Souths, without UI, considered not bidding game, then bid it anyway. But this is (statistically) highly unlikely; if a large number of people consider doing something, then some of them will (probably) do it. The fact that no one failed to bid game is very strong evidence for the hypothesis that no one actually considered not bidding it, rather than for the hypothesis that a significant number considered bidding it but decided otherwise. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 07:45:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA02721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 07:45:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from fep04-svc.mail.telepac.pt (fep04-svc.mail.telepac.pt [194.65.5.203]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA02716 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 07:45:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.telepac.pt ([194.65.198.148]) by fep04-svc.mail.telepac.pt (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with ESMTP id <20000201204713.JGYN14677.fep04-svc.mail.telepac.pt@mail.telepac.pt> for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 20:47:13 +0000 Message-ID: <389745E3.2A1AB88C@mail.telepac.pt> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 20:45:25 +0000 From: Lino =?iso-8859-1?Q?Tralh=E3o?= (int) Reply-To: LINOTRALHAO@mail.telepac.pt Organization: -- X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: pt,en,fr,es MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L12C2 References: <033801bf6c78$c6b21c60$16991e18@san.rr.com> <3896A4BA.F558D017@club-internet.fr> <002b01bf6ce5$456c4fa0$0f8a01d5@davidburn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > The English idiom "at all probable" expresses this quite well; "at all > probable" means "with a probability that is small but not > insignificant". I do not know if there is a concise way to render this > meaning in French; "le resultat probable le plus defavorable" does not Why not " vraisemblable" "Le resultat vraisemblable plus defavorable" ? > > seem to me to allow consideration of results that will occur less than > 50% of the time, while "le resultat possible le plus defavorable" > would allow consideration of results that would not occur in practice > more than one time in several hundred. But if an acceptable word or > phrase could be substituted for "probable" or "possible" in those two > expressions, it would get the job done. Marvin's words, I fear, will > not. > > David Burn > London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 08:05:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA02792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 08:05:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA02787 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 08:05:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.unimuenster.de (actually FB03W204.UNI-MUENSTER.DE) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Tue, 1 Feb 2000 22:04:42 +0100 From: Richard Bley To: David Burn , Bridge Laws Subject: RE: L12C2 interpretation (and more) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 22:04:41 +0100 Message-ID: <000401bf6cf7$f5249300$4a54b080@unimuenster.de> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.3825.400 In-reply-to: <000d01bf6cf4$a1924140$178201d5@davidburn> Importance: Normal MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > He has yet to convince me (though, to be fair, he has not tried). If > we are supposed to rule on the basis that a logical > alternative is an > action that would have been taken by x% of a player's peers, then it > seems to me reasonable to consult the large sample we have available > of the player's peers - that is, to look at what the field has done. > Of course, we are not (depending on the jurisdiction in which we > happen to be) necessarily supposed to do this. We are > supposed to deem > a logical alternative one that would be "considered" by x% of the > player's peers. It may be that all the other Souths, without UI, > considered not bidding game, then bid it anyway. But this is > (statistically) highly unlikely; if a large number of > people consider > doing something, then some of them will (probably) do it. The fact > that no one failed to bid game is very strong evidence for the > hypothesis that no one actually considered not bidding it, > rather than > for the hypothesis that a significant number considered > bidding it but > decided otherwise. that would be true if 1) all players are of comparable strength 2) all players had a similar situation Most of the time its 2) where the case gets nasty. Simply comparing the results seems not enough to me Richard From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 08:10:52 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA02828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 08:10:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from fb02.eng00.mindspring.net (fb02.eng00.mindspring.net [207.69.229.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA02823 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 08:10:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-142.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.142]) by fb02.eng00.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA20216; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 16:10:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00d501bf6cf8$df207a00$8e84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "ton kooijman" Cc: Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 16:11:11 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Let me see if I understand. 9 of the 11 members of the WBFLC expressed their opinion by a show of hands that 25B is seriously flawed...so the committee then decided to do nothing for another 2 to 5 years to remedy the situation? Perhaps the parent organisation can act in this case too to "get things moving"? Or could the delay represent a hope that the balance of opinion may shift as the Young Turks such as Grattan become less militant as they approach middle age? It has already been noted that the best way to win a laws argument with EK was to outlive him. Perhaps that strategy may be employed again? FWIW, I think that 25B is nonsense, as do several others on this list whose beards are less grey than mine. That does not make me believe that Ton's reasons for delaying the change are nonsense, but there is something downright Wolffian about deferring a matter on which 9 of 11 agree. Craig Senior -- ...some animals are more equal than others... Orwell -----Original Message----- From: Grattan Endicott To: ton kooijman Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sunday, January 30, 2000 9:02 AM Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B > >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: ton kooijman >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 Wed Feb 2 08:12:03 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA02844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 08:12:03 +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 IAA02839 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 08:11:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.187.72] (helo=davidburn) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12FkaL-0003iH-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 21:11:42 +0000 Message-ID: <001b01bf6cf8$ff057460$178201d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <033801bf6c78$c6b21c60$16991e18@san.rr.com> <3896AE0E.C6FB337C@meteo.fr> <03fe01bf6ce5$8c4b02e0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: L12C2 Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 21:10:54 -0000 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin wrote: From: Jean Pierre Rocafort (to whom my thanks) <"Marvin L. French" a écrit : > > Would some kind linguist help me with my French-to-English > translations of these words from the French version of the Laws? > (Without regard to the English from which they were taken, > please.) JP: I can understand pretty well what is the meaning of the french text, but i am not sure to be able to express it by an english translation! > > - le camp non fautif marque le résultat le plus favorable qu'il > aurait pu vraisemblablement obtenir si l'irrégularité n'avait pas > eu lieu, > > the non-offending side is assigned the most favorable result that > it could likely have obtained if the irregularity had not > occurred. JP: agreed [MF] Good, then the French have it right. The result need not be likely, merely the one likely to have been the most favorable result. The French do indeed have it right, but the English above does not seem to me to be a correct interpretation of either the French or the law. For a result to be assigned to the non-offending side, it must indeed be a "likely" result - that is, it must be deemed to occur with a probability greater than X [where X is a matter for the Sponsoring Organisation, but must be sufficiently large to qualify for the appellation "likely" or the French appellation "vraisemblable"]. > - le camp fautif marque le résultat défavorable le plus probable. > > the offending side is assigned the result with the greatest > probability of being the most unfavorable. JP: it's rather: "... the result which has the greatest probability among the list of unfavorable results" maybe the French text is not, in this instance, an accurate transposition of the writing of L12. If that is what the French means, then (as I said in a previous post), it is not an accurate translation of the law. If the list of unfavourable results, and the probabilities assigned to them, is: -50 50% -100 30% -800 5% then the result assigned should be -100 (the most unfavourable of "at all probable" results). But "the result which has the greatest probability among the list of unfavourable results" is -50, which is not the result required by the law. Here I owe Marvin an apology: the words that I referred to in my previous message as "Marvin's words" are in fact words taken from the French version of the Laws, not words created by Marvin. I should have said "the words that appeared in Marvin's message". [MF] Perhaps this would be correct: - le camp fautif marque le résultat le plus défavorable That would be an excellent notion, since it would mean that the offenders received -7000 if they were not vulnerable and -7600 if they were. And quite right too - this ought to be enough of an incentive even for Steve Willner. But I am not sure that it is what the law intends. I can translate into French almost every word in this phrase: the offending side receives the most unfavourable result that it could have obtained with a significant probability if the infraction had not taken place except that I am not sure what word a Frenchman would use for "significant" in the sense of "statistically significant" - that is, occurring with a probability of between 15% and 100%. "Important"? "Considérable"? Perhaps JP can help us again! David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 08:13:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA01981 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 04:54:17 +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 EAA01973 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 04:54:07 +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 ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 09:53:57 -0800 Message-ID: <03d301bf6cdd$1fb39be0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 09:42:43 -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 I'd like to expand on some of Adam Wildawsky's comments, with which I agree. L12C2 gives the NOS the benefit of any doubt, and the OS no beneift of doubt. It only requires that the NOS get the best result they might have obtained absent the infraction, and the OS the worst, with no need for complex analyses in order to arrive at probabilities for numerous potential results. I don't see how an AC (or, especially, a TD) can make bidding and playing judgments for me when I am a non-offender. No doubt they would say a contract has a 50% chance if it involves a two-way guess for a queen. But what if I am like Oswald Jacoby and never misguess the location of a queen? How can they tell whether my opponents might have made an illogical bad play, as compared to our error-free [ :)] play? How can they tell whether I might have made a killing lead from Kx instead of a normal lead? How can they determine the probability that we would have bid a close game? Are they so familiar with our bidding style? How can they judge whether I would have found and executed an advanced squeezeplay? Are they that knowledgeable about my dummy play? And so on. That is why I prefer giving the NOs the best score they had a fair chance of achieving absent the infraction, and the OS the worst score that had any significant chance. Give the NOS the benefit of doubt and the OS no benefit of doubt. That is L12C2. When an AC cannot agree on an adjusted score, take the plurality opinion. When there is no plurality, take the middle opinion. I have just read the entire Vancouver NABC casebook, which makes it obvious that TDs and ACs do not even have the skills/knowledge to apply UI/MI Laws and L12C2 properly, let alone the advanced skills that would be needed for L12C3. This is not my opinion, but one shared by the majority of casebook commentators and by editor Rich Colker.He found that Panel Decisions resulted in 13 good decisions and 9 poor ones. ACs did worse, 6 good decisions and 9 bad ones. Of course that is in ACBL-land, but I don't suppose the situation is much different elsewhere. ACBL members can read those casebook comments in the Members Only section of the ACBL web site. The casebook can be purchased from ACBL headquarters. Marv (Marvin L. French) ACBL Patron Member Player No. R485937 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 08:43:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA03003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 08:43:11 +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 IAA02998 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 08:43:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.187.72] (helo=davidburn) by gadolinium with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12Fl4V-0006vV-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 21:42:51 +0000 Message-ID: <003901bf6cfd$5577bf20$178201d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <000401bf6cf7$f5249300$4a54b080@unimuenster.de> Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 21:43:09 -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 Richard wrote: [snip of my previous message] > that would be true if > > 1) all players are of comparable strength > > 2) all players had a similar situation > > Most of the time its 2) where the case gets nasty. Simply comparing > the results seems not enough to me Oh, quite so. I do not say that comparing results will necessarily cast any light on what constituted a logical alternative for a given player in a given set of circumstances. The primary duty of a TD or an AC is to determine whether this player in this set of circumstances offended against Law 73. But if, as often happens, the TD or AC finds that it has difficulty in determining whether an alternative was actually a logical one for this player, it seems reasonable to me that they should take into account any information which may help their deliberations. Indeed, it seems preferable to me that an AC should rely on the (apparent) judgement of a large sample of the player's peers than that they should (as often happens) say: "Well, we'd have made that bid ourselves, so it must be a logical alternative!" David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 08:46:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA03028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 08:46:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA03023 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 08:46:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.187.72] (helo=davidburn) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12Fl7c-0000nE-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 21:46:05 +0000 Message-ID: <004101bf6cfd$c8ef12a0$178201d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Fw: L12C2 Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 21:46:23 -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 Lino wrote: > David Burn wrote: > > > The English idiom "at all probable" expresses this quite well; "at all > probable" means "with a probability that is small but not > insignificant". I do not know if there is a concise way to render > this meaning in French Why not " vraisemblable" "Le resultat vraisemblable plus defavorable" I don't know. Another post from a Frenchman suggested that "vraisemblable" meant: "in all likelihood, in all probability, probably" though this was a quotation from a dictionary. Now, the phrase "in all probability" means "very likely" - my feeling is that it refers to something with at least a 75% chance of occurring. If that is indeed what "vraisemblable" means, then it is not what is needed. My own feeling is that "vraisemblable" (literally "seeming to be true") has the sense of the English word "plausible" - and that is very close indeed to what is required. But in my previous post I bowed to the judgement of one whose native tongue is, after all, French! Perhaps it is time to set out the requirement in a different way. The law, as interpreted in this country and in the United States, requires (as I read it) that: (1) The non-offending side receives the most favourable of all results that would occur [with probability X, where X is between 33% and 100%]. (2) The offending side receives the least favourable of all results that would occur [with probability Y, where Y is between 15% and 100%]. In English, the word used for the words in square brackets in (1) above is "likely". The phrase used for the words in square brackets in (2) above is "at all probable". The use of different wording implies that the probability to be assessed is different in the two cases. I think that this is a difference worth preserving if it can be done - to use "vraisemblable" in both cases would blur an important distinction. The task of the French translators is to preserve the sense of both (1) and (2) above. This they appear to have done to some extent in the case of (1), but their version of (2) appears to me to convey a wholly different sense from what the English requires. I should say that I may, of course, be entirely wrong about all of this. Though I have a university degree in French, it is very many years since I studied or spoke the language, and my feeling for the idiom in which the Laws have been translated may be completely baseless. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 08:57:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA03087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 08:57:44 +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 IAA03082 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 08:57:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.251] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12FlIP-0001g8-00; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 21:57:13 +0000 Message-ID: <000901bf6cff$7abf9760$fb5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , References: <200001312121.QAA28396@cfa183.harvard.edu> <002d01bf6c87$ac042200$98b101d5@davidburn> Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 21:42:40 -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: Tuesday, February 01, 2000 7:40 AM Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) > > Well, the NOS is also deprived of a chance to have an unusually bad > score, and their chance of winning the event is thereby increased. I > have always thought that the best we can do is to restore as far as > possible equity in a single deal, and leave the result of the event to > look after itself. Technically, when one awards a weighted aggregate > score (say, 60% of plus 620 and 40% of minus 100), one might convert > that not merely to an IMP average but to a Victory Point average if > that is the method of scoring - but that has always seemed to me to be > going too far. > +=+ The fact that is ignored in the proposition that you are countering, David, is that the market value of the player's position at the time of an opponent's infraction is lower than the eventual worth of his position if in due course he were to arrive at an optimum conclusion to the auction. To recompense him for his loss he must receive the value of what was taken away at the time it was taken away from him. To fine the thief or send him to prison for an illegal act is a separate matter from the amount of compensation due to his victim. Perhaps I am allowed to speculate on what would be an appropriate procedural penalty, imposed by law if a player's infraction has led to an assigned adjusted score. The Director retains his Law 90 discretion when no damage has resulted for opponents. [Did I ever disclose to you my proposition that individuals who incur fines in everyday life should have their fines assessed not in pesos, cordobas or cowries, but in NIUs (net income units) being 1000th parts of annual income after statutory deductions?] So how about a penalty of 10% or half the difference between table score and assigned score, whichever is more severe? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 09:42:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA02072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 05:13:35 +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 FAA02067 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 05:13:25 +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 KAA27805; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 10:13:14 -0800 Message-Id: <200002011813.KAA27805@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Vanderbilt hesitation ruling - not appealed In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 01 Feb 2000 11:31:35 PST." <200002011631.LAA07158@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 10:13:15 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ron Johnson wrote: > Not exactly timely but an interesting one I think. > > >From the finals of the Vanderbilt (major North American KO.) > > Never appealed since it was moot. I'd be interested in hearing > what others think. > > The relevant hand (West, Mike Becker) > > A87 > Q > AJ75 > AKJ85 > > Becker Kamil > 1C 1S > 2D 2H (1) > 2S (2) 3H (3) > 4H (4) 4S (5) > 5S 6S > > (1) artificial: potentially weak. All attempts to sign off start here > as do any strong hands that can't be easily described. > > (2) non forcing. Most frequently 3=1=4=5 (though other shapes with > 3 Spades and longer clubs than diamonds possible). A hand too > strong for a single raise but too weak to invite game strongly > (usually 16 to 18 HCP) > > (3) natural: Slam try, longer spades than hearts > > (4) encouraging: either both or neither minor suit aces > > (5) break in tempo. > > Director rolled the contract back to 4S. > > Becker-Kamil can I think be presumed to know their methods. The > issue is as I see it whether pass of 4S is a LA. > > Quoting Jeff Rubens now, "If you write down some East hands > worth a slam-try with only five-five, I thought the bidding showed longer spades; doesn't this preclude 5-5? > you'll see that it is > clearly wrong for opener to pass four spades. The issue, > really, is whether opener should drive to five or to six." > > And yet Becker gave a pretty good description of the hand > (right down to the fact that 4H is encouraging) and partner > signed off. It feels wrong to permit a bid over a slow sign-off. If 4H shows "both or neither" minor suit aces, perhaps it's incumbent on West to continue over the signoff with both aces. I think we'd have to know more about this aspect of their methods. Presumably this would have been addressed if the result had been appealed. If this is not part of their methods, one might still argue that the king of clubs is a huge card that Becker wasn't able to include in his pretty good description. Especially if responder is likely to be 5-5, having A-A-K in the suits responder is short in is clearly better than something like AQJx AQJxx. I'm not making any judgment on whether pass is an LA, only mentioning something that could perhaps be argued. > It may be clearly wrong on reflection to pass, but it's the > kind of "mistake" that even players as good as Becker make > all the time. And yet it doesn't feel right to assume that > it's a LA for Becker. > > Perhaps the answer lies in one of Bobby Wolff's comments (1994 > Appeals book) in a hesitation Blackwood case. (Almost a direct > quote) Partner's hesitation denies the player the right to > make an aggressive expert judgment. I don't think that quote adds anything. To apply Wolff's principle, we'd have to figure out whether 5S is "aggressive"; and to figure this out, we'd have to determine whether the pass is a logical alternative (if passing is illogical then 5S can't really be considered aggressive). So we're back where we started. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 09:47:37 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA03314 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 09:47:37 +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 JAA03309 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 09:47:29 +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 RAA14149 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 17:47:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA29767 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 17:47:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 17:47:24 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200002012247.RAA29767@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > This is really a question of the utility factor of an adjustment of > the kind we have been discussing. David has, as usual, explained things better than I could. > Two scenarios are possible: [...] Since it appears to me that both > scenarios are equiprobable And here is where we disagree. It is my impression that most large events are won by small margins, and that there are many random swings. The winner is thus the pair for whom the random swings have gone mostly in the right direction. (It doesn't hurt to have played well, of course!) Thus it is my belief that his scenario 1 (pair receives a weighted score and finishes second but could have been first if it had achieved a good score on the board) is rather more probable than scenario 2 (pair finishes first despite having received a weighted score). Weighted scores will inevitably push the final rankings of those who receive them towards the middle. Of course neither scenario is terribly likely. Quite often :-) I can play a whole session with no adjusted scores at all. That is no excuse not to assign the "best" adjusted score we can manage when we have to assign one. We just have to agree on what constitutes "best." > Since the world does not actually work like that, an > equity-based system appears to me unsatisfactory. Here we agree. > Grattan's system is based on assigning a score that is the (single) > equitable result for both sides, and then (probably) penalising the > offenders. Mine is based on assigning to the non-offenders a result > corresponding to their expectation absent the infraction, and to the > offenders a result corresponding to the worst that would (in "all > probability") have happened to them without the infraction. I don't > think either of us has advocated simply assigning the equitable result > to both sides (though this position has been advocated by others). My preference, as has been stated in other contexts, is fixed penalties where possible. David reacts: > Now, that's a splendid idea. In cases where there is considered to > have been an infraction, the non-offending side should be permitted to > draw a card at random from the hand of a member of the offending side, > such card to be a major penalty card. Well, I like the concept, if not the specific implementation. I bet it would save you many hours of AC work! Now if we tinker just a little... say for a revoke, we take away a few tricks at the end of the play. Penalty cards are good if there is an exposed card. For infractions in the auction, let's make somebody pass. Why does this begin to sound familiar? :-) Alternatively, you could assign the equitable result and then give 10% of a top to the NOS and take 10% of a top away from the OS. This corresponds to what we do with artificial scores. I think it would come pretty close to compensating for the "scenarios" problem David and I disagree about. It sounds pretty close to Grattan's proposal for the OS. > You haven't seen me play. I need [25% games] all to make before I win > anything. David is too modest. I haven't seen him play, but I do see lists of results with his name near or at the top. That doesn't come because he bids many 25% games. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 10:04:00 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA02381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 06:26:02 +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 GAA02376 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 06:25:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.138.15] (helo=davidburn) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12Fivk-0000r6-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 19:25:40 +0000 Message-ID: <005001bf6cea$2b9fc020$0f8a01d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: LOOT and a revoke Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 19:25:55 -0000 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin (and others) wrote: > umm, you mean L53C, right? Right. I realised what I had done as soon as I sent the original message, so I sent a corrected version. Of course, the BLML server transmitted my error around the world in a matter of minutes, while the correction will take hours if not days. Our last Labour Prime Minister, James Callaghan, said: A lie can be half way around the world before the truth has got its boots on. Given that he was speaking in 1976, some years before the Great Internet Revolution, this was a far more accurate prophecy than most politicians manage. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 11:03:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA02266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 06:04:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA02261 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 06:04:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 11:04:22 -0800 Message-ID: <040d01bf6ce6$f38f5cc0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.5.32.20000201092556.0083a040@cshore.com> Subject: Re: L12C2 Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 11:00:01 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Bill Segraves > >- le camp fautif marque le résultat défavorable le plus probable. > > > >the offending side is assigned the result with the greatest > >probability of being the most unfavorable. > > > The offending side is assigned the most probable of the unfavorable results. > Thanks, Bill. Evidently a good translation of a bad translation, since Jean-Pierre agrees.. So, if the OS might make +140 1/3 of the time and +170 2/3 of the time in a mandated partscore, both unfavorable results, they get +170. That is not the most unfavorable result that was at all probable, so the French have it wrong. That's disappointing, because the French version of the Laws is often worded better than the English version. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 11:07:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA02272 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 06:04:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail3.relaypoint.net (mail3.relaypoint.net [207.213.107.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA02267 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 06:04:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from relaypoint.net (dsl-207-105-45-142.hollywood.relaypoint.net [207.105.45.142]) by mail3.relaypoint.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA05157; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 11:04:25 -0800 Message-ID: <38972BDF.5CDCA709@relaypoint.net> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 10:54:23 -0800 From: Irwin J Kostal Reply-To: bigfoot@relaypoint.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Using the Rules to Harass Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A situation has arisen at the local club that is causing the Director some consternation. Having impact is the fact that the club is only scraping along, and all the participants in this little drama are regulars that the ownership wants to keep as customers. About two weeks ago, a player detached a card from his hand, so that (the director ruled) it might have been seen by his partner. His opponent, a somewhat rigid, elderly person, who takes the rules VERY seriously, called the director and it was ruled to be a played card. The players on the Offending Side took umbrage at this situation, and apparently have continued to be angry about it. They have now decided that, any time they play against the NO, they will call the director "...any time he moves!" Now we all understand that this is childish nonsense, but that doesn't exactly make it go away. The director is considering banning the pair from the club, which is not an attractive alternative, since they are usually quite pleasant folks, and quite frequent players. As Unit President, and something of a force in the club's activities, I have been made aware of the situation. I'm willing to step in, if I think I can do any good. I just wondered if the collective experience of the group might help me find a non-solomonic way to deal with this problem. Irv From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 11:11:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA02285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 06:05:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA02280 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 06:05:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp180-186.worldonline.nl [195.241.180.186]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 5DCE437F5E; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 19:45:06 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <003e01bf6ce3$676f8100$bab4f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , Cc: Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 19:37:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk from Jens&Bodil: >> Not mine! I specifically went on record disliking the dubious >> legality. In general, I support giving the TDs the right to use the >> procedure authorized in L12C3. >> >+=+ OK and I did not have you in mind. > In the meantime, let's just allow that >the project is going ahead despite the >failure of the WBFLC to grant the >request of the Lausanne Group for a >Law change. That was our preferred >route, but since the gate is not open we >are going by a different path with WBF >approval. > On the basis of the Geneva judgment >there is nothing dubious about the legality; >and I do not think views we express on >blml count for much on the subject of >legality when the 'supreme court' has >decided it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ hear, hear, Our laws consist of a text in a handy booklet, of interpretations from the WBFLC if it considers this to be helpful, and of other decisions about the laws. In Bermuda we took the decision that TD's should get the possibility to exercise12C3 if sponsoring organizations allow them. On an experimental base. We are interested in their experience, since we have the impression that 12C3 could easily be misused, an experience resulting from AC decisions. So they probably need guidance which might be best to give when knowing the struggle they have to apply 12C3. I myself used 12C3 before '87, but never for the offending side and 'more never' to give the offenders a weighed score between the positive result of a call they were not allowed to make and the result of a contract they should have played. This is against our laws, but AC don't have any problem to do such things. Once more: THE LAWS COMMITTEE HAS DECIDED THAT IT IS PERMITTED FOR A CHIEF TD TO APPLY 12C3 ON AN EXPERIMENTAL BASE IF THE SPONSORING ORGANIZATION GIVES HIM THAT AUTHORITY. (we speak about a LC decision if it is authorized by the executive committee) THIS DECISION CAN BE CONSIDERED TO BE PART OF THE LAWS. ton humbly awaiting your further objections From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 11:29:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA03694 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 11:29:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.68]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA03688 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 11:29:22 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id c.bb.d398bb (3933); Tue, 1 Feb 2000 19:26:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 19:26:51 EST Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda To: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl, Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk, jensogbodil@alesia.dk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 45 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 2/1/00 7:13:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, t.kooyman@worldonline.nl writes: > Once more: > THE LAWS COMMITTEE HAS DECIDED THAT IT IS PERMITTED FOR A CHIEF TD TO APPLY > 12C3 ON AN EXPERIMENTAL BASE IF THE SPONSORING ORGANIZATION GIVES HIM THAT > AUTHORITY. > (we speak about a LC decision if it is authorized by the executive > committee) > THIS DECISION CAN BE CONSIDERED TO BE PART OF THE LAWS. > > ton > humbly awaiting your further objections > > Dear Ton, you are wasting your time and efforts. The ones who are the loudest about the misuse of the rights of the WBFLC and the WBF Executive Committee just happen be also those who think this is wrong. Coincidence -- I'm sure, -- but why waste your time trying to educate the uneducatable? Stop and think if these objectors are really serious that the WBFLC and the WBF Executive Committee are a bunch of incompetents who do whatever they feel is right, or are also people of good intent, qualified, and concerned that we do a better job of taking care of rulings and appeals. I have yet to read a single argument that is cogent in its objection to what the WBF, WBFLC, and the TDs and ACs are trying to do to "make bridge a better game..(quote from you know whom)...." It makes me feel that BLML is often not for the good of the game, but for the arguments, no matter how spurious, it is able to provoke. Too bad, it could serve a much better purpose. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 11:43:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA03853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 11:43:31 +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 LAA03847 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 11:43:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.155] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12Fnt5-0008xu-00; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 00:43:16 +0000 Message-ID: <007501bf6d16$acdc73a0$8a5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , References: <005001bf6cea$2b9fc020$0f8a01d5@davidburn> Subject: Re: LOOT and a revoke Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 00:43:38 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2000 7:25 PM Subject: Re: LOOT and a revoke > Martin (and others) wrote: > > > umm, you mean L53C, right? > > Our last Labour Prime > Minister, James Callaghan, said: > > A lie can be half way around the world before the truth has got its > boots on. > > Given that he was speaking in 1976, some years before the Great > Internet Revolution, this was a far more accurate prophecy than most > politicians manage. > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ His prophecies were made with hindsight. History had its precedents. My contacts tell me that Labour politicians do not even believe Tony will be the last. +=+ ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 13:06:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA04140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 13:06:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com [139.134.5.173]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA04134 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 13:06:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ba916319 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 12:04:47 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-006-p-108-214.tmns.net.au ([139.134.108.214]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Geeky-MailRouter V2.7a 13/254897); 02 Feb 2000 12:04:46 Message-ID: <001a01bf6d21$92d8e6e0$d66c868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Defective claim or table result? Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 13:02:34 +1100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Steve Willner >> David here, masquerading as Peter Gill. >> But where does >> L69A come into it? The non-claimers did not assent to anything. > >Well, they assented to "playing it out," an illegal procedure >(presuming this "home" match was being played under the Laws of >_Duplicate_ Contract Bridge.) Ok, they assented to playing it out, to not having the board on the floor under their feet and to not smacking an opponent in the cface and to not sending catfood to Quango. They did not assent in any way *to the claim*. They did assent to other things of no relevance. > No doubt their intent at the time was to >accept the number of tricks given by the (illegal) play. V funny. You are reaching a teensy bit beynd the bounds of the language. > Whether this >constitutes an "acquiescence" under L69A is not so clear to me, but I >don't think it would be crazy to rule that it does. Completely crazy. You have a Law that refers to what happens when someone asents to a claim. No-one did so you want to mangle the language so that a totaslly irrelevant act is defined by you as assenting to a claim. You might just as well say that agreeing to feed Nanki Poo is the same as feeding Quango. > Or maybe the >acquiescence came at the end of the (illegal) play, when the score for >eleven tricks was agreed. At any rate, while we can debate the legal >effects, I don't see how we can deny that the non-claimers assented to >_something_. OK, they did not assent to the claim. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 13:06:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA04138 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 13:06:20 +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 NAA04128 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 13:06:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from pc0s07a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.103.193] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt7-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12FOcN-0002C0-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 21:44:20 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Using the Rules to Harass Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 02:12:49 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf6d23$00d05740$87a293c3@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: Irwin J Kostal To: BLML Date: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 12:32 AM Subject: Using the Rules to Harass >A situation has arisen at the local club that is causing the Director >some consternation. Having impact is the fact that the club is only >scraping along, and all the participants in this little drama are >regulars that the ownership wants to keep as customers. > >About two weeks ago, a player detached a card from his hand, so that >(the director ruled) it might have been seen by his partner. His >opponent, a somewhat rigid, elderly person, who takes the rules VERY >seriously, called the director and it was ruled to be a played card. The >players on the Offending Side took umbrage at this situation, and >apparently have continued to be angry about it. They have now decided >that, any time they play against the NO, they will call the director >"...any time he moves!" > >Now we all understand that this is childish nonsense, but that doesn't >exactly make it go away. The director is considering banning the pair >from the club, which is not an attractive alternative, since they are >usually quite pleasant folks, and quite frequent players. As Unit >President, and something of a force in the club's activities, I have >been made aware of the situation. I'm willing to step in, if I think I >can do any good. I just wondered if the collective experience of the >group might help me find a non-solomonic way to deal with this problem. Put them in a team together so that they will not have to play against each other. or Have two movements and draw them apart. or Take them aside and have a serious chat about the future of the club, ask them for their help and support, then Buy all four a drink and get them to laugh about it all. or Make a speech at the beginning of the next duplicate about the petty bickering that is going on.Rules is rules, TD rulings are sacrosanct etc. Tell them all that you'll have none of it, and invite them all to sort it. Make sure you have a cheer leader so that your speech gets a clap from the rest of the players. or Give up, close down, and restart elsewhere only allowing novices. They are much easier to train. Good luck Anne > >Irv > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 13:07:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA03741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 11:32:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA03728 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 11:31:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.138] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12Fnhg-0008et-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 00:31:29 +0000 Message-ID: <005b01bf6d15$075adf80$8a5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200002011718.MAA29244@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 22:58:15 -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: Tuesday, February 01, 2000 5:18 PM Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) > > Are we talking about the same proposal? +=+ No, I don't believe we are.+=+ > I understood the score was to > be returned to "equity," i.e. the (best estimate of the) score as it > would have been without the infraction. +=+ I did not see that suggestion. Equity in my proposal was a value placed on the non-offenders' prospects at the moment when they were damaged. +=+ > >This is not a lower score for > the offenders; it merely takes away any advantage the infraction might > have given. +=+ Not 'merely'; it returns non-offenders to the position they were in before the infraction, it combines with a penalty to put offenders in a worse position. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 13:12:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA04184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 13:12:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com [139.134.5.173]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA04179 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 13:12:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ha916403 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 12:10:23 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-006-p-108-214.tmns.net.au ([139.134.108.214]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Ludicrous-MailRouter V2.7a 13/255728); 02 Feb 2000 12:10:23 Message-ID: <001f01bf6d22$5b662640$d66c868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Defective claim or table result? Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 13:08:11 +1100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk AdamB wrote >Guess who wrote: >> But it isn't. They did not assent to the claim. You cannot take a >> Law about a specific situation and apply it to something totally and >> completely different. At no time did they assent **to the claim**. >I agree. I should have read the words in L69A more carefully. > >I assume that if the players agreed (illegally) to play it out, and >after a few tricks (in which they missed their opportunity for the >ruff) N-S said something to the effect that they now see that the >claim was valid, then L69 *would* take effect? Yes. If you read the time limits of L69A then that is within it. The few tricks are voided anyway. I *hate* Outlook Express. I *strongly* suggest that everyone investigates the possibility of suitable software. It is *so* much easier to post from home, showing tha advantage fo really good software. Threading, sig separators, easy replying, treatinga mailing list as a newsgroup, quotes in red, it makes it so much easier. You will be pleased to here that Liz who returned home after three weeks in Oz reports that Quango and Nanki Poo have *destroyed* the house and are considering how many weeks before they forgive her. Guess who! From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 14:03:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA03742 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 11:32:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA03729 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 11:31:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.138] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12Fnhf-0008et-00; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 00:31:27 +0000 Message-ID: <005a01bf6d15$066fe340$8a5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Craig Senior" Cc: "ton kooijman" , References: <00d501bf6cf8$df207a00$8e84d9ce@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 22:43:38 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 ; ton kooijman Cc: Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2000 9:11 PM Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B > Let me see if I understand. 9 of the 11 members of the WBFLC expressed their > opinion by a show of hands that 25B is seriously flawed...so the committee > then decided to do nothing for another 2 to 5 years to remedy the situation? > +=+ I think we need to be fair about this. At the time there were thirteen people in the room, of whom three were not committee members. The invitation to show an opinion was to all thirteen. I think one of the guests did not raise a hand, so two committee members did not share Mr Martel's distaste for 25B and seven, plus two guests, were of the view that it is a bad law. Two of us counted the numbers. It appears one committee member abstained from indicating a position. +=+ > > > Or could the delay represent a hope that the balance of opinion may shift as > the Young Turks such as Grattan become less militant as they approach middle > age? It has already been noted that the best way to win a laws argument with > EK was to outlive him. Perhaps that strategy may be employed again? > > +=+ Stop encouraging ton with talk of my juvenile condition. By the way, in one of my early WBFLC meetings it did happen that Edgar won a vote eleven against one; he was the one. True; what we voted on was set to one side before it could be put as a motion. I am not saying the eleven of us were necessarily right. +=+ > > > FWIW, I think that 25B is nonsense, as do several others on this list whose > beards are less grey than mine. That does not make me believe that Ton's > reasons for delaying the change are nonsense, but there is something > downright Wolffian about deferring a matter on which 9 of 11 agree. > > Craig Senior > +=+ 'Nonsense' referred to Law 25B, not to anyone's reasons for their opinions. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 14:16:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA04455 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 14:16:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com [139.134.5.173]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA04450 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 14:16:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id xa917459 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 13:14:59 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-006-p-108-214.tmns.net.au ([139.134.108.214]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Superb-MailRouter V2.7a 13/265270); 02 Feb 2000 13:14:58 Message-ID: <008601bf6d2b$6135cb80$d66c868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Defective claim or table result? Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 14:12:45 +1100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >>>David here, masquerading as Peter Gill.......... In case anyone is confused, BLML postings by me during the last week have actually been from David Stevenson. David is about to catch a train for the 11 hour journey to Northern Australia to direct a bridge tournament, so my future postings will be by me. :( Peter Gill Sydney Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 15:27:22 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA04653 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 15:27:22 +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 PAA04648 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 15:27:14 +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 ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 20:27:02 -0800 Message-ID: <046f01bf6d35$83e9dfe0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3896DA7F.4E239668@village.uunet.be> <03ff01bf6ce5$8c9eef40$16991e18@san.rr.com> <000d01bf6cf4$a1924140$178201d5@davidburn> Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 20:24:13 -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 David Burn wrote: > Marvin wrote: > > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > > How about something like : > > > > > > Field are 90% in game making, 45% of the time, failing 45%. > > > Other 10% divided between some strange extreme results. > > > > > > Equity is 50% of making and 50% of failing. > > > NOs get 60% of making and 40% of failing. > > > Os get 30% of making and 70% of failing. > > > > > David Stevenson convinced me long ago that a TD/AC has no business > looking > > at what the field has done. > > > > How often a TD has told me, "Well, everyone else bid game," when > opponents > > obviously have used UI to get to game. That isn't right. > > > > He has yet to convince me (though, to be fair, he has not tried). If > we are supposed to rule on the basis that a logical alternative is an > action that would have been taken by x% of a player's peers, then it > seems to me reasonable to consult the large sample we have available > of the player's peers - that is, to look at what the field has done. The field are not MY peers, I can assure you. Not that I am peerless (true in a sense), but that I use out-of-fashion methods. As for my opponents, it is quite likely that my non-standard bidding has put them in a position not faced by others. An automatic action has to be one that would be taken by others of the same expertise, using the same system, and placed in the same situation. You can't look at the scores and see that this was the case. > Of course, we are not (depending on the jurisdiction in which we > happen to be) necessarily supposed to do this. We are supposed to deem > a logical alternative one that would be "considered" by x% of the > player's peers. It may be that all the other Souths, without UI, > considered not bidding game, then bid it anyway. But this is > (statistically) highly unlikely; if a large number of people consider > doing something, then some of them will (probably) do it. The fact > that no one failed to bid game is very strong evidence for the > hypothesis that no one actually considered not bidding it, rather than > for the hypothesis that a significant number considered bidding it but > decided otherwise. > As I said... Wait, I must quote EK, as a reminder that the Laws do not require that one do what the rest of the field would do, but to take whatever alternative LA is available when another action has been suggested by UI. This is from *The Bridge World*, November 1995. You hold S-KQ10763 H- 4 D-K7 C-QJ82, vulnerable, and non-vulnerable LHO opens 4H, partner takes 25 seconds to pass, RHO passes, and it's up to you. Would it be obviously foolish to pass, an egregious error, absurd? No, it wouldn't--pass would be right quite often. Thus, if you successfully bid 4S the score should be adjusted back to 4H passed out. If you are convinced that you would always bid 4S, huddle or no huddle, do not blame the AC for robbing you--blame partner. Let him act in tempo next time. And it doesn't matter if the entire field was in 4S! Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 15:43:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA04727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 15:43:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtppop3.gte.net (smtppop3.gte.net [207.115.153.22]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA04722 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 15:43:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from mike (1Cust145.tnt4.bellingham.wa.da.uu.net [63.11.6.145]) by smtppop3.gte.net with ESMTP for ; id WAA35207974 Tue, 1 Feb 2000 22:42:35 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <000f01bf6d38$2b3a4b20$0b00000a@mike> Reply-To: "Mike Dodson" From: "Mike Dodson" To: References: Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 20:44:16 -0800 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 kojak wrote: > In a message dated 2/1/00 7:13:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, > t.kooyman@worldonline.nl writes: > > > Once more: > > THE LAWS COMMITTEE HAS DECIDED THAT IT IS PERMITTED FOR A CHIEF TD TO APPLY > > 12C3 ON AN EXPERIMENTAL BASE IF THE SPONSORING ORGANIZATION GIVES HIM THAT > > AUTHORITY. > > (we speak about a LC decision if it is authorized by the executive > > committee) > > THIS DECISION CAN BE CONSIDERED TO BE PART OF THE LAWS. > > > > ton > > humbly awaiting your further objections > > If I may interject a lurkers perspective, this is not how the extension of 12c3 has been presented thus far. What I have seen is the WBF has chosen to extend the use of 12c3 as the sanctioning body in the face of the text of the law. Phrasing it as Ton does takes care of this objection. > > > Dear Ton, you are wasting your time and efforts. The ones who are the > loudest about the misuse of the rights of the WBFLC and the WBF Executive > Committee just happen be also those who think this is wrong. Coincidence -- > I'm sure, -- but why waste your time trying to educate the uneducatable? > Stop and think if these objectors are really serious that the WBFLC and the > WBF Executive Committee are a bunch of incompetents who do whatever they feel > is right, or are also people of good intent, qualified, and concerned that we > do a better job of taking care of rulings and appeals. I have yet to read a > single argument that is cogent in its objection to what the WBF, WBFLC, and > the TDs and ACs are trying to do to "make bridge a better game..(quote from > you know whom)...." It makes me feel that BLML is often not for the good of > the game, but for the arguments, no matter how spurious, it is able to > provoke. Too bad, it could serve a much better purpose. > Kojak If we can turn this discussion to a more constructive tone, I would like to hear a discussion of how it is intended 12c3 should be used. I think I understand 12c2 and I like its impact on OS and NOS. I do not understand at all when 12c3 should be used. Is the OS entitled to a better score under 12c3 then 12c2?(I hope not) If 12c3 is used will the NOS and OS each receive the same result? Thus far the ACBL allows my ignorance to be inconsequential except in understanding the implications of 12c3 to the rest of the world but if it is the direction of the future than a good deal of education is necessary. Mike Dodson From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 16:48:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA04905 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 16:48:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from de.darcairo.egnet.net (de.darcairo.com [163.121.166.15]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA04900 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 16:48:01 +1100 (EST) Received: by de.darcairo.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 07:48:56 +0200 Message-ID: <40FB4E2BA983D211B03E00AA0009100CF8DC88@de.darcairo.com> From: Hassan El-Touby To: Craig Senior , david.burn@bt.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Helpful? Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 07:48:46 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk unscrib -----Original Message----- From: Craig Senior [mailto:rts48u@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2000 7:43 PM To: david.burn@bt.com; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Helpful? -----Original Message----- From: david.burn@bt.com >Anne wrote: > >Club game >N/S are husband and wife who do not play together often. >N/S average club players, E/W good tournament players. >N leads H10.from 10965. Dummy hits with KJ84. >Declarer W asks S if the lead of the 10 promises an honour. >Answer = Yes. > (DB)>This, while true, is not helpful. The lead of the ten always promises an >honour. ### As would the lead of the ace or the king or the queen or the jack! And the lead of the 9 or 8 etc always promises a spot card and the lead of a two always promises a duece. :-) >Dummy plays small, S plays small and Dec wins HA. >Later in the game, Dec plays a small H towards dummy >N plays H5,and S, looking at now bare HQ, and realising that she >should have said "No", offers the gratuitous "Do not take >the finesse" >Their agreement is 10 from internal sequence, top of bad >suit, HiLo from doubletons, 10 from 10/9 etc. >Dec, takes the finesse, loses to the HQ and calls the TD. ### Absolutely a double shot! >He claims he was given misinformation. ### Not so. >How do you rule? >Anne > (DB)>He was told nothing but the truth. That he chose to ignore it is his fault. >Result stands, and declarer fined to the full extent of the Law for wasting >official time. ### But my impression of the ethics of the alleged offender rises...I might suggest to him that he call me in future when he feels he may have given MI rather than try to correct it by interjecting advice to declarer. Craig Senior CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any attachments thereto contain protected and confidential information intended for the sole use of the individual or organisation named above. If you are not the addressee or an authorised agent for delivering it to the addressee, you are hereby warned that use, reproduction, distribution or dissemination of this document and any attachments is categorically prohibited. If you have received this message by error please notify the sender immediately by returning the message, and delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 18:39:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA05122 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 18:39:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA05117 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 18:38:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.172.137] (helo=davidburn) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12FuNC-0003US-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 07:38:47 +0000 Message-ID: <003a01bf6d50$942aafe0$89ac01d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3896DA7F.4E239668@village.uunet.be> <03ff01bf6ce5$8c9eef40$16991e18@san.rr.com> <000d01bf6cf4$a1924140$178201d5@davidburn> <046f01bf6d35$83e9dfe0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 07:39:02 -0000 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin wrote: > Wait, I must quote EK, as a reminder that the Laws do not require that one > do what the rest of the field would do, but to take whatever alternative LA > is available when another action has been suggested by UI. This is from *The > Bridge World*, November 1995. > > You hold S-KQ10763 H- 4 D-K7 C-QJ82, vulnerable, and non-vulnerable LHO > opens 4H, partner takes 25 seconds to pass, RHO passes, and it's up to you. > > Would it be obviously foolish to pass, an egregious error, absurd? No, it > wouldn't--pass would be right quite often. Thus, if you successfully bid 4S > the score should be adjusted back to 4H passed out. If you are convinced > that you would always bid 4S, huddle or no huddle, do not blame the AC for > robbing you--blame partner. Let him act in tempo next time. > > And it doesn't matter if the entire field was in 4S! If the AC is happy with the notion that pass is a logical alternative for this player with this hand, then there is no need for it to investigate further. If the AC is happy that pass would not be a logical alternative - say, AKQ10763 4 K7 A82 - then it also need look no further. However, there will come a point at which the AC may not be able to make up its mind about whether pass constitutes a logical alternative for this player with this hand. What should it do then? Toss a coin? No, it should use whatever information it can to assist it in making its decision. If West has an obvious 4H opening, then it is reasonable to assume that a very large number of Souths faced the same auction as this South did. If the contract at every table was 4S, then it is equally reasonable to assume that the great majority of those Souths did not consider passing (it would be unreasonable, by contrast, to assume that many considered passing but rejected it, since that is statistically highly improbable). If we are supposed to deem "not a logical alternative" an action that would not be considered by a significant number of South's peers, then we should form the opinion that pass is not a logical alternative for this South at this time. And it does not matter what we ourselves would bid. To put this another way: if we are supposed to judge South's action on the basis of what many other Souths would consider in this South's position, then the best way to form a basis for our judgement would be to go and ask many other Souths. Most of the time, of course, we cannot do this, for (as Richard Bley pointed out) there may not be many other Souths who were in precisely this South's position. But if, by happenstance, we do have at our disposal the means to discover the way in which many other Souths did in fact behave, then we should use those means. To do otherwise would, in my view, be a dereliction of duty. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 18:56:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA05174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 18:56:28 +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 SAA05169 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 18:56:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.unimuenster.de (actually FB03W204.UNI-MUENSTER.DE) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Wed, 2 Feb 2000 08:55:42 +0100 From: Richard Bley To: bridge-laws Subject: RE: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 08:55:42 +0100 Message-ID: <000001bf6d52$e805bfe0$4a54b080@unimuenster.de> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: 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 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kojak wrote: > Dear Ton, you are wasting your time and efforts. The ones > who are the > loudest about the misuse of the rights of the WBFLC and the > WBF Executive > Committee just happen be also those who think this is > wrong. Coincidence -- > I'm sure, -- but why waste your time trying to educate the > uneducatable? > Stop and think if these objectors are really serious that > the WBFLC and the > WBF Executive Committee are a bunch of incompetents who do > whatever they feel > is right, or are also people of good intent, qualified, and > concerned that we > do a better job of taking care of rulings and appeals. I > have yet to read a > single argument that is cogent in its objection to what the > WBF, WBFLC, and > the TDs and ACs are trying to do to "make bridge a better > game..(quote from > you know whom)...." It makes me feel that BLML is often > not for the good of > the game, but for the arguments, no matter how spurious, it > is able to > provoke. Too bad, it could serve a much better purpose. > Kojak Dont be so pessimistic about the value of blml. The case with this list is, that many people can say many things at the same time. So there are reasonable and unreasonable arguments. Of course it´s possible (likely?) that you didnt learn anything here. I mean, you are directing tournaments for a very long time at the highest level. Of course it would be quite surprising if there would be anything which is new for you. On the other side I think that the level of directing in all countries has grown because of this list (at least I hope you can confirm that it didnt drop ;-). I think I speak for the majority here: I learned much about ruling here. Of course sometimes its boring and of course sometimes the discussion goes in a way I dont like at all. But that´s not the point. Just my 2cents (sry for my english) Richard From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 20:12:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA05323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 20:12:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA05318 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 20:12:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.181] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12FvpX-000HxA-00; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 09:12:08 +0000 Message-ID: <002f01bf6d5d$c33e7660$b55608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Mike Dodson" , References: <000f01bf6d38$2b3a4b20$0b00000a@mike> Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 09:11:51 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 4:44 AM Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda > If we can turn this discussion to a more constructive tone, I would like to > hear a discussion of how it is intended 12c3 should be used. I think I > understand 12c2 and I like its impact on OS and NOS. I do not understand at > all when 12c3 should be used. Is the OS entitled to a better score under > 12c3 then 12c2?(I hope not) > If 12c3 is used will the NOS and OS each receive the same result? > > Thus far the ACBL allows my ignorance to be inconsequential except in > understanding the implications of 12c3 to the rest of the world but if it > is the direction of the future than a good deal of education is necessary. > +=+ Yes, I think this is sensible. We are wasting our time debating what has been decided already. It will be up to sponsoring organizations to decide how far to extend the use of 12C3 and the procedure required by the Code of Practice. Obviously it is expected they will begin with top level tournaments and with Directors they feel do have the capability to attempt the climb. I am not really thinking to get down to clubs in my lifetime, unless maybe a few clubs with strong players and experienced Directors. Mad dogs and all that. The ACBL has a special problem in joining the march, having bound the feet of their Directors for so long they have got to teach them walk - Kojak has emphasised this point somewhere. It is probably true that Kojak could walk so easily because he has such a wide experience of the rest of the world. I wonder whether the ACBL would not have a problem finding the teachers if they are persuaded to contemplate a step that is much bigger for them than for much of the world. So will one or two other places no doubt. Since Europe is embarking on a programme of Director training - we hope (!) - it is likely that we will be developing some fresh material on 12C3 - our President is pushing hard for the CoP to be circulated in Zone 1 and urged upon our NCBOs. Kojak could perhaps talk on blml about the Bermuda experiment and if he does I might round it off with some personal reflections on appeal committee reactions. Cheers, ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 20:36:24 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA05367 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 20:36:24 +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 UAA05362 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 20:36:16 +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 JAA11177 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 09:35:31 GMT Message-ID: <3897FA7F.7C93F665@meteo.fr> Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 10:35:59 +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: L12C2 References: <033801bf6c78$c6b21c60$16991e18@san.rr.com> <3896AE0E.C6FB337C@meteo.fr> <03fe01bf6ce5$8c4b02e0$16991e18@san.rr.com> <001b01bf6cf8$ff057460$178201d5@davidburn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn a écrit : > > Marvin wrote: > > From: Jean Pierre Rocafort (to whom my thanks) > > <"Marvin L. French" a écrit : > > > > Would some kind linguist help me with my French-to-English > > translations of these words from the French version of the Laws? > > (Without regard to the English from which they were taken, > > please.) > > JP: I can understand pretty well what is the meaning of the french > text, > but i am not sure to be able to express it by an english translation! > > > > - le camp non fautif marque le résultat le plus favorable qu'il > > aurait pu vraisemblablement obtenir si l'irrégularité n'avait pas > > eu lieu, > > > > the non-offending side is assigned the most favorable result that > > it could likely have obtained if the irregularity had not > > occurred. > > JP: agreed > > [MF] > Good, then the French have it right. The result need not be > likely, merely the one likely to have been the most favorable > result. > > The French do indeed have it right, but the English above does not > seem to me to be a correct interpretation of either the French or the > law. For a result to be assigned to the non-offending side, it must > indeed be a "likely" result - that is, it must be deemed to occur with > a probability greater than X [where X is a matter for the Sponsoring > Organisation, but must be sufficiently large to qualify for the > appellation "likely" or the French appellation "vraisemblable"]. > > > - le camp fautif marque le résultat défavorable le plus probable. > > > > the offending side is assigned the result with the greatest > > probability of being the most unfavorable. > > JP: it's rather: "... the result which has the greatest probability > among > the list of unfavorable results" > maybe the French text is not, in this instance, an accurate > transposition of the writing of L12. > > If that is what the French means, then (as I said in a previous post), > it is not an accurate translation of the law. If the list of > unfavourable results, and the probabilities assigned to them, is: > > -50 50% > -100 30% > -800 5% > > then the result assigned should be -100 (the most unfavourable of "at > all probable" results). But "the result which has the greatest > probability among the list of unfavourable results" is -50, which is > not the result required by the law. > > Here I owe Marvin an apology: the words that I referred to in my > previous message as "Marvin's words" are in fact words taken from the > French version of the Laws, not words created by Marvin. I should have > said "the words that appeared in Marvin's message". > > [MF] > Perhaps this would be correct: > > - le camp fautif marque le résultat le plus défavorable > > That would be an excellent notion, since it would mean that the > offenders received -7000 if they were not vulnerable and -7600 if they > were. And quite right too - this ought to be enough of an incentive > even for Steve Willner. But I am not sure that it is what the law > intends. I can translate into French almost every word in this phrase: > > the offending side receives the most unfavourable result that it could > have obtained with a significant probability if the infraction had not > taken place > > except that I am not sure what word a Frenchman would use for > "significant" in the sense of "statistically significant" - that is, > occurring with a probability of between 15% and 100%. "Important"? > "Considérable"? Perhaps JP can help us again! > I think you all, english speaking, try to read more than is intended in the french version of Laws. The true Laws are the English version; no french legislator ever worked to its writing and the french version is only a translation which is intended to be as faithful as possible; it should not carry additional information to the initial english text. Nobody's perfect, there has been a translation error in 12C2: an inversion of the words "probable" and "defavorable". As to the accuracy of the word "probable", it's another problem, the one of the purpose of 12C2, be it expressed in english or french language. In french, a less restrictive word than "probable" could be "vraisemblable", "raisonnable" or even further "imaginable". JP Rocafort > David Burn > London, England -- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 20:51:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA05428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 20:51:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin.axion.bt.co.uk (marvin.axion.bt.co.uk [132.146.16.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA05423 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 20:51:21 +1100 (EST) From: david.burn@bt.com Received: from cclmsent02.lon.bt.com by marvin (local) with ESMTP; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 09:49:46 +0000 Received: by cclmsent02.lon.bt.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.23) id ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 09:49:35 -0000 Message-ID: To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Helpful? Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 09:49:28 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.23) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > >This, while true, is not helpful. The lead of the ten always promises an > >honour. > > A player is supposed to give full disclosure when asked any question. In > this case, the intended meaning of the question is clear to everyone at > the > table, "Does it promise a higher honor?" > Let that be a lesson to me. Henceforward, I solemnly promise to refrain from all frivolity. No more shall I attempt to bring even the smallest degree of levity to what, as I now realise, is a profound and serious discussion of solemn and weighty matters. I humbly crave the indulgence of all whose time I may have wasted by previous persiflage, and vow henceforward to dedicate myself body and soul to the sacred task of bridge lawyers everywhere - to create a game that is no fun for anybody. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 21:40:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA05555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 21:40:28 +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 VAA05549 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 21:40:12 +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 MAA00457 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 12:01:57 GMT Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000202103817.006c86e0@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: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 11:38:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Edouard Beauvillain Subject: RE: Helpful? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:49 02/02/00 -0000, David wrote: >David Grabiner wrote: > >> >This, while true, is not helpful. The lead of the ten always promises an >> >honour. >> >> A player is supposed to give full disclosure when asked any question. In >> this case, the intended meaning of the question is clear to everyone at >> the >> table, "Does it promise a higher honor?" >> >Let that be a lesson to me. Henceforward, I solemnly promise to refrain from >all frivolity. No more shall I attempt to bring even the smallest degree of >levity to what, as I now realise, is a profound and serious discussion of >solemn and weighty matters. I humbly crave the indulgence of all whose time >I may have wasted by previous persiflage, and vow henceforward to dedicate >myself body and soul to the sacred task of bridge lawyers everywhere - to >create a game that is no fun for anybody. > >David Burn >London, England > I think the meaning of previous posts (and i agree with them) is : as the south player gave extra information : do not finesse! ; the EW can not intend for redress, Had the S said nothing during the play, such as : the 10 promises the 9 but not always a higher honor, there might be some redress... You don't have to ask for SO PRECISE questions : if i ask "does it promises an honor" it usually means ANOTHER than the one i can see on the table :-) Edouard From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 21:48:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA05593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 21:48:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from de.darcairo.egnet.net (de.darcairo.com [163.121.166.15]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA05586 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 21:47:03 +1100 (EST) Received: by de.darcairo.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 12:45:52 +0200 Message-ID: <40FB4E2BA983D211B03E00AA0009100CF8DD80@de.darcairo.com> From: Hassan El-Touby To: david.burn@bt.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Helpful? Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 12:45:51 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk unscribe -----Original Message----- From: david.burn@bt.com [mailto:david.burn@bt.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 11:49 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Helpful? David Grabiner wrote: > >This, while true, is not helpful. The lead of the ten always promises an > >honour. > > A player is supposed to give full disclosure when asked any question. In > this case, the intended meaning of the question is clear to everyone at > the > table, "Does it promise a higher honor?" > Let that be a lesson to me. Henceforward, I solemnly promise to refrain from all frivolity. No more shall I attempt to bring even the smallest degree of levity to what, as I now realise, is a profound and serious discussion of solemn and weighty matters. I humbly crave the indulgence of all whose time I may have wasted by previous persiflage, and vow henceforward to dedicate myself body and soul to the sacred task of bridge lawyers everywhere - to create a game that is no fun for anybody. David Burn London, England CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any attachments thereto contain protected and confidential information intended for the sole use of the individual or organisation named above. If you are not the addressee or an authorised agent for delivering it to the addressee, you are hereby warned that use, reproduction, distribution or dissemination of this document and any attachments is categorically prohibited. If you have received this message by error please notify the sender immediately by returning the message, and delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 2 22:43:46 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA05753 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 22:43:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from cobalt1-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt1-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.161]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA05748 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 22:43:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from pb2s03a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.99.179] helo=pacific) by cobalt1-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12FyBo-0007rl-00; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 11:43:16 +0000 Message-ID: <001101bf6d72$4bbdea20$b36393c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: WBFLC proceedings Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 11:38:57 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000E_01BF6D72.4BBDEA20" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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_000E_01BF6D72.4BBDEA20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Grattan Endicott; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 00:52:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp180-170.worldonline.nl [195.241.180.170]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id A84C836B21; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 14:52:34 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <003401bf6d83$c1460c80$a3b4f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Craig Senior" Cc: Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 14:45:17 +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 -----Original Message----- From: Grattan Endicott To: Craig Senior Cc: ton kooijman ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 4:26 AM Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B > >Grattan Endicott''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ' >'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >"Rigorous law is often rigorous injustice" > - Terence. >oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo >----- Original Message ----- >From: Craig Senior >To: Grattan Endicott ; ton kooijman > >Cc: >Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2000 9:11 PM >Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B > > >> Let me see if I understand. 9 of the 11 members of the WBFLC expressed >their >> opinion by a show of hands that 25B is seriously flawed...so the committee >> then decided to do nothing for another 2 to 5 years to remedy the >situation? >> >+=+ I think we need to be fair about this. I think that we should try to be even more fair about this. The opinion asked for was not about 25B as a whole. As I said before I was interested in the question what we felt about 'once a call is made it stands'. And then the 9-2 vote came up. Ralph Cohen memorized what Grattan and I had established also, that L25 has had important changes in all new editions of the laws the last 30 years. There was also a feeling expressed by some of us that we might accept a change of call in a slip of the tongue situation (1H -4C (splinter) - pass), which could be done by a more liberal way of interpreting the word 'inadvertent' in 25A or bringing that nuance in 25A in another way. But it was also clear to us that drawing a line being applicable for the TD at the table (that is where we write the laws for!) will be very difficult. Grattan thinks that 25B is flawed, many others (also in BLML) think so too, but the LC did not have a vote on that subject. ton From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 3 01:19:31 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA06274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 01:19:31 +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 BAA06269 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 01:19:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from pf9s06a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.134.250] helo=pacific) by cobalt7-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Fa3m-0001At-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 09:57:22 +0000 Message-ID: <000b01bf6d88$0f93fd80$fa8693c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Seconds: mins of 12 Jan 2000. Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 12:47:35 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01BF6D7B.ADB52C80" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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_01BF6D7B.ADB52C80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Grattan Endicott; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 01:51:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-124.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.124]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA22808 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 09:51:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000401bf6d8d$0d4e12e0$7c84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 09:51:55 -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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Marvin L. French >Is it only in the U. S. that the executive and legislative bodies, who make >the laws, must abide by the laws? Are you sure you on the left coast are in the same country? Have you never heard of Clinton or Gingrich? Here in PA we just had a state senator resign after entertaining two young ladies of the night on his expense account, a representative quit after a felony bribery conviction, and another facing felony charges of vehicular homicide in a hit and run. Lawmakers are not noted for obeying their laws. That of course does not mean that they should not. There seems to be little doubt that the WBF is making an honest effort to improve the appeals procedure and that it seems to be enjoying at least some early success. Yet we must be cautious that we do not cede the rule of law for the worthy cause of making the trains run on time. -- Craig Wilson "kept us out of war", Chamberlain negotiated "peace in our time." He who will not learn from history is doomed to repeat it. Does the end truly justify the means? Not all short sightedness can be cured by spectacles. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 3 02:37:32 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA06695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 02:37:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from cobalt1-ps.global.net.uk.noc.gxn.net (cobalt1-ps.global.net.uk [195.147.248.161]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA06688 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 02:37:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from pbcs02a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.130.189] helo=pacific) by cobalt1-ps.global.net.uk.noc.gxn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12G1pV-00088w-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 07:36:29 -0800 Message-ID: <003301bf6d92$f35d6420$bd8293c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: WBFLC story to date. Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 15:31:14 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001B_01BF6D92.8A5F08C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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_001B_01BF6D92.8A5F08C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Grattan Endicott Minutes of third meeting in Bermuda attached. ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01BF6D92.8A5F08C0 Content-Type: application/msword; name="WBFLC mins 20Jan2000.doc" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="WBFLC mins 20Jan2000.doc" 0M8R4KGxGuEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPgADAP7/CQAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAALAAAAAAAAAAA EAAALgAAAAEAAAD+////AAAAACsAAAD///////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////s pcEAWQAJCAAAABK/AAAAAAAAEAAAAAAABAAAOBkAAA4AYmpiavNX81cAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAJBBYAHiQAAJE9AQCRPQEAOBUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD//w8AAAAA AAAAAAD//w8AAAAAAAAAAAD//w8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAF0AAAAAAKIAAAAAAAAAogAAAKIA AAAAAAAAogAAAAAAAACiAAAAAAAAAKIAAAAAAAAAogAAABQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPoAAAAAAAAA+gAA AAAAAAD6AAAAAAAAAPoAAAAAAAAA+gAAAAwAAAAGAQAAHAAAAPoAAAAAAAAA8QMAAPwAAAAuAQAA AAAAAC4BAAAAAAAALgEAAAAAAAAuAQAAAAAAAC4BAAAAAAAALgEAAAAAAAAuAQAAAAAAAC4BAAAA AAAAtgMAAAIAAAC4AwAAAAAAALgDAAAAAAAAuAMAAAAAAAC4AwAAAAAAALgDAAAAAAAAuAMAACQA AADtBAAA9AEAAOEGAABqAAAA3AMAABUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAogAAAAAAAAAuAQAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAuAQAAAAAAAC4BAAAAAAAALgEAAAAAAAAuAQAAAAAAANwDAAAAAAAA ZgEAAAAAAACiAAAAAAAAAKIAAAAAAAAALgEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAC4BAAAAAAAALgEAAAAAAABm AQAAAAAAAGYBAAAAAAAAZgEAAAAAAAAuAQAAIgAAAKIAAAAAAAAALgEAAAAAAACiAAAAAAAAAC4B AAAAAAAAtgMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAtgAAACIAAADYAAAAIgAAAKIAAAAAAAAAogAA AAAAAACiAAAAAAAAAKIAAAAAAAAALgEAAAAAAAC2AwAAAAAAAGYBAAB2AQAAZgEAAAAAAADcAgAA OgAAAIADAAAsAAAAogAAAAAAAACiAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAtgMAAAAAAAAuAQAAAAAAACIBAAAMAAAAwCD5joZt vwH6AAAAAAAAAPoAAAAAAAAAUAEAABYAAACsAwAACgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADQ0N DQkgICAgTWludXRlcyBvZiB0aGUgbWVldGluZyBvZiB0aGUgV0JGIExhd3MgQ29tbWl0dGVlIA0J CSBoZWxkIGluIEJlcm11ZGEgb24gMjB0aCBKYW51YXJ5IDIwMDAuDQ0NCQ0JUHJlc2VudAkJVG9u IEtvb2lqbWFuCQkoQ2hhaXIpDQkJCQlUaGUgUHJlc2lkZW50IEVtZXJpdHVzDQkJCQlSYWxwaCBD b2hlbgkJKGNvIFZpY2UtQ2hhaXJtYW4pDQkJCQlDaGlwIE1hcnRlbAkJCShjbyBWaWNlLUNoYWly bWFuKQ0JCQkJR3JhdHRhbiBFbmRpY290dAkJKFNlY3JldGFyeSkNCQkJCVZpcmdpbCBBbmRlcnNv bg0JCQkJQ2VjaWwgQ29vaw0JCQkJSm9hbiBHZXJhcmQNCQkJCURhbiBNb3JzZQ0JCQkJUmViZWNj YSBSb2dlcnMNCQkJCVdpbGxpYW0gU2Nob2Rlcg0JCQkJSm9obiBXaWduYWxsDQ0JCQkJSmVmZnJl eSBQb2xpc25lcgkJKEdlbmVyYWwgQ291bnNlbCkNDQlCeSBpbnZpdGF0aW9uCVJpY2hhcmQgQ29s a2VyDQkJCQlEYXZpZCBTaWxiZXINCQkJCUxpbmRhIFRyZW50DQkJCQlOYWRpbmUgV29vZA0NQXBv bG9naWVzIGFnYWluIHJlY29yZGVkIGZyb20gQ2FybG9zIENhYmFubmUgYW5kIFNhbnRhbnUgR2hv c2UuDQ1Nci4gU2Nob2RlciBhc2tlZCB0aGF0IHRoZSBDb21taXR0ZWUgc2hvdWxkIGF0dGVuZCB0 byBpdHMgb3duIHJlbWl0IGFuZCBub3QgZGlncmVzcyBpbnRvIGFyZWFzIHRoYXQgYXJlIHRoZSBw cmVyb2dhdGl2ZSBvZiBvdGhlciBlbnRpdGllcy4NDUNvbnNpZGVyaW5nIHRoZSBtaW51dGVzIG9m IHRoZSBtZWV0aW5nIG9mIEphbnVhcnkgMTJ0aCwgcGFyYWdyYXBoIDYgICAgICAgICAgICAgTXIg TWFydGVsIHdpc2hlZCB0byBjbGFyaWZ5IHRoYXQgaGUgd2FzIHJlZmVycmluZyB0byB0aGUgbW90 aXZhdGlvbiBmb3Igd3JpdGluZyB0aGUgbGF3OyBidXQgdGhlIGxhdyBhcyBub3cgd3JpdHRlbiBk b2VzIG5vdCBhbGxvdyBvZiB0aGUgZGlzdGluY3Rpb24gYmV0d2VlbiByZWFzb25zIGZvciBjaGFu Z2luZyB0aGUgY2FsbCB0aGF0IHRoZSBDb21taXR0ZWUgaXMgZGVzaXJvdXMgb2YgbWFraW5nLiBB IHF1ZXN0aW9uIHdhcyBhc2tlZCBhcyB0byBob3cgbWFueSBydWxpbmdzIGJhc2VkIG9uIExhdyAy NUIgaGFkIGJlZW4gZ2l2ZW4gaW4gdGhlIGN1cnJlbnQgdG91cm5hbWVudC4gVGhlIENoaWVmIERp cmVjdG9yIHJlcGxpZWQgdGhhdCB0aGVyZSBoYWQgYmVlbiBhdCBsZWFzdCBzaXguIFRoZSBDaGFp cm1hbiByZW1pbmRlZCB0aGUgY29tbWl0dGVlIHRoYXQgaXQgaGFkIGJlZW4gYWdyZWVkIHRvIHB1 dCBjb25zaWRlcmF0aW9uIG9mIHRoZSBzdWJqZWN0IGJhY2sgdG8gdGhlIG1ham9yIHJldmlldyBv ZiB0aGUgbGF3cywgZW52aXNhZ2VkIHRvIG9jY3VyIGluIHRoZSBwZXJpb2QgMjAwMi0yMDA1LiBU aGUgU2VjcmV0YXJ5IHJlY29yZGVkIGhpcyByZXNlcnZhdGlvbiB0aGF0IGhlIGRpZCBub3QgY29u c2lkZXIgaXQgaW4gdGhlIGJlc3QgaW50ZXJlc3RzIG9mIGJyaWRnZSB0aGF0IHRoZSBjb21taXR0 ZWUsIGhhdmluZyBhbiBvdmVyd2hlbG1pbmcgYmFsYW5jZSBvZiBvcGluaW9uIHRoYXQgTGF3IDI1 QiBpcyBzZXJpb3VzbHkgZmxhd2VkIGFuZCBuZWVkcyB0byBiZSBkZWxldGVkIG9yIHJhZGljYWxs eSBhbHRlcmVkLCBzaG91bGQgZG8gbm90aGluZyBhYm91dCBpdCB1bnRpbCB0aGUgeWVhciAyMDA1 Lg0NSW4gcmVzcGVjdCBvZiBMYXcgMjVCIHRoZSBjb21taXR0ZWUgcmVjb3JkZWQgaXRzIGRlY2lz aW9uIHRoYXQgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gcmVjZWl2ZWQgZnJvbSB0aGUgYWN0aW9uIG9mIGFub3RoZXIg cGxheWVyIGFmdGVyIGEgY2FsbCBpcyBtYWRlIGlzIG5vdCBhdXRob3JpemVkIGZvciB1c2UgaW4g ZGVjaWRpbmcgdG8gY2hhbmdlIHRoZSBjYWxsLiBTdWNoIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGlzIHVuYXV0aG9y aXplZCB0byB0aGUgcGxheWVyIGZvciB0aGF0IGN1cnJlbnQgdHVybi4gKFNlZSBTY2hlZHVsZSAz IHRvIG1pbnV0ZXMgb2YgMTF0aCBKYW51YXJ5LikNDVRoZSBTZWNyZXRhcnkgdW5kZXJ0b29rIHRv IHNlZWsgcHVibGljYXRpb24gb2YgYSBkaXNjbGFpbWVyIG9uIHRoZSBXQkYgd2ViIHRvIHRoZSBl ZmZlY3QgdGhhdCBubyBvcGluaW9uLCB1bmxlc3MgdGhlIHJlY29yZGVkIGNvcnBvcmF0ZSBkZWNp c2lvbiBvZiB0aGUgY29tbWl0dGVlLCBzaG91bGQgYmUgY29uc2lkZXJlZCB0byBoYXZlIHRoZSBh dXRob3JpdHkgb2YgYSBjb21taXR0ZWUgZGVjaXNpb24uIERpcmVjdG9ycyBzZWVraW5nIGd1aWRh bmNlIHNob3VsZCByZWZlciB0byB0aGVpciBvd24gcmVzcGVjdGl2ZSBOQ0JPcy4gSXQgd2FzIGFn cmVlZCB0aGF0IHdoZW4gc3ViamVjdHMgYXJpc2UgdGhlIGNvbW1pdHRlZSBjb3VsZCBoYXZlIGl0 cyBvd24gaW50ZXJuYWwgZXhjaGFuZ2Ugb2Ygb3BpbmlvbnMgdmlhIHRoZSBpbnRlcm5ldC4NDVRo ZSBjb21taXR0ZWUgcGVydXNlZCBhIHJlcG9ydCBieSBNci4gS29vaWptYW4gcmVsYXRpbmcgdG8g VG91cm5hbWVudCBEaXJlY3RvcnMuIFRoZSBjb21taXR0ZWUgbGlrZWQgdGhlIGFwcHJvYWNoLCBi dXQgY29uc2lkZXJlZCBpdCBhIG1hdHRlciBmb3IgdGhlIENoaWVmIFRvdXJuYW1lbnQgRGlyZWN0 b3IgdG8gaW1wbGVtZW50IGFuZCBub3QgYSBzdWJqZWN0IGZvciB0aGUgY29tbWl0dGVlLg0NUmVm ZXJyaW5nIHRvIGEgbWludXRlIG9mIHRoZSAxMnRoIEphbnVhcnkgbWVldGluZyB0aGUgY29tbWl0 dGVlIG5vdGVkIHRoYXQgdGhlIFN5c3RlbXMgQ29tbWl0dGVlIGlzIHByb3Bvc2luZyBhbiBpbnRl cmltIHJlZ3VsYXRpb24gb2YgkWVuY3J5cHRlZJIgc2lnbmFscy4gQWx0aG91Z2ggdGhlIHN1Ympl Y3QgbWF5IGJlIGxvb2tlZCBhdCBpbiBhbnkgbWFqb3IgcmV2aXNpb24gb2YgdGhlIGxhd3MsIGdl bmVyYWwgb3BpbmlvbiB3YXMgdGhhdCB0aGUgcXVlc3Rpb24gaXMgb25lIGZvciByZWd1bGF0aW9u IHJhdGhlciB0aGFuIGxhdy4gTGF3IDQwRCBlbXBvd2VycyBhIHJlZ3VsYXRpbmcgYXV0aG9yaXR5 IHRvIG1ha2Ugc3VjaCBhIHJlZ3VsYXRpb24uIElmIGEgZ29vZCBkZWZpbml0aW9uIG9mIHRoaXMg dHlwZSBvZiBzaWduYWwgd2VyZSBhdmFpbGFibGUgaXQgY291bGQgYmUgb2ZmZXJlZCB0byByZWd1 bGF0aW5nIGF1dGhvcml0aWVzIGZvciBwb3NzaWJsZSB1c2Ugd29ybGR3aWRlLg0NVGhlIGNvbW1p dHRlZSBjb25zaWRlcmVkIHNpdHVhdGlvbnMgd2hlcmUgYW4gb2JzY3VyZSBjYWxsIGlzIG1hZGUg YW5kIHRoZSBwYXJ0bmVyIGluZm9ybXMgb3Bwb25lbnQgdGhhdCBoaXMgc2lkZSBoYXMgbm8gYWdy ZWVtZW50IGNvbmNlcm5pbmcgaXQuIEl0IHdhcyBub3RlZCB0aGF0IG5laXRoZXIgdGhlIFdCRiBp biBpdHMgQ29kZSBvZiBQcmFjdGljZSwgbm9yIHRoZSBBQ0JMLCByZWNvZ25pemVzIJFjb252ZW50 aW9uIGRpc3J1cHRpb26SIGFzIGFuIGluZnJhY3Rpb24gaW4gaXRzZWxmLiBUaGUgQ2hpZWYgRGly ZWN0b3IgcmVmZXJyZWQgdG8gdGhlIHJlcXVpcmVtZW50IGZvciB0aGUgcmVzcG9uZGVyIHRvIGdp dmUgZnVsbCBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiwgaW5jbHVkaW5nIGFncmVlbWVudHMgcmVsYXRpbmcgdG8gcmVs ZXZhbnQgYWx0ZXJuYXRpdmUgY2FsbHMuIFRoZSBjb21taXR0ZWUgb2JzZXJ2ZWQgdGhhdCB0aGUg RGlyZWN0b3IgaW4gZm9ybWluZyBhbiBvcGluaW9uIGFzIHRvIHRoZSBleGlzdGVuY2Ugb2YgYSBw YXJ0bmVyc2hpcCB1bmRlcnN0YW5kaW5nIHNob3VsZCB0YWtlIGludG8gYWNjb3VudCBzdWJzZXF1 ZW50IGFjdGlvbiBpbiB0aGUgYXVjdGlvbi4gSW4gcmVsYXRpb24gdG8gTGF3cyA3NUMgYW5kIDc1 RCB0aGUgRGlyZWN0b3IgaXMgcmVxdWlyZWQgdG8gZGV0ZXJtaW5lIHdoYXQgYWdyZWVtZW50cyB0 aGUgcGFydG5lcnNoaXAgaGFzLg0NTXIuIE1hcnRlbCB3b3VsZCBsaWtlIHRoZSBjb21taXR0ZWUg dG8gbG9vayBhdCBwb3NzaWJpbGl0aWVzIG9mIHJlbW92aW5nIHRoZSBwYXJ0bmVyIGZyb20gdGhl IHRhYmxlIGFuZCBpbnZpdGluZyB0aGUgcGxheWVyIHdobyBtYWRlIHRoZSBjYWxsIHRvIGV4cGxh aW4gaGlzIGludGVudGlvbi4NDVRoZSBTZWNyZXRhcnkgd2FzIGludml0ZWQgdG8gcmVmZXIgYSBz dGF0ZW1lbnQgYnkgTXIuIEtvb2lqbWFuIG9uIHRoZSBwb3NpdGlvbiBpbiBwYXJhZ3JhcGggNyBh Ym92ZSB0byB0aGUgQ29kZSBvZiBQcmFjdGljZSBDb21taXR0ZWUgZm9yIGNvbnNpZGVyYXRpb24u DQ1UaGVyZSB3YXMgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBvbiBsYXdzIGZvciBlbGVjdHJvbmljIGJyaWRnZS4gSXQg dHJhbnNwaXJlZCB0aGF0IE1yLiBDb2xrZXIgaXMgY29udHJhY3RlZCB0byBPSyBCcmlkZ2UgdG8g cHJvdmlkZSBsYXdzIGZvciB0aGVtLCBhbmQgaGFzIHBlcm1pc3Npb24gdG8gdXNlIHRoZSBBQ0JM IGxhd2Jvb2sgYXMgdGhlIGJhc2lzLiBJdCB3YXMgc3Ryb25nbHkgZGVzaXJlZCB0aGF0IHRoZXJl IHNob3VsZCBiZSBjby1vcGVyYXRpb24gYmV0d2VlbiBhbGwgaW50ZXJlc3RlZCBpbiB0aGUgc3Vi amVjdCwgYW5kIHRoZSB2aWV3IHdhcyBleHByZXNzZWQgdGhhdCBhcyBhIHdvcmxkd2lkZSBhY3Rp dml0eSBpdHMgcnVsZXMgc2hvdWxkIGhhdmUgdGhlIHBhcnRpY2lwYXRpb24gYW5kIGFwcHJvdmFs IG9mIHRoZSBXQkYuIEV4Y2hhbmdlcyBvZiBtYXRlcmlhbCB3ZXJlIGZlbHQgdG8gYmUgYXBwcm9w cmlhdGUsIGFuZCBNci4gV2lnbmFsbCB1cmdlZCBlYXJseSBwcm9ncmVzcyBpbiB0aGUgbWF0dGVy Lg0NSXQgd2FzIGFncmVlZCB0byBsb29rIGluIGFueSBtYWpvciByZXZpZXcgb2YgdGhlIGxhd3Mg YXQgYSBwb3NzaWJpbGl0eSBvZiBtZXJnaW5nIHRoZSBwcm9jZWR1cmVzIHVuZGVyIExhd3MgMjZB IGFuZCAyNkIuIEluIHRoZSBpbnRlcmltIGl0IGlzIGFncmVlZCB0aGF0IExhdyAyNkEgb25seSBh cHBsaWVzIHdoZXJlIGEgd2l0aGRyYXduIGNhbGwgcmVsYXRlcyBvbmx5IHRvIG9uZSBvciBtb3Jl IHNwZWNpZmllZCBzdWl0cy4gQSB3aXRoZHJhd24gY2FsbCBzaG93aW5nIGEgbWl4dHVyZSBvZiBz cGVjaWZpZWQgYW5kIHVuc3BlY2lmaWVkIHN1aXRzIGlzIHRvIGJlIGRlYWx0IHdpdGggdW5kZXIg TGF3IDI1Qi4NDVRoZSBjb21taXR0ZWUgbm90ZWQgdGhlIGZpbmFsIHdvcmRzIG9mIJFUaGUgU2Nv cGUgb2YgdGhlIExhd3OSLiBJdCBub3RlZCB0aGF0IHNjb3JlIGFkanVzdG1lbnQgaXMgZm9yIHRo ZSBwdXJwb3NlIG9mIHJlZHJlc3NpbmcgZGFtYWdlIHRvIGEgbm9uLW9mZmVuZGluZyBzaWRlIGFu ZCB0byB0YWtlIGF3YXkgYW55IGFkdmFudGFnZSBmcm9tIHRoZSBvZmZlbmRpbmcgc2lkZSwgbm90 IGZvciB0aGUgcHVuaXNobWVudCBvZiBvZmZlbmRlcnMuDQ1NZW1iZXJzIG9mIHRoZSBjb21taXR0 ZWUgZXhwcmVzc2VkIHRoZWlyIHNhdGlzZmFjdGlvbiB3aXRoIHdoYXQgdGhlIGNvbW1pdHRlZSBo YWQgZG9uZSBpbiBCZXJtdWRhLiBUaGUgQ2hhaXJtYW4gZHJldyB0aGUgbWVldGluZyB0byBhIGNs b3NlLiAgIA0NDQ0NDQ0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAABTBAAAVQQAAAIH AAAEBwAApgsAAKgLAABdDgAAXw4AADgZAAAA/QD9AP0A/QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA0gqAQAJAAQAAAEEAAACBAAAAwQA AAQEAAA7BAAAZAQAAGUEAABmBAAAaAQAAIgEAACjBAAAxwQAAOwEAAAOBQAAIgUAADEFAABBBQAA TwUAAGIFAAB2BQAAhwUAAIgFAACwBQAAsQUAAM8FAADgBQAA8AUAAAAGAAABBgAA/QAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAP0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD9 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/QAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAAAAAAA AAD9AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/QAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAAA AAAAAAD9AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA /QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAB0ABAAAAQQAAAIEAAADBAAA BAQAADsEAABkBAAAZQQAAGYEAABoBAAAiAQAAKMEAADHBAAA7AQAAA4FAAAiBQAAMQUAAEEFAABP BQAAYgUAAHYFAACHBQAAiAUAALAFAACxBQAAzwUAAOAFAADwBQAAAAYAAAEGAABBBgAAQgYAAM0G AADOBgAAegoAAHsKAACzCwAAtAsAAFoNAABbDQAAPQ4AAD4OAAA4EAAAORAAAAITAAADEwAAqxMA AKwTAABFFAAARhQAAEcWAABIFgAApBcAAKUXAAChGAAAohgAADIZAAAzGQAANBkAADUZAAA2GQAA NxkAADgZAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/AD2APAA6gDkAN4A2ADSAMwA xgDAALoAtAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAKCAIACQEKDAAAAAAKCAIACQEKCwAAAAAKCAIACQEKCgAAAAAKCAIACQEKCQAAAAAKCAIACQEK CAAAAAAKCAIACQEKBwAAAAAKCAIACQEKBgAAAAAKCAIACQEKBQAAAAAKCAIACQEKBAAAAAAKCAIA CQEKAwAAAAAKCAIACQEKAgAAAAAKCAIACQEKAQAAAAAFCAIACQEAPgEGAABBBgAAQgYAAM0GAADO BgAAegoAAHsKAACzCwAAtAsAAFoNAABbDQAAPQ4AAD4OAAA4EAAAORAAAAITAAADEwAAqxMAAKwT AABFFAAARhQAAEcWAABIFgAApBcAAKUXAAChGAAAohgAADIZAAD9AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/QAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAPgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA7gAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAAAAAAA AAD4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA+AAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPgAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAD9AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA+AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA /QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA+AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP0AAAAA AAAAAAAAAAD4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAACgAACiYAC0YCAA3GBwFoAQEAAAYFAAAKJgALRgIAAAEAAAAbMhkAADMZAAA0GQAANRkAADYZ AAA3GQAAOBkAAP0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAAA AAAAAAD9AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAYcAB+wgi4gsMZBIbDeBiKwBQcj kKAFJJDCBSWwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABIADwAKAAEAWwAPAAIAAAAAAAAA NAAAQPH/AgA0AAAABgBOAG8AcgBtAGEAbAAAAAIAAAATADUIgUNKGABPSgMAUUoDAG1ICQgAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPABBQPL/oQA8AAAAFgBEAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0ACAAUABhAHIAYQBnAHIA YQBwAGgAIABGAG8AbgB0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA4FQAACAAAJAAACQD/////AwAAAAQg//8B AAAAAAAAIP//AgAAAAAABCD//wMAAAAAAAAAAADoBQAAqw8AADgVAAAAAJIAAAABAAEAAAACAAAA AAAABAAAOBkAAA0AAAAABAAAAQYAADIZAAA4GQAADgAAABAAAAARAAAAAAQAADgZAAAPAAAAAAAA ABADAAARAwAAIQMAACcDAAA6FQAABwAEAAcAHAAHAAAAAAAQAwAAIAMAADoVAAAHABoABwD//wYA AAAQAEcAcgBhAHQAdABhAG4AIABFAG4AZABpAGMAbwB0AHQAMgBDADoAXABXAEkATgBEAE8AVwBT AFwAVABFAE0AUABcAEEAdQB0AG8AUgBlAGMAbwB2AGUAcgB5ACAAcwBhAHYAZQAgAG8AZgAgAEQA bwBjAHUAbQBlAG4AdAAxAC4AYQBzAGQAEABHAHIAYQB0AHQAYQBuACAARQBuAGQAaQBjAG8AdAB0 ACgAQwA6AFwATQB5ACAARABvAGMAdQBtAGUAbgB0AHMAXABXAEIARgBMAEMAIABtAGkAbgBzACAA MgAwAEoAYQBuADIAMAAwADAALgBkAG8AYwAQAEcAcgBhAHQAdABhAG4AIABFAG4AZABpAGMAbwB0 AHQAKABDADoAXABNAHkAIABEAG8AYwB1AG0AZQBuAHQAcwBcAFcAQgBGAEwAQwAgAG0AaQBuAHMA IAAyADAASgBhAG4AMgAwADAAMAAuAGQAbwBjAAIArnvRQ6SRJkb/D/8P/w//D/8P/w//D/8P/w8B AG5jGl4PAAkI/w//D/8P/w//D/8P/w//D/8PAQABAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADEAAA D4TCARGEPv4VxgUAAcIBBm8oAAIAAAAuAAEAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMQAAAPhGgB EYSY/hXGBQABaAEGbygAAgAAAC4AAgAAAK570UMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABuYxpeAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA /////////////wIAAAAAAAAA/0ABgAEAEQMAABEDAAB4pnMAAQABABEDAAAAAAAAEQMAAAAAAAAC EAAAAAAAAAA4FQAAgAAACABAAAAEAAAARxaQAQAAAgIGAwUEBQIDBAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAB AAAAAAAAAFQAaQBtAGUAcwAgAE4AZQB3ACAAUgBvAG0AYQBuAAAANRaQAQIABQUBAgEHBgIFBwAA AAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAAAAAFMAeQBtAGIAbwBsAAAAMyaQAQAAAgsGBAICAgICBAMAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAEEAcgBpAGEAbAAAAEUmkAEAAAILBQQCAgMCAgQDAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAABOAGUAdwBzACAARwBvAHQAaABpAGMAIABNAFQAAAAiAAQAcQioGAAA0AIA AGgBAAAAADgTQmaFE0JmAAAAAAIAQQAAABEDAAB/EQAAAwAIAAAABAADECUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMA AQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAIQMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAApQbAB7QAtACAADIw AAARABkAZAAAABkAAAB8FQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAegYAAAAAAgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAAC5Af//EgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAARwByAGEA dAB0AGEAbgAgAEUAbgBkAGkAYwBvAHQAdAAQAEcAcgBhAHQAdABhAG4AIABFAG4AZABpAGMAbwB0 AHQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD+/wAABAoCAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAA 4IWf8vlPaBCrkQgAKyez2TAAAABoAQAAEAAAAAEAAACIAAAAAgAAAJAAAAADAAAAnAAAAAQAAACo AAAABQAAAMQAAAAHAAAA0AAAAAgAAADgAAAACQAAAPwAAAASAAAACAEAAAoAAAAkAQAADAAAADAB AAANAAAAPAEAAA4AAABIAQAADwAAAFABAAAQAAAAWAEAABMAAABgAQAAAgAAAOQEAAAeAAAAAQAA AAAAcwAeAAAAAQAAAAAAcwAeAAAAEQAAAEdyYXR0YW4gRW5kaWNvdHQAAGQAHgAAAAEAAAAAcmF0 HgAAAAcAAABOb3JtYWwAIB4AAAARAAAAR3JhdHRhbiBFbmRpY290dAAAZAAeAAAAAgAAADIAYXQe AAAAEwAAAE1pY3Jvc29mdCBXb3JkIDguMAAAQAAAAADGlBQJAAAAQAAAAABwkdp8bb8BQAAAAABO M36Gbb8BAwAAAAMAAAADAAAAEQMAAAMAAAB/EQAAAwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/v8AAAQKAgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAAAALVzdWcLhsQ k5cIACss+a5EAAAABdXN1ZwuGxCTlwgAKyz5rjABAADsAAAADAAAAAEAAABoAAAADwAAAHAAAAAF AAAAgAAAAAYAAACIAAAAEQAAAJAAAAAXAAAAmAAAAAsAAACgAAAAEAAAAKgAAAATAAAAsAAAABYA AAC4AAAADQAAAMAAAAAMAAAAzQAAAAIAAADkBAAAHgAAAAcAAABnZXN0ZXIAbAMAAAAlAAAAAwAA AAgAAAADAAAAfBUAAAMAAABqEAgACwAAAAAAAAALAAAAAAAAAAsAAAAAAAAACwAAAAAAAAAeEAAA AQAAAAEAAAAADBAAAAIAAAAeAAAABgAAAFRpdGxlAAMAAAABAAAAAJgAAAADAAAAAAAAACAAAAAB AAAANgAAAAIAAAA+AAAAAQAAAAIAAAAKAAAAX1BJRF9HVUlEAAIAAADkBAAAQQAAAE4AAAB7ADgA QQA5AEEAQQA5AEMANwAtAEQAOQA3ADEALQAxADEARAAzAC0AOAAwADIAOQAtAEYAMwAyADQANAAy ADAARQAyADQAMgBCAH0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAACAAAAAwAAAAQAAAAFAAAABgAAAAcAAAAIAAAACQAAAAoAAAALAAAA DAAAAA0AAAAOAAAADwAAABAAAAARAAAAEgAAAP7///8UAAAAFQAAABYAAAAXAAAAGAAAABkAAAAa AAAA/v///xwAAAAdAAAAHgAAAB8AAAAgAAAAIQAAACIAAAD+////JAAAACUAAAAmAAAAJwAAACgA AAApAAAAKgAAAP7////9////LQAAAP7////+/////v////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////UgBvAG8AdAAgAEUAbgB0AHIAeQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABYABQH//////////wMAAAAGCQIAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAACAG anmGbb8B4MEAj4ZtvwEvAAAAgAAAAAAAAAAxAFQAYQBiAGwAZQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADgACAP///////////////wAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABMAAAAAEAAAAAAAAFcAbwByAGQARABvAGMAdQBt AGUAbgB0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaAAIBBQAAAP// ////////AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAB4kAAAAAAAABQBT AHUAbQBtAGEAcgB5AEkAbgBmAG8AcgBtAGEAdABpAG8AbgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAACgAAgECAAAABAAAAP////8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAb AAAAABAAAAAAAAAFAEQAbwBjAHUAbQBlAG4AdABTAHUAbQBtAGEAcgB5AEkAbgBmAG8AcgBtAGEA dABpAG8AbgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOAACAf///////////////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACMAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAEAQwBvAG0AcABPAGIAagAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASAAIBAQAAAAYAAAD/////AAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGoAAAAAAAAATwBiAGoAZQBjAHQAUABvAG8A bAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABYAAQD///////// //////8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAODBAI+Gbb8B4MEAj4ZtvwEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAP///////////////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAD+//////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////AQD+/wMKAAD/////BgkCAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARhgAAABNaWNyb3NvZnQgV29yZCBE b2N1bWVudAAKAAAATVNXb3JkRG9jABAAAABXb3JkLkRvY3VtZW50LjgA9DmycQAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAA= ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01BF6D92.8A5F08C0-- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 3 02:56:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA06791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 02:56:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.emr.ca [132.156.47.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA06786 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 02:56:04 +1100 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA13672 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 10:55:30 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200002021555.KAA13672@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: Using the Rules to Harass To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 10:55:29 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <38972BDF.5CDCA709@relaypoint.net> from "Irwin J Kostal" at Feb 01, 2000 10:54:23 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Irwin J Kostal writes: > > A situation has arisen at the local club that is causing the Director > some consternation. Having impact is the fact that the club is only > scraping along, and all the participants in this little drama are > regulars that the ownership wants to keep as customers. > > About two weeks ago, a player detached a card from his hand, so that > (the director ruled) it might have been seen by his partner. His > opponent, a somewhat rigid, elderly person, who takes the rules VERY > seriously, called the director and it was ruled to be a played card. The > players on the Offending Side took umbrage at this situation, and > apparently have continued to be angry about it. They have now decided > that, any time they play against the NO, they will call the director > "...any time he moves!" > > Now we all understand that this is childish nonsense, but that doesn't > exactly make it go away. The director is considering banning the pair > from the club, which is not an attractive alternative, since they are > usually quite pleasant folks, and quite frequent players. As Unit > President, and something of a force in the club's activities, I have > been made aware of the situation. I'm willing to step in, if I think I > can do any good. I just wondered if the collective experience of the > group might help me find a non-solomonic way to deal with this problem. Frankly I think you're screwed. I assume the director -- and others -- have spoken with the pair in question. At some point formal discipline is going to have to be taken against the pair in question. You simply can't allow this to continue. It's spoiling the enjoyment of others. Maybe if you borrowed a director the size of Tony Edwards. A lot of people would think twice before annoying him. And he plays annoyed very well when it suits him. (He's actually patient and pretty harmless, but it's not always obvious.) -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 3 03:29:58 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA06941 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 03:29:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.emr.ca [132.156.47.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA06936 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 03:29:46 +1100 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA15059 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 11:29:37 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200002021629.LAA15059@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: Vanderbilt hesitation ruling - not appealed To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 11:29:36 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <200002011813.KAA27805@mailhub.irvine.com> from "Adam Beneschan" at Feb 01, 2000 10:13:15 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan writes: > > > Ron Johnson wrote: > > > Not exactly timely but an interesting one I think. > > > > >From the finals of the Vanderbilt (major North American KO.) > > > > Never appealed since it was moot. I'd be interested in hearing > > what others think. > > > > The relevant hand (West, Mike Becker) > > > > A87 > > Q > > AJ75 > > AKJ85 > > > > Becker Kamil > > 1C 1S > > 2D 2H (1) > > 2S (2) 3H (3) > > 4H (4) 4S (5) > > 5S 6S > > > > (1) artificial: potentially weak. All attempts to sign off start here > > as do any strong hands that can't be easily described. > > > > (2) non forcing. Most frequently 3=1=4=5 (though other shapes with > > 3 Spades and longer clubs than diamonds possible). A hand too > > strong for a single raise but too weak to invite game strongly > > (usually 16 to 18 HCP) > > > > (3) natural: Slam try, longer spades than hearts This is incorrect. 5+ Spades, 4+ Hearts, Spades always at least as long as Hearts. > > (4) encouraging: either both or neither minor suit aces > > > > (5) break in tempo. > > > > Director rolled the contract back to 4S. > > > > Becker-Kamil can I think be presumed to know their methods. The > > issue is as I see it whether pass of 4S is a LA. > > > > Quoting Jeff Rubens now, "If you write down some East hands > > worth a slam-try with only five-five, > > I thought the bidding showed longer spades; doesn't this preclude 5-5? See above. My mistake. > > you'll see that it is > > clearly wrong for opener to pass four spades. The issue, > > really, is whether opener should drive to five or to six." > > And yet Becker gave a pretty good description of the hand > > (right down to the fact that 4H is encouraging) and partner > > signed off. It feels wrong to permit a bid over a slow sign-off. > > If 4H shows "both or neither" minor suit aces, perhaps it's incumbent > on West to continue over the signoff with both aces. I think we'd > have to know more about this aspect of their methods. The 4H bid is not further defined according to Rubens. (And Kamil-Becker were playing Rubens' methods over reverses.) Frankly I doubt that a move is mandatory with both aces. > Presumably this > would have been addressed if the result had been appealed. > > If this is not part of their methods, one might still argue that the > king of clubs is a huge card that Becker wasn't able to include in his > pretty good description. Especially if responder is likely to be 5-5, > having A-A-K in the suits responder is short in is clearly better than > something like AQJx AQJxx. I'm not making any judgment on whether > pass is an LA, only mentioning something that could perhaps be argued. Well that's the argument for continuing. The Heart Q is potentially a big card too. It's not a perfecto, but it's awfully close to being as good as he could have. But it's pretty obvious that there could be major handling charges. > > It may be clearly wrong on reflection to pass, but it's the > > kind of "mistake" that even players as good as Becker make > > all the time. And yet it doesn't feel right to assume that > > it's a LA for Becker. > > > > Perhaps the answer lies in one of Bobby Wolff's comments (1994 > > Appeals book) in a hesitation Blackwood case. (Almost a direct > > quote) Partner's hesitation denies the player the right to > > make an aggressive expert judgment. > > I don't think that quote adds anything. To apply Wolff's principle, > we'd have to figure out whether 5S is "aggressive"; and to figure this > out, we'd have to determine whether the pass is a logical alternative > (if passing is illogical then 5S can't really be considered > aggressive). So we're back where we started. When thinking of the word agressive here I'm thinking of his rejecting the "Partner's captain, I've already described my hand." logic. In these cases some people like to ask why he didn't take control the previous round if he was always going to drive past game. In other words, what did he learn in the last round of bidding? In this case though what he learned is that there's no grand. Partner was unlimited before signing off. I don't know. I don't like "If it hesitates, shoot it" as a philosophy, but slow signoffs are such a good description of certain hands that it feels right to rules against the players if there's any doubt how the auction might have gone. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 3 04:50:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA07359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 04:50:45 +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 EAA07354 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 04:50:36 +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 MAA27544; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 12:45:14 -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: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 12:37:17 -0500 To: david.burn@bt.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: RE: Helpful? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 9:49 AM +0000 2/2/00, david.burn@bt.com wrote: >David Grabiner wrote: >> >This, while true, is not helpful. The lead of the ten always promises an >> >honour. >> A player is supposed to give full disclosure when asked any question. In >> this case, the intended meaning of the question is clear to everyone at >> the >> table, "Does it promise a higher honor?" >Let that be a lesson to me. Henceforward, I solemnly promise to refrain from >all frivolity. I apologize; I didn't intend this as a flame. I was trying to clarify what the player's obligations actually were in this situation, because this is an important issue in the ruling. I wanted to make the point about full disclosure; for example, the answer to this question for some players would not be a simple "No" but "It promises zero or two higher honors." From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 3 04:52:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA07375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 04:52:06 +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 EAA07370 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 04:51:58 +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 ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 09:51:50 -0800 Message-ID: <04e401bf6da5$e1bdb180$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <033801bf6c78$c6b21c60$16991e18@san.rr.com> <3896AE0E.C6FB337C@meteo.fr> <03fe01bf6ce5$8c4b02e0$16991e18@san.rr.com> <001b01bf6cf8$ff057460$178201d5@davidburn> <3897FA7F.7C93F665@meteo.fr> Subject: Re: L12C2 Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 09:49:08 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > I think you all, english speaking, try to read more than is intended in the french version of Laws. The true Laws are the English version; no french legislator ever worked to its writing and the french version is only a translation which is intended to be as faithful as possible; it >should not carry additional information to the initial english text. However, as seems to be common, the translator can convey the meaning of the English text with greater clarity than the original. An example is the definition of "convention." English readers disagree as to its intended meaning, but I'm sure the French don't. (Although Steve Willner will no doubt say it is a mistranslation!) >Nobody's perfect, there has been a translation error in 12C2: an inversion of the words "probable" and "defavorable". As to the accuracy of the word "probable", it's another problem, the one of the purpose of 12C2, be it expressed in english or french language. In french, a less restrictive word than "probable" could be "vraisemblable", "raisonnable" >or even further "imaginable". I like "raisonnable," which comes across as the perfect word. One looks at the outcomes that might reasonably have resulted, and assigns the most unfavorable to the OS. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 3 05:20:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA07479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 05:20:50 +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 FAA07474 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 05:20:42 +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 ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 10:20:34 -0800 Message-ID: <052a01bf6da9$e3340100$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <001101bf6d72$4bbdea20$b36393c3@pacific> Subject: Re: WBFLC proceedings Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 10:18:17 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Many thanks to Grattan for publishing these minutes. The ACBL LC should follow his good example. Excerpt: 12. 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 the punishment of offenders. Anyone know what the committee wishes to be inferred from this item? What's its purpose? Question: Doesn't a PP have the same effect on a pair as adjusting their score? Marv (Marvin L. French) AKA Cato > > +=+ Having despatched the minutes to the > remaining member NCBOs - they will not > yet have reached New Caledonia and the > Netherlands Antilles - I feel free to make them > available to the wolf pack. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 3 05:20:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA07472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 05:20:36 +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 FAA07467 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 05:20:28 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA03695 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 19:20:18 +0100 Received: from ip162.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.162), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda03692; Wed Feb 2 19:20:10 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 19:20:11 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <003e01bf6ce3$676f8100$bab4f1c3@kooijman> In-Reply-To: <003e01bf6ce3$676f8100$bab4f1c3@kooijman> 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 FAA07468 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 1 Feb 2000 19:37:24 +0100, "ton kooijman" wrote: >Once more: >THE LAWS COMMITTEE HAS DECIDED THAT IT IS PERMITTED FOR A CHIEF TD TO APPLY >12C3 ON AN EXPERIMENTAL BASE IF THE SPONSORING ORGANIZATION GIVES HIM THAT >AUTHORITY. This is fine with me. >(we speak about a LC decision if it is authorized by the executive >committee) >THIS DECISION CAN BE CONSIDERED TO BE PART OF THE LAWS. The only problem I have with that is that what you describe here is a change of the law. Yet we are also told that the WBFLC decided not to change the law. When the WBFLC explicitly writes that the law change was postponed to a major revision, surely it cannot be surprising that TDs and SOs believe that the words of their law book are still valid. But you tell us they are not. Statements or decisions from the WBFLC are unproblematic as long as they only give instructions on how to interpret laws with which they are not in direct conflict. But when the WBFLC issues an instruction that is contrary to the letter of the law book, then it seems to me that such an instruction is either (a) A law change, overriding the book, or (b) An illegal interpretation of the book. What you are saying about "decisions" above seems to me to be that they are meant not only to have the force of the law as a supplement to the law book, but even to override the book when they are in conflict. I.e., (a) above. If this is the case, then a "decision" is simply a law change which the WBFLC has just not (yet) put into words that could directly replace the existing laws. If I have understood that correctly, I would like to urge the WBFLC to actually use the words "law change" when they make law changes - even when they do not put these changes into legalese and issue a new book. If it really _is_ a change of law, why not admit that and use those words, so the rest of the world can understand it? Or at least write something like "This decision takes precedence over the law book" in the minutes, so that the readers know that there was a deliberate WBFLC decision to override the existing law. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 3 05:37:13 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA07565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 05:37:13 +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 FAA07560 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 05:37:05 +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 KAA16207; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 10:36:56 -0800 Message-Id: <200002021836.KAA16207@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Seconds: mins of 12 Jan 2000. In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 02 Feb 2000 12:47:35 PST." <000b01bf6d88$0f93fd80$fa8693c3@pacific> Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 10:36:57 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here's what I got when I tried to use a program to translate and clean up Grattan's message. Hopefully no information got dropped out. Fortunately, there were no hand diagrams, which I would have had problems with. Hope this helps, -- Adam ============================================================================= Minutes of the meeting of the WBF Laws Committee held in Bermuda on 12th January 2000. Present Ton Kooijman (Chair) The President Emeritus Ralph Cohen (co Vice-Chairman) Grattan Endicott (Secretary) Virgil Anderson Cecil Cook Joan Gerard Dan Morse William Schoder John Wignall By invitation: Richard Colker Jeffrey Polisner Linda Trent Nadine Wood Apologies received from Carlos Cabanne and Santanu Ghose. The meeting continued with items remaining from the meeting the previous day. Law 64 was addressed. It was confirmed that in Law 64A2 the word `subsequently' means subsequent to the revoke. 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 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. 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 that 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. There was a 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. The committee read copies of internet correspondence concerning a situation in which, acting upon misinformation which in the Director's opinion inhibits them from a presumed 3NT contract, a side arrives in a high level contract, which may appear to be a good contract but as the cards lie cannot be made. It was agreed that a score adjustment is appropriate if the side is damaged, as in the specific example owing to the misinformation, but if the side is not damaged the laws do not allow of score adjustment. The WBF Code of Practice defines `damage'. A player claiming to be damaged must convince the Director this is the case. The quality of the contract is not a consideration. Being aware that Declarers sometimes give an instruction to Dummy to run a suit and then leave him to do this without giving, as is procedurally correct, a separate instruction for each card. A question can arise as to when the second, or a later, card is played from dummy, since the Declarer is not able to stop play of the card once it is played. The Committee ruled that the card is deemed to be played when Declarer's RHO follows to the trick. However, the committee deprecates instructions given to Dummy in this irregular manner. A question put by M. Lormant Philippe concerned the relationship of Law 51 to Law 50. The committee observed that Law 50 makes the general statement of the matter; Law 51 deals with the position when there is more than one penalty card but does so by reference back to Law 50. At the request of the committee the secretary undertook to retain a note that Law 79B requires attention when a major review of the laws is undertaken. The committee revisited the decision taken in Lille concerning `average minus' in Law 12C1. The committee decided to abide by its decision in Lille. Mr. Wignall said that the Systems Committee would welcome advice on the manner in which 'encrypted' signals could best be disallowed. Members of the committee undertook to provide information for consideration. The subject would be revisited at the next meeting of the committee. Mr. Wignall drew attention to situations when, behind screens, an opening bid is followed by a `big jump in a suit' and upon enquiry as to its meaning the side which has made the skip bid responds that they `have no agreement'. This subject also was deferred for later examination together with generally related issues. The meeting then concluded. It was agreed that a further meeting is needed. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 3 05:37:59 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA07582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 05:37:59 +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 FAA07576 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 05:37:51 +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 KAA16225; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 10:37:41 -0800 Message-Id: <200002021837.KAA16225@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: WBFLC story to date. In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 02 Feb 2000 15:31:14 PST." <003301bf6d92$f35d6420$bd8293c3@pacific> Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 10:37:42 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The second message. Hope this helps, -- Adam ============================================================================= Minutes of the meeting of the WBF Laws Committee held in Bermuda on 20th January 2000. Present Ton Kooijman (Chair) The President Emeritus Ralph Cohen (co Vice-Chairman) Chip Martel (co Vice-Chairman) Grattan Endicott (Secretary) Virgil Anderson Cecil Cook Joan Gerard Dan Morse Rebecca Rogers William Schoder John Wignall Jeffrey Polisner (General Counsel) By invitation Richard Colker David Silber Linda Trent Nadine Wood Apologies again recorded from Carlos Cabanne and Santanu Ghose. Mr. Schoder asked that the Committee should attend to its own remit and not digress into areas that are the prerogative of other entities. Considering the minutes of the meeting of January 12th, paragraph 6 Mr Martel wished to clarify that he was referring to the motivation for writing the law; but the law as now written does not allow of the distinction between reasons for changing the call that the Committee is desirous of making. 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. In respect of Law 25B the committee recorded its decision that information received from the action of another player after a call is made is not authorized for use in deciding to change the call. Such information is unauthorized to the player for that current turn. (See Schedule 3 to minutes of 11th January.) 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 own respective NCBOs. It was agreed that when subjects arise the committee could have its own internal exchange of opinions via the internet. The committee perused a report by Mr. Kooijman relating to Tournament Directors. The committee liked the approach, but considered it a matter for the Chief Tournament Director to implement and not a subject for the committee. Referring to a minute of the 12th January meeting the committee noted that the Systems Committee is proposing an interim regulation of `encrypted' signals. Although the subject may be looked at in any major revision of the laws, general opinion was that the question is one for regulation rather than law. Law 40D empowers a regulating authority to make such a regulation. If a good definition of this type of signal were available it could be offered to regulating authorities for possible use worldwide. The committee considered situations where an obscure call is made and the partner informs opponent that his side has no agreement concerning it. It was noted that neither the WBF in its Code of Practice, nor the ACBL, recognizes `convention disruption' as an infraction in itself. The Chief Director referred to the requirement for the responder to give full information, including agreements relating to relevant alternative calls. The committee observed that the Director in forming an opinion as to the existence of a partnership understanding should take into account subsequent action in the auction. In relation to Laws 75C and 75D the Director is required to determine what agreements the partnership has. Mr. Martel would like the committee to look at possibilities of removing the partner from the table and inviting the player who made the call to explain his intention. The Secretary was invited to refer a statement by Mr. Kooijman on the position in paragraph 7 above to the Code of Practice Committee for consideration. There was discussion on laws for electronic bridge. It transpired that Mr. Colker is contracted to OK Bridge to provide laws for them, and has permission to use the ACBL lawbook as the basis. It was strongly desired that there should be co-operation between all interested in the subject, and the view was expressed that as a worldwide activity its rules should have the participation and approval of the WBF. Exchanges of material were felt to be appropriate, and Mr. Wignall urged early progress in the matter. It was agreed to look in any major review of the laws at a possibility of merging the procedures under Laws 26A and 26B. In the interim it is agreed that Law 26A only applies where a withdrawn call relates only to one or more specified suits. A withdrawn call showing a mixture of specified and unspecified suits is to be dealt with under Law 25B. 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 the punishment of offenders. Members of the committee expressed their satisfaction with what the committee had done in Bermuda. The Chairman drew the meeting to a close. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 3 05:40:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA07602 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 05:40:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA07597 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 05:40:16 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA03727 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 19:40:08 +0100 Received: from ip162.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.162), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda03724; Wed Feb 2 19:40:05 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 19:40:05 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <2dtg9sgr2ie06iqg6fg84nkvos7sr74jo5@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 FAA07598 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 1 Feb 2000 19:26:51 EST, Schoderb@aol.com wrote: >Dear Ton, you are wasting your time and efforts. The ones who are the >loudest about the misuse of the rights of the WBFLC and the WBF Executive >Committee just happen be also those who think this is wrong. I think I'm fairly loud, and I do not think it is wrong to let TDs use L12C3. (a) I find it very important that L12 becomes equal for (all) TDs and ACs. (b) I have no strong opinion as to whether this is best done by allowing TDs to use L12C3 or by removing L12C3 completely. (c) Since the WBFLC is now doing something that will get us closer to (a), I support that initiative whole-heartedly. (d) However, I would like the formalities to be observed: I get confused when I'm told that there is no law change, but that I need nevertheless not apply L12 as it is written. I get the impression that the WBFLC wants to, and effectively does, change the law, but for some mysterious reason does not want to say clearly that that is what they are doing. >Stop and think if these objectors are really serious that the WBFLC and the >WBF Executive Committee are a bunch of incompetents who do whatever they feel >is right, or are also people of good intent, qualified, and concerned that we >do a better job of taking care of rulings and appeals. It does quite often happen that people disagree about something even though they are all qualified and concerned people of good intent. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 3 06:53:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA07820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 06:53:09 +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 GAA07809 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 06:52:56 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA03891 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 20:52:48 +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 smtpda03888; Wed Feb 2 20:52:45 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 20:52:46 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <016901bf6ac0$01e652c0$16991e18@san.rr.com><001901bf6ac9$f31b8120$3b2f63c3@davidburn> <007401bf6b14$b4cfd2e0$b25408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <007401bf6b14$b4cfd2e0$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 GAA07816 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 30 Jan 2000 11:23:54 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: > 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. I agree with that to a large degree. However, I also find it quite reasonable that when an irregularity causes a cancelled board the scores are ave+/ave-, rather than the ave/ave which would more correctly represent "the expected outcome of the board". After all, they have been deprived not only of an expected average, but also of the chance of a good score. Correspondingly, I think that some way of giving the NOS slightly more (and the OS slightly less) than the mathematical expectancy would be good, as a compensation for the loss of the chance of a really good score. I do not have a good idea as to how this should be done in a situation where adjustments are normally made in a L12C3-like way. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 3 06:53:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA07815 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 06:53:06 +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 GAA07810 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 06:52:56 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA03892 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 20:52:48 +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 smtpdb03888; Wed Feb 2 20:52:46 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 20:52:47 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <007701bf6b8d$0d6ef700$c05408c3@dodona> 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 GAA07811 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 31 Jan 2000 03:12:15 +0000, "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >In article <007701bf6b8d$0d6ef700$c05408c3@dodona>, Grattan Endicott > writes >>+=+ 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 ~ +=+ >> >whilst this is a laudable intention, I fear the consequences. So do I. And players do accept the automatic penalty fully. So the lack of equity does not seem to be regarded as a problem by players. But L64 is too complicated: my suggestion would be an automatic 1-trick penalty (if any trick was won from the revoke trick onwards) combined with L64C. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 3 07:44:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA08004 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 07:44:02 +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 HAA07999 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 07:43:51 +1100 (EST) Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 8D88E30EEE; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 15:43:43 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 15:44:06 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Movements for a KO qualifier? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My District is trying to come up with alternatives for our Grant National teams qualifiers that do not involve the evils of three-way matches with two survivors. Our goal is to qualify 8 teams in Flight A from an initial entry of around 16, and we have two sessions in which to do so. We discarded Swiss Teams qualifying years ago as unsuitable, and we prefer not to award first-round byes if we can help it. We'd also like to avoid 3 way matches with one survivor, which seems unfair to those in the three-way. Is this a tall order? My proposal is to split the Flight A field (we expect 16 teams or so) into two brackets, and to hold double round-robins in each bracket, that is, a round-robin in the afternoon and another round-robin in the evening. Each match will be decided by the sum of the scores from the two round-robins, which will be converted to Victory Points. No scores will be compared until the end of each session. I got this idea from the US team trials. It avoids the problem of some teams knowing they're out of the event but still having matches to play which will effect qualification. A team is unlikely to be completely out of contention at the half, and if they are they still have to play the same number of boards against each other team. It also avoids the problem of a team knowing that it would be to its advantage to lose a match. Our director has voiced serious complaints about this format when it involves an odd number of teams. An odd number means that the two brackets will be of different sizes, and so will have different numbers of boards per round. Since Flights B and C, with smaller turnouts, will likely have round robins this means we could have four movements being played simultaneously, each with a different round length. So, here are my questions: a) What are other possible movements? b) Have any of you run four games simultaneously with four different round lengths? How difficult is it? Assume that you'll have caddies available. AW From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 3 08:04:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA08026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 07:45:27 +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 HAA08014 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 07:45:13 +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 PAA18671 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 15:44:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA00681 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 15:45:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 15:45:05 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200002022045.PAA00681@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jesper Dybdal > Correspondingly, I think that some way of giving the NOS slightly > more (and the OS slightly less) than the mathematical expectancy > would be good, as a compensation for the loss of the chance of a > really good score. This is what I've been saying in response to David Burn. As usual, Jesper puts it both more clearly and more succinctly. > I do not have a good idea as to how this should be done in a > situation where adjustments are normally made in a L12C3-like > way. One way is just to add 10% of a top to the NOS score and subtract it from the OS score. It is easy to administer, and it corresponds to the usual avg+/avg- notion. No doubt fairer ways can be devised, but they may be more complex. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 3 08:29:43 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA08225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 08:29:43 +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 IAA08215 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 08:29:23 +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 QAA04602 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 16:29:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA073566944; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 16:29:04 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 16:28:52 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="openmail-part-05c872c4-00000001" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --openmail-part-05c872c4-00000001 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="BDY.RTF" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="BDY.RTF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, I will like to have something to give to members of Appeal Comittee at the club level to help them making their job. Despite the fact I often have more than 30 tables in my club, most of them know nothing about Laws. I am lucky when I can recruit a club director and 2 good players. What I am trying to prepare is short and simple instructions for most frequent cases (less than 1 page per case). The aim is not to have something exhaustive according to Laws, but a sheet they can easily use to make their decision after I explained Laws. But I do not want to reinvent the wheel. May be some of you are aware of something like this already available and usable at the club level. Would you please tell me. Yes, I know: no attached files to BLML messages, but... The Word-Office-97 attached file is an example of what I would like to have, and it would be unreadable otherwise. I choose the "Unauthorised information" case because it is the most frequent. I am a French speaker, so I surely made some mistakes.... Laval Du Breuil Quebec City =20 --openmail-part-05c872c4-00000001 Content-Type: application/msword; name="Appeal Comittee.doc" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Appeal Comittee.doc" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 0M8R4KGxGuEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPgADAP7/CQAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAKQAAAAAA AAAAEAAAKwAAAAEAAAD+////AAAAACgAAAD///////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////spcEAWQAMDAAAABK/AAAAAAAAEAAAAAAABAAA 5QsAAA4AYmpiavNX81cAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMBBYAKhoAAJE9AQCRPQEA5QcAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD//w8AAAAAAAAAAAD//w8AAAAAAAAAAAD//w8A AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAF0AAAAAANYAAAAAAAAA1gAAANYAAAAAAAAA1gAAAAAAAADWAAAA AAAAANYAAAAAAAAA1gAAABQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOoAAAAAAAAA6gAAAAAAAADqAAAAAAAAAOoA AAAAAAAA6gAAAAwAAAD2AAAAFAAAAOoAAAAAAAAAkhAAALYAAAAWAQAAAAAAABYBAAAAAAAA FgEAAAAAAAAWAQAAAAAAABYBAAAAAAAAFgEAAAAAAAAWAQAAAAAAABYBAAAAAAAAVxAAAAIA AABZEAAAAAAAAFkQAAAAAAAAWRAAAAAAAABZEAAAAAAAAFkQAAAAAAAAWRAAACQAAABIEQAA 9AEAADwTAACkAAAAfRAAABUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA1gAAAAAAAAAWAQAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWAQAAAAAAABYBAAAAAAAAFgEAAAAAAAAWAQAAAAAAAH0QAAAAAAAA JAwAAAAAAADWAAAAAAAAANYAAAAAAAAAFgEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABYBAAAAAAAAFgEAAAAA AAAkDAAAAAAAACQMAAAAAAAAJAwAAAAAAAAWAQAADgsAANYAAAAAAAAAFgEAAAAAAADWAAAA AAAAABYBAAAAAAAAVxAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA6gAAAAAAAADqAAAAAAAAANYA AAAAAAAA1gAAAAAAAADWAAAAAAAAANYAAAAAAAAAFgEAAAAAAABXEAAAAAAAACQMAAByAAAA JAwAAAAAAACWDAAAcgAAAPUPAABUAAAA1gAAAAAAAADWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAVxAAAAAAAAAWAQAA AAAAAAoBAAAMAAAAgGZzwMBtvwHqAAAAAAAAAOoAAAAAAAAAJAwAAAAAAABJEAAADgAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASW5zdHJ1Y3Rpb24gdG8gbWVtYmVycyBvZiBhbiBB cHBlYWwgQ29taXR0ZWUNQ2FzZSAxoDogVW5hdXRob3Jpc2VkIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uDQ1MYXcg c3VtbWFyeQ0NTGF3IDczIHNwZWNpZmllcyB0aGF0IGNvbW11bmljYXRpb24gYmV0d2VlbiBw YXJ0bmVycyBkdXJpbmcgdGhlIGF1Y3Rpb24gYW5kIHBsYXkgc2hhbGwgYmUgYWZmZWN0ZWQg b25seSBieSBtZWFucyBvZiB0aGUgY2FsbHMgYW5kIHBsYXkgdGhlbXNlbHZlcy4gQWxsIG90 aGVyIGZvcm1zIG9mIGNvbW11bmljYXRpb24gYXMgcmVtYXJrLCBxdWVzdGlvbiwgZ2VzdHVy ZSBoYXN0ZSBvciBoZXNpdGF0aW9uIGlzIGlsbGVnYWwgYW5kIHBhcm5lciBvZiBvZmZlbmRl ciBtdXN0IGNhcmVmdWxseSBhdm9pZCB0YWtpbmcgYWR2YW50YWdlIHRoYXQgbWlnaHQgYWNj cnVlIHRvIGhpcyBzaWRlLg0NTGF3IDE2IGFkZCB0aGF0IHRoZSBwYXJ0bmVyIG9mIG9mZmVu ZGVyIG1heSBub3QgY2hvb3NlIGZyb20gYW1vbmcgbG9naWNhbCBhbHRlcm5hdGl2ZSBhY3Rp b25zIG9uZSB0aGF0IGNvdWxkIGRlbW9uc3RyYWJseSBoYXZlIGJlZW4gc3VnZ2VzdGVkIG92 ZXIgYW5vdGhlciBieSBleHRyYW5lb3VzIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uLiBUaGlzIExhdyBhbHNvIGFw cGxpZXMgdG8gb2ZmZW5kaW5nIHNpZGUgZm9yIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGFyaXNpbmcgZnJvbSB3 aXRoZHJhd24gY2FsbHMgYW5kIHBsYXlzLg0NV2hlbiB0aGUgZGlyZWN0b3IganVkZ2VzIHRo YXQgYSBwbGF5ZXIgdXNlZCBzdWNoIGV4dHJhbmVvdXMgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gYW5kIHRoaXMg YWN0aW9uIGRhbWFnZWQgbm9uLW9mZmVuZGluZyBzaWRlLCBoZSBtYXkgYXdhcmQgYW5kIGFk anVzdGVkIHNjb3JlIGFzIHNwZWNpZmllZCBieSBMYXcgMTKgOg0NdG8gdGhlIG5vbi1vZmZl bmRlcnOgOiB0aGUgbW9zdCBmYXZvcmFibGUgcmVzdWx0IHRoYXQgd2FzIGxpa2VseSBoYWQg dGhlIGlycmVndWxhcml0eSBub3Qgb2NjdXJyZWQ7DXRvIG9mZmVuZGVyc6A6IHRoZSBtb3N0 IHVuZmF2b3JhYmxlIHJlc3VsdCB0aGF0IHdhcyBhdCBhbGwgcHJvYmFibGUuDQ1UaGUgc2Nv cmVzIGF3YXJkZWQgdG8gdHdvIHNpZGVzIG5lZWQgbm90IHRvIGJhbGFuY2UuDQ1Qcm9jZWR1 cmUgdG8gaGVscCBBcHBlYWwgQ29taXR0ZWUgbWFraW5nIGRlY2lzaW9uDQ1URCBleHBvc2Vz IGZhY3RzIGFuZCBleHBsYWluIGhpcyBkZWNpc2lvbiBpbiBwcmVzZW5jZSBvZiBhIG1lbWJl ciBvZiBlYWNoIHNpZGU7DQ1FYWNoIHNpZGUgbWF5IHRoZW4gY29ycmVjdCBmYWN0cyBhbmQg Z2l2ZSBoaXMgb3BpbmlvbjsNDU1lbWJlcnMgb2YgdGhlIENvbWl0dGVlIHRoZW4gYXNrIFRE IGFuZCBwbGF5ZXJzIHRvIGxlYXZlIGFuZCBtdXN0IGFncmVlIG9uIGZhY3RzOw0NTWVtYmVy cyBvZiB0aGUgQ29taXR0ZWUgaGF2ZSBub3cgdG8gYW5zd2VyIHRvIHRoZXNlIHF1ZXN0aW9u c6A6DXdhcyB0aGVyZSBzb21lIHVuYXV0aG9yaXNlZCBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBleGNoYW5nZWQg YmV0d2VlbiBwbGF5ZXJzID8NDSB5ZXMsIGRpZCBvZmZlbmRlcpJzIHBhcnRuZXIgaGFkIGxv Z2ljYWwgYWx0ZXJuYXRpdmVzIGFmdGVyIHRoZSBpbmZyYWN0aW9uID8NDWlmIHllcywgZGlk IHRoZSBhbHRlcm5hdGl2ZSBjaG9vc2VuIG1heSBoYXZlIGJlZW4gZGVtb25zdHJhYmx5IHN1 Z2dlc3RlZCBieSB0aGUgdW5hdXRob3Jpc2VkIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uID8NDWlmIHllcywgZGlk IHRoaXMgaW5mcmFjdGlvbiBkYW1hZ2VkIHRoZSBub24tb2ZmZW5kaW5nIHNpZGUgPw0NSWYg dGhlIGFuc3dlciB0byBhbnkgb2YgdGhlIGFib3ZlIHF1ZXN0aW9ucyBpcyCroE5voLssIGxl dCBzY29yZSBzdGFuZC4NSWYgYWxsIGFuc3dlcnMgYXJlIKugWWVzoLssIGFkanVzdCBzY29y ZSBhY2NvcmRpbmcgdG8gTGF3IDEyIChhcyBzcGVjaWZpZWQgYWJvdmUpLg0NQSBtZW1iZXJz IG9mIHRoZSBDb21pdHRlZSBpbmZvcm1zIFREIG9mIHRoZSBmaW5hbCBkZWNpc2lvbi4gTWVt YmVycyBtYXkgY2hvb3NlIG5vdCB0byBleHBsYWluIHRoZWlyIGRlY2lzaW9uLg0AAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAUAQAAFwE AABdBAAAqQUAAKoFAADABgAAwQYAAG4HAABvBwAAGAgAABkIAABPCAAAgQgAAIIIAADSCAAA 0wgAAAoJAAALCQAAXQkAAF4JAADiCQAA4wkAADAKAAAxCgAAnAoAAJ0KAADaCgAA2woAAHYL AAB3CwAA5QsAAP37+AD4APgA+AD4APv0APgA+AD4APgA+AD4APgA+AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAc1CIFDShAA BENKEAAAAzUIgQRDShwAHwAEAAAtBAAATwQAAFAEAABcBAAAXQQAAKkFAACqBQAAwAYAAMEG AABuBwAAbwcAANMHAAAYCAAAGQgAAE4IAABPCAAAgQgAAIIIAADSCAAA0wgAAAoJAAALCQAA XQkAAF4JAACeCQAA/AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD6AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA9QAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAPoAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD6AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA+gAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPoAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAD6AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA+gAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPoAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADwAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAA8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPoAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD6AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA+gAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAPUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA5wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPoAAAAAAAAAAAAA AADnAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA+gAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOcAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD6AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 5wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUPAAomAQtG AQAAAw8AD4QAAAUPAAomAAtGAgAFDwAKJgALRgEAAAEPAAMPAAMkAQAZAAQAAC0EAABPBAAA UAQAAFwEAABdBAAAqQUAAKoFAADABgAAwQYAAG4HAABvBwAA0wcAABgIAAAZCAAATggAAE8I AACBCAAAgggAANIIAADTCAAACgkAAAsJAABdCQAAXgkAAJ4JAADiCQAA4wkAADAKAAAxCgAA nAoAAJ0KAADaCgAA2woAACMLAAB2CwAAdwsAAOULAAD9/f34/f39/f39/fPs/f395f3d/dL9 x/28t/2w/an9ov2X/f2MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABQC DwAHAQgBAAkBCgUAAAAL1fz//wAUAg8ABwEIAQAJAQoEAAAAC3H9//8ADQIPAAgEAAkBCgMA AAANAg8ACAQACQEKAgAAAA0CDwAIBAAJAQoBAAAACAIPAAgEAAkBABQCDwAHAQgBAAkBCgMA AAAL7v7//wAUAg8ABwEIAQAJAQoCAAAAC0H///8AFAIPAAcBCAEACQEKAQAAAAt5////AA8C DwAHAQgBAAkBC8r///8NAg8ACAEACQEKAQAAAA0CDwAIAgAJAQoBAAAACAIPAAgCAAkBAAgC DwAIAQAJAQADAg8AACWeCQAA4gkAAOMJAAAwCgAAMQoAAJwKAACdCgAA2goAANsKAAAjCwAA dgsAAHcLAADlCwAA9AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA8AAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAPQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA9AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOoAAAAA AAAAAAAAAADlAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA4QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOoAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADlAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAw8AD4QqAwUPAAomAQtGAQAAAQ8A AAMPAA+EAAAAAw8AD4TQAgAKDwAKJgALRgQAD4Q4BA3GBAGEAwAADCgAB1AJAQhQAQAmUAEA H7DQLyCw4D0hsKAFIrCgBSOQoAUkkKAFJbAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEgAQAAoAAQBbAA8AAgAAAAAAAAAoAABA8f8CACgAAAAGAE4AbwByAG0A YQBsAAAAAgAAAAgAQ0oYAG1IDAwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAyAEFA8v+hADIAAAARAFAA bwBsAGkAYwBlACAAcABhAHIAIABkAOkAZgBhAHUAdAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABIAENgAQDyAEgA AAAWAFIAZQB0AHIAYQBpAHQAIABjAG8AcgBwAHMAIABkAGUAIAB0AGUAeAB0AGUAAAAJAA8A AyQDD4RoAQAAAAAAAADlBwAABAAAGgAABgD/////AAQAAOULAAAJAAAAAAQAAJ4JAADlCwAA CgAAAAwAAAAABAAA5QsAAAsAAAAAAAAADAAAAA4AAAAPAAAAFgAAAB0AAAAjAAAAJAAAACwA AAA2AAAAQgAAAFAAAABTAAAAVAAAAFsAAABdAAAAYAAAAGQAAABtAAAAbgAAAHIAAACBAAAA iAAAAIkAAACRAAAAkgAAAJgAAACZAAAAnAAAAJ0AAACkAAAAqQAAAK0AAACuAAAAswAAALQA AAC2AAAAtwAAAL8AAADAAAAAxAAAAMUAAADHAAAAyAAAAM0AAADRAAAA1AAAANUAAADaAAAA 3wAAAOMAAADkAAAA7gAAAPAAAADzAAAA9AAAAPkAAAD6AAAA/wAAABQBAAAaAQAAJgEAAC0B AAAuAQAAMwEAADcBAABBAQAAQgEAAEQBAABFAQAATAEAAFEBAABXAQAAWwEAAGMBAABpAQAA cgEAAHMBAAB4AQAAeQEAAH8BAACAAQAAiQEAAIoBAACOAQAAjwEAAJQBAACcAQAAngEAAJ8B AACiAQAAowEAAKcBAACqAQAArQEAALEBAAC0AQAAtQEAALkBAAC6AQAAvQEAAL4BAADFAQAA yQEAANEBAADSAQAA1QEAANYBAADZAQAA2gEAAOABAADhAQAA5QEAAOYBAADrAQAA7AEAAPMB AAAIAgAACwIAAAwCAAAQAgAAEQIAABYCAAAXAgAAIwIAACkCAAAtAgAALgIAADcCAAA4AgAA PAIAAD0CAABEAgAARQIAAEcCAABIAgAAUgIAAGACAABkAgAAZQIAAGgCAABpAgAAbQIAAG4C AAB1AgAAdgIAAHgCAAB5AgAAggIAAIMCAACHAgAAmAIAAJ8CAACgAgAApAIAAKUCAACuAgAA rwIAALQCAAC5AgAAvgIAAMECAADFAgAAxgIAAMkCAADKAgAA0gIAANMCAADZAgAA2gIAAN4C AADhAgAA5wIAAOgCAADsAgAA7QIAAPECAADyAgAA/AIAAA0DAAARAwAAGQMAACADAAAhAwAA LgMAAC8DAAAzAwAANQMAADcDAAA4AwAAOwMAADwDAABBAwAARgMAAE4DAABYAwAAYQMAAGID AABkAwAAZQMAAGgDAABvAwAAcQMAAHIDAAB1AwAAdgMAAIMDAACGAwAAiQMAAIoDAACOAwAA mQMAAJ8DAACgAwAApAMAAKUDAACoAwAAqQMAAK8DAACwAwAAswMAALQDAAC3AwAAuAMAAMQD AADFAwAAyAMAAMkDAADRAwAA0wMAANUDAADWAwAA3wMAAOIDAADlAwAA5gMAAOoDAADrAwAA 9gMAAPcDAAD9AwAA/gMAAAIEAAADBAAABgQAAAcEAAAJBAAACgQAAA0EAAAZBAAAHAQAACQE AAArBAAALAQAAC4EAAAvBAAAMgQAADMEAAA4BAAAOQQAAD0EAAA+BAAAQQQAAEIEAABEBAAA TwQAAFgEAABZBAAAWwQAAFwEAABgBAAAYQQAAGcEAABoBAAAcAQAAHEEAAB3BAAAeAQAAIAE AACNBAAAkgQAAJcEAACeBAAAnwQAAKIEAACjBAAAqwQAAK8EAAC3BAAAvQQAAMMEAADHBAAA ywQAAMwEAADQBAAA0wQAANcEAADYBAAA3AQAAN0EAADgBAAA4QQAAOUEAADuBAAA8wQAAPgE AAD8BAAA/QQAAAAFAAALBQAAEgUAABYFAAAZBQAAGgUAACIFAAAjBQAAJwUAACgFAAArBQAA MwUAADoFAAA7BQAAPQUAAD4FAABDBQAATQUAAFIFAABWBQAAWwUAAF4FAABlBQAAaQUAAGwF AABtBQAAdQUAAHsFAAB+BQAAfwUAAIEFAACCBQAAiAUAAIkFAACLBQAAjAUAAJEFAACeBQAA oQUAAKIFAACnBQAAqAUAAKwFAACtBQAAuQUAAMYFAADPBQAA0AUAANcFAADYBQAA3wUAAOQF AADnBQAA6QUAAOwFAADtBQAA9wUAAPgFAAD/BQAAAAYAAAMGAAAEBgAACwYAABkGAAAeBgAA HwYAACIGAAA0BgAANwYAADkGAAA8BgAAPQYAAEAGAABNBgAAVAYAAFUGAABYBgAAXgYAAGIG AABjBgAAbwYAAHAGAAB5BgAAegYAAHwGAAB9BgAAgAYAAIEGAACNBgAAoAYAAKMGAAClBgAA qAYAAKkGAACtBgAAuQYAAMAGAADBBgAAxAYAAMUGAADSBgAA0wYAANcGAADeBgAA4QYAAOIG AADoBgAA6QYAAOsGAADsBgAA7wYAAPMGAAD2BgAA9wYAAPwGAAAHBwAACQcAACYHAAApBwAA KgcAADEHAAA4BwAAOwcAAD8HAABFBwAATAcAAFUHAABWBwAAWAcAAFkHAABcBwAAZAcAAG0H AABuBwAAcwcAAHkHAACABwAAhAcAAIcHAACIBwAAkAcAAJEHAACYBwAAnwcAAKIHAACpBwAA sQcAALMHAAC6BwAAuwcAAL4HAAC/BwAAxQcAAMYHAADJBwAAygcAAMwHAADNBwAA1AcAANUH AADaBwAA2wcAAOMHAADnBwAABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwA BwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcA HAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwA BwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcA HAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwA BwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcA HAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwA BwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcA HAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwA BwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcA HAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwA BwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcA HAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwA BwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcA HAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwA BwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcA HAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwA BwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcAHAAHABwABwAcAAcA//8CAAAACgBJAG4A ZgBvAGMAZQBuAHQAcgBlACoAQwA6AFwATQBlAHMAIABkAG8AYwB1AG0AZQBuAHQAcwBcAEwA YQB2AGEAbABcAEEAcABwAGUAYQBsACAAQwBvAG0AaQB0AHQAZQBlAC4AZABvAGMABACREYcV mFDSk/8PAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAvk3BGJjt8k7/D/8P/w//D/8P/w//D/8P/w8BAB5e aC8fAAwM/w//D/8P/w//D/8P/w//D/8PAADdGKtsmFDSk/8PAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEA AQAAABcAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAxAAAA+E0AIRhJj+FcYFAAHQAgZvKAABAC0AAQAA AAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAxAAAA+EhAMRhJj+FcYFAAGEAwZvKAACAAAAKQABAAAA AAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAD4RoARGEmP4VxgUAAWgBBgIAAAAuAAEAAAAAAAED AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAPhBgDEYRQ/hXGBQABGAMGBAAAAC4AAQAuAAEAAAAAAAED BQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAPhMgEEYQI/hXGBQABoAUGBgAAAC4AAQAuAAIALgABAAAA AAABAwUHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAD4TABhGEeP0VxgUAAXAIBggAAAAuAAEALgACAC4A AwAuAAEAAAAAAAEDBQcJAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAPhLgIEYTo/BXGBQAB2AkGCgAAAC4A AQAuAAIALgADAC4ABAAuAAEAAAAAAAEDBQcJCwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAPhLAKEYRY/BXG BQABqAwGDAAAAC4AAQAuAAIALgADAC4ABAAuAAUALgABAAAAAAABAwUHCQsNAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAEAAAD4SoDBGEyPsVxgUAARAOBg4AAAAuAAEALgACAC4AAwAuAAQALgAFAC4ABgAuAAEA AAAAAAEDBQcJCw0PAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAPhKAOEYQ4+xXGBQAB4BAGEAAAAC4AAQAuAAIA LgADAC4ABAAuAAUALgAGAC4ABwAuAAEAAAAAAAEDBQcJCw0PEQAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAPhOAQ EYRg+hXGBQABSBIGEgAAAC4AAQAuAAIALgADAC4ABAAuAAUALgAGAC4ABwAuAAgALgABAAAA FwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADEAAAD4TQAhGEmP4VxgUAAdACBm8oAAEALQAEAAAAHl5o LwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJERhxUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADdGKtsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAvk3BGAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAP///////////////////////wQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP9AAYABAAAAAAAAAAAAACB7 AAEAlwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhAAAAAAAAAA5QcAAEAAAAgAQAAAAwAAAEcWkAEAAAIC BgMFBAUCAwSHAgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnwAAAAAAAABUAGkAbQBlAHMAIABOAGUAdwAgAFIA bwBtAGEAbgAAADUWkAECAAUFAQIBBwYCBQcAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAAAAABTAHkA bQBiAG8AbAAAADMmkAEAAAILBgQCAgICAgSHAgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnwAAAAAAAABBAHIA aQBhAGwAAAAiAAQAcQiIGAAAxAIAAKkBAAAAAPETQmYCFEJmAAAAAAIADQAAACQBAACCBgAA AQADAAAABAADEA0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAIQMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAApQbAB7QAtACAABIwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAD9BwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGgAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAAAAAP//EgAAAAAAAAApAEkAbgBzAHQAcgB1AGMAdABpAG8A bgAgAHQAbwAgAG0AZQBtAGIAZQByAHMAIABvAGYAIABBAHAAcABlAGEAbAAgAEMAbwBtAGkA dAB0AGUAZQAAAAAAAAAKAEkAbgBmAG8AYwBlAG4AdAByAGUACgBJAG4AZgBvAGMAZQBuAHQA cgBlAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAD+/wAABAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAA4IWf8vlPaBCrkQgAKyez2TAAAACAAQAA EAAAAAEAAACIAAAAAgAAAJAAAAADAAAAxAAAAAQAAADQAAAABQAAAOQAAAAHAAAA8AAAAAgA AAAAAQAACQAAABQBAAASAAAAIAEAAAoAAAA8AQAADAAAAEgBAAANAAAAVAEAAA4AAABgAQAA DwAAAGgBAAAQAAAAcAEAABMAAAB4AQAAAgAAAOQEAAAeAAAAKgAAAEluc3RydWN0aW9uIHRv IG1lbWJlcnMgb2YgQXBwZWFsIENvbWl0dGVlAHJkHgAAAAEAAAAAbnN0HgAAAAsAAABJbmZv Y2VudHJlACAeAAAAAQAAAABuZm8eAAAABwAAAE5vcm1hbAB0HgAAAAsAAABJbmZvY2VudHJl ACAeAAAAAgAAADIAZm8eAAAAEwAAAE1pY3Jvc29mdCBXb3JkIDguMABlQAAAAACO6tABAAAA QAAAAADGXe6+bb8BQAAAAABUSL/Abb8BAwAAAAEAAAADAAAAJAEAAAMAAACCBgAAAwAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/v8AAAQA AgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAAAALVzdWcLhsQk5cIACss+a5EAAAABdXN1ZwuGxCTlwgA Kyz5rmgBAAAkAQAADAAAAAEAAABoAAAADwAAAHAAAAAFAAAAkAAAAAYAAACYAAAAEQAAAKAA AAAXAAAAqAAAAAsAAACwAAAAEAAAALgAAAATAAAAwAAAABYAAADIAAAADQAAANAAAAAMAAAA BgEAAAIAAADkBAAAHgAAABUAAABVbml2ZXJzaXTpIGR1IFF16WJlYwAAbQADAAAADQAAAAMA AAADAAAAAwAAAP0HAAADAAAAahAIAAsAAAAAAAAACwAAAAAAAAALAAAAAAAAAAsAAAAAAAAA HhAAAAEAAAAqAAAASW5zdHJ1Y3Rpb24gdG8gbWVtYmVycyBvZiBBcHBlYWwgQ29taXR0ZWUA DBAAAAIAAAAeAAAABgAAAFRpdHJlAAMAAAABAAAAmAAAAAMAAAAAAAAAIAAAAAEAAAA2AAAA AgAAAD4AAAABAAAAAgAAAAoAAABfUElEX0dVSUQAAgAAAOQEAABBAAAATgAAAHsANgAzAEEA QwBFAEEARQAxAC0ARAA5ADgAOQAtADEAMQBEADMALQBBAEMAMAA3AC0ARQA4AEQAMwAyAEIA RAAxADcAMAAwAEIAfQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAACAAAAAwAAAAQA AAAFAAAABgAAAAcAAAAIAAAACQAAAAoAAAALAAAADAAAAA0AAAD+////DwAAABAAAAARAAAA EgAAABMAAAAUAAAAFQAAABYAAAAXAAAA/v///xkAAAAaAAAAGwAAABwAAAAdAAAAHgAAAB8A AAD+////IQAAACIAAAAjAAAAJAAAACUAAAAmAAAAJwAAAP7////9////KgAAAP7////+//// /v////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////UgBvAG8AdAAgAEUAbgB0AHIAeQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAwQEAoBYABQH//////////wMAAAAGCQIAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABG AAAAAKCYkg7Abb8BIFeNwMBtvwEsAAAAgAAAAIEBAKAxAFQAYQBiAGwAZQAAABwAHAAPAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAQCgDgACAP////////// /////ycADwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA4AAADgEwAAAQEAoFcA bwByAGQARABvAGMAdQBtAGUAbgB0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAMEAAKAaAAIBBQAAAP//////////JgAPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAACoaAACBAACgBQBTAHUAbQBtAGEAcgB5AEkAbgBmAG8AcgBtAGEAdABpAG8A bgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAoCgAAgECAAAABAAAAP////8aAA8AAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAABAAAHYAAPAFAEQAbwBjAHUAbQBlAG4A dABTAHUAbQBtAGEAcgB5AEkAbgBmAG8AcgBtAGEAdABpAG8AbgAAAKAQAE1lcyBkOAACAf// /////////////zEAGgAxAAAAAADoIgt0EABMYXZhbABMQVZBTAAAAHVtFQcAoCAAAAAAEAAA 6jppEAEAQwBvAG0AcABPAGIAagAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACx6QAAbeEAAKA8AEAALABAANIi RKAQAE1lcyBkb2N1bWUSAAIBAQAAAAYAAAD/////WQAAoCwAQABEukMA+PXgfwAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGoAAAAAAAAATwBiAGoAZQBjAHQAUABvAG8AbAAAAHVtZW50cwBN RVNET0N+iDxEADoAAPC09eB/6PXgf/j14H8AAAAAjLREABYAAQD///////////////8AAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACBXjcDAbb8BIFeNwMBtvwF2YWwATEFWQUwAAABUPEQAJgMA8AAA AAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAP///////////////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAD+//////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////////////////AQD+/wMKAAD/////BgkCAAAA AADAAAAAAAAARhgAAABEb2N1bWVudCBNaWNyb3NvZnQgV29yZAAKAAAATVNXb3JkRG9jABAA AABXb3JkLkRvY3VtZW50LjgA9DmycQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAA= --openmail-part-05c872c4-00000001-- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 3 09:17:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA08364 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 09:17:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA08359 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 09:17:04 +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 RAA23011 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 17:16:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA00746 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 17:17:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 17:17:02 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200002022217.RAA00746@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "ton kooijman" > There was also a feeling expressed by some of us that we might accept a > change of call in a slip of the tongue situation (1H -4C (splinter) - pass), > which could be done by a more liberal way of interpreting the word > 'inadvertent' in 25A or bringing that nuance in 25A in another way. An interesting idea. 'Inadvertent' does have two meanings in English. While 'unintentional' has been the established interpretation, interpretations can change. Anything that would eliminate the need for mind reading -- determining why the original call was made -- would be worthwhile. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 3 10:25:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA08626 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 10:25:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA08621 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 10:24:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.134] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12G98e-000B7J-00; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 23:24:44 +0000 Message-ID: <000601bf6dd4$df8cbc60$865408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , References: <001101bf6d72$4bbdea20$b36393c3@pacific> <052a01bf6da9$e3340100$16991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: WBFLC proceedings Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 23:16:36 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 6:18 PM Subject: Re: WBFLC proceedings > > Many thanks to Grattan for publishing these minutes. The ACBL LC should > follow his good example. > +=+ Please give some of the credit to ton; when he became chairman one of his earliest thoughts was that the proceedings of the committee should be more transparent. I agreed and have faithfully tried to ensure the performance +=+ > > Question: Doesn't a PP have the same effect on a pair as adjusting their > score > +=+ But not on their opponents' score+=+ ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 3 10:26:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA08638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 10:26:36 +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 KAA08632 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 10:26:28 +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 PAA21098; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 15:26:19 -0800 Message-Id: <200002022326.PAA21098@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: No subject In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 02 Feb 2000 16:28:52 PST." Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 15:26:21 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Yes, I know: no attached files to BLML messages, but... > > The Word-Office-97 attached file is an example of what > I would like to have, and it would be unreadable otherwise. It doesn't look unreadable to me. OK, the format would have to be prettied up a bit. -- Adam ============================================================================= Instruction to members of an Appeal Comittee Case 1: Unauthorised information Law summary Law 73 specifies that communication between partners during the auction and play shall be affected only by means of the calls and play themselves. All other forms of communication as remark, question, gesture haste or hesitation is illegal and parner of offender must carefully avoid taking advantage that might accrue to his side. Law 16 add that the partner of offender may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by extraneous information. This Law also applies to offending side for information arising from withdrawn calls and plays. When the director judges that a player used such extraneous information and this action damaged non-offending side, he may award and adjusted score as specified by Law 12: to the non-offenders: the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred; to offenders: the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. The scores awarded to two sides need not to balance. Procedure to help Appeal Comittee making decision TD exposes facts and explain his decision in presence of a member of each side; Each side may then correct facts and give his opinion; Members of the Comittee then ask TD and players to leave and must agree on facts; Members of the Comittee have now to answer to these questions: was there some unauthorised information exchanged between players ? yes, did offender's partner had logical alternatives after the infraction ? if yes, did the alternative choosen may have been demonstrably suggested by the unauthorised information ? if yes, did this infraction damaged the non-offending side ? If the answer to any of the above questions is ``No'', let score stand. If all answers are ``Yes'', adjust score according to Law 12 (as specified above). A members of the Comittee informs TD of the final decision. Members may choose not to explain their decision. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 3 10:29:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA08680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 10:29:27 +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 KAA08675 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 10:29:20 +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 SAA10901; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 18:29:01 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 18:18:54 -0500 To: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id KAA08676 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here's Laval DuBreuil's document copied as plain text. Instruction to members of an Appeal Comittee Case 1 : Unauthorised information 1. Law summary Law 73 specifies that communication between partners during the auction and play shall be affected only by means of the calls and play themselves. All other forms of communication as remark, question, gesture haste or hesitation is illegal and parner of offender must carefully avoid taking advantage that might accrue to his side. Law 16 add that the partner of offender may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by extraneous information. This Law also applies to offending side for information arising from withdrawn calls and plays. When the director judges that a player used such extraneous information and this action damaged non-offending side, he may award and adjusted score as specified by Law 12 : - to the non-offenders : the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred; - to offenders : the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. The scores awarded to two sides need not to balance. 2. Procedure to help Appeal Comittee making decision 2.1. TD exposes facts and explain his decision in presence of a member of each side; 2.2. Each side may then correct facts and give his opinion; 2.3. Members of the Comittee then ask TD and players to leave and must agree on facts; 2.4. Members of the Comittee have now to answer to these questions : 1) was there some unauthorised information exchanged between players ? 2) yes, did offender's partner had logical alternatives after the infraction ? 3) if yes, did the alternative choosen may have been demonstrably suggested by the unauthorised information ? 4) if yes, did this infraction damaged the non-offending side ? 2.5. If the answer to any of the above questions is « No », let score stand. If all answers are « Yes », adjust score according to Law 12 (as specified above). 2.6. A members of the Comittee informs TD of the final decision. Members may choose not to explain their decision. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 3 10:53:35 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA08849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 10:53:35 +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 KAA08844 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 10:53:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from pd0s09a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.121.209] helo=pacific) by cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12FhuC-0007kI-00; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 18:20:01 +0000 Message-ID: <000401bf6dd8$43249e20$d17993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" , "Grattan Endicott" , "Craig Senior" Cc: Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 16:24:42 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott -----Original Message----- From: ton kooijman To: Grattan Endicott ; Craig Senior Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 02 February 2000 14:05 Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B > >-----Original Message----- >From: Grattan Endicott >To: Craig Senior >Cc: ton kooijman ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > >Date: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 4:26 AM >Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B > > >> >>Grattan Endicott>''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >' >>'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >>"Rigorous law is often rigorous injustice" >> - Terence. >>oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: Craig Senior >>To: Grattan Endicott ; ton kooijman >> >>Cc: >>Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2000 9:11 PM >>Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B >> >> >>> Let me see if I understand. 9 of the 11 members of the WBFLC expressed >>their >>> opinion by a show of hands that 25B is seriously flawed...so the >committee >>> then decided to do nothing for another 2 to 5 years to remedy the >>situation? >>> >>+=+ I think we need to be fair about this. > >I think that we should try to be even more fair about this. The opinion >asked for was not about 25B as a whole. As I said before I was interested in >the question what we felt about 'once a call is made it stands'. And then >the 9-2 vote came up. Ralph Cohen memorized what Grattan and I had >established also, that L25 has had important changes in all new editions of >the laws the last 30 years. >There was also a feeling expressed by some of us that we might accept a >change of call in a slip of the tongue situation (1H -4C (splinter) - pass), >which could be done by a more liberal way of interpreting the word >'inadvertent' in 25A or bringing that nuance in 25A in another way. But it >was also clear to us that drawing a line being applicable for the TD at the >table (that is where we write the laws for!) will be very difficult. >Grattan thinks that 25B is flawed, many others (also in BLML) think so too, >but the LC did not have a vote on that subject. > >ton > +=+ Yea, I do not have much of a problem about that. I share the view that deleting 25B and expanding the meaning of 25A to cover mental aberrations in respect of where we are in the bidding would do very well, and can be achieved with reasonable simplicity. However, I am confident that following what Chip said (and Kojak's earlier plea that 25B should be deleted) the nine who expressed their opinion were saying 25B is badly flawed. Outside of Ralph and yourself I have not noticed anyone defend it; and my impression is - correct me if I am wrong - that your are not defending it except in respect of what we have called the 'silly' situations. Exactly what Ralph would do with it is not transparent to me; I do have the suspicion he may be quite attached to it, but that is for him to say. [ I have not established whether you would agree with some of us that 'mental aberrations' do not include failure to see a bidding card on the tray. I know that you are dismissive of my opinion that the committee is wrong not to act sooner than 2002: you will simply have to bear with the fact of my belief that where we know that something is very sick our duty is to remedy it, not to sit and let it fester for a year or two. A hospital job.] Cheers, Grattan +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 3 11:02:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA08917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 11:02:11 +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 LAA08906 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 11:01:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.6.81.46] (helo=davidburn) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12G9iD-0002Rs-00; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 00:01:30 +0000 Message-ID: <001b01bf6dd9$de9068c0$2e51063e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "David J. Grabiner" Cc: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: Helpful? Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 00:01:48 -0000 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > I apologize; I didn't intend this as a flame. I was trying to clarify what > the player's obligations actually were in this situation, because this is > an important issue in the ruling. I wanted to make the point about full > disclosure; for example, the answer to this question for some players would > not be a simple "No" but "It promises zero or two higher honors." Oh, that's quite all right. The actual case appeared to me sufficiently trivial that some degree of light-heartedness was in order. Everything you and others have said in all seriousness about the case is entirely correct, and I accept that a position which may appear to me unworthy of examination by this august body nevertheless contains important points about the Laws from which the questioner and others can benefit. With best wishes David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 3 11:54:46 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA09072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 11:54:46 +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 LAA09067 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 11:54:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.6.97.238] (helo=davidburn) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12GAXU-0005Q4-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 00:54:28 +0000 Message-ID: <000001bf6de1$40e54660$ee61063e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200002022045.PAA00681@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 00:42:25 -0000 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve wrote: > > From: Jesper Dybdal > > Correspondingly, I think that some way of giving the NOS slightly > > more (and the OS slightly less) than the mathematical expectancy > > would be good, as a compensation for the loss of the chance of a > > really good score. > > This is what I've been saying in response to David Burn. As usual, > Jesper puts it both more clearly and more succinctly. Well, in my way of doing things, the OS almost always receives less than its mathematical expectancy, since it receives the worst of the unfavourable results that are "at all probable" (per L12C2, on which I am pleased to note that the French - both those who speak it and those who are called it - now agree). The NOS will probably receive more than its strict expectancy, since: In a head-to-head match, it will be necessary to average the outcomes for both sides. Thus, the fact that the NOS gets its exact expectancy and the OS gets worse will (in effect) mean that the actual assigned score will represent a better-than-expected result for the NOS; and In any case, when "expectancy" is determined, I would (in respect of the NOS) add to the strict mathematical probabilities the chance of a misdefence, and the chance that declarer will "guess well" in marginal situations. For Marvin's information, it was Hal Sims and not Oswald Jacoby who "never" lost to a two-way queen, but even if it were Marvin French or Marvin the Paranoid Android, I'd tend to give him 75% of his each-way finesses when it came to an adjudication. Basically, when working within an equity-based system, we fudge imponderables in favour of the NOS. > > I do not have a good idea as to how this should be done in a > > situation where adjustments are normally made in a L12C3-like > > way. There aren't any "good ideas", Jesper, for one man's equity is another man's absurdity. We do what we can. > One way is just to add 10% of a top to the NOS score and subtract > it from the OS score. It is easy to administer, and it corresponds > to the usual avg+/avg- notion. No doubt fairer ways can be devised, > but they may be more complex. The principal, and insuperable, difficulty with the way in which I or anybody else handles these cases is that it is impossible to codify. Ultimately, there are two paths we might follow. One path - the approach advocated by Adam Wildavsky and supported by Marvin French - is to say that if there has been an infraction without which the NOS might conceivably have got a very good score, they should simply be given that very good score and the OS the corresponding very bad score. That is simple, but it is not fair. The other path - the approach advocated by Grattan Endicott and myself, though by different implementations - is to say that if an infraction has rendered a potential result unachievable and an actual result indeterminable, the NOS should receive a score corresponding to its expectation and the OS should receive a score no better than the reciprocal of that assigned to the NOS and in most cases worse. That is fair, but it is not simple. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 3 13:19:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA09449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 13:19:40 +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 NAA09443 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 13:19:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-3-16.access.net.il [213.8.3.16] (may be forged)) by maggie.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA25395; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 02:34:55 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3898CD04.3AAF5DB4@zahav.net.il> Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 02:34:12 +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: Adam Wildavsky CC: Grattan Endicott , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) References: <016901bf6ac0$01e652c0$16991e18@san.rr.com><001901bf6ac9$f31b8120$3b2f63c3 @davidburn> <007401bf6b14$b4cfd2e0$b25408c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk First of all We MUST believe that all the irregularities are inadvertent ; otherwise kick those players out of this nobel game.. And if so , there should NOT be ANY automatic penalty. Second - I protest : Law 0 is my proposal : "Law 0 - Bridge is a game for players (not for bridge lawyers ). Dany Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > 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 Thu Feb 3 14:53:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA09859 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 14:53:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA09854 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 14:53:47 +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 12GDKp-000AHl-0K; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 03:53:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 03:52:30 +0000 To: Grattan Endicott Cc: ton kooijman , Grattan Endicott , Craig Senior , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B In-Reply-To: <000401bf6dd8$43249e20$d17993c3@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <000401bf6dd8$43249e20$d17993c3@pacific>, Grattan Endicott writes > [ I have not established whether you would >agree with some of us that 'mental aberrations' do >not include failure to see a bidding card on the >tray. I know that you are dismissive of my opinion >that the committee is wrong not to act sooner than >2002: you will simply have to bear with the fact of >my belief that where we know that something is >very sick our duty is to remedy it, not to sit and let >it fester for a year or two. A hospital job.] > Cheers, Grattan +=+ In these situations I think it better if the Laws governing the play of the hand are, so far as is possible, parallel to those governing bidding. Hence I think that "mechanical accidents" are changeable in the bidding as it is evident that the player was not thinking of making the call put on the table and, similarly, inadvertant play designations may be changed. However, I feel that passing a cue bid is not a mechanical accident, and that blml, in general, agrees with this view. SCREEN FIXES When it comes to a player failing to see a bid when screens are being used (and I have had a number of these) then I believe that it should be covered within the approach taken by L25A. One could argue that the player on the other side of the screen "could have known" etc, and I think that the game itself would be enhanced if one could scramble to an interpretation which would allow L25A (or indeed L25A to be so amended) to permit this. Perhaps one could argue that the bid has not been made until all players at the table have seen (heard) it. Could one stretch L18F for example? ... and I don't think L21A applies. After all a sight impaired player would have the call read out to him, and a hidden call is definitely sight impairment. We have a number of analogies (L53C comes to mind) for this sort of correction in the Laws governing play. 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 Feb 3 15:29:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA10061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 15:29:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe38.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.75]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA10051 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 15:29:18 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 48714 invoked by uid 65534); 3 Feb 2000 04:28:40 -0000 Message-ID: <20000203042840.48713.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.12.199] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <000401bf6dd8$43249e20$d17993c3@pacific> Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 21:17:54 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan Endicott To: ton kooijman ; Grattan Endicott ; Craig Senior Cc: Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 10:24 AM Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B -s- > +=+ Yea, I do not have much of a problem > about that. I share the view that deleting 25B > and expanding the meaning of 25A to > cover mental aberrations in respect of where > we are in the bidding would do very well, and > can be achieved with reasonable simplicity. -s- > Cheers, Grattan > I would think that the surest way to send to players the message that what they do at the table does not count is when they do one thing then encourage them to change it. How? By telling them that they are given great latitude to change it without penalty. It has been noted that this can be easily done by expanding the vehicle contained in L25A. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 3 15:29:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA10062 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 15:29:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe38.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.75]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA10052 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 15:29:19 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 48723 invoked by uid 65534); 3 Feb 2000 04:28:41 -0000 Message-ID: <20000203042841.48722.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.12.199] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <007701bf6b8d$0d6ef700$c05408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 22:12:53 -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: Jesper Dybdal To: Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 1:52 PM Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) > On Mon, 31 Jan 2000 03:12:15 +0000, "John (MadDog) Probst" > wrote: > >In article <007701bf6b8d$0d6ef700$c05408c3@dodona>, Grattan Endicott > > writes > >>+=+ 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 ~ +=+ > >> > >whilst this is a laudable intention, I fear the consequences. > > So do I. And players do accept the automatic penalty fully. So > the lack of equity does not seem to be regarded as a problem by > players. > > But L64 is too complicated: my suggestion would be an automatic > 1-trick penalty (if any trick was won from the revoke trick > onwards) combined with L64C. > -- > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . > http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). I am thinking on the merits of what Jesper says. I am inclined to believe that it will work provided that each established revoke [including those in the same suit and those by dummy] transfers one trick. Also, that the procedure of L64C be lucid to a fault because often TDs fall short in what they feel is sufficient compensation, and such. I would think that such an arrangement will call for a large increase in L64C adjudications, and the concern is upon whom will the onus be to suggest that a revoke has harmed the NOS beyond the one trick? Roger Pewick Houston, Texas From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 3 17:23:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA10964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 17:23:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from de.darcairo.egnet.net (de.darcairo.com [163.121.166.15]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA10959 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 17:23:04 +1100 (EST) Received: by de.darcairo.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 08:24:03 +0200 Message-ID: <40FB4E2BA983D211B03E00AA0009100CF8DE41@de.darcairo.com> From: Hassan El-Touby To: Roger Pewick , blml Subject: RE: Laws 26A and 26B Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 08:24:02 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk unscribe -----Original Message----- From: Roger Pewick [mailto:axman22@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 5:18 AM To: blml Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan Endicott To: ton kooijman ; Grattan Endicott ; Craig Senior Cc: Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 10:24 AM Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B -s- > +=+ Yea, I do not have much of a problem > about that. I share the view that deleting 25B > and expanding the meaning of 25A to > cover mental aberrations in respect of where > we are in the bidding would do very well, and > can be achieved with reasonable simplicity. -s- > Cheers, Grattan > I would think that the surest way to send to players the message that what they do at the table does not count is when they do one thing then encourage them to change it. How? By telling them that they are given great latitude to change it without penalty. It has been noted that this can be easily done by expanding the vehicle contained in L25A. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any attachments thereto contain protected and confidential information intended for the sole use of the individual or organisation named above. If you are not the addressee or an authorised agent for delivering it to the addressee, you are hereby warned that use, reproduction, distribution or dissemination of this document and any attachments is categorically prohibited. If you have received this message by error please notify the sender immediately by returning the message, and delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 3 21:50:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA12328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 21:50:34 +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 VAA12323 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 21:50:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-17-107.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.17.107]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA04009 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 11:50:07 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38981B7B.B17B5140@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 12:56:43 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) References: <3896DA7F.4E239668@village.uunet.be> <03ff01bf6ce5$8c9eef40$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: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > How about something like : > > > > Field are 90% in game making, 45% of the time, failing 45%. > > Other 10% divided between some strange extreme results. > > > > Equity is 50% of making and 50% of failing. > > NOs get 60% of making and 40% of failing. > > Os get 30% of making and 70% of failing. > > > David Stevenson convinced me long ago that a TD/AC has no business looking > at what the field has done. > > How often a TD has told me, "Well, everyone else bid game," when opponents > obviously have used UI to get to game. That isn't right. > > Marv (Marvin L. French) Well Marv, let me say this once and only once : The AC shall consider the percentages of the field as a guidance and nothing more. The AC shall consider whether the table happenings have in any way influenced the probability of the happenings. After those considerations, you may consider the percentages to be determined as being 50% for each case. OK ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 3 22:47:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA12567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 22:47:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA12561 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 22:47:25 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id LAA03276 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 11:46:47 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 11:46 +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: <002f01bf6d5d$c33e7660$b55608c3@dodona> Directors and players at the rubber bridge tables of St Johns Wood have been using the equivalent of L12C3 for years to general contentment and all round perceptions of equity being done. I had always assumed this was standard rubber bridge practice. I am fascinated to find so many qualms about applying the same principles in the bizarre world of duplicate. Only a minority of rulings require such adjustments (even fewer would be necessary if assigning non-balancing scores in rubber made sense). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 4 04:22:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA14030 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 04:22:10 +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 EAA14025 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 04:22:01 +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 MAA14774 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 12:21:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA01480 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 12:22:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 12:22:00 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200002031722.MAA01480@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > Basically, when > working within an equity-based system, we fudge imponderables in > favour of the NOS. As long as you make this explicit and apply it, it solves my objection that equity-based scores are unfair to the NOS. To take David's example, if a good score for the NOS depends on an even guess, giving them 100% of the guess is too much, but 50% is too little. You could convince me that anything in the 60-80% range would be fair. > Ultimately, there are two paths we might follow. One path - the > approach advocated by Adam Wildavsky and supported by Marvin French - > is to say that if there has been an infraction without which the NOS > might conceivably have got a very good score, they should simply be > given that very good score and the OS the corresponding very bad > score. That is simple, but it is not fair. I think 'conceivably' is putting it too harshly. L12C2 uses 'likely', which surely is closer to the mark. Nevertheless, when there is a small chance of a very large swing, it does seem fairer to give some percentage of the swing instead of trying to make a close decision about whether the swing is or is not 'likely', whatever standard for 'likely' might be adopted. > The other path - the > approach advocated by Grattan Endicott and myself, though by different > implementations - is to say that if an infraction has rendered a > potential result unachievable and an actual result indeterminable, the > NOS should receive a score corresponding to its expectation and the OS > should receive a score no better than the reciprocal of that assigned > to the NOS and in most cases worse. That is fair, but it is not > simple. The obvious objection is this lack of simplicity. Rules that can be administered by Kojak and his staff, backed up by a top-notch AC, may not be so desirable at lower levels. The not-so-obvious objection, the one I've been hammering, is that (at least in large fields, though not necessarily in head-to-head matches) the NOS should in fairness receive something _a little better_ than its expectation. Whether this is an explicit addition or fudging the probabilities doesn't matter as long as everyone agrees to it. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 4 04:41:25 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA14123 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 04:41:25 +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 EAA14118 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 04:41:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-1-95.access.net.il [213.8.1.95] (may be forged)) by maggie.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA17261; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 19:20:56 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3899B8CA.AACDD6C2@zahav.net.il> Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 19:20:11 +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: L12C2 References: <033801bf6c78$c6b21c60$16991e18@san.rr.com> <3896AE0E.C6FB337C@meteo.fr> <03fe01bf6ce5$8c4b02e0$16991e18@san.rr.com> <001b01bf6cf8$ff057460$178201d5@davidburn> <3897FA7F.7C93F665@meteo.fr> <04e401bf6da5$e1bdb180$16991e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------7DCB80CE4610AEA8443C4D59" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------7DCB80CE4610AEA8443C4D59 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Marv , mon cher Kato , je suis desoleeeeeeeeeeee..!!!!!! Il n'y a pas aucun raison pour cet "palavres". There is no such a "thing " accurate translation !!! Always the translator - traducteur uses the words he heard/read the first time in his life , and then for some thousands times more , but the translation is an interpretation too .....I attach here an example from the translation of verses in the Bible......there are hundreds of translations , and more than 20 into English , and I can tell you as one who's one of his mother tongues is hebrew : I don't know and don't understand about 10% of the words and more than 20% of the sentences in the Holly Book...but all the clever people can translate them...! I believe that the WBFLC started to formulate the outlines for more clear-cut laws , maybe less diplomatic and vague language . i hope that almost enough experience accumulated there and these are the years to do it ; it will help most of the regular TD and will improve the "atmosphere" at serious contests and club play . Let pray together for their success . Dany "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > Jean Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > > > I think you all, english speaking, try to read more than is intended in > the french version of Laws. The true Laws are the English version; no > french legislator ever worked to its writing and the french version is > only a translation which is intended to be as faithful as possible; it > >should not carry additional information to the initial english text. > > However, as seems to be common, the translator can convey > the meaning of the English text with greater clarity than the > original. An example is the definition of "convention." English > readers disagree as to its intended meaning, but I'm sure > the French don't. > > (Although Steve Willner will no doubt say it is a mistranslation!) > > >Nobody's perfect, there has been a translation error in 12C2: an > inversion of the words "probable" and "defavorable". As to the accuracy > of the word "probable", it's another problem, the one of the purpose of > 12C2, be it expressed in english or french language. In french, a less > restrictive word than "probable" could be "vraisemblable", "raisonnable" > >or even further "imaginable". > > I like "raisonnable," which comes across as the perfect word. One looks at > the outcomes that might reasonably have resulted, and assigns the most > unfavorable to the OS. > > Marv (Marvin L. French) --------------7DCB80CE4610AEA8443C4D59 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined; name="Verses.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Verses.txt" Subject: DailyInbox.com - Bible Verses - Psalm 23:1 - 02-02-2000 Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 12:38:16 -0600 From: bv-html-reply@DailyInbox.com To: "DailyInbox: Bible Versus - HTML" [Image] Subscribe a friend! [Your.DailyInbox.com/bv]Bible Verses  Bible Verses is a free inspirational e-mail service from DailyInbox.com using verses from the bible.   Home Subscribe Modify Your Unsubscribe Privacy About Yourself Subscription or Cancel Statement Us   Today's selection is Psalm 23:1 American Standard Version Jehovah is my shepherd; I shall not want. King James Version The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures. New American Standard The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want. New International Version The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not be in want. New King James Version The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want. Subscribe a Friend to Bible Verses Inspire a friend today with verses from The Bible Please enter your name and the email address of the friend or colleague you would like to subscribe in the spaces provided below. Your friend will be sent an email informing him or her that you have given them a free subscription to Bible Verses provided by DailyInbox.com! Your Name: ------------------------------------ Your Friend's E-Mail Address: (one address per box)     [Image] Subscription Information You are subscribed with e-mail address: [dhh@zahav.net.il] To modify your subscription T he Subscription Center information visit: To unsubscribe immediately, click The Remove Page here: To unsubscribe using email, forward this leave-bv-html-2360689L@PostOffice.DailyInbox.com message to:   --------------7DCB80CE4610AEA8443C4D59-- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 4 05:26:22 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA14318 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 05:26:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay2.telekom.ru [194.190.195.76]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA14313 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 05:26:13 +1100 (EST) Received: by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.72) id VAA15335; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 21:26:03 +0300 (MSK) Received: from h74.50.elnet.msk.ru(195.58.50.74) by gateway via smap (V2.0) id xma014937; Thu, 3 Feb 00 21:25:44 +0300 Message-ID: <389884EF.C07BD542@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 22:26:40 +0300 From: Vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) References: <200002011718.MAA29244@cfa183.harvard.edu> <003b01bf6ce9$683d70a0$0f8a01d5@davidburn> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------087B9F3677921B549DEC3D56" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ýòî ñîîáùåíèå çàêîäèðîâàíî â ôîðìàòå MIME è ñîñòîèò èç íåñêîëüêèõ ÷àñòåé. --------------087B9F3677921B549DEC3D56 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------087B9F3677921B549DEC3D56 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="my.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="my.txt" Hi all:) The months passed, I silently read posts... And just now I've decided to take part in discussion. I guess that at least a most of us are law-obedient. Me too, so - I do not oppose WBFLC decision. I may live with them. But in these posts I noticed several positions with which I cannot agree. 1. Grattan wrote: "Oh, I don't mean to do anything except let time take its course and see where we arrive." While I read these words I was reminding a story: There happened railway incident cause switchman change the point wrong. During hearing the case he said: "Oh, I don't mean to do anything except let time take its course and see where we arrive." Good answer:) 2. Bridge that we are playing is first of all the clubs' game. And I am neither high class player nor high class TD. But during years I was an ordinary president of an ordinary bridge club - and from that time till nowaday am staying at position that World (European, etc.) championships have their weight and importance - but it is not decisive factor. The bridge life is continue due clubs. And I'd like to see the problem from this point of view. The WBFLC made its decision, no doubts about it. They had rights to do so - no doubts about it too. But the very discussion showed that there are a lot of misunderstandings, different views etc. At the INTERNATIONAL level. But the same problem of 12C2/12C3 will be appeared at club level... And what will be TDs' and Acs' decisions? Are we (an ordinary bridge-human-beings) ready for such changes? Can our authorities foresee clubs' difficulties? I think that for club-level-usage Laws and especially their interpretations should be made in form that are understandable and clear monosemanticly for any grey-minded person:) Otherwise we will meet lots of conflicts that - may be - will not be overcome by any training courses, programs etc. 3. Kojak wrote: "Dear Ton, you are wasting your time and efforts... but why waste your time trying to educate the uneducatable?..." I have great and sincere respect to Kojak: no opposition, he is really the best TD's authority at international/world level. But we AREN'T world class. And we NEED to be educated. And after reading Kojak's post I have some doubts. I can live with its sharpness. But in connection with "2" and "3" - I have questions: Is it possible that our authority are too high under the ground? Might it be that they lost contacts with the basement of our game: clubs players? Agree with Mike Dodson's remarks. 4. My personal opinion (in 12C2/12C3 theme) - David Burn's interpretation is more human and understandable than Grattan's. But before we receive similar official WBW-interpretation that will be easy in usage at clubs' level I'd like to follow ACBL position: if it is possible (in accordance with the Laws) 12C3 should be omitted. Thanks to our colleagues from ACBL in BLML for explanation their position on the matter. Sorry for my English, I do not want to hurt anybody. For any case - sorry in advance. Best wishes Vitold --------------087B9F3677921B549DEC3D56-- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 4 05:54:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA14401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 05:54:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA14396 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 05:54:16 +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 NAA29918; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 13:53:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA01572; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 13:54:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 13:54:03 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200002031854.NAA01572@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, htouby@darcairo.com Subject: BLML list administration X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Please note that the address for addition to the list, deletion from it, and other such matters, is majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au Sending a message to that address consisting of help end in the body of the message (not subject line) will return details. Majordomo is a computer program that manages the list. It only recognizes commands if they are spelled correctly, but it executes the commands it recognizes almost instantly. Messages to the main list address, as this one, are distributed to the list's readers. They cannot change what addresses the list is sent to. (I'm carefully avoiding the s*bscr*be word for reasons regular readers will know.) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 4 06:56:08 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA14613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 06:56:08 +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 GAA14608 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 06:56:00 +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, 3 Feb 2000 11:55:50 -0800 Message-ID: <05ff01bf6e80$3c18f100$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200002031722.MAA01480@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 11:48:11 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "David Burn" > > Basically, when > > working within an equity-based system, we fudge imponderables in > > favour of the NOS. > > As long as you make this explicit and apply it, it solves my objection > that equity-based scores are unfair to the NOS. To take David's > example, if a good score for the NOS depends on an even guess, giving > them 100% of the guess is too much, but 50% is too little. You could > convince me that anything in the 60-80% range would be fair. Two-way guesses are an infrequent concern in the play of the hand. Other factors to be considered are declarer/defender expertise, their aggressiveness or lack of it, the possibility of mistakes or brilliancies, etc., the potential effects of which are impossible to calculate. > > > Ultimately, there are two paths we might follow. One path - the > > approach advocated by Adam Wildavsky and supported by Marvin French - > > is to say that if there has been an infraction without which the NOS > > might conceivably have got a very good score, they should simply be > > given that very good score and the OS the corresponding very bad > > score. That is simple, but it is not fair. > > I think 'conceivably' is putting it too harshly. L12C2 uses 'likely', > which surely is closer to the mark. Nevertheless, when there is a > small chance of a very large swing, it does seem fairer to give some > percentage of the swing instead of trying to make a close decision > about whether the swing is or is not 'likely', whatever standard for > 'likely' might be adopted. I suggest using for the NOS "the most favorable result that could reasonably be expected absent the infraction," and giving the reciprocal to the OS. No percentage guidelines, just let the TD/AC decide what "reasonable" would be in a particular case, and let both parties have an input into that decision. That is a simple rule that could be applied at any level. > > > The other path - the > > approach advocated by Grattan Endicott and myself, though by different > > implementations - is to say that if an infraction has rendered a > > potential result unachievable and an actual result indeterminable, the > > NOS should receive a score corresponding to its expectation and the OS > > should receive a score no better than the reciprocal of that assigned > > to the NOS and in most cases worse. That is fair, but it is not > > simple. We are getting closer, but I get the impression you don't want to give the NOS enough benefit of the doubt. Adam W. points out that when the score adjustments are not reciprocal the field is rewarded, since the total matchpoints or IMPs awarded at the table are less than average. I feel that penalizing the OS more than the redress given the NOS smacks of punishment rather than mere redress of damage. > The obvious objection is this lack of simplicity. Rules that can be > administered by Kojak and his staff, backed up by a top-notch AC, may > not be so desirable at lower levels. > The not-so-obvious objection, the one I've been hammering, is that (at > least in large fields, though not necessarily in head-to-head matches) > the NOS should in fairness receive something _a little better_ than its > expectation. Whether this is an explicit addition or fudging the > probabilities doesn't matter as long as everyone agrees to it. But sometimes expectation can be determined exactly (no guesses, no squeeze, etc.). Why should the NOS always get more? What they should receive is the best result they might well have obtained absent the infraction. That will sometimes be a little generous, but NOs are supposed to get the benefit of doubt in this game. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 4 12:07:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA15840 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 12:07:30 +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 MAA15835 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 12:07:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.197] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12GXD4-00030p-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 01:06:55 +0000 Message-ID: <001001bf6eac$50f30f80$c55408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200002031722.MAA01480@cfa183.harvard.edu> <05ff01bf6e80$3c18f100$16991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 01:06:19 -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: Thursday, February 03, 2000 7:48 PM Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) > Steve Willner wrote: > > > > From: "David Burn" > > > > The other path - the > > > approach advocated by Grattan Endicott and myself, though by different > > > implementations - is to say that if an infraction has rendered a > > > potential result unachievable and an actual result indeterminable, the > > > NOS should receive a score corresponding to its expectation and the OS > > > should receive a score no better than the reciprocal of that assigned > > > to the NOS and in most cases worse. That is fair, but it is not > > > simple. > > We are getting closer, but I get the impression you don't want to give the > NOS enough benefit of the doubt. > +=+ I do not think we need to provide positive discrimination in favour of the NOS because I believe "the sympathy of the court" will cause Directors and ACs to incline their percentages to the benefit of the NOS. This is in practice what I see as a tendency in the committee room. The idea could be promoted perhaps in 'how to do it' seminars for TDs and ACs. 'Margin of doubt' is well enough understood already and I doubt if it is realistic to research some mystic formula to prove a panchreston for every malaise. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 4 14:59:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA16502 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 14:59:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from fep2.mail.ozemail.net (fep2.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.122]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA16497 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 14:59:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (1Cust40.tnt1.syd2.da.uu.net [63.12.0.40]) by fep2.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA26667 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 14:59:06 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000204150521.00a4bd30@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 15:05:21 +1100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) In-Reply-To: <001001bf6eac$50f30f80$c55408c3@dodona> References: <200002031722.MAA01480@cfa183.harvard.edu> <05ff01bf6e80$3c18f100$16991e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:06 AM 4/02/00 -0000,> >Grattan Endicottto prove a panchreston for every malaise. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Aha! back to the English language and its uses. Not in my Macquarie dictionary (our colonial reference). Chrestomathy = collection of selected passages, esp. from a foreign language (English?) Cheers, Tony Sydney From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 4 17:42:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA16876 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 17:42:28 +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 RAA16871 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 17:42:21 +1100 (EST) Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 5DD3A31110; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 01:42:09 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <007701bf6b8d$0d6ef700$c05408c3@dodona> 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> Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 01:42:20 -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 12:53 AM +0000 1/31/00, Grattan wrote: >+=+ 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 ~ +=+ I must echo several correspondents. Why? What gain is there in the use of equity here? The current revoke law is simple, though not as simple (and to my mind poorer, for that reason) than the one that preceded it. It is just, where in my view a necessary condition for justice is that the OS receive at best an equitable score and the NOS at worst an equitable score. Revoke law shows that the lawmakers were fully conversant with this concept, which is embodied in 64C as applied to 64A and 64B. Note that using 64C to remove a possible injustice from 64A and 64B makes much more sense than using 12C3 to supplement 12C2, since while 12C2 may not produce equity it is never unjust. Changing to an equity based law has myriad disadvantages: o It is more time consuming and difficult to administer. o It does not discourage revokes by as much as the existing law. o Change itself is bad, if no worthwhile improvement is obtained. Were an equity based law as good as current law it still should not be implemented - there is no reason for players and directors to have to learn a new law unless it improves upon the old. o The change will result in more appeals. This last point should be telling. I've just read the Vancouver casebook, and the distribution of cases seems typical. You'll notice I've added a line: Tempo (Cases 1-17) Unauthorized Information (UI: Cases 18-19) Misinformation (MI: Cases 20-33) Others besides revokes (Case 34-37) Revokes (none) AW From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 4 19:54:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA17130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 19:54:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA17125 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 19:54:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.243] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12GeVP-000ElW-00; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 08:54:21 +0000 Message-ID: <002801bf6eed$9ddd6520$f35408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Tony Musgrove" References: <200002031722.MAA01480@cfa183.harvard.edu><05ff01bf6e80$3c18f100$16991e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20000204150521.00a4bd30@ozemail.com.au> Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 08:54:10 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, February 04, 2000 4:05 AM Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) > At 01:06 AM 4/02/00 -0000,> > >Grattan Endicott > ....... > >to prove a panchreston for every malaise. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Aha! back to the English language and its uses. > > Not in my Macquarie dictionary (our colonial reference). > > Chrestomathy = collection of selected passages, esp. from > a foreign language (English?) > > Cheers, > > Tony > Sydney +=+ Mischievious me. Testing people's dictionaries. My spellchecker raises not even an eyebrow. Substitute 'cure-all' if you must. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 4 22:53:23 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA17759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 22:53:23 +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 WAA17754 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 22:53:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-72.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.72]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA12157 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 12:53:04 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <389976B8.EEEB438E@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 13:38:16 +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: Frequencies, Probabilities and L12C3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear All, I am trying to get to grips with L12C3 and how best to apply it. After some reflection, I have come to some conclusions. The following is long, but I hope interesting. First of all, we must notice that a L12C3 score is usually awarded in the form of a weighted average. A particular percentage of one result, another percentage of a second, and possibly a third. The percentages add to 100%. I will not go into the methods of calculation that follow, those are (well-)known and the object for possibly other threads. How should an AC (or CTD if allowed) establish the percentages. There are two ways of arriving at percentages : by probability or by frequency. Probabilities can only really be used to determine that a particular contract will be made 50% of the time, since declarer has to guess the position of a queen. In all other cases the probability of making a contract is of no use whatsoever, since the cards havee a particular lie and the finesse over the King always works, or always fails. Other imponderables can only be judged by trying to figure out how many people would take some action at some position. There is one set of eminently useful data : the actions of the field. Now I do take note of Marv's opposition to the idea of using frequencies. He is correct in saying that these are not the only element, and that the AC should carefully examine whether or not the "field" was in the same position as the table in question. Yet some analysis will usually create a "subset" of the field that were in a comparable position, and the frequencies of that subset can be used. Marv is not correct, however, in insisting that he plays better than the field (well, he might be, but that is not the problem). In defining equity, one should assume that it is the same for all pairs. Only when defining an "equitable score" should one add a certain percentage to compensate the NOs for their inability to prove that they are better than the field. That compensation should also be the same for everyone (since to those for whom it isn't, it doesn't matter anyway). I propose therefor to define two separate concepts : the "equity", which is the true position prior to the offence, and the "equitable score", or better "L12C3 score", which is the score actually given, and which will be (if you agree with me) higher than equity for NOs and lower than equity for Os. What should the difference be ? In establishing this, I would like to use a quite common method: let's create some very simple problem, and compare the unknown with some known yardstick. The example I have in mind is the following: (Example One) In a pairs tournament on a particular hand, exactly half of the tables are in 6 Spades, while the other half are in 4 Spades. All the declarers make exactly twelve tricks. The result for this unexiting hand are : +980 scores 75% of MP, +480 scores 25%. Let me write this 75MP and 25MP respectively, to avoid the confusion between the 2 % signs. However, there is one other table not in these statistics. Due to some offence by opponents, this table plays in 3 Diamonds, 3 down. It is judged that without the infraction, this table would also reach 4 or 6 spades, each with a 50% likelyhood. (so we have taken the step from frequency to probability). What would the AS be, according to the three possible laws under application : -L12C1 : 60MP -L12C2 : +980 = 75MP -L12C3 : some percentage of 75MP + opposite % of 25MP. It is my contention that in this case, the L12C1 and L12C3 results ought to be the same. Therefore, the appropriate percentages should be 70% and 30%, since: 70% x 75MP + 30% x 25MP = 52.5+7.5 = 60MP. I believe this is an interesting result. Let's now give a few other examples to see what this entails: (Example Two) As in One, but now only 30% are in slam. result for +980 : 85MP; +480 : 35MP. AS according to : -L12C1 : 60MP -L12C2 : +980 = 85MP -L12C3 : 50% of 85MP + 50% of 35MP = 60MP 50% is exactly 20% more than the 30% "probability". (Example Three) As in One, but in a team event, the other table scoring +480. -L12C1 : +3IMPs -L12C2 : +980 = +11IMPs -L12C3 : 70% of +11IMPs and 30% of 0IMPs = +7.7 IMPs. I have used the same percentages, and I see no problems with the result. (Example Four) As in Three, but the other table are in +980. Since this is a bad score for the NOs, it should be noted that L12C1 will be an unexpected windfall. -L12C1 : +3IMPs -L12C2 : +980 = 0IMPs -L12C3 : 70% of +980 = 0IMPs + 30% of +480 = -11IMPs = -3.3IMPs -- I believe the scores for the Os should be determined with a diminuation of 20% from the equity result. I would like to see more AC decisions like : To the NOs, 80% of (good score) and 20% of (less good score) To the Os, 40% of (good score) and 60% of (less good score) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 4 23:30:47 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA17880 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 23:30:47 +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 XAA17875 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 23:30:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-3-29.access.net.il [213.8.3.29] (may be forged)) by loger.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA22286; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 14:29:17 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <389AC680.EF1C43BD@zahav.net.il> Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 14:30:56 +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: Jesper Dybdal CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda References: <003e01bf6ce3$676f8100$bab4f1c3@kooijman> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This answer is for you & Kojak & Ton I don't think i am a prophet (in spite of my location ...near the Holy Tomb, The Temple's Wall and El-Aktza...) , but I think the next formulation of Law 12 will include something like :...... "the powers of law 12C3 will be delegated to the CTD when the tournament level and the CTD's level and a significant number of good players are available as experts ...."- that will be the kernel..! I believe that the WBFLC decision to try to make the experiments before changing the law , was a good idea - many organizations publish a temporary/ad-hoc procedure , in order to learn during the first period of implementation from the "life facts" and update the final release of that procedure , before imbedding it in the procedures/laws book. As I told you before , Ton had a good experience at the last 3-4 Int. Festivals in Tel-Aviv , when the TDs consulted each other and with expert players , before ruling a judgment irregularity - it reduced the number of appeals - after 2 years of experience - by about 70%........ And dear Kojak - I agree that it will be a waste of time to argue with facts here on blml , but I think that educating TDs and players is an important task - educating not arguing . It will bring us more players to tournaments and to clubs , if the directing will be at a higher level - and most important =homogeneous= . Dany Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > On Tue, 1 Feb 2000 19:37:24 +0100, "ton kooijman" > wrote: > > >Once more: > >THE LAWS COMMITTEE HAS DECIDED THAT IT IS PERMITTED FOR A CHIEF TD TO APPLY > >12C3 ON AN EXPERIMENTAL BASE IF THE SPONSORING ORGANIZATION GIVES HIM THAT > >AUTHORITY. > > This is fine with me. > > >(we speak about a LC decision if it is authorized by the executive > >committee) > >THIS DECISION CAN BE CONSIDERED TO BE PART OF THE LAWS. > > The only problem I have with that is that what you describe here > is a change of the law. Yet we are also told that the WBFLC > decided not to change the law. > > When the WBFLC explicitly writes that the law change was > postponed to a major revision, surely it cannot be surprising > that TDs and SOs believe that the words of their law book are > still valid. But you tell us they are not. > > Statements or decisions from the WBFLC are unproblematic as long > as they only give instructions on how to interpret laws with > which they are not in direct conflict. > > But when the WBFLC issues an instruction that is contrary to the > letter of the law book, then it seems to me that such an > instruction is either > (a) A law change, overriding the book, or > (b) An illegal interpretation of the book. > > What you are saying about "decisions" above seems to me to be > that they are meant not only to have the force of the law as a > supplement to the law book, but even to override the book when > they are in conflict. I.e., (a) above. > > If this is the case, then a "decision" is simply a law change > which the WBFLC has just not (yet) put into words that could > directly replace the existing laws. > > If I have understood that correctly, I would like to urge the > WBFLC to actually use the words "law change" when they make law > changes - even when they do not put these changes into legalese > and issue a new book. > > If it really _is_ a change of law, why not admit that and use > those words, so the rest of the world can understand it? > > Or at least write something like "This decision takes precedence > over the law book" in the minutes, so that the readers know that > there was a deliberate WBFLC decision to override the existing > law. > -- > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . > http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 4 23:31:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA17896 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 23:31:31 +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 XAA17884 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 23:31:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-3-29.access.net.il [213.8.3.29] (may be forged)) by loger.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA22324; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 14:29:57 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <389AC6A9.8F2D2604@zahav.net.il> Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 14:31:37 +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: Peter Gill , David Stevenson CC: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: Defective claim or table result? References: <00f801bf6c5a$a3c7cce0$b25e868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello David ... What happened to your sense of humor now ???????? But i really believe that it is more important to emphasize that after a claim the play ceases ....it is very difficult fore many players to understand ( I don't know to explain these facts of life) . Then only the TD has to do some procedural things and decide - clear what he has to do . By the way , when will be back from the cold country to the foggy one ? Dany Peter Gill wrote: > > >Hehehehe David ..and Peter > > > >I see your sense of humor is still alive in that very cold and wet > >continent these days....... Why such a long explanation ? > > > >The play ceased and there is no table result.!!!!!! > > I suppose a thought it might be helpful to actually give a ruling > when asked rather than a useless and uninformative comment. > > >What a TD (I think TD = Tortured David ) and an AC (AC= Another Corpse) > >will decide afterwards is not relevant anymore... > > Very helpful. > > David Stevenson From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 4 23:58:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA17994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 23:58:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA17989 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 23:58:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-18-243.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.18.243]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA11689 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 13:57:55 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <389ACC9C.92E6B893@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 13:57:00 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Frequencies, Probabilities and L12C3 References: <389976B8.EEEB438E@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > > > -- > I believe the scores for the Os should be determined with a > diminuation of 20% from the equity result. > > I would like to see more AC decisions like : > > To the NOs, 80% of (good score) and 20% of (less good score) > To the Os, 40% of (good score) and 60% of (less good score) > Oops, very silly me !!! To the NOs, the equity would be 60% (good:+980) + 40% (bad:+480) so L12C3 would be 80% (+980) + 20% (+480) To the Os equity would be the same, but for them it is 40% (good:-480) + 60% (bad:-980), so taking 20% off for un-benefit of the doubt makes : 20% (-480) + 80% (-980). Which is the same score to both sides. Sorry ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 5 01:53:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA18325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 01:53:57 +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 BAA18320 for ; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 01:53:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-0-42.access.net.il [213.8.0.42] (may be forged)) by maggie.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA11009; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 16:54:24 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <389AE7F2.3F4FA992@zahav.net.il> Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 16:53:38 +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: bigfoot@relaypoint.net CC: BLML Subject: Re: Using the Rules to Harass References: <38972BDF.5CDCA709@relaypoint.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hmmm..personal experience : I'd speak to the "criminals" in a very discrete and non-public way . I"ll tell them the importance of the laws , correct behavior , accepting the ruling even if the TD was wrong (not this is the case ) and a very interesting speech to convince them that their actual behavior is not suitable neither acceptable.... I believe that even a dumb stone will change its behavior ,,,, but the very important condition is , IMHO , privately , discrete ... Dany Irwin J Kostal wrote: > > A situation has arisen at the local club that is causing the Director > some consternation. Having impact is the fact that the club is only > scraping along, and all the participants in this little drama are > regulars that the ownership wants to keep as customers. > > About two weeks ago, a player detached a card from his hand, so that > (the director ruled) it might have been seen by his partner. His > opponent, a somewhat rigid, elderly person, who takes the rules VERY > seriously, called the director and it was ruled to be a played card. The > players on the Offending Side took umbrage at this situation, and > apparently have continued to be angry about it. They have now decided > that, any time they play against the NO, they will call the director > "...any time he moves!" > > Now we all understand that this is childish nonsense, but that doesn't > exactly make it go away. The director is considering banning the pair > from the club, which is not an attractive alternative, since they are > usually quite pleasant folks, and quite frequent players. As Unit > President, and something of a force in the club's activities, I have > been made aware of the situation. I'm willing to step in, if I think I > can do any good. I just wondered if the collective experience of the > group might help me find a non-solomonic way to deal with this problem. > > Irv From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 5 02:28:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA18554 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 02:28:45 +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 CAA18549 for ; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 02:28:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-0-42.access.net.il [213.8.0.42] (may be forged)) by maggie.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA20053; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 17:28:20 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <389AEFE6.E6D2FECF@zahav.net.il> Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 17:27:34 +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 Burn CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: LOOT and a revoke References: <005001bf6cea$2b9fc020$0f8a01d5@davidburn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Now when all of us agree that there exist a Law 53C as a very good answer to this question.........Do you all think that the laws makers were clever and experienced enough ???? I agree , but I am very angry that they don't let me win every board , by getting always one more trick than non-bridge-lawyers .......hahahaha Dany David Burn wrote: > > Martin (and others) wrote: > > > umm, you mean L53C, right? > > Right. I realised what I had done as soon as I sent the original > message, so I sent a corrected version. Of course, the BLML server > transmitted my error around the world in a matter of minutes, while > the correction will take hours if not days. Our last Labour Prime > Minister, James Callaghan, said: > > A lie can be half way around the world before the truth has got its > boots on. > > Given that he was speaking in 1976, some years before the Great > Internet Revolution, this was a far more accurate prophecy than most > politicians manage. > > David Burn > London, England From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 5 02:48:03 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA18615 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 02:48:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from cobalt5-he.global.net.uk (cobalt5-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.165]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA18609 for ; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 02:47:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from pbfs08a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.104.192] helo=pacific) by cobalt5-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12GkwE-0002IV-00; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 07:46:27 -0800 Message-ID: <000a01bf6f26$b75059c0$c06893c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Dany Haimovici" , "Jesper Dybdal" Cc: Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 15:43:06 -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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott - -----Original Message----- From: Dany Haimovici To: Jesper Dybdal Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 04 February 2000 12:43 Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda >This answer is for you & Kojak & Ton > >I don't think i am a prophet (in spite of my location ...near the >Holy Tomb, The Temple's Wall and El-Aktza...) > >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> >> This is fine with me. >> >> >> The only problem I have with that is that what you describe here >> is a change of the law. Yet we are also told that the WBFLC >> decided not to change the law. >> >> When the WBFLC explicitly writes that the law change was >> postponed to a major revision, surely it cannot be surprising >> that TDs and SOs believe that the words of their law book are >> still valid. But you tell us they are not. >> +=+ I think you misunderstand the position. The WBFLC has the responsibility for the international code of laws; it decided to make no change in the laws for the present and probably until 2005. The Code of Practice Group established with Executive authority had decided (a) to introduce a new procedure for WBF appeals, and (b) to promulgate to all member NCBOs its Code of Practice with the hope expressed that they will adopt it. How they do this, gradual introduction from the top down being likely, is a matter for the NCBOs and the Zones. (I say 'how'; this includes 'whether'.) When it was apparent that the WBFLC would be reluctant to do what had been requested with the Law, the Appeals Committee in Bermuda was faced with the question how it would implement the Code of Practice (which was incorporated into the Conditions of Contest), this being the responsibility of the Appeals Committee and not of the WBFLC. It took advantage of the Judgement by the WBF Executive Council sitting jointly with the WBF Rules & Regulations Committee, in Geneva, that Law 80F applies only to regulations made under 80F. It acted instead under Law 80G which authorizes it to make arrangements for appeals to be heard. In my view David Burn expressed the position extremely well when he described its directive as transferring the early part of the appeals process to precede communication of the ruling, requiring the Director to seek appropriate counsel from experts in relevant matters in a sort of pre- committee situation. I know that correspondents to whom it is strange have suggested the procedure is contrary to Law, but these are apparently Directors and others who until now have perhaps not been aware of, and have not absorbed, the landmark ruling which overrides any objections. That they may disagree with it is quite immaterial; the matter was determined at the highest level of authority. With grace, the WBFLC has stood aside and allowed that the matter is not one in which it should seek to intervene. It has expressed a willingness to think about the Law when it embarks on a major review of the laws. In the interim, with authority of the Executive, the manner of adoption of the procedure in Bermuda is opened up for any who wish to follow. The European Bridge League has already reacted positively. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 5 03:45:13 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA18723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 03:45:13 +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 DAA18718 for ; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 03:45:04 +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 IAA22723; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 08:44:57 -0800 Message-Id: <200002041644.IAA22723@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: WBFLC proceedings In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 02 Feb 2000 11:38:57 PST." <001101bf6d72$4bbdea20$b36393c3@pacific> Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 08:44:57 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > +=+ Having despatched the minutes to the > remaining member NCBOs - they will not > yet have reached New Caledonia and the > Netherlands Antilles - I feel free to make them > available to the wolf pack. The first Bermuda > meeting was 11th January: minutes enclosed > but schedules to follow in due course. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Below are the minutes of the January 11 meeting in plain text format. Please note: I don't mind doing this kind of conversion occasionally, but I can't do it on a regular basis. I can understand that sometimes Grattan or someone else may be in a situation where it's just impractical to try to do it himself. But I don't want people to get the impression that you can post to the group in whatever format you choose any time you feel like it, and assume someone else will step in and repost it in text format. Please, everyone, whenever practicable, post to the group in plain text. -- thanks, Adam ========================================================================= Minutes of the meeting of the WBF Laws Committee Held on January 11th, 2000, in Bermuda. Present: Ton Kooijman Chair *The President Emeritus Ralph Cohen co Vice-Chairman *Chip Martel co Vice-Chairman Grattan Endicott Secretary Virgil Anderson Cecil Cook Joan Gerard Dan Morse William Schoder John Wignall By invitation: Richard Colker Jeffrey Polisner Linda Trent (* for part of the meeting) Apologies for absence were recorded from Carlos Cabanne and Santanu Ghose, the latter having sent a memorandum of his opinions on various subjects. 1. Mr. Schoder mentioned the discomfort occasioned him by the listing of the committee on the WBF web site, where he is designated with reference to Zone 2. He would wish to be shown as WBF Chief Tournament Director, with his name attached parenthetically, in order to reflect the impartiality of his office. The Secretary was asked to convey these feelings to the President. (See Schedule 1) 2. The Chairman offered his opinion that between one major reconstruction of the laws and the next the task of the committee is maintenance of the laws and making repairs where necessary. The President Emeritus said that if possible an item should be held over for the next new edition of the laws. Changes should be made only if necessary. Mr. Schoder pointed to the need for interpretation of the law from time to time, but agreed that major changes could await a major revision. On the question of interpretation the Secretary said he had some difficulty because there are NCBOs that do not see the committee's interpretations as necessarily binding, his own NCBO being one. The President Emeritus felt that an undercurrent exists in relation to the authority of the committee. 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. Mr. Cohen drew attention to the disparity between the by-law of the WBF which requires the committee to interpret the laws and the statutes of the ACBL which prescribe that this power shall be exercised within its area of jurisdiction by the ACBL. It was agreed that the matter is one to be addressed by the by the Executive Council and Messrs. Kooijman, Cohen, Endicott, Polisner and Wignall were deputed to prepare a written submission to the Executive Council. (See Schedule 2) 3. Mr. Schoder asked the committee to consider the effect of the WBF Code of Practice in relation to Law 25B when screens are in use. In his view the Code provides that where an inadvertent or a deliberate bid is changed before the tray is passed to the other side of the screen, the effect of the Code is to provide that the players who then receive the tray will not be told anything about the change and there will be no penalty by way of limitation of score. The Chairman expressed his strong disagreement with this interpretation. Mr. Wignall confirmed that Mr. Schoder is applying the Code of Practice as its authors had intended. Mr. Martel, who joined the committee during the discussion, was inclined to the opinion of the Chairman. On a vote being taken five votes were cast in favour of Mr. Schoder's treatment of the question and three to the contrary. 4. The committee noted the invitation of the Code of Practice Group for the committee to add to Law 12C3 an option allowing regulating authorities to extend its powers to the Chief Director of a Tournament. The committee was reluctant to make the change 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 this power on an experimental basis. 5. The Secretary was invited to state what difficulty he had with the present definition of `convention'. The Secretary pointed to the manner in which his own NCBO and the ACBL, and perhaps others, are regulating the use of non-conventional calls. For the purpose they forbid the use of any conventional bid with certain natural actions that do not conform to given standards (e.g. "may not use any convention with an opening bid that does not meet the standards of the `Rule of 18' ", or `may not use Stayman with an opening 1NT that may have fewer than 10 points'). He was also aware that in one section of its Systems Policy the WBF regulates the use of a call that is natural according to the definition in the laws. He is of the opinion, therefore, that the sensible thing for the committee to do is to redefine the power to regulate granted in Law 40D. As an interim measure he has suggested the adoption of a definition for `convention' that will meet the needs of these bodies, and which will also clear up other matters in which the definition is problematic. The suggested definition (applying in the auction) is: "any special partnership understanding". Mr. Martel and others agreed that the current definition is flawed but felt that the suggested definition may introduce other problems. It was concluded that more thought needs to be given to the subject. It may be a matter to be deferred until the next major revision. 6. Mr. Schoder had indicated a desire to see Law 25B removed from the laws. He asked the committee to consider the question. Mr. Martel said that in its current form Law 25B had been devised as a solution to a particular problem, but in the outcome "the cure is worse than the disease". There was considered to be a difficulty in finding suitable words to express this in the laws. The Chairman asked for a show of hands to express the balance on the subject amongst those present. The result was an opinion overwhelmingly in favour of not allowing a player to change a call deliberately made. The Secretary was asked to hold the item in his list of matters for further consideration when a major review of the laws is undertaken. 7. Paragraph 4 of the committee's minutes of 1st September 1998 was revisited. The Chairman did not think this actually said what the committee had intended to say. He and the Secretary were asked to draft a fresh statement for the committee to consider. (See Schedule 3). The meeting was then concluded. A further meeting was arranged for the following day. The schedules hereto stand part of these minutes. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 5 04:20:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA18868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 04:20:22 +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 EAA18863 for ; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 04:20:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-6-68.access.net.il [213.8.6.68] (may be forged)) by maggie.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA20608; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 19:16:30 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <389B0946.69611113@zahav.net.il> Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 19:15:50 +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: ton kooijman , Grattan Endicott , Craig Senior , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B References: <000401bf6dd8$43249e20$d17993c3@pacific> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My proposal is to publish after this year Olympic games (or world Championships , whatever ) an experimental (maybe should find a better word) release of some laws that is very clear the urgent need to be changed. The TDs will apply them and the NBCOs will be requested to ask the different levels TDs to express their opinions , after 15 months of implementation. At the next World Championships meeting the WBFLC will decide the changes of the Laws ( as much as I understand it will be 2003 ). Claim - but don't revoke ..LOL - the next release of the Laws will be published during 2004. Dany Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Grattan Endicott ================================ > "What's done we partly may compute, > But know not what's resisted." > Robert Burns. > <--oOo--> ................< Snoopy !!!> > -----Original Message----- > > tray. I know that you are dismissive of my opinion > that the committee is wrong not to act sooner than > 2002: you will simply have to bear with the fact of > my belief that where we know that something is > very sick our duty is to remedy it, not to sit and let > it fester for a year or two. A hospital job.] > Cheers, Grattan +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 5 05:09:14 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA18954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 05:09:14 +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 FAA18949 for ; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 05:09:06 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id f.9a.aa4739 (3319); Fri, 4 Feb 2000 13:08:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <9a.aa4739.25cc6f8f@aol.com> Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 13:08:15 EST Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda To: gester@globalnet.co.uk, dhh@zahav.net.il, jesper@dybdal.dk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 45 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 2/4/00 10:49:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, gester@globalnet.co.uk writes: > +=+ > I think you misunderstand the position. > The WBFLC has the responsibility for the > international code of laws; it decided to > make no change in the laws for the present > and probably until 2005. The Code of Practice > Group established with Executive authority had > decided (a) to introduce a new procedure for WBF > appeals, and (b) to promulgate to all member > NCBOs its Code of Practice with the hope > expressed that they will adopt it. How they > do this, gradual introduction from the top down > being likely, is a matter for the NCBOs and the > Zones. (I say 'how'; this includes 'whether'.) > When it was apparent that the WBFLC would > be reluctant to do what had been requested with > the Law, the Appeals Committee in Bermuda was > faced with the question how it would implement > the Code of Practice (which was incorporated into > the Conditions of Contest), this being the > responsibility of the Appeals Committee and not > of the WBFLC. It took advantage of the Judgement > by the WBF Executive Council sitting jointly with > the WBF Rules & Regulations Committee, in > Geneva, that Law 80F applies only to regulations > made under 80F. It acted instead under Law 80G > which authorizes it to make arrangements for > appeals to be heard. > In my view David Burn expressed the position > extremely well when he described its directive > as transferring the early part of the appeals > process to precede communication of the ruling, > requiring the Director to seek appropriate counsel > from experts in relevant matters in a sort of pre- > committee situation. I know that correspondents > to whom it is strange have suggested the > procedure is contrary to Law, but these are > apparently Directors and others who until now > have perhaps not been aware of, and have not > absorbed, the landmark ruling which overrides > any objections. That they may disagree with it > is quite immaterial; the matter was determined > at the highest level of authority. > With grace, the WBFLC has stood aside and > allowed that the matter is not one in which it > should seek to intervene. It has expressed a > willingness to think about the Law when it > embarks on a major review of the laws. In the > interim, with authority of the Executive, the > manner of adoption of the procedure in > Bermuda is opened up for any who wish to > follow. The European Bridge League has > already reacted positively. ~ Grattan ~ > +=+ > > > I continue to stress that the Code of Practice is rightly a responsibility of WBF Appeals Committee and not the WBFLC. WBFLC's sole intervention should be if there was illegality in applying Law80 E, F, and G. Yet you will still find those who question the "legality" of something that was done legally, overtly, clearly, with forethought, and which might be an approach that will clear up the AC mess some of us find ourselves in. Perish the thought that we are able to reestablish the TD as a bonafide authority, make good rulings, satisfy the player's desire for a review by more than one person, educate all in the stepwise process that the Laws provide, reduce appeals OF Tournament Director rulings to what they should be, and do our jobs with professionalism. Might this result in a diminution of certain "empires" presently enjoying the limelight? It will certainly give more stature to the Club TDs when it becomes known that all the way up to the WBF Championships we are trying to do what they have always had to do -- make rulings with purposeful intent. It won't always be the same all over, but the underlying principles need to be reaffirmed and their validity demonstrated. It still boggles my mind to hear as a proud statement about ACs, "why we used to have over 100 people on them at NABCs, now we have only 40 or 50!" but it's a step in the right direction. It feels good to hear plaudits about the job we have done at WBF Level in Bermuda, but I would like to remind everyone that it was a team effort involving TDs, AC members, the Lausane Group, The WBF Executive, and above all acceptance by the players to make it work as well as it did. Lots of work remains to be done, in particular providing an appendix to the Code of Practice for Appeals Committees which presents examples of rulings. Spending hours and many postings on the rare use of Law12C3 must be of benefit to some, but truly I find it nit-picking for the most part. Maybe I just don't understand the problem. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 5 08:57:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA19651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 08:57:44 +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 IAA19646 for ; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 08:57:35 +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, 4 Feb 2000 13:57:24 -0800 Message-ID: <06ae01bf6f5a$2c0db9a0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <000a01bf6f26$b75059c0$c06893c3@pacific> Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 13:51:53 -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: > When it was apparent that the WBFLC would > be reluctant to do what had been requested with > the Law, the Appeals Committee in Bermuda was > faced with the question how it would implement > the Code of Practice (which was incorporated into > the Conditions of Contest), this being the > responsibility of the Appeals Committee and not > of the WBFLC. It took advantage of the Judgement > by the WBF Executive Council sitting jointly with > the WBF Rules & Regulations Committee, in > Geneva, that Law 80F applies only to regulations > made under 80F. It acted instead under Law 80G > which authorizes it to make arrangements for > appeals to be heard. That's "suitable arrangements," not that it makes any difference. Another nitpick is that 80G authorizes the SO, not the AC (antecedent of "it"), to make suitable arrangements. And I thought that 80G just meant providing for a room, a table, some chairs, and suitable people at a suitable time.. Learn something every day. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 5 10:21:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA19942 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 10:21:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from fb02.eng00.mindspring.net (fb02.eng00.mindspring.net [207.69.229.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA19937 for ; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 10:21:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2iveif1.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.225]) by fb02.eng00.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA09208 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 18:21:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000204181827.01233428@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 18:18:27 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) In-Reply-To: References: <007701bf6b8d$0d6ef700$c05408c3@dodona> <016901bf6ac0$01e652c0$16991e18@san.rr.com> <001901bf6ac9$f31b8120$3b2f63c3 @davidburn> <007401bf6b14$b4cfd2e0$b25408c3@dodona> <01fc01bf6b57$3b2e9aa0$16991e18@san.rr.com> <007701bf6b8d$0d6ef700$c05408c3@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:42 AM 2/4/00 -0500, Adam wrote: >Changing to an equity based law has myriad disadvantages: > >o It is more time consuming and difficult to administer. >o It does not discourage revokes by as much as the existing law. >o Change itself is bad, if no worthwhile improvement is obtained. > Were an equity based law as good as current law it still > should not be implemented - there is no reason for players and > directors to have to learn a new law unless it improves upon > the old. >o The change will result in more appeals. > Well said, though I might also add that an equity-based law necessarily results in less consistent administration of the Laws, which serves only to undermine their effectiveness. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 5 11:47:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA20364 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 11:47:54 +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 LAA20358 for ; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 11:47:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.229] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12GtNu-000Bx2-00; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 00:47:34 +0000 Message-ID: <000901bf6f72$c8a6e940$e55608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , References: <000a01bf6f26$b75059c0$c06893c3@pacific> <06ae01bf6f5a$2c0db9a0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000 00:19:49 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, February 04, 2000 9:51 PM Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda > Another nitpick is that 80G authorizes the SO, not the AC (antecedent of > "it"), to make suitable arrangements. +=+ Dear Marv, You do keep trying, don't you? What do you suppose the AC was other than the arm of the SO responsible on site for the institution and administration of the appeals arrangements and implementation of the CoP? And it worked and it was all a great success. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 5 12:05:00 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA20223 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 11:29:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA20217 for ; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 11:29:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id TAA19824 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 19:29:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA03041 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 19:29:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 19:29:27 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200002050029.TAA03041@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: "Jens & Bodil" > Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 22:59:58 +0100 I've been putting off responding to this. I very seldom find Jens writing anything I disagree with, and when it happens, I usually change my mind, but this time... > ... 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. OK. We all agree that this is one route to score adjustment. The issue is whether or not there are others. > 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? No > they do not. So the TD can rule under L12A1 and adjust the score. OK, this seems to be what I was saying. > 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. Now wait a minute, here. First of all, where do we get "inadvertent?" Surely there is a class of UI that is deliberate but not prearranged. When we debated legality of questions, the "informatory question" and the "pro question" were almost universally thought to fall under L73B1. Some thought the "Kaplan question" did as well. There's also "Lead a club!" although in real life such statements are more subtle. So there's no doubt that we can have L73B1 infractions, and at least some of them cannot be described as "inadvertent." In many cases, we will want to apply a conduct penalty, but that doesn't help us decide on score adjustment. And further, where does it say there is a _penalty_ for violating L73B1? Yes, I agree that L75C, L16A, and L73F1 constrain West's actions, but penalty? Sorry, I don't buy it. We keep saying that most UI (e.g. taking time to think) isn't illegal. How, then, can you read 16A and 73F1 as specifying penalties? No, as far as I can tell, each of the laws stands on its own. It seems logical that L16A/73F1 applies to inadvertent UI, 73B1 to deliberate but not prearranged UI, and 73B2 to prearranged UI. > L72A5 seems to indicate that that is the end of the story, even > though EW seem to profit from their infraction. If you think there was a penalty, perhaps. > Now, if we are in L73B2, the infraction is not inadvertent, and L72A5 > does not apply. Then we adjust. We also hang East-West. I don't understand this. Leaving aside the conduct issues, if you are willing to adjust the score after a 73B2 infraction, why not after 73B1? Surely they are completely parallel except for the nature of the offense? > 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. Yes, exactly. So... does L73B1 stand on its own, leading to L12A1 if the opponents are damaged? (I have always thought so.) Or does it merely lead to "penalties" prescribed by L73C/16A/73F1? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 5 13:40:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA20795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 13:40:45 +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 NAA20790 for ; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 13:40:35 +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 SAA00011; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 18:40:26 -0800 Message-Id: <200002050240.SAA00011@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 04 Feb 2000 01:42:20 PST." Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 18:40:28 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm a little behind in reading BLML, but I've been trying to follow this discussion. One thing I've noticed: Some people, in bridge officialdom and on BLML, are trying very hard to make sure that "equity" is restored after an infraction, i.e. that we come as close as possible to the result that would have occurred absent the infraction. But what has struck me is that we seem to be unique in the world of games that we care about this. I can't think of any other sport or game in which they try to fine-tune the consequences of an infraction to this degree. In NBA basketball, if a player fouls another player who was in the act of shooting the ball, the non-offender gets to take 2 or 3 free throws depending on many points his shot would have scored. But this penalty is the same even if the player was about to take a really bad shot. I haven't heard anyone propose that the penalty should be eliminated if the player was surely going to miss his shot. I haven't heard anyone suggest that we try to determine the probability that the player was going to make his shot, and weight the score of the free throws accordingly. Perhaps they should look at the players' stats and divide their field-goal percentage by the free-throw percentage to determine how many points their free throws should be worth? Would that be more likely to restore equity? Maybe I should support this idea, since I'm a Laker fan and this idea would disproportionately benefit a certain star center. (Grrr...) But I don't think anyone in the NBA would take such a proposal seriously, and I've never heard anyone complain that the current system is inequitable. In all team sports that I know of, a player who commits an egregious offense can be suspended for a number of games. If the player is one of the team's best players, this is a windfall for the teams who happened to be their scheduled opponents during the suspension. The final standings could be affected by this. But I've never heard any of the other teams, the ones not lucky enough to play the affected team during the suspension, complain about the unfairness. Oh, sure, the suspended player's team often complains that the punishment is too harsh, and the players' union almost always complains, but nobody is too concerned about the fact that some other teams will benefit from the penalty more than others. But in bridge, I often hear arguments about how a too-harsh penalty is unfair to a matchpoint field. Is bridge so different from other games, that a fundamentally different approach to equity is needed? Or are bridge players just different? Is this the wrong approach? -- Adam Beneschan From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 5 13:51:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA20847 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 13:51:36 +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 NAA20842 for ; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 13:51:28 +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, 4 Feb 2000 18:51:19 -0800 Message-ID: <070701bf6f83$2c116680$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <000a01bf6f26$b75059c0$c06893c3@pacific> <06ae01bf6f5a$2c0db9a0$16991e18@san.rr.com> <000901bf6f72$c8a6e940$e55608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 18:40:41 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > > > Another nitpick is that 80G authorizes the SO, not the AC (antecedent of > > "it"), to make suitable arrangements. > > +=+ Dear Marv, You do keep trying, don't you? > What do you suppose the AC was other than > the arm of the SO responsible on site for the > institution and administration of the appeals > arrangements and implementation of the CoP? > And it worked and it was all a great success. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I said it was nitpicking, which means a minor correction that has no significance. When a law is misquoted, my knee-jerk reaction is to correct the error, minor or not. Please take no offense. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 5 19:27:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA21941 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 19:27:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA21936 for ; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 19:27:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.194] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12H0YY-000LgX-00; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 08:27:02 +0000 Message-ID: <001d01bf6fb2$f8e0b100$c25408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" Cc: References: <000a01bf6f26$b75059c0$c06893c3@pacific> <06ae01bf6f5a$2c0db9a0$16991e18@san.rr.com> <000901bf6f72$c8a6e940$e55608c3@dodona> <070701bf6f83$2c116680$16991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000 08:26:46 -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: Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2000 2:40 AM Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda > > > > > > > > Another nitpick is that 80G authorizes the SO, not the AC (antecedent of > > > "it"), to make suitable arrangements. > > > > +=+ Dear Marv, You do keep trying, don't you? > > What do you suppose the AC was other than > > the arm of the SO responsible on site for the > > institution and administration of the appeals > > arrangements and implementation of the CoP? > > And it worked and it was all a great success. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > I said it was nitpicking, which means a minor correction that has no > significance. When a law is misquoted, my knee-jerk reaction is to correct > the error, minor or not. Please take no offense. > +=+ Oh, I don't take offence - not even offense - I just feel that anything with no significance is wasted space. I get annoyed with myself at times when I recognize that I have been strewing the garden path with red herrings! Or when I allow myself to get irritated as my feet follow other people's fish up it. As a concession to those who express anxiety about the way things are going, let me stress what Kojak has written: we still have a lot of work to do, in a lot of places, if the initial success in Bermuda is to be transferred to and developed in other sites. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 6 02:31:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA23632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 02:31:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com [139.134.5.164]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA23625 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 02:31:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ua547294 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 01:28:38 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-006-p-109-119.tmns.net.au ([139.134.109.119]) by mail4.bigpond.com (Claudes-Attentive-MailRouter V2.7 7/595636); 06 Feb 2000 01:28:37 Message-ID: <028b01bf6fed$5b96b940$776d868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Wordsmith Needed? Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 02:26:21 +1100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In the thread *Bermuda Bowl -- Appeals 6 and 7* on 21 January 2000, Robin Barker wrote: >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.... As most of you have probably heard by now, this was caused by 5 minutes of Slow Play resulting in fines of 3.75 and 1.25 IMPs. The relevant regulation is: ***19.4.2 Slow Play Excess time apportioned to a pair during the Quarter-finals, Semi-finals and Finals: 0+ - 25 minutes late - 1 IMP for each minute or part thereof*** (I have included all the relevant regulations in an APPENDIX below.) My question is: Could (should) this be worded better? The way it's currently worded, it may appear to some readers that fractional IMP penalties cannot be awarded, since the "part thereof" leads to a full 1 IMP penalty. I know that such an interpretation is not the intention, and I wonder if the regulation's wording should be improved. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. APPENDIX: >From http://www.bermudabowl.com/download/bbregs2000.pdf ***WBF Supplemental Conditions of Contest for the 2000 Orbis World Bridge Championships 16. Length of Matches ...each 16-board ... session of a match is to be completed within two hours and twenty minutes; after that, teams judged guilty of slow play will be subject to penalty (see section 19.4). 19.4.2 Slow Play Excess time apportioned to a pair during the Quarter-finals, Semi-finals and Finals: 0+ - 25 minutes late - 1 IMP for each minute or part thereof A Tournament Director or an official appointed by the President shall determine responsibility for slow play. A partnership which considers its opponents are playing slowly shall inform the Tournament Director who may appoint a monitor if he thinks it is necessary; the partnership is only protected from the time at which the Tournament Director is informed. A Director may install a monitor without request of the players.*** From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 6 03:02:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA23790 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 03:02:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com [139.134.5.164]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA23785 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 03:01:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ga547358 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 01:47:44 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-006-p-109-119.tmns.net.au ([139.134.109.119]) by mail4.bigpond.com (Claudes-Manipulative-MailRouter V2.7 7/596794); 06 Feb 2000 01:47:43 Message-ID: <028d01bf6ff0$0689edc0$776d868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: World Class Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 02:45:27 +1100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In the new book *World Class - Conversations with the Bridge Masters*, Jeff Meckstroth's comment on the future of bridge is: **If I could change one thing in the game, it would be the appeals process -- I would totally do away with it. The director's decision should be final, just like the referee in virtually any other sport. There are enough directors who are good bridge players. We should let the floor directors take the tougher decisions to the best player/directors that we have, and their decision should be the end of the matter. I believe strongly in this. It would be much better for the game, because first of all you would get consistent rulings. You might get screwed occasionally (referees miss calls from time to time in any sport), but you will get some consistency. Secondly, when the game is over you will have a known winner. If this game is ever going to become popular with the general public, then when the game ends you have to know the winner straight away. How are we ever going to market the game for television and the like, if at the end of the game we are still quibbling about who won? So I would just totally do away with the whole process. I find it disgusting.** END OF QUOTE ------------------------ I tend to agree with Jeff. Does anyone else? Peter Gill Sydney Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 6 03:52:14 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA23955 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 03:52:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA23949 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 03:52:05 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA12288 for ; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 17:51:54 +0100 Received: from ip146.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.146), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda12286; Sat Feb 5 17:51:44 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2000 17:51:44 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <4rko9s4ar79nh5oksovbchqd7dn5n4jfs8@bilbo.dit.dk> References: <000a01bf6f26$b75059c0$c06893c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <000a01bf6f26$b75059c0$c06893c3@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 DAA23950 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 4 Feb 2000 15:43:06 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >It took advantage of the Judgement >by the WBF Executive Council sitting jointly with >the WBF Rules & Regulations Committee, in >Geneva, that Law 80F applies only to regulations >made under 80F. It acted instead under Law 80G >which authorizes it to make arrangements for >appeals to be heard. So what the TD does is effectively to treat any bridge judgment matter by automatically appealing his own as yet unmade ruling to a special "pre-ruling AC" whose ruling is then presented to the players as the initial ruling, appealable to the "real" AC? Ok, that may be legal. Now, what I would like to do is to give TDs in at least some Danish events the L12C3 right, even if they do not have a group of experts available to consult. Ton described the decision as follows: On Tue, 1 Feb 2000 19:37:24 +0100, "ton kooijman" wrote: >THE LAWS COMMITTEE HAS DECIDED THAT IT IS PERMITTED FOR A CHIEF TD TO APPLY >12C3 ON AN EXPERIMENTAL BASE IF THE SPONSORING ORGANIZATION GIVES HIM THAT >AUTHORITY. >(we speak about a LC decision if it is authorized by the executive >committee) >THIS DECISION CAN BE CONSIDERED TO BE PART OF THE LAWS. This must mean that the WBFLC (or at least Ton) finds it legal for an SO to appoint a TD to act not only as TD but also as a one-man "pre-ruling AC". It does sound to me uncomfortably far from the words of the law, confirming my suspicion that the Geneva decision in reality allows just about any regulation whatsoever. Grattan: > In my view David Burn expressed the position >extremely well when he described its directive >as transferring the early part of the appeals >process to precede communication of the ruling, >requiring the Director to seek appropriate counsel >from experts in relevant matters in a sort of pre- >committee situation. On Sun, 23 Jan 2000 17:08:42 EST, Schoderb@aol.com wrote: >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! So Kojak seems to be under the impression that the rulings presented by the TD to the players were TD rulings and not the result of an "early part of the appeals process". This confuses me. Grattan: > With grace, the WBFLC has stood aside and >allowed that the matter is not one in which it >should seek to intervene. If this is really a regulation that is legal by L80G, then it is no business of the WBFLC's at all (except in order to judge that it _is_ legal, but that is surely a matter of pure law interpretation, which should not require "grace"). >It has expressed a >willingness to think about the Law when it >embarks on a major review of the laws. In the >interim, with authority of the Executive, the >manner of adoption of the procedure in >Bermuda is opened up for any who wish to >follow. I still think that matters would be very much simpler if the WBFLC would make the necessary minor law change, instead of approving a far-fetched interpretation that destroys the distinction between the TD and the AC. I'm not saying that you need to publish a new edition of the book: but when you make "interpretations" that require us to interpret the laws in ways that are obviously opposite to the way those laws were intended, why not do it the clean way and call it a small law change? Such changes could be collected somewhere on the WBF's website and circularized to NCBOs by letter: each NCBO could then decide what they would do to make the change known. Actually this regulation was only one example of a WBFLC decision that is or seems to be in conflict with the law: there are others. For example the Bermuda decision about revokes in connection with claims. That decision is eminently reasonable and much-needed, but it seems to me to be directly in conflict with L70A ("any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer"). This time there is no regulation involved, so surely this _is_ a law change? The Lille decision about L25B is a third example. The further the realities of rulings are from the laws, the more harm is done to the general respect for the laws. If I tell a TD to rule in a way that is different from what his law book says, and he asks me why, which of the following two answers will best serve to maintain his respect for the laws? (a) "That is because there has been a recent law change which you obviously haven't yet seen and added to your book". (b) "That is because the WBFLC has decided that the words of the laws do not mean what they seem to say." I hate having to answer (b). So I suggest that the WBFLC establishes a procedure for making and announcing minor laws changes in-between editions of the book. Minor laws changes are much better than illegal or complicated unnatural interpretations of existing laws. For one thing, we wouldn't have to spend time on these discussions :-) -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 6 04:19:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24051 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 04:19:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from red.impulsedata.net (root@red.impulsedata.net [209.63.64.7] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA24045 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 04:19:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from phil (61.phx-ts01.impulsedata.net [209.63.68.61]) by red.impulsedata.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA37815; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 09:59:45 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from golddoc@impulsedata.net) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20000205102152.008798b0@impulsedata.net> X-Sender: golddoc@impulsedata.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2000 10:21:52 -0700 To: "Peter Gill" From: Phil Guptill Subject: Re: World Class Cc: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" In-Reply-To: <028d01bf6ff0$0689edc0$776d868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Peter & all! I agree with Jeff Meckstroth's comments 100%! At 02:45 AM 2/6/00 +1100, Peter Gill wrote: >In the new book *World Class - Conversations with the Bridge >Masters*, Jeff Meckstroth's comment on the future of bridge is: > >**If I could change one thing in the game, it would be the appeals >process -- I would totally do away with it. The director's decision >should be final, just like the referee in virtually any other sport. >There are enough directors who are good bridge players. We >should let the floor directors take the tougher decisions to the >best player/directors that we have, and their decision should >be the end of the matter. >I believe strongly in this. It would be much better for the game, >because first of all you would get consistent rulings. You might get >screwed occasionally (referees miss calls from time to time in any >sport), but you will get some consistency. Secondly, when the game >is over you will have a known winner. If this game is ever going to >become popular with the general public, then when the game ends >you have to know the winner straight away. How are we ever going >to market the game for television and the like, if at the end of the >game we are still quibbling about who won? So I would just totally >do away with the whole process. I find it disgusting.** >END OF QUOTE >------------------------ > >I tend to agree with Jeff. Does anyone else? > >Peter Gill >Sydney Australia. > > > > > Phil Guptill...bigheart on OKB golddoc@impulsedata.net "Sight is a faculty; seeing is an art." From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 6 04:32:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24088 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 04:32:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA24082 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 04:32:14 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA12363 for ; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 18:32:04 +0100 Received: from ip51.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.51), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda12361; Sat Feb 5 18:31:56 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2000 18:31:56 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <000401bf6dd8$43249e20$d17993c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <000401bf6dd8$43249e20$d17993c3@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 EAA24084 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 2 Feb 2000 16:24:42 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >+=+ Yea, I do not have much of a problem >about that. I share the view that deleting 25B >and expanding the meaning of 25A to >cover mental aberrations in respect of where >we are in the bidding would do very well, and >can be achieved with reasonable simplicity. So do I. I have no strong opinion about whether the "mental aberration" situation should be allowed at all, but _if_ it should be allowed, then it should be allowed fully and without penalty as an addition to L25A. We probably still need a L25B that simply says that an illegal change must be withdrawn (and is UI). -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 6 06:09:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA24383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 06:09:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA24378 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 06:09:33 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id v.1e.1116b40 (9651); Sat, 5 Feb 2000 14:08:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <1e.1116b40.25cdcf3b@aol.com> Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000 14:08:43 EST Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda To: jesper@dybdal.dk, 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 2/5/00 11:53:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, jesper@dybdal.dk writes: > So Kojak seems to be under the impression that the rulings > presented by the TD to the players were TD rulings and not the > result of an "early part of the appeals process". This confuses > me. > Not only is Kojak under the impression the rulings presented by the TD were TD rulings, Kojak is also of the strong opinion that to make a bridge judgment ruling solely on the thoughts of a single TD or CTD, when there are experts available to help the TD ARRIVE AT HIS RULING, is ludicrous. These experts are in the Laws, bridge systems, bridge logic and judgment, and Rules and Regulations. There may be some out there who feel they know everything they need to know to make any ruling according to the Laws, but I'm not one of them. Again, my English must be wanting, but let me repeat. We are not trying to be an AC. We are simply making rulings using the best sources available so that when they arrive at an AC they are the best we can do based on the facts, application of the Laws, and judgment (where needed) arrived at by consensus. The fact that this process, known to the players, seems to greatly reduce the volume of appealed rulings is a benefit, but not the reason for its inception. But let there be no doubt that these are TD rulings that are made by the Laws and subject to the Laws pertaining to appeals. Also, please note that the Code of Practice is for Appeals Committees. The refinement of our TD procedures at WBF Championships is necessary to start their process in the desired direction. I also agree with Jeff Meckstroth's thoughts on eliminating with reservation. I would first want the mindset of the TDs to be clearly demonstrated over a period of time that they are "ruling," not just taking an intermediate step toward an AC meeting where we start from scratch all over again. I could live with the occasional error in a TD ruling just as well as I now must live with the occasional error in AC rulings were I to feel comfortable with the quality of the TDs efforts and conclusions. If what we are presently doing may accomplish that so much the better. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 6 06:16:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA24426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 06:16:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe20.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.124]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA24421 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 06:16:48 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 65132 invoked by uid 65534); 5 Feb 2000 19:16:10 -0000 Message-ID: <20000205191610.65131.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.13.64] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <003301bf6d92$f35d6420$bd8293c3@pacific> Subject: Bermuda Jan20 Item 8 Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000 13:16:38 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 9:31 AM Subject: WBFLC story to date. Grattan has been very adept in his choice of words when reporting the meaning of conversations and the like. Note item #8 from the Jan 20 minutes: 8. Mr. Martel would like the committee to look at possibilities of removing the partner from the table and inviting the player who made the call to explain his intention. I noticed the word intention was used. I would think that such a word was chosen carefully to describe the character of the discussion. But I consider that it seems that it is not the nature of a sporting contest to be required to reveal one's motivations to the opponents for what was done, at least while there is action in progress. I should think that it would be better to require that the agreement be explained [the one that the player used for the action], and where the agreement was not explicit, then on the implicit basis from which it came, whether a vague conversation, a habit, a single occurrence that was or was not postmortemed ..And being relevant to the opponents, and since such matters would be extraneous information, it would make sense to separate the pair while the information was given. I see little good in compounding any UI problems involved by keeping the pair intact during the clarification by the bidder. I am not saying that there are no problems with such a procedure, but none have occurred to me yet. Thoughts? Roger Pewick Houston, Texas From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 6 11:26:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA25606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 11:26:42 +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 LAA25601 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 11:26:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from p45s02a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.82.70] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Gnqq-0004oH-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 18:53:05 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Does crime still pay? Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 00:32:43 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf7039$aef1eb40$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Extract minutes WBFLC 12th January 2000 2. The question of the ‘two trick penalty in Law 64’, see Law 43B2(b)*, 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 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. * corrected This solves the problem of how we are supposed to deal with the situation where a dummy who has "lost his rights" Law43B2(b)is the first to draw attention to an unestablished revoke infraction by declarer. Assume declarer corrects the trick on which he has ruffed a diamond, by following with a small diamond and does not win the trick. If he wins a trick with a diamond later, and the partnership wins another trick, I assume this is also a 2 trick penalty with no exposed (penalty) cards. Yes? If he does not win a trick with a diamond, but the partnership does win several more tricks, just one trick penalty with no penalty cards. Yes? If dummy had said nothing, Dec has ruffed, so wins the trick, and will probably still win another trick, so it's a two trick penalty with no penalty card. Yes? Another attention illegally drawn, is Law63B when there has been a violation of Law61B. I assume we are expected to deal with this in the same way, except now the offender has a penalty card. What about when a Dummy who has not violated Law43, violates Law 42B by asking a defender about an unestablished revoke? I don't think I am totally confused, but it seems to me that there can still be a benefit conferred upon the side that illegally draws attention to a revoke. Perhaps someone will disillusion me. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 6 14:11:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA26000 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 14:11:41 +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 OAA25995 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 14:11:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from isdn.net.il (clnt-12014.bezeqint.net) by mail.bezeqint.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.07.30.00.05.p8) with ESMTP id <0FPH00DJTNH0FY@mail.bezeqint.net> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 05:10:13 +0200 (IST) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2000 05:10:27 +0200 From: Zvi Shilon Subject: Re: World Class To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Message-id: <389CE623.C41DA36A@isdn.net.il> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en-US,en,Hebrew References: <3.0.3.32.20000205102152.008798b0@impulsedata.net> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I emphatically agree. zvika Phil Guptill wrote: > Hi Peter & all! > > I agree with Jeff Meckstroth's comments 100%! > > At 02:45 AM 2/6/00 +1100, Peter Gill wrote: > >In the new book *World Class - Conversations with the Bridge > >Masters*, Jeff Meckstroth's comment on the future of bridge is: > > > >**If I could change one thing in the game, it would be the appeals > >process -- I would totally do away with it. The director's decision > >should be final, just like the referee in virtually any other sport. > >There are enough directors who are good bridge players. We > >should let the floor directors take the tougher decisions to the > >best player/directors that we have, and their decision should > >be the end of the matter. > >I believe strongly in this. It would be much better for the game, > >because first of all you would get consistent rulings. You might get > >screwed occasionally (referees miss calls from time to time in any > >sport), but you will get some consistency. Secondly, when the game > >is over you will have a known winner. If this game is ever going to > >become popular with the general public, then when the game ends > >you have to know the winner straight away. How are we ever going > >to market the game for television and the like, if at the end of the > >game we are still quibbling about who won? So I would just totally > >do away with the whole process. I find it disgusting.** > >END OF QUOTE > >------------------------ > > > >I tend to agree with Jeff. Does anyone else? > > > >Peter Gill > >Sydney Australia. > > > > > > > > > > > Phil Guptill...bigheart on OKB > golddoc@impulsedata.net > "Sight is a faculty; seeing is an art." From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 6 15:10:54 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA26189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 15:10:54 +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 PAA26184 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 15:10:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from isdn.net.il (clnt-12014.bezeqint.net) by mail.bezeqint.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.07.30.00.05.p8) with ESMTP id <0FPH00IM8Q9HSF@mail.bezeqint.net> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 06:10:30 +0200 (IST) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2000 06:10:47 +0200 From: Zvi Shilon Subject: [Fwd: Defective claim or table result?] To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Message-id: <389CF447.BF0D975D@isdn.net.il> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------0909D6DA1B1AB6BBAEB75D37" X-Accept-Language: en-US,en,Hebrew Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------0909D6DA1B1AB6BBAEB75D37 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Down 1. If ever I have seen a non-problem on this newgroup, this is it. zvika --------------0909D6DA1B1AB6BBAEB75D37 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-path: Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au by mail.bezeqint.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.07.30.00.05.p8) with ESMTP id <0FP70008CG2313@mail.bezeqint.net> for zvika3@sims-ms-daemon; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 16:54:21 +0200 (IST) Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA24332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 01 Feb 2000 00:34:32 +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 AAA24327 for ; Tue, 01 Feb 2000 00:34:25 +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 IAA14176 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 08:33:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 08:37:10 -0500 From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Defective claim or table result? In-reply-to: <3.0.6.32.20000130205434.0079ee90@pop.singnet.com.sg> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Message-id: <3.0.1.32.20000131083710.006ec2bc@pop.cais.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 At 08:54 PM 1/30/00 +0800, Derrick wrote: >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 ? Three tricks to N-S. L68D: "After any claim... play ceases. All play subsequent to a claim... shall be voided by the Director." So the ruling cannot be affected by what occurred after the claim; it must be the same regardless of whether N-S played on and failed to get their ruff, or played on and got their ruff, or didn't play on at all. We must rule as though the contestants hadn't played on, so the fact that South, when he did so, committed a presumably "egregious" error in failing to get his ruff cannot matter to the adjudicated outcome. 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 --------------0909D6DA1B1AB6BBAEB75D37-- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 6 15:23:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA26250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 15:23:10 +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 PAA26245 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 15:23:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from isdn.net.il (clnt-12014.bezeqint.net) by mail.bezeqint.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.07.30.00.05.p8) with ESMTP id <0FPH00KGKQTSO1@mail.bezeqint.net> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 06:22:41 +0200 (IST) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2000 06:22:58 +0200 From: Zvi Shilon Subject: Re: Defective claim or table result? To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Message-id: <389CF722.115846B0@isdn.net.il> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en-US,en,Hebrew References: <3.0.5.32.20000201110509.007b1100@pop.singnet.com.sg> <003b01bf6c92$ca8063a0$6a5608c3@dodona> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk No other ruling makes sense. zvika3@isdn.net.il Grattan Endicott wrote: +=+ Since the play did not take place there was nothing to agree to. As far as I am concerned we are sitting with a disputed claim to be resolved by the Director and nothing 'happened' after the claim was disputed. The players have no power to agree to something outside of the laws and if they pretend to do so the Director must disregard it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 6 15:56:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA26362 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 15:56:15 +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 PAA26353 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 15:56:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from isdn.net.il (clnt-12014.bezeqint.net) by mail.bezeqint.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.07.30.00.05.p8) with ESMTP id <0FPH0014QSD25P@mail.bezeqint.net> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 06:55:50 +0200 (IST) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2000 06:56:08 +0200 From: Zvi Shilon Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Message-id: <389CFEE8.2D8A3118@isdn.net.il> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------99613A8BFB88454BC00EAE93" X-Accept-Language: en-US,en,Hebrew References: <200002050240.SAA00011@mailhub.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------99613A8BFB88454BC00EAE93 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There is precedence for this in American football. An obvious "pass interference" penalty is sometimes cancelled witj the referee's explanation that the pass was uncatchable. zvika Adam Beneschan wrote: "In NBA basketball, if a player fouls another player who was in the act of shooting the ball, the non-offender gets to take 2 or 3 free throws depending on many points his shot would have scored. But this penalty is the same even if the player was about to take a really bad shot. I haven't heard anyone propose that the penalty should be eliminated if the player was surely going to miss his shot. I haven't heard anyone suggest that we try to determine the probability that the player was going to make his shot, and weight the score of the free throws accordingly." --------------99613A8BFB88454BC00EAE93 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 --------------99613A8BFB88454BC00EAE93-- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 6 20:31:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA27108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 20:31:12 +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 UAA27103 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 20:31:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.196] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12HO1q-000E0b-00; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 09:30:50 +0000 Message-ID: <004501bf7085$0d4d6340$155408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Grattan Endicott" , , "Jesper Dybdal" , Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 09:30:15 -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 ----- Original Message ----- > Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda > I wrote: >. The > other point I would make is that the umpires and referees in > other sports are making decisions of fact; they do not have > judgemental decisions to make. > +=+ Perhaps the distinction I should make is more properly that between rulings on mechanical events and those which involve assessment of the players' minds and mental processes. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 6 21:04:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA26958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 20:04:44 +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 UAA26949 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 20:04:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.21] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12HNcG-000DIe-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 09:04:24 +0000 Message-ID: <001601bf7081$5bc20fc0$155408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <028b01bf6fed$5b96b940$776d868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: Wordsmith Needed? Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000 21:54:29 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2000 3:26 PM Subject: Wordsmith Needed? > > My question is: Could (should) this be worded better? > +=+ The answer is yes. Also that the point has been made. There has been a tendency for the Conditions of Contest just to reappear without being passed round for review. Kojak certainly, [and 'others' :-)] have an urge to get their hands on before Maastricht, and here's to it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 6 21:53:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA26973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 20:04:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA26960 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 20:04:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.21] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12HNcL-000DIe-00; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 09:04:29 +0000 Message-ID: <001901bf7081$5ebd0040$155408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , , References: <1e.1116b40.25cdcf3b@aol.com> Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 09:03:50 -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 To: ; Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2000 7:08 PM Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda > I also agree with Jeff Meckstroth's thoughts on eliminating with reservation. > I would first want the mindset of the TDs to be clearly demonstrated over a > period of time that they are "ruling," not just taking an intermediate step > toward an AC meeting where we start from scratch all over again +=+ The idea has an attraction. I am sceptical of the benefits without some scope for recourse to review of rulings because even the best TDs are human, fallible, subject to error and prejudices. There were a couple of failings in Bermuda. The other point I would make is that the umpires and referees in other sports are making decisions of fact; they do not have judgemental decisions to make. There may be possibilities in the thought that questions of fact should not be open to appeal from the Director's ruling, but even there the evidence is that Directors do miss vital points at times and these are liable to surface in the judicial calm of the appeals room. However, for the moment perhaps we should try to make the best of what we have. A concerted effort to fulfil the objectives of the Code of Practice is, I suggest, for the present the most promising path of improvement. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 6 22:06:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA26972 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 20:04:50 +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 UAA26956 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 20:04:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.21] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12HNcJ-000DIe-00; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 09:04:27 +0000 Message-ID: <001801bf7081$5dca62e0$155408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Roger Pewick" , "blml" References: <003301bf6d92$f35d6420$bd8293c3@pacific> <20000205191610.65131.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Bermuda Jan20 Item 8 Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 08:45:11 -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 To: blml Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2000 7:16 PM Subject: Bermuda Jan20 Item 8 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Grattan Endicott > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 9:31 AM > Subject: WBFLC story to date. > > > > Grattan has been very adept in his choice of words when reporting the > meaning of conversations and the like. Note item #8 from the Jan 20 > minutes: > > 8. Mr. Martel would like the committee to look at possibilities of removing > the partner from the table and inviting the player who made the call to > explain his intention. > > I noticed the word intention was used. I would think that such a word was > chosen carefully to describe the character of the discussion. > > +=+ 'Intention' would be the meaning he intended for his call. The situation is one where it is unclear whether there is an agreement since the partner thinks there is not. I believe what Chip Martel was asking the committee to think about is whether the player could be required to disclose the meaning of his own call without refuge in "we do not have an agreement". I have formed no quick opinion on this, except that if it were to be workable there would have to be specifics concerning the circumstances in which the right to have such disclosure would exist. Given the right of the absent partner to enquire in the auction about the meaning of opponents' calls it may often be difficult to stop the partner learning what intention has been stated. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 6 22:51:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA26968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 20:04:49 +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 UAA26954 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 20:04:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.21] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12HNcI-000DIe-00; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 09:04:26 +0000 Message-ID: <001701bf7081$5ce707c0$155408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jesper Dybdal" Cc: References: <000a01bf6f26$b75059c0$c06893c3@pacific> <4rko9s4ar79nh5oksovbchqd7dn5n4jfs8@bilbo.dit.dk> Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 00:49:25 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2000 4:51 PM Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda > > Ok, that may be legal. > > Now, what I would like to do is to give TDs in at least some > Danish events the L12C3 right, even if they do not have a group > of experts available to consult. > +=+ I am in difficulty because it is not my place to anticipate the actions of the European Bridge League President. But it is only a matter of a short time before the CoP is circulated with an EBL endorsement to all member NCBOs of the European Bridge League. Inviting them to get on with it. Gianarrigo Rona had a discussion with me about it in Bermuda, asked me to draft some wording, which I have done, and to collaborate with himself and Anna Gudge in whatever is needed to get it prepared and distributed. The WBF has already invited all NCBOs to adopt the procedure; the European Bridge League is on the way to recommending it to its NCBOs. You will only be half a step ahead of the troops if your NCBO makes a move. As for what Kojak said about the procedure, he is right in pragmatic terms, for him it was just an expanded method of making a ruling. Because we did not have the help of the WBFLC as the Lausanne Group wished, we could not do what was done as a direct application of Law 12C3. So we had to introduce it as a prequel of the appeals set-up; this is a technical device to stay within the law (as defined for us!). We are now incorporating the technicality as a substantive part of the CoP and leaving Law 12C3 to the lawmakers. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ p.s. there are one or two essentials that need to be covered if you introduce the procedure. I will deal with these by email one-to-one. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 6 23:04:58 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA27559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 21:46:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from fe030.worldonline.dk (fe030.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.197]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA27550 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 21:46:22 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <200002061046.VAA27550@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: (qmail 4440 invoked by uid 0); 6 Feb 2000 10:45:38 -0000 Received: from 23.ppp1-3.image.dk (HELO idefix) (213.237.1.23) by fe030.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 6 Feb 2000 10:45:38 -0000 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 11:45:54 +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 Steve has written a long and thorough response to a posting I made a couple of weeks ago. Steve has pinpointed several weaknesses in my thinking, and I have a hard time disagreeing. Still, I guess I need to make a few comments: Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Jens & Bodil" > > Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 22:59:58 +0100 > > > 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. > > Now wait a minute, here. First of all, where do we get "inadvertent?" We don't. I mixed up my terms. > Surely there is a class of UI that is deliberate but not > prearranged. When we debated legality of questions, the "informatory > question" and the "pro question" were almost universally thought to > fall under L73B1. Some thought the "Kaplan question" did as well. > There's also "Lead a club!" although in real life such statements > are more subtle. So there's no doubt that we can have L73B1 > infractions, and at least some of them cannot be described as > "inadvertent." In many cases, we will want to apply a conduct > penalty, but that doesn't help us decide on score adjustment. What I really want to do is to classify UI like this (I feel I may just be regurgitating Steve's thinking here): a. Actions that are not intended to communicate UI to partner, but do so anyway. b. Actions that are intended to communicate UI to partner, but that are not prearranged c. Prearranged methods for communicating UI to partner. We all know that it can be difficult to rule correctly which of these cases applies in a specific case we encounter at the table, but that is not the point here. Actions under case (a) are not infractions. The proprieties are governed by L73C, and the procedure is taken care of in L73F1 and L16A. Actions under case (b) are infractions. In my view that is what L73B1 does for us. L73F1 and L16A still apply, of course. Actions under case (c) are also infractions, but they are more serious, as L73B2 tells us. L73F1 and L16A still apply, but if a partnership violates L73B2, surely L73F1 and L16A are wasted on them. In case (a) there is no infraction by the player who passes UI, and if his partner fulfills the obligations laid out in L73F1 and L16A, there isn't any infraction by him either. If the opponents are damaged as a result, that is unfortunate, but in my opinion there are no grounds for adjustment. And being a bit pedantic, I believe that L72B1 cannot apply in case A, for if it did we would be in case (b) anyway. In case (b) there is an infraction. If the opponents are damaged by that infraction, even if the player receiving UI did not choose an action indicated by the UI, I am willing to adjust the score under L12A1. In case (c) we adjust and we hang the perpetrators as well. > And further, where does it say there is a _penalty_ for violating > L73B1? It does not say anywhere anymore. There used to be a definition of "penalty", back before 1997. Sloppy of me. > It seems logical that L16A/73F1 applies to inadvertent UI, 73B1 to > deliberate but not prearranged UI, and 73B2 to prearranged UI. As you can see, I agree. I just did not get my own thinking arranged in such a way that I could express it this clearly. > > L72A5 seems to indicate that that is the end of the story, even > > though EW seem to profit from their infraction. > > If you think there was a penalty, perhaps. I take that back. > Leaving aside the conduct issues, if you are > willing to adjust the score after a 73B2 infraction, why not after > 73B1? Surely they are completely parallel except for the nature of > the offense? Point taken. > > 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. > > Yes, exactly. > > So... does L73B1 stand on its own, leading to L12A1 if the opponents > are damaged? (I have always thought so.) I think so too. At least now I do. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 7 02:49:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA28761 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 02:49:24 +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 CAA28754 for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 02:48:58 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA14945 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 16:48:40 +0100 Received: from ip212.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.212), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda14942; Sun Feb 6 16:48:37 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2000 16:48:37 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <1e.1116b40.25cdcf3b@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <1e.1116b40.25cdcf3b@aol.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 CAA28757 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 5 Feb 2000 14:08:43 EST, Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > Not only is Kojak under the impression the rulings presented by the TD were >TD rulings, Kojak is also of the strong opinion that to make a bridge >judgment ruling solely on the thoughts of a single TD or CTD, when there are >experts available to help the TD ARRIVE AT HIS RULING, is ludicrous. That is absolutely true. I was only commenting of the formal legality of using L12C3. >I also agree with Jeff Meckstroth's thoughts on eliminating with reservation. > I would first want the mindset of the TDs to be clearly demonstrated over a >period of time that they are "ruling," not just taking an intermediate step >toward an AC meeting where we start from scratch all over again. I could >live with the occasional error in a TD ruling just as well as I now must live >with the occasional error in AC rulings were I to feel comfortable with the >quality of the TDs efforts and conclusions. If what we are presently doing >may accomplish that so much the better. In principle, with good TDs who have top players to consult, I agree that we might do well without ACs. But there is a problem with that: we will need TDs (or consultants) who are very good bridge players and who are accepted as being so by the players they judge. I don't know what the situation is in other countries, but when for instance the Danish Teams Championships are in progress, just about every very good player in the country is playing. And I am responsible for finding a TD... So one of the qualities I look for in National TDs is actually that they should be decent bridge players, but quite a few of them should not be so good that they will be playing themselves in the Teams Championships. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 7 19:05:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA02087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 19:05:02 +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 TAA02082 for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 19:04:52 +1100 (EST) Received: by stat.ee id IAA26131; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 08:04:05 GMT Received: from ESA-Message_Server by stat.ee with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 07 Feb 2000 10:16:33 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000 10:06:27 +0200 From: Aavo Heinlo To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Mess caused by Kibitzer Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear colleges, would you be so kind to comment the following sequence of events. Teams, Open Room. Player of team A is playing 2S. The result 8 tricks is agreed by both sides and written down. The Kibitzer present spotted that there was only 7 tricks. He went to TD and told the story. TD commanded him to be silent (Law 76B). Then the Kibitzer went to smoking-room and made some comments. Another player conveyd information to the players of opponent team B before the end of match. The case was put before TD. Team B says: yes, the contract was one down but we don't agree to change the result as it was found out and brought to daylight by third party. (The ethics of A is not issue here.) TD decided: +110 for A as they are not agreeing to change, +50 for B as third party gave him not the possibility to find it out themselves. Result of the match 22:9 instead of 22:8. Other teams protested. AC took the case and found out. 1) The result was agreed at the table (79A). 2) there was no error in computing or tabulating the agreed-upon score (79C doesn't apply) 3) The TD may award an adjusted score only when these Laws empower him to do so (12A) and this was not the case. AC decided that +/-110 stands and asked team A to reconsider their refusal to change the result. They didn't. Does the AC interpreted the Laws properly? Is there any difference if it had happened after the end of round (79B) but before the end of correction period? The boards were duplicated and the deal and results were immediately put on the notice-board after the play was finished on all tables. So, staying before board, any player could ask team B how you defended so badly before the beginning of the next round. Again third party involved, but in quite legal way. Will the AC decision be the same? Or is it correct that the result can't be changed in both situations at all? Aavo Heinlo Tel +372 2 532205 E-mail aavo.heinlo@stat.ee From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 7 19:14:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA02139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 19:14:00 +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 TAA02130 for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 19:13:52 +1100 (EST) Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id DE2681560B; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 03:13:44 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <005b01bf6d15$075adf80$8a5408c3@dodona> References: <200002011718.MAA29244@cfa183.harvard.edu> <005b01bf6d15$075adf80$8a5408c3@dodona> Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 03:13:51 -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 10:58 PM +0000 2/1/00, Grattan wrote to Steve Willner: [SW] > > I understood the score was to > > be returned to "equity," i.e. the (best estimate of the) score as it > > would have been without the infraction. [GE] >+=+ I did not see that suggestion. Equity in my proposal was >a value placed on the non-offenders' prospects at the moment >when they were damaged. +=+ As promised, I'm trying to see if we can agree on what "equity" means here. Until I read this I thought I understood you! Let's try an example. Under 12C3 how would you adjust the score at the table of a player who bids 4S, successfully, in the example Edgar gave that Marvin posted: You hold S-KQ10763 H- 4 D-K7 C-QJ82, vulnerable, and non-vulnerable LHO opens 4H, partner takes 25 seconds to pass, RHO passes, and it's up to you. Assume that you agree that Pass in a LA - if not, weaken the hand until it is. Assume further that 4S was cold for +650 and that 4H would have been set two tricks routinely. AW P.S. The editorial containing the hand above is available at http://www.bridgeworld.com/sampler/samed.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 7 19:14:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA02140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 19:14:00 +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 TAA02129 for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 19:13:52 +1100 (EST) Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 536F415587; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 03:13:43 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001201bf6bed$28e6d1a0$618993c3@pacific> References: <001201bf6bed$28e6d1a0$618993c3@pacific> Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 03:13:09 -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 "I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't --till I tell you. I meant that 'there's a nice knockdown argument for you.'" "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knockdown argument,'" Alice objected. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." - "Through the Looking Glass", Lewis Carroll At 1:09 PM +0000 1/31/00, Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ I am trying to be careful not to suggest that there >is a promulgated definition of 'equity'. How then, has 12C3 been applied? How was it applied in Bermuda? >Without such a definition the various opinions as to what it is can >stand up in the communities where they are held. Equity could mean different things in different places? If it doesn't mean one thing in particular I don't see how one could argue as to the benefits of its application. Surely the burden of definition should fall on the party seeking to apply the term. However, having already started, I'll try to work with you here. See my message posted concomitantly. >The outcome is that the non-offending side receives >an award representing the restoration of their >expectations prior to the infraction; the offending side >receives the reciprocal of that, less the amount of any >procedural penalty applied (which probably requires >that a PP should be applied with rather more regularity >than has been the case under the procedures hitherto). > Actually it seems to me that through arrival on >different buses DB and I end up not far from each >other in the same street. That being the case, I can't understand why you prefer 12C3 to 12C2. 12C2 will get the OS the score you want without having to accuse them of any sort of malfeasance, and without requiring the director to apply a kind of penalty which historically they've been unwilling to assess. In your "panchreston" message of 4 February you seem to agree that the NOS will be given some kind of benefit of the doubt. Isn't this benefit of the doubt well expressed by 12C2? AW From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 7 21:25:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA02578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 21:25:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (root@omicron.comarch.pl [195.116.125.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA02571 for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 21:24:45 +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 LAA12658 for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 11:25:36 +0100 Message-ID: <389E9CF3.D52F2717@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000 11:22:43 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: Mess caused by Kibitzer References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Aavo Heinlo pressed the following keys: > TD decided: +110 for A as they are not > agreeing to change, +50 for B as third > party gave him not the possibility to > find it out themselves. Result of the > match 22:9 instead of 22:8. Just for clarification: was it really 22:9? The total of the adjusted scores cannot exceed 100% (30 VPs on this case). If this was indeed the final result of the match then the TD screw it up. I'll comment on the rest of your post later on. -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Krakow, Poland From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 7 21:45:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA02638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 21:45:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from fep04-svc.mail.telepac.pt (fep04-svc.mail.telepac.pt [194.65.5.203]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA02633 for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 21:45:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from default ([212.55.173.234]) by fep04-svc.mail.telepac.pt (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000207104750.JBOA14677.fep04-svc.mail.telepac.pt@default> for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 10:47:50 +0000 Reply-To: From: "Rui L.Marques" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: Mess caused by Kibitzer Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 10:45:03 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <389E9CF3.D52F2717@omicron.comarch.pl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Just an example... 8 boards, 7 of them flat and one unplayable in such conditions as to warrant a +3imp adjustment to both sides... Would you score it as 15-15?... > Just for clarification: was it really > 22:9? The total of the adjusted scores > cannot exceed 100% (30 VPs on this case). > If this was indeed the final result of the match > then the TD screw it up. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 7 22:08:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA02736 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 22:08:56 +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 WAA02729 for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 22:08:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.6.89.157] (helo=[62.6.89.157]) by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12Hm1n-0006Jo-00; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 11:08:26 +0000 From: David Burn To: "Grattan Endicott" , Adam Wildavsky Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 11:09:49 +0000 X-Mailer: EPOC32 Email Version 1.50 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id WAA02732 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam wrote: As promised, I'm trying to see if we can agree on what "equity" means here. Until I read this I thought I understood you! Let's try an example. Under 12C3 how would you adjust the score at the table of a player who bids 4S, successfully, in the example Edgar gave that Marvin posted: You hold S-KQ10763 H- 4 D-K7 C-QJ82, vulnerable, and non-vulnerable LHO opens 4H, partner takes 25 seconds to pass, RHO passes, and it's up to you. Assume that you agree that Pass in a LA - if not, weaken the hand until it is. Assume further that 4S was cold for +650 and that 4H would have been set two tricks routinely. There is no case for a 12C3 adjustment here. The player is deemed to have broken L73 and L16, in that he has selected from among LAs one (4S) that could have been suggested over another (pass) by UI. His 4S bid must be disallowed, and the assigned score given of 4H-2. There are some ACs who do not understand this point. I have seen rulings along these lines; "Well, we think he'd have bid 4S some of the time without the UI, so we'll give him some of 650 and some of 100". These rulings are not legal, though one of them was given in the Albuquerque World Pairs Championships. L12C3 might come into play if, after ruling the contract back to 4H, it transpired that this might make or might go down. If, say, it was roughly 75% to make, then I would give the NOs 75% of 420 and 25% of -50 (their expectation) while I would give the OS all of -420 (their deserts). David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 7 22:44:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA02849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 22:44:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (root@omicron.comarch.pl [195.116.125.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA02844 for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 22:44:27 +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 MAA31269 for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 12:45:44 +0100 Message-ID: <389EAFBA.EDAE24B@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000 12:42:50 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: Mess caused by Kibitzer References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Rui L.Marques" wrote: > > Just an example... 8 boards, 7 of them flat and one unplayable in such > conditions as to warrant a +3imp adjustment to both sides... Would you score > it as 15-15?... Why unplayable? If it is unplayable because of the players' fault then I'd score it as 15-15 (plus PPs to both sides). If it was because of the TD's error than it's a different story but nothing in Aavo's story suggests it was TD's fault. Please allow me some shorthand! -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Krakow, Poland From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 7 23:32:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA03073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 23:32:33 +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 XAA03068 for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 23:32:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 13:32:03 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id NAA26500 for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 13:30:18 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'BLML'" Subject: RE: Mess caused by Kibitzer Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 13:35:44 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-reply-to: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >Aavo Heinlo pressed the following keys: > >> TD decided: +110 for A as they are not >> agreeing to change, +50 for B as third >> party gave him not the possibility to >> find it out themselves. Result of the >> match 22:9 instead of 22:8. > > Just for clarification: was it really >22:9? The total of the adjusted scores >cannot exceed 100% (30 VPs on this case). >If this was indeed the final result of the match >then the TD screw it up. > I'll comment on the rest of your >post later on. It is certainly possible that the total of the adjusted scores exceeds 100% (30 VPs here). Or less than 100% for that matter (apart from the obvious 25-x scores, that is). Take the above example. Assume at the other table Team A scores -110, Team B +110. The score for Team A on this deal then becomes -110+110=0 = 0 IMPs, the score for Team B becomes +110+50=+160 = +4 IMPs. Now assume both teams didn't score on the other deals. Then Team A's end total is 0-0, for 15 VPs, Team B's total is 4-0 for 16 VPs (assuming 4 IMPs is entitled to 1 VP in this case). That gives the VP result of 15-16. Reverse the signs and the score would have been 15-14. You see that the 22-9 match result is entirely possible. In knockout matches, the scores would be divided equally over both teams: Team A scores 0 IMPs, Team B scores +4 IMPs; these scores are evenly divided, so that Team A scores -2 and Team B +2 (zero sum). -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 8 00:09:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA03236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 00:09:26 +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 AAA03231 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 00:09:19 +1100 (EST) Received: by stat.ee id NAA24039; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 13:02:10 GMT Received: from ESA-Message_Server by stat.ee with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 07 Feb 2000 15:14:38 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000 14:45:39 +0200 From: Aavo Heinlo To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Mess caused by Kibitzer Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk K.C. asked: >Just for clarification: was it really >22:9? The total of the adjusted scores >cannot exceed 100% (30 VPs on this case). >If this was indeed the final result of the match >then the TD screw it up. Yes 22:9, TD messed up, AC corrected. A.H. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 8 00:43:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA03392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 00:43:20 +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 AAA03387 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 00:43:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-24-149.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.24.149]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA19850 for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 14:43:03 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <389D53FB.690D632A@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2000 11:59:07 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Calculator Needed ? (was Re: Wordsmith Needed?) References: <028b01bf6fed$5b96b940$776d868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: > > As most of you have probably heard by now, this was caused by > 5 minutes of Slow Play resulting in fines of 3.75 and 1.25 IMPs. > > The relevant regulation is: > > ***19.4.2 Slow Play > Excess time apportioned to a pair during the Quarter-finals, > Semi-finals and Finals: > > 0+ - 25 minutes late - 1 IMP for each minute or part thereof*** > > > 16. Length of Matches > ...each 16-board ... session of a match is to be completed > within two hours and twenty minutes; after that, teams judged > guilty of slow play will be subject to penalty (see section 19.4). > > 19.4.2 Slow Play > Excess time apportioned to a pair during the Quarter-finals, > Semi-finals and Finals: > > 0+ - 25 minutes late - 1 IMP for each minute or part thereof > > A Tournament Director or an official appointed by the President > shall determine responsibility for slow play. A partnership which > considers its opponents are playing slowly shall inform the > Tournament Director who may appoint a monitor if he thinks it > is necessary; the partnership is only protected from the time at > which the Tournament Director is informed. A Director may > install a monitor without request of the players.*** Let me get this straight. There was a penalty of 5IMPs, completely certain, but by regulation attributable to either or both teams. The attribution ws 75% USA, 25% Netherlands. USA had a carry-over of +3, and the true result of the match was 251-250 in Holland's Favour. That would mean, in a competition sence, that USA had a result of +3-1-3.75 = -1.75, and the Netherlands had -3+1-1.25 = -3.25. Now in a competition, that would look to me like both sides have lost the match. But then it would seem that USA would have lost less, so they should be World Champions ? Rather, the calculation seems to have been : USA +3-1-3.75+1.25 = -0.50 NED -3+1-1.25+3.75 = +0.50 I think it really is a wordsmith who is needed ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 8 00:56:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA03449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 00:56:31 +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 AAA03444 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 00:56:24 +1100 (EST) Received: by stat.ee id NAA29457; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 13:55:43 GMT Received: from ESA-Message_Server by stat.ee with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 07 Feb 2000 16:08:15 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000 15:58:00 +0200 From: Aavo Heinlo To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Mess caused by Kibitzer Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot wrote: >It is certainly possible that the total of the adjusted >scores exceeds 100% (30 VPs here). This is truly certainly possible. In the case under consideration AC decided that TD had no right to give a result as there was no authorization from laws. Team A said: yes, it was probably one down, but we didn't agree to change the result. That means that agreed-upon earlier result will stand. There was no claim, the deal was played up to the end. Aavo Heinlo From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 8 02:28:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA04000 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 02:28:01 +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 CAA03994 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 02:27:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.182] (dhcp165-182.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.182]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA02068; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 10:27:23 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <389E9CF3.D52F2717@omicron.comarch.pl> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 10:25:42 -0500 To: Konrad Ciborowski , BLML From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Mess caused by Kibitzer Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:22 AM +0100 2/7/00, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >Aavo Heinlo pressed the following keys: > >> TD decided: +110 for A as they are not >> agreeing to change, +50 for B as third >> party gave him not the possibility to >> find it out themselves. Result of the >> match 22:9 instead of 22:8. > > Just for clarification: was it really >22:9? The total of the adjusted scores >cannot exceed 100% (30 VPs on this case). >If this was indeed the final result of the match >then the TD screw it up. In VP scoring (or any other scoring with a field), the total can exceed 100% if the assigned adjusted scored exceed a net of zero. This should not happen with the normal adjusted scores, but it can happen if both sides are non-offending (A+/A+ on an unplayable board, or non-balancing scores if the TD gives an incorrect ruling which cannot be rectified). In this case, there is no justification for the net above zero. The Laws either do or do not allow the score to be corrected once the board has been scored and all four players have agreed on +110. If the Laws allow a correction, then one must be made for both sides; if they do not allow a correction, then neither side is entitled to one. (Can Team A legally decline the +110 after it has been agreed? I thought there was a specific case with Kaplan in which it was later decided that such adjustments were not allowed.) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 8 03:04:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 03:04:51 +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 DAA04152 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 03:04:42 +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 IAA12537; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 08:04:35 -0800 Message-Id: <200002071604.IAA12537@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: World Class In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 06 Feb 2000 02:45:27 PST." <028d01bf6ff0$0689edc0$776d868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000 08:04:35 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Meckstroth wrote (quoted by Peter Gill): > **If I could change one thing in the game, it would be the appeals > process -- I would totally do away with it. The director's decision > should be final, just like the referee in virtually any other sport. It should be noted that referees' decisions in other sports *can* be appealed, but only if a team believes the referee misapplied the laws. Once in a great while, it does happen that the result of a game is overturned by the league because the league decides the referees got the rules wrong. Grattan wrote: > The other point I would make is that the umpires and referees in > other sports are making decisions of fact; they do not have > judgemental decisions to make. Sometimes they do. In American baseball, there are a couple situations I know of where the umpire has to make a judgment about whether a player dropped the ball intentionally, or interfered with the ball intentionally. I'm not sure what your distinction between "judgment" and "determination of fact" is, but the rules in at least one of these cases does use the phrase "if, in the umpire's judgment, ...". Also, Zvi responded to another post of mine by pointing out that in American football, referees have to judge whether a passed ball was uncatchable; to me, this seems more like a judgmental decision rather than a decision of fact. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 8 04:06:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA04367 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 04:06:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from cobalt11-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt11-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.171]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA04351 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 04:06:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from p0as07a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.119.11] helo=pacific) by cobalt11-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12HVKK-0000Oq-00; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 17:18:24 +0000 Message-ID: <004c01bf718d$37797f60$0b7793c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: "Grattan Endicott" Subject: WBFLC minutes Schedule 1 Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 15:55:50 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott The following is 'Schedule 1' attached to the WBFLC minutes of 11th January. "" M. J. Damiani President World Bridge Federation. 12th January 2000. Mr. President, I have been requested by the Laws Committee to convey to you the desire of Mr. William Schoder that when, in your pleasure, he is next listed in the World Bridge Federation Laws Committee the entry be shown in the following manner: WBF Chief Tournament Director (Mr. William Schoder) Mr. Schoder's point is that he appears at Laws Committee meetings in his role of Chief Director and not as a member of Zone 2. It is his concept that the Chief Director should stand apart from Zonal connotations, being committed to impartiality in his dealings with all. Accordingly I submit to you this prayer in the hope that you will receive it with favour. Yours respectfully, Grattan Endicott OBE "" From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 8 04:06:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA04373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 04:06:45 +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 EAA04368 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 04:06:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from p0as07a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.119.11] helo=pacific) by cobalt11-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12HVKS-0000Oq-00; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 17:18:32 +0000 Message-ID: <004f01bf718d$3c0ee600$0b7793c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , "Grattan Endicott" , "Adam Wildavsky" Cc: Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 16:50:25 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott -----Original Message----- From: David Burn To: Grattan Endicott ; Adam Wildavsky Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 07 February 2000 11:19 Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) >Adam wrote: > >As promised, I'm trying to see if we can agree on what "equity" means here. Until I read this I thought I understood you! > +=+ 'Equity' is a principle addressed inferentially in Section 12 of WBFLC minutes of 20th Jan 2000. In promulgating principles the WBFLC has a practice of not attaching values to them; it has done this, for example, with 'logical alternative'. The reason, possibly, is that the principle is more easily accepted if authorities around the world are given latitude to fine tune according to their own evaluations. I take the view that 'equity' cannot be settled on the internet; it is a subject on which Directors must refer to their NCBOs. +=+ > ---------------- \x/ --------------- > >L12C3 might come into play if, after ruling the contract back to 4H, it transpired that this might make or might go down. If, say, it was roughly 75% to make, then I would give the NOs 75% of 420 and 25% of -50 (their expectation) while I would give the OS all of -420 (their deserts). > >David Burn >London, England > +=+ Whereas my view of it is that OS gets the reciprocal of the award to NOS and suffers a penalty for the crime. (I think equity has nothing to do with 'deserts', these come on a separate plate.) At the present I am inclined to a penalty range between 10% and 20%, possibly with some relationship to the difference between table result and adjusted score. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 8 04:06:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA04365 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 04:06:36 +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 EAA04349 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 04:06:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from p0as07a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.119.11] helo=pacific) by cobalt11-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12HVKN-0000Oq-00; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 17:18:30 +0000 Message-ID: <004e01bf718d$3b1320e0$0b7793c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: "'Grattan Endicott'" Subject: WBFLC Jan 11 minutes - Schedule 3 Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 16:09:59 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott The following is the text of Schedule 3: "" Note concerning Law 25B. In pursuance of paragraph 7 of the Minutes of 11th January 2000, the committee agrees that under Law 25B changes of call are allowed in the case of a misjudgment when the first call was made. The player himself decides that he has misbid. A player is not entitled to change because of his inference as to the next call by LHO, nor change his first call as a reaction to an irregularity occurring after the first call. Examples: 1. N opens 1H, East passes, South bids 4H. West comments "I am certainly not passing this". South is not allowed to substitute 2H. 2. South opens 2D (Multi), North passes out of turn. The pass not being accepted, it is West's turn to call; South is not allowed to anticipate North's pass by changing his call and naming his suit. 3. North opens 1H and East passes; South bids 2H and then discovers he only has twelve cards. The card being found, South is allowed to change his call if he wishes under Law 25B. "" From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 8 04:06:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA04366 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 04:06:36 +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 EAA04350 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 04:06:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from p0as07a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.119.11] helo=pacific) by cobalt11-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12HVKL-0000Oq-00; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 17:18:26 +0000 Message-ID: <004d01bf718d$3839c220$0b7793c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: "Grattan Endicott" Subject: Schedule 2/WBFLC minutes. Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 15:56:17 -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 This is Schedule 2 to the minutes of 11th Jan 00 - """" Memorandum on question raised in meeting of 11th January 2000 concerning discrepancy between ACBL statute and By-Law of the WBF. Messrs. Kooijman, Cohen, Endicott, Polisner and Wignall held an informal discussion on this and related subjects on 15th January 2000. One main conclusion of the group was that no approach to the Executive Council is needed at this time. There is a potential problem but the group believes it can be resolved by enhanced communications between the bodies concerned, and generally with those involved in the promulgation of the laws. Ways in which this could be done were explored. It was envisaged that efforts might be directed towards a major revision of the laws in, say, 2005; a drafting committee based upon the ACBL drafting committee, with expansion to include some additional inter- national input , could meet in Montreal in 2002. In the meantime preparatory consultation should continue. It is recognized that there are three types of problem on which to collaborate: - any differences between the ACBL law book and the WBF law book; - differences of law interpretation by various authorities; - Laws which call for revision. It was agreed that Mr. Cohen and Mr. Endicott should work together on the preparation of a WBF Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, with the assistance of Mr. Richard Grenside to ensure that views from outside Zones 1 and 2 are taken into account. It was noted that a worldwide distribution of the Code of Practice is intended. The question of laws for electronic bridge was raised. Mr. Endicott noted steps already taken and Mr. Cohen reported action taken by the ACBL. It was considered that knowledge should be shared and the matter progressed. "" From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 8 05:36:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA04817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 05:36:51 +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 FAA04811 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 05:36:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.182] (dhcp165-182.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.182]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA23550; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 13:36:24 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200002071604.IAA12537@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Your message of "Sun, 06 Feb 2000 02:45:27 PST." <028d01bf6ff0$0689edc0$776d868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 13:33:51 -0500 To: Adam Beneschan , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: World Class Cc: adam@irvine.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 8:04 AM -0800 2/7/00, Adam Beneschan wrote: >Jeff Meckstroth wrote (quoted by Peter Gill): > >> **If I could change one thing in the game, it would be the appeals >> process -- I would totally do away with it. The director's decision >> should be final, just like the referee in virtually any other sport. > >It should be noted that referees' decisions in other sports *can* be >appealed, but only if a team believes the referee misapplied the laws. >Once in a great while, it does happen that the result of a game is >overturned by the league because the league decides the referees got >the rules wrong. The last time this happened in basball was in the "pine-tar" game of 1983 between the Yankees and the Royals. There is a rule that a bat may have pine tar up to 18 inches from the handle, and any bat with more than 18 inches of pine tar on it must be removed from the game. George Brett put too much pine tar on his bat, but the umpire did not check, and the Yankees said nothing. Then, when Brett hit a home run, the Yankees appealed to the umpire, who ruled Brett out for using an illegal bat. The Royals appealed to the league president. The league president ruled that the home run counted. The penalty for pine tar is specified to be removal of the bat, and given that the umpire neglected his duty at that time, the Yankees could not claim a more severe penalty later. An analogous situation in bridge would be one in which the TD misapplies the rules. South makes a slow double, North pulls it, and the TD allows the pull because North would probably have pulled an in-tempo double. The AC should overrule this based on the definition of logical alternative, which is the standard the TD should have used. But in bridge, the AC does have another policy, that of ruling on matters beyond the judgment of the TD. The TD may not be qualified to decide whether North, an expert player, would have a logical alternative to pulling the double. It may also need to get more information about the acution than what the TD had available. >Grattan wrote: > >> The other point I would make is that the umpires and referees in >> other sports are making decisions of fact; they do not have >> judgemental decisions to make. > >Sometimes they do. In American baseball, there are a couple >situations I know of where the umpire has to make a judgment about >whether a player dropped the ball intentionally, or interfered with >the ball intentionally. I'm not sure what your distinction between >"judgment" and "determination of fact" is, but the rules in at least >one of these cases does use the phrase "if, in the umpire's judgment, >...". Also, Zvi responded to another post of mine by pointing out >that in American football, referees have to judge whether a passed >ball was uncatchable; to me, this seems more like a judgmental >decision rather than a decision of fact. > > -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 8 06:00:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA04914 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 06:00:03 +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 FAA04909 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 05:59:55 +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 ; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 10:59:46 -0800 Message-ID: <019301bf719d$7766e760$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 10:59:24 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > Adam wrote: > > As promised, I'm trying to see if we can agree on what "equity" means here. Until I read this I thought I understood you! > > Let's try an example. Under 12C3 how would you adjust the score at > the table of a player who bids 4S, successfully, in the example Edgar gave that Marvin posted: > > You hold S-KQ10763 H- 4 D-K7 C-QJ82, vulnerable, > and non-vulnerable LHO opens 4H, partner takes > 25 seconds to pass, RHO passes, and it's up to you. > > Assume that you agree that Pass in a LA - if not, weaken the hand > until it is. Assume further that 4S was cold for +650 and that 4H > would have been set two tricks routinely. > > > There is no case for a 12C3 adjustment here. The player is deemed to have broken L73 and L16, in that he has selected from among LAs one (4S) that could have been suggested over another (pass) by UI. His 4S bid must be disallowed, and the assigned score given of 4H-2. > > There are some ACs who do not understand this point. I have seen rulings along these lines; "Well, we think he'd have bid 4S some of the time without the UI, so we'll give him some of 650 and some of 100". These rulings are not legal, though one of them was given in the Albuquerque World Pairs Championships. > > L12C3 might come into play if, after ruling the contract back to 4H, it transpired that this might make or might go down. If, say, it was roughly 75% to make, then I would give the NOs 75% of 420 and 25% of -50 (their expectation) while I would give the OS all of -420 (their deserts). > Things are seldom that clear-cut, David. Could you compose an illustrative hand that doesn't require declarer to take an inferior line of play, or the defense to take a superior one, in order for the 4S contract to be set? That would make it easier for some of us to understand this approach. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 8 10:18:49 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA05818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 10:18:49 +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 KAA05813 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 10:18:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.145.236] (helo=davidburn) by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12HxQR-0006zN-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 23:18:35 +0000 Message-ID: <000901bf71c1$8ed65060$ec9101d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <019301bf719d$7766e760$16991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 23:16:50 -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: > David Burn wrote: > > > Adam wrote: > > > > As promised, I'm trying to see if we can agree on what "equity" means > here. Until I read this I thought I understood you! > > > > Let's try an example. Under 12C3 how would you adjust the score at > > the table of a player who bids 4S, successfully, in the example Edgar gave > that Marvin posted: > > > > You hold S-KQ10763 H- 4 D-K7 C-QJ82, vulnerable, > > and non-vulnerable LHO opens 4H, partner takes > > 25 seconds to pass, RHO passes, and it's up to you. > > > > Assume that you agree that Pass in a LA - if not, weaken the hand > > until it is. Assume further that 4S was cold for +650 and that 4H > > would have been set two tricks routinely. > > > > > > There is no case for a 12C3 adjustment here. The player is deemed to have > broken L73 and L16, in that he has selected from among LAs one (4S) that > could have been suggested over another (pass) by UI. His 4S bid must be > disallowed, and the assigned score given of 4H-2. > > > > There are some ACs who do not understand this point. I have seen rulings > along these lines; "Well, we think he'd have bid 4S some of the time without > the UI, so we'll give him some of 650 and some of 100". These rulings are > not legal, though one of them was given in the Albuquerque World Pairs > Championships. > > > > L12C3 might come into play if, after ruling the contract back to 4H, it > transpired that this might make or might go down. If, say, it was roughly > 75% to make, then I would give the NOs 75% of 420 and 25% of -50 (their > expectation) while I would give the OS all of -420 (their deserts). > > > Things are seldom that clear-cut, David. Could you compose an illustrative > hand that doesn't require declarer to take an inferior line of play, or the > defense to take a superior one, in order for the 4S contract to be set? That > would make it easier for some of us to understand this approach. I think you mean "for the 4H contract to be set". This is the kind of thing I am talking about (using the Kaplan example hand quoted by Adam above): AJ J85 AQJ5432 9 42 985 AKQ109632 7 6 1098 K7 A106543 KQ10763 4 K7 QJ82 West opens a fairly obvious 4H; North makes an (understandable) slow pass; South bids 4S and takes 11 tricks. 4S is disallowed, and the TD or AC needs to consider what would happen to West in 4H. 4H can be beaten if the defenders begin with two rounds of spades and a diamond in some order ending in South, who plays a third spade, otherwise 4H is cold. Probably, the "right" opening lead from the North hand against 4H-all pass is the ace of spades, so the defenders might find their way, but it will not happen much of the time - a lot of Norths will lead the singleton club, or the defence might try to cash two spades and two diamonds instead of trying for the trump promotion. (North, for those who care about such matters, should play the queen of diamonds under the king if the play starts SA, SJ overtaken, DK.) One would take into account the class of the North-South players in determining how often NS will defeat 4H. I would also look at the results from other tables, in order to determine what percentage of the time 4H has actually made where it has become the final contract. This obvious and useful procedure would be denied to people who follow the Stevenson Doctrine, but that is not my fault. One might reasonably conclude that 4H would be allowed to make 75% of the time and defeated the other 25% of the time - then, one would rule as I have suggested above. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 8 11:04:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA05985 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 11:04:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp4.ihug.co.nz (smtp4.ihug.co.nz [203.109.252.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA05973 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 11:04:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from patrick (p135-tnt8.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.138.135]) by smtp4.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id NAA12205 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 13:04:15 +1300 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20000208125320.007d8580@pop.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: tripack@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2000 12:53:20 +1300 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" From: Patrick Subject: Re: Mess caused by Kibitzer In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In reading the below I am unable to determine who the appellants were. It seems that the only aggrieved parties were from other teams, but of course they have no right to appeal a ruling in another match. It is possible that the director chose to appeal his own ruling, but then that surely would have been mentioned. Besides if the director appealed his own ruling because he had been pressured by players not involved in that match then I have major concerns about that as well Patrick Carter Auckland Bridge Club & NZCBA At 10:06 7/02/00 +0200, you wrote: >Dear colleges, >would you be so kind to comment the following >sequence of events. > >Teams, Open Room. >Player of team A is playing 2S. >The result 8 tricks is agreed by >both sides and written down. >The Kibitzer present spotted that >there was only 7 tricks. He went >to TD and told the story. TD commanded >him to be silent (Law 76B). >Then the Kibitzer went to smoking-room >and made some comments. Another player >conveyd information to the players of >opponent team B before the end of match. >The case was put before TD. >Team B says: yes, the contract was one down >but we don't agree to change the result as >it was found out and brought to daylight >by third party. >(The ethics of A is not issue here.) >TD decided: +110 for A as they are not >agreeing to change, +50 for B as third >party gave him not the possibility to >find it out themselves. Result of the >match 22:9 instead of 22:8. >Other teams protested. >AC took the case and found out. >1) The result was agreed at the table (79A). >2) there was no error in computing or tabulating >the agreed-upon score (79C doesn't apply) >3) The TD may award an adjusted score only >when these Laws empower him to do so (12A) >and this was not the case. >AC decided that +/-110 stands and asked >team A to reconsider their refusal to >change the result. They didn't. > >Does the AC interpreted the Laws properly? >Is there any difference if it had happened >after the end of round (79B) but before the >end of correction period? > >The boards were duplicated and the deal >and results were immediately put on >the notice-board after the play was finished >on all tables. So, staying before board, >any player could ask team B how you >defended so badly before the beginning >of the next round. Again third party >involved, but in quite legal way. >Will the AC decision be the same? >Or is it correct that the result can't >be changed in both situations >at all? > >Aavo Heinlo >Tel +372 2 532205 >E-mail aavo.heinlo@stat.ee > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 8 11:04:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA05984 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 11:04:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp4.ihug.co.nz (smtp4.ihug.co.nz [203.109.252.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA05972 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 11:04:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from patrick (p135-tnt8.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.138.135]) by smtp4.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id NAA12202 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 13:04:13 +1300 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20000208124838.007d9100@pop.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: tripack@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2000 12:48:38 +1300 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" From: Patrick Subject: Re: World Class In-Reply-To: <028d01bf6ff0$0689edc0$776d868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As I direct about 400 sessions per annum I could be accused of having a bias here, but I strongly support the Jeff Meckstroth's comments. It is true that the Director gets it wrong sometimes, but OTOH does anyone believe Appeal Committees always get it right? If the director consults with expert players if he/she feels it warranted then that solves the problem of the play becoming too expert for the director involved. Furthermore I would retain the director's right to appeal his own ruling if he/she believes that is the best course. What I would take away is the player's right to appeal. BTW talking about directors consulting expert players..... A story came back to me from bermuda that a case came to Appeal and the director presented the case saying that he had polled 8 top players and 7 of them had said they would not make the bid in question. How do you feel about that information being presented to the Appeal Committee. Please decide before reading on. > > > > > > > > > Later, after losing the appeal the NPC was talking to a player from another team and mentioned the appeal. The player said "Oh yes. I remember that, I was asked about it at the time" In further discussion between the two it is realised that the other player has been given an auction that is slightly, but perhaps crucially, different. How do you feel now about that 7-1 vote being placed in front of the Appeal Committee? Patrick Carter Auckland Bridge Club & NZCBA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- At 02:45 6/02/00 +1100, you wrote: >In the new book *World Class - Conversations with the Bridge >Masters*, Jeff Meckstroth's comment on the future of bridge is: > >**If I could change one thing in the game, it would be the appeals >process -- I would totally do away with it. The director's decision >should be final, just like the referee in virtually any other sport. >There are enough directors who are good bridge players. We >should let the floor directors take the tougher decisions to the >best player/directors that we have, and their decision should >be the end of the matter. >I believe strongly in this. It would be much better for the game, >because first of all you would get consistent rulings. You might get >screwed occasionally (referees miss calls from time to time in any >sport), but you will get some consistency. Secondly, when the game >is over you will have a known winner. If this game is ever going to >become popular with the general public, then when the game ends >you have to know the winner straight away. How are we ever going >to market the game for television and the like, if at the end of the >game we are still quibbling about who won? So I would just totally >do away with the whole process. I find it disgusting.** >END OF QUOTE >------------------------ > >I tend to agree with Jeff. Does anyone else? > >Peter Gill >Sydney Australia. > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 8 11:05:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA05767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 10:10:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA05762 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 10:10:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.182] (dhcp165-182.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.182]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA17903 for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 18:10:06 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <019301bf719d$7766e760$16991e18@san.rr.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 18:08:18 -0500 To: From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin French wrote: >David Burn wrote: >> You hold S-KQ10763 H- 4 D-K7 C-QJ82, vulnerable, >> and non-vulnerable LHO opens 4H, partner takes >> 25 seconds to pass, RHO passes, and it's up to you. >> L12C3 might come into play if, after ruling the contract back to 4H, it >transpired that this might make or might go down. If, say, it was roughly >75% to make, then I would give the NOs 75% of 420 and 25% of -50 (their >expectation) while I would give the OS all of -420 (their deserts). >Things are seldom that clear-cut, David. Could you compose an illustrative >hand that doesn't require declarer to take an inferior line of play, or the >defense to take a superior one, in order for the 4S contract to be set? That >would make it easier for some of us to understand this approach. The most likely situation is one in which the result depends on the opening lead, or on later bidding decisions. J94 82 AJ82 K643 A5 KQT763 Q3 4 QT6543 K7 AT9 QJ82 82 AKJT9765 9 75 The hand is played at 4S, which goes down one when South gets his diamond ruff. In 4H, if West leads the SA (or CA and a spade switch), he gets a trump promotion for the setting trick. If West leads a diamond, declarer takes ten tricks. South's expectation is X% of +420 and 100-X% of -420, where X is the probability of a diamond lead. Now change West's diamonds to make X in the range 15-35% (rather than 75% as David Burn suggested). This is now a case in which L12C3 might be applied, rather than the AC deciding that the SA lead was "at all probable" but not "likely" and ruling the table result of -100 for NS, and -420 for EW, or deciding that it was "likely" and giving +420 for NS and -420 for EW. Neither score seems fair for N-S. As an example of "later bidding decisions", suppose that South opens 1C, and West overcalls 2C, intended as natural but misexplained as Michaels. N-S play in 3NT making four, while they have 12 tricks in spades; however, the slam is difficult to reach, and is on a finesse and thus not right or wrong to reach. L12C3 allows the AC to award some combination of +680 and +1430. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 8 14:24:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA06488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 14:24:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from poseidon.tcp.net.uk (poseidon.tcp.net.uk [195.80.0.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA06483 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 14:24:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (vt1-80.du.tcp.co.uk [195.80.1.80]) by poseidon.tcp.net.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id DAA10048; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 03:23:40 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000208032304.007c6c60@popmail.tcp.co.uk> X-Sender: spock@popmail.tcp.co.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2000 03:23:04 +0000 To: Grattan Endicott , "Schoderb@aol.com" , , , From: M Smith Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >>> I also agree with Jeff Meckstroth's thoughts on eliminating with >>>reservation. I would first want the mindset of the TDs to be clearly >>>demonstrated over a period of time that they are "ruling," not just >>>taking an intermediate step toward an AC meeting where we >>>start from scratch all over again Absolutely. It is a shame that we see so much of this kind of ruling from Directors now. If they were seen to be "ruling" I am sure that players would quickly get used to the idea and to accept what they have to say. In the current climate, it seems that the Director's ruling is just seen as a nuisance that decides which side has to appeal. >>+=+ The idea has an attraction. I am sceptical of the benefits >>without some scope for recourse to review of rulings because >>even the best TDs are human, fallible, subject to error and >>prejudices. There were a couple of failings in Bermuda. The >>other point I would make is that the umpires and referees in >>other sports are making decisions of fact; they do not have >>judgemental decisions to make. There may be possibilities >>in the thought that questions of fact should not be open to >>appeal from the Director's ruling, but even there the >>evidence is that Directors do miss vital points at times >>and these are liable to surface in the judicial calm of the >>appeals room. I am not sure this is at all true. How can you possibly say that umpires in cricket and referees in soccer do not have judgemental decisions to make. Have you ever tried to make an LBW decision LOL? No one can argue that Directors are human and will thus make mistakes. You only have to watch any Premiership soccer match to see that referees in other sports are hardly infallible. IMHO, we should be working to ensure that our referees are equipped and able to make decisions of a judgemental nature, rather than taking those very decisions out of their hands. Why should the Director (and his colleagues) not make their decision in the same "hudicial calm" that Grattan now claims is reserved for the AC? Marc Smith From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 8 16:13:25 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA06877 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 16:13:25 +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 QAA06872 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 16:13:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from alltel.net (cras36p23.navix.net [205.242.158.26]) by mail.alltel.net (8.9.3/ALLTEL Messaging Service) with ESMTP id XAA13086 for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 23:13:01 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <389FA61E.3CAF3E1C@alltel.net> Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000 23:14:07 -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 Mailing List Subject: Re: Mess caused by Kibitzer References: <3.0.3.32.20000208125320.007d8580@pop.ihug.co.nz> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------29DFAB0E9D3F441F564E3270" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --------------29DFAB0E9D3F441F564E3270 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit If I read the description correctly, Team A played the hand in question at a contract of 2S and the score was recorded making 8 tricks for +110. Then the kibitzer tells the TD that Team A took only 7 tricks, and, contrary to the TD's instructions, subsequently tells another player, and the latter informs Team B, presumably before the end of the correction period for the session, so that 79.C and 71.A apply. Team B, who were -110 on the board then said: > >Team B says: yes, the contract was one down > >but we don't agree to change the result as > >it was found out and brought to daylight > >by third party. > Team A clearly has no cause to appeal the result. Team B declines to appeal the result. End of discussion. The only problem I can see here is if Team A, whose knowledge of the error is not reported, knew or knows that the score for the hand was not correct, in which case they may be in violation of 72.B.2, "a player must not knowingly accept . . . the score for a trick that his side did not win. . ." Implicitly, the score would be corrected and the individual(s) from Team A who knowingly accepted and concealed the scoring error would be sent before a Conduct & Ethics Committee. However, it is very easy to state that you thought you had eight tricks, and the board, having been played much earlier, is a bit vague and you can't remember for sure exactly how play went, even when looking at a record of the deal. As a TD, I'm certainly not going to charge a player making such a statement with lying. And since both A and B apparently decline to review the board, the score will be posted as reported, and the incident is closed. Norm Hostetler >Aavo Heinlo said: > >Dear colleges, > >would you be so kind to comment the following > >sequence of events. > > > >Teams, Open Room. > >Player of team A is playing 2S. > >The result 8 tricks is agreed by > >both sides and written down. > >The Kibitzer present spotted that > >there was only 7 tricks. He went > >to TD and told the story. TD commanded > >him to be silent (Law 76B). > >Then the Kibitzer went to smoking-room > >and made some comments. Another player > >conveyd information to the players of > >opponent team B before the end of match. > >The case was put before TD. > >Team B says: yes, the contract was one down > >but we don't agree to change the result as > >it was found out and brought to daylight > >by third party. > >(The ethics of A is not issue here.) > >TD decided: +110 for A as they are not > >agreeing to change, +50 for B as third > >party gave him not the possibility to > >find it out themselves. Result of the > >match 22:9 instead of 22:8. > >Other teams protested. > >AC took the case and found out. > >1) The result was agreed at the table (79A). > >2) there was no error in computing or tabulating > >the agreed-upon score (79C doesn't apply) > >3) The TD may award an adjusted score only > >when these Laws empower him to do so (12A) > >and this was not the case. > >AC decided that +/-110 stands and asked > >team A to reconsider their refusal to > >change the result. They didn't. > > > >Does the AC interpreted the Laws properly? > >Is there any difference if it had happened > >after the end of round (79B) but before the > >end of correction period? > > > >The boards were duplicated and the deal > >and results were immediately put on > >the notice-board after the play was finished > >on all tables. So, staying before board, > >any player could ask team B how you > >defended so badly before the beginning > >of the next round. Again third party > >involved, but in quite legal way. > >Will the AC decision be the same? > >Or is it correct that the result can't > >be changed in both situations > >at all? > > > >Aavo Heinlo > >Tel +372 2 532205 > >E-mail aavo.heinlo@stat.ee > > > > > > > > > > --------------29DFAB0E9D3F441F564E3270 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit If I read the description correctly, Team A played the hand in question at a contract of 2S and the score was recorded making 8 tricks for +110.  Then the kibitzer tells the TD that Team A took only 7 tricks, and, contrary to the TD's instructions, subsequently tells another player, and the latter informs Team B, presumably before the end of the correction period for the session, so that 79.C and 71.A apply.  Team B, who were -110 on the board then said: 
>Team B says: yes, the contract was one down
  >but we don't agree to change the result as
  >it was found out and brought to daylight
  >by third party.
Team A clearly has no cause to appeal the result.  Team B declines to appeal the result. End of discussion.

The only problem I can see here is if Team A, whose knowledge of the error is not reported, knew or knows that the score for the hand was not correct, in which case they may be in violation of 72.B.2, "a player must not knowingly accept . . . the score for a trick that his side did not win. . ."  Implicitly, the score would be corrected and the individual(s) from Team A who knowingly accepted and concealed the scoring error would be sent before a Conduct & Ethics Committee.  However, it is very easy to state that you thought you had eight tricks, and the board, having been played much earlier, is a bit vague and you can't remember for sure exactly how play went, even when looking at a record of the deal.  As a TD, I'm certainly not going to charge a player making such a statement with lying.  And since both A and B apparently decline to review the board, the score will be posted as reported, and the incident is closed.

Norm Hostetler

>Aavo Heinlo said:

>Dear colleges,
>would you be so kind to comment the following
>sequence of events.
>
>Teams, Open Room.
>Player of team A is playing 2S.
>The result 8 tricks is agreed by
>both sides and written down.
>The Kibitzer present spotted that
>there was only 7 tricks. He went
>to TD and told the story. TD commanded
>him to be silent (Law 76B).
>Then the Kibitzer went to smoking-room
>and made some comments. Another player
>conveyd information to the players of
>opponent team B before the end of match.
>The case was put before TD.
>Team B says: yes, the contract was one down
>but we don't agree to change the result as
>it was found out and brought to daylight
>by third party.
>(The ethics of A is not issue here.)
>TD decided: +110 for A as they are not
>agreeing to change, +50 for B as third
>party gave him not the possibility to
>find it out themselves. Result of the
>match 22:9 instead of 22:8.
>Other teams protested.
>AC took the case and found out.
>1) The result was agreed at the table (79A).
>2) there was no error in computing or tabulating
>the agreed-upon score (79C doesn't apply)
>3) The TD may award an adjusted score only
>when these Laws empower him to do so (12A)
>and this was not the case.
>AC decided that +/-110 stands and asked
>team A to reconsider  their refusal to
>change the result. They didn't.
>
>Does the AC interpreted the Laws properly?
>Is there any difference if it had happened
>after the end of round (79B) but before the
>end of correction period?
>
>The boards were duplicated and the deal
>and results were immediately put on
>the notice-board after the play was finished
>on all tables. So, staying before board,
>any player could ask team B how you
>defended so badly before the beginning
>of the next round. Again third party
>involved, but in quite legal way.
>Will the AC decision be the same?
>Or is it correct that the result can't
>be changed in both situations
>at all?
>
>Aavo Heinlo
>Tel +372 2 532205
>E-mail aavo.heinlo@stat.ee
>
>
>
>
>
--------------29DFAB0E9D3F441F564E3270-- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 8 17:47:02 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA07122 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 17:47:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from teapot23.domain2.bigpond.com (teapot23.domain2.bigpond.com [139.134.5.165]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA07116 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 17:46:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot23.domain2.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ya141880 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 16:45:19 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-003-p-222-123.tmns.net.au ([139.134.222.123]) by mail2.bigpond.com (Claudes-Statistical-MailRouter V2.7 3/1266762); 08 Feb 2000 16:45:18 Message-ID: <00c201bf71ff$ce5f1440$7bde868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Mess caused by Kibitzer Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 17:43:20 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00BD_01BF725B.FD635880" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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_00BD_01BF725B.FD635880 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Norman Hostetler wrote: >Team A clearly has no cause to appeal the result. Team B=20 >declines to appeal the result. End of discussion. "End", unless the kibitzer is in another team. At an Australian Nationals in the 1980s, a kibitzer had objected to a claim.=20 My memory may be faulty, but I think that the kibitzer's infraction of Law 76B led to some or all of the following: - the kibitzer's team was fined a VP or two. - the kibitzer was banned from kibitzing during the event. - the kibitzer was banned from playing for the next few=20 matches. This decision may have been revoked when it was realised that it was of benefit to the kibitzer's team. :-) Peter Gill Australia. ------=_NextPart_000_00BD_01BF725B.FD635880 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Norman Hostetler wrote:
>Team A clearly = has no cause to=20 appeal the result.  Team B
>declines to = appeal the result.=20 End of discussion.
 
"End", = unless the=20 kibitzer is in another team. At an Australian
Nationals in the = 1980s, a=20 kibitzer had = objected to a=20 claim.=20
My memory may be=20 faulty, but = I think that=20 the kibitzer's
infraction of Law 76B = led to some or all of the following:
 
- the kibitzer's team = was fined a=20 VP or two.
- the = kibitzer was=20 banned from kibitzing during the event.
- the kibitzer was banned from playing for the next few
matches. This decision may have been revoked when it
was realised that it was of benefit to the kibitzer's team. = :-)
 
Peter Gill
Australia.
 
------=_NextPart_000_00BD_01BF725B.FD635880-- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 8 17:53:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA07150 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 17:53:21 +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 RAA07144 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 17:53:15 +1100 (EST) Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id A091230F19; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 01:53:06 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <004f01bf718d$3c0ee600$0b7793c3@pacific> References: <004f01bf718d$3c0ee600$0b7793c3@pacific> Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 01:49:04 -0500 To: "Grattan Endicott" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) Cc: "David Burn" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 4:50 PM +0000 2/7/00, Grattan wrote: >+=+ 'Equity' is a principle addressed inferentially >in Section 12 of WBFLC minutes of 20th Jan 2000. >In promulgating principles the WBFLC has a practice >of not attaching values to them; it has done this, for >example, with 'logical alternative'. The reason, >possibly, is that the principle is more easily accepted >if authorities around the world are given latitude to >fine tune according to their own evaluations. I take the >view that 'equity' cannot be settled on the internet; >it is a subject on which Directors must refer to their >NCBOs. +=+ Were I to grant that NCBOs might "fine tune" the concept of equity that would not help me if I didn't understand it to begin with. I am not requesting any official interpretation - this is in no way an official forum. I would like to know how you use the term. You must have served on committees that employed 12C3 - what working definition of equity did you use? AW From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 8 17:53:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA07156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 17:53:30 +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 RAA07149 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 17:53:18 +1100 (EST) Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 127A730F23; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 01:53:06 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 01:46:20 -0500 To: David Burn From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) Cc: "Grattan Endicott" , 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 +0000 2/7/00, David wrote: >Adam wrote: > >>As promised, I'm trying to see if we can agree on what "equity" >>means here. Until I read this I thought I understood you! >> >>Let's try an example. Under 12C3 how would you adjust the score at >>the table of a player who bids 4S, successfully, in the example >>Edgar gave that Marvin posted: >> >> You hold S-KQ10763 H- 4 D-K7 C-QJ82, vulnerable, >> and non-vulnerable LHO opens 4H, partner takes >> 25 seconds to pass, RHO passes, and it's up to you. >> >>Assume that you agree that Pass in a LA - if not, weaken the hand >>until it is. Assume further that 4S was cold for +650 and that 4H >>would have been set two tricks routinely. > >There is no case for a 12C3 adjustment here. The player is deemed to >have broken L73 and L16, in that he has selected from among LAs one >(4S) that could have been suggested over another (pass) by UI. His >4S bid must be disallowed, and the assigned score given of 4H-2. That's what you think, that's what I think, but what does a proponent of 12C3 think? 18 months ago there were arguments here that 12C3 would allow a "fairer" adjustment where a player chose an illegal logical alternative that would be chosen by most of his peers in the absence of any unauthorized information. I'll quote them if I must, but I'm not of that school. I also wonder whether anyone is concerned about the "windfall" that the 12C2 adjustment grants the NOS here - as you know I think it is their due. AW From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 8 18:34:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA07338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 18:34:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA07332 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 18:34:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.209] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12I5AP-000ER3-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 07:34:33 +0000 Message-ID: <000b01bf7207$251a95a0$d15608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <3.0.3.32.20000208124838.007d9100@pop.ihug.co.nz> Subject: Re: World Class Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 07:34:56 -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 Endicott To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Monday, February 07, 2000 11:48 PM Subject: Re: World Class > > As I direct about 400 sessions per annum I could be accused of > having a bias here > +=+ It is one of the conceits of humankind that each favours his own metier. Directors do tend to think they could do it all themselves; appeal committee members know best; and good players think they only have to say something for it to be accepted as gospel - plus there are numbers of Directors who find it difficult not to be impressed by the presence of a 'name' at the table. The solutions are far more complex than is being acknowledged in this thread if the weak and the diffident are to be protected. This game is not for the expert players alone and should not be run in ways that favour merely the strong. +=+ > A story came back to me from bermuda that a case came to Appeal > and the director presented the case saying that he had polled 8 > top players and 7 of them had said they would not make the bid > in question. How do you feel about that information being > presented to the Appeal Committee. Please decide before reading on. > +=+ Of the appeals in Bermuda of which I was aware there was not one in which the committee were told how many had been consulted or what their opinions were. If this anecdote has any truth in it the case was an exception and the Director was wrong to seek to bolster his ruling by revealing information about his consultations. It goes down as hearsay in my book and I remain agnostic about it. But this is not the direction in which the procedure should be going; there is a lack of self-confidence in a Director who feels a need to give the AC statistics about his consultations. He does not need even to refer to the fact that he has consulted; this is understood. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 8 18:51:46 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA07385 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 18:51:46 +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 SAA07380 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 18:51:39 +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 ; Mon, 7 Feb 2000 23:51:34 -0800 Message-ID: <00a701bf7209$45c9fa00$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <019301bf719d$7766e760$16991e18@san.rr.com> <000901bf71c1$8ed65060$ec9101d5@davidburn> Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 23:47:36 -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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote > > I think you mean "for the 4H contract to be set". I was having a senior moment, evidently >This is the kind of > thing I am talking about (using the Kaplan example hand quoted by Adam > above): > > AJ > J85 > AQJ5432 > 9 > 42 985 > AKQ109632 7 > 6 1098 > K7 A106543 > KQ10763 > 4 > K7 > QJ82 N/S is vulnerable, E-W not. > > West opens a fairly obvious 4H; North makes an (understandable) slow > pass; South bids 4S and takes 11 tricks. 4S is disallowed, and the TD > or AC needs to consider what would happen to West in 4H. 4H can be > beaten if the defenders begin with two rounds of spades and a diamond > in some order ending in South, who plays a third spade, otherwise 4H > is cold. Probably, the "right" opening lead from the North hand > against 4H-all pass is the ace of spades, so the defenders might find > their way, but it will not happen much of the time - a lot of Norths > will lead the singleton club, or the defence might try to cash two > spades and two diamonds instead of trying for the trump promotion. > (North, for those who care about such matters, should play the queen > of diamonds under the king if the play starts SA, SJ overtaken, DK.) > > One would take into account the class of the North-South players in > determining how often NS will defeat 4H. I would also look at the > results from other tables, in order to determine what percentage of > the time 4H has actually made where it has become the final contract. > This obvious and useful procedure would be denied to people who follow > the Stevenson Doctrine, but that is not my fault. One might reasonably > conclude that 4H would be allowed to make 75% of the time and defeated > the other 25% of the time - then, one would rule as I have suggested > above. Which was that the N/S offenders get -420, and the E/W non-offenders get 75% of +420 and 25% of -50. Thanks, David. I sincerely appreciate this response. Composing hands to illustrate a point is not as easy as many people think. You did well. Yes, it does require evaluating the skill of the N-S players and their leading habits accurately, perhaps looking at what the field did, and based on all that, judging the probabilities associated with the various paths the play might take in a 4H contract. In this case the field will mostly be playing 4S or 5H, so their scores will not be of much help here. The spade lead against a heart contract may be more popular at the five level. For those who are in 4H, you would have to know the N/S skill levels to make use of their results, and compare them with this particular N/S, not usually possible. Besides, some lower-level players know how to defend. So, we are down to the nitty-gritty. N-S can defeat 4H by good defense, but should we assume that good defense was possible for this particular N/S pair, and if so, can we judge how likely it would be? You think the answer is yes, I think the answer is no. Coming up with such percentage calculations is a very imprecise exercise (even tougher if the skill of both sides must be taken into account) that it is unrealistic to expect that this approach will produce the goal being sought. There is something to the skill level thing, however. If I thought this particular N/S would almost certainly beat 4H, I would assign -50 to E/W, the most favorable result that was likely, since +420 would be too unlikely. If I had any doubt, +420. That's L12C2. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 8 19:17:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA07486 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 19:17:20 +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 TAA07480 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 19:17:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.102] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12I5pN-000Fb6-00; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 08:16:54 +0000 Message-ID: <004901bf720d$0f80bde0$d15608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Jesper Dybdal" , , "Peter Gill" , "M Smith" References: <3.0.6.32.20000208032304.007c6c60@popmail.tcp.co.uk> Subject: Re: Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 08:16:44 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Grattan Endicott ; ; ; ; Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 3:23 AM > Grattan wrote: > > I am not sure this is at all true. How can you possibly say that umpires in > cricket and referees in soccer do not have judgemental decisions to make. > Have you ever tried to make an LBW decision LOL? > > No one can argue that Directors are human and will thus make mistakes. You > only have to watch any Premiership soccer match to see that referees in > other sports are hardly infallible. > +=+ Well, I speak from some experience; in my younger days I was both a Class I soccer referee and a cricket umpire on a league list for a number of years. An LBW decision is all about facts, several of them; nothing to do with what is in the players' minds (they tell you about that when you have made your decision:-)!!). Sometimes in soccer 'intention' is an issue, as revealed by the actions, and in cricket occasionally you must decide whether the batsman intended to play at the ball, as revealed by his actions. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 8 19:17:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA07479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 19:17:10 +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 TAA07473 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 19:17:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.102] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12I5pK-000Fb6-00; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 08:16:51 +0000 Message-ID: <004801bf720d$0d819280$d15608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Adam Wildavsky" Cc: "David Burn" , References: <004f01bf718d$3c0ee600$0b7793c3@pacific> Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 08:15:22 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: David Burn ; Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 6:49 AM Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) > At 4:50 PM +0000 2/7/00, Grattan wrote: > > >+=+ 'Equity' is a principle addressed inferentially > >in Section 12 of WBFLC minutes of 20th Jan 2000. > >In promulgating principles the WBFLC has a practice > >of not attaching values to them; it has done this, for > >example, with 'logical alternative'. The reason, > >possibly, is that the principle is more easily accepted > >if authorities around the world are given latitude to > >fine tune according to their own evaluations. I take the > >view that 'equity' cannot be settled on the internet; > >it is a subject on which Directors must refer to their > >NCBOs. +=+ > > Were I to grant that NCBOs might "fine tune" the concept of equity > that would not help me if I didn't understand it to begin with. I am > not requesting any official interpretation - this is in no way an > official forum. I would like to know how you use the term. You must > have served on committees that employed 12C3 - what working > definition of equity did you use? > +=+ You could say that! Some of them satisfactorily :-)) In a nutshell my concept of equity is the 'balance' between the two sides at the table, their prospects, what can be anticipated in the instant before the infraction unsettles it. That is, of course, something that has to be judged, sometimes easily sometimes not; I do believe this is more adequately assessed by a plurality of minds. I also accept that we are not yet in a position to say we have achieved a universal standard and even if we had, when it comes to a particular case different people will apply a standard each with his own judgement. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 8 21:46:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA07939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 21:46:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA07934 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 21:46:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-100.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.100]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA10042 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 11:46:01 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <389FF3A9.5BA6603C@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2000 11:44:57 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Beveren Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi John, Hi All, Last weekend, John Probst and his wife Maxine were in Antwerpen. John's duty called him back to the Acol on Sunday, but Maxine stayed on and we played a tournament in Beveren (15 km west of Antwerpen) on Monday night. Now I have a Laws question. Suppose one foreign player is playing in a tournament where she does not speak the language. Her partner does. She is declarer. Opponents jokingly say something about the hand. This is UI to them, of course, but that is not the problem. Also it is AI to declarer, but she does not understand. Is dummy permitted to translate the AI to declarer ? Do understand that per regulation, three people are speaking the official language of the tournament, so the fourth cannot claim anything. L42 does not include anything that would suggest dummy has the right. L43 does not (really) say anything that would prohibit this. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 8 21:48:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA07957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 21:48:33 +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 VAA07952 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 21:48:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.6.66.152] (helo=[62.6.66.152]) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12I8Bc-0006Nf-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 10:48:03 +0000 From: David Burn To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 10:49:29 +0000 X-Mailer: EPOC32 Email Version 1.50 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id VAA07953 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam wrote: [DALB] >There is no case for a 12C3 adjustment here. The player is deemed to >have broken L73 and L16, in that he has selected from among LAs one >(4S) that could have been suggested over another (pass) by UI. His >4S bid must be disallowed, and the assigned score given of 4H-2. [AW] >That's what you think, that's what I think, but what does a proponent of >12C3 think? This proponent of 12C3 thinks that it should be used to allow calculation of expectations when it becomes necessary to evaluate the result of cancelling a call, or of a correct instead of a wrong explanation being given, or the like. It should not - it cannot - be used to allow a player to prefer a possibly suggested LA "some of the time". >18 months ago there were arguments here that 12C3 would allow a "fairer" >adjustment where a player chose an illegal logical alternative that would >be chosen by most of his peers in the absence of any unauthorized >information. I'll quote them if I must, but I'm not of that school. Neither am I. I do not recall the arguments to which you allude; it is possible that I paid them no attention. They certainly do not deserve any. >I also wonder whether anyone is concerned about the "windfall" that the >12C2 adjustment grants the NOS here - as you know I think it is their due. Of course I am concerned about it. I do not think it is their due at all. That is why I apply 12C3 as I do, in order to give the NOS what I think *is* their due. I hope that the example I gave in response to Marvin's request has clarified my position - perhaps a simpler example would assist here. South, declarer, faces a KJ guess for the contract. He has been told that an artificial bid by RHO shows 4-7 hcp. RHO has already shown up with an ace, so declarer plays him for the queen of the critical suit. He goes down, for RHO has the ace. The correct explanation of RHO's bid was that it showed 5-9 hcp. Now, EW have committed the infraction of misinformation. Had South been correctly informed, he might or might not have made the contract - he would have had a genuine guess. Wrongly informed, he had no chance. Under L12C2, he receives the score for making the contract - a favourable result that is "likely" in that it would occur half the time. The OS receive the reciprocal score. This, of course, is a real windfall for the NOS of the kind about which I am indeed concerned. Under my interpretation of L12C3, the NOS receive half the score for making the contract and half the score for one down. The OS, as before, receive all of the score for the contract being made against them. Grattan would rule for the NOS as I do, but he would give the reciprocal score to the OS, whom he would then fine for misinformation. I am not sure whether he would fine them more if the contract were a grand slam than if it were a part score, however. If he would, then he is closer than I think advisable to the "Kaplan fallacy" to which I have alluded. But I do not have very strong views about this. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 8 21:56:27 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA07992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 21:56:27 +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 VAA07987 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 21:56:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from pebs04a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.84.236] helo=pacific) by cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12I8IV-0008HP-00; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 02:55:08 -0800 Message-ID: <002f01bf7222$acf8bc20$ec5493c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Adam Wildavsky" Cc: "David Burn" , Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 10:51:21 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott -----Original Message----- From: Grattan Endicott To: Adam Wildavsky Cc: David Burn ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 08 February 2000 08:36 Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Adam Wildavsky >To: Grattan Endicott >Cc: David Burn ; >Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 6:49 AM >Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) > > >> At 4:50 PM +0000 2/7/00, Grattan wrote: >> >> >+=+ 'Equity' is a principle addressed inferentially >> >in Section 12 of WBFLC minutes of 20th Jan 2000. >> >In promulgating principles the WBFLC has a practice >> >of not attaching values to them; it has done this, for >> >example, with 'logical alternative'. The reason, >> >possibly, is that the principle is more easily accepted >> >if authorities around the world are given latitude to >> >fine tune according to their own evaluations. I take the >> >view that 'equity' cannot be settled on the internet; >> >it is a subject on which Directors must refer to their >> >NCBOs. +=+ >> >> Were I to grant that NCBOs might "fine tune" the concept of equity >> that would not help me if I didn't understand it to begin with. I am >> not requesting any official interpretation - this is in no way an >> official forum. I would like to know how you use the term. You must >> have served on committees that employed 12C3 - what working >> definition of equity did you use? >> >+=+ You could say that! Some of them satisfactorily :-)) > In a nutshell my concept of equity is the 'balance' >between the two sides at the table, their prospects, >what can be anticipated in the instant before the infraction >unsettles it. That is, of course, something that has to be >judged, sometimes easily sometimes not; I do believe >this is more adequately assessed by a plurality of minds. > I also accept that we are not yet in a position to >say we have achieved a universal standard and even if >we had, when it comes to a particular case different >people will apply a standard each with his own >judgement. ~ G ~ +=+ > > +=+ No doubt it is dangerously confusing to introduce 'equity' with another of its dictionary meanings, but when did that stop me? Having just written up a share transaction it occurs to me that when a board is put on the table each side has a 50% equity in the outcome. The actions of players, at the table and across the field, cause these equities to rise and fall so that at any given time the 100% to be shared will be divided between them unequally. Cut the action at any given point, as by the occurrence of an infraction, and the cross section of the slice will reveal the balance of the equity at the point when it is frozen. In some way, and it can only be approximate, we are trying to retrieve that situation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 8 23:54:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA08403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 23:54:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA08398 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 23:53:53 +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 HAA20611 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 07:53:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id HAA05367 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 07:53:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 07:53:43 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200002081253.HAA05367@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: World Class X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Patrick > A story came back to me from bermuda that a case came to Appeal > and the director presented the case saying that he had polled 8 > top players and 7 of them had said they would not make the bid > in question. How do you feel about that information being > presented to the Appeal Committee. Please decide before reading on. I did as you asked, deciding before reading on. My reaction was that it would be useful _provided_ the AC is also informed of _exactly_ what information was given to the players consulted and _exactly_ what question was asked. Absent that, the poll results are not very meaningful. Given the difficulties in providing the required information, it's probably simpler not to present the poll results at all (as Grattan suggested). Do you have as many political polls in NZ as we do in the US? Do they often give seemingly contradictory answers, depending on how the question is worded? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 8 23:58:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA08429 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 23:58:26 +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 XAA08424 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 23:58:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from isdn.net.il (clnt-12231.bezeqint.net) by mail.bezeqint.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.07.30.00.05.p8) with ESMTP id <0FPM000PO3XF6Q@mail.bezeqint.net> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 14:56:03 +0200 (IST) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2000 14:56:19 +0200 From: Zvi Shilon Subject: Re: World Class To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Message-id: <38A01273.6BFD9E7E@isdn.net.il> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en-US,en,Hebrew References: <200002071604.IAA12537@mailhub.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have been following American football for almost 50 years, although the "uncatchable ball" rule is relatively new. In my opinion, and from what I hear commentators say when this comes up (about once a game), I believe this is strictly a JUDGMENT call, as you surmise. zvika Adam Beneschan wrote: > Jeff Meckstroth wrote (quoted by Peter Gill): > > > **If I could change one thing in the game, it would be the appeals > > process -- I would totally do away with it. The director's decision > > should be final, just like the referee in virtually any other sport. > > It should be noted that referees' decisions in other sports *can* be > appealed, but only if a team believes the referee misapplied the laws. > Once in a great while, it does happen that the result of a game is > overturned by the league because the league decides the referees got > the rules wrong. > > Grattan wrote: > > > The other point I would make is that the umpires and referees in > > other sports are making decisions of fact; they do not have > > judgemental decisions to make. > > Sometimes they do. In American baseball, there are a couple > situations I know of where the umpire has to make a judgment about > whether a player dropped the ball intentionally, or interfered with > the ball intentionally. I'm not sure what your distinction between > "judgment" and "determination of fact" is, but the rules in at least > one of these cases does use the phrase "if, in the umpire's judgment, > ...". Also, Zvi responded to another post of mine by pointing out > that in American football, referees have to judge whether a passed > ball was uncatchable; to me, this seems more like a judgmental > decision rather than a decision of fact. > > -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 9 02:00:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA09162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 02:00:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA09157 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 02:00:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from freenet10.carleton.ca (freenet10 [134.117.136.30]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/NCF_f1_v3.00) with ESMTP id KAA09862 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 10:00:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id KAA02092; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 10:00:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 10:00:16 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200002081500.KAA02092@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Beveren Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Now I have a Laws question. > >Suppose one foreign player is playing in a tournament where >she does not speak the language. Her partner does. She is >declarer. Opponents jokingly say something about the hand. >This is UI to them, of course, but that is not the problem. >Also it is AI to declarer, but she does not understand. > >Is dummy permitted to translate the AI to declarer ? No. Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 9 03:13:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA09372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 03:13:11 +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 DAA09367 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 03:13:01 +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 LAA12838 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 11:12:24 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000208111411.006f7138@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2000 11:14:11 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: World Class In-Reply-To: <38A01273.6BFD9E7E@isdn.net.il> References: <200002071604.IAA12537@mailhub.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:56 PM 2/8/00 +0200, Zvi wrote: >I have been following American football for almost 50 years, although the >"uncatchable ball" rule is relatively new. In my opinion, and from what I >hear commentators say when this comes up (about once a game), I believe >this is strictly a JUDGMENT call, as you surmise. > >Adam Beneschan wrote: > >> Jeff Meckstroth wrote (quoted by Peter Gill): >> >> > **If I could change one thing in the game, it would be the appeals >> > process -- I would totally do away with it. The director's decision >> > should be final, just like the referee in virtually any other sport. >> >> It should be noted that referees' decisions in other sports *can* be >> appealed, but only if a team believes the referee misapplied the laws. >> Once in a great while, it does happen that the result of a game is >> overturned by the league because the league decides the referees got >> the rules wrong. >> >> Grattan wrote: >> >> > The other point I would make is that the umpires and referees in >> > other sports are making decisions of fact; they do not have >> > judgemental decisions to make. >> >> Sometimes they do. In American baseball, there are a couple >> situations I know of where the umpire has to make a judgment about >> whether a player dropped the ball intentionally, or interfered with >> the ball intentionally. I'm not sure what your distinction between >> "judgment" and "determination of fact" is, but the rules in at least >> one of these cases does use the phrase "if, in the umpire's judgment, >> ...". Also, Zvi responded to another post of mine by pointing out >> that in American football, referees have to judge whether a passed >> ball was uncatchable; to me, this seems more like a judgmental >> decision rather than a decision of fact. I'm not at all sure that one can make a distinction between judgment and determination of fact except in a small minority of extreme cases. Before an official in American football even needs to make a determination whether a ball was catchable, he must first determine that the contact between the players consituted interference rather than "incidental contact", and different officials will make different calls. It is the bane of baseball, getting much press lately, that even the determination of whether a pitch was a strike or not varies greatly from one umpire to the next. One can make the case that the judgments required in bridge are more delicate and sophisticated than in other sports, and therefore a two-stage ruling process is appropriate. Or one can make the case that a TD's fallible judgment is as valid as an AC's fallible judgment, and the reliance on appeals to make second-stage determinations puts an unnecessary drag on the game. But I don't see where trying to distinguish between determinations of fact and judgment gets us anywhere. 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 Feb 9 03:53:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA09527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 03:53:05 +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 DAA09522 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 03:52:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-202.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.202]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA10393 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 17:52:47 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38A005A5.227BDE42@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2000 13:01:41 +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: L12C2 interpretation (and more) References: <019301bf719d$7766e760$16991e18@san.rr.com> <000901bf71c1$8ed65060$ec9101d5@davidburn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > > One would take into account the class of the North-South players in > determining how often NS will defeat 4H. I would also look at the > results from other tables, in order to determine what percentage of > the time 4H has actually made where it has become the final contract. > This obvious and useful procedure would be denied to people who follow > the Stevenson Doctrine, but that is not my fault. Indeed the frequency of the field should be used as an indication, but I would not take the level of the players into consideration, barring extreme cases of Meckwell playing in Beveren. I would take the particular circumstances into consideration though, and I would try and find out if the bidding at those other tables that played the same contract had been similar or not. > One might reasonably > conclude that 4H would be allowed to make 75% of the time and defeated > the other 25% of the time - then, one would rule as I have suggested > above. In my suggestion, it would be correct to up this percentage by 20% in favour of the non-offending side. That would make it 95% so I woudld not suggest a L12C3 ruling, but stick to the L12C2 one of 4H=. > > David Burn > London, England -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 9 04:54:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA09795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 04:54:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA09790 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 04:54:04 +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 12IEpn-0004de-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 17:53:55 +0000 Message-ID: <5YUPalACgFo4EwOh@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 17:53:06 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Beveren In-Reply-To: <389FF3A9.5BA6603C@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <389FF3A9.5BA6603C@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Hi John, Hi All, > >Last weekend, John Probst and his wife Maxine were in >Antwerpen. > >John's duty called him back to the Acol on Sunday, but >Maxine stayed on and we played a tournament in Beveren (15 >km west of Antwerpen) on Monday night. > >Now I have a Laws question. > >Suppose one foreign player is playing in a tournament where >she does not speak the language. Her partner does. She is >declarer. Opponents jokingly say something about the hand. >This is UI to them, of course, but that is not the problem. >Also it is AI to declarer, but she does not understand. > >Is dummy permitted to translate the AI to declarer ? I would think not, as anything not permitted is precluded (in principle). Dummy of course can call the TD at the end of the hand as he believes there is an irregularity. 42B3. The TD might then be able to use 84E to adjust the score as if the foreigner had heard the comment. The point being that " ... if there is even a reasonable possibility that the NOs were damaged ... " would kick in. > >Do understand that per regulation, three people are speaking >the official language of the tournament, so the fourth >cannot claim anything. It's damned hard to follow a language where every third letter is a "j" :))) > >L42 does not include anything that would suggest dummy has >the right. >L43 does not (really) say anything that would prohibit this. > > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 9 06:32:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA10105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 06:32:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA10100 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 06:32:40 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA21492 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 20:32:30 +0100 Received: from ip181.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.181), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda21489; Tue Feb 8 20:32:20 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Mess caused by Kibitzer Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2000 20:32:20 +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 GAA10101 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 07 Feb 2000 10:06:27 +0200, Aavo Heinlo wrote: >TD decided: +110 for A as they are not >agreeing to change, +50 for B as third >party gave him not the possibility to >find it out themselves. Result of the >match 22:9 instead of 22:8. Am I overlooking something? It seems that Team A and Team B now, before the round ends, agree that A actually won only 7 tricks. L79B says that "no increase in score need be granted unless the Director is called before the round ends ...". It seems to me that what this means is that: * team A's decreased score must be given even if the round had ended (provided the correction period has not expired), * teams B's increased score must be given because the round had not ended, * if the round had been over, the TD could have chosen to correct B's score anyway (and probably should do so if he was quite convinced that only 7 tricks were taken). So simply change the score to 7 tricks. Whether A or B likes it or not seems irrelevant as long as the TD is confident that he has determined the facts. Team A's reluctance to change the score is understandable, but I would tell them about L72A2. What the TD should do when the kibitzer informs him originally is more difficult. I think I would tell the kibitzer that if the players have agreed on 8 tricks, then a kibitzer's count is irrelevant. Inform the kibitzer about L76B: he must not tell anybody until after the correction period has expired. I would not feel that I had violated L81C6 to any significant degree in this case: I did not know that there was an irregularity, only that a kibitzer thinks he counts tricks better than the players. But when the players have heard about it, I see no excuse for not ruling under L79B. And shoot the kibitzer (depending on how carefully he was instructed to keep quiet). -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 9 07:53:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA10392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 07:53:38 +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 HAA10386 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 07:53:30 +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 PAA10802 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 15:53:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA05639 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 15:53:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 15:53:18 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200002082053.PAA05639@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: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ Perhaps the distinction I should make is more > properly that between rulings on mechanical events Yes. Those should be the province of the TD, except _perhaps_ in extraordinary cases. Perhaps not even then, although I would feel better about the whole thing if there were more competent TD's, who could be relied upon to determine the relevant facts. If you are giving the AC wide powers under L12C3 but expecting them to use those powers only under proper guidelines, maybe a consistent approach is that they should continue to have the same wide powers to determine facts but also the guidelines that those powers are to be used only in the rare cases when something comes to light that the TD has missed. > and those which involve assessment of the players' > minds and mental processes. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ O Lord, deliver us! (The Laws should be written to avoid any necessity for such judgments in score adjustment cases.) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 9 08:30:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA10498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 08:30:31 +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 IAA10493 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 08:30:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivei2h.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.72.81]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA16577 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 16:30:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000208162743.012270c4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2000 16:27:43 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Good Sportsmanship In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In the "Mess Caused by Kibitzer" thread, as well as in one of the earlier discussions of an AC action chaired by Wolff, a common theme emerged which I find quite distressing. This is the willingness of AC's, at least in these instances, to ask players to accept score adjustments which they (the committee) felt powerless to apply as a matter of law. This seems quite bizarre to me. Evidently these committees are concerned that some principle of good sportsmanship is best served by ignoring the Laws as written and seeking voluntary conformance to some arbitrary standard of fairness. Of course the unspoken accusation is that players who refuse to acquiesce to such suggestions are unsportsmanlike Bridge Lawyers. I would like the list's comment on the following proposition: No TD or AC should ever ask a player to forgo rights or advantages granted to them under the Laws. Nor should any official suggest, implicitly or otherwise, that failure to acquiesce to such extra-legal adjustments be regarded as unsportsmanlike or inimical to the interests of the game. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 9 09:10:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA10619 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 09:10:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay2.telekom.ru [194.190.195.76]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA10614 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 09:10:40 +1100 (EST) Received: by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.72) id BAA16048; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 01:10:31 +0300 (MSK) Received: from h72.37.elnet.msk.ru(195.58.37.72) by gateway via smap (V2.0) id xma015239; Wed, 9 Feb 00 01:10:03 +0300 Message-ID: <389F50F6.6FAC2D3E@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2000 02:10:48 +0300 From: Vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: MU at L70C3 References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1DD@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------869A2FADBF262A06CAB7376C" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ýòî ñîîáùåíèå çàêîäèðîâàíî â ôîðìàòå MIME è ñîñòîèò èç íåñêîëüêèõ ÷àñòåé. --------------869A2FADBF262A06CAB7376C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------869A2FADBF262A06CAB7376C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="L70C3.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="L70C3.txt" Hi all:) Sorry - but we (who finished translation the Laws in to Russian) have another problem: "LAW 70 - CONTESTED CLAIMS C. There Is an Outstanding Trump When a trump remains in one of the opponents' hands, the Director shall award a trick or tricks to the opponents if: 3. Could Lose a Trick to the Trump a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal play." And I was taught that "any" may have different meanings: - in interrogative, negative and conditional expressions it means something like "at least one among another similar things" (i.e. it describes ONE thing from the multitude), - in affirmative expressions it means something like "all similar things" (i.e. it describes the multitude as the whole. And what does the L70C3 mean?:) I had read E.Kaplan "Appeal Committee" so I know the problem. But this text describes another position: the trick will be lost by claimer if EVERY normal plays could provide to its lost... Be so kind as to explain me/us the problem and Lawmakers intentions. Thx in advance Vitold --------------869A2FADBF262A06CAB7376C-- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 9 10:43:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA10913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 10:43:40 +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 KAA10907 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 10:43:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.130.233] (helo=davidburn) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12IKHp-0005UH-00; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 23:43:13 +0000 Message-ID: <001901bf728e$4cf04340$e98201d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Vitold" , References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1DD@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <389F50F6.6FAC2D3E@elnet.msk.ru> Subject: Re: MU at L70C3 Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 23:43:27 -0000 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Vitold wrote: > Sorry - but we (who finished translation the Laws in to Russian) have another problem: > > "LAW 70 - CONTESTED CLAIMS > C. There Is an Outstanding Trump > When a trump remains in one of the opponents' hands, the Director shall award a trick or tricks to the opponents if: > 3. Could Lose a Trick to the Trump > a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal play." > > And I was taught that "any" may have different meanings: > - in interrogative, negative and conditional expressions it means something like "at least one among another similar things" (i.e. it describes ONE thing from the multitude), > - in affirmative expressions it means something like "all similar things" (i.e. it describes the multitude as the whole. > > And what does the L70C3 mean?:) I had read E.Kaplan "Appeal Committee" so I know the problem. But this text describes another position: the trick will be lost by claimer if EVERY normal plays could provide to its lost... > > Be so kind as to explain me/us the problem and Lawmakers intentions. L70C3 means If a line of play can be constructed such that both: The line of play is normal; and X tricks will be lost, including one to the outstanding trump, if the line of play is followed, then X tricks are awarded to the opponents. A line of play is not considered abnormal if it involves playing side-suit cards before playing high trumps. There is no problem, and the intention of the Lawmakers is as clear as it always is. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 9 11:09:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA11010 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 11:09:50 +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 LAA11005 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 11:09:43 +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 ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 16:09:35 -0800 Message-ID: <007f01bf7291$ea09d300$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.1.32.20000208162743.012270c4@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Good Sportsmanship Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 16:08:41 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mike Dennis wrote: > In the "Mess Caused by Kibitzer" thread, as well as in one of the earlier > discussions of an AC action chaired by Wolff, a common theme emerged which > I find quite distressing. This is the willingness of AC's, at least in > these instances, to ask players to accept score adjustments which they (the > committee) felt powerless to apply as a matter of law. > > This seems quite bizarre to me. Evidently these committees are concerned > that some principle of good sportsmanship is best served by ignoring the > Laws as written and seeking voluntary conformance to some arbitrary > standard of fairness. Of course the unspoken accusation is that players who > refuse to acquiesce to such suggestions are unsportsmanlike Bridge Lawyers. > > I would like the list's comment on the following proposition: No TD or AC > should ever ask a player to forgo rights or advantages granted to them > under the Laws. Nor should any official suggest, implicitly or otherwise, > that failure to acquiesce to such extra-legal adjustments be regarded as > unsportsmanlike or inimical to the interests of the game. > Furthermore, a TD (at his discretion, not the player's) can allow a player to waive a penalty only "for cause" (L81C8). Good sportsmanship hardly qualifies as sufficient cause. The only occasions I can think of in which a penalty coming to the opponents may be avoided for sportsmanship (or other) reasons is when there is an insufficient bid, a call out of rotation, or a play out of turn. The next hand to call or play can legally act, thereby making the irregular action legal. That's not waiving a penalty, since no penalty has been imposed. Another potential occasion for sportsmanship is to not select the severest penalty for the opponents when given a choice, but to select one that merely provides redress for damage, or for possible damage. Even in such cases, letting the opponent(s) off the hook may not be the right thing to do. I'm pretty sure Edgar Kaplan would have said so, as he believed a contestant must do everything legal in order to maximize their chance of winning. Perhaps the Propieties section should have something to say about this. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 9 11:30:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA11064 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 11:30:07 +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 LAA11059 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 11:29:58 +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 ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 16:29:46 -0800 Message-ID: <009e01bf7294$bb7e3500$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1DD@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <389F50F6.6FAC2D3E@elnet.msk.ru> Subject: Re: MU at L70C3 Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 16:28:25 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 Vitold wrote; ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > Hi all:) > Sorry - but we (who finished translation the Laws in to Russian) have another problem: > > "LAW 70 - CONTESTED CLAIMS > C. There Is an Outstanding Trump > When a trump remains in one of the opponents' hands, the Director shall award a trick or tricks to the opponents if: > 3. Could Lose a Trick to the Trump > a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal play." > > And I was taught that "any" may have different meanings: > - in interrogative, negative and conditional expressions it means something like "at least one among another similar things" (i.e. it describes ONE thing from the multitude), > - in affirmative expressions it means something like "all similar things" (i.e. it describes the multitude as the whole. > > And what does the L70C3 mean?:) I had read E.Kaplan "Appeal Committee" so I know the problem. But this text describes another position: the trick will be lost by claimer if EVERY normal plays could provide to its lost... > The problem is with using ambiguous words (e.g., "any," "or," "either") that can have different meanings depending on context. It often happens that their meaning is NOT clear to some readers, even though the writer thought it would be. It is easy enough to avoid this problem. Attention Dany, hear is an example of how a translator can do better than the original. L703C English - a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal play French - qu'une levée aurait pu être perdue à cause de cet atout par n'importe quel jeu normal "n'importe quel" - *no matter which* normal play. The French conveys the intent without ambiguity. French used to be called (or maybe still is) the "language of diplomacy," because of its reputation for clarity. Vitold, it will often pay to go to the French version of the Laws and see how the French translator handled the problem of conveying the right intent. S/he's usually very good at this. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 9 12:40:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 12:40:43 +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 MAA11231 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 12:40:36 +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 ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 17:40:28 -0800 Message-ID: <00c601bf729e$9c8c41a0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.1.32.20000208162743.012270c4@pop.mindspring.com> <007f01bf7291$ea09d300$16991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Good Sportsmanship Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 17:30:16 -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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: > Even in such cases, letting the opponent(s) off the hook may not be the > right thing to do. I'm pretty sure Edgar Kaplan would have said so, as he > believed a contestant must do everything legal in order to maximize their > chance of winning. Perhaps the Propieties section should have something to > say about this. > Yeah, yeah, "Proprieties." Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 9 13:24:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA11371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 13:24:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f249.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA11366 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 13:24:46 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 89215 invoked by uid 0); 9 Feb 2000 02:24:04 -0000 Message-ID: <20000209022404.89214.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 4.33.182.89 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 08 Feb 2000 18:24:04 PST X-Originating-IP: [4.33.182.89] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: MU at L70C3 Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2000 18:24:04 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ïðèâåò Âèòîëä! >Vitold wrote; > > > Hi all:) > > Sorry - but we (who finished translation the Laws in to Russian) have >another problem: > > > > "LAW 70 - CONTESTED CLAIMS > > C. There Is an Outstanding Trump > > When a trump remains in one of the opponents' hands, the Director shall >award a trick or tricks to the opponents if: > > 3. Could Lose a Trick to the Trump > > a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal play." > > > > And I was taught that "any" may have different meanings: > > - in interrogative, negative and conditional expressions it means >something like "at least one among another similar things" (i.e. it >describes ONE thing from the multitude), > > - in affirmative expressions it means something like "all similar >things" >(i.e. it describes the multitude as the whole. The difference in context here is between would and could. Could is conditional, would is absolute. "A trick would be lost to that trump by any normal play," means that the trick is always lost. "A trick could be lost to that trump by any normal play," means that there exists some play where the trick is lost. The meaning matches the intent, but this isn't a trivial problem even for native speakers. "A trick could be lost to that trump by some normal play," is perhaps a more ideal wording. óäà÷à òåâå! -Todd ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 9 13:34:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA11404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 13:34:50 +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 NAA11399 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 13:34:42 +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 ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 18:34:35 -0800 Message-ID: <00d101bf72a6$2bdcee20$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: MU at L70C3 (correction) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 18:34:17 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 Marvin L. French wrote: > > L703C > > English - a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal play > > French - qu'une levée aurait pu être perdue à cause de cet atout par > n'importe quel jeu normal > > "n'importe quel" - *no matter which* normal play. The French conveys the > intent without ambiguity. > > Re-reading this, I don't think the French have it right after all. The intended meaning is "a trick could be lost to that trump by some normal play." "Quelque jeu normal"? Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 9 13:37:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA11423 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 13:37:05 +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 NAA11418 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 13:36:59 +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 ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 18:36:51 -0800 Message-ID: <00d201bf72a6$7ceb5b80$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1DD@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <389F50F6.6FAC2D3E@elnet.msk.ru> <001901bf728e$4cf04340$e98201d5@davidburn> Subject: Re: MU at L70C3 Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 18:36:33 -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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk L70C3: a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal play. Clear as mud. By one of the plays that is normal, or by all of the normal plays? David Burn wrote: > > L70C3 means > > If a line of play can be constructed such that both: > The line of play is normal; and > X tricks will be lost, including one to the outstanding trump, if > the line of play is followed, > then X tricks are awarded to the opponents. > > A line of play is not considered abnormal if it involves playing > side-suit cards before playing high trumps. There is no problem, and > the intention of the Lawmakers is as clear as it always is. > I think Vitold knows what "normal" means. The problem is that "any" can mean just one of many or all of many. L70C3 revised: a trick could be lost to that trump by some normal play. Clear as crystal. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 9 13:52:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA11467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 13:52:27 +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 NAA11462 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 13:52:19 +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 12INEa-000AKZ-0U for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 02:52:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 02:50:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: MU at L70C3 In-Reply-To: <00d201bf72a6$7ceb5b80$16991e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <00d201bf72a6$7ceb5b80$16991e18@san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes >L70C3: a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal play. > >Clear as mud. By one of the plays that is normal, or by all of the normal >plays? > if a trick could be lost to that trump by even only one of the normal lines of play >David Burn wrote: >> >> L70C3 means >> >> If a line of play can be constructed such that both: >> The line of play is normal; and >> X tricks will be lost, including one to the outstanding trump, if >> the line of play is followed, >> then X tricks are awarded to the opponents. >> >> A line of play is not considered abnormal if it involves playing >> side-suit cards before playing high trumps. There is no problem, and >> the intention of the Lawmakers is as clear as it always is. >> >I think Vitold knows what "normal" means. The problem is that "any" can mean >just one of many or all of many. > >L70C3 revised: > >a trick could be lost to that trump by some normal play. > >Clear as crystal. > >Marv (Marvin L. French) > > > > > > > > > > > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 9 14:54:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA11639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 14:54:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA11634 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 14:54:28 +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 WAA21955 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 22:54:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id WAA06006 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 22:54:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 22:54:18 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200002090354.WAA06006@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: MU at L70C3 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > L70C3 revised: > > a trick could be lost to that trump by some normal play. Perhaps a real mathematician will correct me, but I think they would say: "if and only if there exists at least one normal line of play in which a trick is lost to that trump." (All clear, Vitold?) The Laws are not mathematics, and Marvin's language is better for them. Perhaps 'some' could be replaced by 'at least one', but I'm not sure this is really an improvement. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 9 15:26:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA11764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 15:26:43 +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 PAA11759 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 15:26:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from isdn.net.il (clnt-26122.bezeqint.net) by mail.bezeqint.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.07.30.00.05.p8) with ESMTP id <0FPN00B7CAZQ76@mail.bezeqint.net> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 06:26:15 +0200 (IST) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 06:26:23 +0200 From: Zvi Shilon Subject: Re: MU at L70C3 Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <38A0EC6F.4EFF3330@isdn.net.il> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en-US,en,Hebrew References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1DD@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <389F50F6.6FAC2D3E@elnet.msk.ru> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "And I was taught that "any" may have different meanings:" It seems like Bill Clinton is the author of the bridge laws :) zvika Modiin Vitold wrote: > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Hi all:) > Sorry - but we (who finished translation the Laws in to Russian) have another problem: > > "LAW 70 - CONTESTED CLAIMS > C. There Is an Outstanding Trump > When a trump remains in one of the opponents' hands, the Director shall award a trick or tricks to the opponents if: > 3. Could Lose a Trick to the Trump > a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal play." > > And I was taught that "any" may have different meanings: > - in interrogative, negative and conditional expressions it means something like "at least one among another similar things" (i.e. it describes ONE thing from the multitude), > - in affirmative expressions it means something like "all similar things" (i.e. it describes the multitude as the whole. > > And what does the L70C3 mean?:) I had read E.Kaplan "Appeal Committee" so I know the problem. But this text describes another position: the trick will be lost by claimer if EVERY normal plays could provide to its lost... > > Be so kind as to explain me/us the problem and Lawmakers intentions. > Thx in advance > Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 9 16:39:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA11934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 16:39:22 +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 QAA11929 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 16:39:14 +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 AAA23164 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 00:39:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id AAA06048 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 00:39:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 00:39:06 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200002090539.AAA06048@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Good Sportsmanship X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > I would like the list's comment on the following proposition: No TD or AC > should ever ask a player to forgo rights or advantages granted to them > under the Laws. While I am basically in agreement, 'ever' seems too strong. I think there should be leeway for circumstances not contemplated by the laws, e.g. a fire alarm disrupts play, and some irregularity results. If the TD thinks the fairest resolution involves a penalty waiver, I don't see why he shouldn't suggest it. (If the waiver isn't granted, the TD will probably cancel the board.) Somewhat touchier would be when a player's physical disability or similar problem causes an irregularity. As a player, I would quite often suggest that, for example, an exposed card be picked up, and I wouldn't be averse to hearing a TD make the suggestion. (In general, I'd only do it if there is an obvious, non-bridge cause.) If Michael will change 'ever' to 'in normal circumstances', I'll agree. > Nor should any official suggest, implicitly or otherwise, > that failure to acquiesce to such extra-legal adjustments be regarded as > unsportsmanlike or inimical to the interests of the game. If Michael will drop 'implicitly or otherwise', I agree completely. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 9 18:19:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA12188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 18:19:46 +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 SAA12183 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 18:19:39 +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 ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 23:19:32 -0800 Message-ID: <010601bf72cd$fad9c0a0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <20000209022404.89214.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: MU at L70C3 Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 23:14:53 -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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: "Todd Zimnoch" >Vitold wrote; > > > Hi all:) > > Sorry - but we (who finished translation the Laws in to Russian) have >another problem: > > > > "LAW 70 - CONTESTED CLAIMS > > C. There Is an Outstanding Trump > > When a trump remains in one of the opponents' hands, the Director shall >award a trick or tricks to the opponents if: > > 3. Could Lose a Trick to the Trump > > a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal play." > > > > And I was taught that "any" may have different meanings: > > - in interrogative, negative and conditional expressions it means >something like "at least one among another similar things" (i.e. it >describes ONE thing from the multitude), > > - in affirmative expressions it means something like "all similar >things" >(i.e. it describes the multitude as the whole. The difference in context here is between would and could. Could is conditional, would is absolute. "A trick would be lost to that trump by any normal play," means that the trick is always lost. "A trick could be lost to that trump by any normal play," means that there exists some play where the trick is lost. The meaning matches the intent, but this isn't a trivial problem even for native speakers. "A trick could be lost to that trump by some normal play," is perhaps a more ideal wording. ###### Not sure I agree with that when the verb is positive, but do agree with this reasoning for L69 and L71, where "could not" makes the meaning of "any" unambiguous. And I don't believe that "would" saves the bacon in L70E: "...would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal line of play." All normal lines of play or some normal line of play? There's no telling. Holding AJ109 opposite Kxxxx, if trumps are 4-0 a defender would fail to follow suit on one of the two normal lines of play. A BL could argue that a claim is valid, because L70E says "any NORMAL line of play" and the successful line is a normal one on which a defender "would" fail to follow suit. No, Mr BL, you misunderstand, it's "ANY normal line of play!" We can make such distincions in speech with proper word stress, but written words need italics for that purpose. Better still is to write (as Todd suggests) "all normal (or legal) lines of play" or "some normal (or legal) line of play," as applicable. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 9 18:40:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA12249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 18:40:19 +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 SAA12244 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 18:40:11 +1100 (EST) Received: by stat.ee id HAA24974; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 07:39:28 GMT Received: from ESA-Message_Server by stat.ee with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 09 Feb 2000 09:52:26 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 09:41:31 +0200 From: Aavo Heinlo To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Mess caused by Kibitzer Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal answered: >Am I overlooking something? >It seems that Team A and Team B now, before the round ends, >agree that A actually won only 7 tricks. As a matter of fact the exact statement of team A before the end of the round was: yes, there was a trick less but we don't agree to change our result in IMPs and VPs. Controversial, of course. Both, TD and AC, treated it as the refusal to change agreed-upon result. 72A2 deals with tricks knowingly accepted. When the result was agreed by both sides they truly were sure that there were 8 tricks. TD's decision to give +110 to A and +50 to B was illegal. The national body being present feeled that it is his duty to guarantee that the event is held under the Laws and therefore asked AC to deal with case. I understand that in some countries with strict regulations such intervention by national body will considered illegal, but that is quite another matter. MIchael S.Dennis wrote: >In the "Mess Caused by Kibitzer" thread, as well as in one of the >earlier >discussions of an AC action chaired by Wolff, a common theme >emerged which >I find quite distressing. This is the willingness of AC's, at least >in >these instances, to ask players to accept score adjustments >which they (the >committee) felt powerless to apply as a matter of law. The AC would never done it if the team A just had said: we don't agree to change the result, end. But they added: really, there were 7 tricks only. Aavo Heinlo (aavo.heinlo@stat.ee) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 9 18:49:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA12297 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 18:49:43 +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 SAA12292 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 18:49:36 +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 ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 23:49:29 -0800 Message-ID: <010901bf72d2$29af0da0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200002090539.AAA06048@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Good Sportsmanship Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 23:49:01 -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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: "Steve Willner" > > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > > I would like the list's comment on the following proposition: No TD or AC > > should ever ask a player to forgo rights or advantages granted to them > > under the Laws. > > While I am basically in agreement, 'ever' seems too strong. I think > there should be leeway for circumstances not contemplated by the laws, > e.g. a fire alarm disrupts play, and some irregularity results. If > the TD thinks the fairest resolution involves a penalty waiver, I > don't see why he shouldn't suggest it. (If the waiver isn't granted, > the TD will probably cancel the board.) > > Somewhat touchier would be when a player's physical disability or > similar problem causes an irregularity. As a player, I would quite > often suggest that, for example, an exposed card be picked up, and I > wouldn't be averse to hearing a TD make the suggestion. (In general, > I'd only do it if there is an obvious, non-bridge cause.) > > If Michael will change 'ever' to 'in normal circumstances', I'll agree. When there is cause for a waiver it becomes legal (at the TD's discretion) for the TD to agree to one if requested by the NOS (L81C8). I believe the TD is obligated to make this known to the NOS when applicable, as he must explain "all matters in regard to rectification and to the assessment of a penalty" (L9B2). Suggesting a waiver is not one of the TD's powers. > > > Nor should any official suggest, implicitly or otherwise, > > that failure to acquiesce to such extra-legal adjustments be regarded as > > unsportsmanlike or inimical to the interests of the game. > > If Michael will drop 'implicitly or otherwise', I agree completely. > The TD should explain the waiver option, when applicable, with no suggestion as to whether it should be exercised or not. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 9 19:23:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA12371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 19:23:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f22.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.22]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA12366 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 19:23:17 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 38168 invoked by uid 0); 9 Feb 2000 08:22:35 -0000 Message-ID: <20000209082235.38167.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 4.33.182.89 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 09 Feb 2000 00:22:35 PST X-Originating-IP: [4.33.182.89] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: willner@cfa.harvard.edu, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: MU at L70C3 Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 00:22:35 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The only if part is worse than superfluous. We don't care that the rules are bidirectional and moreso, there may be other reasons that the director may award the trick. For instance, claimer can mention the trump when claiming, be completely aware of the trump and preclude use of 70C3 because the conditions of neither 70C1 nor 70C2 are met. But if it's the ace of trump, no mention of it will prevent a TD from awarding a trick to the opponents for having it. The director shall award a trick to the opponents if: there exist a play x element of {normal plays} and a trick y element of {tricks that can lose to the outstanding trump} such that y is an element of x. There are innumerable variations on this with the same meaning, some more complex than others. But we were talking about English, which doesn't follow the rules of logic. :) -Todd >From: Steve Willner >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Subject: Re: MU at L70C3 >Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 22:54:18 -0500 (EST) > > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > L70C3 revised: > > > > a trick could be lost to that trump by some normal play. > >Perhaps a real mathematician will correct me, but I think they would >say: "if and only if there exists at least one normal line of play >in which a trick is lost to that trump." > >(All clear, Vitold?) > >The Laws are not mathematics, and Marvin's language is better for >them. Perhaps 'some' could be replaced by 'at least one', but I'm >not sure this is really an improvement. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 9 21:32:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA12690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 21:32:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from uucp.nl.uu.net (uucp.nl.uu.net [193.79.237.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA12685 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 21:32:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 11:31:57 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id LAA20764 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 11:21:24 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: MU at L70C3 Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 11:26:09 +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) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >The difference in context here is between would and could. Could is >conditional, would is absolute. > >"A trick would be lost to that trump by any normal play," means that the >trick is always lost. Which is, in effect: For every normal play, a trick is lost to that trump (there are no normal plays by which the trick is not lost) >"A trick could be lost to that trump by any normal play," means that there >exists some play where the trick is lost. Which is, in effect: A normal play exists by which a trick is lost to that trump (there might also be normal plays by which the trick is not lost). This would certainly be a less ambiguous formulation. I believe in the Dutch translation these two statements are translated identically. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 9 23:30:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA13214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 23:30:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA13209 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 23:30:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id NAA03187 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 13:30:25 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Feb 09 13:30:25 2000 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JLPEJAFQJA00AAR9@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 13:29:42 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <1P58YGWX>; Wed, 09 Feb 2000 13:29:23 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 13:29:29 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Wordsmith Needed? To: "'Peter Gill'" , Bridge Laws Mailing List Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2F7@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > As most of you have probably heard by now, this was caused by > 5 minutes of Slow Play resulting in fines of 3.75 and 1.25 IMPs. > > The relevant regulation is: > > ***19.4.2 Slow Play > Excess time apportioned to a pair during the Quarter-finals, > Semi-finals and Finals: > > 0+ - 25 minutes late - 1 IMP for each minute or part thereof*** > > (I have included all the relevant regulations in an APPENDIX below.) > As far as I know you did not include all relevant regulations. It also says that this penalty involves both sides and it even gives an example somewhere demostrating how to split the penalty between the two if both appear to be guilty. Which in the example leads to fractions. So the penalty is 1 IMP per minute or part thereof, but not necessarily to one team. The wording seems right to me. ton > My question is: Could (should) this be worded better? The way > it's currently worded, it may appear to some readers that fractional > IMP penalties cannot be awarded, since the "part thereof" leads to > a full 1 IMP penalty. I know that such an interpretation is not the > intention, and I wonder if the regulation's wording should be > improved. > > Peter Gill > Sydney Australia. > APPENDIX: > From http://www.bermudabowl.com/download/bbregs2000.pdf > > ***WBF Supplemental Conditions of Contest for the > 2000 Orbis World Bridge Championships > > 16. Length of Matches > ...each 16-board ... session of a match is to be completed > within two hours and twenty minutes; after that, teams judged > guilty of slow play will be subject to penalty (see section 19.4). > > 19.4.2 Slow Play > Excess time apportioned to a pair during the Quarter-finals, > Semi-finals and Finals: > > 0+ - 25 minutes late - 1 IMP for each minute or part thereof > > A Tournament Director or an official appointed by the President > shall determine responsibility for slow play. A partnership which > considers its opponents are playing slowly shall inform the > Tournament Director who may appoint a monitor if he thinks it > is necessary; the partnership is only protected from the time at > which the Tournament Director is informed. A Director may > install a monitor without request of the players.*** > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 9 23:40:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA13267 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 23:40:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA13262 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 23:40:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id NAA04170 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 13:40:25 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Feb 09 13:40:25 2000 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JLPEVU1V9S00AHHM@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 13:39:43 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <1P58YHDA>; Wed, 09 Feb 2000 13:39:35 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 13:39:40 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Good Sportsmanship To: "'Michael S. Dennis'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2F8@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > I would like the list's comment on the following proposition: > No TD or AC > should ever ask a player to forgo rights or advantages granted to them > under the Laws. Nor should any official suggest, implicitly > or otherwise, > that failure to acquiesce to such extra-legal adjustments be > regarded as > unsportsmanlike or inimical to the interests of the game. > > Mike Dennis I agree, even more on the second statement than on the first. The Bridge World had a questionaire some months ago with similar issues. I am anxiously waiting for the results, which probaly will be published within some months. ton From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 10 00:54:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA13504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 00:54:34 +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 AAA13498 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 00:54:19 +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 NAA17311 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 13:53:36 GMT Message-ID: <38A17167.D3F16F2C@meteo.fr> Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 14:53:43 +0100 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Calculator Needed ? (was Re: Wordsmith Needed?) References: <028b01bf6fed$5b96b940$776d868b@gillp.bigpond.com> <389D53FB.690D632A@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael a écrit : > > Peter Gill wrote: > > > > As most of you have probably heard by now, this was caused by > > 5 minutes of Slow Play resulting in fines of 3.75 and 1.25 IMPs. > > > > The relevant regulation is: > > > > ***19.4.2 Slow Play > > Excess time apportioned to a pair during the Quarter-finals, > > Semi-finals and Finals: > > > > 0+ - 25 minutes late - 1 IMP for each minute or part thereof*** > > > > > > 16. Length of Matches > > ...each 16-board ... session of a match is to be completed > > within two hours and twenty minutes; after that, teams judged > > guilty of slow play will be subject to penalty (see section 19.4). > > > > 19.4.2 Slow Play > > Excess time apportioned to a pair during the Quarter-finals, > > Semi-finals and Finals: > > > > 0+ - 25 minutes late - 1 IMP for each minute or part thereof > > > > A Tournament Director or an official appointed by the President > > shall determine responsibility for slow play. A partnership which > > considers its opponents are playing slowly shall inform the > > Tournament Director who may appoint a monitor if he thinks it > > is necessary; the partnership is only protected from the time at > > which the Tournament Director is informed. A Director may > > install a monitor without request of the players.*** > > Let me get this straight. There was a penalty of 5IMPs, > completely certain, but by regulation attributable to either > or both teams. > The attribution ws 75% USA, 25% Netherlands. > > USA had a carry-over of +3, and the true result of the match > was 251-250 in Holland's Favour. > > That would mean, in a competition sence, that USA had a > result of +3-1-3.75 = -1.75, and the Netherlands had > -3+1-1.25 = -3.25. > > Now in a competition, that would look to me like both sides > have lost the match. > But then it would seem that USA would have lost less, so > they should be World Champions ? > > Rather, the calculation seems to have been : > > USA +3-1-3.75+1.25 = -0.50 > NED -3+1-1.25+3.75 = +0.50 > > I think it really is a wordsmith who is needed ! Regulation of BB and VC penalties: " Penalties assessed in IMPs shall be deducted from the score of the offending team at the conclusion of the match which the penalty was imposed, before its VP score is calculated. However the score of the non-offending team shall not be affected, except in the knockout phase." Netherlands still firm World Champions, it seems. JP Rocafort > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 10 01:56:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA13792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 01:56:52 +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 BAA13786 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 01:56:39 +1100 (EST) 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 JAA19895; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 09:56:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA221668123; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 09:55:23 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 09:54:25 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: MU at L70C3 Mime-Version: 1.0 From: DuBreuil_Laval/UQSS@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, vitold@elnet.msk.ru 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 BAA13788 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mon ami Vitold, You send your messages as text-files attached to your e-mails in a format that is not easy to read (lines longer than my 17" screen). In the las one you wrote: >"LAW 70 - CONTESTED CLAIMS >C. There Is an Outstanding Trump >When a trump remains in one of the opponents' hands, >the Director shall award a trick or tricks to the opponents if: >3. Could Lose a Trick to the Trump >a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal play." >And I was taught that "any" may have different meanings: >- in interrogative, negative and conditional expressions it >means something like "at least one among another similar > things" (i.e. it describes ONE thing from the >multitude), - in affirmative expressions it means something like "all similar > things" (i.e. it describes the multitude as the whole. In the French version I read "n'importe quel jeu normal". I think French translators choose your first meaning: "at least one normal play among multitude" if any multitude.... Hope this help. Amities Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 10 02:20:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA14053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 02:20:20 +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 CAA14047 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 02:20:03 +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 KAA21053; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 10:19:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA229189588; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 10:19:48 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 10:19:34 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: MU at L70C3 (correction) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, mlfrench@writeme.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="BDY.RTF" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="BDY.RTF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id CAA14049 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: > > L703C > > English - a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal play > > French - qu'une levée aurait pu être perdue à cause de cet atout par > n'importe quel jeu normal > > "n'importe quel" - *no matter which* normal play. The French conveys the > intent without ambiguity. > > > Re-reading this, I don't think the French have it right after all. > The intended meaning is "a trick could be lost to that trump by some normal play." > "Quelque jeu normal"? [Laval Dubreuil] IMHO, the French translation (n'importe quel jeu normal) is right and reflects the real intention of this law. As TD, I will always give a trick (or tricks) to oppns if they could have get one by a "normal" bridge line of play, "no matter which". The word normal is defined in foot note, but depends of the class of players. TD has to use his judgment at table and rule. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 10 02:48:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA14174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 02:48:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail1.svr.pol.co.uk (mail1.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA14169 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 02:48:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.92.198.123] (helo=mail17.svr.pol.co.uk) by mail1.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 12IZLN-0005g7-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 09 Feb 2000 15:47:53 +0000 Received: from modem-56.elrond.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.188.56] helo=laphraoig.localdomain) by mail17.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 12IZLC-0003cP-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 09 Feb 2000 15:47:51 +0000 Received: (from jeremy@localhost) by laphraoig.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA07303; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 15:47:34 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: laphraoig.localdomain: jeremy set sender to j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk using -f To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: MU at L70C3 References: <200002090354.WAA06006@cfa183.harvard.edu> From: Jeremy Rickard Date: 09 Feb 2000 15:40:31 +0000 In-Reply-To: Steve Willner's message of "Tue, 8 Feb 2000 22:54:18 -0500 (EST)" 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: 26 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes: > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > L70C3 revised: > > > > a trick could be lost to that trump by some normal play. > > Perhaps a real mathematician will correct me, but I think they would > say: "if and only if there exists at least one normal line of play > in which a trick is lost to that trump." Well, I suppose I'm a real mathematician. We don't all sprinkle our conversation with "if and only if" and "there exists"! Though some of us do, I must admit. I think "there is a normal line of play in which a trick could be lost to that trump" would satisfy the most pedantic of our breed without frightening the horses. Though Marvin's suggestion seems unambiguous as well. Jeremy. -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 10 03:05:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA14261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 03:05:23 +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 DAA14256 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 03:05:14 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id QAA27179 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 16:04:35 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 16:04 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: David Burn > This proponent of 12C3 thinks that it should be used to allow > calculation > of expectations when it becomes necessary to evaluate the result of > cancelling a call, or of a correct instead of a wrong explanation being > given, or the like. It should not - it cannot - be used to allow a > player to prefer a possibly suggested LA "some of the time". > >18 months ago there were arguments here that 12C3 would allow a > "fairer" > >adjustment where a player chose an illegal logical alternative that > would > >be chosen by most of his peers in the absence of any unauthorized > >information. I'll quote them if I must, but I'm not of that school. > > Neither am I. I do not recall the arguments to which you allude; it is > possible that I paid them no attention. They certainly do not deserve > any. Why not? We currently have the situation where eg: Alternative judged likely to be found by 24% of peers = no adjustment. Alternative judged likely to be found by 26% of peers = full adjustment. Equity may well be better served by "Alternative judged likely to be found by 20-30% of peers = 50% result stands+50% full adjustment." In other words "Where an AC determines that it is marginal as to whether the chosen bid has a suggested LA L12C3 may be applied." What is so great about being forced to choose between two extremes in a situation everyone feels is borderline? Consider the variations on our original example: S-KQT763 H- 4 D-K7 C-QJ82 S-KQT983 H- 4 D-K7 C-QJ82 S-KQJT63 H- 4 D-K7 C-QJ82 S-KQJT63 H- 4 D-A7 C-QJ82 S-KQJT63 H- 4 D-A7 C-KJT2 S-KQJT763 H- D-K7 C-QJ82 (If this sequence has not yet reached a point where you feel pass is not an LA just continue making incremental steps) Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 10 03:31:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA14436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 03:31:22 +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 DAA14431 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 03:31:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 17:30:58 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id RAA25460 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 17:23:02 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: Calculator Needed ? (was Re: Wordsmith Needed?) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 17:27:42 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Let me get this straight. There was a penalty of 5IMPs, >completely certain, but by regulation attributable to either >or both teams. >The attribution ws 75% USA, 25% Netherlands. > >USA had a carry-over of +3, and the true result of the match >was 251-250 in Holland's Favour. > >That would mean, in a competition sence, that USA had a >result of +3-1-3.75 = -1.75, and the Netherlands had >-3+1-1.25 = -3.25. > >Now in a competition, that would look to me like both sides >have lost the match. >But then it would seem that USA would have lost less, so >they should be World Champions ? > >Rather, the calculation seems to have been : > >USA +3-1-3.75+1.25 = -0.50 >NED -3+1-1.25+3.75 = +0.50 > >I think it really is a wordsmith who is needed ! > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html In that first calculation, you are mixing imp totals and imp differences. You write USA +3 -1, Netherlands -3 +1, which are imp differences. But the third number (USA -3.75, Netherlands -1.25) should be deducted from the respective imp totals. The net result of this penalty is that USA loses 2.5 imps and Netherlands gains 2.5 imps in the imp difference totals, being the difference between -3.75 and -1.25. That gives the second calculation. Alternatively, you can say that USA scored 3+250-3.75=249.25, Netherlands 0+251-1.25=249.75, which was the actual score. And differs by that dreaded half imp :-) -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 10 03:55:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA14553 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 03:55:08 +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 DAA14547 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 03:54:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from p70s04a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.116.113] helo=pacific) by cobalt3-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12IaNR-0001VF-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 08:54:06 -0800 Message-ID: <001401bf731d$f6cdee00$717493c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Good Sportsmanship Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 16:51:01 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 09 February 2000 05:53 Subject: Re: Good Sportsmanship > ------------------ \x/ ----------------- > >> Nor should any official suggest, implicitly or otherwise, >> that failure to acquiesce to such extra-legal adjustments be regarded as >> unsportsmanlike or inimical to the interests of the game. > -------------- \x/ ------------- +=+ The following is an extract from the WBF Code of Practice: " 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" +=+ Grattan +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 10 04:18:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA14704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 04:18:38 +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 EAA14698 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 04:18:25 +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 RAA01140 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 17:17:45 GMT Message-ID: <38A1A141.E017082@meteo.fr> Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 18:17:53 +0100 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: Re: Calculator Needed ? (was Re: Wordsmith Needed?) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot a écrit : > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >Let me get this straight. There was a penalty of 5IMPs, > >completely certain, but by regulation attributable to either > >or both teams. > >The attribution ws 75% USA, 25% Netherlands. > > > >USA had a carry-over of +3, and the true result of the match > >was 251-250 in Holland's Favour. > > > >That would mean, in a competition sence, that USA had a > >result of +3-1-3.75 = -1.75, and the Netherlands had > >-3+1-1.25 = -3.25. > > > >Now in a competition, that would look to me like both sides > >have lost the match. > >But then it would seem that USA would have lost less, so > >they should be World Champions ? > > > >Rather, the calculation seems to have been : > > > >USA +3-1-3.75+1.25 = -0.50 > >NED -3+1-1.25+3.75 = +0.50 > > > >I think it really is a wordsmith who is needed ! > > > >-- > >Herman DE WAEL > >Antwerpen Belgium > >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > In that first calculation, you are mixing imp totals and > imp differences. You write USA +3 -1, Netherlands -3 +1, > which are imp differences. But the third number > (USA -3.75, Netherlands -1.25) should be deducted from > the respective imp totals. The net result of this penalty > is that USA loses 2.5 imps and Netherlands gains 2.5 imps > in the imp difference totals, being the difference between > -3.75 and -1.25. That gives the second calculation. > Alternatively, you can say that USA scored 3+250-3.75=249.25, > Netherlands 0+251-1.25=249.75, which was the actual score. > And differs by that dreaded half imp :-) > No, I think Herman's calculations were accurate, and there could have been an ambiguity in the mean of taking into account the slow play penalty: should it be a 2.5 gap between both teams, or a 5 (difference between +2.5 and -2.5) gap? It could have been ambiguous, had it not been for the very convenient last words in the regulations "except in the knockout phase". Good job by the regulation writers! JP Rocafort > -- > Martin Sinot > Nijmegen > martin@spase.nl -- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 10 04:25:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA14744 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 04:25:56 +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 EAA14738 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 04:25:46 +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 RAA01420 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 17:25:07 GMT Message-ID: <38A1A2FA.94AC3EF3@meteo.fr> Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 18:25:14 +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: Good Sportsmanship References: <001401bf731d$f6cdee00$717493c3@pacific> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott a écrit : > +=+ The following is an extract from the > WBF Code of Practice: > " 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" > +=+ Grattan +=+ What an hypocritical sentence: we don't criticize you but everybody will know you are a bad boy. And it implies that to conform to the laws may happen not to be a generous attitude. JP Rocafort -- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 10 04:41:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA14833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 04:41:59 +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 EAA14827 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 04:41:45 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA24283 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 18:41:36 +0100 Received: from ip44.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.44), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda24280; Wed Feb 9 18:41:27 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Good Sportsmanship Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 18:41:27 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <200002090539.AAA06048@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200002090539.AAA06048@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id EAA14829 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 9 Feb 2000 00:39:06 -0500 (EST), Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "Michael S. Dennis" >> I would like the list's comment on the following proposition: No TD or AC >> should ever ask a player to forgo rights or advantages granted to them >> under the Laws. > >While I am basically in agreement, 'ever' seems too strong. I agree with Steve here. >> Nor should any official suggest, implicitly or otherwise, >> that failure to acquiesce to such extra-legal adjustments be regarded as >> unsportsmanlike or inimical to the interests of the game. > >If Michael will drop 'implicitly or otherwise', I agree completely. If we are talking only about waiving penalties, I agree completely with Michael. (But that does not mean that I have the same opinion about _any_ "extra-legal" actions: there are areas (system disclosure, possibly others) in which the exact requirements of the law are so imprecise that it must be considered reprehensible to deliberately try to only just meet those requirements. It is possible for a player to give an explanation which may not be ruled as MI, but which nevertheless ought to have been better. As a TD, I do not want to be prohibited from asking players to explain better next time just because I did not rule that their not-so-good explanation was an irregularity.) I think that in some circumstances it is quite acceptable for a TD to point out the possibility of waiving a penalty, but he should then also very clearly tell the NOS that there is absolutely nothing illegal or unethical in not waiving the penalty, and that the choice should be made depending upon how the NOS itself feels about the matter, not because of any pressure from anybody else. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 10 05:10:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA14940 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 05:10:50 +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 FAA14934 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 05:10:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-023.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.215]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA84333 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 18:10:02 GMT Message-ID: <001601bf7329$04983300$d7307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Law 70C3 in action Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 18:10:56 -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 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Declarer's last three cards are J 9 2 of trumps. He is on lead and claims the last three tricks. However there is one trump outstanding the 6. Upon investigation the Director forms the opinion that there is a good chance Declarer had forgotton about the outstanding trump. The Director ruled that it would not be irrational to lead the 2 of trumps to trick 11 and consequently lose one trick to the defender's lone trump. ok? Best regards, Fearghal. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 10 05:47:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA15063 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 05:47:16 +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 FAA15053 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 05:47:09 +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; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 10:47:01 -0800 Message-ID: <016201bf732e$03f45fa0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Martin Sinot" , References: Subject: Re: MU at L70C3 Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 10:42:53 -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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: Not my words, but those of Todd Zimnoch, I believe. > > >The difference in context here is between would and could. Could is > >conditional, would is absolute. > > > >"A trick would be lost to that trump by any normal play," means that the > >trick is always lost. > > Which is, in effect: > For every normal play, a trick is lost to that trump (there are no normal > plays by which the trick is not lost) > > >"A trick could be lost to that trump by any normal play," means that there > >exists some play where the trick is lost. > > Which is, in effect: > A normal play exists by which a trick is lost to that trump (there might > also be normal plays by which the trick is not lost). > > This would certainly be a less ambiguous formulation. I believe in the > Dutch translation these two statements are translated identically. > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 10 05:47:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA15062 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 05:47:14 +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 FAA15052 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 05:47:07 +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 ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 10:47:00 -0800 Message-ID: <016101bf732e$035ed660$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: MU at L70C3 (correction) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 10:38:09 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 From: > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > > L703C > > > > English - a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal play > > > > French - qu'une levée aurait pu être perdue à cause de cet atout > par > > n'importe quel jeu normal > > > > "n'importe quel" - *no matter which* normal play. The French > conveys the > > intent without ambiguity. > > > > > > Re-reading this, I don't think the French have it right after all. > > > The intended meaning is "a trick could be lost to that trump by > > some normal play." > > > "Quelque jeu normal"? > [Laval Dubreuil] > IMHO, the French translation (n'importe quel jeu normal) is right and > reflects > the real intention of this law. As TD, I will always give a trick (or > tricks) to > oppns if they could have get one by a "normal" bridge line of play, > "no matter > which". The word normal is defined in foot note, but depends of the > class > of players. TD has to use his judgment at table and rule. > I hesitate to argue French with a Frenchman, but "no matter which normal play" (n'importe quel jeu normal) suggests to me that all normal plays must meet the criterion, not just one. "un jeu normal" or "aucun jeu normal" would express the latter meaning, n'est ce pas? Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 10 05:50:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA15090 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 05:50:22 +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 FAA15084 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 05:50:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.74] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12IcBT-0003a3-00; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 18:49:52 +0000 Message-ID: <004e01bf732e$a7ca3500$4a5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jean Pierre Rocafort" Cc: References: <001401bf731d$f6cdee00$717493c3@pacific> <38A1A2FA.94AC3EF3@meteo.fr> Subject: Re: Good Sportsmanship Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 18:50:35 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott Cc: Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 5:25 PM Subject: Re: Good Sportsmanship >What an hypocritical sentence: we don't criticize you but everybody >will know you are a bad boy. JP Rocafort Dear Jean Pierre You really must not look for beasties under the bed. It does not say that and that thought is not present. ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 10 06:32:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA15269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 06:32:26 +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 GAA15264 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 06:32:20 +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 ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 11:32:13 -0800 Message-ID: <017c01bf7334$5434bfe0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: MU at L70C3 Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 11:31:38 -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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Looking at the French laws again, I see (English numbering) some that are doubtful: L69 - *aucun jeu normal* (some normal play) should be *n'importe quel jeu normal* (no matter which normal play) L70C3 - *n'importe quel jeu normal* should be *aucun jeu normal* L70E - *n'importe quelle ligne de jeu normale* (no matter which line of play) is correct L71A - *aucun jeu normal* should be *n'importe quel jeu legal* (no matter which legal play). In my opinion, but my French is weak. Can someone tell me how to do the accents? Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 10 06:58:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA15341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 06:58:38 +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 GAA15334 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 06:58:30 +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 LAA26640; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 11:58:17 -0800 Message-Id: <200002091958.LAA26640@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 09 Feb 2000 18:10:56 PST." <001601bf7329$04983300$d7307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 11:58:17 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Declarer's last three cards are J 9 2 of trumps. He is on lead and claims > the last three tricks. > However there is one trump outstanding the 6. > > Upon investigation the Director forms the opinion that there is a good > chance Declarer had forgotton about the outstanding trump. > > The Director ruled that it would not be irrational to lead the 2 of trumps > to trick 11 and consequently lose one trick to the defender's lone trump. > > ok? Yes. I almost said the opposite, but when I started thinking about it a bit, I found that the question of whether leading the 2 is irrational isn't an easy one to answer. The reason is that when declarers have nothing but trumps in one hand and they firmly believe there are no outstanding trumps, they *never* play it out, unless they just got introduced to the game the day before. OK, that's a bit strong, but the point is that we can't determine what is "careless" or "irrational" by judging what another declarer in the same situation would do, because the other declarer would also claim, probably 100% of the time. So suppose there's some club somewhere where they've outlawed claiming. Our declarer, whose last three cards are J92 of trumps, says "OK, I have all the remaining trumps", and suddenly a large club owner is standing behind him saying "You are not allowed to claim in this club!!!" Declarer says "Fine, whatever, I'll play it out." Well, he thinks there's no point to this, he has the rest of the trumps, so he's going to pull a card at random out of his hand and play it. And that random card could be the 2. Under these circumstances, no play is more irrational then any other (in declarer's point of view, the only irrational thing is the club owner). So I think that the TD in the original example is correct, and the 2 is not an irrational play. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 10 07:02:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA15369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 07:02:41 +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 HAA15364 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 07:02:34 +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 ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 12:02:27 -0800 Message-ID: <01c701bf7338$8dbe8760$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <001401bf731d$f6cdee00$717493c3@pacific> <38A1A2FA.94AC3EF3@meteo.fr> Subject: Re: Good Sportsmanship Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 11:59:34 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 From: "Jean Pierre Rocafort" Grattan Endicott a écrit : > +=+ The following is an extract from the > WBF Code of Practice: > " 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" > +=+ Grattan +=+ What an hypocritical sentence: we don't criticize you but everybody will know you are a bad boy. And it implies that to conform to the laws may happen not to be a generous attitude. JP Rocafort I can't find anything in the Laws that gives the TD/AC the power to recommend sportsmanlike actions. "What is not authorized is not permitted," isn't that the general rule? Rather, I think the Laws imply that a TD/AC should be as neutral as possible when handling irregularities, avoiding any comment that would indicate a non-neutral opinion. That seems to be the approach used by arbiters in all other sports/games. Can anyone imagine a tennis umpire suggesting that a player give back a windfall point (bad call, recognized tardily)? Players do that sort of thing sometimes, but not because an umpire suggests it. 72A4 - When these Laws provide the innocent side with an option after an irregularity committed by an opponent, it is appropriate to select that action most advantageous. L81C8 - [The TD has power to] waive penalties for cause, at his discretion, upon the request of the non-offending side. Note "for cause," and that doesn't mean just good sportsmanship. There has to be a better reason why a waiver would be appropriate. L84B - If a case is clearly covered by a law that specifies a penalty for the irregularity, he [the TD] assesses that penalty and sees that it is paid. "....sees that it is paid." That means he does not suggest that someone waive the penalty. The reasons why good directors should be tough regarding this matter include the possibility that a player will waive a penalty for a friend, thereby allowing the friend to win. Or I might not want to waive a penalty for a friend, and then he becomes no longer my friend. It is best to follow the Laws, which were written with this sort of thing in mind. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 10 07:13:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA15426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 07:13:59 +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 HAA15421 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 07:13:51 +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 OAA03048 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 14:17:30 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000209141245.007a8100@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 14:12:45 -0600 To: From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action In-Reply-To: <001601bf7329$04983300$d7307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:10 PM 2/9/2000 -0000, Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >Declarer's last three cards are J 9 2 of trumps. He is on lead and claims >the last three tricks. >However there is one trump outstanding the 6. > >Upon investigation the Director forms the opinion that there is a good >chance Declarer had forgotton about the outstanding trump. > >The Director ruled that it would not be irrational to lead the 2 of trumps >to trick 11 and consequently lose one trick to the defender's lone trump. > >ok? Um. Well. I would not presume to tell this Director that he was wrong, as I do not think the law, or the notion of "irrational", is so crystal clear as to say that he is out of bounds. But I will say that if I am ever called to a table on a claim that will succeed simply by playing the remaining cards in a suit from the top down, I will rule that the claim stands. I would call playing the '2' irrational. [And, yes, I am fully aware of the fact that there are rare occasions where someone really does play the 2 first. I don't care--it is irrational when they do it, too. :)] If the play of the two was necessary to win the final trick with a beer card, I would rule differently. >Best regards, >Fearghal. And to you, Grant Sterling From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 10 07:57:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA15546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 07:57:56 +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 HAA15541 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 07:57:48 +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 PAA03970; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 15:57:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA022759857; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 15:57:37 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 15:57:20 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: MU at L70C3 Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, mlfrench@writeme.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="BDY.RTF" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="BDY.RTF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id HAA15542 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all, Despite the fact that I think French is one of the most precise langage, I am not sure it is the right place to discuss about corectness of French translation of Laws. It is frequent, in many languages, to use different wording to say the same thing. As a Frenchman I do not have problems using frequently both versions (French and English). I know: "aucun" with a negation means "not one" and may have a positive value otherwise, but I have always read these laws the same manner, in French or in English. If I deem there is one normal (define in footnote) line of play that fails, I rule in favor of oppns (French or English players...). If I am not right, please tell me. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City PS: il n'y a pas d'accent dans les mots que vous avez utilisé Marvin Looking at the French laws again, I see (English numbering) some that are doubtful: L69 - *aucun jeu normal* (some normal play) should be *n'importe quel jeu normal* (no matter which normal play) L70C3 - *n'importe quel jeu normal* should be *aucun jeu normal* L70E - *n'importe quelle ligne de jeu normale* (no matter which line of play) is correct L71A - *aucun jeu normal* should be *n'importe quel jeu legal* (no matter which legal play). In my opinion, but my French is weak. Can someone tell me how to do the accents? Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 10 08:01:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA15566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 08:01:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from fb01.eng00.mindspring.net (fb01.eng00.mindspring.net [207.69.229.19]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA15561 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 08:01:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-97.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.97]) by fb01.eng00.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA26058 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 16:01:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <008c01bf7341$00750240$6184d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 16:02:38 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The claim is good...playing the 2 first is as irrational as not claiming. The opponents shouldget a life or go to law school and the director should take up umpiring little league baseball (since he is always wrong anyway, he won't mid as much when the parents shout at him). If we want to encourage claiming (and discourage 3 boards in 32 minutes) we want to ALWAYS allow this claim. -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: Adam Beneschan > >> Declarer's last three cards are J 9 2 of trumps. He is on lead and claims >> the last three tricks. >> However there is one trump outstanding the 6. >> >> Upon investigation the Director forms the opinion that there is a good >> chance Declarer had forgotton about the outstanding trump. >> >> The Director ruled that it would not be irrational to lead the 2 of trumps >> to trick 11 and consequently lose one trick to the defender's lone trump. >> >> ok? > >Yes. I almost said the opposite, but when I started thinking about it >a bit, I found that the question of whether leading the 2 is >irrational isn't an easy one to answer. The reason is that when >declarers have nothing but trumps in one hand and they firmly believe >there are no outstanding trumps, they *never* play it out, unless they >just got introduced to the game the day before. OK, that's a bit >strong, but the point is that we can't determine what is "careless" or >"irrational" by judging what another declarer in the same situation >would do, because the other declarer would also claim, probably 100% >of the time. > >So suppose there's some club somewhere where they've outlawed >claiming. Our declarer, whose last three cards are J92 of trumps, >says "OK, I have all the remaining trumps", and suddenly a large club >owner is standing behind him saying "You are not allowed to claim in >this club!!!" Declarer says "Fine, whatever, I'll play it out." #### (He really should say "Please refund my entry fee then, since this is not a bridge game and you accepted my money under false pretenses!") >Well, he thinks there's no point to this, he has the rest of the >trumps, so he's going to pull a card at random out of his hand and >play it. And that random card could be the 2. Under these >circumstances, no play is more irrational then any other (in >declarer's point of view, the only irrational thing is the club >owner). So I think that the TD in the original example is correct, >and the 2 is not an irrational play. > > -- Adam #### I hope your tongue was really lodged in your cheek throughout this shaggy dog exercise in rationality Adam. :-) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 10 08:55:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA15955 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 08:55:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA15949 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 08:54:55 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id u.66.16fc3c6 (7359); Wed, 9 Feb 2000 16:54:05 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <66.16fc3c6.25d33bfc@aol.com> Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 16:54:04 EST Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action To: rts48u@ix.netcom.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 45 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 2/9/00 4:04:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, rts48u@ix.netcom.com writes: > The claim is good...playing the 2 first is as irrational as not claiming. > The opponents shouldget a life or go to law school and the director should > take up umpiring little league baseball (since he is always wrong anyway, he > won't mid as much when the parents shout at him). If we want to encourage > claiming (and discourage 3 boards in 32 minutes) we want to ALWAYS allow > this claim. 'at's what I like. Direct, no shilly shallying. Doesn't ACBL have an instruction that in claim situations involving only one suit the claimant is deigned to play the suit from the top in lack of a statement to the contrary? Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 10 09:15:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA16023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 09:15:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc04.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc04.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA16018 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 09:15:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from default ([12.75.41.235]) by mtiwmhc04.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with SMTP id <20000209221434.VYHA1419@default> for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 22:14:34 +0000 Message-ID: <00b001bf734a$fdd78f80$434e4b0c@default> From: "Richard F Beye" To: "BLML" References: <66.16fc3c6.25d33bfc@aol.com> Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 16:14:06 -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: To: ; Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 3:54 PM Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action > In a message dated 2/9/00 4:04:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, > rts48u@ix.netcom.com writes: > > > The claim is good...playing the 2 first is as irrational as not claiming. > > The opponents shouldget a life or go to law school and the director should > > take up umpiring little league baseball (since he is always wrong anyway, > he > > won't mid as much when the parents shout at him). If we want to encourage > > claiming (and discourage 3 boards in 32 minutes) we want to ALWAYS allow > > this claim. > > 'at's what I like. Direct, no shilly shallying. Doesn't ACBL have an > instruction that in claim situations involving only one suit the claimant is > deigned to play the suit from the top in lack of a statement to the contrary? > Kojak Yes sir. That is how we have been ruling for several years now. rb From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 10 09:26:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA16069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 09:26:18 +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 JAA16064 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 09:26:11 +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 ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 14:25:59 -0800 Message-ID: <01d401bf734c$9afc54c0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: MU at L70C3 Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 14:25:39 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 From: Hi all, > > Despite the fact that I think French is one of the most precise langage, > I am not sure it is the right place to discuss about correctness of > French > translation of Laws. It is frequent, in many languages, to use different > wording to say the same thing. No argument there, as long as the intended meaning isn't changed discernibly. I understand that exact translations of meanings can be extremely difficult. > > As a Frenchman I do not have problems using frequently both versions > (French and English). I know: "aucun" with a negation means "not one" > and may have a positive value otherwise, but I have always read these > laws > the same manner, in French or in English. How can you read the French *normal* as the English "legal" in L71? The two L71As have vastly different meanings. A legal play can be very abnormal. > If I deem there is one normal > (define in footnote) line of play that fails, I rule in favor of oppns > (French > or English players...). If I am not right, please tell me. > Of course you are right, but the Laws should be worded to convey their intent unambiguously in whatever language is used. It isn't difficult. Some people less familiar with one or both of these languages may have a harder time discerning intent than you do. > PS: il n'y a pas d'accent dans les mots que vous avez utilisé Marvin > Look again: L71A - *aucun jeu normal* should be *n'importe quel jeu legal* (no matter which legal play). The French "legal" requires an *accent grave*, je croix. Please no one think that I am knocking the French version of the Laws. I usually find a cloudy meaning in the ACBL Laws to be quite clear when I consult the French version. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 10 09:53:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA16157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 09:53:19 +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 JAA16152 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 09:53:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-0-215.access.net.il [213.8.0.215] (may be forged)) by loger.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA25211; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 00:51:24 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <38A1EF9E.C16F8F1D@zahav.net.il> Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 00:52:14 +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: Grant Sterling CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action References: <3.0.6.32.20000209141245.007a8100@eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am not sure I am right , but please all of you help me : What is the name of the hospice this case happened ??? dany Grant Sterling wrote: > > At 06:10 PM 2/9/2000 -0000, Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > >Declarer's last three cards are J 9 2 of trumps. He is on lead and claims > >the last three tricks. > >However there is one trump outstanding the 6. > > > >Upon investigation the Director forms the opinion that there is a good > >chance Declarer had forgotton about the outstanding trump. > > > >The Director ruled that it would not be irrational to lead the 2 of trumps > >to trick 11 and consequently lose one trick to the defender's lone trump. > > > >ok? > > Um. Well. I would not presume to tell this Director that he was > wrong, as I do not think the law, or the notion of "irrational", is so > crystal clear as to say that he is out of bounds. > But I will say that if I am ever called to a table on a claim that > will succeed simply by playing the remaining cards in a suit from the top > down, I will rule that the claim stands. I would call playing the '2' > irrational. [And, yes, I am fully aware of the fact that there are rare > occasions where someone really does play the 2 first. I don't care--it is > irrational when they do it, too. :)] > If the play of the two was necessary to win the final trick > with a beer card, I would rule differently. > > >Best regards, > >Fearghal. > > And to you, > Grant Sterling From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 10 10:20:21 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA16245 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 10:20:21 +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 KAA16239 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 10:20:13 +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 PAA30047; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 15:20:05 -0800 Message-Id: <200002092320.PAA30047@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 09 Feb 2000 16:02:38 PST." <008c01bf7341$00750240$6184d9ce@oemcomputer> Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 15:20:06 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > The claim is good...playing the 2 first is as irrational as not claiming. > The opponents shouldget a life or go to law school and the director should > take up umpiring little league baseball (since he is always wrong anyway, he > won't mid as much when the parents shout at him). If we want to encourage > claiming (and discourage 3 boards in 32 minutes) we want to ALWAYS allow > this claim. > > -- > Craig > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Beneschan > > > >> Declarer's last three cards are J 9 2 of trumps. He is on lead and > claims > >> the last three tricks. > >> However there is one trump outstanding the 6. > >> > >> Upon investigation the Director forms the opinion that there is a good > >> chance Declarer had forgotton about the outstanding trump. > >> > >> The Director ruled that it would not be irrational to lead the 2 of > trumps > >> to trick 11 and consequently lose one trick to the defender's lone trump. > >> > >> ok? > > > >Yes. I almost said the opposite, but when I started thinking about it > >a bit, I found that the question of whether leading the 2 is > >irrational isn't an easy one to answer. The reason is that when > >declarers have nothing but trumps in one hand and they firmly believe > >there are no outstanding trumps, they *never* play it out, unless they > >just got introduced to the game the day before. OK, that's a bit > >strong, but the point is that we can't determine what is "careless" or > >"irrational" by judging what another declarer in the same situation > >would do, because the other declarer would also claim, probably 100% > >of the time. > > > >So suppose there's some club somewhere where they've outlawed > >claiming. Our declarer, whose last three cards are J92 of trumps, > >says "OK, I have all the remaining trumps", and suddenly a large club > >owner is standing behind him saying "You are not allowed to claim in > >this club!!!" Declarer says "Fine, whatever, I'll play it out." > > #### (He really should say "Please refund my entry fee then, since this is > not a bridge game and you accepted my money under false pretenses!") Since the club owner is, as I stated, large, it would be irrational to make a comment that sounds like a fraud accusation. :) > >Well, he thinks there's no point to this, he has the rest of the > >trumps, so he's going to pull a card at random out of his hand and > >play it. And that random card could be the 2. Under these > >circumstances, no play is more irrational then any other (in > >declarer's point of view, the only irrational thing is the club > >owner). So I think that the TD in the original example is correct, > >and the 2 is not an irrational play. > > #### I hope your tongue was really lodged in your cheek throughout this > shaggy dog exercise in rationality Adam. :-) Sorry to disappoint you. I seriously would give a trick to the opponents. I agree that claiming should be encouraged, but only good claims where claimer knows what's going on. If claimer has made his claim while forgetting something important (such as an outstanding trump), I think we should rule against the claimer where reasonably possible. I don't think doing so will discourage the kinds of claims we want to encourage. One of the conditions Fearghal included was "the Director forms the opinion that there is a GOOD CHANCE declarer had forgotten about the outstanding trump" [emphasis mine]. Perhaps we're not all on the same page as to what this means. I interpreted it as meaning the Director had some positive evidence that declarer may have forgotten there was a trump out, such as a mumbled statement that sounds like "I have the rest of the trumps". In this case, declarer has clearly erred, and I have no problem ruling against him. But if the TD formed his opinion based only on what *didn't* happen---i.e. declarer didn't say anything about the trump, didn't say he'd draw trumps, etc.---well, now it's not clear that declarer erred, and it's not clear to me that all orders of playing the suit are to be considered equally rational. I guess I just don't know how we're supposed to determine what's rational or not, as the Laws require. To me, the likelihood that claimer has forgotten something should figure into it; a play that would normally be considered "irrational" might be rational depending on how likely it is that claimer might have forgotten something important about the hand. But I've been in the minority lately. The majority opinion seems to be that it's rational to start with the king with KTxx/AQ9xx unless claimer specifically says something, but that it's irrational to play a suit from the bottom up even when one is certain nobody else has any more, and that if declarer mentions that a side suit may be 4-1 then we must consider it irrational to miscount one's entries. I just don't see a good rational definition of "irrational" here. Maybe we need to find a more objective set of conditions for accepting or rejecting a claim, and kick the word "irrational" out of Laws 69-71. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 10 13:26:34 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA16759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 13:26:34 +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 NAA16754 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 13:26:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.181.1] (helo=davidburn) by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12IjIc-0000bt-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 02:25:42 +0000 Message-ID: <000a01bf736e$24f07b40$01b501d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <001601bf7329$04983300$d7307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 02:25:23 -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 Fearghal wrote: > Declarer's last three cards are J 9 2 of trumps. He is on lead and claims > the last three tricks. > However there is one trump outstanding the 6. > > Upon investigation the Director forms the opinion that there is a good > chance Declarer had forgotton about the outstanding trump. > > The Director ruled that it would not be irrational to lead the 2 of trumps > to trick 11 and consequently lose one trick to the defender's lone trump. > > ok? > The universal reaction to this question causes me some concern. Is it "rational" to miscount a suit by one card and "irrational" not to make provision for having done this (by first leading the jack), while it is "irrational" to miscount a suit by more than one card and not to make provision for having done this (by first leading the two)? Suppose the above declarer were in a slam contract, having until now lost no trick, and suppose he knew incontrovertibly that the AKQ of trumps had been played but - to be honest - had no idea about the 10, the 8, and indeed the 76543. From what he says, it is clear that he has to some extent lost the plot. Now, if declarer has lost the plot and knows that he might have done so, his only "rational" play (if we define this as the play he might make if his raison d'etre is to fulfil the contract) is the two. If there are, as he believes, no trumps missing, it does not matter what he plays, and the two is no more or less "rational" than the jack or the nine. If there is one trump missing, the two will blow an overtrick, but this is of far less importance than going down in a cold slam. If there are two trumps missing, the two can still not cost more than an overtrick. But if there are three trumps missing, the two will lose only if RHO can win it with the (equivalent of the) singleton four and promote LHO's ten, while the jack will lose if the suit is 3-0. In short, a declarer who believes correctly that there are no trumps remaining might "rationally" play the two - he has no reason not to. If declarer wishes to cater for the possibility that his belief that there are no trumps missing may be wrong, he might still "rationally" play the two, for this will succeed in the majority of cases where his belief is in fact wrong. Now, I do not say that the universal reaction to the case as presented by Fearghal is the wrong one (the contract probably wasn't a slam, and declarer probably could not afford to lose a trick, or at any rate thought that he could not lose one). Nor do I say that the ACBL's "top-down" guidance is wrong. But I do say that these are very much deeper waters than those who have reacted in what appears to me to be knee-jerk fashion believe. I also say that there are very many cases where "top-down" is in fact not "rational", and that to apply it blindly may lead to serious loss of "equity". Moreover, it is important to realise that we have, rightly or wrongly, chosen to interpret the word "irrational" as having other than its normal English meaning when it comes to ruling on claims, and that we have not yet substituted a definition that can be accurately or (more important) consistently applied. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 10 14:53:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA16933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 14:53:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA16928 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 14:53:26 +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 WAA23294 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 22:53:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id WAA06945 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 22:53:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 22:53:16 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200002100353.WAA06945@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > Sorry to disappoint you. I seriously would give a trick to the > opponents. Adam usually makes good sense, but I think he has gone off the beam here. (Alas, I fear he is not alone, based on BLML discussion of essentially this same subject a month or two ago.) I would not want to play at any club where the ruling was as he suggests. > One of the conditions Fearghal included was "the Director forms the > opinion that there is a GOOD CHANCE declarer had forgotten about the > outstanding trump" [emphasis mine]. Let's stay away from mind reading for judging claims, shall we? We have the hands and (if one was made) the claim statement. That should be enough. Adam's own example proves the point. If claiming is not allowed, and if declarer thinks for a second ("plays rationally"), he will play trumps from the top down. In real life, players do not always play rationally, of course, but that's not what L70C3 demands. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 10 15:09:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA16971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 15:09:42 +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 PAA16966 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 15:09:35 +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 ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 20:09:27 -0800 Message-ID: <020001bf737c$963d4540$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <66.16fc3c6.25d33bfc@aol.com> Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 20:05:46 -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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kojak wrote: > rts48u@ix.netcom.com writes: > > > The claim is good...playing the 2 first is as irrational as not claiming. > > The opponents shouldget a life or go to law school and the director should > > take up umpiring little league baseball (since he is always wrong anyway, > he > > won't mid as much when the parents shout at him). If we want to encourage > > claiming (and discourage 3 boards in 32 minutes) we want to ALWAYS allow > > this claim. > > 'at's what I like. Direct, no shilly shallying. Doesn't ACBL have an > instruction that in claim situations involving only one suit the claimant is > deigned to play the suit from the top in lack of a statement to the contrary? Yes. Page 61 of Duplicate Decisions: "It is presumed that trumps are played from the top down." However, if he has AKQJ2 of trumps in hand, with one trump outstanding, and ruffs a card played from dummy, he must ruff with the 2 if the TD feels there is a possibility that declarer was unaware of the outstanding trump.. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 10 15:31:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA17033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 15:31:57 +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 PAA17028 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 15:31:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivegm9.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.201]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA24199 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 23:31:41 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000209173046.0122cb08@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 17:30:46 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: RE: Good Sportsmanship In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2F8@fdwag002s.fd.agro.n l> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thanks to all who responded. Obviously the question is too easy. I can only offer as an excuse for raising it the comparative dearth (with apologies to Adam W) of comments on this aspect in the relevant threads. In response to several comments, I would like to emphasize that I am not here concerned with the appropriateness of _players_ graciously forgoing advantages provided by Law, so long as such behavior is itself legal. That area is an important one in its own right, and with Ton I eagerly await the results of the Bridge World's survey on those issues. My concern in this thread is strictly with the propriety of TD's and/or AC's suggesting such remedies, when they judge that the legal requirements for action on their own part are lacking. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 10 18:29:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA17268 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 18:29:08 +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 SAA17263 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 18:28:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from isdn.net.il (pt120-72.nas.bezeqint.net) by mail.bezeqint.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.07.30.00.05.p8) with ESMTP id <0FPP00IGIE3E5C@mail.bezeqint.net> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 09:28:27 +0200 (IST) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 09:28:13 +0200 From: Zvi Shilon Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <38A2688D.2E171E94@isdn.net.il> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en-US,en,Hebrew References: <008c01bf7341$00750240$6184d9ce@oemcomputer> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I tend to agree. I think this claim should always be allowed. One of my pet peeves in bridge is players who try to get something for nothing. zvika Modiin Craig Senior wrote: > The claim is good...playing the 2 first is as irrational as not claiming. > The opponents shouldget a life or go to law school and the director should > take up umpiring little league baseball (since he is always wrong anyway, he > won't mid as much when the parents shout at him). If we want to encourage > claiming (and discourage 3 boards in 32 minutes) we want to ALWAYS allow > this claim. > > -- > Craig > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Beneschan > > > >> Declarer's last three cards are J 9 2 of trumps. He is on lead and > claims > >> the last three tricks. > >> However there is one trump outstanding the 6. > >> > >> Upon investigation the Director forms the opinion that there is a good > >> chance Declarer had forgotton about the outstanding trump. > >> > >> The Director ruled that it would not be irrational to lead the 2 of > trumps > >> to trick 11 and consequently lose one trick to the defender's lone trump. > >> > >> ok? > > > >Yes. I almost said the opposite, but when I started thinking about it > >a bit, I found that the question of whether leading the 2 is > >irrational isn't an easy one to answer. The reason is that when > >declarers have nothing but trumps in one hand and they firmly believe > >there are no outstanding trumps, they *never* play it out, unless they > >just got introduced to the game the day before. OK, that's a bit > >strong, but the point is that we can't determine what is "careless" or > >"irrational" by judging what another declarer in the same situation > >would do, because the other declarer would also claim, probably 100% > >of the time. > > > >So suppose there's some club somewhere where they've outlawed > >claiming. Our declarer, whose last three cards are J92 of trumps, > >says "OK, I have all the remaining trumps", and suddenly a large club > >owner is standing behind him saying "You are not allowed to claim in > >this club!!!" Declarer says "Fine, whatever, I'll play it out." > > #### (He really should say "Please refund my entry fee then, since this is > not a bridge game and you accepted my money under false pretenses!") > > >Well, he thinks there's no point to this, he has the rest of the > >trumps, so he's going to pull a card at random out of his hand and > >play it. And that random card could be the 2. Under these > >circumstances, no play is more irrational then any other (in > >declarer's point of view, the only irrational thing is the club > >owner). So I think that the TD in the original example is correct, > >and the 2 is not an irrational play. > > > > -- Adam > > #### I hope your tongue was really lodged in your cheek throughout this > shaggy dog exercise in rationality Adam. :-) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 10 18:49:01 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA17298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 18:49:01 +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 SAA17293 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 18:48:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from isdn.net.il (pt120-72.nas.bezeqint.net) by mail.bezeqint.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.07.30.00.05.p8) with ESMTP id <0FPP000WPF0T0F@mail.bezeqint.net> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 09:48:30 +0200 (IST) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 09:48:47 +0200 From: Zvi Shilon Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <38A26D5F.F8699794@isdn.net.il> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en-US,en,Hebrew References: <001601bf7329$04983300$d7307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> <000a01bf736e$24f07b40$01b501d5@davidburn> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "I also say that there are very many cases where "top-down" is in fact not "rational", and that to apply it blindly may lead to serious loss of "equity". (From David Burn-below) When "top-down" is in fact not "rational", declarer has not forgotten a trump, and will not claim without a more detailed statement, if indeed he will claim. zvika Modiin David Burn wrote: > Fearghal wrote: > > > Declarer's last three cards are J 9 2 of trumps. He is on lead and > claims > > the last three tricks. > > However there is one trump outstanding the 6. > > > > Upon investigation the Director forms the opinion that there is a > good > > chance Declarer had forgotton about the outstanding trump. > > > > The Director ruled that it would not be irrational to lead the 2 of > trumps > > to trick 11 and consequently lose one trick to the defender's lone > trump. > > > > ok? > > > > The universal reaction to this question causes me some concern. Is it > "rational" to miscount a suit by one card and "irrational" not to make > provision for having done this (by first leading the jack), while it > is "irrational" to miscount a suit by more than one card and not to > make provision for having done this (by first leading the two)? > > Suppose the above declarer were in a slam contract, having until now > lost no trick, and suppose he knew incontrovertibly that the AKQ of > trumps had been played but - to be honest - had no idea about the 10, > the 8, and indeed the 76543. From what he says, it is clear that he > has to some extent lost the plot. Now, if declarer has lost the plot > and knows that he might have done so, his only "rational" play (if we > define this as the play he might make if his raison d'etre is to > fulfil the contract) is the two. If there are, as he believes, no > trumps missing, it does not matter what he plays, and the two is no > more or less "rational" than the jack or the nine. If there is one > trump missing, the two will blow an overtrick, but this is of far less > importance than going down in a cold slam. If there are two trumps > missing, the two can still not cost more than an overtrick. But if > there are three trumps missing, the two will lose only if RHO can win > it with the (equivalent of the) singleton four and promote LHO's ten, > while the jack will lose if the suit is 3-0. > > In short, a declarer who believes correctly that there are no trumps > remaining might "rationally" play the two - he has no reason not to. > If declarer wishes to cater for the possibility that his belief that > there are no trumps missing may be wrong, he might still "rationally" > play the two, for this will succeed in the majority of cases where his > belief is in fact wrong. > > Now, I do not say that the universal reaction to the case as presented > by Fearghal is the wrong one (the contract probably wasn't a slam, and > declarer probably could not afford to lose a trick, or at any rate > thought that he could not lose one). Nor do I say that the ACBL's > "top-down" guidance is wrong. But I do say that these are very much > deeper waters than those who have reacted in what appears to me to be > knee-jerk fashion believe. I also say that there are very many cases > where "top-down" is in fact not "rational", and that to apply it > blindly may lead to serious loss of "equity". Moreover, it is > important to realise that we have, rightly or wrongly, chosen to > interpret the word "irrational" as having other than its normal > English meaning when it comes to ruling on claims, and that we have > not yet substituted a definition that can be accurately or (more > important) consistently applied. > > David Burn > London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 10 19:41:40 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA17368 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 19:41:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA17361 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 19:41:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA14565 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 09:41:07 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Feb 10 09:41:07 2000 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JLQKT2Y7XE00AYCJ@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 09:40:05 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <1P58Y5NG>; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 09:39:57 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 09:40:02 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Law 70C3 in action To: "'Adam Beneschan'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B550@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I combine this specific problem with the discussion about can not be lost by 'normal play'. Sometimes things get much clearer when approaching it from another side. What we want to say is: When a trick can only be lost by irrational play claimer is entitled to win the trick. In the laws the opposite of normal is irrational. As far as I remember we discussed the J92 case before and concluded that playing the 2 can be considered to be irrational. Let us keep it that way and set a standard. Declarer gets 3 tricks. Yes I know: next question will be what to do with 10 8 and the 9 bare outside. Who plays the 8? Two tricks. Still my personal opinion of course. (as you all understand, not needing a reaction from Grattan on that, this is my personal opinion. If Grattan remembers a similar or contrary statement from the LC I invite him to expose it) ton > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Adam Beneschan [mailto:adam@irvine.com] > Verzonden: woensdag 9 februari 2000 20:58 > Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > CC: adam@irvine.com > Onderwerp: Re: Law 70C3 in action > > > > > Declarer's last three cards are J 9 2 of trumps. He is on > lead and claims > > the last three tricks. > > However there is one trump outstanding the 6. > > > > Upon investigation the Director forms the opinion that > there is a good > > chance Declarer had forgotton about the outstanding trump. > > > > The Director ruled that it would not be irrational to lead > the 2 of trumps > > to trick 11 and consequently lose one trick to the > defender's lone trump. > > > > ok? > > Yes. I almost said the opposite, but when I started thinking about it > a bit, I found that the question of whether leading the 2 is > irrational isn't an easy one to answer. The reason is that when > declarers have nothing but trumps in one hand and they firmly believe > there are no outstanding trumps, they *never* play it out, unless they > just got introduced to the game the day before. OK, that's a bit > strong, but the point is that we can't determine what is "careless" or > "irrational" by judging what another declarer in the same situation > would do, because the other declarer would also claim, probably 100% > of the time. > > So suppose there's some club somewhere where they've outlawed > claiming. Our declarer, whose last three cards are J92 of trumps, > says "OK, I have all the remaining trumps", and suddenly a large club > owner is standing behind him saying "You are not allowed to claim in > this club!!!" Declarer says "Fine, whatever, I'll play it out." > Well, he thinks there's no point to this, he has the rest of the > trumps, so he's going to pull a card at random out of his hand and > play it. And that random card could be the 2. Under these > circumstances, no play is more irrational then any other (in > declarer's point of view, the only irrational thing is the club > owner). So I think that the TD in the original example is correct, > and the 2 is not an irrational play. > > -- Adam > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 10 20:59:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA17482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 20:59:35 +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 UAA17477 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 20:59:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from p5bs13a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.93.92] helo=pacific) by cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12IqMh-0006Ej-00; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 01:58:24 -0800 Message-ID: <000a01bf73ad$144b9f60$5c5d93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" Cc: "Anna Gudge" Subject: Fw: FW: warning Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 09:52:45 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: gester@globalnet.co.uk Cc: cristina.hornborg@F-Secure.com ; samples@F-Secure.com Date: 10 February 2000 09:44 Subject: Re: FW: warning > >Hello, > >> > Emergency - Very Urgent >> > Subject: look it over..!!!!! >> > PASS THIS ON TO ANYONE YOU HAVE AN E-MAIL ADDRESS FOR. >> > >> > If you receive an email titled "It Takes Guts to Say Jesus" DO NOT >> > OPEN IT. It will erase everything on your hard drive. This > >This is a known hoax. We have it listed on our hoax information pages: > >http://www.europe.f-secure.com/hoaxes/hjesus.htm > >Regards, > >_________________________________________________________________ > ____________ > \ ______// Alexey Podrezov - Alexey.Podrezov@F-Secure.com > \ \\____ Anti-Virus Research and Development Team > \ __// F-Secure Corp., PL 24, FIN-02231 Espoo, Finland > \ \\ Tel: +358 9 859 900, direct: +358 9 8599 0602 > \ // Fax: +358 9 8599 0599, direct: +358 9 8599 0802 > \/ WEB: http://www.Europe.F-Secure.com/ >_________________________________________________________________ > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 10 21:17:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA17531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 21:17:49 +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 VAA17526 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 21:17:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-14-213.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.14.213]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA12025 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 11:17:31 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38A17BB8.557399FF@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 15:37:44 +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: Beveren References: <5YUPalACgFo4EwOh@probst.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > In article <389FF3A9.5BA6603C@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael > writes > > > >Is dummy permitted to translate the AI to declarer ? > > I would think not, as anything not permitted is precluded (in > principle). > Where is that principle written ? We've had that discussion before. > Dummy of course can call the TD at the end of the hand as he believes > there is an irregularity. 42B3. > I don't believe there is an irregularity. Certainly in the actual case there was no question of UI between defenders, or of MI to declarer. > The TD might then be able to use 84E to adjust the score as if the > foreigner had heard the comment. The point being that " ... if there is > even a reasonable possibility that the NOs were damaged ... " would kick > in. > I find that rather strange. Either a piece of information is AnOI (Authorised but not obligatory information), in which case declarer cannot claim redress for not having received it. Example : a defender not hesitating with an honour that could cover the card that is played played. Or something is OI (obligatory) Information, in which case it must be told to opponent. Surely the mere translation by some bystander (including dummy) must then be allowed ? Consider some other happening of monday : Maxine asked about the leads, but the defenders were very poor at English. Surely, even as Dummy, I was allowed to translate ? > > > >Do understand that per regulation, three people are speaking > >the official language of the tournament, so the fourth > >cannot claim anything. > > It's damned hard to follow a language where every third letter is a "j" > :))) > Flemish has no more J's than English has Y's. And Flemish has far less Y's than English has J's. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 10 22:36:15 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA17772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 22:36:15 +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 WAA17764 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 22:35:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-2-127.access.net.il [213.8.2.127] (may be forged)) by loger.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA19327; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 13:33:22 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <38A2A270.4E4561EC@zahav.net.il> Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 13:35:13 +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 Burn CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action References: <001601bf7329$04983300$d7307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> <000a01bf736e$24f07b40$01b501d5@davidburn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Sir I am very upset reading your answer bellow. It is the first time when I feel that there is no way to argue , it can be just a very safe way to bury this game . If all of us lost the so called "common sense" and need laws and procedures for every "mouth open" , ...... the Apocalypse is here and now . I know that this is a general trend our days to make laws (regular life laws) for every thing -> but any reasonable (or rational ?? if we can still count this property ??) person , with a minimal knowledge of history , can recognize the way to the lawyers' dictatorship . Any dictatorship produces many victims and "dirty situations" and after any dictatorship comes a chaos period.... I think that all of us should pray and propagate the need for a large territory of HUMAN behavior (and making mistakes is a human qualification - both players and Tds and ACs )and really publish my Law 99 - "TD must use his brains , when didn't find any support in all others Laws". Respectfully Dany David Burn wrote: > > Fearghal wrote: > > > Declarer's last three cards are J 9 2 of trumps. He is on lead and > claims > > the last three tricks. > > However there is one trump outstanding the 6. > > > > Upon investigation the Director forms the opinion that there is a > good > > chance Declarer had forgotton about the outstanding trump. > > > > The Director ruled that it would not be irrational to lead the 2 of > trumps > > to trick 11 and consequently lose one trick to the defender's lone > trump. > > > > ok? > > > > The universal reaction to this question causes me some concern. Is it > "rational" to miscount a suit by one card and "irrational" not to make > provision for having done this (by first leading the jack), while it > is "irrational" to miscount a suit by more than one card and not to > make provision for having done this (by first leading the two)? > > Suppose the above declarer were in a slam contract, having until now > lost no trick, and suppose he knew incontrovertibly that the AKQ of > trumps had been played but - to be honest - had no idea about the 10, > the 8, and indeed the 76543. From what he says, it is clear that he > has to some extent lost the plot. Now, if declarer has lost the plot > and knows that he might have done so, his only "rational" play (if we > define this as the play he might make if his raison d'etre is to > fulfil the contract) is the two. If there are, as he believes, no > trumps missing, it does not matter what he plays, and the two is no > more or less "rational" than the jack or the nine. If there is one > trump missing, the two will blow an overtrick, but this is of far less > importance than going down in a cold slam. If there are two trumps > missing, the two can still not cost more than an overtrick. But if > there are three trumps missing, the two will lose only if RHO can win > it with the (equivalent of the) singleton four and promote LHO's ten, > while the jack will lose if the suit is 3-0. > > In short, a declarer who believes correctly that there are no trumps > remaining might "rationally" play the two - he has no reason not to. > If declarer wishes to cater for the possibility that his belief that > there are no trumps missing may be wrong, he might still "rationally" > play the two, for this will succeed in the majority of cases where his > belief is in fact wrong. > > Now, I do not say that the universal reaction to the case as presented > by Fearghal is the wrong one (the contract probably wasn't a slam, and > declarer probably could not afford to lose a trick, or at any rate > thought that he could not lose one). Nor do I say that the ACBL's > "top-down" guidance is wrong. But I do say that these are very much > deeper waters than those who have reacted in what appears to me to be > knee-jerk fashion believe. I also say that there are very many cases > where "top-down" is in fact not "rational", and that to apply it > blindly may lead to serious loss of "equity". Moreover, it is > important to realise that we have, rightly or wrongly, chosen to > interpret the word "irrational" as having other than its normal > English meaning when it comes to ruling on claims, and that we have > not yet substituted a definition that can be accurately or (more > important) consistently applied. > > David Burn > London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 10 22:44:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA17797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 22:44:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin.axion.bt.co.uk (marvin.axion.bt.co.uk [132.146.16.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA17792 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 22:44:46 +1100 (EST) From: david.burn@bt.com Received: from cclmsent02.lon.bt.com by marvin (local) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 11:16:13 +0000 Received: by cclmsent02.lon.bt.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.88) id <1RG2VXSS>; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 11:14:31 -0000 Message-ID: To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L70C3 in action Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 11:14:30 -0000 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.88) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Zvi Shilon wrote: [DB] "I also say that there are very many cases where "top-down" is in fact not "rational", and that to apply it blindly may lead to serious loss of "equity". [ZS] When "top-down" is in fact not "rational", declarer has not forgotten a trump, and will not claim without a more detailed statement, if indeed he will claim. The point I was trying to make is this: the "top-down" principle is accepted as "normal" or "rational" play because we know that we are fallible human beings. We know that sometimes, we do not count suits correctly, and we consider it "irrational" not to make what provision we can against our own failings. A wholly rational declarer would not miscount any suits; for such a declarer, the play of the two is completely rational (as is the play of the jack or the nine), while to play the jack "in case I have miscounted" is not rational, since it is contrary to reason. But an otherwise wholly rational player who knew that he sometimes miscounted suits would, in some circumstances, find a "reason" to play the two instead of the jack - in particular, he may be in a position where he is not sure whether or not he has forgotten one or more trumps. To eschew top-down can indeed be perfectly rational play when declarer has forgotten at least one trump. Can you imagine a bridge-playing computer program that contained code to make it play the only outstanding cards in a suit in top-down or some other particular order "in case it had miscounted"? No, neither can I. Why would anyone bother to write such an instruction into the program? It would be an irrational thing to do... David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 10 23:44:09 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA17962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 23:44:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin.axion.bt.co.uk (marvin.axion.bt.co.uk [132.146.16.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA17957 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 23:43:50 +1100 (EST) From: david.burn@bt.com Received: from cbibipnt01.hc.bt.com by marvin (local) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 12:18:14 +0000 Received: by cbibipnt01.hc.bt.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.88) id <1RDRYG01>; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 12:18:09 -0000 Message-ID: To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: L70C3 in action Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 12:18:06 -0000 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.88) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany wrote: Dear Sir I am very upset reading your answer bellow. It is the first time when I feel that there is no way to argue , it can be just a very safe way to bury this game . If all of us lost the so called "common sense" and need laws and procedures for every "mouth open" , ...... the Apocalypse is here and now . I know that this is a general trend our days to make laws (regular life laws) for every thing -> but any reasonable (or rational ?? if we can still count this property ??) person , with a minimal knowledge of history , can recognize the way to the lawyers' dictatorship . Any dictatorship produces many victims and "dirty situations" and after any dictatorship comes a chaos period.... I think that all of us should pray and propagate the need for a large territory of HUMAN behavior (and making mistakes is a human qualification - both players and Tds and ACs )and really publish my Law 99 - "TD must use his brains , when didn't find any support in all others Laws". Respectfully Dany These are noble sentiments, and I have often wished that we inhabited a world in which they could reasonably be appealed to. But we do not, and they cannot. What is it, in truth, that causes the difficulties we discuss on this mailing list? It is not those Laws which are clear - even though those Laws are in a great many cases far less equitable than those relating to contested claims. It is those Laws which are not clear. Because they are not clear, we do not know how to apply them. There are those who would consider it ridiculous, unjust, even downright un-American to give a trick to someone with a six because he's playing against someone who has a seven and a five but can't count. Those people have no problem with the notion that when a player commits an error of roughly equal carelessness by failing to follow suit, a trick end up where God did not intend that it should. The laws relating to claims try to achieve equity - the result is that no one has got a clue how to apply them, and they end up adding greatly to the amount of misery in the world, because someone who got his last claim ruling from Dany is going to be very miserable indeed when he gets his next one from me. The laws relating to revokes do not care about equity - they just punish players for being careless, regardless of the extent to which their carelessness "matters". At least, that used to be the situation - a misguided attempt was recently made to introduce the concepts of equity, truth, justice and the American Way. The result was a complete shambles, of course. Dany wants to apply the Laws with "common sense" and in a way consistent with "HUMAN" behaviour. He does not care what they actually say. The trouble with this approach is that no one knows what common sense is, and one man's humanity may be another's cruel injustice. If you apply the rules in a human fashion, you will make mistakes - errare, as they used to say, humanum est. If you make mistakes, you will do injustice, and you will cause chaos. I want to apply the rules by understanding what they say, and by making sure that everybody else understands what they say also. I do not care what effects they have, provided those effects are the same from here to Popocatapetl. I do not mind in the least if the Laws tell me to give a three-trick bonus to every player whose age is over 60 or whose IQ is under it, in order to make the game "fairer". I do not mind if a defender who says "What about my six of spades?" is taken from hence and hanged by the neck until he is dead, as long as that is what happens to all such defenders. As long as every qualifying player gets that bonus, or is summarily executed, it's just fine with me. What I do care about is that the number of tricks a player makes when he holds J92 of trumps will vary from London to Israel because I think the Laws say one thing, while Dany Haimovici thinks they say another. Dany, if you can write a set of Laws which codify "common sense" and "humanity" in such a way that every director in the world can apply them consistently, then I will be the first to recommend you for the Nobel Peace Prize. Until then, I am afraid you are going to have to live with the fact that it is *not possible* to create a code of Laws that is both playable and wholly in accord with high moral principles. The only way to create a game that is, in truth, "fair" is to ensure that equal injustice is done to all. With respect, and regret that the world is not the place you would like it to be, David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 10 23:57:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA18020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 23:57:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f244.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.149.244]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA18014 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 23:57:23 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 49128 invoked by uid 0); 10 Feb 2000 12:56:45 -0000 Message-ID: <20000210125645.49127.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 203.26.36.20 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 04:56:44 PST X-Originating-IP: [203.26.36.20] From: "David Stevenson" To: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Software Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 12:56:44 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi everyone!!! One thing that has been made clear to me in my wanderings in far-off lands is the ***enormous*** advantage I have in having top-class software. Having struggled and seen others struggle with Outlook Express, Microsoft Exchange, Hotmail, Usa.net and browsers such as Internet Explorer and Netscape, I believe that it is time we made everyone's life easier: please get yourself some decent software. You want software that does the following [all of which Turnpike does]: Defaults to 72 characters across Defaults to text not HTML or other fancies Defaults to a non-proportional fault [eg Courier] Treats a mailing-list as a newsgroup Threads newsgroup and mailing-list messages Adds sigs automatically Gives a choice of sig to add dependent on mailbox or newsgroup Gives a choice of mailboxes Strips sigs off when replying Shows quoted material in red Spell-checks Has good killfiles Can mark threads as read Can mark threads as uninteresting and not to be downloaded Gives Quango and Nanki Poo a separate mailbox Ok, you do not have to take the last one seriously [though if you do not have a method of splitting incoming emails you can be in enormous trouble, as Mike Amos found to his cost]. Furthermore, some of the above are more important than others, and there are some features that Turnpike does not have which better software does. But you will find it difficult to believe how much easier it is for you if you get decent software, and how much easier for your readers. Some of the articles on BLML are difficult enough because of their content: poor appearance because of the software makes them doubly difficult. -- David Stevenson Reply to hotmail: copy to blakjak Liverpool, England, UK bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk bluejak666@hotmail.com david@blakjak.demon.co.uk ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 11 00:14:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA18111 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 00:14:42 +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 AAA18100 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 00:14:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from p6as09a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.105.107] helo=pacific) by cobalt7-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12IlUP-00033v-00; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 04:46:02 +0000 Message-ID: <000b01bf73c8$55c6ab40$6b6993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Good Sportsmanship Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 10:26:45 -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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Michael S. Dennis To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 10 February 2000 04:42 Subject: RE: Good Sportsmanship >. My concern in this >thread is strictly with the propriety of TD's and/or AC's suggesting such >remedies, when they judge that the legal requirements for action on their >own part are lacking. > >Mike Dennis > +=+ I am saddened to find that suspicious minds can discover implications in a WBF statement that genuinely intends to say that if a player plays by the rules his moral standing must not be attacked. This is apparently because it adds that players may be encouraged to treat their opponents in a generous manner, an attitude which has been adopted in my experience by every level of authority from the bridge club down, and which is not about concessions of rights. The fourth monkey saith: "think no evil". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 11 00:14:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA18107 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 00:14:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f265.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.143]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA18095 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 00:14:30 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 52010 invoked by uid 0); 10 Feb 2000 13:13:52 -0000 Message-ID: <20000210131352.52009.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 203.26.36.20 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 05:13:52 PST X-Originating-IP: [203.26.36.20] From: "David Stevenson" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Australian claim Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 13:13:52 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk AKQJx xxxx 4S by West after North opened 3H Qx Jxx xxx KQJ West leads the HA, then cashes AJx Kxx West leads the HA, then switches to a diamond to South's ace. South gives North a diamond ruff, who then cashes the HK, on which South discards a diamond [I know that ruffing and playing a diamond is superior!!!]. West claims, saying he is drawing trumps and taking his nine tricks. South objects, saying he is ruffing the heart winner away if North leads one next. North is 2=7=1=3 with no CQ: how do you rule? Does it make any difference if North is 2=8=1=2 with no CQ [of course this means South shows out on the first heart, but assume the play is the same otherwise]? -- David Stevenson Reply to hotmail: copy to blakjak Liverpool, England, UK bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk bluejak666@hotmail.com david@blakjak.demon.co.uk ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 11 00:14:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA18106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 00:14:39 +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 AAA18094 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 00:14:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA28586 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 08:13:52 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000210081556.0068bf48@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 08:15:56 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: Good Sportsmanship In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2F8@fdwag002s.fd.agro.n l> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:39 PM 2/9/00 +0100, Kooijman wrote: >> I would like the list's comment on the following proposition: >> No TD or AC >> should ever ask a player to forgo rights or advantages granted to them >> under the Laws. Nor should any official suggest, implicitly >> or otherwise, >> that failure to acquiesce to such extra-legal adjustments be >> regarded as >> unsportsmanlike or inimical to the interests of the game. >> >> Mike Dennis > >I agree, even more on the second statement than on the first. >The Bridge World had a questionaire some months ago with similar issues. I >am anxiously waiting for the results, which probaly will be published within >some months. This sounds reasonable as guidance for directors and ACs at tournaments, but it won't fly at the club level, where the director's "boss" (who may well be the TD with a different hat on) is likely to be an owner/operator whose primary concern is trying to break a profit, who will inevitably prefer that potentially ugly situations be resolved amicably rather than legally. It is sad but true that club-level rulings are often made with more consideration given to who will come back next week even if ruled against than to who is in the right. But it's hard to argue with "I do what I have to do to stay in business." I have an image in my mind of a director who has just been fired for driving half a dozen players out of the club over the last month drowning his troubles as he explains to a bored bartender that his actions were legally correct every time. 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 Feb 11 00:30:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA18174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 00:30:00 +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 AAA18169 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 00:29:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-0-14.access.net.il [213.8.0.14] (may be forged)) by loger.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA07940; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 15:28:04 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <38A2BD50.2798FC66@zahav.net.il> Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 15:29:53 +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" , vitold Brushtounov CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: MU at L70C3 References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1DD@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <389F50F6.6FAC2D3E@elnet.msk.ru> <009e01bf7294$bb7e3500$16991e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I agree that a translation's wording can be better than the original . The real question is "Does it reflect accurate the author's aims?" . I believe - and act accordingly - that no ultra-super-extra accurate translation of "any" , in this context , can help the lack of the people's brains (Lawyers scrambled koziolnoi players and Paskoiniakii TDs..). VITOLD - please try to translate people my hidden ideas above in a nicer language..... Anyway , I still hope that the next release of the Holy Laws Book will be as clear cut as possible in the most concise size ; and there will be the commentaries (updated of course) which will explain some complicated situations , where there is a need for examples and/or more detailed discussions. Dany "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > Vitold wrote; > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > > Hi all:) > > Sorry - but we (who finished translation the Laws in to Russian) have > another problem: > > > > "LAW 70 - CONTESTED CLAIMS > > C. There Is an Outstanding Trump > > When a trump remains in one of the opponents' hands, the Director shall > award a trick or tricks to the opponents if: > > 3. Could Lose a Trick to the Trump > > a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal play." > > > > And I was taught that "any" may have different meanings: > > - in interrogative, negative and conditional expressions it means > something like "at least one among another similar things" (i.e. it > describes ONE thing from the multitude), > > - in affirmative expressions it means something like "all similar things" > (i.e. it describes the multitude as the whole. > > > > And what does the L70C3 mean?:) I had read E.Kaplan "Appeal Committee" so > I know the problem. But this text describes another position: the trick will > be lost by claimer if EVERY normal plays could provide to its lost... > > > The problem is with using ambiguous words (e.g., "any," "or," "either") that > can have different meanings depending on context. It often happens that > their meaning is NOT clear to some readers, even though the writer thought > it would be. It is easy enough to avoid this problem. > > Attention Dany, hear is an example of how a translator can do better than > the original. > > L703C > > English - a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal play > > French - qu'une levée aurait pu être perdue à cause de cet atout par > n'importe quel jeu normal > > "n'importe quel" - *no matter which* normal play. The French conveys the > intent without ambiguity. > > French used to be called (or maybe still is) the "language of diplomacy," > because of its reputation for clarity. > > Vitold, it will often pay to go to the French version of the Laws and see > how the French translator handled the problem of conveying the right intent. > S/he's usually very good at this. > > Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 11 00:51:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA18236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 00:51:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com (imo-d03.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.35]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA18231 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 00:51:45 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id r.18.deb70e (4400); Thu, 10 Feb 2000 08:50:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <18.deb70e.25d41c40@aol.com> Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 08:50:56 EST Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action To: adam@irvine.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 45 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 2/9/00 6:22:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, adam@irvine.com writes: > Maybe we need to find a more objective set of > conditions for accepting or rejecting a claim, and kick the word > "irrational" out of Laws 69-71. > Adam, please read the Law again. There are a series of "ands" involved in applying this Law. You must determine that ALL THREE CONDITIONS exist before you decide to award a trick to the opponents. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 11 01:39:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA18543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 01:39:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA18538 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 01:39:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id PAA03561 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 15:39:12 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Feb 10 15:39:11 2000 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JLQXBHIEQU00AQMR@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 15:38:31 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <1P58ZJX4>; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 15:38:23 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 15:38:28 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Calculator Needed ? (was Re: Wordsmith Needed?) To: "'Herman De Wael'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B555@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > USA had a carry-over of +3, and the true result of the match > was 251-250 in Holland's Favour. > > That would mean, in a competition sence, that USA had a > result of +3-1-3.75 = -1.75, and the Netherlands had > -3+1-1.25 = -3.25. > > Now in a competition, that would look to me like both sides > have lost the match. > But then it would seem that USA would have lost less, so > they should be World Champions ? > > Rather, the calculation seems to have been : > > USA +3-1-3.75+1.25 = -0.50 > NED -3+1-1.25+3.75 = +0.50 > > I think it really is a wordsmith who is needed ! > Before coming with the suggestion that the organization in Bermuda wasn't able to calculate the result of a worldchampionship match it might be better to contact those responsible there, Kojak and myself for example. That would have prevented the exposure of an elementary (in my earlier days I would have said 'stupid') mistake from somebody I invited to coproduce a booklet on these issues. If the USA team has a carry-over of 3 imps the match starts with 3 against 0 in favour of the USA-ladies and not with +3 against -3, which brings a difference of 6 imps as almost everybody will discover after some thinking. So the results were: 3 + 250 - 3.75 and 251 - 1.25. Yes 'my' ladies won. No wordsmith, no calculator, elementary school. ton From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 11 02:14:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA18119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 00:14:57 +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 AAA18113 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 00:14:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from p6as09a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.105.107] helo=pacific) by cobalt7-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12IlUU-00033v-00; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 04:46:06 +0000 Message-ID: <000c01bf73c8$58755080$6b6993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Adam Beneschan'" , Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 10:33:41 -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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: 'Adam Beneschan' ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 10 February 2000 09:05 Subject: RE: Law 70C3 in action > >As far as I remember we discussed the J92 case before and concluded that >playing the 2 can be considered to be irrational. Let us keep it that way >and set a standard. Declarer gets 3 tricks. Yes I know: next question will >be what to do with 10 8 and the 9 bare outside. Who plays the 8? Two tricks. >Still my personal opinion of course. > >(as you all understand, not needing a reaction from Grattan on that, this is >my personal opinion. If Grattan remembers a similar or contrary statement >from the LC I invite him to expose it) > >ton +=+ No. My belief is that we have been trying to lead people into the view that play should be deemed to be from the top down in running a suit unless otherwise specified. Somewhere in my papers I have a note to bring this forward in committee, but without priority. It does seem the right way to go, but of course as a matter of logic once a player thinks all cards of a suit are equal there is nothing *irrational* in playing any one of them (so if an NCBO does take a contrary view - and since there is no formal ruling on the point they are free to make their own decisions - I do not think we have a basis for a challenge). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 11 02:38:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA18871 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 02:38:26 +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 CAA18865 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 02:38:19 +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 HAA10769; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 07:38:14 -0800 Message-Id: <200002101538.HAA10769@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 10 Feb 2000 08:50:56 PST." <18.deb70e.25d41c40@aol.com> Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 07:38:12 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > In a message dated 2/9/00 6:22:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, adam@irvine.com > writes: > > > Maybe we need to find a more objective set of > > conditions for accepting or rejecting a claim, and kick the word > > "irrational" out of Laws 69-71. > > > Adam, please read the Law again. There are a series of "ands" involved in > applying this Law. You must determine that ALL THREE CONDITIONS exist before > you decide to award a trick to the opponents. > Kojak In the problem as Fearghal stated it, it is indisputable that the conditions of 70C1 and 70C2 are already met. So this is an argument solely about 70C3, whose application depends on us determining what is "irrational". What makes you think that I've forgotten the Laws here? I'm confused. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 11 02:39:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA18879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 02:39:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA18874 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 02:39:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from meteo.fr (rubis.meteo.fr [137.129.5.28]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA17296 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 15:38:15 GMT Message-ID: <38A2DB72.AD9C85E9@meteo.fr> Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 16:38:26 +0100 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Calculator Needed ? (was Re: Wordsmith Needed?) References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B555@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Kooijman, A." a écrit : > > > > > USA had a carry-over of +3, and the true result of the match > > was 251-250 in Holland's Favour. > > > > That would mean, in a competition sence, that USA had a > > result of +3-1-3.75 = -1.75, and the Netherlands had > > -3+1-1.25 = -3.25. > > > > Now in a competition, that would look to me like both sides > > have lost the match. > > But then it would seem that USA would have lost less, so > > they should be World Champions ? > > > > Rather, the calculation seems to have been : > > > > USA +3-1-3.75+1.25 = -0.50 > > NED -3+1-1.25+3.75 = +0.50 > > > > I think it really is a wordsmith who is needed ! > > > > Before coming with the suggestion that the organization in Bermuda wasn't > able to calculate the result of a worldchampionship match it might be better > to contact those responsible there, Kojak and myself for example. That would > have prevented the exposure of an elementary (in my earlier days I would > have said 'stupid') mistake from somebody I invited to coproduce a booklet > on these issues. > > If the USA team has a carry-over of 3 imps the match starts with 3 against 0 > in favour of the USA-ladies and not with +3 against -3, which brings a > difference of 6 imps as almost everybody will discover after some thinking. > So the results were: > > 3 + 250 - 3.75 and 251 - 1.25. Yes 'my' ladies won. > > No wordsmith, no calculator, elementary school. > I think this was not the calculation problem spotted by HDW. the problem was not the mixing of the 0-3 carry-over with the 251-250 score, but the mixing of the 251-253 total score with the 1.25-3.75 penalty. Fortunately, the calculation was adequately described in the regulations (using different ways for a RR match or a KO match) and Ton's girls can sleep peacefully with their fiercely earned gold medals. JP Rocafort > ton -- ___________________________________________________ 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 Feb 11 02:51:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA18932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 02:51:43 +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 CAA18927 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 02:51:36 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id r.1c.c78b51 (3934); Thu, 10 Feb 2000 10:50:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <1c.c78b51.25d43858@aol.com> Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 10:50:48 EST Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action To: adam@irvine.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 45 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 2/10/00 10:40:23 AM Eastern Standard Time, adam@irvine.com writes: > What makes you think that I've forgotten the Laws here? > I'm confused. > Sorry if I've confused you. I've been reading a bunch of postings on this and find an underlying thread that since he forgot that there was a trump out he should/must/ought to lose it. It was probably not your posting that homed in on the first parts for justification for giving a trick. The ACBL has simplified this situation by publishing an interpretation that when it pertains solely to an unstated line of play of one suit, then the claimant is deemed to play from the top down. What could be simpler, clearer, or more consistent when all of ACBL does it that way? Again, sorry if I used your posting to reply to those who "feel" that having made a mistake in not simply stating that I'll draw the last trump, or forgetting that there is one out, we have therefore enough evidence that we should give away a trick. I understand your point about the word "irrational." being hard to define in this instance, and that's why aCBL did what they did. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 11 03:03:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA18983 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 03:03:28 +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 DAA18978 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 03:03:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from default ([12.75.43.92]) by mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with SMTP id <20000210160233.RBXG2478@default>; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 16:02:33 +0000 Message-ID: <00d801bf73e0$2fd4b180$394e4b0c@default> From: "Richard F Beye" To: "BLML" Cc: References: <200002101538.HAA10769@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 10:02:05 -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 Beneschan > I'm confused. > > -- Adam Without question! From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 11 03:49:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA18264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 01:04:24 +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 BAA18258 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 01:04:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA04165 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 09:03:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000210090527.006fe4d4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 09:05:27 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action In-Reply-To: <000a01bf736e$24f07b40$01b501d5@davidburn> References: <001601bf7329$04983300$d7307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:25 AM 2/10/00 -0000, David wrote: >Fearghal wrote: > >> Declarer's last three cards are J 9 2 of trumps. He is on lead and >claims >> the last three tricks. >> However there is one trump outstanding the 6. >> >> Upon investigation the Director forms the opinion that there is a >good >> chance Declarer had forgotton about the outstanding trump. >> >> The Director ruled that it would not be irrational to lead the 2 of >trumps >> to trick 11 and consequently lose one trick to the defender's lone >trump. > >The universal reaction to this question causes me some concern. Is it >"rational" to miscount a suit by one card and "irrational" not to make >provision for having done this (by first leading the jack), while it >is "irrational" to miscount a suit by more than one card and not to >make provision for having done this (by first leading the two)? > >Suppose the above declarer were in a slam contract, having until now >lost no trick, and suppose he knew incontrovertibly that the AKQ of >trumps had been played but - to be honest - had no idea about the 10, >the 8, and indeed the 76543. From what he says, it is clear that he >has to some extent lost the plot. Now, if declarer has lost the plot >and knows that he might have done so, his only "rational" play (if we >define this as the play he might make if his raison d'etre is to >fulfil the contract) is the two. If there are, as he believes, no >trumps missing, it does not matter what he plays, and the two is no >more or less "rational" than the jack or the nine. If there is one >trump missing, the two will blow an overtrick, but this is of far less >importance than going down in a cold slam. If there are two trumps >missing, the two can still not cost more than an overtrick. But if >there are three trumps missing, the two will lose only if RHO can win >it with the (equivalent of the) singleton four and promote LHO's ten, >while the jack will lose if the suit is 3-0. > >In short, a declarer who believes correctly that there are no trumps >remaining might "rationally" play the two - he has no reason not to. >If declarer wishes to cater for the possibility that his belief that >there are no trumps missing may be wrong, he might still "rationally" >play the two, for this will succeed in the majority of cases where his >belief is in fact wrong. Perhaps David has a point, but this example doesn't illustrate it. We are asked to presume that declarer has "lost the plot and knows that he has done so", is capable of working out that there may be an advantage to be gained by starting with the 2, and has claimed. 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 Feb 11 03:49:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA19151 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 03:49:55 +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 DAA19146 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 03:49:48 +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 12Iwmc-0006eH-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 16:49:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 01:41:34 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action In-Reply-To: <001601bf7329$04983300$d7307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <001601bf7329$04983300$d7307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie>, Fearghal O'Boyle writes >Declarer's last three cards are J 9 2 of trumps. He is on lead and claims >the last three tricks. >However there is one trump outstanding the 6. > >Upon investigation the Director forms the opinion that there is a good >chance Declarer had forgotton about the outstanding trump. > >The Director ruled that it would not be irrational to lead the 2 of trumps >to trick 11 and consequently lose one trick to the defender's lone trump. > >ok? If I formed that view I'd rule the same way. So, ok with me. > >Best regards, >Fearghal. > > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 11 03:52:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA19165 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 03:52:49 +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 DAA19160 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 03:52:41 +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 IAA11850; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 08:52:34 -0800 Message-Id: <200002101652.IAA11850@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: L70C3 in action In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 10 Feb 2000 11:14:30 PST." Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 08:52:33 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > Can you imagine a bridge-playing computer program that contained code to > make it play the only outstanding cards in a suit in top-down or some other > particular order "in case it had miscounted"? No, neither can I. Why would > anyone bother to write such an instruction into the program? It would be an > irrational thing to do... Well, here I am picking an argument with the only other person who sees things my way . . . I've been programming now for almost 25 years (although not on bridge-playing programs). I agree that including such an instruction in a bridge-playing program would probably be ridiculous. However, in general, it's not ridiculous to include code in programs to handle cases that you know cannot exist. Experience has taught me that it's often best to write code like this. Suppose that part X of a program has done something to make sure a condition C does not exist. If part Y gets executed later, I might still write code in Y to make sure condition C gets handled, because: (1) I could have made a mistake in writing X; (2) I might have to go in and modify X at a later date, and I may deliberately or accidentally change it so that C might now exist, without remembering the effect this has on Y; (3) someone else may later modify X, and if Y depended on the assumption that C couldn't exist, this other programmer may not be aware of that assumption. This wouldn't apply to a bridge-playing program, because a bridge-playing program that can't count the cards right will fail miserably from the start, so writing extra code to handle this case is sort of like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Off-topic, I know, but I hope it's of interest to someone. None of this applies to the discussion about bridge and claiming. I believe David's argument is correct. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 11 05:28:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA19074 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 03:29:10 +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 DAA19067 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 03:28:59 +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 IAA11475; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 08:28:49 -0800 Message-Id: <200002101628.IAA11475@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 10 Feb 2000 13:35:13 PST." <38A2A270.4E4561EC@zahav.net.il> Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 08:28:49 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany wrote: > Dear Sir > > I am very upset reading your answer bellow. It is the first time when > I feel that there is no way to argue , it can be just a very safe way > to bury this game . If all of us lost the so called "common sense" > and need laws and procedures for every "mouth open" , ...... > the Apocalypse is here and now . > I know that this is a general trend our days to make laws (regular life > laws) for every thing -> but any reasonable (or rational ?? if we can > still count this property ??) person , with a minimal knowledge of > history , can recognize the way to the lawyers' dictatorship . Any > dictatorship produces many victims and "dirty situations" and after > any dictatorship comes a chaos period.... > > I think that all of us should pray and propagate the need for a > large territory of HUMAN behavior (and making mistakes is a human > qualification - both players and Tds and ACs )and really publish my > Law 99 - "TD must use his brains , when didn't find any support in all > others Laws". I'm kind of surprised at some of the reactions to David's and my opinions. We're presumably dealing with someone who has, to use David's excellent phrase, "lost the plot". Why is it so upsetting to suggest that someone who has forgotten what's going on may have to pay a price for their inattention? Personally, if I make a claim with the assurance that there are no outstanding trumps or a certain key card has been played already or the defense has exactly X cards in a suit remaining, and my assurance turns out to be wrong, I've blown it and I figure my mistake is going to cost me. And if it doesn't cost, for whatever reason (such as a favorable lie of the cards), I figure I've dodged a bullet. Why would it be "common sense" to think any differently? And why would it be common sense to encourage people to claim carelessly (i.e. without making sure you everything you need to know about the concealed hands)? I agree that Bridge Lawyers who try to extract undeserved tricks from their opponents by narrow technical application of the Laws are helping bury the game. But those who try to argue that they should be protected from having to pay for their mistakes are responsible for at least one nail in the coffin. (P.S. I want to reiterate that I'm talking about cases where there's a "good chance" that someone forgot, such as if declarer had said "There's no more trumps out." If declarer had simply said "I have the rest", however, I believe the case would be different, and now I *would* consider an opponent who tried to score their trump to be an obnoxious Bridge Lawyer.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 11 05:29:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA19513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 05:29:36 +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 FAA19507 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 05:29:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.177] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12IyL6-0006uA-00; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 18:29:16 +0000 Message-ID: <000b01bf73f4$f2590d00$b15408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Other Committees post-Bermuda Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 17:44:04 -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; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 05:29:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.177] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12IyL4-0006uA-00; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 18:29:14 +0000 Message-ID: <000a01bf73f4$f11a2460$b15408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: WBFLC from Bermuda to Maastricht Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 17:17:03 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 05:35:42 +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 KAA13448; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 10:35:37 -0800 Message-Id: <200002101835.KAA13448@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Australian claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 10 Feb 2000 13:13:52 PST." <20000210131352.52009.qmail@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 10:35:37 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > AKQJx xxxx 4S by West after North opened 3H > Qx Jxx > xxx KQJ West leads the HA, then cashes > AJx Kxx > > [North] leads the HA, then switches to a diamond to South's ace. > South gives North a diamond ruff, who then cashes the HK, on which > South discards a diamond [I know that ruffing and playing a diamond > is superior!!!]. > > West claims, saying he is drawing trumps and taking his nine tricks. > > South objects, saying he is ruffing the heart winner away if North leads > one next. > > North is 2=7=1=3 with no CQ: how do you rule? > > Does it make any difference if North is 2=8=1=2 with no CQ [of course this > means South shows out on the first heart, but assume the play is the same > otherwise]? In the claim arguments I've been involved in lately, the principles I seem to be adhering to are that (1) for players of a certain amount of experience, we shouldn't assume that players will carelessly do something stupid (like miscounting or pulling the wrong card or missing an obvious safety play) unless there's positive evidence that they were going to do so; and (2) if a player *has* claimed and it's clear that they've forgotten something important, we should tend to rule against them, unless things will inevitably fall into place so well that even my lovely wife would be unable to go wrong. West has, for the purposes of applying the Laws, not stated a line of play. His statement was "draw trumps and take my 9 tricks", but one of the tricks he claimed is not a trick. So if there's any "normal" line that includes drawing trumps first and that, subsequent to South's ruff, would result in fewer than 9 tricks, then I'd give tricks to N-S. I think we can start by assuming West's failing to overruff the heart would be irrational. Then, West draws trumps as per his claim statement; this leads to a complete count of North's distribution (by (1), I won't assume the player will get the count wrong unless he's a novice). Given an accurate count, if North is 2=7=1=3, I don't think there is any normal line other than to take the club finesse. So I accept the claim. But if North is 2=8=1=2, N-S get another trick, since trying to drop a doubleton queen is a probabilistically inferior, but not irrational, play. (It's not totally looney, anyhow. If West thinks the defense was lucky to get off to this start, he might try the anti-percentage play in the hopes of salvaging some matchpoints against those in 4S who don't suffer a diamond ruff but lose a trick to the doubleton CQ anyway.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 11 05:53:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA19587 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 05:53:18 +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 FAA19582 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 05:53:10 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id SAA29154 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 18:52:29 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 18:52 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Australian claim 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: <20000210131352.52009.qmail@hotmail.com> Welcome back David. > AKQJx xxxx 4S by West after North opened 3H > Qx Jxx > xxx KQJ > AJx Kxx > > West leads the HA, then switches to a diamond to South's ace. South > gives North a diamond ruff, who then cashes the HK, on which South > discards a diamond [I know that ruffing and playing a diamond is > superior!!!]. > > West claims, saying he is drawing trumps and taking his nine tricks. > > South objects, saying he is ruffing the heart winner away if North > leads one next. > > North is 2=7=1=3 with no CQ: how do you rule? One off. It seems rational for West to play a couple of extra spades just in case oppos make an interesting discard and for a wily North holding CQxx and suspecting CAJT/AJ9 in West* to try dropping a small club. Why shouldn't a suspicious West, when a double-bluffing North drops a club, then play for the drop on the actual holding. *Obviously if West had AJ9 or East K98 etc then a backward finesse is also rational (albeit inferior). Maybe the TD needs to make a judgement as to whether West is *good* enough to go down like this (although really bad Wests can be assumed to try for the drop because they can't count the hand). > > Does it make any difference if North is 2=8=1=2 with no CQ [of course > this means South shows out on the first heart, but assume the play is > the same otherwise]? One off without even thinking about it. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 11 06:05:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA19415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 04:46:12 +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 EAA19401 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 04:46:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Ixev-000AZd-0X for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 17:45:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 17:24:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action In-Reply-To: <66.16fc3c6.25d33bfc@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <66.16fc3c6.25d33bfc@aol.com>, Schoderb@aol.com writes >In a message dated 2/9/00 4:04:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, >rts48u@ix.netcom.com writes: > >> The claim is good...playing the 2 first is as irrational as not claiming. >> The opponents shouldget a life or go to law school and the director should >> take up umpiring little league baseball (since he is always wrong anyway, >he >> won't mid as much when the parents shout at him). If we want to encourage >> claiming (and discourage 3 boards in 32 minutes) we want to ALWAYS allow >> this claim. > >'at's what I like. Direct, no shilly shallying. Doesn't ACBL have an >instruction that in claim situations involving only one suit the claimant is >deigned to play the suit from the top in lack of a statement to the contrary? > Kojak If that were the EBU regulation then I'd be delighted, it would lead to arguments about unblocking plays of course, but that's another thread. However in this case (the director forming an opinion) I'm pretty sure the caucus of EBU TDs would rule one trick away. -- 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 Feb 11 06:13:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA19629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 06:13:58 +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 GAA19623 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 06:13:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.177.63] (helo=davidburn) by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12Iz27-00040h-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 19:13:44 +0000 Message-ID: <000701bf73fa$eeca0b20$3fb101d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <001601bf7329$04983300$d7307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> <3.0.1.32.20000210090527.006fe4d4@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 19:13:36 -0000 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric wrote: > Perhaps David has a point, but this example doesn't illustrate it. We are > asked to presume that declarer has "lost the plot and knows that he has > done so", is capable of working out that there may be an advantage to be > gained by starting with the 2, and has claimed. The Laws, and particularly the ACBL policy, explicitly allow for the fact that a claimer may have lost the plot. The assumption is that when the claim is contested, we consider rational lines for declarer based on the actual plot and the fact that he has lost it. In other words, we consider what he might rationally have done had there been no such thing as a claim. We stipulate that it is "rational" for a declarer to play from the top down because although he does not believe that he *has* lost the plot, he would in actual play make allowance for the fact that he might have done - we protect him from himself, so to speak. Now, although in the vast majority of cases our "top-down" principle will protect declarer from himself, there are cases in which it will not. I have tried to show such a case, and to show that therefore it is not always irrational for declarer to play from the bottom up. Hence, it is at any rate possible to consider that declarer will "rationally" lose a trick to the stiff six of trumps. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 11 06:59:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA19755 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 06:59:28 +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 GAA19750 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 06:59:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.23] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12Izk8-000Bhz-00; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 19:59:12 +0000 Message-ID: <000601bf7401$82e68d00$175408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , References: Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 19:56:14 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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, February 10, 2000 1:41 AM Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action > ------------- \x/ ------------ > > >Upon investigation the Director forms the opinion that there is a good > >chance Declarer had forgotton about the outstanding trump. > > > >The Director ruled that it would not be irrational to lead the 2 of trumps > >to trick 11 and consequently lose one trick to the defender's lone trump. > > > >ok? > > If I formed that view I'd rule the same way. So, ok with me. > > +=+ Each Director must be guided by his own NCBO in the matter. Nothing argued on this list can take away the right of the NCBO to instruct its Directors in the absence of a WBF or a Zonal ruling. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 11 07:13:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA19416 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 04:46:14 +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 EAA19400 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 04:46:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Ixev-000AZe-0X for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 17:45:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 17:18:56 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Beveren In-Reply-To: <38A17BB8.557399FF@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <38A17BB8.557399FF@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >> >> In article <389FF3A9.5BA6603C@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael >> writes >> > >> >Is dummy permitted to translate the AI to declarer ? >> >> I would think not, as anything not permitted is precluded (in >> principle). >> > >Where is that principle written ? >We've had that discussion before. I was implying that general discussion. I have no references. > >> Dummy of course can call the TD at the end of the hand as he believes >> there is an irregularity. 42B3. >> I had understood that the joking reference contained an element of UI. That is sufficient to call the TD under 42B3. However if there's no UI I don't think we can call, or indeed seek an adjustment > >I don't believe there is an irregularity. >Certainly in the actual case there was no question of UI >between defenders, or of MI to declarer. > >> The TD might then be able to use 84E to adjust the score as if the >> foreigner had heard the comment. The point being that " ... if there is >> even a reasonable possibility that the NOs were damaged ... " would kick >> in. >> > >I find that rather strange. >Either a piece of information is AnOI (Authorised but not >obligatory information), in which case declarer cannot claim >redress for not having received it. Example : a defender >not hesitating with an honour that could cover the card that >is played played. > >Or something is OI (obligatory) Information, in which case >it must be told to opponent. Surely the mere translation by >some bystander (including dummy) must then be allowed ? > >Consider some other happening of monday : Maxine asked about >the leads, but the defenders were very poor at English. >Surely, even as Dummy, I was allowed to translate ? > clearly Yes. the language barrier must be surmounted in this case. >> > >> >Do understand that per regulation, three people are speaking >> >the official language of the tournament, so the fourth >> >cannot claim anything. >> >> It's damned hard to follow a language where every third letter is a "j" >> :))) >> > >Flemish has no more J's than English has Y's. >And Flemish has far less Y's than English has J's. > > Jes. 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 Feb 11 07:15:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA19417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 04:46:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA19402 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 04:46:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Ixey-0005Ha-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 17:45:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 17:44:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: L70C3 in action In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , david.burn@bt.com writes >Zvi Shilon wrote: > >[DB] >"I also say that there are very many cases >where "top-down" is in fact not "rational", and that to apply it >blindly may lead to serious loss of "equity". > >[ZS] >When "top-down" is in fact not "rational", declarer has not forgotten a >trump, and will not claim without a more detailed statement, if indeed he >will claim. > >The point I was trying to make is this: the "top-down" principle is accepted >as "normal" or "rational" play because we know that we are fallible human >beings. We know that sometimes, we do not count suits correctly, and we >consider it "irrational" not to make what provision we can against our own >failings. A wholly rational declarer would not miscount any suits; for such >a declarer, the play of the two is completely rational (as is the play of >the jack or the nine), while to play the jack "in case I have miscounted" is >not rational, since it is contrary to reason. But an otherwise wholly >rational player who knew that he sometimes miscounted suits would, in some >circumstances, find a "reason" to play the two instead of the jack - in >particular, he may be in a position where he is not sure whether or not he >has forgotten one or more trumps. To eschew top-down can indeed be perfectly >rational play when declarer has forgotten at least one trump. > >Can you imagine a bridge-playing computer program that contained code to >make it play the only outstanding cards in a suit in top-down or some other >particular order "in case it had miscounted"? No, neither can I. Why would >anyone bother to write such an instruction into the program? It would be an >irrational thing to do... Ooh I don't know. I'd rather fancy a "and one for lurkers" subroutine. Anyway having read the grattanesque prose above I presume you award a trick to the NOs. Further I've rerad Dany's pleas for humanity on many occasions and have concluded that all that happens is the players have no idea of what the Laws are unless you are as consistent as possible, and as tough as possible against the OS. At the YC bum claims get ruled against. Everyone in London knows that. At the Acol bum claims get ruled against. Everyone in London knows that. At Finchley bum claims get ruled against. Everyone in London knows that. Nippon Club bum claims get ruled against. All Japanese know that, and would expect it to be so in the rest of London. It is! John > >David Burn >London, England -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 11 07:28:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA19850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 07:28:55 +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 HAA19845 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 07:28:46 +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; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 12:28:37 -0800 Message-ID: <031e01bf7405$5f7c3fa0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <20000210131352.52009.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Australian claim Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 12:26:11 -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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > AKQJx xxxx 4S by West after North opened 3H > Qx Jxx > xxx KQJ West leads the HA, then cashes > AJx Kxx > > West leads the HA, then switches to a diamond to South's ace. South gives > North a diamond ruff, who then cashes the HK, on which South discards a > diamond [I know that ruffing and playing a diamond is superior!!!]. > > West claims, saying he is drawing trumps and taking his nine tricks. > > South objects, saying he is ruffing the heart winner away if North leads > one next. > > North is 2=7=1=3 with no CQ: how do you rule? Down one, permitting the club finesse. With North having a proven distribution that includes three clubs, failure to take the club finesse would be irrational for anyone who can count to 13. Besides, the finesse is not playing one opponent rather than the other for a particular card (generally forbidden by L70E), as there is no alternative successful play that would be based on North having the club queen. The old rule prohibiting a successful finesse after a claim (unless proven by out-show) was changed in the 1987/1990 Laws to permit a finesse that is not playing one opponent rather than the other for a particular card, provided that there is no other rational line of play. If the location of a missing card is a factor, a successful finesse against it cannot be taken, while a losing finesse *must* be taken. This has always been true, at least since 1963. I suppose that if declarer has an absolute (not inferred) count on the hand that shows the suit is 2-2, finessing would be irrational. As TD I would have to be convinced that the claimer really had the 2-2 knowledge in mind when s/he claimed. I have seen this rule misapplied at a fairly high level (knockout final), the TD ruling "no finesse," forcing the claimer (who had no certain count) to drop a queen offside. No one objected when the TD explained that the Laws required this. The ruling was wrong even by the old law, which prohibited a play based on finding an opponent "with or without" a particular card. > Does it make any difference if North is 2=8=1=2 with no CQ [of course this > means South shows out on the first heart, but assume the play is the same > otherwise]? Down two. Since the queen of clubs in the North hand would drop on two rounds of clubs, a finesse would be playing one opponent rather than the other for the queen, which L70E does not permit. I don't believe this inferior play can be called irrational. What the lawmakers had in mind was that the queen might be located by, for instance, North objecting to a claim when holding the doubleton queen. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 11 07:38:31 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA19898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 07:38:31 +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 HAA19890 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 07:38:22 +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, 10 Feb 2000 12:38:13 -0800 Message-ID: <033301bf7406$b6cedfa0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1DD@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <389F50F6.6FAC2D3E@elnet.msk.ru> <009e01bf7294$bb7e3500$16991e18@san.rr.com> <38A2BD50.2798FC66@zahav.net.il> Subject: Re: MU at L70C3 Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 12:37:08 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 Dany Haimovici wrote: I agree that a translation's wording can be better than the original . The real question is "Does it reflect accurate the author's aims?" . I believe - and act accordingly - that no ultra-super-extra accurate translation of "any" , in this context , can help the lack of the people's brains (Lawyers scrambled koziolnoi players and Paskoiniakii TDs..). VITOLD - please try to translate people my hidden ideas above in a nicer language..... Anyway , I still hope that the next release of the Holy Laws Book will be as clear cut as possible in the most concise size ; and there will be the commentaries (updated of course) which will explain some complicated situations , where there is a need for examples and/or more detailed discussions. Dany "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > Attention Dany, hear is an example of how a translator can do better than > the original. > > L703C That's a typo for L70C3. Maybe there will be 703 laws before long. > > English - a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal play > > French - qu'une levée aurait pu être perdue à cause de cet atout par > n'importe quel jeu normal > > "n'importe quel" - *no matter which* normal play. The French conveys the > intent without ambiguity. > I corrected myself later, having confused this with another law (L70E) where "n'importe quel" is correct. Here it is not correct, although the ambiguity of "any" requires that its meaning be inferred from the context. A dictionary won't help. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 11 07:57:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA19986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 07:57:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f180.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.149.180]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA19981 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 07:57:29 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 71342 invoked by uid 0); 10 Feb 2000 20:56:51 -0000 Message-ID: <20000210205651.71341.qmail@hotmail.com> Cc: recipient list not shown: ; Received: from 12.75.45.187 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 12:56:51 PST X-Originating-IP: [12.75.45.187] From: "Angela B" Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 12:56:51 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 11 07:59:20 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA20005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 07:59:20 +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 HAA20000 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 07:59:10 +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 PAA22353 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 15:02:50 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000210145804.007b6c40@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 14:58:04 -0600 To: From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: Good Sportsmanship In-Reply-To: <01c701bf7338$8dbe8760$16991e18@san.rr.com> References: <001401bf731d$f6cdee00$717493c3@pacific> <38A1A2FA.94AC3EF3@meteo.fr> 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 HAA20001 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:59 AM 2/9/2000 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: > >From: "Jean Pierre Rocafort" Grattan Endicott a écrit : > >> +=+ The following is an extract from the >> WBF Code of Practice: >> " 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" >> +=+ Grattan +=+ > > What an hypocritical sentence: we don't criticize you but everybody >will know you are a bad boy. And it implies that to conform to the laws >may happen not to be a generous attitude. > > JP Rocafort > >I can't find anything in the Laws that gives the TD/AC the power to >recommend sportsmanlike actions. "What is not authorized is not permitted," >isn't that the general rule? It is a principle some seem to accept. Since it isn't in my Lawbook, [Thank God!], and I haven't seen an explicit decision of the WBFLC or my own SO commanding it, I will see fit to ignore it. Am I, as TD, prohibited from telling the players jokes, or bringing them coffee? I think that far too _little_ time is spent recommending sportsmanship to the players in virtually all sports. [Indeed, I would even recommend good sportsmanship to you in fighting the Carthaginians. :)] >Rather, I think the Laws imply that a TD/AC should be as neutral as possible >when handling irregularities, avoiding any comment that would indicate a >non-neutral opinion. That seems to be the approach used by arbiters in all I disagree. Obviously, a TD should be neutral in the sense that he does not play favorites, or root for one team to win, or anything like that. But I see no reason why a TD or AC cannot say that they regard an action as unsportsmanlike. >other sports/games. Can anyone imagine a tennis umpire suggesting that a >player give back a windfall point (bad call, recognized tardily)? Players do >that sort of thing sometimes, but not because an umpire suggests it. But I fail to see what would be wrong with it. >72A4 - When these Laws provide the innocent side with an option after an >irregularity committed by an opponent, it is appropriate to select that >action most advantageous. Quite correct. One may, certainly, legally choose such an option. >L81C8 - [The TD has power to] waive penalties for cause, at his discretion, >upon the request of the non-offending side. > >Note "for cause," and that doesn't mean just good sportsmanship. There has >to be a better reason why a waiver would be appropriate. I am straining to think of reasons I would consider better reasons than good sportsmanship. If I am called to a table and a player tells me that good sportsmanship requires a waiver of penalty, and requests it of me, I will most certainly grant it [if I think he's right]. >L84B - If a case is clearly covered by a law that specifies a penalty for >the irregularity, he [the TD] assesses that penalty and sees that it is >paid. > >"....sees that it is paid." That means he does not suggest that someone >waive the penalty. That does not mean that he suggests a waiver, no. Neither does it forbid it. It means that, for example, if a side loses two tricks to a revoke penalty the TD should make sure that the two tricks are actually transferred and not accidentally forgotten. >The reasons why good directors should be tough regarding this matter include >the possibility that a player will waive a penalty for a friend, thereby >allowing the friend to win. Or I might not want to waive a penalty for a >friend, and then he becomes no longer my friend. It is best to follow the >Laws, which were written with this sort of thing in mind. Neither of these cases has anything to do with good sportsmanship. If the lawmakers were especially concerned about this, they should not have allowed waiver of penalties at all, ever. And I can assure you that if your friend is the sort of person who will no longer be your friend if you don't waive a penalty, then showing him L72a4 is not likely to make him think differently. >Marv (Marvin L. French) Respectfully, Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu Important PS: This does not mean that I approve of the two specific ruling that brought this issue up. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 11 08:16:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA20112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 08:16:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com [139.134.5.236]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA20107 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 08:16:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id sa424806 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 07:09:19 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-224-134.tmns.net.au ([139.134.224.134]) by mail7.bigpond.com (Claudes-Disorderly-MailRouter V2.7 15/7889083); 11 Feb 2000 07:09:19 Message-ID: <021a01bf740a$cd24cfe0$23df868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Australian claim Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 08:06:31 +1100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > AKQJx xxxx 4S by West after North opened 3H > Qx Jxx > xxx KQJ > AJx Kxx > >West leads the HA, then switches to a diamond to South's ace. South gives >North a diamond ruff, who then cashes the HK, on which South discards a >diamond [I know that ruffing and playing a diamond is superior!!!]. > >West claims, saying he is drawing trumps and taking his nine tricks. > >South objects, saying he is ruffing the heart winner away if North leads >one next. > >North is 2=7=1=3 with no CQ: how do you rule? > >Does it make any difference if North is 2=8=1=2 with no CQ [of course this >means South shows out on the first heart, but assume the play is the same >otherwise]? I would rule "one off" in both cases. Declarer overruffs the heart, but loses a trick to CQ. His claim was faulty, and there are plenty of rational things he might do, e.g: - play for the drop in the second case - not count out North's shape; declarer is, after all, an Australian. - assume the preempter has CQ due to the way NS discarded, and thus play for the drop or run CJ. - get the clubs wrong after North with 2713 shape discards a club. Peter Gill Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 11 09:07:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA20072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 08:09:25 +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 IAA20066 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 08:09:14 +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 QAA21809 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 16:09:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA07717 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 16:08:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 16:08:59 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200002102108.QAA07717@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L70C3 in action X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: david.burn@bt.com > To eschew top-down can indeed be perfectly > rational play when declarer has forgotten at least one trump. In the context of a claim (or play) for all the tricks? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 11 10:12:02 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA19917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 07:39:47 +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 HAA19912 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 07:39:40 +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 OAA13482 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 14:43:19 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000210143833.007c7100@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 14:38:33 -0600 To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action In-Reply-To: <000701bf73fa$eeca0b20$3fb101d5@davidburn> References: <001601bf7329$04983300$d7307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> <3.0.1.32.20000210090527.006fe4d4@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:13 PM 2/10/2000 -0000, David Burn wrote: >Eric wrote: > >> Perhaps David has a point, but this example doesn't illustrate it. >We are >> asked to presume that declarer has "lost the plot and knows that he >has >> done so", is capable of working out that there may be an advantage >to be >> gained by starting with the 2, and has claimed. > >The Laws, and particularly the ACBL policy, explicitly allow for the >fact that a claimer may have lost the plot. The assumption is that >when the claim is contested, we consider rational lines for declarer >based on the actual plot and the fact that he has lost it. In other >words, we consider what he might rationally have done had there been >no such thing as a claim. We stipulate that it is "rational" for a >declarer to play from the top down because although he does not >believe that he *has* lost the plot, he would in actual play make >allowance for the fact that he might have done - we protect him from >himself, so to speak. Exactly. And I think this is Dany's point about common sense. Suppose, for example, a player claims. It is possible that in playing the hand out he would have lost track of what suit was trumps. And a rational play for a declarer who thinks he might have lost track of the contract strain might be very different from the best line given the actual contract strain. But we do not consider such lines to be 'rational' in adjudicating claims, even though there would be possible situations where they might become rational, unless we have good reason to think that this declarer had, in fact, lost track of the strain. In this case, declarer has lost track of a single spot-card in trumps. Trumps are the only suit remaining in declarer's hand. We have no reason to suspect that declarer has not only lost track of one trump, but has in fact lost track of up to 7 trumps [or even 6, if we generously allow him to remember that there are only 6 total cards in the combined hands of the defenders]. So "is there any possible world in which it would be rational to play the 2 of trumps from Jx2 [I, myself, have now lost track of the other spot :)] with three tricks remaining?" Yes. "Is the actual world one in which it would be rational to play the 2?" No. Of course, I am notoriously generous when evaluating claims--perhaps I am just too rational to be a good director. :) >Now, although in the vast majority of cases our "top-down" principle >will protect declarer from himself, there are cases in which it will Again, this is Dany's point about common sense. If in the vast majority of cases, indeed the absolutely overwhelming majority of cases, 'top down' best protects declarer from himself, then 'top-down' is rational, and not-top-down irrational. {Again, we are only considering cases where it is a matter of the play of a single suit from a single hand.} >not. I have tried to show such a case, and to show that therefore it >is not always irrational for declarer to play from the bottom up. >Hence, it is at any rate possible to consider that declarer will >"rationally" lose a trick to the stiff six of trumps. What you have shown, I think, is there are other situations in which a declarer could rationally lose a trick to the stiff 6. I don't think you have shown that this is one such case. >David Burn >London, England Respectfully, Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 11 10:24:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA20470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 10:24:53 +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 KAA20465 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 10:24:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (vp231-112.worldonline.nl [195.241.231.112]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 670C83833D for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 22:16:20 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <00d301bf740c$394c6240$70e7f1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: Subject: Re: Beveren Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 22:17:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [Herman de Wael wrote:] >>Suppose one foreign player is playing in a tournament where >>she does not speak the language. Her partner does. She is >>declarer. Opponents jokingly say something about the hand. >>This is UI to them, of course, but that is not the problem. >>Also it is AI to declarer, but she does not understand. >> >>Is dummy permitted to translate the AI to declarer ? to which John Probst replied: >I would think not, as anything not permitted is precluded (in >principle). > >Dummy of course can call the TD at the end of the hand as he believes >there is an irregularity. 42B3. > >The TD might then be able to use 84E to adjust the score as if the >foreigner had heard the comment. The point being that " ... if there is >even a reasonable possibility that the NOs were damaged ... " would kick >in. I would like to reopen the discussion on this. I would agree with the statement that TD will adjust the score if the offenders had profited. But I disagree with this statement, which effectively says that if a NO could have used AI but failed to do so because it eluded him, TD can afterwards adjust the score under L84E to take that AI into account. Example 1: one opponent says to the other that he has a singleton, and his partner subsequently lets him a trick in that suit, whereas there was an alternative defence available. Of course, 16A applies, and TD does adjust the score. Example 2: one opponent says to other that he has a singleton, but declarer does not hear or understand this. Declarer takes the best line of play but, unfortunately, this allows his opponent to score a ruff in that suit. Afterwards dummy calls the TD, and says that if declarer would have used the AI that he was unaware of, an inferior line of play would have brought the contract home. The TD, i.m.h.o., should not adjust in this case because the NO's were **not** damaged (I do not want to discuss whether he should present the offenders with a PP). Any comments ? Jac (Jac Fuchs) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 11 10:47:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA20545 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 10:47:15 +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 KAA20540 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 10:47:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from pppsvk (ppp02.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.102]) by hunter2.int.kiev.ua (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA09339 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 01:51:55 +0200 (EET) Message-ID: <001901bf7421$49ea5520$66047bc3@pppsvk> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: References: <200002041644.IAA22723@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: demonstrably- reasonably Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 01:48:08 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all! Sorry again - we (who finished translation the Laws in to Russian) have one more problem. But in this case the intention of my question is rather bridge_ interpretation_ question than English_translation_ question. What kind of difference between "demonstrably" and "reasonably'? Before sending this question to BLML I had reread articles on David Stevenson's lawspage, articles on ACBL homepage and some BLML thread. I know that "not everyone thinks it makes any difference" (from David S, 97). But now, after Lillie, Losanne and Bermuda, maybe we have changed our opinion? Can anybody construct an example which will give one adjustment under Law-87 but other under Law-97? Or the same adjustment but TD/AC-87 and TD/AC-97 must use different bridge arguments? I know that in French Lawbook "demonstrably" is translated as "indiscutablement". French to Russian and Russian to English conformations give me that "demonstrably" is equal to "indisputably". Is it correct? As I have found out the last thread in that question was "A Committee in Los Angeles" >Date: Wednesday, April 28, 1999 6:37 AM >Subject: A Committee in Los Angeles [snip] >Anne Jones wrote: > >> Pass is a bid which may be suggested by the UI. >How? Don't forget these days you have to "demonstrate" this. :-) [snip] Can anybody explain me what must TD do to "demonstrate" that any action is or isn't LA? I am interested in a methodology of "to demonstrate", but not in a particular case "A Committee in Los Angeles". Thank you an advance. Any comments will be very useful for us. Sergey Kapustin From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 11 11:18:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA20602 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 11:18:09 +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 LAA20597 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 11:17:59 +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 QAA20226; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 16:17:52 -0800 Message-Id: <200002110017.QAA20226@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 10 Feb 2000 14:38:33 PST." <3.0.6.32.20000210143833.007c7100@eiu.edu> Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 16:17:54 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > >Now, although in the vast majority of cases our "top-down" principle > >will protect declarer from himself, there are cases in which it will > > Again, this is Dany's point about common sense. If in the vast > majority of cases, indeed the absolutely overwhelming majority of cases, > 'top down' best protects declarer from himself, then 'top-down' is rational, > and not-top-down irrational. {Again, we are only considering cases where > it is a matter of the play of a single suit from a single hand.} Something occurred to me this morning. When declarer is running a suit he believes everyone else is out of, if that suit happens to be in dummy, the "bottom-up" method of running the suit is very common. I'm not sure whether it's more common than running it "top-down", but it might be. The reason is economy of language (another term for "laziness"); it's easier to call for "club, club, club" instead of "top club, top club, top club" or "jack of clubs, nine of clubs, six of clubs" or whatever. If dummy has left the table for whatever reason (to use the restroom or get another beer), and declarer plays the cards himself from the dummy, it's a lot easier to play the low cards first, since that's the one usually on top of the stack. So does this mean that this very common practice is irrational? Or does it mean that our ruling would be altered if the single suit happened to be in dummy? That is, those of you who would not give a trick to the opponents for the bum claim, would you give them a trick if the J92 of trumps happened to be in dummy instead? Just curious. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 11 13:23:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA20835 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 13:23:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA20829 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 13:22:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id VAA00325; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 21:22:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id VAA08049; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 21:22:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 21:22:40 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200002110222.VAA08049@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action Cc: adam@irvine.com X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > When declarer is running a > suit he believes everyone else is out of, if that suit happens to be > in dummy, the "bottom-up" method of running the suit is very common. 1. It is not common where I play (Boston area). 2. How declarers play when they play a hand out is not relevant for judging irrational vs. normal lines. 3. Nothing I see suggests any difference based on whether the suit is in dummy or declarer's hand. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 11 14:20:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA21032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 14:20:08 +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 OAA21026 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 14:20:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from Aspire.eiu.edu (eiuts31.eiu.edu [139.67.16.31]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA29921; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 21:23:40 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000210212551.007aa100@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 21:25:51 -0600 To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action Cc: adam@irvine.com In-Reply-To: <200002110017.QAA20226@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:17 PM 2/10/00 PST, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >Grant Sterling wrote: > >> >Now, although in the vast majority of cases our "top-down" principle >> >will protect declarer from himself, there are cases in which it will >> >> Again, this is Dany's point about common sense. If in the vast >> majority of cases, indeed the absolutely overwhelming majority of cases, >> 'top down' best protects declarer from himself, then 'top-down' is rational, >> and not-top-down irrational. {Again, we are only considering cases where >> it is a matter of the play of a single suit from a single hand.} > >Something occurred to me this morning. When declarer is running a >suit he believes everyone else is out of, if that suit happens to be >in dummy, the "bottom-up" method of running the suit is very common. >I'm not sure whether it's more common than running it "top-down", but >it might be. The reason is economy of language (another term for >"laziness"); it's easier to call for "club, club, club" instead of >"top club, top club, top club" or "jack of clubs, nine of clubs, six >of clubs" or whatever. If dummy has left the table for whatever >reason (to use the restroom or get another beer), and declarer plays >the cards himself from the dummy, it's a lot easier to play the low >cards first, since that's the one usually on top of the stack. > >So does this mean that this very common practice is irrational? Or From the point of view of playing bridge, yes. If a declarer loses a trick some day because he was too lazy to say 'top club', he will no doubt consider himself to have played irrationally. Similarly, when declarer thinks his hand is high he sometimes says "play anything" to dummy. But if, instead of playing it out, he were to claim, and if the claim was flawed, and if declarer got an extra trick from the simple expedient of discarding dummy's suits from the bottom, I will not award an extra trick to the defense on the grounds that declarer, thinking his hand was high, _might have said 'play anything'_ and discarded dummy's cards from the top down. Some not-uncommon expedients are irrational. >does it mean that our ruling would be altered if the single suit >happened to be in dummy? That is, those of you who would not give a >trick to the opponents for the bum claim, would you give them a trick >if the J92 of trumps happened to be in dummy instead? No, I wouldn't. >Just curious. Always happy to satisfy curiousity. :) > -- Adam -Grant From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 11 16:17:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA21543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 16:17:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA21538 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 16:17:43 +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 AAA02545 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 00:17:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id AAA08128 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 00:17:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 00:17:34 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200002110517.AAA08128@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: demonstrably- reasonably X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Sergey Kapustin" > But in this case the intention of my question is rather bridge_ > interpretation_ question than English_translation_ question. > > What kind of difference between "demonstrably" and "reasonably'? The answer isn't clear -- I'm one who thought the change should make no difference. But let me toss out some ideas, and maybe somebody will come along and explain it better. In general, 'reasonably' would refer to a conclusion for which one can state a reason. 'Demonstrably' would refer to a conclusion one can demonstrate. The second is perhaps slightly stronger than the first but not as strong as something like 'provably'. I'd say 'demonstrably' means one could put together a logical argument that would be accepted by nearly any fair-minded person familiar with bridge. Where does 'demonstrably' leave us in bridge terms? Let's consider a hesitation followed by a forcing pass. As we know, the result we want is that there are no restrictions on partner's action -- the hesitation could suggest either doubling or bidding on. A bridge lawyer might argue that the hesitation could "reasonably" suggest good defense, and it could "reasonably" suggest good offense, hence both bidding and doubling are illegal. Well, yes, it's reasonable that partner could have one hand type or the other, but the result is not what we want. Now, with 'demonstrably', the BL cannot come up with a logical argument for one over the other. That is, a fair-minded person would not be convinced. The proposition that (say) double is suggested cannot be "demonstrated," even though it might be "reasonable." Now let's consider a hesitation followed by a penalty double. It usually won't be hard to "demonstrate" that pulling the double is suggested, because the player would have doubled in tempo with sound defense. Perhaps others can do better. I think the change in wording was to clarify the intent, not to change the standards most TD's/AC's (well, the competent ones, anyway) were already applying. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 11 16:43:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA21591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 16:43:07 +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 QAA21586 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 16:43:00 +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, 10 Feb 2000 21:42:56 -0800 Message-ID: <002d01bf7452$c9106b60$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: ACBL LC + C&CC Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 21:42:23 -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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Prompted by Grattan's welcome lists, I asked Gary Blaiss for the current membership of the subject bodies. His answers: The Laws Commission: Allison Cohen (co-chair) Lorz Morse Kearse Kehela Martel (co-chair) Polisner Rodwell Rosenkranz Stern Sutherlin, Peggy Thorpe Wolff Gerard, Ron To correct the 1997 Laws "Promulgating Bodies" page, replace Kaplan, Goldberg, and McGee with Lorz, Ron Gerard, and Morse. Also move Chip Martel up to Co-chair The Competitions and Conventions Committee (advisory body for the BoD) is: Hamman Sutherlin, Peggy Martel Bramley (Chair) Weinstein, Howard Colker Weinstein, Sol Gitelman Gerard, Joan Blaiss Anyone wanting to suggest changes to the Alert Procedure, Convention Charts, or other ACBL regulations, or anything to do with tournament management, should forward their suggestions to the C&C Committee via Gary Blaiss. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 11 17:07:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA21685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 17:07:44 +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 RAA21680 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 17:07:37 +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; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 22:07:34 -0800 Message-ID: <004401bf7456$3a1c35c0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: , "Grant Sterling" References: <001401bf731d$f6cdee00$717493c3@pacific><38A1A2FA.94AC3EF3@meteo.fr> <3.0.6.32.20000210145804.007b6c40@eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Good Sportsmanship Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 22:05:06 -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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: "Grant Sterling" wrote > Marvin French wrote: (snip of disagreements with me that have not changed my mind) >>The reasons why good directors should be tough regarding this matter include >>the possibility that a player will waive a penalty for a friend, thereby >>allowing the friend to win. Or I might not want to waive a penalty for a >>friend, and then he becomes no longer my friend. It is best to follow the >>Laws, which were written with this sort of thing in mind. > Neither of these cases has anything to do with good sportsmanship. If > the lawmakers were especially concerned about this, they should not have > allowed waiver of penalties at all, ever. They were especially concerned, I believe. Requiring that penalties can be waived only "for cause" means that they should hardly ever be waived. Valid causes are such things as a loud noise startling someone into dropping a card, infractions caused by a physical handicap, etc., not that a pretty gal arouses one's sportsmanship inclinations. Practicing sportsmanship is fine, even desirable, in rubber bridge, or in a knockout match when no other team cares what happens. In a matchpoint pair event, however, we can't have some pairs getting penalties waived while others don't. It isn't fair. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 11 17:17:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA21726 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 17:17:50 +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 RAA21720 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 17:17:43 +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 ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 22:17:38 -0800 Message-ID: <005401bf7457$a23321e0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <001601bf7329$04983300$d7307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie><3.0.1.32.20000210090527.006fe4d4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.20000210143833.007c7100@eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 22:14:34 -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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk What jerk of a BL would have the gall to contest this claim? Here is an occasion for good sportsmanship, if the NCBO doesn't specify the assumption of top-down play after a claim. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 11 19:22:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA22011 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 19:22:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA22006 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 19:22:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.28] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12JBKq-0005Zi-00; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 08:21:52 +0000 Message-ID: <001901bf7469$43645460$695608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Cc: References: <200002110017.QAA20226@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 08:22:46 -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 Discussion List Cc: Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 12:17 AM Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action ----------------- \x/ ---------------- > Something occurred to me this morning. When declarer is running a > suit he believes everyone else is out of, if that suit happens to be > in dummy, the "bottom-up" method of running the suit is very common. > I'm not sure whether it's more common than running it "top-down", but > it might be. The reason is economy of language (another term for > "laziness"); it's easier to call for "club, club, club" instead of > "top club, top club, top club" or "jack of clubs, nine of clubs, six > of clubs" or whatever. If dummy has left the table for whatever > reason (to use the restroom or get another beer), and declarer plays > the cards himself from the dummy, it's a lot easier to play the low > cards first, since that's the one usually on top of the stack. > > So does this mean that this very common practice is irrational? Or > does it mean that our ruling would be altered if the single suit > happened to be in dummy? That is, those of you who would not give a > trick to the opponents for the bum claim, would you give them a trick > if the J92 of trumps happened to be in dummy instead? > > Just curious. > > -- Adam +=+ I have not noticed that anyone has considered the question of Law 46B2. There should be a question whether the principle in it extends beyond the point at which a claim is made. This law certainly adds weight to the argument that to play the low card of three 'winning' cards cannot be considered irrational; although it is my view anyway that we have no case to dilute the strength of this word. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 11 20:49:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA22205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 20:49:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA22199 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 20:48:57 +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 EAA06823 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 04:48:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id EAA08268 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 04:48:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 04:48:47 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200002110948.EAA08268@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > (P.S. I want to reiterate that I'm talking about cases where there's a > "good chance" that someone forgot, such as if declarer had said > "There's no more trumps out." If declarer had simply said "I have the > rest", however, I believe the case would be different, and now I > *would* consider an opponent who tried to score their trump to be an > obnoxious Bridge Lawyer.) I cannot believe you wish to rule differently in the two cases. Why should claimer's state of mind have any effect? This is the way to chaos. If claimer's line of play will work -- even for an unexpected reason -- the claim should be allowed. And when considering unstated lines of play, irrational lines (whatever they are) should _never_ be considered. That is true even if you think some claimers would adopt an irrational line, were the hand to be played out. > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ I have not noticed that anyone has considered the > question of Law 46B2. For good reason, it seems to me. I fail to see how card designations during play have anything to do with a claim statement: "play ceases." The rules are different. It was an amusing thought, though. David Burn is sure right about one thing: we need clear, consistent guidelines. The ACBL (!) has taken what seems to be a good first step. Is this the sort of thing that should be addressed worldwide, or should we leave it to NCBO's for now? It seems from BLML that widespread practice in the UK is quite different from that in the ACBL. Is this acceptable? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 11 21:29:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA22318 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 21:29:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA22313 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 21:29:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-193.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.193]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA18382 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 11:29:15 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38A2990D.11C27D1F@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 11:55:09 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action References: <008c01bf7341$00750240$6184d9ce@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > > The claim is good...playing the 2 first is as irrational as not claiming. exactly. [snip] > If we want to encourage > claiming (and discourage 3 boards in 32 minutes) we want to ALWAYS allow > this claim. > exactly. Best argument, really. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 12 00:21:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA22950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 00:21:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin.axion.bt.co.uk (marvin.axion.bt.co.uk [132.146.16.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA22944 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 00:21:41 +1100 (EST) From: david.burn@bt.com Received: from cbibipnt01.hc.bt.com by marvin (local) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 12:26:32 +0000 Received: by cbibipnt01.hc.bt.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.88) id <1RDRYS76>; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 12:25:36 -0000 Message-ID: To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L70C3 in action Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 12:25:34 -0000 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.88) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: Craig Senior wrote: > > The claim is good...playing the 2 first is as irrational as not claiming. exactly. It is not "irrational" not to claim. It is illegal not to claim if you believe you have the rest, but that is not the same thing. If, as has been established, you claim on the basis that none of your remaining cards can be beaten or ruffed, then it is not *ex definitione* irrational to play them starting with the lowest. It has been deemed "irrational" for the purposes of the Laws, but it is important to remember that in doing this, we are using the word "irrational" in a special sense that does not accord with its English meaning. Of course, we do this all the time - it has been established by the WBFLC, for example, that "if the withdrawn call related to a specified suit" does not mean what it says :) > If we want to encourage > claiming (and discourage 3 boards in 32 minutes) we want to ALWAYS allow > this claim. exactly. Not "exactly" at all. If we want to make the game faster, fairer and more pleasant for everybody, we want to allow *this* claim: "I will play these cards from the top, making the rest". It does not protract the game by a nanosecond for declarer to say this as he puts his cards down - in fact, it has the effect of saving time, because the defenders do not have to work out how many tricks declarer might make if he played his cards in some other permutation. But why should we want to allow a claim by a declarer who has broken Law 68C, unless he cannot actually lose a trick by "n'mporte quel" play of the remaining cards? There is no question of "wanting to encourage claiming" - the Laws require players to claim, and rightly so, for a properly worded claim is an excellent way of maintaining the game at a sensible pace. An improperly worded claim, on the other hand, runs a serious risk of creating major disruption (and, at levels where this is a consideration, of ruining the enjoyment of all concerned). If we want to prevent appeals committees from having to convene after every session, if we want to prevent the acrimony and disgruntlement that always accompanies any claim ruling by a Director, then we want to NEVER allow any claim that is not properly worded in accordance with the Laws (including this one). Good claims take no longer than bad claims to make, they take less time to resolve if they happen to be contested, and they should be encouraged. Bad claims should disappear from the face of the earth, and the quickest and most sensible way to achieve that is to disallow them whenever possible. You will tell me that this is not fair. So what? David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 12 00:37:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA23019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 00:37:15 +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 AAA23014 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 00:37:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-7-124.access.net.il [213.8.7.124] (may be forged)) by maggie.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA14793; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 15:37:58 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <38A41083.5D12CF63@zahav.net.il> Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 15:37:07 +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 Discussion List , adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action References: <200002110017.QAA20226@mailhub.irvine.com> <001901bf7469$43645460$695608c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You too ???????? my father Cesare ???? Brutus Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Grattan Endicott '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > "Every person thinks his own intellect perfect, > and his own child handsome." - Sa'Di. > vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Adam Beneschan > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Cc: > Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 12:17 AM > Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action > > ----------------- \x/ ---------------- > > > Something occurred to me this morning. When declarer is running a > > suit he believes everyone else is out of, if that suit happens to be > > in dummy, the "bottom-up" method of running the suit is very common. > > I'm not sure whether it's more common than running it "top-down", but > > it might be. The reason is economy of language (another term for > > "laziness"); it's easier to call for "club, club, club" instead of > > "top club, top club, top club" or "jack of clubs, nine of clubs, six > > of clubs" or whatever. If dummy has left the table for whatever > > reason (to use the restroom or get another beer), and declarer plays > > the cards himself from the dummy, it's a lot easier to play the low > > cards first, since that's the one usually on top of the stack. > > > > So does this mean that this very common practice is irrational? Or > > does it mean that our ruling would be altered if the single suit > > happened to be in dummy? That is, those of you who would not give a > > trick to the opponents for the bum claim, would you give them a trick > > if the J92 of trumps happened to be in dummy instead? > > > > Just curious. > > > > -- Adam > +=+ I have not noticed that anyone has considered the > question of Law 46B2. There should be a question > whether the principle in it extends beyond the point > at which a claim is made. This law certainly adds > weight to the argument that to play the low card > of three 'winning' cards cannot be considered > irrational; although it is my view anyway that we > have no case to dilute the strength of this word. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 12 00:41:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA23049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 00:41:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA23044 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 00:41:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-49.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.49]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA17869 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 14:41:26 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38A3F0E9.105FF1B1@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 12:22:17 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L70C3 in action References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David, you've lost me, david.burn@bt.com wrote: > > > The point I was trying to make is this: the "top-down" principle is accepted > as "normal" or "rational" play because we know that we are fallible human > beings. We know that sometimes, we do not count suits correctly, and we > consider it "irrational" not to make what provision we can against our own > failings. > A wholly rational declarer would not miscount any suits; for such > a declarer, the play of the two is completely rational (as is the play of > the jack or the nine), while to play the jack "in case I have miscounted" is > not rational, since it is contrary to reason. But an otherwise wholly > rational player who knew that he sometimes miscounted suits would, in some > circumstances, find a "reason" to play the two instead of the jack - in > particular, he may be in a position where he is not sure whether or not he > has forgotten one or more trumps. To eschew top-down can indeed be perfectly > rational play when declarer has forgotten at least one trump. > > Can you imagine a bridge-playing computer program that contained code to > make it play the only outstanding cards in a suit in top-down or some other > particular order "in case it had miscounted"? No, neither can I. Why would > anyone bother to write such an instruction into the program? It would be an > irrational thing to do... > > David Burn > London, England Indeed, a completely rational player, or a computer program, would not consider playing the jack, "just in case". So to a completely rational player, the claim should not be upheld. But no "completely rational player" would claim without mentioning the six. So we are not talking "completely rational player" here. So this player WILL consider playing the jack first "just in case". And he will not consider playing the deuce first. The "completely certain player" does play the deuce, just to show-off. But that player will play, not claim ! IMO, it is irrational to play the suit bottom-up. Claim awarded. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 12 00:45:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA23069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 00:45:21 +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 AAA23064 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 00:45:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-7-124.access.net.il [213.8.7.124] (may be forged)) by maggie.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA16004; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 15:46:07 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <38A41278.64319B1B@zahav.net.il> Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 15:45:28 +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: Australian claim References: <20000210131352.52009.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk If Q club not singleton in the long hearts hand ->One more club to the defense ...!!!!!! No arguing any ... You see , I lost the count ; please make me a favor and write down the result , according to this ruling Dany David Stevenson wrote: > > AKQJx xxxx 4S by West after North opened 3H > Qx Jxx > xxx KQJ West leads the HA, then cashes > AJx Kxx > > West leads the HA, then switches to a diamond to South's ace. South gives > North a diamond ruff, who then cashes the HK, on which South discards a > diamond [I know that ruffing and playing a diamond is superior!!!]. > > West claims, saying he is drawing trumps and taking his nine tricks. > > South objects, saying he is ruffing the heart winner away if North leads > one next. > > North is 2=7=1=3 with no CQ: how do you rule? > > Does it make any difference if North is 2=8=1=2 with no CQ [of course this > means South shows out on the first heart, but assume the play is the same > otherwise]? > > -- > David Stevenson Reply to hotmail: copy to blakjak > Liverpool, England, UK bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk > bluejak666@hotmail.com david@blakjak.demon.co.uk > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 12 01:59:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA23287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 01:59:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from fb02.eng00.mindspring.net (fb02.eng00.mindspring.net [207.69.229.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA23282 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 01:59:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-33qths4.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.199.132]) by fb02.eng00.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA05497; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 09:59:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000211151054.0072ea0c@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, 11 Feb 2000 07:10:54 -0800 To: "David Stevenson" From: Henry Sun Subject: Re: Australian claim Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:13 PM 2/10/00 GMT, you wrote: > > AKQJx xxxx 4S by West after North opened 3H > Qx Jxx > xxx KQJ West leads the HA, then cashes > AJx Kxx > > West leads the HA, then switches to a diamond to South's ace. South gives >North a diamond ruff, who then cashes the HK, on which South discards a >diamond [I know that ruffing and playing a diamond is superior!!!]. > > West claims, saying he is drawing trumps and taking his nine tricks. > > South objects, saying he is ruffing the heart winner away if North leads >one next. > > North is 2=7=1=3 with no CQ: how do you rule? > > Does it make any difference if North is 2=8=1=2 with no CQ [of course this >means South shows out on the first heart, but assume the play is the same >otherwise]? my understanding of faulty claims is that if a trick can be lost through careless or inferior play, then it is awarded to the defenders; but if a trick can only be lost through irrational play, then it belongs to the defenders. in this case, north is known to count to x71y shape. no matter how his hand counts out (4711/3712/2713/1714) i don't think that any play other than the club finesse is rational. only when north is proven to have exactly a doubleton club is a play for the club drop even a possible consideration, but at odds of 5-2 against, i would consider this to be irrational. so as long as the qc is onside, i award down 1. if the qc is offside at least doubleton, i award down 2. henry sun From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 12 02:07:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA23478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 02:07:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from fb02.eng00.mindspring.net (fb02.eng00.mindspring.net [207.69.229.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA23473 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 02:07:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-33qths4.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.199.132]) by fb02.eng00.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA07698 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 10:07:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000211151843.0071b06c@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, 11 Feb 2000 07:18:43 -0800 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Henry Sun Subject: Re: [exotic-systems] TRS system or TSR system? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:45 AM 2/11/00 +0800, you wrote: >I have heard a strong pass system from England, >it's name is TSR, maybe TRS. >Who know about it? or is there any >infomation online? the TRS system was used in the 1987 bermuda bowl by tony forrester and one of his partners (whose name i cannot recall at the time). in short, the system opening bids were: pass=11-15, any 1c=16+ 1d=0-7 any, or 8-10 flat 1M=7-11, 0-2 OR 6+ major 1nt=14-16 i forget what two-bids meant. henry sun From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 12 03:30:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA23741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 03:30:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from cobalt5-he.global.net.uk (cobalt5-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.165]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA23736 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 03:30:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from p27s05a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.85.40] helo=pacific) by cobalt5-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12JIwd-0002Ec-00; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 08:29:24 -0800 Message-ID: <003301bf74ac$dd6f0260$af6193c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Sergey Kapustin" Cc: "'Grattan Endicott'" Subject: Re: demonstrably- reasonably Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 16:22:32 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 11 February 2000 00:01 Subject: demonstrably- reasonably > >What kind of difference between "demonstrably" and "reasonably'? > >I know that in French Lawbook "demonstrably" is translated as >"indiscutablement". French to Russian and Russian to English conformations >give me that "demonstrably" is equal to "indisputably". Is it correct? > +=+ 'Demonstrably' gave us more problems than any other word in the laws. It was felt that 'reasonably' was a word that was too easily diminished in the standard it set; we wanted something that established the fact had to be plainly apparent to the Director; he had to be convinced of it. Demonstrably ended up as the nearest to what was wanted, without ever being a word that everyone seized and said "that's it". So, yes, it was not the desire to change the standard from that intended by 'reasonably', but at the level this had been thought to establish when it was first introduced, not at the level to which its use was said to have been debased in the hands of some Directors and ACs. 'Demonstrate' should be understood to require that a case be made out that is strong enough to convince a Director who displays an appropriate scepticism. The Director should not jump to a conclusion the moment UI exists. I have been looking through my 1995/96 papers, but I have recorded no remark that helps very much. I would say that 'indisputably' goes too far; 'persuasively' perhaps, 'convincingly' even better, but not quite so far as to leave no scope for argument, just to the point where the argument is won. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 12 03:33:46 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA23765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 03:33:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from cobalt5-he.global.net.uk (cobalt5-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.165]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA23760 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 03:33:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from p27s05a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.85.40] helo=pacific) by cobalt5-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12JIwc-0002Ec-00; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 08:29:22 -0800 Message-ID: <003201bf74ac$dc9c7020$af6193c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Subject: Re: L70C3 in action Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 15:17:18 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 11 February 2000 13:39 Subject: Re: L70C3 in action ----------------- \x/ ------------------. >it is important to remember that in doing this, we are >using the word "irrational" in a special sense that does not accord with its >English meaning. Of course, we do this all the time - it has been >established by the WBFLC, for example, that "if the withdrawn call related >to a specified suit" does not mean what it says :) > +=+ The 'definitions' in the law book exist to tell us that 'blue' means 'pink' for the purpose of the laws. It is well established that laws sometimes do not say what they mean. +=+ ~ G ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 12 03:54:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA23852 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 03:54:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from cobalt5-he.global.net.uk (cobalt5-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.165]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA23846 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 03:54:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from p54s02a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.98.85] helo=pacific) by cobalt5-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12JJJe-0003Iw-00; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 08:53:10 -0800 Message-ID: <003c01bf74b0$2fb4afe0$af6193c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: L70C3 in action Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 16:50:13 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Date: 11 February 2000 14:02 Subject: Re: L70C3 in action > ~~~~~~~ \x/ ~~~~~~~~ >IMO, it is irrational to play the suit bottom-up. >Claim awarded. >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > +=+ The problem you have, Herman, is that you are fixated by the original ranks of the cards. At the stage reached when he thinks they are all winners, he does not have J.9.2. - what he has is A. A. A. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 12 03:56:55 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA23869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 03:56:55 +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 DAA23863 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 03:56:47 +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 IAA32560; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 08:56:41 -0800 Message-Id: <200002111656.IAA32560@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 11 Feb 2000 04:48:47 PST." <200002110948.EAA08268@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 08:56:42 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Adam Beneschan > > (P.S. I want to reiterate that I'm talking about cases where there's a > > "good chance" that someone forgot, such as if declarer had said > > "There's no more trumps out." If declarer had simply said "I have the > > rest", however, I believe the case would be different, and now I > > *would* consider an opponent who tried to score their trump to be an > > obnoxious Bridge Lawyer.) > > I cannot believe you wish to rule differently in the two cases. Why > should claimer's state of mind have any effect? This is the way to > chaos. I did not actually say that we should rule differently in the two cases. I don't think that was anywhere in the post you're responding to. What I'm saying is that: (1) someone who makes a mistake shouldn't complain about having to pay for the mistake; (2) if an opponent's claim statement (or other comments) clearly indicate that he doesn't know what's going on in the hand, I don't consider it unsportsmanlike to try to make the opponent pay for the mistake; (3) if the statement doesn't give such an clear indication that there's a mistake, I *would* consider it BL'ish not to give the opponent the benefit of the doubt in a simple case like this one (but not in a more complex claim case). But even if I'd consider the opponent to be a BL whose behavior should be discouraged, that doesn't mean I'd rule against him. In previous posts, I've tried not to say anything definite about ruling on the "I have the rest" case (which is different from Fearghal's case), because I really don't know. I can understand the problems with trying to guess at a player's state of mind. On the other hand, I'm not sure we can keep "state of mind" completely out of the equation and still follow the Laws. Laws 69-71 require us to consider which lines are "irrational". My dictionary gives these relevant definitions for "irrational": -- not endowed with reason or understanding -- lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence -- not governed by or according to reason It seems to me, all of these have to do with a person's mental state; so one cannot really judge whether an action would be rational or irrational without reference to what else was in that person's mind at the time. In particular, I think it's clear that the same action that may be rational for one person may be irrational for another, depending on what they know, OR REMEMBER, about the hand. That's the point I and others have been trying to make; for someone who is confident there are no more trumps out, no play of the suit is more irrational than any other, while for someone who isn't sure, playing from the bottom up would be irrational. To say that we can determine what is irrational without any reference at all to the player's state of mind, one must either: (1) Decide that "irrational" means "something I personally would never do". I often use this definition in post-mortems, when my partner goes down in a contract *I* would have made :-) :-). But it's not a good way to apply the Laws. (2) Rely on some definition of "irrational" that you won't find in an English dictionary. I suspect that the latter is what's going on in this thread, particularly since the ACBL has decreed that not playing from the top down is to be considered "irrational", despite the fact that people who have not taken leave of their faculties often play exactly this way when playing a long suit from dummy. The only way to call such a play "irrational" is to ignore the English definition of the word. Given that, I believe the words "irrational" and/or "normal" in the Laws need to be either defined, explained, or removed entirely and replaced with more objective criteria for whether a faulty claim is accepted or rejected. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 12 03:58:56 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA23886 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 03:58:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from babelfish.axion.bt.co.uk (babelfish.axion.bt.co.uk [132.146.17.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA23881 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 03:58:47 +1100 (EST) From: david.burn@bt.com Received: from cryndent01.mww.bt.com by babelfish.axion.bt.co.uk (local) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 16:57:27 +0000 Received: by cryndent01.mww.bt.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.88) id <1TFKNMMN>; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 16:57:23 -0000 Message-ID: To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L70C3 in action Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 16:57:18 -0000 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.88) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: >David, you've lost me I am very sorry to hear that. Let us see if I can find you again. It may take a while, for which I apologise, but no effort is too great if it brings back a strayed lamb to the fold. >Indeed, a completely rational player, or a computer program, would not consider playing the jack, "just in case". Quite so. Such a player would know that the two was just as much of a winner as the jack. However, it occurs to me that we may be starting from different premises, and it might be worth clarifying the position, since others may have a view. When a player puts three cards of the same suit on the table and claims the rest, do you believe he is asserting: (a) These three cards will win tricks in whatever order I play them; or (b) These three cards will win tricks, assuming that I play them from the top down? It is possible that in the USA, the distinction is not relevant, for there is an assumption that the player will play from the top down - however, this assumption is not in the Laws and, as far as I know, does not apply in other jurisdictions. You may not believe, of course, that the player is "asserting" anything - he is just making a claim. But a claim is a statement, according to L68A, and it seems reasonable to me to regard the player's action as an assertion. If you believe (a), then the play of the two cannot be considered irrational by definition alone. The only reason we permit the claim to succeed in cases where the two would in fact lose a trick is because we have substituted for the English definition of the word "irrational" a definition which we believe leads to greater equity in the majority of cases where a player is not mindful of L68C, and does not accompany his claim with a verbal statement. If you believe (b), then of course there is no difficulty, and the question of whether the player "could" play the two first does not arise, for implicit in his claim is the "top-down" assertion. I do not believe that (b) is supported by the wording of the Laws. I do not think, however, that a regulation such as the ACBL's is in conflict with the Laws, and I would have no difficulty were this regulation introduced universally. Since there is nothing to discuss if your actual belief is (b), I will proceed on the assumption that it is (a). However, certain arguments have been adduced that appear to me to come from people who believe (b) - or at any rate believe that we should rule on claims as if (b) applied. With those people I have nothing to discuss; none of my arguments is relevant if (b) is what actually applies. >So to a completely rational player, the claim should not be upheld. Not so, for a completely rational player would not make a claim unaccompanied by a statement encompassing the six. All claims by a completely rational player should be upheld by definition; a completely rational player cannot make a false or inadequate claim. >But no "completely rational player" would claim without mentioning the six. If the six were missing, a completely rational player would accompany his claim by the statement that he would first play the jack. If the six and seven were missing, a completely rational player would state that he would first play the jack and then the nine - and so forth. >So we are not talking "completely rational player" here. No, for no such being exists. This is a pity, for the game would be a great deal easier to administer if it were played by such people. >So this player WILL consider playing the jack first "just in case". Human beings are not rational. If you asked this player: "Why are you claiming?" he would say "Because all these spades are good." "If there were no such thing as a claim, would you play the two of spades at this point?" "No." "Why not?" "Because...er, all these spades might not be good." "But a minute ago, you told me that they were. Do you think it rational for you to believe that a thing is so, and also to believe that it is not so? Not that I care very much what you think, for as I have just demonstrated, you are a lunatic." However, this is not the point. >And he will not consider playing the deuce first. True, up to a point. Neither will he consider playing the jack first, nor the nine. The point is this - when a player makes a claim of type (a) above, what he is really doing is playing all three cards at once, without waiting for the opponents to contribute cards. When a player claims without making a statement, he is treating his cards as though they were the AKQ. If you asked a player with the AKQ "Would you consider specifically playing any of those cards before either of the others?" he would look at you as if you were mad, and ask "No - why on earth should I?" At the point at which he claims, the player is not seeing his cards as the jack, the nine and the deuce, so it is not really relevant to talk about which of them he might consider playing first. The player will, however, consider playing the jack first *if and only if you tell him that his claim is flawed*. At that point, the state of mind causing him to regard his three cards as Winner A, Winner B and Winner C will cease - he will "return to reality" and see his cards again as the jack, the nine and the two. And in that case, unless you give him precise information about the extent to which the claim is flawed, then he will also consider playing the two first (in case it is seriously flawed, and he is missing 10xx or perhaps Q10x). There is, I think, a problem here which is often overlooked. When a player makes a false claim, he believes something about the state of the deal at that point which is not in fact so. The moment his claim is contested, he will cease to hold that belief - but it is not possible to say with certainty what he will instead believe, and therefore to predict what he might "rationally" do. Of course, in reality the objection to the claim will almost always give him enough information to perceive the true state of affairs - yet this is not information to which he is entitled. We, who have now in effect to consider how he might play from this point, *must not* make our judgements on the basis of what would be "rational" play for a declarer armed with the information that the claim he has just made is not valid. We must instead base our judgements on what would be rational play for a declarer known *not* to possess complete information about the true state of affairs (and assumed to continue to play as far as possible on the basis of his known delusions). *We* know that there is only one small trump missing, and we appeal to the "top-down" principle to permit declarer to draw it. But *declarer* did not know that there were any trumps missing at all. Why should he now know that there is exactly one? Suppose South claims with the J92, saying "These are good". "Not necessarily", says the man with the stiff ten, so declarer plays the jack first and makes the rest. The defenders complain, but - after admonishing them severely for playing on after a claim - we adjudicate on the basis that declarer's only rational play was the jack. Next deal, he claims again - "these are good". "Don't be silly", says the man with the doubleton queen, so declarer plays the two first and loses to the other man's stiff ten - one down. South thinks about this, and then calls us to the table for what may be the unique purpose of contesting his own claim. "When I claimed in this position a while back, you told us that my only rational play with this combination was the jack." "Quite right", we tell him. "Good", he says, "so you'll have to rule that I made the last contract, then." I will leave Herman and the rest of you good people to explain that one to the defenders. >The "completely certain player" does play the deuce, just to show-off. But that player will play, not claim ! Splendid. Then we can hold him in breach of L74B4, the penalty for which is (I believe) amputation of the torso just below the neck. Or if it isn't, it ought to be. >IMO, it is irrational to play the suit bottom-up. Claim awarded. Please note that I have not said I would disallow this claim. The chances are good that I would in fact allow it. All I have been trying to say is that the "top-down principle" should not blindly be invoked, even if your jurisdiction permits its application. Part of the difficulty may perhaps be seen if you consider this ending: Immaterial 10872 Immaterial QJ93 The spade suit shown is trumps. South cashes the queen, and when East shows out, he tables his cards and says to West "I'll give you a spade". How would you rule, if you ascertained that South thought there were only three spades outstanding? David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 12 04:10:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA23717 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 03:22:24 +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 DAA23708 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 03:22:12 +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 12JIpU-0008pl-0Y for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 16:22:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 16:00:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action In-Reply-To: <200002110948.EAA08268@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <200002110948.EAA08268@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes snip > >> From: "Grattan Endicott" >> +=+ I have not noticed that anyone has considered the >> question of Law 46B2. > >For good reason, it seems to me. I fail to see how card designations >during play have anything to do with a claim statement: "play ceases." >The rules are different. > >It was an amusing thought, though. > >David Burn is sure right about one thing: we need clear, consistent >guidelines. The ACBL (!) has taken what seems to be a good first >step. Is this the sort of thing that should be addressed worldwide, >or should we leave it to NCBO's for now? It seems from BLML that >widespread practice in the UK is quite different from that in the >ACBL. Is this acceptable? I think it's a very bad thing. I hate to admit it, but I prefer the ACBL approach here that, in a single suit at least, the cards are deemed to be played top down (unless incontravertably ...). For one I'd like to see this change in the uk. 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 Feb 12 04:21:46 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24015 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 04:21:46 +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 EAA24010 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 04:21:36 +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 LAA23139 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 11:25:14 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000211112027.00799340@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 11:20:27 -0600 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: L70C3 in action In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:25 PM 2/11/2000 -0000, david.burn@bt.com wrote: >Herman wrote: > >Craig Senior wrote: >> >> The claim is good...playing the 2 first is as irrational as not claiming. > >exactly. > >It is not "irrational" not to claim. It is illegal not to claim if you >believe you have the rest, but that is not the same thing. If, as has been >established, you claim on the basis that none of your remaining cards can be >beaten or ruffed, then it is not *ex definitione* irrational to play them >starting with the lowest. It has been deemed "irrational" for the purposes I disagree. When I drive my car across town to the grocery store, I have very good reason to think that I will not be involved in a collision so violent as to seriously injure me. However, it would still be irrational, I think, to not wear a seatbelt. {And, yes, large numbers of Americans behave irrationally every day in this manner. I do it myself, occasionally.} By the same token, if I believe that all my cards are now good, I should claim. But that does not mean that, had I played the hand out, I shouldn't take the precaution of playing my trumps from the top. Nor does it mean that playing bottom-up is any less irrational. One may have a great deal of certainty without having absolute, beyond-any-possible-doubt certainty. >of the Laws, but it is important to remember that in doing this, we are >using the word "irrational" in a special sense that does not accord with its >English meaning. Of course, we do this all the time - it has been "Irrational" is a word that does not have such a precise usage that we could say that it does not apply here. >established by the WBFLC, for example, that "if the withdrawn call related >to a specified suit" does not mean what it says :) No comment. :) >> If we want to encourage >> claiming (and discourage 3 boards in 32 minutes) we want to ALWAYS allow >> this claim. > >exactly. > >Not "exactly" at all. If we want to make the game faster, fairer and more >pleasant for everybody, we want to allow *this* claim: "I will play these >cards from the top, making the rest". It does not protract the game by a >nanosecond for declarer to say this as he puts his cards down - in fact, it >has the effect of saving time, because the defenders do not have to work out >how many tricks declarer might make if he played his cards in some other >permutation. But why should we want to allow a claim by a declarer who has I would never, as defender, dream of thinking that my stiff 6 would take a trick on this hand, so no time would ever be lost at my table. >broken Law 68C, unless he cannot actually lose a trick by "n'mporte quel" >play of the remaining cards? There is no question of "wanting to encourage >claiming" - the Laws require players to claim, and rightly so, for a >properly worded claim is an excellent way of maintaining the game at a >sensible pace. > >An improperly worded claim, on the other hand, runs a serious risk of >creating major disruption (and, at levels where this is a consideration, of >ruining the enjoyment of all concerned). If we want to prevent appeals >committees from having to convene after every session, if we want to prevent >the acrimony and disgruntlement that always accompanies any claim ruling by >a Director, then we want to NEVER allow any claim that is not properly >worded in accordance with the Laws (including this one). Good claims take no >longer than bad claims to make, they take less time to resolve if they >happen to be contested, and they should be encouraged. Bad claims should >disappear from the face of the earth, and the quickest and most sensible way >to achieve that is to disallow them whenever possible. You will tell me that >this is not fair. So what? Here we disagree on our goals and perceptions. I spend most of my time playing bridge at the lowest levels, club games and small tournaments. [I have a family, and can't afford the time or money for much travel right now.] Where I play, disallowing bad claims will not produce the desired result of reducing acrimony and increasing the quality of claims. Instead, you will greatly _increase_ acrimony, when you tell people that they are now deemed to have led the 2 of trumps to the opponent's stiff 6--they will believe that you are calling them utter morons. They will not respond to this treatment by making more careful claim statements, they will respond to it by refusing to claim at all. In my neck of the woods, if you want more careful claim statements, the best strategy is to say "Well, Bill, this time you were lucky because your Jack is going to squish his 6. But in the future, please specify the order in which you will play your cards." Of course, you'll have to say this over and over and over again, but it might generate one good claim statement some day, and the other way of doing it won't. [And, BTW, I should say that here in the rural Midwest very few claims are disputed anyway, except by people who continue to say "play it out" to nearly all claims of any sort.] >David Burn >London, England Respectfully, Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 12 04:32:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 04:32:15 +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 EAA24060 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 04:32:07 +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 JAA00303; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 09:31:49 -0800 Message-Id: <200002111731.JAA00303@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Grant Sterling cc: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 10 Feb 2000 21:25:51 PST." <3.0.6.32.20000210212551.007aa100@eiu.edu> Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 09:31:50 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > At 04:17 PM 2/10/00 PST, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > >Something occurred to me this morning. When declarer is running a > >suit he believes everyone else is out of, if that suit happens to be > >in dummy, the "bottom-up" method of running the suit is very common. > >I'm not sure whether it's more common than running it "top-down", but > >it might be. The reason is economy of language (another term for > >"laziness"); it's easier to call for "club, club, club" instead of > >"top club, top club, top club" or "jack of clubs, nine of clubs, six > >of clubs" or whatever. If dummy has left the table for whatever > >reason (to use the restroom or get another beer), and declarer plays > >the cards himself from the dummy, it's a lot easier to play the low > >cards first, since that's the one usually on top of the stack. > > > >So does this mean that this very common practice is irrational? Or > > From the point of view of playing bridge, yes. If a declarer loses > a trick some day because he was too lazy to say 'top club', he will no > doubt consider himself to have played irrationally. Really? I actually play dummy's suits from the top down now (at least until everyone has discarded). I used to play them the other way, until either I got burned when someone showed up with a card I forgot they had, or I saw someone else get burned that way. Now I play from the top---not because I'm more rational than I used to be, but because I'm more careful, and because I've learned from experience. The footnote to the Laws requires us to determine whether a play is "careless" or "irrational" (or "inferior"). To me, when holding KJ2 opposite AQ543, playing all four honors on the first two tricks is almost always irrational; why would one do this? If an opponent ruffs and declarer, needing the rest of the tricks, underruffs, that would be irrational. But when you make the wrong play because you're too lazy to give a complete designation or too lazy to think things through or something similar---well, if we have to decide whether it goes into the "careless" or "irrational" category, I believe it clearly fits the definition of "careless" better than that of "irrational". I believe that we often use the term "irrational" too broadly to refer to anything that seems incorrect or stupid to us, or just plain anything that *we* wouldn't do. Especially when we're ticked off at someone. But the wording of the footnote reminds us that we have to use a definition that's perhaps narrower than we often use the term, and that we have to check whether a play that we might instinctively think of as "irrational" shouldn't more accurately be considered "careless" or "inferior" or due to lack of experience. If, after doing this check, we still have significant disagreements about what the word "irrational" means, then perhaps it's time to delete this word from the Laws or give a more precise definition of it. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 12 04:33:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 04:33:17 +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 EAA24068 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 04:33:10 +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 ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 09:33:05 -0800 Message-ID: <006301bf74b5$fb394400$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200002041644.IAA22723@mailhub.irvine.com> <001901bf7421$49ea5520$66047bc3@pppsvk> Subject: Re: demonstrably- reasonably Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 09:29:29 -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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: "Sergey Kapustin" > Hi all! > Sorry again - we (who finished translation the Laws in to Russian) have one > more problem. > But in this case the intention of my question is rather bridge_ > interpretation_ question than English_translation_ question. > > What kind of difference between "demonstrably" and "reasonably'? > I believe the change from "reasonably" to "demonstrably" was aimed at ACBL AC decisions, which were thought to be a little too demanding of the suspected offenders. The word "demonstrably" was felt to be a trifle more permissive than "reasonably." That's just my impression, I have no evidence to back it up. I once was ruled against (Denver Appeals Case #2) when I could *demonstrate* (by quoting authorities) that my bid was not suggested by my partner's hesitation, because per system I had no LA. The AC "reasoned" that it *was* suggested and pass was an LA, so I don't know that the word change affected the ACBL ACs thinking at all. Maybe a little. Another possibility is that the lawmakers saw that BLs were coming up with all sorts of convoluted reasoning to show that an action was suggested by UI, and hoped the word change would reduce that sort of thing. In fact, this seems to be what the official ACBL statement says: ###### The use of the word "DEMONSTRABLY" is intended to remove from consideration logical alternatives that are not obviously suggested over another by the unauthorized information. Directors should not change a result unless the action chosen can be shown (demonstrated) to have been suggested. The actions that will now be removed by law have to be suggested in an obvious, easily-understood way--it must be readily apparent rather than a product of some subtle bridge argument. ###### (Duplicate Decisions, page 13) And then on page 14: ###### Is it obvious? Is it readily apparent? Is it easily understood? If yes, proceed. ###### I'll leave it to others to say whether ACBL TDs and ACs are following these guidelines. As usual, I looked to see what the French did with this word. They used *indiscutablement*, which my dictionary translates as "indisputably," i.e., not debatable. That strikes me as a bit too strong a word. Don't know if this helps, Sergey. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 12 05:01:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA24161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 05:01:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from poseidon.tcp.net.uk (poseidon.tcp.net.uk [195.80.0.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA24156 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 05:01:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (vt1-105.du.tcp.co.uk [195.80.1.105]) by poseidon.tcp.net.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id SAA05614 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 18:00:59 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000211180351.007c9160@popmail.tcp.co.uk> X-Sender: spock@popmail.tcp.co.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 18:03:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: M Smith Subject: Re: [exotic-systems] TRS system or TSR system? In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.20000211151843.0071b06c@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>I have heard a strong pass system from England, >>it's name is TSR, maybe TRS. >>Who know about it? or is there any >>infomation online? > >the TRS system was used in the 1987 bermuda bowl by tony forrester and >one of his partners (whose name i cannot recall at the time). TRS ostensibly stood for "Tony, Raymond, Steve" - Tony Forrester, Raymond Brock, Steve Lodge, but it also stood for "Totally Random System". The full system is available in a publication put out by IPBM some years ago. Marc Smith From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 12 05:17:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA23718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 03:22:24 +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 DAA23707 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 03:22:11 +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 12JIpU-000K97-0W for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 16:22:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 16:13:30 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: L70C3 in action In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , david.burn@bt.com writes > >An improperly worded claim, on the other hand, runs a serious risk of >creating major disruption (and, at levels where this is a consideration, of >ruining the enjoyment of all concerned). If we want to prevent appeals >committees from having to convene after every session, if we want to prevent >the acrimony and disgruntlement that always accompanies any claim ruling by >a Director, then we want to NEVER allow any claim that is not properly >worded in accordance with the Laws (including this one). Good claims take no >longer than bad claims to make, they take less time to resolve if they >happen to be contested, and they should be encouraged. Bad claims should >disappear from the face of the earth, and the quickest and most sensible way >to achieve that is to disallow them whenever possible. You will tell me that >this is not fair. So what? > Presumably David, accepting our "Line em up against the wall" or "bastinado" (from the soles up!) approach, you would nonetheless have no objection to there being a regulation such as the ACBL has which deems single suits from one hand to be played top down. In just the same way as I say "spade" meaning "small spade", I can claim based on the suit being played top down, by default. Most of all, like you, I believe that consistency of application of the Laws is the most important thing, and this change would be of benefit IMO. Making bum claims is part of the game, but in general a "and one for the lurker" is a reasonable interpretation. Handbag inversion (bottoms up) is IMO not irrational - I've done it at the table and been wrong, but most of the time I'd play top down. >David Burn >London, England -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 12 05:29:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA24221 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 05:29:11 +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 FAA24216 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 05:29:04 +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 KAA01169; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 10:28:55 -0800 Message-Id: <200002111828.KAA01169@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: L70C3 in action In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 11 Feb 2000 16:57:18 PST." Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 10:28:56 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > >So we are not talking "completely rational player" here. > > No, for no such being exists. This is a pity, for the game would be a great > deal easier to administer if it were played by such people. Yes, much easier. We can assume that completely rational players would not adopt inferior bidding systems, and would not make inferior bids or plays. So administering the game would consist of accepting the entry fee and then assigning everyone a final matchpoint score of 50.00%. Very easy. No need to waste time dealing the cards or playing them out. :) :) :) Maybe it's not such a pity that people aren't completely rational. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 12 06:11:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA23897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 04:00:31 +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 EAA23892 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 04:00:19 +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 LAA19583 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 11:03:59 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000211105913.007cf170@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 10:59:13 -0600 To: From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: Good Sportsmanship In-Reply-To: <004401bf7456$3a1c35c0$16991e18@san.rr.com> References: <001401bf731d$f6cdee00$717493c3@pacific> <38A1A2FA.94AC3EF3@meteo.fr> <3.0.6.32.20000210145804.007b6c40@eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:05 PM 2/10/2000 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: [snipping all my own drivel :)] >They were especially concerned, I believe. Requiring that penalties can be >waived only "for cause" means that they should hardly ever be waived. Valid >causes are such things as a loud noise startling someone into dropping a card, >infractions caused by a physical handicap, etc., not that a pretty gal arouses >one's sportsmanship inclinations. Again, I think we run across a fundamental difference in the way you and I read the Laws. [By, 'again', I am referring to our similar disagreement regarding L90, where you think the list that is given of suitable cases for a PP is [nearly] exhaustive, while I think it can be applied widely at the TD's discretion.] I see nothing in the Laws that says that "for cause" means "hardly ever". We do not have, in this case, even a list of possible cases to guide us. I see no reason to think that the law forbids a TD to waive a penalty for sportsmanship concerns. {Please stop giving out my dating secrets, Marv. :)} >Practicing sportsmanship is fine, even desirable, in rubber bridge, or in a >knockout match when no other team cares what happens. In a matchpoint pair >event, however, we can't have some pairs getting penalties waived while others >don't. It isn't fair. I reject this argument: a) For all the pairs in a matchpoint event who are losing out by falling behind the pair that benefits from the waiver, there are pairs who are gaining from moving ahead of the pair that makes the waiver. I just don't see this as a significant problem. Yes, once in a blue moon someone will lose a tournament because they played against a pair who chose not to waive a penalty despite it being sportsmanlike to do so. b) In any case, I think it would be unfair in a larger and much more important sense to demand enforcement of a penalty that sportsmanship requires be waived. Again, if the real reason for asking for the waiver is not in fact sportsmanship, but rather an attempt to manipulate the results of the tournament, then of course I do not consider that 'cause'. And, I acknowledge, it is conceivably possible that a player might deceive a TD into waiving a penalty for the wrong reasons. But notice that this can occur only on those rare cases where: a) a genuine sportsmanship reason exists for the waiver, b) the player is crafty enough to lie about the reasons for asking for the waiver, and c) the player, determined to lie and cheat to get his friend to win the tournament, was too dumb to realize he could just violate the law by waiving the penalty himself without calling the TD. >Marv (Marvin L. French) Respectfully, Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 12 07:17:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA24464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 07:17:43 +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 HAA24459 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 07:17:36 +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 1B2DHL4G; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 14:17:28 -0600 X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200002110017.QAA20226@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Your message of "Thu, 10 Feb 2000 14:38:33 PST." <3.0.6.32.20000210143833.007c7100@eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 14:19:30 -0600 To: Adam Beneschan , From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote >Something occurred to me this morning. When declarer is running a >suit he believes everyone else is out of, if that suit happens to be >in dummy, the "bottom-up" method of running the suit is very common. >I'm not sure whether it's more common than running it "top-down", but >it might be. My memory is the ACBL treats declairer's instruction to dummy, "run the clubs" as meaning lead clubs from the dumy from the top down. 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 Sat Feb 12 11:03:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA25055 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 11:03:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from oznet11.ozemail.com.au (oznet11.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.114]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA25050 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 11:03:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (1Cust78.tnt3.syd2.da.uu.net [63.12.2.78]) by oznet11.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA19900 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 11:02:57 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000212110955.00a593a0@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 11:09:55 +1100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: L70C3 in action In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000211112027.00799340@eiu.edu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > I disagree. When I drive my car across town to the grocery store, and I thought Americans drove across the street to the grocery store.. :) Cheers, Tony Sydney From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 12 12:56:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA25342 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 12:56:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailhop1.nyroc.rr.com (mailhop1-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.120]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA25337 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 12:55:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com ([24.92.226.146]) by mailhop1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 20:52:32 -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 ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 20:53:01 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 20:50:29 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: L70C3 in action Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 12:25 PM +0000 2/11/00, david.burn@bt.com wrote: >It is illegal not to claim if you >believe you have the rest Say what? Where do the laws say that? Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBOKS9e72UW3au93vOEQIs2wCfSkx/DCwmrWSN7MHsxfcvSCAe0hoAoKxa jPGnAZx6QRdVOFVVMqFOPMmz =++BD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 12 14:17:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA25549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 14:17:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from networksgy.com ([208.153.97.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA25544 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 14:17:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from john [208.153.97.126] by networksgy.com (SMTPD32-4.03) id A969E6905BA; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 23:19:05 PST Message-ID: <001901bf74ff$381bed20$7e6199d0@john> Reply-To: "John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director" From: "John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director" To: "BLML" Subject: Partner alerts your inadvertent call - Law 25 again Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 23:16:48 -0300 Organization: Central American & Caribbean Bridge Federation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk An interesting one that has connection to other treatments in the Laws. No screens, South is dealer and wants to open 1NT but places 2D on the table without looking. West passes and North alerts. West asks and North explains a version of Multi. Without North's intervention, South is totally unaware of what they have done. When North begins to explain, South makes it obvious to the table that something has gone wrong. The TD is called and it is your ruling. Thanks, John John A. Mac Gregor, Chief Tournament Director Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation Current Residence: Georgetown, Guyana e-mail: johnmacg@hotmail.com CACBF Web Page: http://www.geocities.com/cacbf/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 12 16:45:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA25869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 16:45:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc08.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc08.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.19]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA25864 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 16:44:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from default ([12.75.40.103]) by mtiwmhc08.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with SMTP id <20000212054417.WKAZ1659@default> for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 05:44:17 +0000 Message-ID: <00f301bf751c$1d535d80$cd284b0c@default> From: "Richard F Beye" To: References: Subject: Re: L70C3 in action Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 23:43:37 -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: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: L70C3 in action > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > At 12:25 PM +0000 2/11/00, david.burn@bt.com wrote: > >It is illegal not to claim if you > >believe you have the rest > > Say what? Where do the laws say that? > > Regards, > > Ed Confusion reigns supreme here! We can only assume that he is making the strictest possible reading of 74B4. We'll get to this one after the claimer finishes with his committee. Rick From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 12 17:23:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA25943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 17:23:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailserver.ipf.net (mail.okay.net [195.211.211.60]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA25933 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 17:22:54 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 4151 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2000 06:22:44 -0000 Received: from dialin-209.muenchen.okay.net (HELO rabbit) (194.117.252.209) by mail.okay.net with SMTP; 12 Feb 2000 06:22:44 -0000 Message-ID: <00ec01bf7522$287d4760$d1fc75c2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <200002092320.PAA30047@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 07:22:16 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [I moved my BLML subscription to a different mail address. This should deal with the Y2K bug :-)))] Adam Beneschan wrote: > I guess I just don't know how we're supposed to determine what's > rational or not, as the Laws require. To me, the likelihood that > claimer has forgotten something should figure into it; a play that > would normally be considered "irrational" might be rational depending > on how likely it is that claimer might have forgotten something > important about the hand. But I've been in the minority lately. The > majority opinion seems to be that it's rational to start with the king > with KTxx/AQ9xx unless claimer specifically says something, but that > it's irrational to play a suit from the bottom up even when one is > certain nobody else has any more, and that if declarer mentions that a > side suit may be 4-1 then we must consider it irrational to miscount > one's entries. I just don't see a good rational definition of > "irrational" here. [J92 in trumps, trump 6 still out] I agree with Adam. The claim statement clearly is incomplete, but it is difficult to judge whether playing the 2 should be considered irrational. I furthermore think the claim is not valid if claimer has forgotten about the outstanding trump. I know declarer who will always play their suits from the top, and then I know other declarers who like to have fun by playing length tricks bottom up. Playing bottom up is careless, but not irrational. [My expert partner once did this to me: we were in the only makable game of 3NT with a 5-5 fit in D and no S stop. Opponents cashed their four spade tricks. On the forth round, partner discarded the DA from hand and the DK from dummy, which reduced his tricks to eight :-)). This play certainly qualifies as "irrational", but he nevertheless did it just because he lost concentration while he had fun discarding aces and kings.] Tho "claim before you make a mistake" mas From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 12 17:23:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA25944 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 17:23:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailserver.ipf.net (pop.itl-online.de [195.211.211.85]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA25934 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 17:22:55 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 4156 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2000 06:22:44 -0000 Received: from dialin-209.muenchen.okay.net (HELO rabbit) (194.117.252.209) by mail.okay.net with SMTP; 12 Feb 2000 06:22:44 -0000 Message-ID: <00ed01bf7522$28f2c580$d1fc75c2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 07:23:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > In article <200002110948.EAA08268@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner > writes > > snip > > > >> From: "Grattan Endicott" > >> +=+ I have not noticed that anyone has considered the > >> question of Law 46B2. > > > >For good reason, it seems to me. I fail to see how card designations > >during play have anything to do with a claim statement: "play ceases." > >The rules are different. > > > >It was an amusing thought, though. > > > >David Burn is sure right about one thing: we need clear, consistent > >guidelines. The ACBL (!) has taken what seems to be a good first > >step. Is this the sort of thing that should be addressed worldwide, > >or should we leave it to NCBO's for now? It seems from BLML that > >widespread practice in the UK is quite different from that in the > >ACBL. Is this acceptable? > > I think it's a very bad thing. I hate to admit it, but I prefer the > ACBL approach here that, in a single suit at least, the cards are deemed > to be played top down (unless incontravertably ...). > > For one I'd like to see this change in the uk. The "always from the top"-approach does not work for David's example immaterial Qx T J92 Assume declarer knows that there are still *some* trumps out. Claim statement: "I'll give you the queen". Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 12 19:34:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA26150 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 19:34:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp4.ihug.co.nz (smtp4.ihug.co.nz [203.109.252.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA26145 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 19:34:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from patrick (p10-max11.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.17.119.202]) by smtp4.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id VAA19449 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 21:34:03 +1300 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20000212212311.007e0500@pop.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: tripack@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 21:23:11 +1300 To: "BLML" From: Patrick Subject: Re: Partner alerts your inadvertent call - Law 25 again In-Reply-To: <001901bf74ff$381bed20$7e6199d0@john> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is one of the situations that New Zealand chose to issue specific National "interpretations" for when the latest laws were issued. I will quote one paragraph from our interpretation to show that this situation would not be a problem in New Zealand. Whether or not your own NCBO would see this situation the same way is of course a moot point. "A bid may be treated as inadvertent even if the player's attention is drawn to it by the fact of his/her partner alerting the bid. Once again the clear intention of the hand is the guideline to be used. Cue bidding 2S over 1S with a hand that has 13 points and a 6 card club suit is clearly an inadvertent bid and it is irrelevant that attention was drawn to it by partner's alert. On the other hand bidding 2H in response to 1NT with a heart suit, although playing transfers, should not be treated as an inadvertent call. It is possible that it was a lapse of memory instead and should therefore be treated as such, because it is not CLEAR that it was an inadvertent call" Patrick Carter Auckland Bridge Club and NZCBA >An interesting one that has connection to other treatments in the Laws. >No screens, South is dealer and wants to open 1NT but places 2D on >the table without looking. West passes and North alerts. West asks and >North explains a version of Multi. Without North's intervention, South is >totally unaware of what they have done. When North begins to explain, >South makes it obvious to the table that something has gone wrong. >The TD is called and it is your ruling. >Thanks, >John >John A. Mac Gregor, Chief Tournament Director >Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation >Current Residence: Georgetown, Guyana >e-mail: johnmacg@hotmail.com >CACBF Web Page: http://www.geocities.com/cacbf/ > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 12 23:18:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA26491 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 23:18:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from praseodumium.btinternet.com (praseodumium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA26486 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 23:18:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.161.71] (helo=davidburn) by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12JbUx-00022U-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 12:18:03 +0000 Message-ID: <001d01bf7553$39e4e220$47a101d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <00ed01bf7522$28f2c580$d1fc75c2@rabbit> Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 12:18:06 -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 Thomas wrote: > The "always from the top"-approach > does not work for David's example > > immaterial > > Qx T > J92 > > Assume declarer knows that there are still *some* trumps > out. Claim statement: "I'll give you the queen". If declarer were forced to play from the top, he would succeed above (but not if West had the singleton queen). Suppose, however, that declarer knows about the queen and the x, but has forgotten about the ten. Would it be rational, having stated that he will concede to the queen, for him to lead the nine? The fact is that there are any number of ways in which a claimer can be unaware of the true position. There are any number of claim statements which a player can make that do not reveal the extent of his delusion. I do not believe that any single principle, such as "top-down", will restore equity in all cases. Nor do I consider that attempting to make judgements on a case-by-case basis is a satisfactory way to proceed, for (as has been demonstrated many times on this list alone) we are pretty hopeless at handing down justice on any kind of consistent basis. This is because we have very different ideas of what constitutes "justice" in the first place, and because we are fallible people trying to implement a fallible legal system. As I said earlier, the simplest and in my view the fairest way to proceed is to recognise that we will never be able to treat all individual cases equally justly. Thus, we should achieve what players want - which is a level playing field - by treating all cases equally unjustly. L68C should be extended as follows: "A claim should be accompanied at once by a statement of clarification as to the order in which cards will be played, the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed. Any cards not covered by this statement of clarification are deemed to be played in the legal order most disadvantageous to the claimer in respect of the actual position at the time of the claim." Now, if this had been L68C from the dawn of time, none of the problems relating to disputed claims would exist. Grant Sterling - whose points about claims at the lower levels of the game are entirely valid, and with whose views I have a great deal of sympathy - would not have to worry about the curmudgeons at his club, for they would have had no reason and no opportunity to become curmudgeonly in the first place. It is too late for this kind of approach? Probably, for the concept of equity permeates our thinking about the Laws so deeply that, even when it is not possible to achieve it, we continue to try - and we continue to fail. However, there appears to me still to be considerable support for the view that consistency, rather than equity, is the best we can do and the goal for which we should strive. While that is the case, I will continue to argue for it. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 12 23:38:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA26565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 23:38:06 +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 XAA26560 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 23:37:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.161.71] (helo=davidburn) by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12Jbo1-0002RG-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 12:37:45 +0000 Message-ID: <003801bf7555$fd1bf100$47a101d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <00f301bf751c$1d535d80$cd284b0c@default> Subject: Re: L70C3 in action Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 12:37:54 -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 Richard wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Ed Reppert > Subject: Re: L70C3 in action > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > At 12:25 PM +0000 2/11/00, david.burn@bt.com wrote: > > >It is illegal not to claim if you > > >believe you have the rest > > > > Say what? Where do the laws say that? > > > > Regards, > > > > Ed > > Confusion reigns supreme here! > We can only assume that he is making the strictest possible reading of 74B4. > We'll get to this one after the claimer finishes with his committee. > > Rick Law 74 B. Etiquette As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: 4. prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent. There are times, of course, when a player will play on knowing that all the tricks are surely his for the purpose of not having to explain to Mrs Guggenheim that since his remaining cards are all trumps, and no one else has any, she will not get a trick with any of her side aces. Such a player is not, in my view, breaking L74B4, since his motives are pure. However, because it is not fair to Mrs G to make her worry about which of her aces she ought to be keeping, the official view appears to me to be that players should claim when they can, lest by failing to do so they succeed in disconcerting an opponent - regardless of what their purpose might be. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 13 02:42:21 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA27137 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 02:42:21 +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 CAA27132 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 02:42:12 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA00775 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 16:42:02 +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 smtpda00772; Sat Feb 12 16:42:01 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Software Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 16:42:01 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <42uaasonik70dafi1224drbrv1t9k9licb@bilbo.dit.dk> References: <20000210125645.49127.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000210125645.49127.qmail@hotmail.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 CAA27133 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 10 Feb 2000 12:56:44 GMT, "David Stevenson" wrote: > One thing that has been made clear to me in my wanderings in far-off lands >is the ***enormous*** advantage I have in having top-class software. Let me take this opportunity to give some information about one of the other good programs, and to give some advice on how to post. To take the latter first, (a) When you want to create a new thread, please always use the "new message" function of your program, not the "reply" function. In addition, please use a subject line that is unlikely to be equal to the subject of another recent thread. (b) Correspondingly, when following up to an existing thread, please always use the "reply" function, not the "new message" function, and never change the subject in any way. The reason for this is that the difference between "new message" and "reply" for most programs is not only in the visible subject line, but also in another header line that explicitly tells the recipient software what message a reply is a reply to. Not following (a) and (b) thus results in threads being messed up (when seen with good software that show threads). > You want software that does the following [all of which Turnpike does]: Turnpike sounds good (and people posting with it seem to produce well-behaved messages). I have never tried it, and http://www.turnpike.com offers a free trial only to customers of the UK ISP named Demon. I use the combined Usenet newsreader and mail program Agent from http://www.forteinc.com. It costs 29 USD, and is available in a 30-day free trial version. Do not confuse it with their product named "Free Agent", which is a newsreader but not a mail program, and therefore not usable for BLML. >Defaults to 72 characters across Agent: Configurable, I do not remember the default value. >Defaults to text not HTML or other fancies Agent: yes. >Defaults to a non-proportional fault [eg Courier] Agent: you can preconfigure one proportional and one non-proportional font, and then very easily change between them; at startup, it remembers what you used last. I usually prefer reading most text in the proportional font, and then use [Message | Fixed Pitch Font] (alt-M P) to switch to the non-proportional font when I reach a card diagram. >Treats a mailing-list as a newsgroup Agent: not quite, but almost. You can filter messages so a mailing list ends in its own folder. >Threads newsgroup and mailing-list messages Agent: yes. >Adds sigs automatically Agent: yes. >Gives a choice of sig to add dependent on mailbox or newsgroup Agent: for newsgroups, yes; for mail folders, no. >Gives a choice of mailboxes Agent: handles only one ISP mailbox, but can automatically separate messages into folders. >Strips sigs off when replying Agent: yes. >Shows quoted material in red Agent: shows quoted material in a configurable color, blue by default. >Spell-checks Agent: yes (in some languages, including two variants of English but not Danish). >Has good killfiles Agent: yes. >Can mark threads as read >Can mark threads as uninteresting and not to be downloaded Agent can mark threads "ignore", which implies "read". For newsgroups it also stops new messages in them from being downloaded, for mail it does not. >Gives Quango and Nanki Poo a separate mailbox Agent: Quango and Nanki Poo can have separate mail folders. The really important features that you need are threading and easy navigation between unread messages. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 13 06:24:22 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA27799 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 06:24:22 +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 GAA27794 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 06:24:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.99.56.10] (helo=davidburn) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12Ji95-0005Y0-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 19:23:55 +0000 Message-ID: <009e01bf758e$bfef4c80$0a3863c3@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 19:24:14 -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 Tim West-meads wrote: [DALB] This proponent of 12C3 thinks that it should be used to allow calculation of expectations when it becomes necessary to evaluate the result of cancelling a call, or of a correct instead of a wrong explanation being given, or the like. It should not - it cannot - be used to allow a player to prefer a possibly suggested LA "some of the time". [AW] 18 months ago there were arguments here that 12C3 would allow a "fairer" adjustment where a player chose an illegal logical alternative that would be chosen by most of his peers in the absence of any unauthorized information. I'll quote them if I must, but I'm not of that school. [DB] Neither am I. I do not recall the arguments to which you allude; it is possible that I paid them no attention. They certainly do not deserve any. [TWM] Why not? We currently have the situation where eg: Alternative judged likely to be found by 24% of peers = no adjustment. Alternative judged likely to be found by 26% of peers = full adjustment. Equity may well be better served by "Alternative judged likely to be found by 20-30% of peers = 50% result stands+50% full adjustment." In other words "Where an AC determines that it is marginal as to whether the chosen bid has a suggested LA L12C3 may be applied." What is so great about being forced to choose between two extremes in a situation everyone feels is borderline? Apologies for dismissive tone of previous words - any argument is worthy of attention, and I should not have disregarded the question. I can quite understand why certain ACs feel impelled to reason as Tim has illustrated above. After all, the AC has the power to "do equity" - that is, to arrive at an assessment of the equity of both sides in a particular deal at a particular time, and to make adjustments to the score on that basis. However, an AC can only do this if the Laws allow. And the Laws say this: L73C When a player has available to him unauthorised information from his partner, [...] he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side. L16A Extraneous Information from Partner After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, [...] the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. The combined effect of these Laws, in the position quoted by Tim and in similar cases, is that a player may not do anything suggested by UI from which an advantage might accrue to his side, unless there was no logical alternative. If he does so, his action is cancelled (and an adjusted score assigned on the basis of both sides' equity in the deal at the time of the infraction). This means that the duty of a TD or an AC is to decide - yes or no - whether a player did in fact do something suggested by UI, thereby gaining an advantage, while having logical alternatives available. If we were to allow Tim's approach, then a player would be at liberty to do something suggested by UI, in the hope that a TD or an AC would find itself unable to decide the question of whether logical alternatives were present. That is emphatically not what should happen. The duty of a player in possession of UI is to consider what logical alternatives he may have, and then to select one that is not suggested over another by the UI. The duty of a TD or an AC is to determine whether or not the player has succeeded in performing this difficult task - and "maybe" is not a permissible answer to the question. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 13 06:33:43 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA27829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 06:33:43 +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 GAA27823 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 06:33:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-17-194.inter.net.il [213.8.17.194]) by loger.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA21444; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 15:01:48 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <38A55A0C.423E19D1@zahav.net.il> Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 15:03:08 +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.burn@bt.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L70C3 in action References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear David Your present message is very logical and real - I mean exhibit the real life - and I am not upset anymore , but will try to emphasize my ideas in the most concise possible way (first trial to square the circle !) Some basic ideas : ---------------- 1)I do not like to criticize , but to show the right way/solution IMHO. 2) We leave in an open environment and must consider the practical way to implement procedures , based on some theories . 3) I consider that the most important thing for bridge laws' implementations for the game's success is an homogenous ruling for similar cases . 4) No human being has the monopoly for the mankind cleverness and even worse , the most clever and/or steady and/or serious and/or honest people DO mistakes. History and believes : -------------------- I read a lot about the Bridge Laws and heard people telling me stories about the origins and the basic scopes of the bridge laws and the motto of the book :".....not as punishment for irregularities , but rather as redress for damage..".*** The laws makers - and Kaplan himself , as their leader for a very long while - were experienced enough to know , from real life , that there is almost an infinite number of slightly different situations in the "ring" (mathematical definition..) of one kind of irregularity that should be treated by these laws ( I never spoke to Kaplan , but I can "smell" it from many articles and what heard from people who lived in his nearest environment) and I think that THIS was the origin of the "diplomatic" wording of many laws . We can argue about the best wording or formulation , but the basic idea was not inadvertent : they wanted to let a "free space" for the person directing or ruling or decide upon appeals , but limit it as much as possible (second trial to square the circle) . My main proposal^^^ : ---------------- 1) To rewrite the Laws Book , keeping the present frame and laws , but formulating the laws as accurate as possible , using the most possible compact wording ; and publishing a Commentaries' Book - as Grattan did a decade ago , where a very detailed and explicit bulk of explanations, examples (more than 100...)and general situations/cases will be discussed and revealed , including "legal" advice how to handle them 2) To publish - as a directive to the TDs - the general concept of Educating players , rather than punishing them , but being award to the fact that punishment is a part of the educative program , especially for recidivists (fourth trial to square the circle) ; all that under the Laws' motto. 3) And , "pour la bonne bouche",to COMPEL the TDs to use their brains, when after very careful and serious/deep attempt to find a solution in the Laws' Book and the side appendixes - the commentaries , didn't find it (the fifth trial to square the circle), again under the laws' motto. Some Commentaries : ----------------- a) We must know , that even the best TDs can make mistake - and should do them , but at a very tinny percentage - as a HUMAN fact of life. It doesn't prevent us to try to educate them- and keep educating them , as a continuos process - to be Laws' superman genialities .... b) I'd like to make the word "punish" vanish from the Laws' discussions and implementations , but only when there is some disciplinary or procedural "crime". c) The most difficult laws to implement are those dealing with judgment , not the "mechanical ones" ; I think that the mechanical redresses should be ruled "as is" , even when it deems that the irregularity was inadvertent , trying to insure a reasonable level for the game's name and sporting or whatever . d) Problems of bridge judgment will be decided by personal opinions until doomsday and even later ,so I don't want to emphasize them . e) Problems of basic judgment , like logical , careless , irrational etc , etc. , which were the kernel of our thread , can't be practically solved by any "dry" algorithm - there should be an algorithm guiding us in the process of checking and thinking. Here we must know that our mouth or hand doesn't express part of the brain's data , which are considered trivial -> and here are the worst troubles - thing which we think are obvious , but not damn true always..... My opinion is - and this was the main item of this thread - that only ------------- an experienced person , with a lot of knowledge about the relevant players, many other cases , continuously educated (I meant for bridge laws , but even some other items will be welcomed - I don't want to upset anyone) and brain non-fear capacity to listen and PERCEIVE not said/written things will be able to solve those troubles. I'd never like to make a player feel we consider him a moron , in spite of some laws' allowance !!!! , but if I can prove it at least as a significant probability that "I could think it in my nightmares, even if I doubt it.." That is the case of an outstanding trump, which can ruff a side suit*^*(see the footnote -play , not claim !!!!!) I believe that BLML contributed some ideas and thoughts to the WBFLC and to some National Thinking LCs , and I don't mind to have here very open discussions -> they will always help : from 2% to 22 % improvements , as all of us are convinced these days . I know that one way for a mathematical proof is to use the opposite of the conclusion we want to prove and bring it to absurd (ad absurdum), but I'll be very happy if that absurd will not be the "Moronity or Morony" - don't know the right word - of some players (last trial to square the circle). I hope I was able to express the practical way to improve our laws and laws' implementation , for the Bridge Game's flavor and success. Dany Footnotes --------- ***One of the most astonishing story I ever heard - "live" - was 5 years ago from the late and gorgeous Belladonna , about the famous play of going a zillion down , when wasn't aloud to change the dummy's card in the very sentence ,(told it during a private dinner ...I can tell you that he decided to use his name and fame to "wrap" the Laws Makers to adjust the Laws........and so on , etc,,etc...and the explanation that he knew about my personal history that - after the first laws' updating and interpretations I could have the right to change it after 3 minutes and 40 sec, because I was trained not breathing very long time.....etc, etc,) ^^^ I think I wrote down the outline two weeks ago ,here on BLML. *^* It happened to my last long while partnership , when my poor partner played two rounds of trumps , playing 7H with a 5-3 fit - forgot the 13th trump , played the 7-3 fit !!! of clubs and the opps ruffed the K club....We lost that very precious tournament and I was finally convinced that "the nature" damaged (I say it very sad , but it's true) my high level grand life master partner's "gray cells". ^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^$^$^$^$^$^$^$^$^$^$^$^$^$^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^&^ david.burn@bt.com wrote: > > Dany wrote: > > Dear Sir > > I am very upset reading your answer bellow. It is the first time when > I feel that there is no way to argue , it can be just a very safe way > to bury this game . If all of us lost the so called "common sense" > and need laws and procedures for every "mouth open" , ...... > the Apocalypse is here and now . > I know that this is a general trend our days to make laws (regular life > laws) for every thing -> but any reasonable (or rational ?? if we can > still count this property ??) person , with a minimal knowledge of > history , can recognize the way to the lawyers' dictatorship . Any > dictatorship produces many victims and "dirty situations" and after > any dictatorship comes a chaos period.... > > I think that all of us should pray and propagate the need for a > large territory of HUMAN behavior (and making mistakes is a human > qualification - both players and Tds and ACs )and really publish my > Law 99 - "TD must use his brains , when didn't find any support in all > others Laws". > > Respectfully > Dany > > These are noble sentiments, and I have often wished that we inhabited a > world in which they could reasonably be appealed to. But we do not, and they > cannot. > > What is it, in truth, that causes the difficulties we discuss on this > mailing list? It is not those Laws which are clear - even though those Laws > are in a great many cases far less equitable than those relating to > contested claims. It is those Laws which are not clear. Because they are > not clear, we do not know how to apply them. > > There are those who would consider it ridiculous, unjust, even downright > un-American to give a trick to someone with a six because he's playing > against someone who has a seven and a five but can't count. Those people > have no problem with the notion that when a player commits an error of > roughly equal carelessness by failing to follow suit, a trick end up where > God did not intend that it should. The laws relating to claims try to > achieve equity - the result is that no one has got a clue how to apply them, > and they end up adding greatly to the amount of misery in the world, because > someone who got his last claim ruling from Dany is going to be very > miserable indeed when he gets his next one from me. The laws relating to > revokes do not care about equity - they just punish players for being > careless, regardless of the extent to which their carelessness "matters". At > least, that used to be the situation - a misguided attempt was recently made > to introduce the concepts of equity, truth, justice and the American Way. > The result was a complete shambles, of course. > > Dany wants to apply the Laws with "common sense" and in a way consistent > with "HUMAN" behaviour. He does not care what they actually say. The trouble > with this approach is that no one knows what common sense is, and one man's > humanity may be another's cruel injustice. If you apply the rules in a human > fashion, you will make mistakes - errare, as they used to say, humanum est. > If you make mistakes, you will do injustice, and you will cause chaos. > > I want to apply the rules by understanding what they say, and by making sure > that everybody else understands what they say also. I do not care what > effects they have, provided those effects are the same from here to > Popocatapetl. I do not mind in the least if the Laws tell me to give a > three-trick bonus to every player whose age is over 60 or whose IQ is under > it, in order to make the game "fairer". I do not mind if a defender who says > "What about my six of spades?" is taken from hence and hanged by the neck > until he is dead, as long as that is what happens to all such defenders. As > long as every qualifying player gets that bonus, or is summarily executed, > it's just fine with me. What I do care about is that the number of tricks a > player makes when he holds J92 of trumps will vary from London to Israel > because I think the Laws say one thing, while Dany Haimovici thinks they say > another. > > Dany, if you can write a set of Laws which codify "common sense" and > "humanity" in such a way that every director in the world can apply them > consistently, then I will be the first to recommend you for the Nobel Peace > Prize. Until then, I am afraid you are going to have to live with the fact > that it is *not possible* to create a code of Laws that is both playable and > wholly in accord with high moral principles. The only way to create a game > that is, in truth, "fair" is to ensure that equal injustice is done to all. > > With respect, and regret that the world is not the place you would like it > to be, > > David Burn > London, England > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 13 06:59:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA27921 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 06:59:10 +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 GAA27916 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 06:59:02 +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 UAA25133; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 20:56:51 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by office.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA16044; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 20:56:41 +0100 (CET) X-Authentication-Warning: office.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 20:56:41 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Jesper Dybdal cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Software In-Reply-To: <42uaasonik70dafi1224drbrv1t9k9licb@bilbo.dit.dk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 12 Feb 2000, Jesper Dybdal wrote: > On Thu, 10 Feb 2000 12:56:44 GMT, "David Stevenson" > wrote: > > > You want software that does the following [all of which Turnpike does]: > > Turnpike sounds good (and people posting with it seem to produce > well-behaved messages). I have never tried it, and > http://www.turnpike.com offers a free trial only to customers of > the UK ISP named Demon. > > I use the combined Usenet newsreader and mail program Agent from > http://www.forteinc.com. It costs 29 USD, and is available in a > 30-day free trial version. Can anybody tell me where to find the Unix versions (and source code) of these programs? I don't want to spend 100's of $$ on a crappy O/S, and like to be in a position where I can adopt a program to what I need. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Committee (...) was unable to reach a consensus that substantial merit was lacking. Thus, the appeal was deemed meritorious. (Orlando NABC #19). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 13 09:41:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA28301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 09:41:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA28296 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 09:41:49 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA01565 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 23:41:41 +0100 Received: from ip43.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.43), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda01563; Sat Feb 12 23:41:36 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Software Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 23:41:37 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <42uaasonik70dafi1224drbrv1t9k9licb@bilbo.dit.dk> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id JAA28297 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 12 Feb 2000 20:56:41 +0100 (CET), "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" wrote: >Can anybody tell me where to find the Unix versions (and source code) of >these programs? I don't want to spend 100's of $$ on a crappy O/S, and >like to be in a position where I can adopt a program to what I need. That is very understandable, but not easy. I would be very surprised is there are no decent Unix-based tools to handle mailing lists, but I don't know them. I do know that at least one regular contributor to the Danish Usenet newsgroups runs Agent under Linux; I believe he uses the MS Windows-emulator WINE, and I suspect that WINE is available for other Unix flavours as well. That does not give you the Agent source code, of course. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 13 09:44:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA28317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 09:44:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA28312 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 09:44:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.183] (dhcp165-183.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.183]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA20918 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 17:44:08 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 17:36:56 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: What is "deliberate play" of a card during the auction? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In mid-auction, South places the 2S card from his bidding box on the table. West, thinking that 2S has been led, puts the S5 from her hand on the table. How do you rule? And how do you rule when the auction continues and at the end West is on lead? The TD's ruling at the table was that the S5 was not "prematurely led" and thus East was not forced to pass. However, it was "exposed throught deliberate play" because West was trying to play it, and it was thus a major penalty card and West was required to lead it. There was no appeal because the S5 lead gained a trick for the defense. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 13 10:28:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA28444 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 10:28:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA28439 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 10:28:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.183] (dhcp165-183.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.183]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA00701; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 18:28:20 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <003801bf7555$fd1bf100$47a101d5@davidburn> References: <00f301bf751c$1d535d80$cd284b0c@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 18:15:23 -0500 To: "David Burn" , From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: L70C3 in action Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:37 PM +0000 2/12/00, David Burn wrote: >Law 74 > >B. Etiquette >As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: >4. prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows >that all the tricks are surely his) >for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent. > >There are times, of course, when a player will play on knowing that >all the tricks are surely his for the purpose of not having to explain >to Mrs Guggenheim that since his remaining cards are all trumps, and >no one else has any, she will not get a trick with any of her side >aces. Such a player is not, in my view, breaking L74B4, since his >motives are pure. However, because it is not fair to Mrs G to make her >worry about which of her aces she ought to be keeping, the official >view appears to me to be that players should claim when they can, lest >by failing to do so they succeed in disconcerting an opponent - >regardless of what their purpose might be. However, this causes more trouble than necessary when the opponent cannot understand a non-trivial play. Consider a position like this one (spades are trumps and all have been drawn). 3 4 AQJ2 - A 7 K94 8 Declarer would like to claim, "I'll take four rounds of diamonds throwing the H7 from hand, then crossruff the last two tricks." But many players will not understand how their HK vanishes, and will demand "play it out", which leads to further problems when the TD is called. Should declarer play out four diamond tricks if he believes that West is a player of this caliber? From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 13 12:43:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA28858 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 12:43:06 +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 MAA28853 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 12:42:58 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA01926 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 02:42:50 +0100 Received: from ip2.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.2), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda01923; Sun Feb 13 02:42:46 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: L70C3 in action Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 02:42:47 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <00f301bf751c$1d535d80$cd284b0c@default> <003801bf7555$fd1bf100$47a101d5@davidburn> 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 MAA28854 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 12 Feb 2000 18:15:23 -0500, "David J. Grabiner" wrote: >However, this causes more trouble than necessary when the opponent cannot >understand a non-trivial play. Consider a position like this one (spades >are trumps and all have been drawn). > > 3 > 4 > AQJ2 > - > > A > 7 > K94 > 8 > >Declarer would like to claim, "I'll take four rounds of diamonds throwing >the H7 from hand, then crossruff the last two tricks." But many players >will not understand how their HK vanishes, and will demand "play it out", >which leads to further problems when the TD is called. Should declarer >play out four diamond tricks if he believes that West is a player of this >caliber? Yes. This is not against L74B4: he is not doing it in order to disconcert an opponent, and it is not "prolonging play unnecessarily", but rather speeding play. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 13 17:30:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA29234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 17:30:40 +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 RAA29229 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 17:30:33 +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 ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 01:27:44 -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 ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 01:28:15 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <003801bf7555$fd1bf100$47a101d5@davidburn> References: <00f301bf751c$1d535d80$cd284b0c@default> <003801bf7555$fd1bf100$47a101d5@davidburn> Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 01:25:22 -0500 To: From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: L70C3 in action Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 David Burn writes: >the official view appears to me to be that players should claim when they can The operative word is "should," not "must." That would not seem to make failure to claim illegal. 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/AwUBOKZPfL2UW3au93vOEQJXnACg6dAhyphr5uiHolmJP/MZwQj/r9wAn1G8 0iwTmClJRH8e5gZIrxGBmrk7 =M7K2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 13 17:40:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA29256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 17:40:29 +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 RAA29251 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 17:40:22 +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 ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 01:37:34 -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 ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 01:38:05 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <42uaasonik70dafi1224drbrv1t9k9licb@bilbo.dit.dk> References: <20000210125645.49127.qmail@hotmail.com> <42uaasonik70dafi1224drbrv1t9k9licb@bilbo.dit.dk> Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 01:31:41 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Software Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 4:42 PM +0100 2/12/00, Jesper Dybdal wrote: >Turnpike sounds good (and people posting with it seem to produce >well-behaved messages). I have never tried it, and >http://www.turnpike.com offers a free trial only to customers of >the UK ISP named Demon. > >I use the combined Usenet newsreader and mail program Agent from >http://www.forteinc.com. It costs 29 USD, and is available in a >30-day free trial version. Y'all seem to think Windoze is the only OS people use. 'Tain't so. I use Eudora for mail, and MT Newswatcher for news. Mac OS 9. Far as I know there isn't a decent Mac program that does both. 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/AwUBOKZRyb2UW3au93vOEQJ6+ACfdaKz21fO/sLvirYWAyQ3o4mttVwAoM01 SvlK9wAJ323rKawiudlSmsxl =Asjt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 13 20:11:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA29496 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 20:11:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailserver.ipf.net (pop.itl-online.de [195.211.211.85]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA29491 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 20:11:34 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 6135 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2000 09:11:23 -0000 Received: from dialin-128.muenchen.okay.net (HELO rabbit) (194.117.252.128) by mail.okay.net with SMTP; 13 Feb 2000 09:11:23 -0000 Message-ID: <000901bf7602$e3124220$80fc75c2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <00f301bf751c$1d535d80$cd284b0c@default> Subject: Re: L70C3 in action Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 10:13:32 +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 "David J. Grabiner" wrote: > At 12:37 PM +0000 2/12/00, David Burn wrote: > > >Law 74 > > > >B. Etiquette > >As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: > >4. prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows > >that all the tricks are surely his) > >for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent. > > > >There are times, of course, when a player will play on knowing that > >all the tricks are surely his for the purpose of not having to explain > >to Mrs Guggenheim that since his remaining cards are all trumps, and > >no one else has any, she will not get a trick with any of her side > >aces. Such a player is not, in my view, breaking L74B4, since his > >motives are pure. However, because it is not fair to Mrs G to make her > >worry about which of her aces she ought to be keeping, the official > >view appears to me to be that players should claim when they can, lest > >by failing to do so they succeed in disconcerting an opponent - > >regardless of what their purpose might be. > > However, this causes more trouble than necessary when the opponent cannot > understand a non-trivial play. Consider a position like this one (spades > are trumps and all have been drawn). > > 3 > 4 > AQJ2 > - > > A > 7 > K94 > 8 > > Declarer would like to claim, "I'll take four rounds of diamonds throwing > the H7 from hand, then crossruff the last two tricks." But many players > will not understand how their HK vanishes, and will demand "play it out", > which leads to further problems when the TD is called. Should declarer > play out four diamond tricks if he believes that West is a player of this > caliber? Declarer should ruff the club and then claim. Thats fast and leads to a claim statement which can be understood. Generally, it is better to play the hand out one or two tricks more than to make a premature complicated claim. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 13 20:53:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA29579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 20:53:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from tantalum.btinternet.com (tantalum.btinternet.com [194.73.73.80]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA29574 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 20:53:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.178.107] (helo=davidburn) by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12Jvia-0003ZF-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 09:53:30 +0000 Message-ID: <001501bf7608$35d60e60$6bb201d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <00f301bf751c$1d535d80$cd284b0c@default><003801bf7555$fd1bf100$47a101d5@davidburn> Subject: Re: L70C3 in action Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 09:53:40 -0000 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed wrote: > David Burn writes: > > >the official view appears to me to be that players should claim when they can > > The operative word is "should," not "must." That would not seem to > make failure to claim illegal. >From the Scope and Interpretation of the Laws: When a player "should" do something ("a claim should be accompanied at once by a statement..."), his failure to do it is an infraction of Law, which will jeopardise his rights, but which will seldom incur a procedural penalty. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 13 21:35:00 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA29641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 21:35:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA29636 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 21:34:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-17-129.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.17.129]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA09404 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 11:34:42 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38A42319.61FCA3F2@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 15:56:25 +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: L70C3 in action References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello David, I do believe we are once again on opposite sides of an argument, although this time neither of us is alone. Yet it seems to me that your position is more a British one than a Burn one. Claiming is a bit different in one country or another. We must all realize that. It seems to me that the Brits claim as the Laws tell them, with good statement, whereas the rest of the world are less strict in doing this, even though the directors would be just as strict in applying the Laws. david.burn@bt.com wrote: > > > It is not "irrational" not to claim. It is illegal not to claim if you > believe you have the rest, but that is not the same thing. If, as has been > established, you claim on the basis that none of your remaining cards can be > beaten or ruffed, then it is not *ex definitione* irrational to play them > starting with the lowest. It has been deemed "irrational" for the purposes > of the Laws, but it is important to remember that in doing this, we are > using the word "irrational" in a special sense that does not accord with its > English meaning. Of course, we do this all the time - it has been > established by the WBFLC, for example, that "if the withdrawn call related > to a specified suit" does not mean what it says :) > This argument has been beaten to death by now. Let's agree to disagree. I even believe you may agree on the principle. Your next argument is far more interesting : > > If we want to encourage > > claiming (and discourage 3 boards in 32 minutes) we want to ALWAYS allow > > this claim. > > exactly. > > Not "exactly" at all. If we want to make the game faster, fairer and more > pleasant for everybody, we want to allow *this* claim: "I will play these > cards from the top, making the rest". It does not protract the game by a > nanosecond for declarer to say this as he puts his cards down - in fact, it > has the effect of saving time, because the defenders do not have to work out > how many tricks declarer might make if he played his cards in some other > permutation. You are right, we should try and get more players to make complete claim statements. But when players don't, we should not punish them overly. We really don't need to tell players that they shuold explain precisely how they play when they own the last 3 trumps, now should we ? That does not speed up the game, and that only helps in giving opponents the impression they don't know what is going on. So I will not find any fault with a player who claims without a word when holding the last three trumps. And we should do the same if he is mistaken in that. > But why should we want to allow a claim by a declarer who has > broken Law 68C, unless he cannot actually lose a trick by "n'mporte quel" > play of the remaining cards? There is no question of "wanting to encourage > claiming" - the Laws require players to claim, and rightly so, for a > properly worded claim is an excellent way of maintaining the game at a > sensible pace. > In Belgium, far too many people have fear of claiming. They play until trick 11, at which time defenders are really worrying abut where to find another trick. And then they put down the last two tricks. These people sometimes reply, "the last time I claimed, the opponents told me to play my suits upside down, so they got another trick". I realize this is bad directing (no director, more likely) but still it happens. We should not discourage people from claiming by disallowing them obviously correct claims. See, I am not using "irrational" here, but rather "correct". > An improperly worded claim, on the other hand, runs a serious risk of > creating major disruption (and, at levels where this is a consideration, of > ruining the enjoyment of all concerned). It seems to me as if the ruin is more caused by this "absurd" ruling than by the bad claim. > If we want to prevent appeals > committees from having to convene after every session, if we want to prevent > the acrimony and disgruntlement that always accompanies any claim ruling by > a Director, then we want to NEVER allow any claim that is not properly > worded in accordance with the Laws (including this one). But a player who "knows" his cards are high does not NEED to accompany his claim by a statement. He is covered by the Laws not saying that he loses all possible tricks, but only those from rational play. If the Laws really wanted to have every claim accompanied by a statement, they would have made the penalty far more severe ! > Good claims take no > longer than bad claims to make, they take less time to resolve if they > happen to be contested, and they should be encouraged. Bad claims should > disappear from the face of the earth, and the quickest and most sensible way > to achieve that is to disallow them whenever possible. You will tell me that > this is not fair. So what? > I am not telling you this is not fair. As you put in another post, the only unfair thing is that they are ruled differently in London or Israel. There are two ways of removing that difference, David ! slight chage to your text : Claims take no time to make and should be encouraged. The quickest and most sensible way to achieve that is to allow them as much as possible. By disallowing this "bum" claim (and the other one John posted, and on which I give him a thumbs-up as long as it was in London), you will probably see many more hands being played out than you will see claims. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 13 23:29:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA29771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 23:29:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA29766 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 23:29:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from office.ripe.net (office.ripe.net [193.0.1.97]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA29353; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 13:28:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by office.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA06940; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 13:28:38 +0100 (CET) X-Authentication-Warning: office.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 13:28:38 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Jesper Dybdal cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Software In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 12 Feb 2000, Jesper Dybdal wrote: > I would be very surprised is there are no decent Unix-based tools > to handle mailing lists, but I don't know them. Pine does about everything I want to do (and listed in David's list), is freely available including source code and can thus be adapted to the user's needs. It's also available for MSDOS (and derived OS'ses). 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 Feb 14 00:48:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA29969 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 00:48:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo-d01.mx.aol.com (imo-d01.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA29964 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 00:48:44 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id p.92.16c7c86 (3315); Sun, 13 Feb 2000 08:48:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <92.16c7c86.25d81013@aol.com> Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 08:48:03 EST Subject: Off line To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: gester@globalnet.co.uk, Hermes@dodona.clara.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 Hi all, leaving this afternoon for Cairo, Egypt until the 22nd. Hope you have all these claim problems straightened out by then. See ya, Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 14 05:06:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA00762 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 04:53:10 +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 EAA00747 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 04:52:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-16.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.16]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA07686 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 18:52:44 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38A6913D.A49D218D@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 12:10:53 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L70C3 in action References: <00f301bf751c$1d535d80$cd284b0c@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "David J. Grabiner" wrote: > > At 12:37 PM +0000 2/12/00, David Burn wrote: > > >Law 74 > > > >B. Etiquette > >As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: > >4. prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows > >that all the tricks are surely his) > >for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent. > > > >There are times, of course, when a player will play on knowing that > >all the tricks are surely his for the purpose of not having to explain > >to Mrs Guggenheim that since his remaining cards are all trumps, and > >no one else has any, she will not get a trick with any of her side > >aces. Such a player is not, in my view, breaking L74B4, since his > >motives are pure. However, because it is not fair to Mrs G to make her > >worry about which of her aces she ought to be keeping, the official > >view appears to me to be that players should claim when they can, lest > >by failing to do so they succeed in disconcerting an opponent - > >regardless of what their purpose might be. > > However, this causes more trouble than necessary when the opponent cannot > understand a non-trivial play. Consider a position like this one (spades > are trumps and all have been drawn). > > 3 > 4 > AQJ2 > - > > A > 7 > K94 > 8 > > Declarer would like to claim, "I'll take four rounds of diamonds throwing > the H7 from hand, then crossruff the last two tricks." But many players > will not understand how their HK vanishes, and will demand "play it out", > which leads to further problems when the TD is called. Should declarer > play out four diamond tricks if he believes that West is a player of this > caliber? No, he should claim, issue the statement, and if opponents insist, act as if he is playing the suit to show them. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 14 05:53:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA00923 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 05:53:54 +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 FAA00918 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 05:53:47 +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, 13 Feb 2000 10:53:39 -0800 Message-ID: <00da01bf7653$9fac5e20$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <00f301bf751c$1d535d80$cd284b0c@default><003801bf7555$fd1bf100$47a101d5@davidburn> <001501bf7608$35d60e60$6bb201d5@davidburn> Subject: Re: L70C3 in action Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 10:43:33 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My suggestion is that NCBOs require a player to have all high cards in one hand or the other before claiming, or have the rest on a cross-ruff with high trumps. When opponents have to look back and forth from hand to dummy, checking for miscount or blockage (often the case, and often missed) the result is usually more time taken than the claim saves. Failure to follow this procedure would be grounds for a PP, but only if it causes difficulties. Against some opponents one can say, "Squeezing you," or "Finessing your queen," without fear of that PP. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 14 06:06:28 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA00763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 04:53:11 +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 EAA00746 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 04:52:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-16.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.16]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA07680 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 18:52:42 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38A6904E.73E3F8B3@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 12:06:54 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action References: <00ed01bf7522$28f2c580$d1fc75c2@rabbit> <001d01bf7553$39e4e220$47a101d5@davidburn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > Thomas wrote: > > > The "always from the top"-approach > > does not work for David's example > > > > immaterial > > > > Qx T > > J92 > > > > Assume declarer knows that there are still *some* trumps > > out. Claim statement: "I'll give you the queen". > Indeed, the ACBL guideline should say "when claiming all tricks, suits are considered to be played up-down". In this case, I too rule 2 tricks away. > If declarer were forced to play from the top, he would succeed above > (but not if West had the singleton queen). Suppose, however, that > declarer knows about the queen and the x, but has forgotten about the > ten. Would it be rational, having stated that he will concede to the > queen, for him to lead the nine? > It would be "normal" to lead the 2. > The fact is that there are any number of ways in which a claimer can > be unaware of the true position. There are any number of claim > statements which a player can make that do not reveal the extent of > his delusion. I do not believe that any single principle, such as > "top-down", will restore equity in all cases. Nor do I consider that > attempting to make judgements on a case-by-case basis is a > satisfactory way to proceed, for (as has been demonstrated many times > on this list alone) we are pretty hopeless at handing down justice on > any kind of consistent basis. This is because we have very different > ideas of what constitutes "justice" in the first place, and because we > are fallible people trying to implement a fallible legal system. > > As I said earlier, the simplest and in my view the fairest way to > proceed is to recognise that we will never be able to treat all > individual cases equally justly. Thus, we should achieve what players > want - which is a level playing field - by treating all cases equally > unjustly. L68C should be extended as follows: > > "A claim should be accompanied at once by a statement of clarification > as to the order in which cards will be played, the line of play or > defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed. > Any cards not covered by this statement of clarification are deemed to > be played in the legal order most disadvantageous to the claimer in > respect of the actual position at the time of the claim." > > Now, if this had been L68C from the dawn of time, none of the problems > relating to disputed claims would exist. Grant Sterling - whose points > about claims at the lower levels of the game are entirely valid, and > with whose views I have a great deal of sympathy - would not have to > worry about the curmudgeons at his club, for they would have had no > reason and no opportunity to become curmudgeonly in the first place. > > It is too late for this kind of approach? Probably, for the concept of > equity permeates our thinking about the Laws so deeply that, even when > it is not possible to achieve it, we continue to try - and we continue > to fail. However, there appears to me still to be considerable support > for the view that consistency, rather than equity, is the best we can > do and the goal for which we should strive. While that is the case, I > will continue to argue for it. > > David Burn > London, England I like your point of view, David. The Laws are, at the moment, more difficult to apply. Your suggestion would make it easier to rule. But they are not. As long as people continue to claim in less than optimal fashion, we should rule with some higher degree of lattitude. Maybe that is the real reason why claims are ruled differently in Britain from elsewhere. And maybe both are right, in their own back-yard. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 14 06:22:27 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA00761 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 04:53:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA00748 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 04:52:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-16.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.16]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA07690 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 18:52:47 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38A69465.C8479FFE@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 12:24:21 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L70C3 in action References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As usual, David has graved us with a piece of prose that should be framed. He is almost good enough to sway me. david.burn@bt.com wrote: > > Herman wrote: > > >David, you've lost me > > I am very sorry to hear that. Let us see if I can find you again. It may > take a while, for which I apologise, but no effort is too great if it brings > back a strayed lamb to the fold. > > >Indeed, a completely rational player, or a computer program, > would not consider playing the jack, "just in case". > > Quite so. Such a player would know that the two was just as much of a winner > as the jack. However, it occurs to me that we may be starting from different > premises, and it might be worth clarifying the position, since others may > have a view. > Here you have hit the nail right on the head. > When a player puts three cards of the same suit on the table and claims the > rest, do you believe he is asserting: > > (a) These three cards will win tricks in whatever order I play them; or > > (b) These three cards will win tricks, assuming that I play them from the > top down? > Or put it differently, does he think he has the last, or merely the highest ? > It is possible that in the USA, the distinction is not relevant, for there > is an assumption that the player will play from the top down - however, this > assumption is not in the Laws and, as far as I know, does not apply in other > jurisdictions. You may not believe, of course, that the player is > "asserting" anything - he is just making a claim. But a claim is a > statement, according to L68A, and it seems reasonable to me to regard the > player's action as an assertion. > When you put it like this, the ACBL position does not even hold, unless the player is actively aware that saying nothing means he plays them top-down. > If you believe (a), then the play of the two cannot be considered irrational > by definition alone. The only reason we permit the claim to succeed in cases > where the two would in fact lose a trick is because we have substituted for > the English definition of the word "irrational" a definition which we > believe leads to greater equity in the majority of cases where a player is > not mindful of L68C, and does not accompany his claim with a verbal > statement. > I agree that if (a) is to be believed, the claim must be ruled against. > If you believe (b), then of course there is no difficulty, and the question > of whether the player "could" play the two first does not arise, for > implicit in his claim is the "top-down" assertion. I do not believe that (b) > is supported by the wording of the Laws. I do not think, however, that a > regulation such as the ACBL's is in conflict with the Laws, and I would have > no difficulty were this regulation introduced universally. > > Since there is nothing to discuss if your actual belief is (b), I will > proceed on the assumption that it is (a). However, certain arguments have > been adduced that appear to me to come from people who believe (b) - or at > any rate believe that we should rule on claims as if (b) applied. With those > people I have nothing to discuss; none of my arguments is relevant if (b) is > what actually applies. > Since I also agree with you on (a), either before you wrote the arguments below, or because of them (I don't remember what I thought ten minutes ago, your writing is so inspiring), that discussion too is moot. We should go back to the table and ask the player if he knew his trumps were high, or if he knew they were the last. And then rule accordingly. (after we have tried to find evidence supporting his obvious reply that he knew them to be high). > Part of the difficulty may perhaps be > seen if you consider this ending: > > Immaterial > 10872 Immaterial > QJ93 > > The spade suit shown is trumps. South cashes the queen, and when East shows > out, he tables his cards and says to West "I'll give you a spade". How would > you rule, if you ascertained that South thought there were only three spades > outstanding? > 2 tricks to west, I believe. I don't believe there is any discussion on that one ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 14 07:54:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA01240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 07:54:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from ntserver.tasvacations.com.au (nt-e0.tasvacations.com.au [203.39.132.131]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA01235 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 07:54:29 +1100 (EST) Received: by nt-e0.tasvacations.com.au with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 07:54:29 +1100 Message-ID: From: Geoff Young To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Booking from Web Site Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 07:54:26 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ARE THESE DATES CORRECT Regards Geoff Young Thrifty Car Rental ~ Tasmania http://www.tasvacations.com.au THE TASMANIAN HOLIDAY SPECIALISTS We can assist with all your Tasmanian holiday needs, Car Hire, Accomodation and Air Tas Vacations 1800 030 160 Thrifty Car Rental 1800 030 730 > -----Original Message----- > From: IUSR_NTSERVER@ntserver [SMTP:IUSR_NTSERVER@ntserver] > Sent: Saturday, 12 February 2000 20:15 > To: thrifty@tasvacations.com.au > Subject: Booking from Web Site > > ************************************************************************** > ***** > cartype: ecmn > fromlocation: Wrest Point Casino (Sandy Bay Road, Sandy Bay) > fromday: 13 > frommonth: February > fromyear: 2000 > fromtime: 9h30, 6h00 > tolocation: Hobart Airport (Terminal Building) > today: 15 > tomonth: February > toyear: 2000 > flight: > hotel: > fullname: tourneur > organisation: > street: 1 avenue danielle casanova > town: champigny sur marne > state: > postcode: 94500 > country: France > phone: 06.82.33.06.26 > fax: > email: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > iata: > account: > Date: 2/12/00 > Time: 7:15:26 PM > Remote Name: 203.60.16.245 > Remote User: > HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows 98) > > comments: From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 14 08:37:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA01351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 08:37:05 +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 IAA01346 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 08:36:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA01518 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 16:36:16 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000213163848.00704414@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 16:38:48 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: demonstrably- reasonably In-Reply-To: <006301bf74b5$fb394400$16991e18@san.rr.com> References: <200002041644.IAA22723@mailhub.irvine.com> <001901bf7421$49ea5520$66047bc3@pppsvk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:29 AM 2/11/00 -0800, Marvin wrote: >I believe the change from "reasonably" to "demonstrably" was aimed at ACBL AC >decisions, which were thought to be a little too demanding of the suspected >offenders. The word "demonstrably" was felt to be a trifle more permissive >than "reasonably." That's just my impression, I have no evidence to back it >up. > >I once was ruled against (Denver Appeals Case #2) when I could *demonstrate* >(by quoting authorities) that my bid was not suggested by my partner's >hesitation, because per system I had no LA. The AC "reasoned" that it *was* >suggested and pass was an LA, so I don't know that the word change affected >the ACBL ACs thinking at all. Maybe a little. > >Another possibility is that the lawmakers saw that BLs were coming up with >all sorts of convoluted reasoning to show that an action was suggested by UI, >and hoped the word change would reduce that sort of thing. In fact, this seems >to be what the official ACBL statement says: > >###### >The use of the word "DEMONSTRABLY" is intended to remove from consideration >logical alternatives that are not obviously suggested over another by the >unauthorized information. Directors should not change a result unless the >action chosen can be shown (demonstrated) to have been suggested. The actions >that will now be removed by law have to be suggested in an obvious, >easily-understood way--it must be readily apparent rather than a product of >some subtle bridge argument. >###### (Duplicate Decisions, page 13) > >And then on page 14: >###### >Is it obvious? Is it readily apparent? Is it easily understood? If yes, >proceed. >###### > >I'll leave it to others to say whether ACBL TDs and ACs are following these >guidelines. Another thing that ACBL committees were doing were adjusting scores when players huddled in classicly amgiguous positions, such as before making game invitations or forcing passes. When an experienced partnership bids, say, 1S-P-2S-P-(huddle)3S-P-P, opener comes up with a scratchy invitation and responder has a borderline decision, it is "reasonable" to think that responder might know opener well enough to know that he would just bid a fast 4S with a hand that was on the margin between 3S and 4S, and therefore holds a hand on the margin between P and 3S. But, barring some evidentiary history of this particular partnership's tendencies, this is not "demonstrable". ACBL ACs were making adjustments in such positions with no evidence whatsoever that the huddle had a non-ambiguous interpretation for the huddling partnership, merely on the grounds that this might be the case. The change in the law was widely taken to be, as Grattan has now confirmed, an attempt to word the intent of the previous law in a manner less subject to interpretation rather than a change in intent, and to do so primarily to put an end to this particular practice. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 14 08:52:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA01388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 08:52:39 +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 IAA01383 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 08:52:31 +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 QAA15406 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 16:52:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA09858 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 16:52:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 16:52:22 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200002132152.QAA09858@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > -- not endowed with reason or understanding > -- lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence > -- not governed by or according to reason > > It seems to me, all of these have to do with a person's mental state; > so one cannot really judge whether an action would be rational or > irrational without reference to what else was in that person's mind at > the time. This is where we disagree, then. I believe the Laws require us to judge the _play_, not the mental state of the player. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 14 08:53:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA01402 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 08:53:17 +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 IAA01397 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 08:53:10 +1100 (EST) From: pamhad@netcomuk.co.uk Received: from dialup-19-53.netcomuk.co.uk (dialup-19-53.netcomuk.co.uk [194.42.232.245]) by avalon.netcom.net.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA20350 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 21:52:47 GMT To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 21:51:20 +0000 Reply-To: pamhad@netcomuk.co.uk Message-ID: References: <00ed01bf7522$28f2c580$d1fc75c2@rabbit> <001d01bf7553$39e4e220$47a101d5@davidburn> <38A6904E.73E3F8B3@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <38A6904E.73E3F8B3@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 IAA01398 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 13 Feb 2000 12:06:54 +0100, Herman wrote: > >As long as people continue to claim in less than optimal >fashion, we should rule with some higher degree of >lattitude. Perhaps as long as we rule with some higher degree of latitude, people will continue to claim in a less than optimal fashion. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 14 09:10:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA01479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 09:10:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from fe100.worldonline.dk (fe100.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.211]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA01473 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 09:10:45 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <200002132210.JAA01473@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: (qmail 18098 invoked by uid 0); 13 Feb 2000 22:10:33 -0000 Received: from 56.ppp1-3.image.dk (HELO idefix) (213.237.1.56) by fe100.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 13 Feb 2000 22:10:33 -0000 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 23:10:54 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: L70C3 in action Reply-to: jensogbodil@alesia.dk Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 13 Feb 00 at 2:42, Jesper Dybdal wrote: > On Sat, 12 Feb 2000 18:15:23 -0500, "David J. Grabiner" > wrote: > > >However, this causes more trouble than necessary when the opponent cannot > >understand a non-trivial play. Consider a position like this one (spades > >are trumps and all have been drawn). > > > > 3 > > 4 > > AQJ2 > > - > > > > A > > 7 > > K94 > > 8 > > > >Declarer would like to claim, "I'll take four rounds of diamonds throwing > >the H7 from hand, then crossruff the last two tricks." But many players > >will not understand how their HK vanishes, and will demand "play it out", > >which leads to further problems when the TD is called. Should declarer > >play out four diamond tricks if he believes that West is a player of this > >caliber? > > Yes. This is not against L74B4: he is not doing it in order to > disconcert an opponent, and it is not "prolonging play > unnecessarily", but rather speeding play. No, he should not play out the tricks - not with the opponents following to every trick. Instead he should take the four diamonds in dummy and put them to one side, and take his three diamonds in his hand along with the HK and put them to one side. Then he should say: "After four tricks, I will have these cards left (pointing), and I will cross-ruff the last two tricks." No, Jesper, you don't need to acknowledge this with "Yes, that is just what I meant to say". -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 14 09:38:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA01567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 09:38:33 +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 JAA01562 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 09:38:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA05956 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 17:37:46 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000213174016.006a5fd4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 17:40:16 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action In-Reply-To: <001d01bf7553$39e4e220$47a101d5@davidburn> References: <00ed01bf7522$28f2c580$d1fc75c2@rabbit> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:18 PM 2/12/00 -0000, David wrote: >As I said earlier, the simplest and in my view the fairest way to >proceed is to recognise that we will never be able to treat all >individual cases equally justly. Thus, we should achieve what players >want - which is a level playing field - by treating all cases equally >unjustly. L68C should be extended as follows: > >"A claim should be accompanied at once by a statement of clarification >as to the order in which cards will be played, the line of play or >defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed. >Any cards not covered by this statement of clarification are deemed to >be played in the legal order most disadvantageous to the claimer in >respect of the actual position at the time of the claim." > >Now, if this had been L68C from the dawn of time, none of the problems >relating to disputed claims would exist. Grant Sterling - whose points >about claims at the lower levels of the game are entirely valid, and >with whose views I have a great deal of sympathy - would not have to >worry about the curmudgeons at his club, for they would have had no >reason and no opportunity to become curmudgeonly in the first place. But had this been L68C from the dawn of time, claims per se, disputed or otherwise, would be at best an endangered species, more likely extinct. We would find ourselves unable to convince our players ever to claim, however persuasively we read L74B4 to them, when they looked us in the eye and wailed "but the last time I claimed, I had the J92 of trump left and they made me lose a trick to the stiff 6!" Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 14 10:10:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA01600 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 09:49:55 +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 JAA01595 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 09:49:46 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA04260 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 23:49:36 +0100 Received: from ip42.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.42), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda04258; Sun Feb 13 23:49:33 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L70C3 in action Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 23:49:34 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <200002132210.JAA01473@octavia.anu.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <200002132210.JAA01473@octavia.anu.edu.au> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id JAA01596 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 13 Feb 2000 23:10:54 +0100, "Jens & Bodil" wrote: >No, Jesper, you don't need to acknowledge this with "Yes, that is just >what I meant to say". Well, it is almost, but not quite, what I meant to say. Let me try again: What declarer should do is to consider how he can best explain his plan for getting the rest to the opponents. If he then judges that his best efforts will not be good enough to make the current opponents understand the plan quickly, then he should play on instead. The decision to play on or claim thus depends on the complexity of the situation, the opponents' abilities to understand, and declarer's own ability to explain things clearly. If he cannot explain it better than the way the question was originally put here and opponents won't understand that, then he should play on. And that was just what I meant to say. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 14 10:55:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA01690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:55:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA01685 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:55:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.236] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12K8rS-000A3Y-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 23:55:30 +0000 Message-ID: <002201bf767e$07083b00$ec5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Chercher la dame. Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 23:12:34 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:47:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.158.8] (helo=davidburn) by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12K9fJ-0003Xw-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 00:47:01 +0000 Message-ID: <001f01bf7685$0a5c1cc0$089e01d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200002132152.QAA09858@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 00:47:15 -0000 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve wrote: > > From: Adam Beneschan > > -- not endowed with reason or understanding > > -- lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence > > -- not governed by or according to reason > > > > It seems to me, all of these have to do with a person's mental state; > > so one cannot really judge whether an action would be rational or > > irrational without reference to what else was in that person's mind at > > the time. > > This is where we disagree, then. I believe the Laws require us to judge > the _play_, not the mental state of the player. I think that the Laws require us to judge how the play might go, given the mental state of the player who made a false claim. I do not believe, as Herman and others appear to me to believe, that the Laws require us to consider how declarer might play were he suddenly transformed into a rational human being, as opposed to the person he was when he made his claim. However, I also think that this belief of mine is at least questionable (which of course makes me an irrational human being). Have any of you read the works of Raymond Smullyan? You would enjoy them, and they have some relevance to the present discussion. See particularly "Forever Undecided". David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 14 12:12:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA01837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:12:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from praseodumium.btinternet.com (praseodumium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA01831 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:12:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.158.8] (helo=davidburn) by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12KA3X-0001tP-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 01:12:03 +0000 Message-ID: <003101bf7688$8668ace0$089e01d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: A curiosity Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 01:12:11 -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 There is a story in a book by Darvas and de Vere Hart, called "Right Through the Pack", of a grand slam that made missing the ace of trumps. If you do not have this book, then you should, for it is a true classic of bridge literature. The hapless defender had fourteen cards, and the declarer made the first thirteen tricks by means of a few side winners and a cross-ruff. At that time, the Laws stated that an error of the 14-12 variety had to be corrected if it was discovered before trick nine - otherwise, the result stood. Those Laws have been amended so that this is no longer the case. A trivial question for you all: is it still possible to make a grand slam missing the ace of trumps, assuming only that the defenders do not revoke? David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 14 12:49:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA01926 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:49:58 +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 MAA01921 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:49:51 +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 RAA08417; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 17:49:42 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bbo@localhost) by king.halcyon.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA12663; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 17:49:42 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 17:49:42 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard B. and Barbara B. Odlin" To: David Burn cc: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: A curiosity In-Reply-To: <003101bf7688$8668ace0$089e01d5@davidburn> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 14 Feb 2000, David Burn wrote: > A trivial question for you all: is it still possible to make a grand > slam missing the ace of trumps, assuming only that the defenders do > not revoke? I'll guess no, and wait with baited breath. Story time: A couple of month's ago, I was defending 7Cx and held the CA. Declarer had cashed a few winners and started in on sort of a cross-trump, and I decided what the hey, I showed my hand and claimed down one, just in case one of us might revoke!! My partner objected vehemently, and the Director was called. She [Director] was behind me when I told her what my claim was, and said, "Well, it looks like a pretty good claim to ME!!" half breaking out into laughter. But my partner STILL objected. Turns out she had Jack-fourth of trumps!! Final result was down two; no way to make 12 tricks. ::)) Rich Odlin From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 14 13:06:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA01973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:06:06 +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 NAA01968 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:05:59 +1100 (EST) Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 03BE830F82; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 21:05:47 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <20000210125645.49127.qmail@hotmail.com> <42uaasonik70dafi1224drbrv1t9k9licb@bilbo.dit.dk> Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 21:05:11 -0500 To: Ed Reppert From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Software Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 1:31 AM -0500 2/13/00, Ed Reppert wrote: >I use Eudora for mail, and MT Newswatcher for news. Mac OS 9. Far as >I know there isn't a decent Mac program that does both. I've been using Eudora for years, and heartily recommend it. It was originally written for the Mac and has versions for either MacOS or MS Windows. Both free and commercial versions are available from http://www.eudora.com. Eudora handles everything on David's list except that it does not feature full threading. It can sort by subject, which is useful but not so useful as threading. Hogwasher is an excellent Mac newsreader which also handles mail. I haven't tried it with the BLML though - I've been using it only for Usenet news. It's available from, yes, http://www.hogwasher.com. AW From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 14 14:17:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA02143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:17:05 +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 OAA02138 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:16:57 +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 12KC0F-0009L1-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 03:16:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 03:14:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: L70C3 in action In-Reply-To: <38A69465.C8479FFE@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <38A69465.C8479FFE@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes snip > >> Part of the difficulty may perhaps be >> seen if you consider this ending: >> >> Immaterial >> 10872 Immaterial >> QJ93 >> >> The spade suit shown is trumps. South cashes the queen, and when East shows >> out, he tables his cards and says to West "I'll give you a spade". How would >> you rule, if you ascertained that South thought there were only three spades >> outstanding? >> > >2 tricks to west, I believe. >I don't believe there is any discussion on that one ? > I'd be more inclined to award one trick here, than I would no tricks in the J92 scenario. The claim statement is specific, showing a grasp of the problem, and, for any competent player, it is evident what is required. On balance I'd award 2 tricks but I could be persuaded. > 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 Feb 14 14:29:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA02175 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:29:11 +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 OAA02170 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:29:04 +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 12KCBz-000PkD-0W for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 03:28:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 03:27:14 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: A curiosity In-Reply-To: <003101bf7688$8668ace0$089e01d5@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <003101bf7688$8668ace0$089e01d5@davidburn>, David Burn writes >There is a story in a book by Darvas and de Vere Hart, called "Right >Through the Pack", of a grand slam that made missing the ace of >trumps. If you do not have this book, then you should, for it is a >true classic of bridge literature. The hapless defender had fourteen >cards, and the declarer made the first thirteen tricks by means of a >few side winners and a cross-ruff. At that time, the Laws stated that >an error of the 14-12 variety had to be corrected if it was discovered >before trick nine - otherwise, the result stood. Those Laws have been >amended so that this is no longer the case. > >A trivial question for you all: is it still possible to make a grand >slam missing the ace of trumps, assuming only that the defenders do >not revoke? > >David Burn >London, England > > Clearly the defenders can, for down 13 to declarer. Otherwise I can't see how. 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 Feb 14 14:56:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA02267 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:56:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA02261 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:55:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from calum (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA13262 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 22:55:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200002140355.WAA13262@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A curiosity Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <003101bf7688$8668ace0$089e01d5@davidburn> References: <003101bf7688$8668ace0$089e01d5@davidburn> Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 22:55:34 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 14 February 2000 at 1:12, "David Burn" wrote: >A trivial question for you all: is it still possible to make a grand >slam missing the ace of trumps, assuming only that the defenders do >not revoke? > Well, apart from the obvious, but highly unlikely L79C case ("I have 16 tricks" - "OK" - and correction period timing out before the conversation in the bar: "Well, at least when *I* played that hand, I had the CA" :-) I found this one: L67B1a - holder of trump ace fails to play to a trump trick (this is not a revoke, technically). This is discovered two tricks later, when holder's only trump left is the A. Down it goes, and doesn't affect the defective trick. There's always the "moronic Director" L12B assigned score, but we'll ignore that one. And of course, in Crazy Bridge, it happens all the time ("On this hand, the trump suit ranks 2,3,...A"; "On odd tricks, the suits rank A,K,...2; on even tricks, 2,3,...,A" (the dreaded "Time-squeeze against the ace of trumps" - don't laugh, it's happened); "Play the first 7 tricks in the bid contract, then lower it one bid and play out and score that contract (i.e. bid was 4S, the first 7 tricks are played with spades trump, the last 6 with hearts trump, and the contract is scored as for 4H - this one is especially fun when you hold an unbalanced hand with a club suit), and so on. But that isn't really bridge, and isn't in the scope of the question. How'd I do? Michael. P.S. Yes, Herman, I'm still in Canada. But they won't give out personal .ca domains without narrowing down to city, and I expect to move, so michael@farebrother.kitchener-waterloo.on.ca was a non-option :-). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 14 16:48:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA02489 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:48:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe18.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.122]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA02484 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:47:53 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 91436 invoked by uid 65534); 14 Feb 2000 05:47:15 -0000 Message-ID: <20000214054715.91435.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.12.243] From: "Roger Pewick" To: References: Subject: Re: L70C3 in action Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 23:47:54 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 6:25 AM Subject: Re: L70C3 in action > Herman wrote: > > Craig Senior wrote: > > > > The claim is good...playing the 2 first is as irrational as not claiming. > > exactly. > > It is not "irrational" not to claim. It is illegal not to claim if you > believe you have the rest, but that is not the same thing. May I point out that one may be certain that the rest of the tricks will be his. However, that it will take significant resolution to make it clear to others is a reason to not be foolish enough to claim when the number of branches to the tree are so numerous that it will take a long time to remember/ enumerate them. Or was the comment tongue in cheek? -s- > > An improperly worded claim, on the other hand, runs a serious risk of > creating major disruption (and, at levels where this is a consideration, of > ruining the enjoyment of all concerned). If we want to prevent appeals > committees from having to convene after every session, if we want to prevent > the acrimony and disgruntlement that always accompanies any claim ruling by > a Director, then we want to NEVER allow any claim that is not properly > worded in accordance with the Laws (including this one). Good claims take no > longer than bad claims to make, they take less time to resolve if they > happen to be contested, and they should be encouraged. Bad claims should > disappear from the face of the earth, and the quickest and most sensible way > to achieve that is to disallow them whenever possible. You will tell me that > this is not fair. So what? I think a man named B F Skinner, who taught a dog to salivate, might have said something like this- if he were a bridge player. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas > David Burn > London, England > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 14 16:57:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA02508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:57:50 +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 QAA02502 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:57:42 +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 ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 21:57:36 -0800 Message-ID: <016901bf76b0$61808ec0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: A curiosity Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 21:57:26 -0800 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 David Burn wrote: > > > >A trivial question for you all: is it still possible to make a grand > >slam missing the ace of trumps, assuming only that the defenders do > >not revoke? > > If one defender has 14 cards including the ace of trumps, the other 12, it may be possible to cross-ruff 13 tricks, leaving the defender wondering what happened when he has the ace of trumps left and all other cards have been played and turned. Of course the result will be cancelled per L13C, but declarer did "make" a grand slam. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 14 20:29:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA02847 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 20:29:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (root@omicron.comarch.pl [195.116.125.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA02842 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 20:29:28 +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 KAA06247 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:30:40 +0100 Message-ID: <38A7CA87.ABF66D36@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:27:35 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [exotic-systems] TRS system or TSR system? References: <1.5.4.32.20000211151843.0071b06c@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henry Sun pressed the following keys: > > At 10:45 AM 2/11/00 +0800, you wrote: > >I have heard a strong pass system from England, > >it's name is TSR, maybe TRS. > >Who know about it? or is there any > >infomation online? > > the TRS system was used in the 1987 bermuda bowl by tony forrester and > one of his partners (whose name i cannot recall at the time). > > in short, the system opening bids were: > > pass=11-15, any > 1c=16+ > 1d=0-7 any, or 8-10 flat > 1M=7-11, 0-2 OR 6+ major 1M=7-10, 0-2 OR 5+major > 1nt=14-16 > > i forget what two-bids meant. > > henry sun It was the TRS system playes by Forrester-Lodge. -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Krakow, Poland From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 14 22:14:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA03034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 22:14:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA03029 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 22:13:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.171.123] (helo=davidburn) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12KJRo-0007GT-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:13:46 +0000 Message-ID: <001f01bf76dc$9310d5e0$7bab01d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <003101bf7688$8668ace0$089e01d5@davidburn> <200002140355.WAA13262@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Subject: Re: A curiosity Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:13:50 -0000 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael wrote: > L67B1a - holder of trump ace fails to play to a trump trick (this is not > a revoke, technically). This is discovered two tricks later, when > holder's only trump left is the A. Down it goes, and doesn't affect the > defective trick. Give that man the prize. It seems to me that - as 67B1 is worded - if you have the stiff ace of trumps and don't play anything at all to the first round of the suit, you will later be required to play the ace of trumps to the defective trick without winning it. What price equity? David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 14 22:59:38 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA03117 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 22:59:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA03112 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 22:59:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.171.123] (helo=davidburn) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12KK9s-0005O7-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:59:17 +0000 Message-ID: <002701bf76e2$efda2280$7bab01d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <20000214054715.91435.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: L70C3 in action Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:59:23 -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 Roger wrote: > > It is not "irrational" not to claim. It is illegal not to claim if you > > believe you have the rest, but that is not the same thing. > > May I point out that one may be certain that the rest of the tricks will be > his. However, that it will take significant resolution to make it clear to > others is a reason to not be foolish enough to claim when the number of > branches to the tree are so numerous that it will take a long time to > remember/ enumerate them. Or was the comment tongue in cheek? Not at all. I don't actually think that L74B4 extends as far as others seem to me to think that it does. Whereas, on my better days, I might know that I will make the rest of the tricks on a double squeeze, I would not claim on that basis against anyone. Defenders who do not know what is going on will contest the claim, and it will take far longer for me to explain than it would to play the hand. Defenders who do know what is going on will be irritated by what they (rightly) perceive to be showboating, and it is not courteous to upset the opponents gratuitously. Perhaps this should be said: at the highest levels of the game and even the levels slightly below that, contested claims do not cause any problems at all. Ton Kooijman said a long time ago that claims were easy, and I should not try to convince him that they were difficult. This is because, at the levels where he directs, bum claims simply do not happen. I have been at almost every European and World championship for the past twelve years. There has *never* to my knowledge been a ruling on a contested claim - certainly, there has never been any controversy about the rules relating to claims. Problems arise only at "grass roots" level. This is no reason for failing to address the problems, of course - but it does mean that, as far as the powers that be are concerned, it will not be a high-priority task. > > An improperly worded claim, on the other hand, runs a serious risk of > > creating major disruption (and, at levels where this is a consideration, > of > > ruining the enjoyment of all concerned). If we want to prevent appeals > > committees from having to convene after every session, if we want to > prevent > > the acrimony and disgruntlement that always accompanies any claim ruling > by > > a Director, then we want to NEVER allow any claim that is not properly > > worded in accordance with the Laws (including this one). Good claims take > no > > longer than bad claims to make, they take less time to resolve if they > > happen to be contested, and they should be encouraged. Bad claims should > > disappear from the face of the earth, and the quickest and most sensible > way > > to achieve that is to disallow them whenever possible. You will tell me > that > > this is not fair. So what? > > I think a man named B F Skinner, who taught a dog to salivate, might have > said something like this- if he were a bridge player. The splendidly-named Burrhus Frederic Skinner was a behavioural psychologist (and an idiot). He did not teach dogs to salivate - that was Pavlov, on whose work much of Skinner's was based. He did, however, teach pigeons to play table tennis, for which he may be forgiven much of the harm he did to humanity. I am not quite sure why Roger thinks that Skinner would have wanted to discourage rotten claims, but if it is so, it should also be counted in his favour. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 15 02:12:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA03682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 02:12:25 +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 CAA03676 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 02:12:15 +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 KAA03787; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:11:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA264411117; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:11:57 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:11:43 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Chercher la dame. Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk 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 CAA03678 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott w r o t e +=+ So declarer (South) led towards K in dummy; LHO played low, K from North, and East took the trick with the Ace. In the endplay the players were surprised when East took a further trick with the same Ace. Investigation showed that several tricks ago East had taken dummy's K with the Q, thinking he had played the Ace, as indeed all four players had believed. (It was known East must have both A and Q). The Director's ruling was not appealed. [Laval Dubreuil] What was the ruling ???? IMHO TD must restore play from the trick where K was played. As E played Q, it clearly belongs to declarer. Then E made a LOOT, accepted "de facto" by declarer (Law 53A). Play goes on without any other problem. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 15 02:46:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA03884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 02:46:41 +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 CAA03879 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 02:46:32 +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 PAA09835 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:46:23 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA23597 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:46:22 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:46:21 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA01984 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:46:20 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id PAA07724 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:46:20 GMT Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:46:20 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200002141546.PAA07724@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L70C3 in action X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman replying to David: > > > > Immaterial > > 10872 Immaterial > > QJ93 > > > > The spade suit shown is trumps. South cashes the queen, and when East shows > > out, he tables his cards and says to West "I'll give you a spade". How would > > you rule, if you ascertained that South thought there were only three spades > > outstanding? > > > > 2 tricks to west, I believe. > I don't believe there is any discussion on that one ? > Let me try: the top-down school claim that 2 from J-9-2 (in the original example) is irrational because we all play the J "just in case" we have miscounted. So South holds J-9-3 and knows (from the previous trick) only West has spades. He claims "I'll give you a spade", surely we all play S3 so that we have the last two trick "just in case" we have miscounted. Is there really a difference between playing J rather than 2, in case East has stiff 6 rather than void; and playing 3 rather than J, in case West has 1087 rather than 108 ? I think not. 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 Feb 15 03:45:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04076 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 03:45:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.emr.ca [132.156.47.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA04070 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 03:45:04 +1100 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA20177 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:44:45 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200002141644.LAA20177@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:44:45 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" at Feb 13, 2000 01:28:38 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" writes: > > On Sat, 12 Feb 2000, Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > I would be very surprised is there are no decent Unix-based tools > > to handle mailing lists, but I don't know them. > > Pine does about everything I want to do (and listed in David's list), is > freely available including source code and can thus be adapted to the > user's needs. It's also available for MSDOS (and derived OS'ses). And there's Mutt. Available in source of course. Full newsgroup (comp.mail.mutt) and some pretty decent resources. Far more powerful than either Elm or Pine, though it can be used more or less unconfigured. Elm meets my needs and I'm used to it, but there are more modern email programs for UNIX. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 15 04:23:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA04212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 04:23:35 +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 EAA04207 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 04:23:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from p6as03a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.99.107] helo=pacific) by cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12K1ZS-0000aL-00; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 16:08:26 +0000 Message-ID: <000501bf770f$baf20060$6b6393c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , , Subject: Re: Chercher la dame. Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 17:15:54 -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 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 ; Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk Date: 14 February 2000 15:27 Subject: RE: Chercher la dame. > > > > Grattan Endicott w r o t e > > +=+ So declarer (South) led towards K in dummy; > LHO played low, K from North, and East took the > trick with the Ace. > In the endplay the players were surprised when > East took a further trick with the same Ace. > Investigation showed that several tricks ago East > had taken dummy's K with the Q, thinking he had > played the Ace, as indeed all four players had > believed. (It was known East must have both > A and Q). > The Director's ruling was not appealed. > > > [Laval Dubreuil] > > What was the ruling ???? > > IMHO TD must restore play from the trick where > K was played. As E played Q, it clearly belongs > to declarer. Then E made a LOOT, accepted "de > facto" by declarer (Law 53A). Play goes on > without any other problem. > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City > +=+ The Director did just that. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 15 05:00:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA04482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 05:00:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA04475 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 05:00:17 +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 NAA06026 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:00:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA10647 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:00:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:00:07 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200002141800.NAA10647@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Software X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > To: Ed Reppert > I've been using Eudora for years, and heartily recommend it. One apparent quirk with Eudora is that it likes to send text as an attachment instead of in the body of the message. This weird behavior can be turned off -- Ed has obviously succeeded -- but it's something to watch out for. (Ed: if you could email me the exact place where you turn this off, I'd appreciate it.) I read BLML on Solaris 'mailtool', which doesn't do any of the fancy things, or on ucb/mail, which does even less. (Both programs handle message quoting and text filling, though.) My problem is that I need to be able to use both X-windows and a text terminal. One of these days, I'll set up a Linux box at home and ditch the terminal, but it won't be soon. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 15 05:06:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA04515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 05:06:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe5.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.109]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA04510 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 05:06:02 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 94736 invoked by uid 65534); 14 Feb 2000 18:05:23 -0000 Message-ID: <20000214180523.94735.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.13.23] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <20000214054715.91435.qmail@hotmail.com> <002701bf76e2$efda2280$7bab01d5@davidburn> Subject: Re: L70C3 in action Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:05:49 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Burn To: Sent: Monday, February 14, 2000 5:59 AM Subject: Re: L70C3 in action > Roger wrote: > > > > I think a man named B F Skinner, who taught a dog to salivate, might > have > > said something like this- if he were a bridge player. > > The splendidly-named Burrhus Frederic Skinner was a behavioural > psychologist (and an idiot). He did not teach dogs to salivate - that > was Pavlov, on whose work much of Skinner's was based. He did, > however, teach pigeons to play table tennis, for which he may be > forgiven much of the harm he did to humanity. I am not quite sure why > Roger thinks that Skinner would have wanted to discourage rotten > claims, but if it is so, it should also be counted in his favour. > > David Burn > London, England [embarrassment] Roger From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 15 05:10:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA04323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 04:42:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail1.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.192]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA04316 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 04:41:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-026.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.218]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA91742 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 17:41:15 GMT Message-ID: <006501bf7712$d9089c00$da307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 17:42:17 -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 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Date: 11 February 2000 14:02 Subject: Re: L70C3 in action > ~~~~~~~ \x/ ~~~~~~~~ Grattan wrote +=+ The problem you have, Herman, is that you are fixated by the original ranks of the cards. At the stage reached when he thinks they are all winners, he does not have J.9.2. - what he has is A. A. A. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Well put! I am all for an ACBL approach where we assume 'top down' play of suits but I hate allowing claimer to catch a trump he had forgotton about. With A.A.A. it can't really be irrational to play any A - it might be unusual or flamboyant but surely irrational is too strong? Best regards, Fearghal From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 15 06:39:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA05038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 06:39:19 +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 GAA05029 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 06:39:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-108.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.108]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA28261; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:38:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002201bf7723$53fccb60$6c84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Burn" , , "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: L70C3 in action Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:40:17 -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 No. Player should claim. To do otherwise is to insult your opponent, saying in effect, I think you are too stupid to see this rather elementary position. It could even be a ZT violation! Claiming at trick 2 in a complex squeeze situation is quite a different matter of course. -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: David J. Grabiner Consider a position like this one (spades >are trumps and all have been drawn). > > 3 > 4 > AQJ2 > - > > A > 7 > K94 > 8 > >Declarer would like to claim, "I'll take four rounds of diamonds throwing >the H7 from hand, then crossruff the last two tricks." But many players >will not understand how their HK vanishes, and will demand "play it out", >which leads to further problems when the TD is called. Should declarer >play out four diamond tricks if he believes that West is a player of this >caliber? > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 15 06:42:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA05067 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 06:42:23 +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 GAA05062 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 06:42:15 +1100 (EST) Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id B370215671; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:42:03 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200002141800.NAA10647@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200002141800.NAA10647@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:41:49 -0500 To: Steve Willner From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Software Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 1:00 PM -0500 2/14/00, Steve Willner wrote: > > To: Ed Reppert > > I've been using Eudora for years, and heartily recommend it. > >One apparent quirk with Eudora is that it likes to send text as an >attachment instead of in the body of the message. This weird behavior >can be turned off -- Ed has obviously succeeded -- but it's something >to watch out for. (Ed: if you could email me the exact place where >you turn this off, I'd appreciate it.) That was me you quoted. I've used Eudora for well over six years, and she's never once sent a message as a text attachment. I wouldn't know how to get her to! If you're using a Mac drop me a line - I expect we can make Eudora behave. If you're stuck with MS Windows I suggest trashing your preferences and reconfiguring, or installing a new copy of Eudora. If that doesn't do the trick you're on your own! AW From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 15 07:53:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA05377 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 07:53:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailserver.ipf.net (mail.okay.net [195.211.211.60]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA05372 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 07:53:33 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 4323 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2000 20:53:18 -0000 Received: from dialin-28.muenchen.okay.net (HELO rabbit) (194.117.252.28) by mail.okay.net with SMTP; 14 Feb 2000 20:53:18 -0000 Message-ID: <00c601bf772e$1c921580$1cfc75c2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <003101bf7688$8668ace0$089e01d5@davidburn> Subject: Re: A curiosity Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:55:27 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > There is a story in a book by Darvas and de Vere Hart, called "Right > Through the Pack", of a grand slam that made missing the ace of > trumps. If you do not have this book, then you should, for it is a > true classic of bridge literature. The hapless defender had fourteen > cards, and the declarer made the first thirteen tricks by means of a > few side winners and a cross-ruff. At that time, the Laws stated that > an error of the 14-12 variety had to be corrected if it was discovered > before trick nine - otherwise, the result stood. Those Laws have been > amended so that this is no longer the case. > > A trivial question for you all: is it still possible to make a grand > slam missing the ace of trumps, assuming only that the defenders do > not revoke? Sure. Declarer claims 13 tricks, and defenders do not object. (Just assume in 7D declarer has the HA with his diamonds, and defender has the DA with his hearts). And: defenders might be void in hippogryphs. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 15 08:07:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA05437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 08:07:51 +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 IAA05432 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 08:07:43 +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 QAA00761; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:05:26 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <200002141800.NAA10647@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200002141800.NAA10647@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:52:45 -0500 To: Adam Wildavsky , Steve Willner From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Software Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 2:41 PM -0500 2/14/00, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >At 1:00 PM -0500 2/14/00, Steve Willner wrote: >> > To: Ed Reppert >> > I've been using Eudora for years, and heartily recommend it. >> >>One apparent quirk with Eudora is that it likes to send text as an >>attachment instead of in the body of the message. This weird behavior >>can be turned off -- Ed has obviously succeeded -- but it's something >>to watch out for. (Ed: if you could email me the exact place where >>you turn this off, I'd appreciate it.) > >That was me you quoted. > >I've used Eudora for well over six years, and she's never once sent a >message as a text attachment. I wouldn't know how to get her to! Eudora help on the Mac explains this. Go to "Message-Attach Document" (or the keyboard shortcut command-H). You can then choose the file you want to attach. Buttons on the right will show both "Attach" and "Insert". If you click on "Insert", the file will be inserted as text. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 15 08:50:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA05610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 08:50:51 +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 IAA05605 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 08:50:40 +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 NAA23215; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:50:32 -0800 Message-Id: <200002142150.NAA23215@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: L70C3 in action In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:40:17 PST." <002201bf7723$53fccb60$6c84d9ce@oemcomputer> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:50:32 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: Consider a position like this one (spades >are trumps and all have been drawn). > > 3 > 4 > AQJ2 > - > > A > 7 > K94 > 8 > >Declarer would like to claim, "I'll take four rounds of diamonds throwing >the H7 from hand, then crossruff the last two tricks." But many players >will not understand how their HK vanishes, and will demand "play it out", >which leads to further problems when the TD is called. Should declarer >play out four diamond tricks if he believes that West is a player of this >caliber? Craig Senior wrote: > No. Player should claim. To do otherwise is to insult your opponent, saying > in effect, I think you are too stupid to see this rather elementary > position. It could even be a ZT violation! I don't think so. If you play it out and the opponents act as if they feel insulted, you can always say something like "Sorry, partner, I didn't realize I had the rest. I must be falling asleep." In other words, make it look like you're the idiot, and the opponents can't complain that you were implying that they're idiots. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 15 09:40:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA05775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:40:26 +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 JAA05769 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:40:19 +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 OAA24198; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:40:13 -0800 Message-Id: <200002142240.OAA24198@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 13 Feb 2000 16:52:22 PST." <200002132152.QAA09858@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:40:15 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Adam Beneschan > > -- not endowed with reason or understanding > > -- lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence > > -- not governed by or according to reason > > > > It seems to me, all of these have to do with a person's mental state; > > so one cannot really judge whether an action would be rational or > > irrational without reference to what else was in that person's mind at > > the time. > > This is where we disagree, then. I believe the Laws require us to judge > the _play_, not the mental state of the player. (1) I haven't found anything in the Laws that says this. There are places in the Laws where we use phrases like "could have known" or "could have suggested" so that we can rule without having to accuse people of cheating. But the existence of several Laws like this doesn't imply that "not judging mental states" is an overarching principle that's supposed to apply to the entire Laws. (2) If the Laws do not allow us to judge mental states, then it must be concluded that the Laws use a word, "irrational", which cannot have any meaning that would be found in an English dictionary. So how are we supposed to apply the Law? If we have to assume the Laws contain words with no useable definitions, we might as well rewrite Footnote 20 to say that "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71 'normal' includes play that would be slithy or brillig for the class of player involved, but not outgabe." -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 15 11:04:35 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA05991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:04:35 +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 LAA05986 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:04:27 +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 TAA20165 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 19:04:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA10966 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 19:04:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 19:04:18 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200002150004.TAA10966@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: david.burn@bt.com > When a player puts three cards of the same suit on the table and claims the > rest, do you believe he is asserting: > > (a) These three cards will win tricks in whatever order I play them; or > > (b) These three cards will win tricks, assuming that I play them from the > top down? Excellent formulation. In the ACBL, (b) is clear. Evidently the interpretation is (a) in the UK. > If you believe (b), then of course there is no difficulty, and the question > of whether the player "could" play the two first does not arise, for > implicit in his claim is the "top-down" assertion. Yes. And I agree that it's a matter of interpretation, not the wording of the laws. [in another message] > I do not believe that any single principle, such as > "top-down", will restore equity in all cases. Nor do I consider that > attempting to make judgements on a case-by-case basis is a > satisfactory way to proceed, for (as has been demonstrated many times > on this list alone) we are pretty hopeless at handing down justice on > any kind of consistent basis. Agreed on both counts. > Thus, we should achieve what players > want - which is a level playing field - by treating all cases equally > unjustly. I would have said consistency is more important than justice, but if we can do justice in some fraction of the cases, so much the better. > L68C should be extended as follows: > "A claim should be accompanied at once by a statement of clarification > as to the order in which cards will be played, the line of play or > defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed. > Any cards not covered by this statement of clarification are deemed to > be played in the legal order most disadvantageous to the claimer in > respect of the actual position at the time of the claim." I agree with the principle but not the specific proposal. Instead, it seems to me that we need the analog of L46B: specific rules to be applied if the order is not stated. As examples, I might give: 1. Suits are played in the order: trumps last, otherwise the longest combined holding first, randomly if combined holdings are equal. 2. Once a suit is started, it will be finished before another suit is started. 3. Suits will be played highest card first. If the opposite hand leads or follows to the suit, it will be with the lowest card in that hand. If a finesse is proved by someone showing out, it will be taken by the lowest card sufficient to win the trick. 4. Discards will be made randomly but always with the lowest card of the suit discarded. Maybe we need a few more rules like these, or maybe these are wrong, but it doesn't seem beyond imagination that we could come up with something sensible. There are some interesting implications of the above. For example: a. A suit with eight or nine cards missing the queen will be picked up if the queen is doubleton. (The ace gets played first, then the king.) Some may think this is unjust, but at least it is unambiguous. b. A suit with nine cards and split honors missing the jack is picked up if the ace is with one other honor but not if the ace is the lone honor. (Remember John Probst's AQ9x opposite KT8xx?) This rule is clearly unjust (What difference does it make which card is the lone honor?) but just as clearly unambiguous. KQ9x opposite ATxxx would NOT be picked up if Jxxx is over the KQ! Under rule 3, the ace is played first. c. A declarer who needs to unblock generally has to say so. AKQTx opposite Jxxx will play for only four tricks! (I don't like this result, but I can't see how to write a simple rule that avoids it.) Also, consider example b with AQTx opposite K98xx: Ace is played, revealing the finesse, but then declarer continues with low intending the eight, but RHO inserts the J! Now suit is blocked. Again, I don't like it that essentially identical holdings come out with such different results, but I don't see a simple way to avoid it. Even if you don't like my specific rules, how do people feel about the general idea of a "L46B for claims?" Any SO could write its own version under L80F, I think, so those who are interested are free to experiment. [on another issue:] SW> This is where we disagree, then. I believe the Laws require us to judge SW> the _play_, not the mental state of the player. > From: Adam Beneschan > (1) I haven't found anything in the Laws that says this. I was referring to L70C3. We don't have to look further than L70C2 to find a law that does require judging mental state. I should have written "L70C3" instead of "the Laws." As a general principle, I believe the Laws would be far better if score adjustment never required judgment of mental state, but we are not there yet. > (2) If the Laws do not allow us to judge mental states, then it must > be concluded that the Laws use a word, "irrational", which cannot > have any meaning that would be found in an English dictionary. Well, we still disagree. I still believe 'irrational' is intended to characterize a particular line of play, not the mental state of the claimer. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 15 18:57:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA07866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 18:57:19 +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 SAA07861 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 18:57:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.240] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12Kcqo-0002KM-00; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 07:56:50 +0000 Message-ID: <000201bf778a$709a0f00$f05408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200002082053.PAA05639@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 22:29:08 -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 +--------------- \x/ --------------+. > > > and those which involve assessment of the players' > > minds and mental processes. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > O Lord, deliver us! (The Laws should be written to avoid any necessity > for such judgments in score adjustment cases.) > +=+ Oh, I understand that cry well enough. But the game is what it is and, for the foreseeable future at least, we have to cope with the game that is played. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 15 19:57:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA08319 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 19:57:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA08314 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 19:57:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.35] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12Kdna-0004GE-00; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 08:57:35 +0000 Message-ID: <002701bf7792$ecf25be0$f05408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200002150004.TAA10966@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 08:57:23 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 12:04 AM Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action > > From: david.burn@bt.com > > When a player puts three cards of the same suit on the table and claims the > > rest, do you believe he is asserting: > > > > (a) These three cards will win tricks in whatever order I play them; or > > > > (b) These three cards will win tricks, assuming that I play them from the > > top down? > > Excellent formulation. In the ACBL, (b) is clear. Evidently the > interpretation is (a) in the UK. > +=+ I wonder if it really matters which path we follow? It is something that is evidently open to regulation. I am not yet convinced it is something that we need to resolve at the level of Law. I do not recall the difficulty arising in a WBF tournament and neither do I believe we have ever addressed the question; WBF Directors simply have the Laws to work with in this matter. Since (b) requires a regulation, I presume (a) would apply in the absence of a satisfactory statement by claimer. The evidence from this discussion is that the order in which the cards are to be played if not specified is a "doubtful point" (Law 70A) so it would seem to me that the laws already provide for the Director to rule play in the order most disadvantageous to claimer. +=+ ----------- \x/ -------------- > Well, we still disagree. I still believe 'irrational' is intended > to characterize a particular line of play, not the mental state of > the claimer. > +=+ The way I see it is that the judgement to be made is whether the play is consistent with a rational state of mind for the player in question. It is not that the player's state of mind lacks sanity but that he fails to apply his rational state of mind to his choice of play, and does something that cannot be explained away as merely careless or inferior. But there are areas in which the Director is required to form a judgement concerning the player's mental process, as has been observed. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 15 22:06:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA08587 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 22:03:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA08576 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 22:03:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-15-142.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.15.142]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA07838 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:03:23 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38A7F3F7.DDAC4CAD@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:24:23 +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: L70C3 in action References: <38A69465.C8479FFE@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > > As usual, David has graved us with a piece of prose that > should be framed. He is almost good enough to sway me. > I meant of course "graced us". In a quiz question last saturday, I was unable to remember which key lies to the right of the "C" (I believe this is the same in QWERTY or the AZERTY we commonly use : the "V"). I should have reread my posts sooner. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 15 23:06:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA08588 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 22:03:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA08577 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 22:03:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-15-142.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.15.142]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA07865 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:03:25 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38A7F5B4.4CE04673@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:31:48 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: A curiosity References: <003101bf7688$8668ace0$089e01d5@davidburn> <200002140355.WAA13262@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: > > > P.S. Yes, Herman, I'm still in Canada. But they won't give out > personal .ca domains without narrowing down to city, and I expect to > move, so michael@farebrother.kitchener-waterloo.on.ca was a non-option > :-). As a fan of ISO-codes and geography, I know what the .cx should stand for. Any other takers ? Tell me Michael, did you really apply for a domain name there ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 15 23:22:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA08572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 22:03:37 +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 WAA08559 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 22:03:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-15-142.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.15.142]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA07794 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:03:17 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38A7F084.547B9774@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:09:40 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action References: <00ed01bf7522$28f2c580$d1fc75c2@rabbit> <001d01bf7553$39e4e220$47a101d5@davidburn> <38A6904E.73E3F8B3@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 Sun, 13 Feb 2000 12:06:54 +0100, Herman wrote: > > > > >As long as people continue to claim in less than optimal > >fashion, we should rule with some higher degree of > >lattitude. > > Perhaps as long as we rule with some higher degree of latitude, people > will continue to claim in a less than optimal fashion. I realize that, but I don't want to be the ogre who has to tell someone he loses one trick on that lay-out. Probably British bridge players are better used to their directors being ogres. Or probably British directors are ogres already. But seriously. The game is there for the players, not the directogres. What if it is slightly less easy to direct. The easiest rule is still David's - if they revoke, shoot them. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 16 00:06:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA08578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 22:03:42 +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 WAA08564 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 22:03:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-15-142.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.15.142]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA07822 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:03:20 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38A7F347.24CF4EC4@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:21:27 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action References: <200002132152.QAA09858@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001f01bf7685$0a5c1cc0$089e01d5@davidburn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > Steve wrote: > > > > > This is where we disagree, then. I believe the Laws require us to > judge > > the _play_, not the mental state of the player. > > I think that the Laws require us to judge how the play might go, given > the mental state of the player who made a false claim. That is exact, IMO. > I do not > believe, as Herman and others appear to me to believe, that the Laws > require us to consider how declarer might play were he suddenly > transformed into a rational human being, as opposed to the person he > was when he made his claim. I believe that to be indeed the case, with some reservations. We should not suddenly give the player back any of the irrational/wrong thoughts he had at the moment of his claiming. If he thinks all his trumps are the last ones, I let him ruff with the smallest one, and if that gets overruffed, too bad. But neither should we include into his "normal" plays, those that would be called irrational for a player of his standard, merely because by issuing his faulty claim, he has proven to have irrational/wrong thoughts. That is the principle involved in allowing a claimer to overruff, even if it would be merely careless from him to not notice that a trick he thought was good were ruffed by a non-existent trump. > However, I also think that this belief of > mine is at least questionable No, your views are quite consistent. The question still remains whether it is normal for a player who thinks his trumps are all that are left, to play them in whatever order. I don't believe this to be the case. I never play a suit from the bottom, except when I am 110% certain. > (which of course makes me an irrational > human being). I believe it makes you a normal human being. Only lunatics have immovable opinions. > Have any of you read the works of Raymond Smullyan? You > would enjoy them, and they have some relevance to the present > discussion. See particularly "Forever Undecided". > I'm afraid I have to admit I don't know the fellow. I will look out for him to find out more. > David Burn > London, England -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 16 00:35:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA08976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 00:35:03 +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 AAA08969 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 00:34:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from p8es10a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.106.143] helo=pacific) by cobalt3-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Ki73-00038H-00; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 05:33:57 -0800 Message-ID: <001201bf77b8$fc99f820$8f6a93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:30:31 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott >(2) If the Laws do not allow us to judge mental states, then it must > be concluded that the Laws use a word, "irrational", which cannot > have any meaning that would be found in an English dictionary. So > how are we supposed to apply the Law? If we have to assume the > Laws contain words with no useable definitions, we might as well > rewrite Footnote 20 to say that "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 > and 71 'normal' includes play that would be slithy or brillig for > the class of player involved, but not outgabe." > > -- Adam > +=+One of the grumbles that we hear from time to time is the complaint of the humble that there is one law for them and another for the expert. This arises from the phrase in the law book that says "for the class of player involved". It may be significant that the footnote to Laws 69, 70, 71, is written so that the words attach to 'careless or inferior' but not so clearly to 'irrational'. We are perhaps to believe that insanity is an identical condition of the mind in a shop assistant as it is in a neuropathologist although manifested in differing circumstances maybe - I intend no insult to either. I am not sure what implications ensue if we assess old Mr. Ramshaw's possible irrationality by the same measure we use for Mr. Meckwell's, or vice versa, but it is something we might think about. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [Mr. Burn, Sir, do you not think there is a distinction to be made between the footnote as written, and " 'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior but not irrational, for the class of player involved. " ??] From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 16 02:41:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA09635 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 02:41:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA09628 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 02:41:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from pavilion (ip181.southern-pines.nc.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.55.181]) by harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA20244 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 07:41:20 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <002801bf77ca$f6d1b1a0$b5371e26@pavilion> From: "nancy" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: change of email address Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:40:17 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0025_01BF77A1.0C9CB5E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0025_01BF77A1.0C9CB5E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Please note the new email address. Thanks, Nancy T Dressing ------=_NextPart_000_0025_01BF77A1.0C9CB5E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Please note the new email = address. =20 Thanks, Nancy T Dressing
------=_NextPart_000_0025_01BF77A1.0C9CB5E0-- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 16 03:42:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA09820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 03:42:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (smtp7.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.128.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA09815 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 03:42:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-151.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.151]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA04546; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:34:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002201bf77d2$d006b040$9784d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:36:15 -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 Except that brillig is a time of day and outgabe is a verb. :-) Otherwise a frabjous thought. :-) -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: Adam Beneschan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: adam@irvine.com Date: Monday, February 14, 2000 5:49 PM Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action > >Steve Willner wrote: > >> > From: Adam Beneschan >> > -- not endowed with reason or understanding >> > -- lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence >> > -- not governed by or according to reason >> > >> > It seems to me, all of these have to do with a person's mental state; >> > so one cannot really judge whether an action would be rational or >> > irrational without reference to what else was in that person's mind at >> > the time. >> >> This is where we disagree, then. I believe the Laws require us to judge >> the _play_, not the mental state of the player. > >(1) I haven't found anything in the Laws that says this. There are > places in the Laws where we use phrases like "could have known" or > "could have suggested" so that we can rule without having to > accuse people of cheating. But the existence of several Laws like > this doesn't imply that "not judging mental states" is an > overarching principle that's supposed to apply to the entire Laws. > >(2) If the Laws do not allow us to judge mental states, then it must > be concluded that the Laws use a word, "irrational", which cannot > have any meaning that would be found in an English dictionary. So > how are we supposed to apply the Law? If we have to assume the > Laws contain words with no useable definitions, we might as well > rewrite Footnote 20 to say that "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 > and 71 'normal' includes play that would be slithy or brillig for > the class of player involved, but not outgabe." > > -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 16 11:06:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA13498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 05:47:00 +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 FAA13435 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 05:46:31 +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 KAA08204; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:46:04 -0800 Message-Id: <200002151846.KAA08204@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Resolving claim disputes without the TD Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:46:05 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Whlie wondering whether something needs to be done about clarifying the Laws on claims or whether things are OK the way there are, I started thinking back on the times I can remember when I've had to deal with bad or disputed claims. One incident from the Albuquerque NABC involved a declarer who, having already botched a contract, faced his cards and claimed down one. I was on lead at the time; after staring at the hand for a little while, I laid down one of my cards and pointed out that if I led it, declarer would be stuck in dummy and would have to concede another trick. Declarer agreed, and we scored it as down two. But it looks like we broke the Laws in the process. L68D says that if a claim is disputed, the Director must be called immediately. Is this really necessary? Is there any reason L68D couldn't, or shouldn't, be amended to include the possibility that the two sides can come to an agreement quickly after a claim is disputed (by one side pointing out something simple that the other side missed)? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 16 12:13:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA02989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 07:44:30 +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 HAA02934 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 07:44:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.156.9] (helo=davidburn) by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12KooK-0000bU-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 20:43:04 +0000 Message-ID: <003701bf77f5$44f89d60$099c01d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <001201bf77b8$fc99f820$8f6a93c3@pacific> Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 20:43:08 -0000 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > [Mr. Burn, Sir, do you not think there is a > distinction to be made between the footnote > as written, and " 'normal' includes play that > would be careless or inferior but not irrational, > for the class of player involved. " ??] The words in the Laws are: For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational. It is actually quite difficult to make sure that groupings such as these are free from ambiguity, and one must be careful. If one wants to refer as a group to: play that would be careless for the class of player involved; and play that would be inferior for the class of player involved; and play that would be irrational for the class of player involved, then it is best to write: "normal" includes play that, for the class of player involved, would be careless or inferior but not irrational. As the Law currently stands, one could read it as it was intended - to refer to play that would be careless for the c.o.p.i. and to play that would be inferior for the c.o.p.i. But one could also read it as a reference to play that would be careless (per se), and to play that would be inferior for the c.o.p.i. The question of whether "irrational" means "irrational for the c.o.p.i." or "irrational (per se)" cannot be completely resolved by the words alone - either reading is possible, though the latter is what would most likely be understood (because of the order of words and the comma after "involved"). I do not think that it is desirable, or even possible, to deem certain plays irrational for one class of player but not for another. We assume that even the most inept of players has a certain minimum power of "reason", necessary to understand the rules of bridge and the basic mechanics of trick-taking. "Irrational" should mean that which is contrary to the degree of reason assumed as a minimum. If one claims the last three tricks with AQ2 facing K43, it would not be rational to play the king on a trick that also included the ace or the queen. One might go as far as to say that if one claimed the last four tricks with AK of trumps and two small diamonds facing QJ of trumps and two small hearts, it would not be rational to play other than on cross-ruff lines. Further than that, however, I would not be prepared to go. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 16 12:19:16 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA18848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 06:19:21 +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 GAA18797 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 06:18:57 +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 LAA08813; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:18:26 -0800 Message-Id: <200002151918.LAA08813@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 14 Feb 2000 19:04:18 PST." <200002150004.TAA10966@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:18:27 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > I would have said consistency is more important than justice, but if > we can do justice in some fraction of the cases, so much the better. > > > L68C should be extended as follows: > > "A claim should be accompanied at once by a statement of clarification > > as to the order in which cards will be played, the line of play or > > defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed. > > Any cards not covered by this statement of clarification are deemed to > > be played in the legal order most disadvantageous to the claimer in > > respect of the actual position at the time of the claim." > > I agree with the principle but not the specific proposal. Instead, it > seems to me that we need the analog of L46B: specific rules to be > applied if the order is not stated. > > As examples, I might give: > 1. Suits are played in the order: trumps last, otherwise the longest > combined holding first, randomly if combined holdings are equal. > 2. Once a suit is started, it will be finished before another suit > is started. > 3. Suits will be played highest card first. If the opposite hand leads > or follows to the suit, it will be with the lowest card in that hand. > If a finesse is proved by someone showing out, it will be taken by > the lowest card sufficient to win the trick. > 4. Discards will be made randomly but always with the lowest card of > the suit discarded. > > Maybe we need a few more rules like these, or maybe these are wrong, > but it doesn't seem beyond imagination that we could come up with > something sensible. > > There are some interesting implications of the above. For example: > a. A suit with eight or nine cards missing the queen will be picked > up if the queen is doubleton. (The ace gets played first, then the > king.) Some may think this is unjust, but at least it is unambiguous. Count me among those who think it's unjust. Say declarer has K654 of hearts in dummy, AJ93 in hand, and for some reason thinks the queen and ten were discarded earlier (maybe because I discarded the queen and ten of diamonds on a couple earlier tricks). He claims. I'm sitting with Q2 behind declarer. It's possible that, if declarer had played the hand out, he could, in his forgetfulness, have started with the ace and king, dropping my offside queen. In that case, I'd grumble about being fixed, but there would be nothing I could do. But if declarer claimed, and the Laws forced me to lose my offside queen, then I would not have been fixed by the bad luck of declarer stumbling into the right play, but would have fixed by the Laws. I don't think this situation should be avoided wherever possible. Whatever the virtues of consistency and unambiguity may be, they do not justify doing actual harm to non-offenders, as they would in this case. (We might argue over whether giving NO's 60% of +420 and 40% of -50 constitutes "harm" by depriving them of the opportunity to score +420. But if we write the Laws to give the NO's *less* than their probabilitistic expectation, the harm is clear.) ############### One other thing to consider in any such proposal: We can't force an order of played cards that violates the claim statement. Suppose declarer claims with T632 642 -- -- AKQJ7 AQ -- -- and, with the lead currently in hand, says, "Taking the marked heart finesse." Now the spades are cards that aren't explicitly covered by this claim statement; nevertheless, we can't require the cards to be played top down, because the statement implies that the S10 is to be used as an entry. So what order should we assume the spades are cashed in? If this is notrump, and declarer has messed up and the HK is offside and the opponents have minor-suit winners, then it makes a big difference. Hopefully, this should demonstrate how difficult it would be to write a set of rules to specify how we assume cards are to be played. I prefer David's approach, since it's unspecific enough that it can be applied fairly in all cases, while still being well-enough defined so that we don't have to have arguments about what is "rational" or "irrational". -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 16 12:35:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA06255 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:35:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from rsc.anu.edu.au (rsc [150.203.35.129]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA06250 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:34:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from pauli.anu.edu.au (pauli.anu.edu.au [150.203.35.191]) by rsc.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA23058 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:34:31 +1100 (EST) Received: (from mabraham@localhost) by pauli.anu.edu.au (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id MAA01402; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:34:50 +1100 (EST) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:34:41 +1100 (EST) From: Mark Abraham To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Resolving claim disputes without the TD In-Reply-To: <200002151846.KAA08204@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Adam Beneschan wrote: > But it looks like we broke the Laws in the process. L68D says that if > a claim is disputed, the Director must be called immediately. > > Is this really necessary? Is there any reason L68D couldn't, or > shouldn't, be amended to include the possibility that the two sides > can come to an agreement quickly after a claim is disputed (by one > side pointing out something simple that the other side missed)? Calling the Director in such a case might appear unnecessary when both members of both sides are in fact in agreement and their agreement is the result that would have been the outcome in the TDs presence, however under the Laws as presently written, having failed to call the TD prejudices both sides rights should they later wish to dispute the "corrected" claim because they have not followed the correct procedure initially. Being required to call the director is useful in the case that an opponent is unable to assess whether the claim is correct - if weaker players know the requirement of calling TD when the claim is disputed, then they can avoid being browbeaten into acquiescing by opponents. Also it allows an avenue where, when necessary, the TD can gently explain to the player(s) that they can't demand that it be played out. :-) Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 16 13:15:05 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA06330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 13:15:05 +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 NAA06325 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 13:14:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from p04s07a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.119.5] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt1-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12KtyI-00073P-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 18:13:42 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 02:22:21 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf7824$a756c2a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Adam Beneschan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: adam@irvine.com Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 1:30 AM Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action > >Steve Willner wrote: > >> I would have said consistency is more important than justice, but if >> we can do justice in some fraction of the cases, so much the better. >> >> > L68C should be extended as follows: >> > "A claim should be accompanied at once by a statement of clarification >> > as to the order in which cards will be played, the line of play or >> > defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed. >> > Any cards not covered by this statement of clarification are deemed to >> > be played in the legal order most disadvantageous to the claimer in >> > respect of the actual position at the time of the claim." >> >> I agree with the principle but not the specific proposal. Instead, it >> seems to me that we need the analog of L46B: specific rules to be >> applied if the order is not stated. >> >> As examples, I might give: >> 1. Suits are played in the order: trumps last, otherwise the longest >> combined holding first, randomly if combined holdings are equal. >> 2. Once a suit is started, it will be finished before another suit >> is started. >> 3. Suits will be played highest card first. If the opposite hand leads >> or follows to the suit, it will be with the lowest card in that hand. >> If a finesse is proved by someone showing out, it will be taken by >> the lowest card sufficient to win the trick. >> 4. Discards will be made randomly but always with the lowest card of >> the suit discarded. >> >> Maybe we need a few more rules like these, or maybe these are wrong, >> but it doesn't seem beyond imagination that we could come up with >> something sensible. >> >> There are some interesting implications of the above. For example: >> a. A suit with eight or nine cards missing the queen will be picked >> up if the queen is doubleton. (The ace gets played first, then the >> king.) Some may think this is unjust, but at least it is unambiguous. > >Count me among those who think it's unjust. Say declarer has K654 of >hearts in dummy, AJ93 in hand, and for some reason thinks the queen >and ten were discarded earlier (maybe because I discarded the queen >and ten of diamonds on a couple earlier tricks). He claims. I'm >sitting with Q2 behind declarer. > >It's possible that, if declarer had played the hand out, he could, in >his forgetfulness, have started with the ace and king, dropping my >offside queen. In that case, I'd grumble about being fixed, but there >would be nothing I could do. But if declarer claimed, and the Laws >forced me to lose my offside queen, then I would not have been fixed >by the bad luck of declarer stumbling into the right play, but would >have fixed by the Laws. I don't think this situation should be >avoided wherever possible. Whatever the virtues of consistency and >unambiguity may be, they do not justify doing actual harm to >non-offenders, as they would in this case. (We might argue over >whether giving NO's 60% of +420 and 40% of -50 constitutes "harm" by >depriving them of the opportunity to score +420. But if we write the >Laws to give the NO's *less* than their probabilitistic expectation, >the harm is clear.) > >############### > >One other thing to consider in any such proposal: We can't force an >order of played cards that violates the claim statement. Suppose >declarer claims with > > T632 > 642 > -- > -- > > AKQJ7 > AQ > -- > -- > >and, with the lead currently in hand, says, "Taking the marked heart >finesse." Now the spades are cards that aren't explicitly covered by >this claim statement; nevertheless, we can't require the cards to be >played top down, because the statement implies that the S10 is to be >used as an entry. So what order should we assume the spades are >cashed in? If this is notrump, and declarer has messed up and the HK >is offside and the opponents have minor-suit winners, then it makes a >big difference. Hopefully, this should demonstrate how difficult it >would be to write a set of rules to specify how we assume cards are to >be played. I prefer David's approach, since it's unspecific enough >that it can be applied fairly in all cases, while still being >well-enough defined so that we don't have to have arguments about what >is "rational" or "irrational". Without any doubt, I would rule Spade to the S10, Heart finesse...grief. Not because I think it would be irrational to do anything else, but because a declarer who was confident to assume the finesse was right, would protect against blocking the Spades with all those pretty colours could easily be careless. I am a supporter of the top down play of cards in a single suit, and think that dec. should claim whenever the remainder are surely his.I consider that a marked finesse, is only marked when one defender shows out. This declarer had assumed that because a finesse had held once it would hold again. Shame. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 16 14:18:22 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA06474 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 14:18:22 +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 OAA06469 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 14:18:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.184] (dhcp165-184.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.184]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA10678; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 22:17:57 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <200002151846.KAA08204@mailhub.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 22:16:06 -0500 To: Mark Abraham , Bridge Laws Mailing List From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Resolving claim disputes without the TD Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:34 PM +1100 2/16/00, Mark Abraham wrote: >On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >> But it looks like we broke the Laws in the process. L68D says that if >> a claim is disputed, the Director must be called immediately. >> >> Is this really necessary? Is there any reason L68D couldn't, or >> shouldn't, be amended to include the possibility that the two sides >> can come to an agreement quickly after a claim is disputed (by one >> side pointing out something simple that the other side missed)? > >Calling the Director in such a case might appear unnecessary when both >members of both sides are in fact in agreement and their agreement is the >result that would have been the outcome in the TDs presence, however >under the Laws as presently written, having failed to call the TD >prejudices both sides rights should they later wish to dispute the >"corrected" claim because they have not followed the correct procedure >initially. However, the corrected claim is a common situation when there is a clear error which gets fixed. In the original example, in which a possible defense would lock declarer in dummy, the error is non-trivial and the director should be called. But there isn't much need to call the TD when the correct result is obvious to all four players. A fairly common example is a declarer who claims with all "winners", forgetting about an outstanding high trump. If it is impossible for the player with the high trump to get another trick, the players will often agree to give one trick to the holder of the high trump. He does prejudice his rights to claim another trick later, but he may see that this is not important. Similarly, if declarer miscounts the defenders' established suit and they have one more trick to cash before declarer claims in NT, it may be clear to everyone that there is only one trick. Since this is accepted practice and isn't usually harmful, I would not impose a PP as director but might deny an adjustment in case of later problems. There are two general principles which might apply here, but they give opposite suggestions as to whether calling the TD is mandatory. A player may condone an irregularity by continuing play naturally, as by following to a lead out of turn or doubling an insufficient bid; the TD need not be called if nobody draws attention to the irregularity (and is often not called in practice even if attention is drawn; South leads from hand, North says, "You're in the dummy" too late, and West follows to South's lead with no TD call). On the other hand, players should not be encouraged to make their own rulings, as they get into trouble when they do not know the Laws and try to correct conventional insufficient bids or retract leads out of turn before an opponent has the chance to accept. >Being required to call the director is useful in the case that an opponent >is unable to assess whether the claim is correct - if weaker players know >the requirement of calling TD when the claim is disputed, then they can >avoid being browbeaten into acquiescing by opponents. This is a good point. If there is a dispute, the TD must be called. However, many players would consider the above situation not to be a dispute. If declarer says, "I claim five tricks on this line of play, make that four tricks", there is no dispute if everyone agrees he has four tricks; the situation "I can claim five tricks on this line of play, oops, you have the SQ, make that four tricks" is similar. >Also it allows an >avenue where, when necessary, the TD can gently explain to the player(s) >that they can't demand that it be played out. :-) The problem of "Play it out" usually occurs when the claim is disputed, and the people who say "play it out" will not call the TD, so this doesn't help. (The TD does get called in many such situations, but the call is made by the claimer who refuses to play the hand out.) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 16 18:53:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA07265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 18:53:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA07259 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 18:53:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.49] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12KzGt-0009Vn-00; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 07:53:15 +0000 Message-ID: <001001bf7853$1b66bdc0$315408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Craig Senior" , , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <002201bf77d2$d006b040$9784d9ce@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 07:53:31 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: ; Adam Beneschan Cc: Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 4:36 PM Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action > Except that brillig is a time of day +=+ You make very bold, Sir, to violate the timeless, shimmering tranquillity that is 'brillig'. +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 16 19:44:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA07398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 19:44:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from de.darcairo.egnet.net (de.darcairo.com [163.121.166.15]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA07393 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 19:44:04 +1100 (EST) Received: by de.darcairo.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id <1L2Z43XW>; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:45:36 +0200 Message-ID: <40FB4E2BA983D211B03E00AA0009100C0101D0EB@de.darcairo.com> From: Hassan El-Touby To: Grattan Endicott , Craig Senior , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, Adam Beneschan Cc: adam@irvine.com Subject: unsuscribe Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:45:26 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk th CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any attachments thereto contain protected and confidential information intended for the sole use of the individual or organisation named above. If you are not the addressee or an authorised agent for delivering it to the addressee, you are hereby warned that use, reproduction, distribution or dissemination of this document and any attachments is categorically prohibited. If you have received this message by error please notify the sender immediately by returning the message, and delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 17 00:07:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA08164 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 23:44:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA08159 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 23:44:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-215.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.215]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA09108 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 13:43:50 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38A94D10.F65A32B3@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:56:48 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action References: <006501bf7712$d9089c00$da307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > > Grattan Endicott ================================ > " He that, in the ordinary affairs of life, would > admit of nothing but direct plain demonstration > would be sure of nothing in this world but of > perishing quickly." - John Locke > ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo > > -----Original Message----- > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Date: 11 February 2000 14:02 > Subject: Re: L70C3 in action > > > > ~~~~~~~ \x/ ~~~~~~~~ > > Grattan wrote > +=+ The problem you have, Herman, is that you > are fixated by the original ranks of the cards. At > the stage reached when he thinks they are all > winners, he does not have J.9.2. - what he has > is A. A. A. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Well put! > > I am all for an ACBL approach where we assume 'top down' play of suits but I > hate allowing claimer to catch a trump he had forgotton about. With A.A.A. > it can't really be irrational to play any A - it might be unusual or > flamboyant but surely irrational is too strong? > > Best regards, > Fearghal This may well be true, if we were to consider that declarer thinks it is AAA. However, declarer may well be of the impression that it is AA2. Something must have happened to make declarer miss the 6. We should try and find out what it is. If declarer has seen the disappearance of AKQ10, it is irrational for him to think anything but "I have the high trumps". Only if he has counted the trumps (erroneously), could he be thinking "I have the last trumps". The two are not the same. In the first case, the play of the 2 is irrational, in the second, it isn't. It may be difficult to find out which of the two it is, but I would be more inclined to rule against declarer if his last trumps were 875 than JT2. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 17 02:07:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA08884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 02:04:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from fb01.eng00.mindspring.net (fb01.eng00.mindspring.net [207.69.229.19]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA08879 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 02:04:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-154.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.154]) by fb01.eng00.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA04829; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:03:29 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <003401bf788f$4316fe20$9a84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Grattan Endicott" , , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:05:25 -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 Actually I based that comment on an article I had read in which Carroll (Dodgson) had been interviewed and had described brillig as being a time midway between lunch and teatime. If the article was a fiction I stand corrected. Unfortunately I read it many years ago and cannot cite a reference. I remember that it focused upon chortled, and how that had leapt into mainstream English from this poem. -- Craig For those who would say that this had little to do with bridge, off with their heads! -----Original Message----- From: Grattan Endicott To: Craig Senior ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ; Adam Beneschan Cc: adam@irvine.com Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 2:53 AM Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action > >Grattan Endicott''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ' >''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >".... nobly fled from a land of despitism to a land of >freedom, where they could not only enjoy their own >religion, but prevent everybody else from >enjoying his." - Artemus Ward, 1872. > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Craig Senior >To: ; Adam Beneschan >Cc: >Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 4:36 PM >Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action > > >> Except that brillig is a time of day > >+=+ You make very bold, Sir, to violate >the timeless, shimmering tranquillity that >is 'brillig'. +=+ > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 17 03:55:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA09276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 03:55:11 +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 DAA09271 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 03:55:01 +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 12L7j2-0000wh-0U for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 16:54:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 16:44:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action In-Reply-To: <38A7F084.547B9774@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <38A7F084.547B9774@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes > >Probably British bridge players are better used to their >directors being ogres. >Or probably British directors are ogres already. > >But seriously. The game is there for the players, not the >directogres. Consistent ogres. > >What if it is slightly less easy to direct. The easiest >rule is still David's - if they revoke, shoot them. > Revoking has died (sic) out at the Young Chelsea. 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 Feb 17 04:04:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA09328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 04:04:19 +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 EAA09323 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 04:04:10 +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 MAA00592 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:03:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA12413 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:03:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:03:55 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200002161703.MAA12413@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > Say declarer has K654 of > hearts in dummy, AJ93 in hand, and for some reason thinks the queen > and ten were discarded earlier (maybe because I discarded the queen > and ten of diamonds on a couple earlier tricks). He claims. I'm > sitting with Q2 behind declarer. Remember, my proposal was an arbitrary and unambiguous rule that only produces justice in a fraction of cases. How would you feel about a spade layout like J92 T8763 AQ54 K Declarer, west, leads any card and carelessly (or vision-impaired) calls for "spade" from dummy. Under L46B2, that means S-4, and only one trick is lost. At the other tables, declarers are playing the Q and losing two tricks. (Presumably this is matchpoints, so declarers don't take the safety play.) Perhaps others can construct better examples, but L46B does not always produce justice and may reward carelessness. > Suppose declarer claims with > > T632 > 642 > -- > -- > > AKQJ7 > AQ > -- > -- > > and, with the lead currently in hand, says, "Taking the marked heart > finesse." The rules I listed yesterday give a completely unambiguous answer, although not necessarily one that is just. The play is S-AKQ in accord with the top-down rule, then S-T in conformance with the claim statement, then H to Q. You may or may not like the result, but there is at least no doubt what it should be. If the lead were currently in dummy, the rules I listed yesterday would _not_ be sufficient. We would need to add one more, perhaps "any suit mentioned in the claim statement is played as early as possible consistent with the statement." If we add this rule, the heart finesse would be taken immediately if the lead is in dummy, and the play in Adam's problem (lead in hand) might become S-T, then H finesse instead of as above. As I said, it is quite likely possible to write better rules. What I'm asking about is the idea of a "L46B for claims." Then at least the play after an incomplete claim statement would be unambiguous. To Grattan: at high levels, the current laws don't create problems. We do have a problem at lower levels, as the real-life example cases on BLML have shown. I agree it's not clear that changing the laws is the best solution, but we need some solution. I am entirely with David Burn in preferring something unambiguous, even if it isn't always just. I also want something that isn't so harsh to claimer that it will discourage claims. I have a milder preference that the solution be the same worldwide. No doubt others will have different priorities. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 17 04:04:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA09343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 04:04:48 +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 EAA09338 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 04:04:41 +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 JAA27709; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 09:04:38 -0800 Message-Id: <200002161704.JAA27709@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "BLML" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 16 Feb 2000 02:22:21 PST." <01bf7824$a756c2a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 09:04:38 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > >One other thing to consider in any such proposal: We can't force an > >order of played cards that violates the claim statement. Suppose > >declarer claims with > > > > T632 > > 642 > > -- > > -- > > > > AKQJ7 > > AQ > > -- > > -- > > > >and, with the lead currently in hand, says, "Taking the marked heart > >finesse." Now the spades are cards that aren't explicitly covered by > >this claim statement; nevertheless, we can't require the cards to be > >played top down, because the statement implies that the S10 is to be > >used as an entry. So what order should we assume the spades are > >cashed in? If this is notrump, and declarer has messed up and the HK > >is offside and the opponents have minor-suit winners, then it makes a > >big difference. . . . > Without any doubt, I would rule Spade to the S10, Heart finesse...grief. I would too, under the current Laws. My point is that if we think the current Laws are too ambiguous, and we want to come up with something more definite, this is the sort of thing we'd have to make sure gets handled. > I consider that a > marked finesse, is only marked when one defender shows out. > This declarer had assumed that because a finesse had held once it would > hold again. Shame. Actually, there are several reasons why I would assume a finesse is "marked", and this is not one of them. One, the best reason, is that the other defender has shown out of the suit. But even if no one has shown out of the suit, I could have a complete count of the hand anyway. In the past, I've claimed on a "marked" finesse because the player has to have the card to have the right point-count for a 1NT opening or something like that. But I try not to do that, because people sometimes miscount their points, forget what notrump range they're using this week, or just plain lie. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 17 04:22:25 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA09397 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 04:22:25 +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 EAA09392 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 04:22:18 +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 ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 09:22:12 -0800 Message-ID: <01e901bf78a2$4d3642e0$16991e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 Subject: Re: Changing your system to counter opponents (Was Re: Defense vs. Ferts) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 09:13:55 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Christopher J. Monsour" wrote:> > > Since not all conventions can be clearly shown on the cc, Probably you are referring to defensive countermeasures, not initiating actions. >and since the > opponents are only entitled to ask the meaning of the auction (including > alternatives to calls already taken, but probably *not* including the > meaning of potential *future* calls), it is essentially impossible to vary > your methods based on the meanings of your opponents' subsequent calls, > unless those calls have a clear space for them on the cc. This is indeed a problem. If the auction goes: 1C - X - XX - Pass and the pass indicates a desire to defend against 1C redoubled, not the standard approach, I may want to know about that partnership agreement before I redouble with a void in clubs. And yet there is no way for me to find out unless an "explanation of the auction" includes future actions as well as past actions. However, I think it is appropriate that I not know about the measures opponents will employ against my redoubles. I should not have the right to vary my system according to the countermeasures used against it. > If I had 'through > 4H, with exceptions' written on my cc under negatve doubles, I would refuse > to answer if partner or I opened and the next player asked me what were the > exceptions. Even if I had system notes with me at the table, I would not at > this point offer that portion of the notes. When using negative doubles, I like to play that 1S - 2x - Dbl is an exception. The 2x bid doesn't preempt major suit bidding space, and people are making lousy 2x overcalls these days. However, I have this exception noted on the cc. Perhaps I should not do so, as a potential overcaller should not be permitted to vary his overcalling practices according to the countermeasures that might be used against them. Taking this one step further, the meaning of responder's double of an overcall, negative or penalty, should probably not be on the cc. If the double is Alertable, Alert it. Silence means the double is an ACBL-standard negative double. There is no reason for this information to be on the cc. > > After the opponent overcalled and responder acted, I would gladly answer the > question (assuming I were opener). :-) > Exactly. Provided that there is a regulation that says a system cannot be varied according to the measures used against it. If the ACBL's current regulations do say that (as I believe), then defensive measures should not have to be disclosed on the cc. This includes negative/penalty doubles of overcalls, the meaning of doubles over preemptive openings, defenses against notrump openings, the strength of jump overcalls, actions over a takeout double, etc., all of which could be disclosed by Announcements or Alerts (or silence, for a "standard" treatment) at the time of the action. Now, there are valid reasons for such agreements to be documented in a handy form. Most partnerships like to have them recorded on the cc for their own purposes, not just for the opponents, and TDs/ACs like to see documented evidence of an agreement when a possible infraction concerns it. The solution is to have the defensive-action agreements recorded on a "private" half of the cc, the half that is face down when placed on the table. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 17 04:26:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA09414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 04:26:57 +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 EAA09409 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 04:26:49 +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 JAA28042; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 09:26:46 -0800 Message-Id: <200002161726.JAA28042@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Resolving claim disputes without the TD In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 15 Feb 2000 22:16:06 PST." Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 09:26:46 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > However, the corrected claim is a common situation when there is a clear > error which gets fixed. In the original example, in which a possible > defense would lock declarer in dummy, the error is non-trivial and the > director should be called. It might be non-trivial or trivial depending on the players. In this case, declarer was a very good player, and his opponents---well, we do reasonably well. I think declarer wasn't paying full attention when he claimed because he was disgusted with how the play had gone before that. But when we pointed out the problem, he had no trouble seeing it. There was no way for the defense to get more tricks than the additional one I wanted. > But there isn't much need to call the TD when the correct result is obvious > to all four players. A fairly common example is a declarer who claims with > all "winners", forgetting about an outstanding high trump. If it is > impossible for the player with the high trump to get another trick, the > players will often agree to give one trick to the holder of the high trump. > He does prejudice his rights to claim another trick later, but he may see > that this is not important. > Similarly, if declarer miscounts the defenders' established suit and they > have one more trick to cash before declarer claims in NT, it may be clear > to everyone that there is only one trick. > > Since this is accepted practice and isn't usually harmful, I would not > impose a PP as director but might deny an adjustment in case of later > problems. This is very much in line with the Laws' definition of "should". From the section "Interpretation of the Laws": When a player "should" do something ("a claim should be accompanied at once by a statement..."), his failure to do it is an infraction of Law, which will jeopardize his rights, but which will seldom incur a procedural penalty. However, 68D uses "must", not "should". It says "the Director must be summoned immediately . . .". The Interpretation section says this about the word "must": The strongest word, "must" ("before making a call, he must inspect the face of his cards"), indicates that violation is regarded as serious. I can accept that "playing it out" after a disputed claim might be considered a serious violation and something we want to discourage strongly. But I have trouble accepting that a brief discussion that leads claimer and opponents to agree on a different result than that originally claimed, should also be considered a serious violation. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 17 05:12:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA09499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 04:55:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA09494 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 04:54:51 +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 RAA20404 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 17:54:10 GMT Message-ID: <38AAE466.59202478@meteo.fr> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 18:54:46 +0100 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Changing your system to counter opponents (Was Re: Defense vs. Ferts) References: <01e901bf78a2$4d3642e0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" a écrit : > > > Exactly. Provided that there is a regulation that says a system cannot > be varied according to the measures used against it. If the ACBL's > current regulations do say that (as I believe), then defensive measures > should not have to be disclosed on the cc. This includes > negative/penalty doubles of overcalls, the meaning of doubles over > preemptive openings, defenses against notrump openings, the strength of > jump overcalls, actions over a takeout double, etc., all of which could > be disclosed by Announcements or Alerts (or silence, for a "standard" > treatment) at the time of the action. I understand your point and agree with the chronological order of choice of conventions by opponents, (we already had a thread about the paradox which could follow otherwise), but if not-disclosing of defensive measures were extended to defensive measures against opponents' pass (why not?), cc would be rather blank (only dealer's opening bids!). JP Rocafort > > Now, there are valid reasons for such agreements to be documented in a > handy form. Most partnerships like to have them recorded on the cc for > their own purposes, not just for the opponents, and TDs/ACs like to see > documented evidence of an agreement when a possible infraction concerns > it. The solution is to have the defensive-action agreements recorded on > a "private" half of the cc, the half that is face down when placed on > the table. > > Marv (Marvin L. French) -- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 17 05:53:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA09629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 05:53:18 +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 FAA09624 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 05:53:11 +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 ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:53:05 -0800 Message-ID: <01f901bf78ae$fee61f40$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <200002161726.JAA28042@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: Resolving claim disputes without the TD Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:48:49 -0800 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 From: "Adam Beneschan" > I can accept that "playing it out" after a disputed claim might be > considered a serious violation and something we want to discourage > strongly. Right. "Play ceases." > But I have trouble accepting that a brief discussion that > leads claimer and opponents to agree on a different result than that > originally claimed, should also be considered a serious violation. > Discussing a claim without calling the TD is not an infraction *per se." The TD must be called only if the claim is disputed. A discussed claim is not a disputed claim until the discussion ends in disagreement. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 17 05:57:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA09662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 05:57:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f136.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA09657 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 05:56:57 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 37571 invoked by uid 0); 16 Feb 2000 18:56:19 -0000 Message-ID: <20000216185619.37570.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 4.33.182.89 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:56:19 PST X-Originating-IP: [4.33.182.89] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:56:19 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Under a different definition of marked, the finesse is marked as the only line of play that stands a reasonable chance of bringing home the 7th trick. This is an example where I might claim* with the statement, "down one if the king of hearts is on my left, otherwise making." I've never had a problem doing this, but it does appear outside the scope of the laws. -Todd * - I'd never do this at no trump, too easy to be down one, two, or three. >Anne Jones wrote: > > > >One other thing to consider in any such proposal: We can't force an > > >order of played cards that violates the claim statement. Suppose > > >declarer claims with > > > > > > T632 > > > 642 > > > -- > > > -- > > > > > > AKQJ7 > > > AQ > > > -- > > > -- > > > > > >and, with the lead currently in hand, says, "Taking the marked heart > > >finesse." Now the spades are cards that aren't explicitly covered by > > >this claim statement; nevertheless, we can't require the cards to be > > >played top down, because the statement implies that the S10 is to be > > >used as an entry. So what order should we assume the spades are > > >cashed in? If this is notrump, and declarer has messed up and the HK > > >is offside and the opponents have minor-suit winners, then it makes a > > >big difference. . . . > > > Without any doubt, I would rule Spade to the S10, Heart finesse...grief. > >I would too, under the current Laws. My point is that if we think the >current Laws are too ambiguous, and we want to come up with something >more definite, this is the sort of thing we'd have to make sure gets >handled. > > > I consider that a > > marked finesse, is only marked when one defender shows out. > > This declarer had assumed that because a finesse had held once it would > > hold again. Shame. > >Actually, there are several reasons why I would assume a finesse is >"marked", and this is not one of them. One, the best reason, is that >the other defender has shown out of the suit. But even if no one has >shown out of the suit, I could have a complete count of the hand >anyway. In the past, I've claimed on a "marked" finesse because the >player has to have the card to have the right point-count for a 1NT >opening or something like that. But I try not to do that, because >people sometimes miscount their points, forget what notrump range >they're using this week, or just plain lie. > > -- Adam > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 17 06:42:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA09811 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 06:42:33 +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 GAA09806 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 06:42:25 +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 LAA30286; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:42:22 -0800 Message-Id: <200002161942.LAA30286@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:03:55 PST." <200002161703.MAA12413@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:42:22 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Adam Beneschan > > Say declarer has K654 of > > hearts in dummy, AJ93 in hand, and for some reason thinks the queen > > and ten were discarded earlier (maybe because I discarded the queen > > and ten of diamonds on a couple earlier tricks). He claims. I'm > > sitting with Q2 behind declarer. > > Remember, my proposal was an arbitrary and unambiguous rule that only > produces justice in a fraction of cases. > > How would you feel about a spade layout like > J92 > T8763 AQ54 > K > Declarer, west, leads any card and carelessly (or vision-impaired) > calls for "spade" from dummy. Under L46B2, that means S-4, and only > one trick is lost. At the other tables, declarers are playing the Q > and losing two tricks. (Presumably this is matchpoints, so declarers > don't take the safety play.) I'd feel fixed, about as fixed as if declarer was thinking a trick or two ahead and therefore accidentally called "spade 4". Oh well. Or perhaps "Oh s#%t". One difference here is that I don't consider incomplete calls to be a scourge on the game. It's something we've come to accept. Bad claims, however, *are* a scourge that inevitably cause problems and thus need to be discouraged, and any law that randomly rewards people for making them is wrongheaded. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 17 07:07:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA09758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 06:15:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA09753 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 06:15:22 +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 OAA22052; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 14:15:09 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <01e901bf78a2$4d3642e0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 14:11:02 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Changing your system to counter opponents (Was Re: Defense vs. Ferts) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 9:13 AM -0800 2/16/00, Marvin L. French wrote: >"Christopher J. Monsour" wrote:> >> If I had 'through >> 4H, with exceptions' written on my cc under negatve doubles, I would refuse >> to answer if partner or I opened and the next player asked me what were the >> exceptions. Even if I had system notes with me at the table, I would not at >> this point offer that portion of the notes. >When using negative doubles, I like to play that 1S - 2x - Dbl is an >exception. The 2x bid doesn't preempt major suit bidding space, and >people are making lousy 2x overcalls these days. However, I have this >exception noted on the cc. Perhaps I should not do so, as a potential >overcaller should not be permitted to vary his overcalling practices >according to the countermeasures that might be used against them. >Taking this one step further, the meaning of responder's double of an >overcall, negative or penalty, should probably not be on the cc. If the >double is Alertable, Alert it. Silence means the double is an >ACBL-standard negative double. There is no reason for this information >to be on the cc. The problem is that the CC serves another purpose, that of avoiding questioning of common agreements. When an opponent doubles my partner's overcall and I am considering a raise, I need to check the CC to ensure that the double is not for penalties. (Yes, a penalty double is alertable, but many players who have been playing penalty doubles for fifty years don't know this, and my club has several such players.) Removing it from the CC would mean that I must always ask, unless you are willing to always rule against the players who have no idea that penalty doubles are not standard, ignoring the principle that good players are expected to protect themselves. But requiring me to ask would increase the UI problem; if I ask, "What's the double?", hear "negative" (properly not alerted), and then pass, partner has the UI that I wanted to run from a penalty double. There is no way for me to avoid this UI problem if I cannot get the information beforehand. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 17 07:27:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA09957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 07:27:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f287.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA09952 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 07:27:04 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 94732 invoked by uid 0); 16 Feb 2000 20:26:27 -0000 Message-ID: <20000216202627.94731.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 4.33.182.89 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:26:27 PST X-Originating-IP: [4.33.182.89] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Resolving claim disputes without the TD Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:26:27 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Play ceases" has become a mantra here. While the fact that a claim is disputed may give claimer the necessary information to take the rest of the tricks, personally I can't think of an example such as: I have the rest of the tricks by obvious plan A unless a claim is disputed, in which case plan B will succeed. Are there other considerations? An entirely different problem arises when one's hand is exposed during the claim. As declarer, this should be welcome information for defenders and I see no inequity in playing the rest of the hand out. Defenders have been given full-disclosure about every card's location due to declarer's claim and should be allowed to capitalize maximally on it. (The laws as they stand do not offer defenders such predatory rights, but playing the hand out in this scenario would.) As a defender, however, exposing one's hand is extremely unfair to the declarer as it gives the defender's partner information he's not entitled to, e.g. I don't need to keep my ace since my partner can keep the king. I'm certain that I'm not the only new player who is not entirely convinced by the repeated insistance that play should cease and needs a little more of the rationale behind it. Should the claim laws be rewritten, I think that distinctions between claiming as declarer and as a defender should be made. Declarer cannot possibly be giving his partner information and defender's exchange of information should forfeit most of their rights to have done the right thing. -Todd >From: "Marvin L. French" >Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subject: Re: Resolving claim disputes without the TD >Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:48:49 -0800 > >From: "Adam Beneschan" > > > I can accept that "playing it out" after a disputed claim might be > > considered a serious violation and something we want to discourage > > strongly. > >Right. "Play ceases." > > > But I have trouble accepting that a brief discussion that > > leads claimer and opponents to agree on a different result than that > > originally claimed, should also be considered a serious violation. > > >Discussing a claim without calling the TD is not an infraction *per se." >The TD must be called only if the claim is disputed. A discussed claim >is not a disputed claim until the discussion ends in disagreement. > >Marv (Marvin L. French) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 17 08:17:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA10098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 08:17:37 +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 IAA10093 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 08:17:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id QAA11937 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 16:17:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA12702 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 16:17:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 16:17:16 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200002162117.QAA12702@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > Bad claims, however, *are* a scourge that inevitably > cause problems and thus need to be discouraged, and any law that > randomly rewards people for making them is wrongheaded. We play in different circles, then. People who won't claim are a much bigger scourge to the game, IMHO, as are people who won't accept a clear claim and BL's who try to dispute a good claim that is badly worded. I'd be delighted to accept the occasional fix in return for never having a dispute about claim wording. Almost all the time, a careless claimer will be punished, so there will still be a strong incentive to make sure every claim is good. To David B.: Thanks for the good analysis of "for the class of player involved." The phrase certainly modifies 'inferior'. It is not clear whether it modifies 'careless'. I think it probably does not modify 'irrational' because of the conjunction 'but'. Thus my view is that we decide whether a play is irrational _per se_ and do not need to consider the class of player. An irrational play is irrational for anybody. A bad but rational play may be expected of a bad player, unexpected ("inferior") for a good player, but as long as it is rational, it should be considered. Regular readers will recognize the above as part of my continuing campaign to take mind reading out of score adjustment cases whenever it is feasible to do so. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 17 08:27:22 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA10145 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 08:27:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from rjintra1.rjf.com (rjintra1.rjf.com [170.12.99.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA10140 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 08:27:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-154.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.154]) by rjintra1.rjf.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0) id 1DMWNVVG; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 16:26:57 -0500 Message-ID: <007e01bf78c4$c4351700$9a84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Todd Zimnoch" , Subject: Re: Resolving claim disputes without the TD Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 16:28:24 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It is not a mantra...it is the law. It is a good law. To allow otherwise would allow games to last interminably at the behest of those who don't want to take the trouble to learn how to play bridge. We lose enough young people now without going out of our way to make the game slow and boring. -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: Todd Zimnoch To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 3:37 PM Subject: Re: Resolving claim disputes without the TD > "Play ceases" has become a mantra here. > > While the fact that a claim is disputed may give claimer the necessary >information to take the rest of the tricks, personally I can't think of an >example such as: I have the rest of the tricks by obvious plan A unless a >claim is disputed, in which case plan B will succeed. Are there other >considerations? > > An entirely different problem arises when one's hand is exposed during >the claim. As declarer, this should be welcome information for defenders >and I see no inequity in playing the rest of the hand out. Defenders have >been given full-disclosure about every card's location due to declarer's >claim and should be allowed to capitalize maximally on it. (The laws as >they stand do not offer defenders such predatory rights, but playing the >hand out in this scenario would.) As a defender, however, exposing one's >hand is extremely unfair to the declarer as it gives the defender's partner >information he's not entitled to, e.g. I don't need to keep my ace since my >partner can keep the king. > > I'm certain that I'm not the only new player who is not entirely >convinced by the repeated insistance that play should cease and needs a >little more of the rationale behind it. Should the claim laws be rewritten, >I think that distinctions between claiming as declarer and as a defender >should be made. Declarer cannot possibly be giving his partner information >and defender's exchange of information should forfeit most of their rights >to have done the right thing. > >-Todd > >>From: "Marvin L. French" >>Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" >>To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>Subject: Re: Resolving claim disputes without the TD >>Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:48:49 -0800 >> >>From: "Adam Beneschan" >> >> > I can accept that "playing it out" after a disputed claim might be >> > considered a serious violation and something we want to discourage >> > strongly. >> >>Right. "Play ceases." >> >> > But I have trouble accepting that a brief discussion that >> > leads claimer and opponents to agree on a different result than that >> > originally claimed, should also be considered a serious violation. >> > >>Discussing a claim without calling the TD is not an infraction *per se." >>The TD must be called only if the claim is disputed. A discussed claim >>is not a disputed claim until the discussion ends in disagreement. >> >>Marv (Marvin L. French) > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 17 09:36:02 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA10343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 09:36:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from rbdc.rbdc.com (rbdc.rbdc.com [199.171.83.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA10338 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 09:35:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from child.com (pm0-26.rbdc.com [199.171.83.167]) by rbdc.rbdc.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA14063 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 17:35:39 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.0.40.0.20000216172228.00ab7ef0@rbdc.rbdc.com> X-Sender: wflory@rbdc.rbdc.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.0.40 (Beta) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 17:32:17 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Walt Flory Subject: Re: Resolving claim disputes without the TD In-Reply-To: <20000216202627.94731.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Todd, The most likely examples that come to mind are: 1. You have not drawn all the trump but think that you have. After the claim is declined if you play on, you may wonder why the claim was declined and play a high trump in case that was the problem and now make the contract. 2. A suit that you assumed carelessly would run doesn't because of something like a 5-0 break. You think about why the claim was declined, decide that must be the reason, and take an unusual but necessary first round finesse and again make the contract. The basic theme is that when your claim is declined, you now have the information that there is a problem and if you are allowed to freely play on you could use that information to find the winning line of play. In many cases, you are right, all you have done is made the defense easier but this is not the only possibility. Walt Walt Flory wflory on OKBridge _____ At 12:26 PM 2/16/00 -0800, Todd Zimnoch wrote: > "Play ceases" has become a mantra here. > > While the fact that a claim is disputed may give claimer the > necessary information to take the rest of the tricks, personally I can't > think of an example such as: I have the rest of the tricks by obvious > plan A unless a claim is disputed, in which case plan B will > succeed. Are there other considerations? > > An entirely different problem arises when one's hand is exposed > during the claim. As declarer, this should be welcome information for > defenders and I see no inequity in playing the rest of the hand > out. Defenders have been given full-disclosure about every card's > location due to declarer's claim and should be allowed to capitalize > maximally on it. (The laws as they stand do not offer defenders such > predatory rights, but playing the hand out in this scenario would.) As a > defender, however, exposing one's hand is extremely unfair to the > declarer as it gives the defender's partner information he's not entitled > to, e.g. I don't need to keep my ace since my partner can keep the king. > > I'm certain that I'm not the only new player who is not entirely > convinced by the repeated insistance that play should cease and needs a > little more of the rationale behind it. Should the claim laws be > rewritten, I think that distinctions between claiming as declarer and as > a defender should be made. Declarer cannot possibly be giving his > partner information and defender's exchange of information should forfeit > most of their rights to have done the right thing. > >-Todd > >>From: "Marvin L. French" >>Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" >>To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>Subject: Re: Resolving claim disputes without the TD >>Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:48:49 -0800 >> >>From: "Adam Beneschan" >> >> > I can accept that "playing it out" after a disputed claim might be >> > considered a serious violation and something we want to discourage >> > strongly. >> >>Right. "Play ceases." >> >> > But I have trouble accepting that a brief discussion that >> > leads claimer and opponents to agree on a different result than that >> > originally claimed, should also be considered a serious violation. >> > >>Discussing a claim without calling the TD is not an infraction *per se." >>The TD must be called only if the claim is disputed. A discussed claim >>is not a disputed claim until the discussion ends in disagreement. >> >>Marv (Marvin L. French) > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 17 09:52:26 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA10378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 09:52:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f28.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.28]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA10373 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 09:52:18 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 95252 invoked by uid 0); 16 Feb 2000 22:51:41 -0000 Message-ID: <20000216225141.95251.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 4.33.182.89 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 14:51:40 PST X-Originating-IP: [4.33.182.89] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Resolving claim disputes without the TD Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 14:51:40 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think that you have only furthered my point. "It's the law; it's good" is a big lie argument. Refuse to call it a mantra if you will; (re)asserting the position is not good enough. Unfortunately, more time is spent waiting for the director to arrive at your table, having him access the situation and make a decision than would be spent if you play the cards out. If an opponent would contest claims and force a playout without reason, you've already got them nailed on 74B4. Speeding up the game is not a necessary reason to forbid further playing of the hand the moment a claim is made as there's no additional benefit to that effect. My question is what are the equity concerns regarding claims and playout of the hand. Why would it be more equitable to have the director's decision than allowing a playout. I've already outlined one case where a playout gives defenders the most advantage against a claim. What abuses are possible? Frankly, as a young person myself, I'm much more turned off by the existance of laws which don't appear well-justified. Having never played duplicate before, the most confusing things about my first experiences playing were the alert procedures and why (playing in 199ers, where most of us newbies start and simultaneously the section with the most problems with claiming) I had to wait for the director to arrive to confirm that I had a trick against a claim. Having questions didn't bother me so much since I didn't expect to be fully indoctrinated in one session. But being berated with dicta was a sore turnoff. Directors should be better aware and better able to answer questions about why the laws exist as written. Telling a player who is baffled by why a law exists that, "It exists so you won't be turned off to the game," is possibly the most ironic, self-defeating thing you could do. -Todd >From: "Craig Senior" >To: "Todd Zimnoch" , >Subject: Re: Resolving claim disputes without the TD >Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 16:28:24 -0500 > >It is not a mantra...it is the law. It is a good law. To allow otherwise >would allow games to last interminably at the behest of those who don't >want >to take the trouble to learn how to play bridge. We lose enough young >people >now without going out of our way to make the game slow and boring. > >-- >Craig > >-----Original Message----- >From: Todd Zimnoch >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 3:37 PM >Subject: Re: Resolving claim disputes without the TD > > > > "Play ceases" has become a mantra here. > > > > While the fact that a claim is disputed may give claimer the >necessary > >information to take the rest of the tricks, personally I can't think of >an > >example such as: I have the rest of the tricks by obvious plan A unless a > >claim is disputed, in which case plan B will succeed. Are there other > >considerations? > > > > An entirely different problem arises when one's hand is exposed >during > >the claim. As declarer, this should be welcome information for defenders > >and I see no inequity in playing the rest of the hand out. Defenders >have > >been given full-disclosure about every card's location due to declarer's > >claim and should be allowed to capitalize maximally on it. (The laws as > >they stand do not offer defenders such predatory rights, but playing the > >hand out in this scenario would.) As a defender, however, exposing one's > >hand is extremely unfair to the declarer as it gives the defender's >partner > >information he's not entitled to, e.g. I don't need to keep my ace since >my > >partner can keep the king. > > > > I'm certain that I'm not the only new player who is not entirely > >convinced by the repeated insistance that play should cease and needs a > >little more of the rationale behind it. Should the claim laws be >rewritten, > >I think that distinctions between claiming as declarer and as a defender > >should be made. Declarer cannot possibly be giving his partner >information > >and defender's exchange of information should forfeit most of their >rights > >to have done the right thing. > > > >-Todd > > > >>From: "Marvin L. French" > >>Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" > >>To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > >>Subject: Re: Resolving claim disputes without the TD > >>Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:48:49 -0800 > >> > >>From: "Adam Beneschan" > >> > >> > I can accept that "playing it out" after a disputed claim might be > >> > considered a serious violation and something we want to discourage > >> > strongly. > >> > >>Right. "Play ceases." > >> > >> > But I have trouble accepting that a brief discussion that > >> > leads claimer and opponents to agree on a different result than that > >> > originally claimed, should also be considered a serious violation. > >> > > >>Discussing a claim without calling the TD is not an infraction *per se." > >>The TD must be called only if the claim is disputed. A discussed claim > >>is not a disputed claim until the discussion ends in disagreement. > >> > >>Marv (Marvin L. French) > > > >______________________________________________________ > >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 17 09:57:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA10412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 09:57:00 +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 JAA10407 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 09:56:52 +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 OAA00845; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 14:56:49 -0800 Message-Id: <200002162256.OAA00845@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 16 Feb 2000 16:17:16 PST." <200002162117.QAA12702@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 14:56:50 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Adam Beneschan > > Bad claims, however, *are* a scourge that inevitably > > cause problems and thus need to be discouraged, and any law that > > randomly rewards people for making them is wrongheaded. > > We play in different circles, then. People who won't claim are a > much bigger scourge to the game, IMHO, as are people who won't > accept a clear claim and BL's who try to dispute a good claim that > is badly worded. > > I'd be delighted to accept the occasional fix in return for never > having a dispute about claim wording. Almost all the time, a careless > claimer will be punished, so there will still be a strong incentive to > make sure every claim is good. . . . > > Regular readers will recognize the above as part of my continuing > campaign to take mind reading out of score adjustment cases whenever it > is feasible to do so. I think this last is what's complicating things. In the original example, it seemed from Fearghal's wording that there was positive evidence that the claimer forgot something (the outstanding trump). If we allowed the TD to adjudicate the claim differently based on such evidence, then: (1) BL's wouldn't be able to benefit from disputing good claims that aren't perfectly worded; (2) people would never benefit from bad claims; (3) people would be less afraid to claim if they know what's going on, since they wouldn't have to worry about ridiculous exceptions from BL's, but would be more cautious not to claim if they're not sure. So it seems that dropping your objection to "mind reading" would solve all the rest of the problems, except for people who don't accept a clear claim, for which there's really no legal solution. Put another way: Assuming that we have to accept exactly one of these flaws: (1) BL's could benefit by nitpicking every claim that isn't perfectly worded, with the result that people are afraid to claim even when they should; (2) People who make bad claims could be rewarded (and their opponents damaged) by Laws that force a line of play that works out luckily for the malclaimant; (Like that word?) (3) TD's have to judge whether the claimer knew what he was doing but didn't state it perfectly, or whether the claimer actually lost the plot; and if the latter, they have to judge how the play might actually have gone; and the TD's could judge incorrectly; I find that (3) is the one I could most easily live with, with (1) in second place. Apparently you find (3) unlivable. I don't really understand why. And it seems to me that which flaw is most acceptable is a matter of personal preference and isn't something that we can really decide through logical discussion. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 17 10:57:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA10598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 10:57:22 +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 KAA10593 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 10:57:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.155] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12LEJc-0007c4-00; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 23:57:05 +0000 Message-ID: <006301bf78d9$c15d0b40$9b5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Craig Senior" , , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <003401bf788f$4316fe20$9a84d9ce@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 23:57:44 -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 ; ; Adam Beneschan Cc: Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 3:05 PM Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action > Actually I based that comment on an article I had read in which Carroll > (Dodgson) had been interviewed and had described brillig as being a time > midway between lunch and teatime. If the article was a fiction I stand > corrected. Unfortunately I read it many years ago and cannot cite a > reference. I remember that it focused upon chortled, and how that had leapt > into mainstream English from this poem. > +=+ So be it. I have sometime urged that an author's intention should carry the greatest weight. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 17 11:12:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA10628 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 11:12:36 +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 LAA10621 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 11:12:28 +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 QAA01967; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 16:12:24 -0800 Message-Id: <200002170012.QAA01967@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Resolving claim disputes without the TD In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 16 Feb 2000 14:51:40 PST." <20000216225141.95251.qmail@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 16:12:14 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: > I think that you have only furthered my point. "It's the law; it's > good" is a big lie argument. I think you owe Craig an apology for that one. Nobody said "It's good *because* it's the law", or "It's the law, *therefore* it's good." I think some laws are good laws, some need improvement, and a few deserve to be ripped out of the law book, shredded into tiny little pieces, and burned. I'm sure Craig feels pretty much the same way. This particular one is, I think, a good law. > My question is what are the equity concerns regarding claims and > playout of the hand. Why would it be more equitable to have the director's > decision than allowing a playout. I've already outlined one case where a > playout gives defenders the most advantage against a claim. No, you really haven't. You said "The laws as they stand do not offer the defenders" the right "to capitalize maximally from knowing the location of every card", but I believe this is incorrect, since claims (by declarer) are supposed to be made only when there is nothing the defense can do to affect the result, and the Laws say that when this condition is not met, doubtful points are to be resolved against the claimer. In other words, if there's something the defenders can do to take advantage, the Director is supposed to award them *at least* the score they would have got by doing so. > What abuses are possible? One possibility: Declarer has AJxxx opposite KTxx in trumps, and no losers in any other suit. He claims, sees which opponent is quickest to complain, then finesses that opponent for the queen. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 17 13:23:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA10887 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 13:23:37 +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 NAA10882 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 13:23:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from isdn.net.il ([212.25.117.213]) by mail.bezeqint.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.07.30.00.05.p8) with ESMTP id <0FQ100EN8YM4T9@mail.bezeqint.net> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 04:22:54 +0200 (IST) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 04:23:17 +0200 From: Zvi Shilon Subject: Re: Resolving claim disputes without the TD Cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List Message-id: <38AB5B95.3D92206@isdn.net.il> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en-US,en,Hebrew References: <200002161726.JAA28042@mailhub.irvine.com> <01f901bf78ae$fee61f40$16991e18@san.rr.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Excellent distinction. zvika Modiin, Israel "Marvin L. French" wrote: > From: "Adam Beneschan" > > > I can accept that "playing it out" after a disputed claim might be > > considered a serious violation and something we want to discourage > > strongly. > > Right. "Play ceases." > > > But I have trouble accepting that a brief discussion that > > leads claimer and opponents to agree on a different result than that > > originally claimed, should also be considered a serious violation. > > > Discussing a claim without calling the TD is not an infraction *per se." > The TD must be called only if the claim is disputed. A discussed claim > is not a disputed claim until the discussion ends in disagreement. > > Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 17 14:48:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA11039 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 14:48:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA11034 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 14:48:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 19:48:17 -0800 Message-ID: <020601bf78f9$be8a7cc0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Changing your system to counter opponents (Was Re: Defensevs. Ferts) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 19:46:26 -0800 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 David Grabiner wrote: Marvin French wrote: > > >Taking this one step further, the meaning of responder's double of an > >overcall, negative or penalty, should probably not be on the cc. If the > >double is Alertable, Alert it. Silence means the double is an > >ACBL-standard negative double. There is no reason for this information > >to be on the cc. > > The problem is that the CC serves another purpose, that of avoiding > questioning of common agreements. When an opponent doubles my partner's > overcall and I am considering a raise, I need to check the CC to ensure > that the double is not for penalties. (Yes, a penalty double is alertable, > but many players who have been playing penalty doubles for fifty years > don't know this, and my club has several such players.) > > Removing it from the CC would mean that I must always ask, unless you are > willing to always rule against the players who have no idea that penalty > doubles are not standard, ignoring the principle that good players are > expected to protect themselves. But requiring me to ask would increase the > UI problem; if I ask, "What's the double?", hear "negative" (properly not > alerted), and then pass, partner has the UI that I wanted to run from a > penalty double. There is no way for me to avoid this UI problem if I > cannot get the information beforehand. The doubler's partner must reveal the nature of the double. Anticipating this problem, I suggest that either meaning be Announced. On the rare occasions that doesn't happen, you ALWAYS ask, to avoid UI. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 17 14:58:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA11090 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 14:58:34 +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 OAA11085 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 14:58:27 +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 ; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 19:58:21 -0800 Message-ID: <022901bf78fb$26a90a00$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <01e901bf78a2$4d3642e0$16991e18@san.rr.com> <38AAE466.59202478@meteo.fr> Subject: Re: Changing your system to counter opponents (Was Re: Defense vs. Ferts) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 19:51:41 -0800 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 From: "Jean Pierre Rocafort" >if not-disclosing of >defensive measures were extended to defensive measures against >opponents' pass (why not?), cc would be rather blank (only dealer's >opening bids!). The subject concerns defenses against initial actions. A pass is not an action. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 17 15:58:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA11176 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 15:58:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f185.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.149.185]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA11171 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 15:58:00 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 43109 invoked by uid 0); 17 Feb 2000 04:57:18 -0000 Message-ID: <20000217045718.43108.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 203.108.199.88 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 20:57:17 PST X-Originating-IP: [203.108.199.88] From: "David Stevenson" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: A simple minor penalty card - or is it? Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 04:57:17 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I helped run a Congress in Yarra Bay, Melbourne with Martin Willcox. I found that threatening the players that if they did not behave I would set Uncle Martin on them was very effective! Anyway, there was one ruling which Martin thought completely obvious - but I don't. See what you think. Part way through the hand a defender leads the H5. As he does so the C9 appears with it. Both are visible. Declarer follows to the heart, as does the other defender, and then the Director is called. How do you rule? cc Martin Willcox -- David Stevenson Reply to hotmail: copy to blakjak Liverpool, England, UK bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk bluejak666@hotmail.com david@blakjak.demon.co.uk ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 17 21:24:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA11688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:24:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from cobalt9-he.global.net.uk (cobalt9-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.169]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA11683 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:24:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from pafs02a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.162.176] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt9-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12KzM2-0000iC-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 07:58:35 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: A simple minor penalty card - or is it? Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 10:32:10 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf7932$3f3f4520$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, February 17, 2000 5:10 AM Subject: A simple minor penalty card - or is it? > >I helped run a Congress in Yarra Bay, Melbourne with Martin Willcox. I >found that threatening the players that if they did not behave I would set >Uncle Martin on them was very effective! > >Anyway, there was one ruling which Martin thought completely obvious - but I >don't. See what you think. > >Part way through the hand a defender leads the H5. As he does so the C9 >appears with it. Both are visible. Declarer follows to the heart, as does >the other defender, and then the Director is called. How do you rule? > If I had been called when the two cards hit the table, I also would have ruled Law50C like Martin.(Hello Martin) However the law has sympathy for the offenders partner who now claims that action by declarer before the TD had explained to him, his responsibility regarding UI, and in ignorance of the fact that the C9 would have to be played before a smaller Club,had guided him to win, or to lose the trick.His decision might have been different if he knew that declarers action had not "condoned" the offence.Law9B1/Law11A. "Pick the C9 up, no penalty, call me first, next time" Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 17 21:34:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA11719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:34:41 +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 VAA11710 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:34:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-150.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.150]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA19750 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 11:34:24 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38AAA7E3.F99F25BA@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 14:36:35 +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: Valentine tournament Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk One day late, yesterday evening, we held our annual Valentine tournament = club mixed championship. LHO opens 2 Spades, and my partner bids 2 Hearts. In the absence of Norbert, I rule myself (OK, I shouldn't, but what the heck). RHO ponders for a moment, and passes (Don't ask me why). So do I, and LHO too. So the bidding is : 2Sp 2He all pass. Someone passes by and sees the bidding, and laughs. My reply : "didn't you know that in a Valentine's Tournament, Hearts outrank Spades ?" -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 17 21:34:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA11721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:34:43 +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 VAA11711 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:34:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-150.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.150]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA19768 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 11:34:26 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38ABCC14.90CDB6AF@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 11:23:16 +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: L70C3 & something similar Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Whilst kibitzing yesterday, I noticed a position which reminded me of the case that has been haunting us for the last few weeks. It may prove of use for our discussion. Against 3NT, the lead is the 9 of diamonds. Dummy puts down AKJT82 of diamonds, and a side entry. Declarer plays the Ace, and the King, on which he discards. Declarer now plays the Jack, takes the next trick in hand, crosses to the table, and says "diamond". At this time, there is T82 left. If a defender has one left (if they started 4-2), he might ask that the 2 of diamonds is played, as per L46B2. Of course we all know the sentence of L46B "(except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible)" Do you think this is the case here? Quite intentionally, I did not say whether diamonds were 3-3 or 4-2, or even 5-1. In declarer's eyes, this does not matter. He has no need to count the suit, since he knows (as soon as one other is followed) there will be enough high cards there to win five tricks. Now consider another case. After the queen of diamonds, defenders cash three tricks, after which declarer gains the hand, and claims, vaguely stating that he crosses to dummy, without mentioning that he does NOT want to play the two of diamonds first. Wouldn't it be logical to apply the same criteria as before, so that the "incontrovertible" of L46B and the "irrational" of the footnote to L70 be true antonyms ? The point I am trying to make is that when having to decide what is "normal" in the play of J92, or 1082 as here, depends quite a lot on what happened before. It is quite normal (even if careless) for a player to remember one piece of information about a hand, while not maintaining in his head the full arithmetic of the hand. The carelessness in not counting all 52 cards is not of the same order as the carelessness of playing a suit bottom-up, when one knows them to be high at the top. It is quite normal for a player to know that J9 are high, without remembering whether or not there are any left in the suit. I have just read back Fearghal's original post to the longest thread so far this year. He writes : "Upon investigation the Director forms the opinion that there is a good chance Declarer had forgotton about the outstanding trump." That is NOT the same as writing, "Declarer firmly believes that he has the last few trumps". It is quite possible that Declarer knows his J9 are high, without knowing the exact count. I do not believe that it is rational for a player who knows a card to be high, not to play that one, even if he thinks there are none left. Not that I am saying that in Fearghal's case, the player knew them to be high - that is for the Director to find out at the table. But it is an important piece of information, and by omitting that, Fearghal has, quite innocently, started a long thread. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 18 02:16:12 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA12585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 02:16:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from fb01.eng00.mindspring.net (fb01.eng00.mindspring.net [207.69.229.19]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA12580 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 02:16:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-220.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.220]) by fb01.eng00.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA01327; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 10:15:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000e01bf795a$194a9900$dc84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: Subject: Re: Resolving claim disputes without the TD Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 10:17:24 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You have expressed this very well, Adam and I thank you. But although I disagree strongly with Todd, I am pleased that he cares enough to debate the issue, and does not automatically give in to the argument that "it has always been that way therefore it always must be." Questioning is good...but realising that in many cases long established practice may be good and beneficial practice is also important. In my experience as player and director "Just play it out" has long been the refuge of weak players who care little for learning the rules of the game...and tend to be stubborn about whatever they do not understand. These are the same folks who become enraged over "complicated" conventions such as Michaels, Flannery or even 2-Way Stayman or Unusual for Minors or RKCB. They do not understand claims, think (falsely) that someone is trying to trick them, and resist any attempt to teach them. They often are the slow play pairs that irritate everyone else in the room. Claims speed and improve the game and should be encouraged in every way possible. I suspect as Todd matures as a player he will come to recognise this...but if not I would continue to welcome his reasoned arguments for change. -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: Adam Beneschan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: adam@irvine.com Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 7:21 PM Subject: Re: Resolving claim disputes without the TD > >Todd Zimnoch wrote: > >> I think that you have only furthered my point. "It's the law; it's >> good" is a big lie argument. > >I think you owe Craig an apology for that one. Nobody said "It's good >*because* it's the law", or "It's the law, *therefore* it's good." I >think some laws are good laws, some need improvement, and a few >deserve to be ripped out of the law book, shredded into tiny little >pieces, and burned. I'm sure Craig feels pretty much the same way. >This particular one is, I think, a good law. > >> My question is what are the equity concerns regarding claims and >> playout of the hand. Why would it be more equitable to have the director's >> decision than allowing a playout. I've already outlined one case where a >> playout gives defenders the most advantage against a claim. > >No, you really haven't. You said "The laws as they stand do not offer >the defenders" the right "to capitalize maximally from knowing the >location of every card", but I believe this is incorrect, since claims >(by declarer) are supposed to be made only when there is nothing the >defense can do to affect the result, and the Laws say that when this >condition is not met, doubtful points are to be resolved against the >claimer. In other words, if there's something the defenders can do to >take advantage, the Director is supposed to award them *at least* the >score they would have got by doing so. > >> What abuses are possible? > >One possibility: Declarer has AJxxx opposite KTxx in trumps, and no >losers in any other suit. He claims, sees which opponent is quickest >to complain, then finesses that opponent for the queen. > > -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 18 02:52:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA12676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 02:52:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe23.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.16]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA12671 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 02:52:41 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 88828 invoked by uid 65534); 17 Feb 2000 15:52:03 -0000 Message-ID: <20000217155203.88827.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.12.40] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <01e901bf78a2$4d3642e0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Changing your system to counter opponents (Was Re: Defense vs. Ferts) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 09:52:17 -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: Marvin L. French -s- > Exactly. Provided that there is a regulation that says a system cannot > be varied according to the measures used against it. If the ACBL's > current regulations do say that (as I believe), then defensive measures > should not have to be disclosed on the cc. This includes > negative/penalty doubles of overcalls, the meaning of doubles over > preemptive openings, defenses against notrump openings, the strength of > jump overcalls, actions over a takeout double, etc., all of which could > be disclosed by Announcements or Alerts (or silence, for a "standard" > treatment) at the time of the action. > > Now, there are valid reasons for such agreements to be documented in a > handy form. Most partnerships like to have them recorded on the cc for > their own purposes, not just for the opponents, and TDs/ACs like to see > documented evidence of an agreement when a possible infraction concerns > it. The solution is to have the defensive-action agreements recorded on > a "private" half of the cc, the half that is face down when placed on > the table. > > Marv (Marvin L. French) Is it really sporting for a Bridge Authority to expect players as a class to keep all of this rigmarole straight? Even Marvin expresses that he could be mistaken [but unlikely] as to whether ACBL regulations are as he reported above. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 18 04:37:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA12957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 04:37:03 +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 EAA12952 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 04:36:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-030.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.222]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA92936 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:36:15 GMT Message-ID: <00ab01bf796d$aa1bad80$de307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: Law 70C in action Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:37:26 -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 Herman wrote: The point I am trying to make is that when having to decide what is "normal" in the play of J92, or 1082 as here, depends quite a lot on what happened before. It is quite normal (even if careless) for a player to remember one piece of information about a hand, while not maintaining in his head the full arithmetic of the hand. The carelessness in not counting all 52 cards is not of the same order as the carelessness of playing a suit bottom-up, when one knows them to be high at the top. It is quite normal for a player to know that J9 are high, without remembering whether or not there are any left in the suit. I have just read back Fearghal's original post to the longest thread so far this year. He writes : "Upon investigation the Director forms the opinion that there is a good chance Declarer had forgotton about the outstanding trump." That is NOT the same as writing, "Declarer firmly believes that he has the last few trumps". It is quite possible that Declarer knows his J9 are high, without knowing the exact count. I do not believe that it is rational for a player who knows a card to be high, not to play that one, even if he thinks there are none left. Not that I am saying that in Fearghal's case, the player knew them to be high - that is for the Director to find out at the table. But it is an important piece of information, and by omitting that, Fearghal has, quite innocently, started a long thread. Indeed declarer knew the J and 9 to be both high. And the Director also believed that declarer thought the 2 to also be high! Best regards, Fearghal. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 18 04:40:06 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA12973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 04:40:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe25.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA12968 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 04:39:58 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 60203 invoked by uid 65534); 17 Feb 2000 17:39:21 -0000 Message-ID: <20000217173921.60202.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.12.40] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <200002161703.MAA12413@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 11:39:43 -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 ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Willner To: Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 11:03 AM Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action > > From: Adam Beneschan > > Say declarer has K654 of > > hearts in dummy, AJ93 in hand, and for some reason thinks the queen > > and ten were discarded earlier (maybe because I discarded the queen > > and ten of diamonds on a couple earlier tricks). He claims. I'm > > sitting with Q2 behind declarer. > > Remember, my proposal was an arbitrary and unambiguous rule that only > produces justice in a fraction of cases. > > How would you feel about a spade layout like > J92 > T8763 AQ54 > K > Declarer, west, leads any card and carelessly (or vision-impaired) > calls for "spade" from dummy. Do I care why a player does what he does? Not unless he cheats. He called for a spade and has earned the S4. Under L46B2, that means S-4, and only > one trick is lost. At the other tables, declarers are playing the Q > and losing two tricks. (Presumably this is matchpoints, so declarers > don't take the safety play.) > Perhaps others can construct better examples, but L46B does not always > produce justice and may reward carelessness. I merely disagree with what was said, not necessarily the reason behind it: L46 injustice? Pfui. L46 resolves disputes from lazy designations and in my estimation, for as far as it goes, gives reasonable justice. L46B says 'spade' means lowest spade and whether or not declarer might have intended to finesse is irrelevant once he selected his action. In fact, if he corrected it in time he could do so, but he didn't do so, did he? Requiring declarer to correct his lazy designation would be like giving him two turns, the second turn having a bunch of UI available. Some think that equity/ justice is based in the 'correct bridge play'. I think that it is based in what the players do, not their thought processes for doing it. > > Suppose declarer claims with > > > > T632 > > 642 > > -- > > -- > > > > AKQJ7 > > AQ > > -- > > -- > > > > and, with the lead currently in hand, says, "Taking the marked heart > > finesse." > > The rules I listed yesterday give a completely unambiguous answer, > although not necessarily one that is just. The play is S-AKQ in accord > with the top-down rule, then S-T in conformance with the claim > statement, then H to Q. You may or may not like the result, but there > is at least no doubt what it should be. > > If the lead were currently in dummy, the rules I listed yesterday would > _not_ be sufficient. We would need to add one more, perhaps "any suit > mentioned in the claim statement is played as early as possible > consistent with the statement." If we add this rule, the heart finesse > would be taken immediately if the lead is in dummy, and the play in > Adam's problem (lead in hand) might become S-T, then H finesse instead > of as above. > > As I said, it is quite likely possible to write better rules. What I'm > asking about is the idea of a "L46B for claims." Then at least the play > after an incomplete claim statement would be unambiguous. Many have made arguments that if carried out have the effect of encouraging players to be sloppy because they will often be rewarded. Well, given the choice of having things that way or having things where players are not sloppy I will choose the latter, even as in this case fewer claims will happen. And that is good, because the claims that did not happen would be the ones with doubtful points. And when a player's skill is adequate they will increase their frequency of claims because they can depend upon the outcome. I do not think that sloppiness in calling for dummy's card and sloppiness in designating a line of play are things that can be resolved by similar approaches- Because there is a great chasm between the play of one card and the play of multiple tricks involving all four players. For the purpose of sloppy claims I strongly believe that their resolution must hinge on what was said in the claim. Perhaps everyone can see the difference between a claim of 'they are all good' and 'I am good '. One is a clear statement of equals and it makes no difference the order. And the second there is no assertion that they are all equals. The first is spoken by one who is 'convinced' [rightly or not] that it is so, the second is spoken by one who has found out [or not found out] that the distribution will allow any remaining be pulled from the top or by a marked finesse. The point being if he has not found out and there is a normal line that he does not find out in time, it is relevant for adjudication. It has been expressed that it ought not be the place of the Laws to specify the procedure a la L46 for suit combinations for sloppy claims, but there should not be great opposition to locals having such a regulation. But as I believe Steve is pointed out, his example of having an automatic procedure can arrive at less than gratifying results [claimer can and will get he best of it from time to time]. So it supports an opposite view from a L46 style resolution being a good approach to doubtful points. I would think that if the emphasis were to be placed on claimer dotting all the I's and crossing all the t's, then what we now see as a big problem will be much less frequent; that when a case arises, it will be much more likely that claimer has provided evidence that will bring an equitable resolution of those small number of points that were left doubtful. And everyone can feel good about it. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 18 13:26:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA14186 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:26:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA14176 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:26:40 +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 12Ld7l-000NXr-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 02:26:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 02:19:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: A simple minor penalty card - or is it? In-Reply-To: <20000217045718.43108.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <20000217045718.43108.qmail@hotmail.com>, David Stevenson writes > >I helped run a Congress in Yarra Bay, Melbourne with Martin Willcox. I >found that threatening the players that if they did not behave I would set >Uncle Martin on them was very effective! > >Anyway, there was one ruling which Martin thought completely obvious - but I >don't. See what you think. > >Part way through the hand a defender leads the H5. As he does so the C9 >appears with it. Both are visible. Declarer follows to the heart, as does >the other defender, and then the Director is called. How do you rule? > >cc Martin Willcox > Nice one David: 58B2 If more than one card is visible, the player designates which ... Thus far he has not designated. He thus has not played a card. Declarer has exposed a card. So what? Hang on - a lead out of turn? Partner has exposed a card. Major penalty card?/ Condoning declarer's lead? Much too hard for me. Is third hand's card a major penalty card? or has third hand condoned declarer's LOOT? Do original leader's 2 faced cards become major penalty cards? -- 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 Feb 18 13:26:50 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA14187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:26:50 +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 NAA14177 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:26:41 +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 12Ld7m-000AIv-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 02:26:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 02:23:16 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: L70C3 & something similar In-Reply-To: <38ABCC14.90CDB6AF@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <38ABCC14.90CDB6AF@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Whilst kibitzing yesterday, I noticed a position which >reminded me of the case that has been haunting us for the >last few weeks. It may prove of use for our discussion. > >Against 3NT, the lead is the 9 of diamonds. > >Dummy puts down AKJT82 of diamonds, and a side entry. > >Declarer plays the Ace, and the King, on which he discards. > >Declarer now plays the Jack, takes the next trick in hand, >crosses to the table, and says "diamond". > In the UK this means "Small Diamond". There are some precedents. Declarer's intent is incontrovertable in the UK. >At this time, there is T82 left. If a defender has one left >(if they started 4-2), he might ask that the 2 of diamonds >is played, as per L46B2. Of course we all know the sentence >of L46B "(except when declarer's different intention is >incontrovertible)" > >Do you think this is the case here? > >Quite intentionally, I did not say whether diamonds were 3-3 >or 4-2, or even 5-1. >In declarer's eyes, this does not matter. He has no need to >count the suit, since he knows (as soon as one other is >followed) there will be enough high cards there to win five >tricks. > >Now consider another case. After the queen of diamonds, >defenders cash three tricks, after which declarer gains the >hand, and claims, vaguely stating that he crosses to dummy, >without mentioning that he does NOT want to play the two of >diamonds first. > >Wouldn't it be logical to apply the same criteria as before, >so that the "incontrovertible" of L46B and the "irrational" >of the footnote to L70 be true antonyms ? > >The point I am trying to make is that when having to decide >what is "normal" in the play of J92, or 1082 as here, >depends quite a lot on what happened before. > >It is quite normal (even if careless) for a player to >remember one piece of information about a hand, while not >maintaining in his head the full arithmetic of the hand. >The carelessness in not counting all 52 cards is not of the >same order as the carelessness of playing a suit bottom-up, >when one knows them to be high at the top. > >It is quite normal for a player to know that J9 are high, >without remembering whether or not there are any left in the >suit. > >I have just read back Fearghal's original post to the >longest thread so far this year. He writes : > >"Upon investigation the Director forms the opinion that >there is a good >chance Declarer had forgotton about the outstanding trump." > >That is NOT the same as writing, "Declarer firmly believes >that he has the last few trumps". It is quite possible that >Declarer knows his J9 are high, without knowing the exact >count. > >I do not believe that it is rational for a player who knows >a card to be high, not to play that one, even if he thinks >there are none left. > >Not that I am saying that in Fearghal's case, the player >knew them to be high - that is for the Director to find out >at the table. But it is an important piece of information, >and by omitting that, Fearghal has, quite innocently, >started a long thread. > -- 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 Feb 18 23:07:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA15056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 22:02:28 +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 WAA15042 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 22:02:09 +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 LAA03046 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 11:01:52 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA01767 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 11:01:52 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 11:01:51 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 LAA15785 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 11:01:51 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id LAA09715 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 11:01:50 GMT Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 11:01:50 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200002181101.LAA09715@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: defender's unfaced hand X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Law 62 B.1 refers to a card "played from a defender's unfaced hand". Law 62 B.2 refers to "defender's faced card". In what circumstances can a card be played from a defender's faced hand? In what circumstances is a defender's faced card not a penalty card? Is there some subtlety that is beyond me, or is this language a hangover from earlier times when defender could have faced his hand but play continued? 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 Feb 18 23:14:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA15980 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 23:14:42 +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 XAA15975 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 23:14:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-139.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.139]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA14870 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:14:24 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38AD34AD.FBC98978@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:01:49 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L70C3 & something similar References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > > >Declarer now plays the Jack, takes the next trick in hand, > >crosses to the table, and says "diamond". > > > In the UK this means "Small Diamond". There are some precedents. > Declarer's intent is incontrovertable in the UK. > Sorry John, we are not in the UK. And even in the UK, the intent is incontrovertibly to play a high one, whatever he says. You may be very strict in not allowing this, but the rules state otherwise. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 19 00:06:54 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA15850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 22:30:11 +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 WAA15844 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 22:30:02 +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 MAA12398 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:29:43 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200002181129.MAA12398@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: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:27:42 +0100 Subject: Re: A simple minor penalty card - or is it? Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal In-reply-to: References: <20000217045718.43108.qmail@hotmail.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: ---snip---- 7F00,0000,0000> Part way through the hand a defender leads the H5. > As he does so the C9 appears with it. Both are visible. 7F00,0000,0000> Declarer follows to the heart, as does the other defender, and > then the Director is called. How do you rule? John Probst wrote: 7F00,0000,0000> Nice one David: > 58B2 If more than one card is visible, the player designates > which...7F00,0000,0000 > Thus far he has not designated. He thus has not played a card. > Declarer has exposed a card. So what? Hang on - a lead out > of turn?7F00,0000,0000 > Partner has exposed a card. Major penalty card?/ Condoning > declarer's7F00,0000,0000 lead? > Much too hard for me. Is third hand's card a major penalty card? > or has third hand condoned declarer's LOOT? > Do original leader's 2 faced cards become major penalty cards? By accepting the heart lead, d0100,0100,0100eclarer has forfeited the right to penalize any irregularity connected with that lead. So what about 45e1? If you consider the club 9 as fifth card played to the heart trick, it becomes a major penalty card. Just my 2 cts worth.... JP From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 19 00:09:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA14880 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 21:54:04 +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 VAA14874 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 21:53:54 +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 KAA02660 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 10:53:45 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA00686 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 10:53:45 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 10:53:44 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA15745 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 10:53:42 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id KAA09709 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 10:53:42 GMT Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 10:53:42 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200002181053.KAA09709@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A simple minor penalty card - or is it? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Part way through the hand a defender leads the H5. As he does so the C9 > appears with it. Both are visible. Declarer follows to the heart, as does > the other defender, and then the Director is called. How do you rule? > L58B2: defender on lead designates the card he proposes to play, each other exposed card becomes a penalty card. L50B: the other card is a minor penalty card [some may disagree]. L58B3: "After a player withdraws a visible card, an opponent who subsequently played to that card may withdraw his play and substitute another without penalty (see Law 16C)." So we read all these laws, explain to the first defender that he should designate the card he proposed to play. If he choses H5, the C9 is a minor penalty card and the hearts played by the next two players are played card. If he choses C9, the H5 becomes a penalty card: minor ("as in playing two cards to a trick") or major (card deliberately played), you decide. Declarer's heart may be withdrawn and declarer plays to C9. In the second case, what happens to other defender's card? Does L58B3 apply, as his opponent has withdrawn a visible card? I don't think so: I think L58B3 only applies when opponent has withdrawn one of more than one visible cards. So if other defender has a club, he must play a club and his heart becomes a major penalty card, otherwise he must play his heart. 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 Sat Feb 19 00:35:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA16169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 00:35:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from uucp.nl.uu.net (uucp.nl.uu.net [193.79.237.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA16164 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 00:35:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:34:55 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id OAA07991 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:57:05 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: defender's unfaced hand Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:36:45 +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 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: >Law 62 B.1 refers to a card "played from a defender's unfaced hand". >Law 62 B.2 refers to "defender's faced card". > >In what circumstances can a card be played from a defender's faced hand? >In what circumstances is a defender's faced card not a penalty card? > >Is there some subtlety that is beyond me, or is this language a hangover >from earlier times when defender could have faced his hand but play >continued? Defender's faced card is a penalty card, major or minor. There is no other reason that a defender has a faced card, apart from a card being played, as far as I know. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 19 02:21:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA16576 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 02:21:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA16571 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 02:21:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id KAA15305 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 10:21:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA14232 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 10:21:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 10:21:08 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200002181521.KAA14232@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L70C3 & something similar X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > And even in the UK, the intent is incontrovertibly to play a > high one, whatever he says. Sorry, but I don't buy it. We cannot tell what declarer's intention was. We know what a rational declarer's intention would have been, but as has been pointed out at length, people do not always play rationally. Now if declarer had tapped the D-T with his forefinger while saying "diamond," or if he had motioned toward the ceiling or otherwise made a gesture indicating high, _then_ I'd say his intention was incontrovertible. Absent something like that, why make a simple problem hard? Low diamond is played. Do you really think the game would be better if L46B were replaced by "The TD judges which card declarer intended to play?" From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 19 04:50:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA17458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 04:50:08 +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 EAA17453 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 04:49:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-1-219.access.net.il [213.8.1.219] (may be forged)) by loger.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA29288; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 19:48:12 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <38AD865D.EC43C994@zahav.net.il> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 19:50:22 +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: Robin Barker CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: defender's unfaced hand References: <200002181101.LAA09715@tempest.npl.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am not Lord Byron or Walt Whitman , but as I can think about it is a reliquiae from the first editions of the FLB.....it was written a millennium ago!! i believe it wanted to say the "unfaced cards from the defenders hand.." because a defender CAN have from one to 13 faced cards . Your Majesty Grattan -> do you remember any other piece of History ??? Robin Barker wrote: > > Law 62 B.1 refers to a card "played from a defender's unfaced hand". > Law 62 B.2 refers to "defender's faced card". > > In what circumstances can a card be played from a defender's faced hand? > In what circumstances is a defender's faced card not a penalty card? > > Is there some subtlety that is beyond me, or is this language a hangover > from earlier times when defender could have faced his hand but play > continued? > > 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 Sat Feb 19 07:11:12 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA18214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 07:11:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f246.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA18209 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 07:11:04 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 67860 invoked by uid 0); 18 Feb 2000 20:10:26 -0000 Message-ID: <20000218201026.67859.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 4.33.182.89 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:10:26 PST X-Originating-IP: [4.33.182.89] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Resolving claim disputes without the TD Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:10:26 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > You have expressed this very well, Adam and I thank you. But although >I >disagree strongly with Todd, I am pleased that he cares enough to debate >the >issue, and does not automatically give in to the argument that "it has >always been that way therefore it always must be." Questioning is >good...but realising that in many cases long established practice may be >good and beneficial practice is also important. I didn't mean to give the impression that I think the law is braindead, though I was confused about its purpose. Adam and someone else whose mail I deleted without taking note of the name gave perfect examples of what problems the law exists to solve. My basic framework for interpretting the laws is to divide their purpose between those that define the game of bridge (as opposed to playing pinnocle, euchre, or cribbage) and those that try to restore equity after an irregularity. My basic framework for deciding a laws fairness is to go with intuition about what would be reasonable ways to deal with the problem fairly and what the laws eventually make happen. One problem is that I'm not aware enough of all the possible implications to be able to rely on intuition. Also, in practice it's difficult to tell whether or not the law is unfair or a director is incompetent. An example: T 2 - - - K K - J - 2 - 2 - J - In a situation similar to the above, declarer (me) is on lead and I exitted the 2S. Before LHO played to the trick, RHO claimed the rest of the tricks. Taking the last two tricks requires that LHO knew that the jack of spades was in partners hand and that the return would be a diamond and not a heart. This requires that LHO was awake for the entire hand counting all the cards. When RHO claimed and exposed her hand, she removed all ability for her partner to make a mistake. I called the director who ruled that LHO was too good to have made that sort of mistake (irrational to discard poorly, or something like that) and that defenders should get the last two tricks. I think that this ruling was probably the director's fault and not the law's. In my (fantasy?) world, either one trick should be awarded to declarer or two tricks to defense accompanied by procedural penalty. This is a situation where I believe that claiming should be discouraged. Back to the idea of playing it out, consider this contrived example: AQJxx AKx AKQJ x x xxx - xxxxx xxxxxx - xxxxxx xxxxx Kxxx Qxxxx xxx A The lead is a diamond against a spade contract (2c - P - 2s (jacoby steps)..., perhaps). Declarer seeing the board claims all 13 tricks showing his 3 honors as the final 3 top tricks and keeps the rest of his hand concealed. East disputes the claim and calls the director. Does director award 1 or 3 tricks to the defense? There's no reason to award an extra 2 tricks to defense that they most likely wouldn't have gotten. By playing it out, you can find out whether or not east would have found the unlikely heart return. Although not mentioned in the laws as far as I've seen or remember, many players learn that you shouldn't claim until you're on lead and believe it's law. Perhaps it should be -- it'd preclude the two situtations I've outlined above. > In my experience as player and director "Just play it out" has long >been the refuge of weak players who care little for learning the rules of >the game...and tend to be stubborn about whatever they do not understand. >These are the same folks who become enraged over "complicated" conventions >such as Michaels, Flannery or even 2-Way Stayman or Unusual for Minors or >RKCB. They do not understand claims, think (falsely) that someone is trying >to trick them, and resist any attempt to teach them. They often are the >slow >play pairs that irritate everyone else in the room. Please be careful to make a distinction between new players who need the time to think and learn about the game and stagnant players who will remain helpless. > Claims speed and improve the game and should be encouraged in every >way >possible. I suspect as Todd matures as a player he will come to recognise >this...but if not I would continue to welcome his reasoned arguments for >change. Concessions speed and improve the game and should be encouraged in every way possible. I suspect that as you become more aggravated with opponents that you'll do this more often. The greatest part about consessions is that it doesn't require your opponents to cooperate and when done properly it's less contemputous than huffing and puffing when yet another needless trick is played out. I suspect that as I mature as a player I'll graduate from the receiving end of impatience to the giving. Craig, this is not to imply that I think you're such a person. You've been far too polite to be relegated to the class of arrogant players who give airs that they each as individuals think that he should be the only person in the room allowed to play the game. But this is the impression that a newbie gets from some people. However it is a syptom of a more serious problem. People play bridge for fun and it just isn't as much fun playing against significantly weaker opponents. -Todd ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 19 08:24:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA18830 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 08:24:58 +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 IAA18825 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 08:24:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.183] (dhcp165-183.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.183]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA28048; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 16:24:38 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200002181053.KAA09709@tempest.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 16:22:13 -0500 To: Robin Barker , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: A simple minor penalty card - or is it? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:53 AM +0000 2/18/00, Robin Barker wrote: >> >> Part way through the hand a defender leads the H5. As he does so the C9 >> appears with it. Both are visible. Declarer follows to the heart, as does >> the other defender, and then the Director is called. How do you rule? >L58B2: defender on lead designates the card he proposes to play, > each other exposed card becomes a penalty card. >L50B: the other card is a minor penalty card [some may disagree]. > >L58B3: "After a player withdraws a visible card, an opponent who > subsequently played to that card may withdraw his play and > substitute another without penalty (see Law 16C)." > >So we read all these laws, explain to the first defender that he should >designate the card he proposed to play. >If he choses H5, the C9 is a minor penalty card and the hearts played by >the next two players are played card. OK. >If he choses C9, the H5 becomes a penalty card: minor ("as in playing >two cards to a trick") or major (card deliberately played), you decide. This is an interesting question. Absent other evidence, I would say that he did not deliberately play the H5 if he chose to play the C9. However, this might be an issue if one card is an honor. For example, a player who intends to lead the 9 from T96 has the 9 stick to the ten. May he now change his mind and make the ten his lead, so that he does not have a major penalty card which would prevent partner from returning the suit? Or should this be prevented because the lead of the 9 was deliberate? >Declarer's heart may be withdrawn and declarer plays to C9. OK. >In the second case, what happens to other defender's card? Does L58B3 >apply, as his opponent has withdrawn a visible card? I don't think so: >I think L58B3 only applies when opponent has withdrawn one of more than >one visible cards. So if other defender has a club, he must play a >club and his heart becomes a major penalty card, otherwise he must play >his heart. L47D applies instead of L58B3; if declarer changed his play, then third hand may change his play without penalty. If he has no club, he need not play the heart. But suppose that declarer is void of hearts and keeps his heart play to C9. A strict reading of the Laws implies that your argument now applies. L60 doesn't help here, as a play after an illegal play cancels only certain explicit penalties. Somehow, this seems wrong, as declarer contributed to this problem by playing on. We could equally well rule that declarer's play was made before any card was led to the trick, and was thus a lead out of turn accepted by the defender who followed to it, but that also seems wrong. I think the best ruling in the spirit of the Laws is that declarer must withdraw the card he played before ascertaining the lead, because that was his own infraction. He may then play the same card to correct his infraction, but third hand may still change his play. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 19 08:28:36 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA18846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 08:28:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA18841 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 08:28:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-002kslawrP318.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.96]) by harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA01510 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:28:15 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000218150444.0098bcd0@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: baresch@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:26:43 -0600 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Brian Baresch Subject: Re: Resolving claim disputes without the TD In-Reply-To: <20000218201026.67859.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As others have, I thank Todd for questioning some of our assumptions. > My basic framework for interpretting the laws is to divide their > purpose between those that define the game of bridge (as opposed to > playing pinnocle, euchre, or cribbage) and those that try to restore > equity after an irregularity. Some laws neither define the game nor explicitly aim to restore equity; they outline procedures for dealing with irregularities. The intent behind such laws may be equity, but when the outlined procedure doesn't produce equity, and no other remedies are available, the Laws, rather than equity, take precedence. The laws dealing with revokes are a good example. Yesterday's mail brought the March issue of Bridge World, in which the lead editorial suggests (using the Vancouver appeal as a starting point) that some TDs and ACs are looking for equity first and checking the Laws afterward, and states that that's not how it should work. I agree. The laws dealing with claims are occasionally ambiguous, but in the examples before us here I think they are clear. >Before LHO played to the trick, RHO claimed the rest of the >tricks. Taking the last two tricks requires that LHO knew that the jack >of spades was in partners hand and that the return would be a diamond and >not a heart. This requires that LHO was awake for the entire hand >counting all the cards. When RHO claimed and exposed her hand, she >removed all ability for her partner to make a mistake. I called the >director who ruled that LHO was too good to have made that sort of mistake >(irrational to discard poorly, or something like that) and that defenders >should get the last two tricks. I think that this ruling was probably the >director's fault and not the law's. I agree. The same position happened at my table the other day; I was the defender who would have had to make the right discard. I had the position worked out, but it would have been merely careless to discard wrong, and I didn't argue when declarer said he was entitled to another trick. The key here is that, as the Laws require, doubtful points are resolved against the claiming side. > In my (fantasy?) world, either one trick should be awarded to > declarer or two tricks to defense accompanied by procedural > penalty. This is a situation where I believe that claiming should be > discouraged. Claiming is discouraged in this case by a competent director's awarding declarer the disputed trick. That defender wouldn't claim so quickly in future (I know my partner from the other night won't). I don't agree that a bad claim deserves a procedural penalty, though. In your second example: >Declarer seeing the board claims all 13 tricks showing his 3 honors as the >final 3 top tricks and keeps the rest of his hand concealed. East >disputes the claim and calls the director. Does director award 1 or 3 >tricks to the defense? There's no reason to award an extra 2 tricks to >defense that they most likely wouldn't have gotten. Sure there is: Doubtful points are resolved against the claimer. The defense can get two more tricks, so it does gets them. The law is clear on that point. Those are both well-chosen examples of situations where the director must work out how to apply the relevant laws. MHO is that the answers are clear. Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 19 08:59:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA18934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 08:59:19 +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 IAA18926 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 08:59:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.183] (dhcp165-183.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.183]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA09160; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 16:58:56 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20000218201026.67859.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 16:57:05 -0500 To: "Todd Zimnoch" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Resolving claim disputes without the TD Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:10 PM -0800 2/18/00, Todd Zimnoch wrote: > Back to the idea of playing it out, consider this contrived example: > > AQJxx > AKx > AKQJ > x > >x xxx >- xxxxx >xxxxxx - >xxxxxx xxxxx > > Kxxx > Qxxxx > xxx > A > >The lead is a diamond against a spade contract (2c - P - 2s (jacoby >steps)..., perhaps). Declarer seeing the board claims all 13 tricks showing >his 3 honors as the final 3 top tricks and keeps the rest of his hand >concealed. East disputes the claim and calls the director. Does director >award 1 or 3 tricks to the defense? There's no reason to award an extra 2 >tricks to defense that they most likely wouldn't have gotten. By playing it >out, you can find out whether or not east would have found the unlikely >heart return. In this case and other similar cases, the defenders are entitled to tricks which they might have made. There was a similar discussion about a year ago of a hand on which South claimed the rest of the tricks. East had a winner and objected, and West also found a line on which East might endplay declarer for another trick if declarer didn't anticipate the play. My suggestion here was that East should be entitled to two tricks if the endplay involved rational play on East's part, but not if it involved irrational play (possibly turning down one into down two 2/3 of the time, but devinitely allowing the contract to make 1/3 of the time, where the 1/3 and 2/3 depend on spot cards East had not seen). The fact that East might not come up with the endplay at the table is not relevant. \ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 19 12:00:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA19519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 12:00:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA19512 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 12:00:35 +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 12LyG0-000FpE-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 01:00:25 +0000 Message-ID: <1TZ8I6A7rer4EwHn@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 00:59:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: L70C3 & something similar In-Reply-To: <38AD34AD.FBC98978@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <38AD34AD.FBC98978@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >> >> > >> >Declarer now plays the Jack, takes the next trick in hand, >> >crosses to the table, and says "diamond". >> > >> In the UK this means "Small Diamond". There are some precedents. >> Declarer's intent is incontrovertable in the UK. >> > >Sorry John, we are not in the UK. >And even in the UK, the intent is incontrovertibly to play a >high one, whatever he says. >You may be very strict in not allowing this, but the rules >state otherwise. > We had a very famous appeal about this several years ago. The small one was deemed played. David Bird wrote an Abbot article about it. I'm with Steve Willner here. 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 Feb 19 21:51:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA20718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 21:51:54 +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 VAA20708 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 21:51:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-17-31.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.17.31]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA29545 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 11:51:36 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38AE7247.66BB00CE@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 11:36:55 +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: L70C3 & something similar References: <200002181521.KAA14232@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: Herman De Wael > > And even in the UK, the intent is incontrovertibly to play a > > high one, whatever he says. > > Sorry, but I don't buy it. We cannot tell what declarer's intention > was. We know what a rational declarer's intention would have been, but > as has been pointed out at length, people do not always play > rationally. > > Now if declarer had tapped the D-T with his forefinger while saying > "diamond," or if he had motioned toward the ceiling or otherwise made a > gesture indicating high, _then_ I'd say his intention was > incontrovertible. Absent something like that, why make a simple > problem hard? Low diamond is played. > > Do you really think the game would be better if L46B were replaced by > "The TD judges which card declarer intended to play?" Come on now, please, stop BL-ing. Or BS-ing. Sorry about the language. The laws are there. Let's apply them. If you are going to argue every little point as being, "can we be absolutely certain that it was his intention", then we might as well just scrap the sentence. That was incontrovertibly NOT the intention of the Lawmakers. As David ofte replies to questions about mind-reading : why not simply ask him ? Most people do speak the truth when asked. "Of course I mean a high diamond, I've just established them to be high, haven't I ? - no I don't remember if there are any out, but I do know they are high." -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 19 21:51:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA20719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 21:51:55 +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 VAA20709 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 21:51:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-17-31.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.17.31]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA29551 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 11:51:38 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38AE729F.44FDB27F@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 11:38:23 +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: L70C3 & something similar References: <1TZ8I6A7rer4EwHn@probst.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > > We had a very famous appeal about this several years ago. The small one > was deemed played. David Bird wrote an Abbot article about it. > I'm with Steve Willner here. cheers john I would like to read that one. Surely the case must be different, because I cannot believe that a case this simple can be written up with such a ********* ruling, and not cause mayhem and revolution, even in the UK. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 20 21:27:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA23733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 21:27:24 +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 VAA23728 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 21:27:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.36] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12MTZb-000DjD-00; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 10:26:43 +0000 Message-ID: <002e01bf7b8d$38c80120$245608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Dany Haimovici" , "Robin Barker" Cc: References: <200002181101.LAA09715@tempest.npl.co.uk> <38AD865D.EC43C994@zahav.net.il> Subject: Re: defender's unfaced hand Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 10:05:16 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Robin Barker Cc: Sent: Friday, February 18, 2000 5:50 PM Subject: Re: defender's unfaced hand From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 20 22:17:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA23796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 22:17:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from de.darcairo.egnet.net (de.darcairo.com [163.121.166.15]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA23790 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 22:16:58 +1100 (EST) Received: by de.darcairo.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id <1L2Z4ZRH>; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:13:22 +0200 Message-ID: <40FB4E2BA983D211B03E00AA0009100C0101D626@de.darcairo.com> From: Hassan El-Touby To: Grattan Endicott , Dany Haimovici , Robin Barker Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: defender's unfaced hand Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:13:13 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-user-defined" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk unscribe -----Original Message----- From: Grattan Endicott [mailto:Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk] Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2000 12:05 PM To: Dany Haimovici; Robin Barker Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: defender's unfaced hand Grattan Endicott To: Robin Barker Cc: Sent: Friday, February 18, 2000 5:50 PM Subject: Re: defender's unfaced hand CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any attachments thereto contain protected and confidential information intended for the sole use of the individual or organisation named above. If you are not the addressee or an authorised agent for delivering it to the addressee, you are hereby warned that use, reproduction, distribution or dissemination of this document and any attachments is categorically prohibited. If you have received this message by error please notify the sender immediately by returning the message, and delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 21 00:12:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA24039 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 00:12:54 +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 AAA24034 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 00:12:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.67] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12MW9z-000Ito-00; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:12:28 +0000 Message-ID: <000201bf7ba4$603062e0$435408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" Cc: References: <200002181521.KAA14232@cfa183.harvard.edu> <38AE7247.66BB00CE@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: L70C3 & something similar Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:10:39 -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 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, February 19, 2000 10:36 AM Subject: Re: L70C3 & something similar ------------------ \x/ ------------------- > The laws are there. Let's apply them. If you are going to > argue every little point as being, "can we be absolutely > certain that it was his intention", then we might as well > just scrap the sentence. > > That was incontrovertibly NOT the intention of the > Lawmakers. > > As David ofte replies to questions about mind-reading : why > not simply ask him ? Most people do speak the truth when > asked. "Of course I mean a high diamond, I've just > established them to be high, haven't I ? - no I don't > remember if there are any out, but I do know they are high." > +=+ Why not simply ask him? Well possibly because of (a) Law 70D - "the original clarification statement" (b) Law 68C - "the order in which cards will be played" and (c) 70A - "any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer". Absent the requirement in 68C is met in the *original* clarification statement (see 70D) then 70A is the basis on which the Director must act. It is quite legitimate, in my view, for regulation to provide a default interpretation of a clarification of claim to apply when claimer fails to specify the order in which cards are to be played. When no such provision exists the legislation requires the Director to resolve any doubt against the claimer, not to make some assumption of his own for which he is given no authority. Doubt exists, I suggest, when a choice must be made amongst a plurality of carding sequences that are 'normal', albeit careless or inferior, and the choice is neither contained in the clarification of claim nor specified through regulation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 21 09:49:33 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA25330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 09:49:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA25325 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 09:49:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-58-213-11.s519.tnt1.lnhdc.md.dialup.rcn.com ([208.58.213.11] helo=hdavis) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #3) id 12Mf9d-0001Du-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 17:48:43 -0500 Message-ID: <00c501bf7bf4$a19fbbe0$0bd53ad0@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <20000210125645.49127.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Software Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 17:48:32 -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 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: Thursday, February 10, 2000 7:56 AM Subject: Software > > > Hi everyone!!! > > One thing that has been made clear to me in my wanderings in far-off lands > is the ***enormous*** advantage I have in having top-class software. Having > struggled and seen others struggle with Outlook Express, Microsoft Exchange, > Hotmail, Usa.net and browsers such as Internet Explorer and Netscape, I > believe that it is time we made everyone's life easier: please get yourself > some decent software. > Surprisingly, OE 5.0 will do just about everything that you require. It's all a matter of configuring it properly. > You want software that does the following [all of which Turnpike does]: > > Defaults to 72 characters across > Defaults to text not HTML or other fancies > Defaults to a non-proportional fault [eg Courier] I don't really care what a program defaults to, as long as I can change the settings. OE can do all of the above. > Treats a mailing-list as a newsgroup > Threads newsgroup and mailing-list messages > Adds sigs automatically OE does all of the above. > Gives a choice of sig to add dependent on mailbox or newsgroup OE can automatically assign different sigs to different accounts. It's awkward but possible to have it assign different sigs dependent on newsgroup. (It may be easier than I think, but I prefer Agent as my newsreader.) Assigning different sigs to different mail accounts is easy (then again, I normally don't use sig files). > Gives a choice of mailboxes OE handles multiple accounts easily > Strips sigs off when replying > Shows quoted material in red OE cannot do the above. OTOH, it's not all that hard to select and cut the sig manually. The full version of Outlook can color quoted material. (BTW, why red? I prefer blue myself) > Spell-checks > Has good killfiles > Can mark threads as read > Can mark threads as uninteresting and not to be downloaded > Gives Quango and Nanki Poo a separate mailbox > OE can do all of the above. > Ok, you do not have to take the last one seriously [though if you do not > have a method of splitting incoming emails you can be in enormous trouble, > as Mike Amos found to his cost]. Furthermore, some of the above are more > important than others, and there are some features that Turnpike does not > have which better software does. But you will find it difficult to believe > how much easier it is for you if you get decent software, and how much > easier for your readers. > > Some of the articles on BLML are difficult enough because of their > content: poor appearance because of the software makes them doubly > difficult. > > > > -- > David Stevenson Reply to hotmail: copy to blakjak > Liverpool, England, UK bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk > bluejak666@hotmail.com david@blakjak.demon.co.uk > I was using Outlook Express on a trial basis, before spending money for an upgrade of Eudora Pro. I was never able to justify spending the money, as OE seems to work just fine for me. The problems with it seem to be it's own flexibility. There are a lot of ways to customize it, and it takes a bit of work to learn the various options available. I hate to admit it, but it's really a nice mail reader- good enough to lure me away from Eudora Pro. It's a lousy newsreader though . Regards, Hirsch 90% of all software errors are located between the keyboard and the seat of the chair. -anonymous tech support person From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 21 09:54:35 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA25350 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 09:54:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp.mail.yahoo.com (smtp.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA25345 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 09:54:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-58-213-11.s519.tnt1.lnhdc.md.dialup.rcn.com (HELO hdavis) (208.58.213.11) by smtp.mail.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Feb 2000 14:54:18 -0800 X-Apparently-From: Message-ID: <00d501bf7bf5$6a91b080$0bd53ad0@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <20000210125645.49127.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Software Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 17:54:09 -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: Thursday, February 10, 2000 7:56 AM Subject: Software > > > Hi everyone!!! > > One thing that has been made clear to me in my wanderings in far-off lands > is the ***enormous*** advantage I have in having top-class software. Having > struggled and seen others struggle with Outlook Express, Microsoft Exchange, > Hotmail, Usa.net and browsers such as Internet Explorer and Netscape, I > believe that it is time we made everyone's life easier: please get yourself > some decent software. > Surprisingly, OE 5.0 will do just about everything that you require. It's all a matter of configuring it properly. > You want software that does the following [all of which Turnpike does]: > > Defaults to 72 characters across > Defaults to text not HTML or other fancies > Defaults to a non-proportional fault [eg Courier] I don't really care what a program defaults to, as long as I can change the settings. OE can do all of the above. > Treats a mailing-list as a newsgroup > Threads newsgroup and mailing-list messages > Adds sigs automatically OE does all of the above. > Gives a choice of sig to add dependent on mailbox or newsgroup OE can automatically assign different sigs to different accounts. It's awkward but possible to have it assign different sigs dependent on newsgroup. (It may be easier than I think, but I prefer Agent as my newsreader.) Assigning different sigs to different mail accounts is easy (then again, I normally don't use sig files). > Gives a choice of mailboxes OE handles multiple accounts easily > Strips sigs off when replying > Shows quoted material in red OE cannot do the above. OTOH, it's not all that hard to select and cut the sig manually. The full version of Outlook can color quoted material. (BTW, why red? I prefer blue myself) > Spell-checks > Has good killfiles > Can mark threads as read > Can mark threads as uninteresting and not to be downloaded > Gives Quango and Nanki Poo a separate mailbox > OE can do all of the above. > Ok, you do not have to take the last one seriously [though if you do not > have a method of splitting incoming emails you can be in enormous trouble, > as Mike Amos found to his cost]. Furthermore, some of the above are more > important than others, and there are some features that Turnpike does not > have which better software does. But you will find it difficult to believe > how much easier it is for you if you get decent software, and how much > easier for your readers. > > Some of the articles on BLML are difficult enough because of their > content: poor appearance because of the software makes them doubly > difficult. > > > > -- > David Stevenson Reply to hotmail: copy to blakjak > Liverpool, England, UK bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk > bluejak666@hotmail.com david@blakjak.demon.co.uk > I was using Outlook Express on a trial basis, before spending money for an upgrade of Eudora Pro. I was never able to justify spending the money, as OE seems to work just fine for me. The problems with it seem to be it's own flexibility. There are a lot of ways to customize it, and it takes a bit of work to learn the various options available. I hate to admit it, but it's really a nice mail reader- good enough to lure me away from Eudora Pro. It's a lousy newsreader though . Regards, Hirsch Note: I am in the process of changing ISPs, and will be using Yahoo during the transition (going to try and up my bandwidth with DSL). My old Erols address will still work for another month or two (much longer actually, if the DSL doesn't work out ). 90% of all software errors are located between the keyboard and the seat of the chair. -anonymous tech support person __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 21 23:49:11 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA27556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 23:49:11 +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 XAA27551 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 23:49:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-234.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.234]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA27824 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 13:48:52 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38B132F1.27423B9@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 13:43:29 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L70C3 & something similar References: <200002181521.KAA14232@cfa183.harvard.edu> <38AE7247.66BB00CE@village.uunet.be> <000201bf7ba4$603062e0$435408c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > The laws are there. Let's apply them. If you are going to > > argue every little point as being, "can we be absolutely > > certain that it was his intention", then we might as well > > just scrap the sentence. > > > > That was incontrovertibly NOT the intention of the > > Lawmakers. > > > > As David ofte replies to questions about mind-reading : why > > not simply ask him ? Most people do speak the truth when > > asked. "Of course I mean a high diamond, I've just > > established them to be high, haven't I ? - no I don't > > remember if there are any out, but I do know they are high." > > > +=+ Why not simply ask him? Well possibly because of > (a) Law 70D - "the original clarification statement" > (b) Law 68C - "the order in which cards will be > played" > and (c) 70A - "any doubtful points shall be resolved > against the claimer". Yes Grattan, I do know all that. I do know that we have to resolve doubtful points against claimer. But that is just it : doubtful points. When a player tells me something, I can either : "doubt him" or : "be positively certain that he is telling the truth". In the latter case, there is no more doubtful point to be resolved against the claimer. Read my original again. Do you really believe this declarer did NOT know that the 10 and 8 were high ? Well, in any case, I DO believe him. To me, there are no doubtful points that have to go against claimer. > Absent the requirement in 68C is met in the *original* > clarification statement (see 70D) then 70A is the basis > on which the Director must act. The absence of a claim statement can mean one of two things : A) the claimer got something wrong, or B) the claimer thought there was no need for a statement, as his intentions were obvious. Different countries have different habits, and you may be clouded by your knowledge of your country's habits, just as I am by mine. Probably, in the UK, a claim statement is most often included (as it should be, but that's another matter). In that context, the absence of a claim statement may well be evidence towards A). In Belgium, the absence of a claim statement is more often than not evidence towards B). We are not concerned here with the applications of the Laws in one country or another, but in the meaning of the Laws in general. Do you then agree with me that in countries where one is usually less strict against claims not accompanied by a full statement, it is the TD's prerogative to believe (or not) the claimer ? To believe there are no more doubtful points ? And to rule, according to the Laws, in favour fo claimer ? > It is quite legitimate, > in my view, for regulation to provide a default > interpretation of a clarification of claim to apply when > claimer fails to specify the order in which cards are to > be played. When no such provision exists the legislation > requires the Director to resolve any doubt against the DOUBT > claimer, not to make some assumption of his own for > which he is given no authority. Doubt exists, I suggest, > when a choice must be made amongst a plurality of > carding sequences that are 'normal', albeit careless or > inferior, and the choice is neither contained in the > clarification of claim nor specified through regulation. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ add "nor completely obvious" and I agree. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 22 01:26:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA27743 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 01:26:15 +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 BAA27738 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 01:26:06 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 12229 invoked by uid 65534); 21 Feb 2000 14:25:27 -0000 Message-ID: <20000221142527.12228.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.12.52] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <200002181521.KAA14232@cfa183.harvard.edu> <38AE7247.66BB00CE@village.uunet.be> <000201bf7ba4$603062e0$435408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: L70C3 & something similar Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 08:25:46 -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 -s- > It is quite legitimate, > in my view, for regulation to provide a default > interpretation of a clarification of claim to apply when > claimer fails to specify the order in which cards are to > be played. When no such provision exists the legislation > requires the Director to resolve any doubt against the > claimer, not to make some assumption of his own for > which he is given no authority. Doubt exists, I suggest, > when a choice must be made amongst a plurality of > carding sequences that are 'normal', albeit careless or > inferior, and the choice is neither contained in the > clarification of claim > **nor specified through regulation**. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Here Grattan has asserted that it would be profitable to provide interpretations for occasions where claimer says nothing. But it seems odd to interpret nothing. I would think that what would be profitable would be to provide interpretations for when claimer says something; although I might think that to be fair the prose would be rather short, or to be thorough the prose would be rather long. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 22 03:54:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA28269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 03:54:42 +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 DAA28264 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 03:54:34 +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 FG4NXFPN; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 10:54:26 -0600 X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <38AD34AD.FBC98978@village.uunet.be> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 10:56:42 -0600 To: From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: L70C3 & something similar Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman DE WAEL wrote >"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >> >> > >> >Declarer now plays the Jack, takes the next trick in hand, >> >crosses to the table, and says "diamond". >> > >> In the UK this means "Small Diamond". There are some precedents. >> Declarer's intent is incontrovertable in the UK. >> > >Sorry John, we are not in the UK. >And even in the UK, the intent is incontrovertibly to play a >high one, whatever he says. >You may be very strict in not allowing this, but the rules >state otherwise. > Law 46B2 saays that "diamond" means small ("except where declairer's different intention is incotrovertible") all the time. I've never understood how we establish that incontrovertible different intention. REH 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 Feb 22 04:35:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA28439 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 04:35:40 +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 EAA28434 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 04:35:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-027.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.219]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA86194 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:34:52 GMT Message-ID: <004f01bf7c92$28a47840$db307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Law 17D example Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:36:09 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk We touched on something like this recently but it actually happened at the weekend. North, East and South take their cards from Board 1 but West takes his cards from Board 2. The bidding proceeds: N E S W P 1C Dbl 1H 1NT P P P East leads a small Heart, West follows with the Ace and declarer produces the Ace as well! What to do? Regards, Fearghal. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 22 04:55:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA28501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 04:55:15 +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 EAA28495 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 04:55:07 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id s.b4.1d4c1cc (4199); Mon, 21 Feb 2000 12:54:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 12:54:20 EST Subject: Re: L70C3 & something similar To: HarrisR@missouri.edu, 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 2/21/00 12:00:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, HarrisR@missouri.edu writes: > Law 46B2 saays that "diamond" means small ("except where declairer's > different intention is incotrovertible") all the time. > I've never understood how we establish that incontrovertible different > intention. The way I do it is to find out what the declarer was doing since the opening lead, and decide whether it was incontrovertibly not his intention to play a small card at that time. I'm not a robot, I'm capable of reasoning, and I've had a small measure of success in using my noodle. It's what we get paid for. If the Law book covered all situations in their entirety, without need for thoughtful application, without deviation, then we'd be selling shoes. Any literate semi-intelligent caddy that could read an index could do our job. Try it you'll like it! (NOT selling shoes!) Please remember that the main discussions of the BLML are the wording of the Laws, not the substance -- intent is not too hard to devine if you read the whole book and stay in context of how the laws relate to each other. I rarely find that the arguers are not aware of what the law was supposed to say. Very few times do I sense that the arguer is genuinely of different opinion on intent -- many argue about what they can interpret it to say by using differing meanings for the words THAN WERE INTENDED thereby showing their erudition and lawyering abilities (even for some in a language they are vaguely acquainted with). Hasta la vista, la palabra para hoy es "intencion." Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 22 06:26:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA28651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 06:26:48 +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 GAA28646 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 06:26:41 +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 ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 11:26:34 -0800 Message-ID: <00a501bf7ca1$8a4f60a0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: L70C3 & something similar Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 11:26:18 -0800 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 Kojak writes: > Please remember that the main discussions of the BLML are the wording of the > Laws, not the substance -- intent is not too hard to devine if you read the > whole book and stay in context of how the laws relate to each other. I > rarely find that the arguers are not aware of what the law was supposed to > say. Very few times do I sense that the arguer is genuinely of different > opinion on intent -- many argue about what they can interpret it to say by > using differing meanings for the words THAN WERE INTENDED thereby showing > their erudition and lawyering abilities (even for some in a language they are > vaguely acquainted with). > BLML Catch 22: If you try to divine the intent of a poorly worded law, you are told that the Laws must be taken literally. When you take them literally, you are told that intent (as determined by the writer) is what counts. Interpretation of the Laws is the job of the WBFLC. I accept no other opinion as authoritative. Marv (Marvin L. French) Flamers run the risk of being burned. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 22 07:58:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA28885 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 07:58:43 +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 HAA28880 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 07:58:35 +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 PAA29381 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:58:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA16203 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:58:25 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:58:25 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200002212058.PAA16203@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L70C3 & something similar Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > I do know that we have to resolve doubtful points against > claimer. This thread has gotten mixed up. I thought we were discussing a L46B case. Do we agree that the rules are not the same as for claims? > From: Schoderb@aol.com > The way I do it is to find out what the declarer was doing since the opening > lead, and decide whether it was incontrovertibly not his intention to play a > small card at that time. I think this means for L46B. Right? Do you mean you apply essentially the same standards for declarer's designation as you would to determination of 'inadvertent' in a L25A case? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 22 08:58:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA29044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 08:58:47 +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 IAA29039 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 08:58:37 +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 QAA12681; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:58:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA104690298; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:58:18 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:58:10 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Law 17D example 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 IAA29040 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ferghal wrote: North, East and South take their cards from Board 1 but West takes his cards from Board 2. The bidding proceeds: N E S W P 1C Dbl 1H 1NT P P P East leads a small Heart, West follows with the Ace and declarer produces the Ace as well! What to do? [Laval Dubreuil] Law 17D: If a player who inadvertently picked up the cards from a wrong board makes a call, that call is cancelled. If offender's LHO called over the cancelled call, the TD shall assign artificial adjusted scores. W made a call (1H) with cards from the wrong board. This call is cancelled. But offender's LHO (N) already called 1N over 1H (any call including P would be the same). IMHO you have no choice but assign artificial scores using Law 12C1: avg- to E-W and avg+ to N-S. Next board..... Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 22 09:56:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA29254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 09:56:41 +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 JAA29249 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 09:56:34 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id b.69.16a3277 (3957); Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:55:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <69.16a3277.25e31c67@aol.com> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:55:35 EST Subject: Re: L70C3 & something similar To: mlfrench@writeme.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 45 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 2/21/00 2:30:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, mlfrench@writeme.com writes: > Interpretation of the Laws is the job of the WBFLC. I accept no other opinion > as authoritative. > > Marv (Marvin L. French) > Flamers run the risk of being burned. Dear Marvin, could you please read Law 81 C 5 and tell me that you would not accept my opinion as authoritative in a tournament where I was the director? Or is that also a Law which you find unclear? Or did I hit on a sore point? Cheers, Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 22 10:31:43 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA29444 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 10:31:43 +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 KAA29439 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 10:31:35 +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 PAA00796; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:31:32 -0800 Message-Id: <200002212331.PAA00796@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Law 17D example In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:58:10 PST." Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:31:34 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laval wrote: > Ferghal wrote: > > North, East and South take their cards from Board 1 but West takes > his cards > from Board 2. > > The bidding proceeds: > > N E S W > P 1C Dbl 1H > 1NT P P P > > East leads a small Heart, West follows with the Ace and declarer > produces > the Ace as well! A long time ago, something similar happened to me. Declarer was playing 4S, and I had doubled with KJTx of trumps or something. Declarer laid down the ace and king of trumps, and I had to call the Director and ask him who would win the trick if I played my king of trumps on declarer's king of trumps. Director ruled that the laws of pinochle would apply. (Nobody at our table did anything wrong, but this was a Swiss match and somehow the boards had gotten badly fouled at the other table.) > What to do? > > [Laval Dubreuil] > > Law 17D: If a player who inadvertently picked up the cards from a > wrong > board makes a call, that call is cancelled. If offender's LHO called > over > the cancelled call, the TD shall assign artificial adjusted scores. Nope, you've misquoted the Law. 17D actually says: If a player who has inadvertently picked up the cards from a wrong board makes a call, that call is cancelled. If offender's LHO has called over the cancelled call, the Director shall assign artificial adjusted scores (see Law 90 for penalty) when offender's substituted ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ call differs in any significant way from his cancelled call. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Law 17D doesn't explicitly say what happens when the offender makes *two* calls holding the cards from the wrong board. If we were to try to apply L17D, however, I'd cancel the 1H call and back up the auction to that point. Now, West has to substitute a call for the cancelled call. The Law says an artificial adjusted score must be assigned if West's substituted call differs in any significant way from the cancelled call. I don't quite understand the wording here. Either West will call 1H, which is the same as the cancelled call, or he will make a different call. Is there any way for a call to differ in an INSIGNIFICANT way from the cancelled 1H call? I don't see how. Or is this wording there so that the TD can throw out the board if West makes the same 1H call in a different tone of voice, or something? So either West repeats the 1H call, or the board is thrown out. Assuming West repeats the 1H call, North must repeat the 1NT call (footnote 3). I assume East and South must repeat their passes also---the Laws don't really say. Now it comes to West's second call, so I'd apply 17D again. Again, if West passes, the board can be played, but if not, an artificial adjusted score is assigned. I'm not sure what UI may be conveyed by all this. It may be that West would choose to repeat the 1H call regardless of his holding, in the hope of salvaging an average board on defense; but then East has the UI that West's 1H call may have nothing to do with his actual hand. If the board is played, the lead is an issue, also. I don't know if East would be required to make the same opening lead; but if not, East's original lead will have already been seen by West, so there may be penalty-card or UI issues. It seems like the Laws on "picking up the cards from a wrong board" need some reworking or clarification in order to be applied usefully. The current Law 17 seems to assume that the situation is discovered after the offender and offender's LHO make calls, AT THE LATEST. This assumption is unreasonable, of course. The Laws don't seem to address at all the situation where the error is discovered after that, not even simply to say that the Director must throw out the whole board. At least, I can't find anything in the Laws that addresses this. Maybe I've missed something. > Next board..... Yes, you have to make a ruling about the next board also, but you've forgotten to do so. 17D addresses the issue of Board 2: If offender subsequently repeats the cancelled call on the board from which he mistakenly drew his cards, the Director may allow that board to be played normally, but the Director shall assign artificial adjusted scores (see Law 90) when offender's call differs in any way from his original cancelled call. So when Board 2 starts, it appears that West must repeat the 1H call at his first turn, and the "pass" call at his second turn, or else an ArtAS is scored. Furthermore, if the auction is different enough that the meaning of 1H is different from what it was when West made it previously, I think this different meaning would require an ArtAS to be awarded. Same for the pass. The ace of hearts has to be dealt with also. When everyone else was playing board 1, West exposed this card that was part of board 2. Now everyone's playing board 2, and everyone's seen this card from West's hand. I think Law 24 has to apply here. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 22 11:14:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA29582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:14:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA29577 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:14:18 +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 12N2xr-000FsA-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 00:14:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 00:12:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law 17D example In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA writes > > Ferghal wrote: > > North, East and South take their cards from Board 1 but West takes > his cards > from Board 2. > > The bidding proceeds: > > N E S W > P 1C Dbl 1H > 1NT P P P > > East leads a small Heart, West follows with the Ace and declarer > produces > the Ace as well! > > What to do? > > [Laval Dubreuil] > > Law 17D: If a player who inadvertently picked up the cards from a > wrong > board makes a call, that call is cancelled. If offender's LHO called > over > the cancelled call, the TD shall assign artificial adjusted scores. > > W made a call (1H) with cards from the wrong board. This call is > cancelled. But offender's LHO (N) already called 1N over 1H (any call > including P would be the same). IMHO you have no choice but assign > artificial scores using Law 12C1: avg- to E-W and avg+ to N-S. > > Next board..... Next board but one. We can't play board 2 either, as a card has been exposed from it. A+/A- twice. cheers john > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 22 11:34:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA29632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:34:16 +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 LAA29627 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:34:09 +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 QAA01847; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:34:06 -0800 Message-Id: <200002220034.QAA01847@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Card exposed before auction Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:34:07 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In answering the previous question, I found that the Laws appear to be silent on this issue: What happens when a card is exposed before the auction period has begun for either side (see Law 17A), when the cards cannot be reshuffled and redealt as required by Law 6D1? (In a matchpoint game, for instance, you can't redeal in the middle of the event.) Do we apply Law 24, even though that law is supposed to apply only to cards exposed during the auction period? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 22 12:10:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA29715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 12:10:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA29710 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 12:09:54 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id r.4c.1fef799 (4263); Mon, 21 Feb 2000 20:09:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4c.1fef799.25e33bb2@aol.com> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 20:09:06 EST Subject: Re: Card exposed before auction To: adam@irvine.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 45 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 2/21/00 7:36:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, adam@irvine.com writes: > n answering the previous question, I found that the Laws appear to be > silent on this issue: > > What happens when a card is exposed before the auction period has > begun for either side (see Law 17A), when the cards cannot be > reshuffled and redealt as required by Law 6D1? (In a matchpoint game, > for instance, you can't redeal in the middle of the event.) Do we > apply Law 24, even though that law is supposed to apply only to cards > exposed during the auction period? > Looks to me like we should apply Law 16 B. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 22 12:21:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA29754 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 12:21:23 +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 MAA29749 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 12:21:16 +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 RAA02586; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:21:13 -0800 Message-Id: <200002220121.RAA02586@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Card exposed before auction In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 21 Feb 2000 20:09:06 PST." <4c.1fef799.25e33bb2@aol.com> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:21:14 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kojak wrote: > In a message dated 2/21/00 7:36:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, adam@irvine.com > writes: > > > n answering the previous question, I found that the Laws appear to be > > silent on this issue: > > > > What happens when a card is exposed before the auction period has > > begun for either side (see Law 17A), when the cards cannot be > > reshuffled and redealt as required by Law 6D1? (In a matchpoint game, > > for instance, you can't redeal in the middle of the event.) Do we > > apply Law 24, even though that law is supposed to apply only to cards > > exposed during the auction period? > > > > Looks to me like we should apply Law 16 B. Kojak OK, 16B does say something about seeing another player's card before the auction begins. I missed that. It does seem odd that if my butter-fingered partner exposes a card before anyone has had a chance to look at their hands, the board is effectively treated as "unplayable" (L16B, can be played only with a substitute), while if he happens to do it after I look at my hand then the board suddenly becomes playable. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 22 14:52:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA00494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 14:52:37 +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 OAA00489 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 14:52:30 +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 ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 19:52:24 -0800 Message-ID: <00f901bf7ce8$352f1c40$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <69.16a3277.25e31c67@aol.com> Subject: Re: L70C3 & something similar Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 19:43:31 -0800 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 Kojack wrote: > mlfrench@writeme.com writes: > > > Interpretation of the Laws is the job of the WBFLC. I accept no other > opinion > > as authoritative. > > > > Marv (Marvin L. French) > > > Dear Marvin, could you please read Law 81 C 5 and tell me that you would not > accept my opinion as authoritative in a tournament where I was the director? > Authoritative in the tournament, yes, but not necessarily authoritative in the world of bridge. Of course your opinions would always carry great weight with me, as do the opinions of many BLML participants. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 23 03:49:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA02256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 03:49:32 +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 DAA02251 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 03:49:22 +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 LAA12802; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:49:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA008368144; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:49:04 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:48:57 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Law 17D example To: adam@irvine.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Ferghal wrote: > > North, East and South take their cards from Board 1 but West takes > his cards > from Board 2. > > The bidding proceeds: > > N E S W > P 1C Dbl 1H > 1NT P P P > > East leads a small Heart, West follows with the Ace and declarer > produces > the Ace as well! > What to do? > > [Laval Dubreuil] > > Law 17D: If a player who inadvertently picked up the cards from a > wrong > board makes a call, that call is cancelled. If offender's LHO called > over > the cancelled call, the TD shall assign artificial adjusted scores. Nope, you've misquoted the Law. 17D actually says: If a player who has inadvertently picked up the cards from a wrong board makes a call, that call is cancelled. If offender's LHO has called over the cancelled call, the Director shall assign artificial adjusted scores (see Law 90 for penalty) when offender's substituted ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ call differs in any significant way from his cancelled call. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Law 17D doesn't explicitly say what happens when the offender makes *two* calls holding the cards from the wrong board. If we were to try to apply L17D, however, I'd cancel the 1H call and back up the auction to that point. Now, West has to substitute a call for the cancelled call. The Law says an artificial adjusted score must be assigned if West's substituted call differs in any significant way from the cancelled call. [Laval Dubreuil] I think Law 17D can be used during the auction (title of Law 17 is: Duration of the Auction), but it is not so clear we can already apply after first trick has been played (3 cards exposed...). In the above case, I tend to rule on Law 12C1, deeming that no result can be obtained and award an artificial score, despite the fact I hate such scores. Laval Du Breuil From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 23 05:30:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA02659 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 05:30:57 +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 FAA02654 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 05:30:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-027.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.219]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA16314 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:30:10 GMT Message-ID: <005701bf7d63$0db715c0$db307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: Card exposed before auction Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:31:32 -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 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam wote: OK, 16B does say something about seeing another player's card before the auction begins. I missed that. It does seem odd that if my butter-fingered partner exposes a card before anyone has had a chance to look at their hands, the board is effectively treated as "unplayable" (L16B, can be played only with a substitute), while if he happens to do it after I look at my hand then the board suddenly becomes playable. -- Adam IMHO Law 16B does not say that a board is unplayable without a substitute. Rather it implies that the board IS PLAYABLE if the Director considers that the extraneous information will not interfere with normal play. Regards, Fearghal. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 23 06:19:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA02799 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 06:19:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com (imo-d03.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.35]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA02794 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 06:19:31 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id x.b6.1b068a8 (3702); Tue, 22 Feb 2000 14:18:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 14:18:43 EST Subject: Re: Card exposed before auction To: tsvecfob@iol.ie, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 67 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 2/22/00 1:33:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, tsvecfob@iol.ie writes: > IMHO Law 16B does not say that a board is unplayable without a substitute. > Rather it implies that the board IS PLAYABLE if the Director considers that > the extraneous information will not interfere with normal play. > > Regards, > Fearghal. Right on! The last sentence before the "1." is most important. "....If the Director considers that the inoformation could interfere with normal play, he may:....." And here again we have an example where the Laws require TDs to make judgements, think, decide, and be more than someone who can find the fitting recipe in what some TDs would like to have -- a completely detailed "cookbook." And, by the way, I was in no way meaning to include Robert Harris in that group in my answer to his post about "Law 70C3 & something similar." I'm glad he asked his questions and apologize if he thought I was nay-saying him. Kojak Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 24 02:23:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA05727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 02:23:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe45.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA05722 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 02:23:44 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 68428 invoked by uid 65534); 23 Feb 2000 15:23:06 -0000 Message-ID: <20000223152306.68427.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.12.132] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" Subject: possible L25 controversy Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:23:25 -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 Here is an RGB thread that Marvin replied to that might provide some fodder: Hirsch Davis" wrote in message news:mv56bscuj5dvg822tg30kc46lapnpkpeoj@4ax.com... > On 21 Feb 2000 14:24:36 GMT, laver@Colorado.EDU (Richard Laver) wrote: > > > Matchpoints, Standard American, favorable vulnerability > >You have: > > AQx > > Jxxxx > > Txx > > Ax > > RHO You LHO Partner > > 2H P P 1C/2C/3C > > P ? > > Partner bids 1C, insufficiency is mentioned, then she quickly > >changes to 2C, then looks again and changes to 3C. The director is > >called, tells you not to utilize unauthorized information. What > >action do you take? > > When was the director called? Before or after RHO passed? > > If before, then the TD has incorrectly applied Law 27. RHO should have been given the option to accept 1C. If 1C was not accepted and partner corrected to 3C, then you can bid on as you choose (3N looks about right). > I believe that 3C has a much different meaning than the 1C bid, since a 1C shows opening bid values but 3C does not. In such cases the TD can later rule that the insufficient bid conveyed information that damaged the opponents (L27B1(b). TheTD was therefore correct to warn you against taking advantage of that information, even if calling it UI is not right. However, it looks as though passing 3C is not a logical alternative to bidding 3NT, so the 3NT bid is perfectly legal. Marv (Marvin L. French) -- [rp] I am not so inclined to think that the values normally held for 3C are all that less than for 1C, even though I would think they are a bit more defined, especially noting the proclivity to open trash at the one level. But, I think here may be a glaring deficiency of L25, but I am not sure. L25 refers to L27 in such cases. But consider that here L27B was violated- the change of call [' a so called correction'] was not a correction at all- yet this is what L27 requires. The correction. itself was not sufficient. I think there is now reason to want to apply L25B2b2 but that law requires that the original bid be legal and excludes if the original call was illegal. Now L25B2a sends you back to the applicable law.[L27] which gives offender a second chance to correct without penalty. I note that L27B1a refers to 'the substituted bid' as distinguished from a correct call. And in this case because the substituted bid was not legal it implies that there is a penalty yet does not refer to what penalty. L27B2 glaringly omits to cover the case from L27B1a when the substituted bid was illegal, as it speaks only to 'if the bid is corrected by any other sufficient bid [not- substituted by an illegal call]...' It seems incongruous that a player has a right to change a call to an illegal call and escape without penalty, and only with UI restrictions upon partner; but a player who makes a legal call originally gets the penalty of barring his partner at least one round. This situation is rather common and occurs about once a year at my table. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 24 07:12:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA06890 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 07:12:03 +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 HAA06884 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 07:11:45 +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, 23 Feb 2000 12:11:45 -0800 Message-ID: <003701bf7e3a$2954f5e0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: L12C2 vs L12C3 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:11:20 -0800 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 Vulnerability: N/S Dealer South S- J7 H- 7532 D- 1043 C- AQJ10 S- 1096 S- Q109832 H- AKQ4 H- 6 D- 2 D- K987 C- 76532 C- 98 S- AK4 H- J1098 D- AQJ65 C- K The bidding: West North East South - - - 1D P 1H 2S 3H 3S P P 4H P* P 4S X All pass *break in tempo The E/W players are fairly strong but not very ethical, and I am South. I call the TD when East bids 4S, and he tells us to continue with the deal. East takes 7 tricks, +500 for N/S. After determining that the 4S bid was prompted by West's long hesitation, with pass an LA, the TD at first lazily awards avg+ to N/S and avg- to E/W. I argue that I would have made ten tricks in hearts for +620, probably a better score, and appeal the ruling. The TD (from Western USA, of course) says, "Okay, you get plus 620 or average-plus, whichever is greater, and E/W get minus 620 or average-minus, whichever is worse." Maybe he thinks that will satisfy me, but I do not like illegal rulings, so I appeal. The AC throws out the illegal score adjustment, but how should the AC decide on proper assigned scores when using (1) L12C2 or (2) L12C2 in conjunction with L12C3? Please assume for the sake of discussion that the table result should not stand, and that East is not normally a wild bidder. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 24 09:24:15 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA07281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:24:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA07276 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:24:07 +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 RAA28973; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:23:50 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <003701bf7e3a$2954f5e0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:21:55 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: L12C2 vs L12C3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:11 PM -0800 2/23/00, Marvin L. French wrote: >Vulnerability: N/S >Dealer South > > S- J7 > H- 7532 > D- 1043 > C- AQJ10 > >S- 1096 S- Q109832 >H- AKQ4 H- 6 >D- 2 D- K987 >C- 76532 C- 98 > > S- AK4 > H- J1098 > D- AQJ65 > C- K This deal has 14 spades and 12 clubs; I assume West had 65 AKQ4 2 765432. >The bidding: > >West North East South > - - - 1D > P 1H 2S 3H > 3S P P 4H > P* P 4S X >All pass > > *break in tempo > > >The E/W players are fairly strong but not very ethical, and I am South. I call >the TD when East bids 4S, and he tells us to continue with the deal. > >East takes 7 tricks, +500 for N/S. > >After determining that the 4S bid was prompted by West's >long hesitation, with pass an LA, the TD at first lazily >awards avg+ to N/S and avg- to E/W. >I argue that I would have made ten tricks in hearts >for +620, probably a better score, and appeal the ruling. >The TD (from Western USA, of course) says, "Okay, you get plus 620 or >average-plus, whichever is greater, and E/W get minus 620 or average-minus, >whichever is worse." Maybe he thinks that will satisfy me, but I do not like >illegal rulings, so I appeal. This is unfair to your opponents, who should have appealed this. There is no way they could have had worse than -620 had there been no infraction, since West decided not to double before any infraction occurred. >The AC throws out the illegal score adjustment, but how >should the AC decide on proper assigned scores when using (1) L12C2 >or (2) L12C2 in conjunction with L12C3? With no infraction, N-S would have played in 4H. so this issue is how likely 4H is to make. I can make 4H on a trump lead; will declarer find this line? After four rounds of trumps ending in hand, declarer takes two spades to clear up the count (not actually needed), then three clubs throwing two diamonds, then leads the fourth club in this position: - - T65 T - Q - - 2 K98 765 - 4 - AQJ - The CT squeezes East, who must either throw the SQ or go down to two diamonds and eliminate the diamond blockage. Declarer would be able to find this line as long as he trusts East to have six spades for the overcall. After three trumps followed by a club (or spade) switch, declarer can throw three diamonds on the clubs (West cannot overruff unless East has five clubs, which is unlikely and which would also make the contract nearly hopeless), and then ruff a spade, take the diamond finesse, and finally draw the last trump. A club lead is not likely, but it does beat the contract, as it kills the entry; declarer cannot take his discards now, and if he leads trumps, West draws four rounds and there is no entry to dummy. A spade lead makes things interesting. Declarer might draw trumps, and then the play proceeds just as it would after a trump lead. If he instead ruffs a spade (which is safe because West's 3S marks him with at least two), West discards a diamond. Declarer must lead a trump; West takes three trumps and returns a club, and declarer will eventually have to lead a diamond from dummy for West to ruff. A non-offender should be given the benefit of the doubt as to whether he is a good player, so I will rule that a heart lead is likely and that declarer will set up the squeeze for +620/-620. L12C3 makes things harder, because equity is not well-defined here. I don't think that +620 gives N-S an unfair bonus; a trump lead is reasonable, and if E-W want a chance at the spade lead, they have to obey the Laws and make it at the table. This really needs an AC made of good players to rule on it; I am not an expert and have difficult y judging the relative merits of the different plays. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 24 13:11:27 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:11:27 +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 NAA07876 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:11:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.6.80.151] (helo=davidburn) by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12Nnk5-0003Wc-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 02:11:01 +0000 Message-ID: <001701bf7e6c$67605f00$9750063e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: L12C2 vs L12C3 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 02:10:38 -0000 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: At 12:11 PM -0800 2/23/00, Marvin L. French wrote: Vulnerability: N/S Dealer South S- J7 H- 7532 D- 1043 C- AQJ10 S- 65 S- Q109832 H- AKQ4 H- 6 D- 2 D- K987 C- 765432 C- 98 S- AK4 H- J1098 D- AQJ65 C- K [DG] This deal has 14 spades and 12 clubs; I assume West had 65 AKQ4 2 765432. Hand above amended per David G's supposition, but 3S is a bit odd if that were the case. Maybe Marvin will give us the real hand when he has time - for the moment, we will work with what we have. The bidding would make some kind of sense if West actually had the C4 in with the spades, as Marvin's original layout suggested. [MLF] The bidding: West North East South - - - 1D P 1H 2S 3H 3S P P 4H P* P 4S X All pass *break in tempo Oh, well. One assumes on the basis of experience that auctions like these happen, but one wonders if there ought not to have been an asterisk following North's first pass. Why otherwise did South, who thought his hand worth 3H at his first turn, think it worth 4H at his second? However... [MLF] The E/W players are fairly strong but not very ethical, and I am South. ...let me not impugn Marvin's ethics for a moment, especially since no question seems to have been raised concerning North's tempo or South's bidding. [MLF] I call the TD when East bids 4S, and he tells us to continue with the deal. This appears to me right and proper. [MLF] East takes 7 tricks, +500 for N/S. After determining that the 4S bid was prompted by West's long hesitation, with pass an LA, the TD at first lazily awards avg+ to N/S and avg- to E/W. Just a second. For there to have been unauthorised information, there must first have been information. Is it seriously suggested that a "fairly strong" East who had any information at all about the actual West hand would have bid 4S? This is an important distinction which, it seems to me, TDs and ACs often fail to make. They look at the East hand, decide that it isn't a 4S bid, and cancel the bid - but this is to put the cart before the horse. What is being suggested when L12anything is invoked via L16 or L73 is that a player has made available to his partner unauthorised information that might suggest a call or play. What information is it supposed that West made available to East about West's hand that might suggest 4S over pass? West most assuredly did not want to suggest to East that East bid 4S. East's 4S was most assuredly not based on any information about the hand that West held. And if it was not based on any information about the hand that West held, then it was not (ipso facto) based on any unauthorised information about the hand that West held. Where there has been no transmission of information, there can be no infraction of taking advantage of unauthorised information. I seem to remember some time ago starting a thread called "Unauthorised misinformation", which petered out as these things often do. But this is a case in point. This is not a 12C2 v 12C3 case, for there is no reason to "do equity" under L12 as there has been no breach of L16 or L73. Certainly, East has attempted to break those Laws, for which he may be censured or even fined. But he has failed, so there is no question of score adjustment. [MLF] I argue that I would have made ten tricks in hearts for +620, probably a better score, and appeal the ruling. Under which Law do you become declarer in hearts when your partner was first to bid the suit for your side? Moreover, I am a little distressed to see that your interpretation of the word "probably" continues to suffer from the same defect as when we were discussing "likely" a while ago, a question that I thought had been resolved. Plus 620 is better than plus 500 with probability 1.0 [MLF] The TD (from Western USA, of course) says, "Okay, you get plus 620 or average-plus, whichever is greater, and E/W get minus 620 or average-minus, whichever is worse." Maybe he thinks that will satisfy me, but I do not like illegal rulings, so I appeal. [DG] > This is unfair to your opponents, who should have appealed this. There is > no way they could have had worse than -620 had there been no infraction, > since West decided not to double before any infraction occurred. There has not been any infraction. There has been an attempt at an infraction, but that is very far from the same thing. [MLF] The AC throws out the illegal score adjustment, but how should the AC decide on proper assigned scores when using (1) L12C2 or (2) L12C2 in conjunction with L12C3? It should use neither. There has been no infraction, so there is no adjustment. The score on the board is 500 to North-South. East may be taken out and shot for all I care. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 24 13:25:51 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:25:51 +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 NAA07940 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:25:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from pb8s12a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.92.185] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt7-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Nnx5-00025R-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 02:24:27 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Fw: L12C2 vs L12C3 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 02:34:09 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf7e6f$a0f76260$b95c93c3@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Anne Jones To: Marvin L. French Date: Thursday, February 24, 2000 1:35 AM Subject: Re: L12C2 vs L12C3 > >-----Original Message----- >From: Marvin L. French >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 8:24 PM >Subject: L12C2 vs L12C3 > > >>Vulnerability: N/S >>Dealer South >> >> S- J7 >> H- 7532 >> D- 1043 >> C- AQJ10 >> >>S- 1096 S- Q109832 >>H- AKQ4 H- 6 >>D- 2 D- K987 >>C- 76532 C- 98 >> >> S- AK4 >> H- J1098 >> D- AQJ65 >> C- K >> >>The bidding: >> >>West North East South >> - - - 1D >> P 1H 2S 3H >> 3S P P 4H >> P* P 4S X >>All pass >> >> *break in tempo >> >> >>The E/W players are fairly strong but not very ethical, and I am South. I >call >>the TD when East bids 4S, and he tells us to continue with the deal. >> >>East takes 7 tricks, +500 for N/S. >> >>After determining that the 4S bid was prompted by West's >>long hesitation, with pass an LA, the TD at first lazily >>awards avg+ to N/S and avg- to E/W. >> >>I argue that I would have made ten tricks in hearts >>for +620, probably a better score, and appeal the ruling. >> >>The TD (from Western USA, of course) says, "Okay, you get plus 620 or >>average-plus, whichever is greater, and E/W get minus 620 or average-minus, >>whichever is worse." Maybe he thinks that will satisfy me, but I do not >like >>illegal rulings, so I appeal. >> >>The AC throws out the illegal score adjustment, but how >>should the AC decide on proper assigned scores when using >(1) L12C2 >This hand is surely contrived. >The most favourable result that is likely, absent the infraction is +620 to >N/S and >the most unfavourable result that is likely is -620 to E/W. > (2) L12C2 in conjunction with L12C3? >This is not a case for Law 12C3. IMO there is no problem as to equity. >Law12C2 >alone applies. >> >>Please assume for the sake of discussion that the table result should >>not stand, and that East is not normally a wild bidder. >> >The question is "What did the hesitation demonstrably suggest?" I think I >can >demonstrate that it suggests that W had a problem as to whether to double, >to raise >spades, or to pass, or any two of these three. East has chosen an action >which is >suggested by one of these options, when one of his logical alternatives was >to pass. >The fact that his choice was the sucessful one, he guessed right, is likely >to be the >subject of a ruling. >Has East chosen from among logical alternatives, an action which was >suggested >over another by the hesitation?(Law 16A2) I think the answer is 'Yes', so I >would go > along with the assumption that the table result should not stand. >I would be looking at the E/W agreements about the 2S bid. It is weaker than >I would >anticipate. Is it an agreed, and declared style? Am I interested in the >failure to >double by West. Is it a field of a weaker than declared jump overcall? >Anne > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 24 13:35:28 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07983 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:35:28 +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 NAA07978 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:35:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from pb8s12a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.92.185] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt7-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12No6Q-0002WG-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 02:34:06 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: L12C2 vs L12C3 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 02:43:49 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf7e70$faa641e0$b95c93c3@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Burn To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, February 24, 2000 2:22 AM Subject: Re: L12C2 vs L12C3 >David Grabiner wrote: > >At 12:11 PM -0800 2/23/00, Marvin L. French wrote: >Vulnerability: N/S >Dealer South > > S- J7 > H- 7532 > D- 1043 > C- AQJ10 > >S- 65 S- Q109832 >H- AKQ4 H- 6 >D- 2 D- K987 >C- 765432 C- 98 > > S- AK4 > H- J1098 > D- AQJ65 > C- K > >[DG] >This deal has 14 spades and 12 clubs; I assume West had 65 AKQ4 2 >765432. > >Hand above amended per David G's supposition, but 3S is a bit odd if >that were the case. Maybe Marvin will give us the real hand when he >has time - for the moment, we will work with what we have. The bidding >would make some kind of sense if West actually had the C4 in with the >spades, as Marvin's original layout suggested. > >[MLF] >The bidding: > >West North East South > - - - 1D > P 1H 2S 3H >3S P P 4H > P* P 4S X > All pass > >*break in tempo > >Oh, well. One assumes on the basis of experience that auctions like >these happen, but one wonders if there ought not to have been an >asterisk following North's first pass. Why otherwise did South, who >thought his hand worth 3H at his first turn, think it worth 4H at his >second? However... > >[MLF] >The E/W players are fairly strong but not very ethical, and I am >South. > >...let me not impugn Marvin's ethics for a moment, especially since no >question seems to have been raised concerning North's tempo or South's >bidding. > >[MLF] >I call the TD when East bids 4S, and he tells us to continue with the >deal. > >This appears to me right and proper. > >[MLF] >East takes 7 tricks, +500 for N/S. >After determining that the 4S bid was prompted by West's >long hesitation, with pass an LA, the TD at first lazily >awards avg+ to N/S and avg- to E/W. > >Just a second. For there to have been unauthorised information, there >must first have been information. Is it seriously suggested that a >"fairly strong" East who had any information at all about the actual >West hand would have bid 4S? This is an important distinction which, >it seems to me, TDs and ACs often fail to make. They look at the East >hand, decide that it isn't a 4S bid, and cancel the bid - but this is >to put the cart before the horse. > >What is being suggested when L12anything is invoked via L16 or L73 is >that a player has made available to his partner unauthorised >information that might suggest a call or play. What information is it >supposed that West made available to East about West's hand that might >suggest 4S over pass? West most assuredly did not want to suggest to >East that East bid 4S. East's 4S was most assuredly not based on any >information about the hand that West held. And if it was not based on >any information about the hand that West held, then it was not (ipso >facto) based on any unauthorised information about the hand that West >held. > >Where there has been no transmission of information, there can be no >infraction of taking advantage of unauthorised information. I seem to >remember some time ago starting a thread called "Unauthorised >misinformation", which petered out as these things often do. But this >is a case in point. This is not a 12C2 v 12C3 case, for there is no >reason to "do equity" under L12 as there has been no breach of L16 or >L73. Certainly, East has attempted to break those Laws, for which he >may be censured or even fined. But he has failed, so there is no >question of score adjustment. > >[MLF] >I argue that I would have made ten tricks in hearts >for +620, probably a better score, and appeal the ruling. > >Under which Law do you become declarer in hearts when your partner was >first to bid the suit for your side? > Oh for the brain of the Burn. He doesn't miss a trick does he? > >Moreover, I am a little >distressed to see that your interpretation of the word "probably" >continues to suffer from the same defect as when we were discussing >"likely" a while ago, a question that I thought had been resolved. >Plus 620 is better than plus 500 with probability 1.0 > >[MLF] >The TD (from Western USA, of course) says, "Okay, you get plus 620 or >average-plus, whichever is greater, and E/W get minus 620 or >average-minus, >whichever is worse." Maybe he thinks that will satisfy me, but I do >not like >illegal rulings, so I appeal. > >[DG] >> This is unfair to your opponents, who should have appealed this. >There is >> no way they could have had worse than -620 had there been no >infraction, >> since West decided not to double before any infraction occurred. > >There has not been any infraction. There has been an attempt at an >infraction, but that is very far from the same thing. > >[MLF] >The AC throws out the illegal score adjustment, but how >should the AC decide on proper assigned scores when using (1) L12C2 >or (2) L12C2 in conjunction with L12C3? > >It should use neither. There has been no infraction, so there is no >adjustment. The score on the board is 500 to North-South. East may be >taken out and shot for all I care. > >David Burn >London, England > > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 24 14:31:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA08112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:31:58 +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 OAA08107 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:31:51 +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 ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:31:43 -0800 Message-ID: <002801bf7e77$a1832e00$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: L12C2 vs L12C3 (corrected) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:31:00 -0800 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 From: "David J. Grabiner" > Marvin L. French wrote: > >Vulnerability: N/S > >Dealer South > > > > S- J7 > > H- 7532 > > D- 1043 > > C- AQJ10 > > > >S- 1096 S- Q109832 > >H- AKQ4 H- 6 > >D- 2 D- K987 > >C- 76532 C- 98 > > > > S- AK4 > > H- J1098 > > D- AQJ65 > > C- K > > This deal has 14 spades and 12 clubs; I assume West had 65 AKQ4 2 765432. Oops, sorry no. West does have three spades, hence guards the suit. My apologies to all, I can't count to 13. Note also that there are only 12 clubs in the deal. East must have had a club in with his spades. My special apologies to David Grabiner, for wasting some of his time. Please redo this David, you have some great comments to make.. The corrected deal is S- J7 H- 7532 D- 1043 C- AQJ10 S- 982 S- Q10653 H- AKQ4 H- 6 D- 2 D- K987 C- 76532 C- 984 S- AK4 H- J1098 D- AQJ65 C- K The bidding: West North East South - - - 1D P 1H 2S* 3H 3S P P 4H P** P 4S X All pass *mistaking a club for a spade **break in tempo The E/W players are fairly strong but not very ethical, and I am South. I call the TD when East bids 4S, and he tells us to continue with the deal. Due to my typically poor defense, East takes 7 tricks, +500 for N/S. After determining that the 4S bid was prompted by West's long hesitation, with pass an LA, the TD at first lazily awards avg+ to N/S and avg- to E/W. I argue that I would have made ten tricks in hearts for +620, probably a better score, and appeal the ruling. The TD (from Western USA, of course) says, "Okay, you get plus 620 or average-plus, whichever is greater, and E/W get minus 620 or average-minus, whichever is worse." Maybe he thinks that will satisfy me, but I do not like illegal rulings, nor do E-W, so we both appeal. The AC throws out the illegal score adjustment, but how should the AC decide on proper assigned scores when using (1) L12C2 or (2) L12C2 in conjunction with L12C3? Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 24 17:40:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA08475 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:40:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe25.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA08470 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:40:21 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 47537 invoked by uid 65534); 24 Feb 2000 06:39:37 -0000 Message-ID: <20000224063937.47536.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.12.172] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <002801bf7e77$a1832e00$16991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: L12C2 vs L12C3 (corrected) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 00:39:28 -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: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 9:31 PM Subject: Re: L12C2 vs L12C3 (corrected) > Oops, sorry no. West does have three spades, hence guards the suit. My > apologies to all, I can't count to 13. Note also that there are only 12 clubs > in the deal. East must have had a club in with his spades. > > My special apologies to David Grabiner, for wasting some of his time. Please > redo this David, you have some great comments to make.. > > The corrected deal is > > S- J7 > H- 7532 > D- 1043 > C- AQJ10 > > S- 982 S- Q10653 > H- AKQ4 H- 6 > D- 2 D- K987 > C- 76532 C- 984 > > S- AK4 > H- J1098 > D- AQJ65 > C- K > > The bidding: > > West North East South > - - - 1D > P 1H 2S* 3H > 3S P P 4H > P** P 4S X > All pass > > *mistaking a club for a spade > **break in tempo > > The E/W players are fairly strong but not very ethical, and I am South. I call > the TD when East bids 4S, and he tells us to continue with the deal. Due > to my typically poor defense, East takes 7 tricks, +500 for N/S. > > After determining that the 4S bid was prompted by West's > long hesitation, with pass an LA, the TD at first lazily > awards avg+ to N/S and avg- to E/W. > > I argue that I would have made ten tricks in hearts > for +620, probably a better score, and appeal the ruling. > > The TD (from Western USA, of course) says, "Okay, you get plus 620 or > average-plus, whichever is greater, and E/W get minus 620 or average-minus, > whichever is worse." Maybe he thinks that will satisfy me, but I do not like > illegal rulings, nor do E-W, so we both appeal. > > The AC throws out the illegal score adjustment, but how > should the AC decide on proper assigned scores when using (1) L12C2 > or (2) L12C2 in conjunction with L12C3? > > Marv (Marvin L. French) Assuming the facts are accurate, imo the huddle demonstrably suggested a non pass action. 4H for -100 at 95% 4H for +620 at 5% I would think that if I were in the NS shoes I would prefer 4SX down 3. Perhaps there is some elegance after a spade lead in west using the forcing game in clubs, but it seems automatic. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 24 23:08:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA09181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 22:36:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (mail@omicron.comarch.pl [195.116.125.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA09176 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 22:36:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (pcciborowski.comarch.pl [195.116.125.138]) by omicron.comarch.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E5CB5C040 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:36:03 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38B51729.18808947@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:34:01 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Impossible to appeal Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A couple of days ago me and my partner bid to 6NTx instead of 6D due to different explanations of our opponent's call on two sides of the screen. We claimed we were misinformed and wanted an AsAS of 6D= instead of 6NTx-1. We didn't manage to fully convince the TD that absent the MI we would have reached 6D. But as he also didn't want the OS to keep their good score he TD ruled that the board should be canceled and a substitute board should be played (the "human approach" school). It was a match and a board hadn't yet been played at the other table. We played a substitute board. Let's not discuss the TD's decision; let's just assume that it was wrong. But as the board was played only at one table the AC can no longer give us 6D as there is no other score to compare it to so there is no way to convert the result to IMPs. It just looks that the ruling made by the TD is impossible to appeal. Perhaps the Laws should state that if the when the TD cancels the board: 1) the board should be played at the other table nonetheless 2) no substitute board should be played instead. That wouldn't the deprive the NOs of the possibility to appeal. Comments welcome. -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Krakow, Poland From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 25 01:05:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA09594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 01:05:01 +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 BAA09585 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 01:04:49 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id w.b0.1c536be (4552); Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:03:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:03:42 EST Subject: Re: Impossible to appeal To: Konrad.Ciborowski@omicron.comarch.pl, 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 67 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 2/24/00 7:10:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, Konrad.Ciborowski@omicron.comarch.pl writes: > (the "human approach" school). Please explain this further. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 25 01:55:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA09754 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 01:55:20 +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 BAA09747 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 01:54:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (pcciborowski.comarch.pl [195.116.125.138]) by omicron.comarch.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD1A75C05B; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:54:26 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38B545A9.F51083B@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:52:25 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML , Schoderb@aol.com Subject: Re: Impossible to appeal References: 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 2/24/00 7:10:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, > Konrad.Ciborowski@omicron.comarch.pl writes: > > > (the "human approach" school). > > Please explain this further. Kojak I didn't want to write too many unpleasant things about this director; perhaps I should have written: he doesn't know how to direct but he likes to. :)) His rulings are based on some unspecified notion of "justice" and not the Laws and he doesn't seem to be embarrassed by this. In this case he told us to reshuffle the board because he felt that this solution would be "fair", "just", you name it. He was unable to quote the relevant laws. But this is not what I wanted to discuss in this thread. I think his ruling was wrong; that's my right. But by his ruling we were deprived of the possibility to appeal; and I don't like this. Don't tell me we had to call him, ask him to rule "score stands", and then appeal! -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Krakow, Poland From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 25 03:11:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA10106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 03:11:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA10101 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 03:11:23 +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 LAA08477 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:11:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA18574 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:11:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:11:13 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200002241611.LAA18574@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Impossible to appeal X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Konrad Ciborowski > Perhaps the Laws should state that if the when the TD > cancels the board: > 1) the board should be played at the other table nonetheless If you have a TD who ignores the Laws, adding a new law seems unlikely to help. My reading of L85B is that it requires the board to be played at the other table. This doesn't help if the TD claims to be ruling under L84 or 85A, but I don't see anything under either law that allows a board to be cancelled. This brings up a new question: when should a TD cancel a board? One obvious case if it is unplayable by no player's fault -- the caddy fouls it, say. Or the deck came with only 51 cards. L6D1 and 6D2 give other cases. What others are proper under L6D3? In particular, is there ever a choice between cancelling the board and an artificial adjusted score? > 2) no substitute board should be played instead. This doesn't matter except for wasting time. If the substitute board wasn't needed, it can be cancelled. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 25 03:55:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA10241 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 03:55:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA10236 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 03:55:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp180-220.worldonline.nl [195.241.180.220]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 3B73336C77; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:56:10 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <000c01bf7ee7$b2d4d120$dcb4f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: , , Subject: Re: Impossible to appeal Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:53:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk : Impossible to appeal >In a message dated 2/24/00 7:10:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, >Konrad.Ciborowski@omicron.comarch.pl writes: > >> (the "human approach" school). > >Please explain this further. Kojak Nice to read you, a big smile makes life much more enjoyable. Let us in the meantime agree that the decision to cancel the board was as awful as human. 12C3 perhaps? ton From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 25 04:19:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA10316 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 04:19:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA10311 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 04:19:02 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id w.6b.1e6b74c (3702); Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:18:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <6b.1e6b74c.25e6c1ce@aol.com> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:18:06 EST Subject: Re: Impossible to appeal To: Konrad.Ciborowski@omicron.comarch.pl, 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 67 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 2/24/00 9:56:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, Konrad.Ciborowski@omicron.comarch.pl writes: > His rulings are based on some unspecified > notion of "justice" and not the Laws and he doesn't > seem to be embarrassed by this. > In this case he told us to reshuffle the board > because he felt that this solution would be "fair", > "just", you name it. He was unable to quote the relevant > laws. > But this is not what I wanted to discuss in > this thread. > I think his ruling was wrong; that's my right. > But by his ruling we were deprived of the possibility to > appeal; and I don't like this. Don't tell me we had to > call him, ask him to rule "score stands", and then appeal! > I've seen things like this before. The Law book has a heavy layer of dust since the TD doesn't want to learn his proper job. There's no Law that applies to a game not played by the Laws, nor would it be possible to write a sensible one. Had the TD passed the board to the other table to get a result you would have had a chance. 82C doesn't help in this instance (were this a pair game both pairs should get average plus). His comments about fair and just show that he won't use the Laws in ruling unless he likes them and doesn't know how they apply. Substitute boards for infractions covered by the Laws is a dangerous belief that the Laws can't provide an adequate remedy, and illegal (also for an AC). There is no applicable Law for his actions -- Law12A1 does NOT apply. The only place I find authority to "cancel" a board is in Law 15, which is completely different. Where does that leave you? Out of luck, I'm afraid. The advice I routinely give victims along with my sympathy is to either work on educating the TD or stop playing in that club. I know that's not much balm on your sore. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 25 05:43:48 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA10576 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 05:43:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA10571 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 05:43:40 +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 NAA23162; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:43:04 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <002801bf7e77$a1832e00$16991e18@san.rr.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:37:51 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: L12C2 vs L12C3 (corrected) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 7:31 PM -0800 2/23/00, Marvin L. French wrote: >From: "David J. Grabiner" >> Marvin L. French wrote: > >> >Vulnerability: N/S >> >Dealer South >The corrected deal is > > S- J7 > H- 7532 > D- 1043 > C- AQJ10 > >S- 982 S- Q10653 >H- AKQ4 H- 6 >D- 2 D- K987 >C- 76532 C- 984 > > S- AK4 > H- J1098 > D- AQJ65 > C- K > >The bidding: > >West North East South > - - - 1D > P 1H 2S* 3H > 3S P P 4H > P** P 4S X >All pass > > *mistaking a club for a spade > **break in tempo > >The E/W players are fairly strong but not very ethical, and I am South. I call >the TD when East bids 4S, and he tells us to continue with the deal. Due >to my typically poor defense, East takes 7 tricks, +500 for N/S. >After determining that the 4S bid was prompted by West's >long hesitation, with pass an LA, the TD at first lazily >awards avg+ to N/S and avg- to E/W. >I argue that I would have made ten tricks in hearts >for +620, probably a better score, and appeal the ruling. The other problem, which I didn't realize, is that South would not have made ten tricks because North would declare. This changes everything, as the trump lead which was likely from West is not as likely from East. (On this holding, I would no longer rule that +620 was likely if West was on lead.) >The AC throws out the illegal score adjustment, but how >should the AC decide on proper assigned scores when using (1) L12C2 >or (2) L12C2 in conjunction with L12C3? East's most likely lead is a low spade; since East probably has the queen for his overcall, declarer might let this ride to the jack and make the contract. I think this is the more likely line. If North goes for a ruff instead, the contract may go down; AK of spades and a ruff, trump to West who takes just one and exits a club, three diamonds thrown on the QJT of clubs, diamond finesse wins, heart to West's king, West draws a third round of trumps and returns his fifth club, ruffed by South, and West now has a long trump. A club or heart lead beats the contract; on a heart lead, West leads out AKQ2 of trumps and there is now no squeeze. I don't think it is fair to assume that East's club which was in with the spades would stay there, and either become the contract-setting lead or cause a revoke. It seems to me that the most likely line of play yields +620, and thus +620/-620 is both the proper L12C2 score and a fair score for both sides under L12C3. There is still the question, which Marvin directed us to ignore, as to whether the UI demonstrably suggested 4S over pass to a player who thought he held QTxxxx x Kxxx xx. West could have been considering a double (and apparently was), or a sacrifice. If West was considering a double, the sacrifice may be a phantom but is almost surely safe if it is not a phantom. (Yes, West could have QJT9 of hearts which will be useless on offense, so there is some risk.) If West was considering a sacrifice, then on the hand East thought he held, the sacrifice is suggested. It's hard to say whether 4S is demonstrably suggested, I would say it was but could be convinvec otherwise on the AC. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 25 06:50:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA10754 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 06:50:14 +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 GAA10749 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 06:50:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from eduhi.at (petrus2.konvent [192.168.1.116]) by michael.gym (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA17817 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 20:54:13 +0100 Message-ID: <38B58B48.23F3605C@eduhi.at> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 20:49:28 +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: Impossible to appeal References: <6b.1e6b74c.25e6c1ce@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Schoderb@aol.com schrieb: > > In a message dated 2/24/00 9:56:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, > Konrad.Ciborowski@omicron.comarch.pl writes: > > > His rulings are based on some unspecified > > notion of "justice" and not the Laws and he doesn't > > seem to be embarrassed by this. > > In this case he told us to reshuffle the board > > because he felt that this solution would be "fair", > > "just", you name it. He was unable to quote the relevant > > laws. > > But this is not what I wanted to discuss in > > this thread. > > I think his ruling was wrong; that's my right. > > But by his ruling we were deprived of the possibility to > > appeal; and I don't like this. Don't tell me we had to > > call him, ask him to rule "score stands", and then appeal! > > > > I've seen things like this before. The Law book has a heavy layer of dust > since the TD doesn't want to learn his proper job. There's no Law that > applies to a game not played by the Laws, nor would it be possible to write a > sensible one. Had the TD passed the board to the other table to get a result > you would have had a chance. 82C doesn't help in this instance (were this a > pair game both pairs should get average plus). His comments about fair and > just show that he won't use the Laws in ruling unless he likes them and > doesn't know how they apply. Substitute boards for infractions covered by > the Laws is a dangerous belief that the Laws can't provide an adequate > remedy, and illegal (also for an AC). There is no applicable Law for his > actions -- Law12A1 does NOT apply. The only place I find authority to > "cancel" a board is in Law 15, which is completely different. > > Where does that leave you? Out of luck, I'm afraid. The advice I routinely > give victims along with my sympathy is to either work on educating the TD or > stop playing in that club. I know that's not much balm on your sore. > > Kojak I am just wondering what to make of L6D3 in the context. L86C prohibits the application of L6 *when the final result ... could have been known*, and this was not the case here: so L6D3 might be applied. And "compatible with the Laws" seems to encompass about anything not expressly forbidden... By the way ... Maybe the TD just hasn't been able to afford a new LB and is still using the 1975 Code (L95: The Director should substitute a new board when (a) (ii) the team-mates of the players involved have not yet played the board. :) Petrus From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 25 08:06:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA10993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 08:06:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA10988 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 08:06:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from calum (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA05110 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 16:06:20 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200002242106.QAA05110@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: YABC (Yet another bad claim) Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 16:06:19 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk With apologies to Kojak, because this has distinct potential to dredge up all the old claim arguments - I'll try to phrase it to minimize them. Club Pairs, Love all, Dealer S. AK Q9732 AJT7 JT T653 AKJ65 3 A52 S is in 6H. T1: H4 H7 D2* HA * (see (*) below) S claims, saying she'll have to give up a club. Pause. "Crossruffing". E asks "pulling trump, I suppose". S says "yeah". E-W call the director, claiming that after S pulls three rounds, there's nowhere to put the fourth diamond. S states that she thought the D2 was a heart(*), and so she thought there was only one trump left, and so "pulling trump" would only be one more round. Everyone at the table (Hi Deaun!) is experienced enough to know how to take 12 tricks on this hand (i.e. that it requires three ruffs in hand). AFAICS, this touches on all our claim bugbears: poorly worded claims, self-serving statements (do you believe S or not?), (if you do believe S) trump outstanding and "irrational" order of ruffing (if you let the HT remain outstanding, W will be able to ruff the fourth round of diamonds with it, provided that S ruffs with the H6 on the fourth round instead of earlier). How do you rule a) in the ACBL, with an implicit "rational" order of using winners? b) at home, if different? Michael. Bonus Question: At my table (played two rounds earlier), the auction went (K-S style openers) N S 1H 2NT* 3D** * Game force, 4+hearts ** Singleton D, any strength 3NT! 4C!! ! "Frivolous 3NT" - opposite of "Serious 3NT"; a stronger ? hand than 4H, but not "real" slam interest. !! After a long hesitation. By agreement, 1st or 2nd round control, cooperating in slam try (i.e. with a minimum S bids 4H even with a C or D control). 3NT is Alertable in the ACBL and was not Alerted. What does the UI available to N demonstrably suggest (if anything), and what LAs are disallowed? If you ask N about the pause and failure to alert, he'll tell you that he couldn't remember what 3NT was, but with a known 9-card major fit and a known unbalanced hand, it couldn't be to play. He was trying to remember whether to bid controls or second suit. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 25 09:23:33 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA11237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 09:23:33 +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 JAA11231 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 09:23:23 +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 QAA26223 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 16:27:14 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000224162211.007ae300@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 16:22:11 -0600 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: YABC (Yet another bad claim) In-Reply-To: <200002242106.QAA05110@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:06 PM 2/24/2000 -0500, Michael Farebrother wrote: >With apologies to Kojak, because this has distinct potential to dredge up >all the old claim arguments - I'll try to phrase it to minimize them. I suppose everyone knows what I rule, but I might as well make it official. >Club Pairs, Love all, Dealer S. > >AK >Q9732 >AJT7 >JT > >T653 >AKJ65 >3 >A52 > >S is in 6H. > >T1: H4 H7 D2* HA * (see (*) below) > >S claims, saying she'll have to give up a club. Pause. "Crossruffing". >E asks "pulling trump, I suppose". S says "yeah". E really said "pulling trump, _I suppose_" and then called the director for a bad claim? Apologies if E is reading this list, but I think that's sleazy. I am very much tempted to rule that the answer to this question does not consitute any part of the claim statement, and so cannot be held against declarer. I will in any case politely ask the players not to suggest possible failing lines to declarer before calling the director to contest the claim. >E-W call the director, claiming that after S pulls three rounds, there's >nowhere to put the fourth diamond. > >S states that she thought the D2 was a heart(*), and so she thought there >was only one trump left, and so "pulling trump" would only be one more >round. > >Everyone at the table (Hi Deaun!) is experienced enough to know how to >take 12 tricks on this hand (i.e. that it requires three ruffs in hand). > >AFAICS, this touches on all our claim bugbears: poorly worded claims, >self-serving statements (do you believe S or not?), (if you do believe I don't know--do I? I wasn't there. S's statement doesn't sound terribly unlikely, nor does it sound so obviously true as to be indubitable. I'd have to be there. If I don't believe S, then I have a voluntary claim statement [albeit after a pause] of 'crossruffing' and an after-interrogation 'drawing trump'. If everyone at this table knows that you have to have three trump to ruff three diamonds, and since crossruffing was declarer's _first_ statement of intention, then I give him the contract as long as _both_ possible ways of reaching dummy to ruff the diamonds yield 12 tricks {with the AK of spades, or A clubs, surrender a club, ruff a club}. If I do believe S, then there's no reason to think that one round of trump will alert her to the problem. So I let the HT remain out, and see if either of the normal lines of reaching dummy, ruffing the diamonds, and then continuing the crossruff allow that card to take a trick. I would call ruffing with a high trump on a early round of a suit while saving a lower card to ruff later in the same suit irrational, so I don't save the H6 to be over-ruffed. [Overtaking her own H7 with her HA was probably irrational, too, but then again people do irrational things sometimes. :)] I assume by the way this is worded that the player with the outstanding trump doesn't have a singleton spade or single/doubleton club, or single/doubleton diamond. Therefore, 12 tricks. Again, declarer got lucky because none of the normal combinations lost her a trick. >S) trump outstanding and "irrational" order of ruffing (if you let the >HT remain outstanding, W will be able to ruff the fourth round of >diamonds with it, provided that S ruffs with the H6 on the fourth round >instead of earlier). > >How do you rule a) in the ACBL, with an implicit "rational" >order of using winners? b) at home, if different? I'm in the ACBL, although of course it doesn't matter on my way of doing things. >Michael. > >Bonus Question: At my table (played two rounds earlier), the >auction went (K-S style openers) > >N S > 1H >2NT* 3D** * Game force, 4+hearts ** Singleton D, any strength >3NT! 4C!! ! "Frivolous 3NT" - opposite of "Serious 3NT"; a stronger >? hand than 4H, but not "real" slam interest. > !! After a long hesitation. By agreement, 1st or 2nd round > control, cooperating in slam try (i.e. with a minimum S > bids 4H even with a C or D control). > >3NT is Alertable in the ACBL and was not Alerted. >What does the UI available to N demonstrably suggest (if anything), >and what LAs are disallowed? It demonstrably suggests to me that S can't remember what 3N means. I honestly can't see that it suggests anything else. I can't see any LA's that are outlawed at this point, except ones that unambiguously cater to the possibility that S doesn't have the promised control. I'd have to know N's methods to know what that would be. >If you ask N about the pause and failure to alert, he'll tell you that S? >he couldn't remember what 3NT was, but with a known 9-card major fit and I thought so. >a known unbalanced hand, it couldn't be to play. He was trying to >remember whether to bid controls or second suit. So far, I'd say no foul. -Respectfully, Grant From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 25 12:27:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 12:27:54 +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 MAA11767 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 12:27:46 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id 2.2.12ec615 (4241); Thu, 24 Feb 2000 20:26:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <2.12ec615.25e73449@aol.com> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 20:26:33 EST Subject: Re: Impossible to appeal To: schuster@eduhi.at, 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 67 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 2/24/00 2:52:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, schuster@eduhi.at writes: > I am just wondering what to make of L6D3 in the context. I don't see the rationale in applying a Law which says do this only if compatible with the Laws when it isn't compatible. I maintain that Law 10 A 1 makes it clear that when you have a result, and an infraction that is covered by the Laws, you can't "cancel" it. Adjust, penalize, accept, or whatever the Laws allow, but "cancel" is not an option. Law 16 covers UI. As Petrus stated, "canceling" was part of an earlier edition of the Laws, and was purposefully removed therefrom since it was constantly used as a "cop-out" (American slang) by TDs too lazy, scared, political, or uninformed to make rulings which might not be popular. "Cancel the board -- then the problem goes away!" The Laws provide a complete remedy for what happened in this case. Apply the obvious Law, don't stretch one that might get you and the offenders "off-the-hook" (some more slang). There is no way I can consider it fair, just, or any other approving description to cancel an infraction in place of legal redress to the non-offenders, and/or penalty to the offenders. Even when it's not the popular thing to do. Cheers, Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 25 12:34:19 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 12:34:19 +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 MAA11803 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 12:34:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from pa3s07a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.119.164] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt7-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12O9cm-00050U-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 01:32:57 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: L12C2 vs L12C3 (corrected) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 01:42:26 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf7f31$91c512c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Marvin L. French To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, February 24, 2000 3:47 AM Subject: Re: L12C2 vs L12C3 (corrected) > >From: "David J. Grabiner" > >> Marvin L. French wrote: > >> >Vulnerability: N/S >> >Dealer South >> > >> > S- J7 >> > H- 7532 >> > D- 1043 >> > C- AQJ10 >> > >> >S- 1096 S- Q109832 >> >H- AKQ4 H- 6 >> >D- 2 D- K987 >> >C- 76532 C- 98 >> > >> > S- AK4 >> > H- J1098 >> > D- AQJ65 >> > C- K >> >> This deal has 14 spades and 12 clubs; I assume West had 65 AKQ4 2 765432. > >Oops, sorry no. West does have three spades, hence guards the suit. My >apologies to all, I can't count to 13. Note also that there are only 12 clubs >in the deal. East must have had a club in with his spades. > >My special apologies to David Grabiner, for wasting some of his time. Please >redo this David, you have some great comments to make.. > >The corrected deal is > > S- J7 > H- 7532 > D- 1043 > C- AQJ10 > >S- 982 S- Q10653 >H- AKQ4 H- 6 >D- 2 D- K987 >C- 76532 C- 984 > > S- AK4 > H- J1098 > D- AQJ65 > C- K > >The bidding: > >West North East South > - - - 1D > P 1H 2S* 3H > 3S P P 4H > P** P 4S X >All pass > > *mistaking a club for a spade > **break in tempo > >The E/W players are fairly strong but not very ethical, and I am South. I call >the TD when East bids 4S, and he tells us to continue with the deal. Due >to my typically poor defense, East takes 7 tricks, +500 for N/S. > >After determining that the 4S bid was prompted by West's >long hesitation, with pass an LA, the TD at first lazily >awards avg+ to N/S and avg- to E/W. > >I argue that I would have made ten tricks in hearts >for +620, probably a better score, and appeal the ruling. > >The TD (from Western USA, of course) says, "Okay, you get plus 620 or >average-plus, whichever is greater, and E/W get minus 620 or average-minus, >whichever is worse." Maybe he thinks that will satisfy me, but I do not like >illegal rulings, nor do E-W, so we both appeal. > >The AC throws out the illegal score adjustment, but how >should the AC decide on proper assigned scores when using (1) L12C2 >or (2) L12C2 in conjunction with L12C3? L12C2. I think that I will work on the principle that the 4H contract will make on a Spade lead, but not on a Heart, Diamond or Club lead. I think a Spade lead will happen 40% of the time, a minor suit lead 60% of the time, and a trump lead 0% of the time. (roughly). So the most favourable result that was likely is that the 4H contract will make.Thus awarding +620 to N/S. The most unfavourable result that is probable for E/W is that 4H will be defeated by one trick. +100 to E/W. L12C3 AC will consider 40% of +620 for N/S, and 60% of -100. AC will rule no damage to N/S and allow table result to stand. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 25 13:18:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA11987 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 13:18:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from eastgate.cyberway.com.sg (eastgate.cyberway.com.sg [203.116.1.189]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA11982 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 13:18:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from derrickh.cteru.gov.sg ([203.116.18.228]) by eastgate.cyberway.com.sg (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA03157 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 10:18:03 +0800 (SST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000225101629.007a4310@pop.singnet.com.sg> X-Sender: yanhoon@pop.singnet.com.sg X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 10:16:29 +0800 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: derrick heng Subject: Re: YABC (Yet another bad claim) In-Reply-To: <200002242106.QAA05110@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 16:06 24/02/00 -0500, Michael Farebrother wrote: >With apologies to Kojak, because this has distinct potential to dredge up >all the old claim arguments - I'll try to phrase it to minimize them. > >Club Pairs, Love all, Dealer S. > >AK >Q9732 >AJT7 >JT > >T653 >AKJ65 >3 >A52 > >S is in 6H. > >T1: H4 H7 D2* HA * (see (*) below) > >S claims, saying she'll have to give up a club. Pause. "Crossruffing". >E asks "pulling trump, I suppose". S says "yeah". > >E-W call the director, claiming that after S pulls three rounds, there's >nowhere to put the fourth diamond. > >S states that she thought the D2 was a heart(*), and so she thought there >was only one trump left, and so "pulling trump" would only be one more >round. > >Everyone at the table (Hi Deaun!) is experienced enough to know how to >take 12 tricks on this hand (i.e. that it requires three ruffs in hand). > >AFAICS, this touches on all our claim bugbears: poorly worded claims, >self-serving statements (do you believe S or not?), (if you do believe >S) trump outstanding and "irrational" order of ruffing (if you let the >HT remain outstanding, W will be able to ruff the fourth round of >diamonds with it, provided that S ruffs with the H6 on the fourth round >instead of earlier). > >How do you rule a) in the ACBL, with an implicit "rational" >order of using winners? b) at home, if different? > >Michael. 1 down. I'm a hard-liner on this. No sympathies for sloppy claims and/or sloppy claim statements. Would rule 1 down. IMHO, I would take S at her word that she thought D2 was a heart. But a rational line would be to play another trump ("drawing trumps" she thinks ) before giving up a club to avoid ruffs in other suits. Then if the player with the last trump (W) could have won and played a third round of trumps, the contract goes one down. 6H contract if and only if the clubs are blocked such that only E could have won the club. Derrick From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 25 21:03:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA12767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 21:03:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA12762 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 21:03:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.111] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12OHac-000JrT-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 10:03:15 +0000 Message-ID: <002901bf7f77$c999d140$6f5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200002242106.QAA05110@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Subject: Re: YABC (Yet another bad claim) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 10:04:14 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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, February 24, 2000 9:06 PM Subject: YABC (Yet another bad claim) > S claims, saying she'll have to give up a club. Pause. "Crossruffing". > E asks "pulling trump, I suppose". S says "yeah". > > E-W call the director, claiming that after S pulls three rounds, there's > nowhere to put the fourth diamond. > +=+ I would think the Director should not regard East's question and anything after it as part of the "original clarification statement" (Law 70D); the leading question from East and the reply is not, in my opinion, part of the clarification statement made at the time of the claim (Law 70B1). What claimer said was 'crossruffing' with no mention of drawing trumps until the entrapment. The Director should apply Law 70 to what claimer said before East called a halt to the original statement with a question. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 25 23:13:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA13064 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 23:13:31 +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 XAA13059 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 23:13:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-172.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.172]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA17112 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 13:13:10 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38B53D74.3CDD5CBD@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:17:24 +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: L12C2 vs L12C3 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My point of view on L12C3 based on what : "David J. Grabiner" wrote: > > > With no infraction, N-S would have played in 4H. so this issue is how > likely 4H is to make. > > I can make 4H on a trump lead; will declarer find this line? After [snip] > > A non-offender should be given the benefit of the doubt as to whether he is > a good player, so I will rule that a heart lead is likely and that declarer > will set up the squeeze for +620/-620. > After an infraction, non-offenders get the benefit of the doubt. If the line is "findable", it will be found. I believe L12C3 should be reserved for cases where we don't know what will happen. So either this declarer can make 4He, and he should get +620, or he cannot, and he should be left with +500. > L12C3 makes things harder, because equity is not well-defined here. I > don't think that +620 gives N-S an unfair bonus; a trump lead is > reasonable, and if E-W want a chance at the spade lead, they have to obey > the Laws and make it at the table. > > This really needs an AC made of good players to rule on it; I am not an > expert and have difficult y judging the relative merits of the different > plays. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 26 00:02:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA13194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 00:02:05 +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 AAA13184 for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 00:01:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-15.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.15]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA29270 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:01:48 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38B67C4A.BB36CD2@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 13:57:46 +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: YABC (Yet another bad claim) References: <200002242106.QAA05110@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <002901bf7f77$c999d140$6f5408c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > +=+ I would think the Director should not regard > East's question and anything after it as part of the > "original clarification statement" (Law 70D); indeed, but that does not mean that what is being said there does not count towards establishing what is in claimer's mind at the time. If a claimer says "of course", and it it in fact terribly logical, then you don't need to rule against that part just because it wasn't said. Usually it wasn't said because it was terribly obvious. Just look at the claim again if the diamond HAD been a heart. Would anyone suggest any way of going down then. Of course declarer knows there is ONE trump out. Of course he will cash one round of trumps before making six ruffs. That is as plain as day. The fact that it doesn't work is another matter still, but giving defenders two trump tricks because claimer failed to mention even one is not the correct way to rule this. > the > leading question from East and the reply is not, in > my opinion, part of the clarification statement > made at the time of the claim (Law 70B1). > What claimer said was 'crossruffing' with > no mention of drawing trumps until the > entrapment. The Director should apply > Law 70 to what claimer said before East > called a halt to the original statement with a > question. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ True, but not applicable to this case. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 26 00:02:05 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA13193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 00:02:05 +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 AAA13183 for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 00:01:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-15.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.15]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA29254 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:01:45 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38B67ADD.277CDD96@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 13:51:41 +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: YABC (Yet another bad claim) References: <200002242106.QAA05110@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: > > With apologies to Kojak, because this has distinct potential to dredge up > all the old claim arguments - I'll try to phrase it to minimize them. > > Club Pairs, Love all, Dealer S. > > AK > Q9732 > AJT7 > JT > > T653 > AKJ65 > 3 > A52 > > S is in 6H. > > T1: H4 H7 D2* HA * (see (*) below) > > S claims, saying she'll have to give up a club. Pause. "Crossruffing". > E asks "pulling trump, I suppose". S says "yeah". > > E-W call the director, claiming that after S pulls three rounds, there's > nowhere to put the fourth diamond. > > S states that she thought the D2 was a heart(*), and so she thought there > was only one trump left, and so "pulling trump" would only be one more > round. > This is a very important piece of information, and one we should always have. In every bad claim, there is one or other reason why it was made, and that reason must be found out. The bad claim statement in itself is no evidence of something wrong in claimer's mind, but something else is, and here we have it. Let's see how play would continue if claimer did not claim. Remember he will continue to think the hearts are 2-1. > AK > Q9732 > AJT7 > JT > > T653 > AKJ65 > 3 > A52 > > S is in 6H. > T1: H4 H7 D2* HA T2: HK H8 xx H2 at this moment the 10 is out, and declarer will not know it. I have deliberately played the trick in hand, because that is more careless (but not irrational) than crossing to the table. T3: crossing to SA still carelessly misusing entries T4: DA T5: diamond, ruffed T6: crossing to SK T7: diamond, ruffed T8: CA T9: club, the trick one expects to lose. claimer now has : > - > Q93 > J > - > > T6 > J > - > 2 Claimer now expects to make four more ruffs, but it could be imaginable that west takes the lead and plays his heart. Defence score one diamond trick. Remark that I did not have to play any of the suits in a "silly" way. I am certain that some of you have let claimer ruff with Q and J meanwhile, and you want to give opponents the 10 as well, but that is just silly. (IMHO) Of course some overruff only gives one trick as well. > Everyone at the table (Hi Deaun!) is experienced enough to know how to > take 12 tricks on this hand (i.e. that it requires three ruffs in hand). > > AFAICS, this touches on all our claim bugbears: poorly worded claims, No it doesn't, the claim was poorly worded because of what declarer thought. Within that frame of mind, the claim was sufficiently obvious to be considered correct. We know what claimer intended, so his absence of) claim statement need not be considered evidence of anything. > self-serving statements (do you believe S or not?), of course you do, why should you not ? It is only when S states he knew two trumps to be out that there is something fishy. The statement that he did not see the first trick is a perfectly good explanation for his bad claim. I believe that. (if you do believe > S) trump outstanding and "irrational" order of ruffing (if you let the > HT remain outstanding, W will be able to ruff the fourth round of > diamonds with it, provided that S ruffs with the H6 on the fourth round > instead of earlier). > As I said above, no need for an overruff after an irrational order of ruffing. Just some careless communication play which results in the club trick to be given away before all the ruffs have been taken. > How do you rule a) in the ACBL, with an implicit "rational" > order of using winners? b) at home, if different? > > Michael. > Now do you see that I am NOT always large in handling claims ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 26 01:08:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA13422 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 01:08:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA13417 for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 01:08:20 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id OAA12041 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:07:39 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:07 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: YABC (Yet another bad claim) 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: <200002242106.QAA05110@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Michael Farebrother wrote: > > Club Pairs, Love all, Dealer S. > > AK > Q9732 > AJT7 > JT > > T653 > AKJ65 > 3 > A52 > > S is in 6H. > > T1: H4 H7 D2* HA * (see (*) below) > > S claims, saying she'll have to give up a club. Pause. "Crossruffing". > E asks "pulling trump, I suppose". S says "yeah". > > E-W call the director, claiming that after S pulls three rounds, there's > nowhere to put the fourth diamond. > > S states that she thought the D2 was a heart(*), and so she thought > there was only one trump left, and so "pulling trump" would only be one > more round. Indeed. Heart to the queen, DA,D ruff, SA, D ruff, SK, D ruff, eventually losing a club and the HT regardless of the position in the other suits. IMO nothing will happen to wake South up to the missing trump in time but if I could be convinced (unlikely given the play of HA at trick 1) that the non-appearance of HT at trick 2 would be a wake-up then I would probably award 6H= unless there was something odd in the unseen hands. Had South responded "no" to the pulling trump enquiry I would have no problem ruling 6H= as I would consider early high ruffs irrational. > > > Bonus Question: At my table (played two rounds earlier), the > auction went (K-S style openers) > > N S > 1H > 2NT* 3D** * Game force, 4+hearts ** Singleton D, any strength > 3NT! 4C!! ! "Frivolous 3NT" - opposite of "Serious 3NT"; a stronger > ? hand than 4H, but not "real" slam interest. > !! After a long hesitation. By agreement, 1st or 2nd round > control, cooperating in slam try (i.e. with a minimum S > bids 4H even with a C or D control). > > 3NT is Alertable in the ACBL and was not Alerted. > What does the UI available to N demonstrably suggest (if anything), > and what LAs are disallowed? > To me the hesitation suggests that South is borderline between showing a minimum and showing a control (wrong as it turns out but it seems the most likely possibility). I would adjust against a North who stopped short of slam and found South with eg Jxx,AKJTx,x,Kxxx (unless both clubs were right or SQ was doubleton). Tim West-Meads. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 26 01:12:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA13463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 01:12:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com ([216.33.240.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA13458 for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 01:12:17 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 55335 invoked by uid 65534); 25 Feb 2000 14:11:42 -0000 Message-ID: <20000225141142.55334.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.12.175] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <200002242106.QAA05110@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <002901bf7f77$c999d140$6f5408c3@dodona> <38B67C4A.BB36CD2@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: YABC (Yet another bad claim) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 08:11:45 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 6:57 AM Subject: Re: YABC (Yet another bad claim) > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > > > +=+ I would think the Director should not regard > > East's question and anything after it as part of the > > "original clarification statement" (Law 70D); > > indeed, but that does not mean that what is being said there > does not count towards establishing what is in claimer's > mind at the time. > If a claimer says "of course", and it it in fact terribly > logical, then you don't need to rule against that part just > because it wasn't said. > Usually it wasn't said because it was terribly obvious. > > Just look at the claim again if the diamond HAD been a > heart. Would anyone suggest any way of going down then. > Of course declarer knows there is ONE trump out. Of course > he will cash one round of trumps before making six ruffs. > That is as plain as day. > The fact that it doesn't work is another matter still, but > giving defenders two trump tricks because claimer failed to > mention even one is not the correct way to rule this. > > > the > > leading question from East and the reply is not, in > > my opinion, part of the clarification statement > > made at the time of the claim (Law 70B1). > > What claimer said was 'crossruffing' with > > no mention of drawing trumps until the > > entrapment. The Director should apply > > Law 70 to what claimer said before East > > called a halt to the original statement with a > > question. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ But the answer of the question provides insight as to what is a normal play for this player? I would think that if claimer embellishes his claim that he is pulling trumps that the adjudication would find that pulling trumps would be a normal, while inferior line of play. If it were in fact his intention to not pull trumps would he not have denied that he intended to pull trumps, or said nothing? Roger Pewick Houston, Texas > True, but not applicable to this case. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 26 02:47:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA13936 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 02:47:03 +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 CAA13931 for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 02:46:54 +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 JAA16311 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 09:50:40 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000225094535.007a5d80@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 09:45:35 -0600 To: Bridge Laws From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: YABC (Yet another bad claim) In-Reply-To: <38B67ADD.277CDD96@village.uunet.be> References: <200002242106.QAA05110@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I retract my earlier analysis. 1 down. I was in a hurry and forgot about the possibility of the defender with the remaining trump having a club winner, allowing him to kill the cross-ruff. {See, there are bad claims even I wouldn't allow to make.} [[[Herman wasn't the only one to point this out, but I've lost all the earlier pieces of this thread so I have to reply to his.]]] I agree with Grattan, though, that the answer to the question about taking out trumps is discounted. Especially since this S thinks [apparently] that one trump _does_ need to be taken out. At 01:51 PM 2/25/2000 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >> Q93 >> J >> - >> >> T6 >> J >> - >> 2 > >Claimer now expects to make four more ruffs, but it could be >imaginable that west takes the lead and plays his heart. >Defence score one diamond trick. Agreed. >Herman DE WAEL -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 26 05:45:38 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA14316 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 05:45:38 +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 FAA14310 for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 05:45:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from pe4s03a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.83.229] helo=pacific) by cobalt1-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12OPiW-0000uB-00; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 10:43:57 -0800 Message-ID: <001e01bf7fbf$f9a849a0$e55393c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" Cc: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 18:40:52 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 06:08:29 +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 OAA15813 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:08:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA19604 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:08:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:08:17 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200002251908.OAA19604@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Impossible to appeal X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Schoderb@aol.com > I maintain that Law 10 A 1 makes it clear that when you have a result, and an > infraction that is covered by the Laws, you can't "cancel" it. Adjust, > penalize, accept, or whatever the Laws allow, but "cancel" is not an option. You mean 12A1 ? Would you allow a redeal if the alternative were 12A2? What about 12A3? I'm still wondering when, if ever, a redeal could be allowed other than the obvious situations (bad deck, etc.). FWIW, I agree that for ordinary infractions, handled by fixed penalties or assigned adjusted scores, a redeal is illegal. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 26 06:49:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA14459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 06:49:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com (imo-d03.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.35]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA14454 for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 06:49:30 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id i.6c.1d5d7a2 (6695); Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:48:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <6c.1d5d7a2.25e83674@aol.com> Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:48:04 EST Subject: Re: Impossible to appeal 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: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 67 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 2/25/00 2:10:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, willner@cfa.harvard.edu writes: > You mean 12A1 ? Sorry I meant Law 10 C 1. ("C" as in Cancellation). > > Would you allow a redeal if the alternative were 12A2? What about > 12A3? Al three of the 12 A's address adjusted scores, not cancellation of results. So the answer is NO. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 26 17:52:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA16453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 17:52:24 +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 RAA16447 for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 17:52:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.197] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12Ob53-000Dfu-00; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 06:51:58 +0000 Message-ID: <004b01bf8026$3bef14e0$5c5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Roger Pewick" , "blml" References: <200002242106.QAA05110@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <002901bf7f77$c999d140$6f5408c3@dodona> <38B67C4A.BB36CD2@village.uunet.be> <20000225141142.55334.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: YABC (Yet another bad claim) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 06:52:59 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: Friday, February 25, 2000 2:11 PM Subject: Re: YABC (Yet another bad claim) > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 6:57 AM > Subject: Re: YABC (Yet another bad claim) > > > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > What claimer said was 'crossruffing' with > > > no mention of drawing trumps until the > > > entrapment. The Director should apply > > > Law 70 to what claimer said before East > > > called a halt to the original statement with a > > > question. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > But the answer of the question provides insight as to what is a normal play > for this player? > +=+ No. What East has done is to trap declarer into an unthinking response. East is more quick thinking (and devious) than declarer. The Director has a simple duty under Law 70 to rule on the basis of what declarer said in the original clarification of claim and not to be influenced by the trap that East has sprung on declarer. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 27 01:34:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA17977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 01:34:42 +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 BAA17972 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 01:34:34 +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 12OiIZ-000Fb4-0Y for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 14:34:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 14:32:45 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: YABC (Yet another bad claim) In-Reply-To: <004b01bf8026$3bef14e0$5c5408c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <004b01bf8026$3bef14e0$5c5408c3@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes >> >> > Grattan Endicott wrote: >> > >> > > What claimer said was 'crossruffing' with >> > > no mention of drawing trumps until the >> > > entrapment. The Director should apply >> > > Law 70 to what claimer said before East >> > > called a halt to the original statement with a >> > > question. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> But the answer of the question provides insight as to what is a normal >play >> for this player? >> >+=+ No. What East has done is to trap declarer >into an unthinking response. East is more quick >thinking (and devious) than declarer. > The Director has a simple duty under Law >70 to rule on the basis of what declarer said in >the original clarification of claim and not to be >influenced by the trap that East has sprung on >declarer. ~ G ~ +=+ > IMO, the question may well be 'inadvertent' rather than an entrapment, but that makes no difference. I'm with Grattan. However I can conbstruct a 'normal' line for down 1, so that's my ruling. -- 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 Feb 27 02:58:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA18534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 02:58:52 +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 CAA18529 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 02:58:41 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA03035 for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 16:58:32 +0100 Received: from ip220.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.220), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda03033; Sat Feb 26 16:58:30 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: L70C3 & something similar Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 16:58:30 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <200002181521.KAA14232@cfa183.harvard.edu> <38AE7247.66BB00CE@village.uunet.be> <000201bf7ba4$603062e0$435408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <000201bf7ba4$603062e0$435408c3@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 CAA18530 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:10:39 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >+=+ Why not simply ask him? Well possibly because of >(a) Law 70D - "the original clarification statement" >(b) Law 68C - "the order in which cards will be > played" >and (c) 70A - "any doubtful points shall be resolved > against the claimer". L70C2 - "it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent's hand". The player's answer to the question "had you forgotten the outstanding trump" often helps when judging whether "it is at all likely...". If the answer is "yes", it definitely helps. And even if the card in question is not a trump, it seems obvious to me that it does sometimes make a difference that the player says that he had forgotten the outstanding card. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 27 03:50:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA18758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 03:50:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA18753 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 03:50:32 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA03131 for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 17:50:12 +0100 Received: from ip210.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.210), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda03129; Sat Feb 26 17:50:10 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "blml" Subject: Re: YABC (Yet another bad claim) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 17:50:10 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <710gbs8d5j3umh0g8gro1qnum34ffaks9d@dybdal.dk> References: <200002242106.QAA05110@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <002901bf7f77$c999d140$6f5408c3@dodona> <38B67C4A.BB36CD2@village.uunet.be> <20000225141142.55334.qmail@hotmail.com> <004b01bf8026$3bef14e0$5c5408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <004b01bf8026$3bef14e0$5c5408c3@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 DAA18754 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 06:52:59 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Herman De Wael >> >> But the answer of the question provides insight as to what is a normal >play >> for this player? >> >+=+ No. What East has done is to trap declarer >into an unthinking response. East is more quick >thinking (and devious) than declarer. But declarer is supposed to have done his thinking (planning the way to get 12 tricks) long ago, before claiming. I'll admit that it may sometimes be possible to trap a declarer into giving a quick and confused reply which is actually in conflict with declarer's already made-up plan, but there does not seem to be any reason to believe that this is the case here. By the way, East may not be devious at all: at the time he asked, he may not have realized that the slam could not win if all trumps were drawn first. I would rule based on drawing one more trump, since that is obviously what declarer had in mind. > The Director has a simple duty under Law >70 to rule on the basis of what declarer said in >the original clarification of claim and not to be >influenced by the trap that East has sprung on >declarer. ~ G ~ +=+ Does this mean that you would rule one down if the trumps had actually been 2-1 and the remaining outstanding trump could be used to ruff with? -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 27 04:10:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA18639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 03:24:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA18634 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 03:24:21 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA03088 for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 17:24:12 +0100 Received: from ip22.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.22), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda03085; Sat Feb 26 17:24:08 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: L12C2 vs L12C3 Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 17:24:08 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <001701bf7e6c$67605f00$9750063e@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <001701bf7e6c$67605f00$9750063e@davidburn> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id DAA18635 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 02:10:38 -0000, "David Burn" wrote: >Just a second. For there to have been unauthorised information, there >must first have been information. Is it seriously suggested that a >"fairly strong" East who had any information at all about the actual >West hand would have bid 4S? This is an important distinction which, >it seems to me, TDs and ACs often fail to make. They look at the East >hand, decide that it isn't a 4S bid, and cancel the bid - but this is >to put the cart before the horse. > >What is being suggested when L12anything is invoked via L16 or L73 is >that a player has made available to his partner unauthorised >information that might suggest a call or play. What information is it >supposed that West made available to East about West's hand that might >suggest 4S over pass? West most assuredly did not want to suggest to >East that East bid 4S. East's 4S was most assuredly not based on any >information about the hand that West held. And if it was not based on >any information about the hand that West held, then it was not (ipso >facto) based on any unauthorised information about the hand that West >held. The UI made available to East is that West seemed to have one or more alternative call(s) to consider before passing. Nothing more. If that UI suggests an action over a logical alternative, then that action is illegal, regardless of West's actual hand. If East chooses such an illegal action and it is successful, then an adjustment is in order. L16 simply talks about "extraneous information". It does not specify that it has to be correct information about the hand. Look at it another way: at East's turn to call, some calls are legal and other calls are illegal. Since East does not know Wests hand, it would be rather hard on East to have rules that made the legal set of calls depend on West's actual hand. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 27 05:16:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA19076 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 05:16:25 +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 FAA19071 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 05:16:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-7-137.access.net.il [213.8.7.137] (may be forged)) by loger.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA22428 for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 20:09:02 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <38B81708.5ADDDB03@zahav.net.il> Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 20:10:16 +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 - February 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 18th 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 - Molly (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 Feb 27 13:52:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA20666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 13:52:59 +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 NAA20661 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 13:52:51 +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, 26 Feb 2000 18:52:44 -0800 Message-ID: <002701bf80cd$b0eaeba0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <001701bf7e6c$67605f00$9750063e@davidburn> Subject: Re: L12C2 vs L12C3 Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 18:45:57 -0800 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 From: "Jesper Dybdal" > "David Burn"wrote: > > >Just a second. For there to have been unauthorised information, there > >must first have been information. Is it seriously suggested that a > >"fairly strong" East who had any information at all about the actual > >West hand would have bid 4S? This is an important distinction which, > >it seems to me, TDs and ACs often fail to make. They look at the East > >hand, decide that it isn't a 4S bid, and cancel the bid - but this is > >to put the cart before the horse. > > > >What is being suggested when L12anything is invoked via L16 or L73 is > >that a player has made available to his partner unauthorised > >information that might suggest a call or play. What information is it > >supposed that West made available to East about West's hand that might > >suggest 4S over pass? West most assuredly did not want to suggest to > >East that East bid 4S. East's 4S was most assuredly not based on any > >information about the hand that West held. And if it was not based on > >any information about the hand that West held, then it was not (ipso > >facto) based on any unauthorised information about the hand that West > >held. > > The UI made available to East is that West seemed to have one or > more alternative call(s) to consider before passing. Nothing > more. > > If that UI suggests an action over a logical alternative, then > that action is illegal, regardless of West's actual hand. If > East chooses such an illegal action and it is successful, then an > adjustment is in order. > > L16 simply talks about "extraneous information". It does not > specify that it has to be correct information about the hand. > > Look at it another way: at East's turn to call, some calls are > legal and other calls are illegal. Since East does not know > Wests hand, it would be rather hard on East to have rules that > made the legal set of calls depend on West's actual hand. Right on, Jesper. The right criterion is whether East would have bid 4S absent the break in tempo. Obviously not, so the 4S bid was occasioned by the extraneous information that West had a problem. If the bid causes damage, then redress is in order. The word "suggested" in L16A is not an apt one, since it has so many shades of meaning depending on context. As I wrote once before, something suggested to me by a woman's deportment might not be at all what she intended. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 27 19:04:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA21348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 19:04:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA21338 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 19:04:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.50] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12OygF-00023O-00; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 08:03:55 +0000 Message-ID: <002501bf80f9$7448bfc0$f65608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , References: Subject: Re: YABC (Yet another bad claim) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 06:23:04 -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: Saturday, February 26, 2000 2:32 PM Subject: Re: YABC (Yet another bad claim) > In article <004b01bf8026$3bef14e0$5c5408c3@dodona>, Grattan Endicott > writes > >+=+ No. What East has done is to trap declarer > >into an unthinking response. East is more quick > >thinking (and devious) than declarer. > > The Director has a simple duty under Law > >70 to rule on the basis of what declarer said in > >the original clarification of claim and not to be > >influenced by the trap that East has sprung on > >declarer. ~ G ~ +=+ > > > IMO, the question may well be 'inadvertent' rather than an entrapment, > but that makes no difference. I'm with Grattan. However I can > conbstruct a 'normal' line for down 1, so that's my ruling. > -- +==+ Ah, there you go John. With the natural belief of all TDs in the honesty of the player, whilst a crusty, old, cynical appeal committee man looks on the down side. :-))) ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 27 19:04:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA21349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 19:04:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA21339 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 19:04:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.50] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12OygG-00023O-00; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 08:03:57 +0000 Message-ID: <002601bf80f9$753b5d20$f65608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , "blml" References: <200002242106.QAA05110@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <002901bf7f77$c999d140$6f5408c3@dodona> <38B67C4A.BB36CD2@village.uunet.be> <20000225141142.55334.qmail@hotmail.com> <004b01bf8026$3bef14e0$5c5408c3@dodona> <710gbs8d5j3umh0g8gro1qnum34ffaks9d@dybdal.dk> Subject: Re: YABC (Yet another bad claim) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 06:42:38 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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, February 26, 2000 4:50 PM Subject: Re: YABC (Yet another bad claim) > On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 06:52:59 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" > wrote: > > > ------------ \x/ ------------- > > >+=+ No. What East has done is to trap declarer > >into an unthinking response. East is more quick > >thinking (and devious) than declarer. > > > The Director has a simple duty under Law > >70 to rule on the basis of what declarer said in > >the original clarification of claim and not to be > >influenced by the trap that East has sprung on > >declarer. ~ G ~ +=+ > > Does this mean that you would rule one down if the trumps had > actually been 2-1 and the remaining outstanding trump could be > used to ruff with? > +=+ Now, Jesper, if you look carefully at several posts of mine on this thread you will notice that I have not said a word on what the ruling should be. I have restricted myself to the question of the basis for the ruling as stated in the law book. In point of fact, I have not even looked at the hand. Whether East was innocent or malicious he has led to a situation in which claimer has added something to the original statement of claim and may well have done so without giving it thought. That is, actually or in effect, entrapment - a procedure which someone on TV has just said is legal in the USA but not in Britain nor in many European countries - and the unguarded statement by claimer is not part of the original statement of claim. Whatever you think about entrapment as a means of getting a conviction, the bridge law book is clear enough in what it says. The Director 'hears' the original statement of claim and rules on that basis. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 28 00:29:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA21969 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 00:29:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (mail@omicron.comarch.pl [195.116.125.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA21963 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 00:29:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (pb234.krakow.ppp.tpnet.pl [212.160.3.234]) by omicron.comarch.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F6615C022 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 14:29:29 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38B9265E.E6F6C0A@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 14:27:58 +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: Concession Canceled Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A player concedes remaining tricks. Two relevant laws: 71A. Trick Cannot be Lost if a player has conceded a trick (...) his side could not have lost by any legal play of the remaining cards. So a player cannot concede a trick if his side can't lose it by any _legal_ play of the remaining cards. So in this position (West on lead) --- AQ10 --- KJ9 South can concede all remaining tricks; if West plays the ace he can legally drop the king the drop the jack under the queen. So far so good. 71C. Implausible Concession if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. Now, here we have _normal_ play of the remaining cards. So this means that in this position South cannot concede 3 tricks as dropping K and J under the A and Q is surely irrational and therefore, according to the footnote, is not normal. This isn't a purely academic problem; a couple of days ago a player who arrived in 7NTx conceded all 13 tricks at trick one in protest against his partner forcing him to play a stupid contract. Yes, it wasn't good sportsmanship. Yes, we all give him a PP. But what ruling do we make? Do we consider all possible legal plays declarer can make or just the rational ones? ************************************************************************************** - One school believes that high taxes are the most profitable for the poor as there is more money in the budget for social purposes. The other one claims that low taxes are better for the poor as the rich ones can keep more money for investments that give work to the unemployed ones etc. Which side does your party support? - Both of these schools are right but we reject both viewpoints. ( from a TV debate before the elections in a certain European country ) Konrad Ciborowski From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 28 02:10:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA22446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 02:10:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from ms1.freezone.co.uk (IDENT:root@www.swanston.co.uk [212.1.130.118] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA22441 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 02:10:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (ppp-1-47.cvx2.telinco.net [212.1.140.47]) by ms1.freezone.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA01563; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 15:08:35 GMT Message-ID: <00ca01bf8134$3cab3940$2f8c01d4@default> From: "magda thain" To: , , Subject: Re: Impossible to appeal Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 15:00:55 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wonder if there is any way in which it could happen under Law 6 D1 I had to deal with a player who accidentally spilt his hand face up on the table and I was not at all sure what I ought to do. mt To: schuster@eduhi.at ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 25 February 2000 02:39 Subject: Re: Impossible to appeal >In a message dated 2/24/00 2:52:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, >schuster@eduhi.at writes: > >> I am just wondering what to make of L6D3 in the context. >I don't see the rationale in applying a Law which says do this only if >compatible with the Laws when it isn't compatible. >I maintain that Law 10 A 1 makes it clear that when you have a result, and an >infraction that is covered by the Laws, you can't "cancel" it. Adjust, >penalize, accept, or whatever the Laws allow, but "cancel" is not an option. >Law 16 covers UI. As Petrus stated, "canceling" was part of an earlier >edition of the Laws, and was purposefully removed therefrom since it was >constantly used as a "cop-out" (American slang) by TDs too lazy, scared, >political, or uninformed to make rulings which might not be popular. "Cancel >the board -- then the problem goes away!" The Laws provide a complete remedy >for what happened in this case. Apply the obvious Law, don't stretch one that >might get you and the offenders "off-the-hook" (some more slang). >There is no way I can consider it fair, just, or any other approving >description to cancel an infraction in place of legal redress to the >non-offenders, and/or penalty to the offenders. Even when it's not the >popular thing to do. > >Cheers, Kojak > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 28 05:07:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA22894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 05:07:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA22889 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 05:07:19 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id l.b0.1e3ca8a (4209); Sun, 27 Feb 2000 13:05:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 13:05:27 EST Subject: Re: Impossible to appeal To: cookbury@purplenet.co.uk, schuster@eduhi.at, 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 67 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 2/27/00 10:10:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, cookbury@purplenet.co.uk writes: > I wonder if there is any way in which it could happen under Law 6 D1 I had > to > deal with a player who accidentally spilt his hand face up on the table and > I > was not at all sure what I ought to do. mt This is not relevant to the problem stated by the original thread posting. We are dealing with the cancellation of a result and an infraction covered by the Laws. A result has been obtained, and the TD doesn't know/care/want to/understand what to do about it. It was, prior to 1987, a frequent decision to simply "cancel" the board rather than get the full result (both tables) upon which a intelligent and legal decision could taken. Once the players accept this ruling, the problem can no longer be adjudicated UNDER THE LAWS. You are now in uncharted territory, and whatever you do mayw ork but cannot de defended or ascirbed to the application of a Law. Please remember the crux of the matter: we have a bridge result, we have an infraction, we have an applicable Law, and we chose to disregard the Law so that we can be "fair" and "just." Pardon me.?????? And now that I've repeated myself enough times, I quit. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 28 08:22:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA23287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 08:22:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com ([216.33.240.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA23282 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 08:22:15 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 33770 invoked by uid 65534); 27 Feb 2000 21:21:39 -0000 Message-ID: <20000227212139.33769.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.12.75] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <200002242106.QAA05110@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <002901bf7f77$c999d140$6f5408c3@dodona> <38B67C4A.BB36CD2@village.uunet.be> <20000225141142.55334.qmail@hotmail.com> <004b01bf8026$3bef14e0$5c5408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: YABC (Yet another bad claim) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 15:22:02 -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: Roger Pewick ; blml Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2000 12:52 AM Subject: Re: YABC (Yet another bad claim) > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Roger Pewick > To: blml > Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 2:11 PM > Subject: Re: YABC (Yet another bad claim) > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Herman De Wael > > To: Bridge Laws > > Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 6:57 AM > > Subject: Re: YABC (Yet another bad claim) > > > > > > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > > > What claimer said was 'crossruffing' with > > > > no mention of drawing trumps until the > > > > entrapment. The Director should apply > > > > Law 70 to what claimer said before East > > > > called a halt to the original statement with a > > > > question. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > But the answer of the question provides insight as to what is a normal > play > > for this player? > > > +=+ No. What East has done is to trap declarer > into an unthinking response. East is more quick > thinking (and devious) than declarer. > The Director has a simple duty under Law > 70 to rule on the basis of what declarer said in > the original clarification of claim and not to be > influenced by the trap that East has sprung on > declarer. ~ G ~ +=+ I am corrected. I was not alert that this was a conduct case. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 28 08:31:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA23323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 08:31:25 +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 IAA23318 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 08:31:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.112] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12PBHM-0004uf-00; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 21:31:04 +0000 Message-ID: <003801bf816a$36d1d160$705608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" Cc: References: <001701bf7e6c$67605f00$9750063e@davidburn> <002701bf80cd$b0eaeba0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: L12C2 vs L12C3 Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 21:27:59 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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, February 27, 2000 2:45 AM Subject: Re: L12C2 vs L12C3 ------------------ \x/ ---------------- > > The word "suggested" in L16A is not an apt one, since it has so many shades of > meaning depending on context. As I wrote once before, something suggested to > me by a woman's deportment might not be at all what she intended. > > Marv (Marvin L. French) > +=+ Yes, Marv, you have been keen to tell us that. But you are at risk if you act on what is suggested to you whichever. As a matter of fact, bridge law does not refer to the intention of the partner when it requires a judgement whether a player has followed a course suggested by information made available to him by his partner. The partner's intention is not relevant. Rather like your suggestive woman, the suggestion and the crime are both in the mind of the player. The questions for the Director are: does the player have information that is extraneous (not derived from the legal sources) and that has been made available to him from partner? Is the information demonstrably capable of suggesting the call or play that is questioned? Is there a logical alternative to that call or play? If there is such an alternative (or more than one) could the player's selected action be more suggested by the information than a logical alternative action? Have the player's opponents been damaged in consequence of the player's action? My dictionary says: 'Suggest' : introduce to the mind as an object of thought, an idea for action; : propose (a theory, course of action, ...); : inspire, prompt the execution of. The closest my mind approaches to an alternative wording is "may not choose from among logical alternative actions a call or play that is demonstrably more likely than another to be prompted by the extraneous information", and in 16A2 "that could have been prompted by such information". Would such words be any clearer, and would they have the right flavour? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ p.s. I quite like the thought of prompting an execution, but I don't think that is what the lexicographer had in mind. :-) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 28 09:24:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA23478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 09:24:32 +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 JAA23473 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 09:24:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from p7ds05a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.133.126] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt7-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12OlXe-0005Y4-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 26 Feb 2000 18:02:10 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Demonstrably suggesting? Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 22:33:07 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf8172$9ea91840$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 A men's pairs final. Dealer South-N/S Vun. AQJ7 982 8752 A9 985 106432 QJ103 A765 J 104 108542 J7 K K4 AKQ963 KQ63 N E S W 1D P 1S P 3C* P 3D(h) P 3NT(h) P 4C P 4D P 4S P 6D P P P 3C is totally game forcing. (h) agreed hesitations. Result 6D= TD ruled result stands. E/W appealed. AC asked about bidding style and asked what N was thinking. N answered, whether to agree the suit first, or bid 3H as 4th suit. S said he was thinking about bidding 3H or 3NT. N thought his slam try was well founded if his partner could bid 3NT. How would you have ruled as AC? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 28 10:24:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA23645 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 10:24:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com ([216.33.240.121]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA23639 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 10:24:11 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 80755 invoked by uid 65534); 27 Feb 2000 23:23:35 -0000 Message-ID: <20000227232335.80754.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.12.75] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <01bf8172$9ea91840$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: Demonstrably suggesting? Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 17:24:04 -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 6D looks like a perfectly normal contract. the bidding that got there does not. The pause before 3D suggests" I'm interested if your interested". and the pause before 3N suggests that "i'm interested and do not have a convenient bid so if you really are interested, go ahead". [maybe S believed that 3H without the ace would lead to complications]. But, 3N is the most discouraging of all rebids as far as slam is concerned from the point of view of North, without UI that is. So, North's assertion about 3N does not appear valid. Looks like an adjusted score to me, 3N making 6. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: Anne Jones To: BLML Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2000 4:33 PM Subject: Demonstrably suggesting? > A men's pairs final. > Dealer South-N/S Vun. > > AQJ7 > 982 > 8752 > A9 > 985 106432 > QJ103 A765 > J 104 > 108542 J7 > K > K4 > AKQ963 > KQ63 > > N E S W > 1D P > 1S P 3C* P > 3D(h) P 3NT(h) P > 4C P 4D P > 4S P 6D P > P P > > 3C is totally game forcing. > (h) agreed hesitations. > > Result 6D= > > TD ruled result stands. E/W appealed. > AC asked about bidding style and asked > what N was thinking. N answered, whether to > agree the suit first, or bid 3H as 4th suit. > S said he was thinking about bidding 3H or 3NT. > N thought his slam try was well founded if his > partner could bid 3NT. > How would you have ruled as AC? > Anne > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 28 12:13:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA23871 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 12:13:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.magi.com (mail.magi.com [38.8.47.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA23866 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 12:13:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from ip128.ottawa7.dialup.canada.psi.net ([154.5.69.128] helo=default) by mail.magi.com with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 12PEkV-00075O-00; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 20:13:24 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000227201606.00c37310@mail.magi.com> X-Sender: david@mail.magi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 20:16:06 -0500 To: "blml" From: David Kent Subject: Re: Demonstrably suggesting? In-Reply-To: <20000227232335.80754.qmail@hotmail.com> References: <01bf8172$9ea91840$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Surely you cannot really roll this back. You are penalizing North for making a slam try (IIUC), when there is a possible slam (about 10%) opposite as little as: xx Kx AQxxx Kxxx It is entirely possible that opener holds more. The quote was: "AC asked about bidding style and asked what N was thinking. N answered, whether to agree the suit first, or bid 3H as 4th suit." If you believe that North intended: "Before I passed my partner's next non-forcing bid, I had to decide whether to agree the suit first, or bid 3H as 4th suit." I believe it mare likely that North intended: "In order to make a slam try in diamonds, I had to decide whether to agree the suit first, or bid 3H as 4th suit before confirming a diamond slam try." As all his subsequent bids conform to the latter interpretation and nothing he said to the AC is to the contrary, I would allow the table result to stand. E/W must be real BLs to appeal the director's ruling (or there is something missing from the original text). To me, this is almost a frivolous appeal. Dave Kent At 17:24 27-02-00 -0600, Roger Pewick wrote: >6D looks like a perfectly normal contract. the bidding that got there does >not. The pause before 3D suggests" I'm interested if your interested". and >the pause before 3N suggests that "i'm interested and do not have a >convenient bid so if you really are interested, go ahead". [maybe S >believed that 3H without the ace would lead to complications]. But, 3N is >the most discouraging of all rebids as far as slam is concerned from the >point of view of North, without UI that is. So, North's assertion about 3N >does not appear valid. > >Looks like an adjusted score to me, 3N making 6. > >Roger Pewick >Houston, Texas > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Anne Jones >To: BLML >Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2000 4:33 PM >Subject: Demonstrably suggesting? > > >> A men's pairs final. >> Dealer South-N/S Vun. >> >> AQJ7 >> 982 >> 8752 >> A9 >> 985 106432 >> QJ103 A765 >> J 104 >> 108542 J7 >> K >> K4 >> AKQ963 >> KQ63 >> >> N E S W >> 1D P >> 1S P 3C* P >> 3D(h) P 3NT(h) P >> 4C P 4D P >> 4S P 6D P >> P P >> >> 3C is totally game forcing. >> (h) agreed hesitations. >> >> Result 6D= >> >> TD ruled result stands. E/W appealed. >> AC asked about bidding style and asked >> what N was thinking. N answered, whether to >> agree the suit first, or bid 3H as 4th suit. >> S said he was thinking about bidding 3H or 3NT. >> N thought his slam try was well founded if his >> partner could bid 3NT. >> How would you have ruled as AC? >> Anne >> >> > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 28 16:35:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA24443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 16:35:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA24437 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 16:35:27 +1100 (EST) From: AlanLeBendig@aol.com Received: from AlanLeBendig@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id p.a0.1a70e54 (6932) for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 00:34:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 00:34:42 EST Subject: Re: Demonstrably suggesting? 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 67 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 2/27/00 2:26:30 PM Pacific Standard Time, eajewm@globalnet.co.uk writes: > TD ruled result stands. E/W appealed. > AC asked about bidding style and asked > what N was thinking. N answered, whether to > agree the suit first, or bid 3H as 4th suit. > S said he was thinking about bidding 3H or 3NT. It is not relevant what N and S were actually thinking about. > N thought his slam try was well founded if his > partner could bid 3NT. > How would you have ruled as AC? Result stands. N's thought prior to 3NT could be the result of a variety of problems. Therefore the criteria of "demonstrably suggested" is not met, IMO. And after the JS, N has a crystal clear slam try. Had S bid 3NT and folded up his hand and put it on the table, I would be prepared to penalize N for NOT making one more bid. I agree with a previous posting that this borders on an appeal lacking merit... Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 28 18:06:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA24872 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 18:06:51 +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 SAA24867 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 18:06:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.163] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12PKGC-000Hx2-00; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 07:06:29 +0000 Message-ID: <001001bf81ba$99650d60$a35908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Roger Pewick" , "blml" References: <200002242106.QAA05110@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <002901bf7f77$c999d140$6f5408c3@dodona> <38B67C4A.BB36CD2@village.uunet.be> <20000225141142.55334.qmail@hotmail.com> <004b01bf8026$3bef14e0$5c5408c3@dodona> <20000227212139.33769.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: YABC (Yet another bad claim) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 07:07:28 -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 > > > > > > > > What claimer said was 'crossruffing' with > > > > > no mention of drawing trumps until the > > > > > entrapment. The Director should apply > > > > > Law 70 to what claimer said before East > > > > > called a halt to the original statement with a > > > > > question. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > But the answer of the question provides insight as to what is a normal > > play > > > for this player? > > > > > +=+ No. What East has done is to trap declarer > > into an unthinking response. East is more quick > > thinking (and devious) than declarer. > > The Director has a simple duty under Law > > 70 to rule on the basis of what declarer said in > > the original clarification of claim and not to be > > influenced by the trap that East has sprung on > > declarer. ~ G ~ +=+ > > I am corrected. I was not alert that this was a conduct case. > > Roger Pewick > Houston, Texas > +=+ But difficult to prove as such. However, as others have observed, innocent or guilty the effect is the same. The Director has only to stick closely to the Law to ensure that nothing is lost beyond what is due to be lost. Incidentally if claimer says 'cross ruffing' and no more than that this does not suggest drawing any trumps at all to me. And not 'corrected', merely shown the event through other eyes. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 28 18:41:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA25015 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 18:41:24 +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 SAA25010 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 18:41:17 +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, 27 Feb 2000 23:41:11 -0800 Message-ID: <013b01bf81bf$259dd2e0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <01bf8172$9ea91840$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: Demonstrably suggesting? Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 23:40:34 -0800 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 From: "Anne Jones" > A men's pairs final. > Dealer South-N/S Vun. > > AQJ7 > 982 > 8752 > A9 > 985 106432 > QJ103 A765 > J 104 > 108542 J7 > K > K4 > AKQ963 > KQ63 > > N E S W > 1D P > 1S P 3C* P > 3D(h) P 3NT(h) P > 4C P 4D P > 4S P 6D P > P P > > 3C is totally game forcing. > (h) agreed hesitations. > > Result 6D= > > TD ruled result stands. E/W appealed. > AC asked about bidding style and asked > what N was thinking. N answered, whether to > agree the suit first, or bid 3H as 4th suit. > S said he was thinking about bidding 3H or 3NT. > N thought his slam try was well founded if his > partner could bid 3NT. > How would you have ruled as AC? Result stands. I can't think of an alternative auction, no matter what information the hesitations convey. What else could South bid over 3D but 3N? How could North rest in 3NT after partner makes a game-forcing jump shift? It is sad that these players were asked to reveal their thought processes during their thinking time. Thinking is not an infraction, unless its purpose is to mislead the opponents. Any necessary questioning should be directed at actions taken opposite a break in tempo, not at the break itself. In this case there is nothing to question, and the appeal has no merit. Marv (Marvin L. French) Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 28 19:11:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA25130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:11:32 +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 TAA25123 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:11:23 +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 ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 00:11:17 -0800 Message-ID: <014701bf81c3$5a476f20$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <001701bf7e6c$67605f00$9750063e@davidburn> <002701bf80cd$b0eaeba0$16991e18@san.rr.com> <003801bf816a$36d1d160$705608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: L12C2 vs L12C3 Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 00:05:55 -0800 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 Grattan Endicott wrote: > From: Marvin L. French > > > ------------------ \x/ ---------------- > > > > The word "suggested" in L16A is not an apt one, since it has so many > shades of > > meaning depending on context. As I wrote once before, something suggested > to > > me by a woman's deportment might not be at all what she intended. > > > > > +=+ Yes, Marv, you have been keen to tell us > that. But you are at risk if you act on what is > suggested to you whichever. I thought that's what I was saying. Some people feel that an action must be explicitly suggested by the UI for it to be illegal. If I take action because of UI and it does damage to the opponents, it doesn't matter if I perceived a message that was not being sent. > As a matter of fact, bridge law does not > refer to the intention of the partner when it > requires a judgement whether a player has > followed a course suggested by information > made available to him by his partner. > The partner's intention is not relevant. Rather > like your suggestive woman, the suggestion > and the crime are both in the mind of the > player. The questions for the Director are: > does the player have information that is > extraneous (not derived from the legal > sources) and that has been made available > to him from partner? Is the information > demonstrably capable of suggesting the > call or play that is questioned? Is there a > logical alternative to that call or play? If > there is such an alternative (or more than > one) could the player's selected action > be more suggested by the information than > a logical alternative action? Have the > player's opponents been damaged in > consequence of the player's action? > > My dictionary says: > 'Suggest' : introduce to the mind as > an object of thought, an > idea for action; > : propose (a theory, course > of action, ...); > : inspire, prompt the > execution of. > The closest my mind approaches to an > alternative wording is "may not choose > from among logical alternative actions a > call or play that is demonstrably more > likely than another to be prompted by > the extraneous information", and in > 16A2 "that could have been prompted > by such information". Would such words > be any clearer, and would they have > the right flavour? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I once offered "prompted" in place of "suggested," but have come to prefer "occasioned," which is even less likely to give the impression of pointing at a specific action. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 28 22:28:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA25973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:28:38 +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 WAA25967 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:28:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from p5fs05a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.101.96] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt11-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12P23X-0000qz-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 11:40:11 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Demonstrably suggesting? Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:37:28 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf81e0$312aa900$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Marvin L. French To: BLML Date: Monday, February 28, 2000 7:54 AM Subject: Re: Demonstrably suggesting? > >From: "Anne Jones" > >> A men's pairs final. >> Dealer South-N/S Vun. >> >> AQJ7 >> 982 >> 8752 >> A9 >> 985 106432 >> QJ103 A765 >> J 104 >> 108542 J7 >> K >> K4 >> AKQ963 >> KQ63 >> >> N E S W >> 1D P >> 1S P 3C* P >> 3D(h) P 3NT(h) P >> 4C P 4D P >> 4S P 6D P >> P P >> >> 3C is totally game forcing. >> (h) agreed hesitations. >> >> Result 6D= >> >> TD ruled result stands. E/W appealed. >> AC asked about bidding style and asked >> what N was thinking. N answered, whether to >> agree the suit first, or bid 3H as 4th suit. >> S said he was thinking about bidding 3H or 3NT. >> N thought his slam try was well founded if his >> partner could bid 3NT. >> How would you have ruled as AC? > >Result stands. I can't think of an alternative auction, no matter what >information the hesitations convey. What else could South bid over 3D but 3N? >How could North rest in 3NT after partner makes a game-forcing jump shift? > >It is sad that these players were asked to reveal their thought processes during >their thinking time. Thinking is not an infraction, unless its purpose is to >mislead the opponents. Any necessary questioning should be directed at actions >taken opposite a break in tempo, not at the break itself. > > Yes, I agree. But how better to decide whether South's 3NT bid is based on the hesitation before 3D? And how better to decide whether North was mindful of the hesitant 3NT when he bid 4C. The hesitation is not an infraction, but the thought processes of the players after the hesitations may indicate otherwise. > >In this case there is nothing to question, and the appeal has no merit. > The AC did in fact rule "TD ruling upheld. Result stands. Deposit returned (but only just)" I was in a minority on the AC of three. The other two better players than I, so I was prepared to cede. I felt that Game forcing jump shift, or not, South has opened at the one level, and this action has given him difficulties. I thought that Pass was a logical alternative for North, but I was not happy that any action had been "demonstrably suggested" Just shows that the WBF guideline of having good players, rather than TDs on the AC is valid. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 29 01:53:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA27023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 01:53:43 +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 BAA27015 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 01:53:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12PRXf-000H1U-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 14:53:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 13:28:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: .. References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id BAA27018 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David J. Grabiner wrote: >Here's Laval DuBreuil's document copied as plain text. > >Instruction to members of an Appeal Comittee >Case 1 : Unauthorised information > >1. Law summary > >Law 73 specifies that communication between partners during the auction and >play shall be affected only by means of the calls and play themselves. All >other forms of communication as remark, question, gesture haste or >hesitation is illegal and parner of offender must carefully avoid taking >advantage that might accrue to his side. > >Law 16 add that the partner of offender may not choose from among logical >alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over >another by extraneous information. This Law also applies to offending side >for information arising from withdrawn calls and plays. > >When the director judges that a player used such extraneous information and >this action damaged non-offending side, he may award and adjusted score as >specified by Law 12 : > >- to the non-offenders : the most favorable result that was likely had the >irregularity not occurred; >- to offenders : the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. > >The scores awarded to two sides need not to balance. > >2. Procedure to help Appeal Comittee making decision > >2.1. TD exposes facts and explain his decision in presence of a member of >each side; > >2.2. Each side may then correct facts and give his opinion; > >2.3. Members of the Comittee then ask TD and players to leave and must >agree on facts; > >2.4. Members of the Comittee have now to answer to these questions : >1) was there some unauthorised information exchanged between players ? > >2) yes, did offender's partner had logical alternatives after the infraction ? > >3) if yes, did the alternative choosen may have been demonstrably suggested >by the unauthorised information ? > >4) if yes, did this infraction damaged the non-offending side ? > >2.5. If the answer to any of the above questions is « No », let score stand. >If all answers are « Yes », adjust score according to Law 12 (as specified >above). > >2.6. A members of the Comittee informs TD of the final decision. Members >may choose not to explain their decision. This is pretty good, but is it not too complicated for Appeals Committees in clubs? I would have thought we could simplify the Law Summary anyway. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I have just returned after seven weeks in Australia so if you expected a reply sooner I am sorry! It will take a couple of weeks to sort myself out completely anyway. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 29 01:53:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA27033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 01:53:56 +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 BAA27027 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 01:53:48 +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 12PRXe-000H1M-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 14:53:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 13:26:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: ... References: <20000210205651.71341.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000210205651.71341.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Angela B wrote: Hi Angela! -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I have just returned after seven weeks in Australia so if you expected a reply sooner I am sorry! It will take a couple of weeks to sort myself out completely anyway. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 29 01:54:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA27039 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 01:54:03 +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 BAA27024 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 01:53:43 +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 12PRXl-000H1T-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 14:53:09 +0000 Message-ID: <826v6rBoinu4Ewd4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 13:31:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Ruling in favor of the OS References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Wildavsky wrote: >>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? What is extraordinary about an authority telling its Directors to rule according to the Laws? The policy has been explained to Directors in Europe in a number of ways. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I have just returned after seven weeks in Australia so if you expected a reply sooner I am sorry! It will take a couple of weeks to sort myself out completely anyway. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 29 01:54:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA27047 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 01:54:41 +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 BAA27025 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 01:53:45 +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 12PRXd-000H1T-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 14:53:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 13:25:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: .. References: <3.0.6.32.20000208032304.007c6c60@popmail.tcp.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000208032304.007c6c60@popmail.tcp.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk M Smith wrote: >Grattan wrote: > >>>> I also agree with Jeff Meckstroth's thoughts on eliminating with >>>>reservation. I would first want the mindset of the TDs to be clearly >>>>demonstrated over a period of time that they are "ruling," not just >>>>taking an intermediate step toward an AC meeting where we >>>>start from scratch all over again > >Absolutely. It is a shame that we see so much of this kind of ruling from >Directors now. If they were seen to be "ruling" I am sure that players >would quickly get used to the idea and to accept what they have to say. In >the current climate, it seems that the Director's ruling is just seen as a >nuisance that decides which side has to appeal. Where? If this is your view of the EBU then I am surprised. I don't think it is a general view. The number of appeals at major EBU tournaments is dropping. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I have just returned after seven weeks in Australia so if you expected a reply sooner I am sorry! It will take a couple of weeks to sort myself out completely anyway. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 29 02:00:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA27278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 02:00:56 +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 CAA27272 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 02:00:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from isdn.net.il ([212.25.117.164]) by mail.bezeqint.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.07.30.00.05.p8) with ESMTP id <0FQN004C9B06B0@mail.bezeqint.net> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:00:08 +0200 (IST) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:00:45 +0200 From: Zvi Shilon Subject: New Thread: Law 12b To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Message-id: <38BA8D9D.2349665D@isdn.net.il> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------93B73EFC0F50296A74676733" X-Accept-Language: en-US,en,Hebrew Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------93B73EFC0F50296A74676733 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 12b: No Adjustment for Undue Severity of Penalty The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the penalty provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side. Isn't this in conflict with the case of a revoke causing one side to win more than two extra tricks ( EG: stops entry less dummy from running a long suit )? Any comments? zvika Modiin, Israel --------------93B73EFC0F50296A74676733 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 --------------93B73EFC0F50296A74676733-- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 29 02:09:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA27090 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 01:55:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA27083 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 01:55:43 +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 JAA12575; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 09:55:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA057719731; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 09:55:31 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 09:55:21 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Demonstrably suggesting? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, mlfrench@writeme.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Result stands. I can't think of an alternative auction, no matter what information the hesitations convey. What else could South bid over 3D but 3N? How could North rest in 3NT after partner makes a game-forcing jump shift? It is sad that these players were asked to reveal their thought processes during their thinking time. Thinking is not an infraction, unless its purpose is to mislead the opponents. Any necessary questioning should be directed at actions taken opposite a break in tempo, not at the break itself. In this case there is nothing to question, and the appeal has no merit. Marv (Marvin L. French) [Laval Dubreuil] Fully agree. We need a law to protect NOS against breaks in tempo clearly (demontrably) suggesting something else that information coming from calls. But this game will become unplayable if we have an appeal every time a player needs some seconds to think in an uncontested auction like the one summitted here. At the club, sectional and regional level something like this happens many times every session. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 29 03:03:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA27741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 03:03:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com (imo-d02.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA27736 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 03:03:21 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id y.10.1067e7a (4211); Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:02:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <10.1067e7a.25ebf612@aol.com> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:02:26 EST Subject: Re: New Thread: Law 12b To: zvika3@isdn.net.il, 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 67 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 2/28/00 10:02:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, zvika3@isdn.net.il writes: > Any comments? > Yes. Read the Law. The awarding of more than two tricks under certain circumstances is provided for BY LAW. If you can explain how you think it is in conflict with 12B, you are not understanding the Law. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 29 03:06:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA27771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 03:06:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA27765 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 03:06:32 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id f.d9.1b4801c (4211); Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:05:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:05:03 EST Subject: Re: Demonstrably suggesting? To: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, mlfrench@writeme.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 67 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 2/28/00 10:11:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA writes: > But this game will become unplayable if we have an appeal every time > a player needs some seconds to think in an uncontested auction like > the one summitted here. At the club, sectional and regional level > something > like this happens many times every session. > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City > Amen. And we should also stop making "mountains out of molehills" (old US Southern Expression stolen from somewhere. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 29 03:31:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA27865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 03:31:03 +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 DAA27860 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 03:30:54 +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 KAA02916 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 10:34:36 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000228102927.007a7b40@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 10:29:27 -0600 To: From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: YABC (Yet another bad claim) In-Reply-To: <002601bf80f9$753b5d20$f65608c3@dodona> References: <200002242106.QAA05110@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <002901bf7f77$c999d140$6f5408c3@dodona> <38B67C4A.BB36CD2@village.uunet.be> <20000225141142.55334.qmail@hotmail.com> <004b01bf8026$3bef14e0$5c5408c3@dodona> <710gbs8d5j3umh0g8gro1qnum34ffaks9d@dybdal.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:42 AM 2/27/2000 -0000, Grattan Endicott wrote: > Whether East was innocent or malicious he >has led to a situation in which claimer has added >something to the original statement of claim and >may well have done so without giving it thought. >That is, actually or in effect, entrapment - a >procedure which someone on TV has just said >is legal in the USA but not in Britain nor in >many European countries - and the unguarded I'm not a lawyer, so I am willing to stand corrected, but I am pretty sure it is not allowed in the US, either. >statement by claimer is not part of the original >statement of claim. Whatever you think about >entrapment as a means of getting a conviction, >the bridge law book is clear enough in what it >says. The Director 'hears' the original statement >of claim and rules on that basis. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I agree. Respectfully, Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 29 04:35:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA28071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 04:35:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from cobalt3-he.global.net.uk (cobalt3-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.163]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA28066 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 04:35:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from p7as13a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.125.123] helo=pacific) by cobalt3-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12PU3l-0003pe-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 09:34:17 -0800 Message-ID: <006101bf8211$b1b5cd80$7b7d93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Ruling in favor of the OS Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:15:37 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 06:08:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-220.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.220]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA17305; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 14:08:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <007901bf821f$8443dbe0$dc84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , "Grant Sterling" Subject: Re: YABC (Yet another bad claim) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 14:10:40 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Entrapment is quite illegal in the U.S., and has provided the argument for many a successful criminal defence. I am also no lawyer, but it would appear to be prohibited under the fifth amendment (to the constitution) barring self-incrimination as well as under the fourth (relating to unlawful search and seizure and by extension improper means of gathering evidence). While this might matter in a C&E case if the attempt to entrap declarer was sufficiently blatant, as Grattan has correctly noted it has no bearing on the claim ruling if we simply follow the law. We really must arrange for "Law and Order" to be syndicated to British television. You chaps must still be getting your impression of American jurisprudence from old Edward G. Robinson and John Wayne cimema. Here in the colonies the rights of criminal defendants are, if anything, rapidly outstripping those of the victims, regardless of the current New York City case with its racial overtones. -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: Grant Sterling To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, February 28, 2000 11:48 AM Subject: Re: YABC (Yet another bad claim) >At 06:42 AM 2/27/2000 -0000, Grattan Endicott wrote: >> Whether East was innocent or malicious he >>has led to a situation in which claimer has added >>something to the original statement of claim and >>may well have done so without giving it thought. >>That is, actually or in effect, entrapment - a >>procedure which someone on TV has just said >>is legal in the USA but not in Britain nor in >>many European countries - and the unguarded > > I'm not a lawyer, so I am willing to stand corrected, but I am >pretty sure it is not allowed in the US, either. > >>statement by claimer is not part of the original >>statement of claim. Whatever you think about >>entrapment as a means of getting a conviction, >>the bridge law book is clear enough in what it >>says. The Director 'hears' the original statement >>of claim and rules on that basis. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > I agree. > > Respectfully, > Grant Sterling > cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 29 08:22:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA28918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 08:22:24 +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 IAA28907 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 08:22:11 +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 12PXcA-000A0g-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 21:22:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 18:00:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Non-insufficient bid References: <003801bf61cc$84c83840$f284d9ce@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: <003801bf61cc$84c83840$f284d9ce@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U 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. I have read this a couple of times, and I cannot make up my mind: Craig, have NS seen the inside of TFLB? >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? I am happy [as others have suggested] with waiving penalties here. But suppose we don't, for a moment. A bid out of turn is a bid out of turn. I am not happy with efforts here to ascribe some sort of happening when it hasn't happened. West attempted to change her call. OK, she couldn't, but that is what she was doing, not bidding out of turn. As I seem to be saying more and more these days, the Law for UI for players is L73C. This is a L73C case, technically. The 2S bid conveyed UI. Oh yes it did, Adam, she would be even more worried if her hand had insufficient points for a 2S response. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I have just returned after seven weeks in Australia so if you expected a reply sooner I am sorry! It will take a couple of weeks to sort myself out completely anyway. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 29 08:22:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA28913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 08:22:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA28906 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 08:22:11 +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 12PXc8-000A0f-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 21:22:02 +0000 Message-ID: <7aAuRpCCVru4Ew+M@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:49:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Convention Chart Changes References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: <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. That's what I have been doing wrong - being English! >> 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. Humph! -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I have just returned after seven weeks in Australia so if you expected a reply sooner I am sorry! It will take a couple of weeks to sort myself out completely anyway. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 29 08:48:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA29055 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 08:48:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com ([216.33.240.123]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA29046 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 08:48:04 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 39919 invoked by uid 65534); 28 Feb 2000 21:47:28 -0000 Message-ID: <20000228214728.39918.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.12.226] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: Subject: Re: Demonstrably suggesting? Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 15:47:58 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; ; Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 10:05 AM Subject: Re: Demonstrably suggesting? > In a message dated 2/28/00 10:11:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, > Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA writes: > > > But this game will become unplayable if we have an appeal every time > > a player needs some seconds to think in an uncontested auction like > > the one summitted here. At the club, sectional and regional level > > something > > like this happens many times every session. > > > > Laval Du Breuil > > Quebec City > > > Amen. > And we should also stop making "mountains out of molehills" (old US Southern > Expression stolen from somewhere. Kojak Amen, too. But to accomplish something usually entails some modicum of activity. It seems to me that a vast majority of such concerns would disappear if numerous things were to happen For instance, get rid of UI. Some things that all players can do include: Select methods that can be mastered. Then master them so that they know what message an action conveys and what it does not convey without having to contemplate. Thereafter, use the information in their contemplation. Learn how long it takes to contemplate for most cases. Then make that the consistent tempo. If it is 1 second then bid in one second. If it is 15 seconds then always take 15 seconds and be ready to be assessed slow play penalties. Then when you will rarely break tempo. Besides, most players will be quite accommodative when opponents do their best to be outwardly fair. At the beginning of the hand, wait for everyone to be ready before starting the auction. Players who are ready are less likely to create UI and everyone benefits. After skip bids, always pause even if it is felt that the situation is not tempo sensitive. The yardstick is about 10 seconds, it is a reasonable length of time to mask UI. That 10 seconds belongs to everybody and to deprive an opponent of its use is unfair. The same thing about pausing to the first trick. However, the law provides criteria to players that encourages that the opponents' actions be scrutinized and it might be looked at here to be the cause of consternation. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 29 09:24:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA29191 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 09:24:56 +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 JAA29184 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 09:24:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-2-212.access.net.il [213.8.2.212] (may be forged)) by marge.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA11972; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 00:22:25 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <38BAF554.8CF695C2@zahav.net.il> Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 00:23:16 +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: Zvi Shilon CC: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: New Thread: Law 12b References: <38BA8D9D.2349665D@isdn.net.il> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Zvi ..read please law 64C. It is not punishment, just restoring equity..... I am very sorry that only Ilan and Eitan knows here (Israel) the Laws....... Cheers Dany Zvi Shilon wrote: > > 12b: No Adjustment for Undue Severity of Penalty > The Director may not award an adjusted score on > the ground that the penalty provided in these > Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous > to either side. > > Isn't this in conflict with the case of a revoke causing one side to > win more than two extra tricks ( EG: stops entry less dummy from running > a long suit )? > > Any comments? > > zvika > Modiin, Israel From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 29 10:16:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA29359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:16:22 +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 KAA29354 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:16:15 +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 PAA31113; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 15:16:13 -0800 Message-Id: <200002282316.PAA31113@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 "Mon, 28 Feb 2000 18:00:36 PST." Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 15:16:14 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Welcome back, David! David Stevenson wrote: > As I seem to be saying more and more these days, the Law for UI for > players is L73C. This is a L73C case, technically. The 2S bid conveyed > UI. Oh yes it did, Adam, she would be even more worried if her hand had > insufficient points for a 2S response. Well . . . if you say so; but it's hard for me to see it this way. In my experience, if a player makes an insufficient bid, especially at a low level, 99% of the time they will simply correct it to the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination; if the sufficient bid shows a stronger hand than they thought they were showing, the player will still make the bid sufficient without giving it any thought. This action makes sense, since it's the only way not to bar partner. You seem to be saying that since this lady didn't show any consternation about changing her bid to 2S (showing about 10+ points over what she must have thought was a 2-level overcall), this gives the UI that she has a stronger hand than the simple 1S response would have shown. Since my experience is that nobody seems to show any consternation anyway, when making their bid sufficient, I have trouble buying this argument. Then again, I'm not a director, and you've probably dealt with a lot more insufficient bid cases than I have. In any case, I'm sure this varies from player to player. But I wouldn't want a TD to rule that I've given my partner UI by making an insufficient bid sufficient without showing any emotion about it. (Of course, I avoid this problem by not making insufficient bids.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 29 10:54:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA29554 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:54:14 +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 KAA29544 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:54:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12PZyh-000P7D-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 23:53:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:47:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: wrong board References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David J. Grabiner wrote: >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 do think that L15 is somewhat confusing. However, the effect is clear: if you are a Director and are called to the table when a pair is playing the wrong board, then L15C applies if the auction period is still in action, ie the opening lead has not been faced. Once the opening lead is faced, the Director should let the hand be played out - so long as none of the players have played the hand previously - and apply L15A. While this is a logical consequence of the way this Law is written it would be easier if it said so explicitly. So, in the current case, play is stopped, and when the board is played again, the score counts if the auction is the same. In thew quoted case it was not the same so the Director is required to cancel the board and give artificial scores. Note that this is a pure book ruling. There is no judgement to be applied, and no reason not to follow the Law. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 29 10:54:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA29553 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:54:14 +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 KAA29542 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:54:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12PZya-000P7G-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 23:53:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:30:56 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Wrong hand References: <387F60E7.A02ABC62@pinehurst.net> <20000114190459.5176.qmail@hotmail.com> <387FD470.6F93@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <387FD470.6F93@wanadoo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk LORMANT Philippe wrote: > 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? No, not really. When would L17D ever apply then? You have a Law that deals with a player calling with the wrong hand: you have a situation where a player has called with the wrong hand: I think you have to use that Law. ------------- Nancy T Dressing wrote: >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. It is still L17D. It says "If a player who has inadvertently picked up the cards from a wrong board makes a call, that call is cancelled." Now that statement is one that gives the Director no choice: that call **is** cancelled. It doesn't matter that there have been subsequent calls. You find L17D unhelpful when the auction has finished? Sure, so do I: but we have to use it. ------------- Roger Pewick wrote: >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. I take issue with this as mentioned above. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 29 10:53:45 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA29538 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:53:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA29529 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:53:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12PZya-000P7F-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 23:53:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:14:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Wrong hand References: <387F60E7.A02ABC62@pinehurst.net> <20000114190459.5176.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000114190459.5176.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U 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'. Right. So L17D applies. >L17D definitely gives the TD the power to cancel the board. That seems a fair interpretation of the word "may" in "... the Director may allow ..." > It also gives >the NOS the power to cancel whether the TD wants to or not. I do not see that in L17D. What am I missing? > 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 declarers 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. This is a very poor approach. Either the Director should permit play to continue or not. Nothing suggests the choice should be anything but his. > It is another >matter if L16 is breached but in that case the score is adjusted. Of course. >Personally, I am inclined to cancel the board as unplayable because offender >can not duplicate his retracted play. Several earlier discussions here and in EBU Panel weekends have convinced me that these hands usually become unplayable after a few rounds of bidding, because it becomes impractical to apply the requirements of L17D to the bidding. I apply L12A2. > The OS has earned a fair PP. Certainly not! I award A+/A-, of course, but as is the normal situation, a PP is not suitable unless the player has previously been warned or makes a habit of this infraction. >From: Nancy T Dressing >> 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. Ave-, not a procedural penalty. But Nancy, please look in the book first, decide second, OK? > 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?) Certainly not OK. You should not offer a choice. Even if you get the ruling wrong you should just tell them what it is. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 29 10:54:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA29561 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:54:26 +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 KAA29543 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:54:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12PZyh-000P7C-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 23:53:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:34:29 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Wrong hand References: <387F60E7.A02ABC62@pinehurst.net> <20000114190459.5176.qmail@hotmail.com> <001301bf5f11$e03adce0$639f140c@momsputer> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: >Law 17, IMO, does not apply (because the auction is over) but 17D _may_ >give us a clue what to do. That is not what the Law says. -------- Laval wrote: > 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. Yes, that is what I think. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 29 10:59:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA29608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:59:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from rsc.anu.edu.au (rsc [150.203.35.129]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA29603 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:59:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from pauli.anu.edu.au (pauli.anu.edu.au [150.203.35.191]) by rsc.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA29580 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:58:33 +1100 (EST) Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:59:05 +1100 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@pauli.anu.edu.au To: blml Subject: Re: Demonstrably suggesting? In-Reply-To: <20000228214728.39918.qmail@hotmail.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Roger Pewick wrote: > For instance, get rid of UI. > > Some things that all players can do include: > > Select methods that can be mastered. Then master them so that they know > what message an action conveys and what it does not convey without having to > contemplate. Thereafter, use the information in their contemplation. How many bridge players are capable of "mastering" a method such that there will never be any need to contemplate an action? As an exercise, work out the number of possible uncontested auctions beginning from 1NT (since most pairs have a significant amount of agreements after their 1NT opening) and ending in game or partscore. 1) Can you say what they all mean? 2) Can you remember them all within your normal tempo? If you can answer yes to the two above questions, then move on to all the other opening bids and then let the opponents compete with methods of their choice. > Learn how long it takes to contemplate for most cases. Then make that the > consistent tempo. If it is 1 second then bid in one second. If it is 15 > seconds then always take 15 seconds and be ready to be assessed slow play > penalties. Then when you will rarely break tempo. Besides, most players > will be quite accommodative when opponents do their best to be outwardly > fair. There is still an education problem. Most players will think the 15-second-rule player is playing slowly to annoy their opponents. In any case, I don't think this is a reasonable approach - some decisions in bridge are inherently more time-consuming than others. > At the beginning of the hand, wait for everyone to be ready before starting > the auction. Players who are ready are less likely to create UI and > everyone benefits. How do we know when a player is ready? And how often is UI created on the first round of bidding? > After skip bids, always pause even if it is felt that the situation is not > tempo sensitive. The yardstick is about 10 seconds, it is a reasonable > length of time to mask UI. That 10 seconds belongs to everybody and to > deprive an opponent of its use is unfair. In the absence of a Stop card (or in the presence of an opponent who withdraws it too soon) this seems quite a reasonable approach. Nonetheless I've had a TD assure me it's illegal... when pressed they didn't have a good reason why. :) > The same thing about pausing to the first trick. Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 29 11:34:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA29736 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 11:34:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo-d01.mx.aol.com (imo-d01.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA29731 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 11:34:38 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id n.a1.252b00e (4561); Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:32:34 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:32:34 EST Subject: Re: New Thread: Law 12b To: dhh@zahav.net.il, zvika3@isdn.net.il CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 67 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 2/28/00 5:26:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, dhh@zahav.net.il writes: > vi ..read please law 64C. > It is not punishment, just restoring equity..... > > I am very sorry that only Ilan and Eitan knows here (Israel) the > Laws....... > > Cheers > Dany I am proud that you, suppossdly not knowing the Laws are willing to ask a question. I wonder how many unanswered questions there are for those who supposedly KNOW the Laws. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 29 11:36:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA29752 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 11:36:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo-d01.mx.aol.com (imo-d01.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA29747 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 11:36:09 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id q.fb.2b54e90 (4561); Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:35:09 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:35:08 EST Subject: Re: Wrong hand To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 67 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 2/28/00 6:56:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: > >L17D definitely gives the TD the power to cancel the board. > whoa baby!!!!! That does not givw you the authority ro "cacel" a board. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 29 12:38:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA29960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:38:22 +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 MAA29955 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:38:15 +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 RAA00944; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:38:13 -0800 Message-Id: <200002290138.RAA00944@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Wrong hand In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:35:08 PST." Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:38:15 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kojak wrote: > In a message dated 2/28/00 6:56:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, > bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: [actually, Roger wrote the sentence quoted below] > > >L17D definitely gives the TD the power to cancel the board. > > > whoa baby!!!!! That does not givw you the authority ro "cacel" a board. We'd better get our terminology straight. Some people seem to be using "cancel" as a synonym for awarding an artificial adjusted score. Roger seemed to use it that way, and David seemed to give assent. I've used "throw out" as a synonym for the same thing. But there was another thread in which the TD (incorrectly) got around a MI problem by "canceling" the board and requiring the players to play a substitute board instead. So we'd all better make sure we are using our words the same way before we start arguing. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 29 12:39:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA29977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:39:59 +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 MAA29972 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:39:51 +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 12PbdR-000H1L-0U for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 01:39:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 01:38:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Wrong hand In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >Ed Reppert wrote: > >>Law 17, IMO, does not apply (because the auction is over) but 17D _may_ >>give us a clue what to do. > > That is not what the Law says. > > -------- > >Laval wrote: > >> 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. > > Yes, that is what I think. > I also cancel the 2nd board and award a second A+/A-. The problem is that we have seen one of the cards belonging to the offender. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 29 12:41:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA29993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:41:53 +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 MAA29988 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:41:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from isdn.net.il ([212.25.117.42]) by mail.bezeqint.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.07.30.00.05.p8) with ESMTP id <0FQO0025W4OK13@mail.bezeqint.net> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 03:41:09 +0200 (IST) Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 03:41:47 +0200 From: Zvi Shilon Subject: Re: New Thread: Law 12b To: Schoderb@aol.com Cc: dhh@zahav.net.il, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, Tim Goodwin Message-id: <38BB23DB.2C80394C@isdn.net.il> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en-US,en,Hebrew References: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am starting to regret starting this thread. I am ( and was ) aware of law 64c. That was really my point. Law 64c says a director must restore equity ( which I always knew ), but I read 12b as the director can't restore equity. Obviously, I am missing something in 12b - no adjusted score if the penalty is advantageous to either side (paraphrasing the part of 12b that I thought was in conflict with 64c). I am simply not very clear about the purpose of 12b. I also apologize for sometimes forgetting to cancel my signature. I will try to remember. zvika Modiin, Israel Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 2/28/00 5:26:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, dhh@zahav.net.il > writes: > > > vi ..read please law 64C. > > It is not punishment, just restoring equity..... > > > > I am very sorry that only Ilan and Eitan knows here (Israel) the > > Laws....... > > > > Cheers > > Dany > I am proud that you, suppossdly not knowing the Laws are willing to ask a > question. I wonder how many unanswered questions there are for those who > supposedly KNOW the Laws. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 29 13:28:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA00269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 13:28:58 +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 NAA00264 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 13:28:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from pavilion (arc-2-port-58.pinehurst.net [12.20.159.186]) by mail.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA71903 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 21:28:25 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from nancy@pinehurst.net) Message-ID: <00f201bf825c$777631a0$ba9f140c@pavilion> From: "nancy" To: References: Subject: Re: Wrong hand Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 21:27:02 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk When this problem occurred and I could not find a law that clearly covered this problem, I attempted to get a result on the board and the obtained result seemed much fairer than the adjusted score. As it turned out, the adjusted score would have been to the advantage to the OS but I guess that cannot be considered. Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 7:35 PM Subject: Re: Wrong hand > In a message dated 2/28/00 6:56:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, > bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: > > > >L17D definitely gives the TD the power to cancel the board. > > > whoa baby!!!!! That does not givw you the authority ro "cacel" a board. > > Kojak > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 29 13:52:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA00333 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 13:52:54 +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 NAA00328 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 13:52:46 +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 SAA02130; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 18:52:44 -0800 Message-Id: <200002290252.SAA02130@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: New Thread: Law 12b In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 29 Feb 2000 03:41:47 PST." <38BB23DB.2C80394C@isdn.net.il> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 18:52:47 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Zvi wrote: > I am starting to regret starting this thread. I am ( and was ) aware > of law 64c. That was really my point. Law 64c says a director must > restore equity ( which I always knew ), but I read 12b as the > director can't restore equity. > > Obviously, I am missing something in 12b - no adjusted score if the > penalty is advantageous to either side (paraphrasing the part of 12b > that I thought was in conflict with 64c). I am simply not very clear > about the purpose of 12b. As I see it, the purpose is this: The Laws provide specific penalties for certain infractions (1 or 2 tricks for a revoke, barring partner for one round of the auction, etc.). In some cases, the players and/or TD may feel this penalty hurts the offenders' score too much, and gives the non-offenders a break they couldn't have gotten otherwise. The TD is not allowed to adjust the score for this reason, though. He must follow the Laws, and adjust the score only when the Laws tell him he may. Applying Law 64C *is* following the Laws. Or to phrase another way, L12B really says just that you can't try to restore equity unless the Laws give you the authority to do so. 64C definitely gives this authority. Does this make things clearer? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 29 14:35:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA00470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:35:54 +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 OAA00465 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:35:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from pavilion (arc-2-port-58.pinehurst.net [12.20.159.186]) by mail.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA80091 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:35:38 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from nancy@pinehurst.net) Message-ID: <014701bf8265$dac4c6a0$ba9f140c@pavilion> From: "nancy" To: References: Subject: Re: Wrong hand Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:34:15 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Having further studied the Law Book how about applying Law 14 b1 & b3. Seems to me that this solves the problem. In this instance we had 13 missing cards and we replaced them in the proper hand and since there was no revoke, the hand was played! ;-). Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 8:38 PM Subject: Re: Wrong hand > In article , David Stevenson > writes > >Ed Reppert wrote: > > > >>Law 17, IMO, does not apply (because the auction is over) but 17D _may_ > >>give us a clue what to do. > > > > That is not what the Law says. > > > > -------- > > > >Laval wrote: > > > >> 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. > > > > Yes, that is what I think. > > > I also cancel the 2nd board and award a second A+/A-. The problem is > that we have seen one of the cards belonging to the offender. > -- > John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 > 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou > London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk > +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 29 16:43:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA00828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 16:43:21 +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 QAA00823 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 16:43:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from isdn.net.il ([212.179.103.181]) by mail.bezeqint.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.07.30.00.05.p8) with ESMTP id <0FQO0036YFUXGU@mail.bezeqint.net> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 07:42:34 +0200 (IST) Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 07:43:13 +0200 From: Zvi Shilon Subject: Re: New Thread: Law 12b To: Adam Beneschan Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <38BB5C70.DB245E5A@isdn.net.il> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en-US,en,Hebrew References: <200002290252.SAA02130@mailhub.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yes. Rereading 12b, I still wouldn't have interpreted it that way, but your interpretation does make sense of its purpose. In conjunction with the first paragraph of law 12, it becomes clear. Thank you, zvika Modiin, Israel Adam Beneschan wrote: > Zvi wrote: > > > I am starting to regret starting this thread. I am ( and was ) aware > > of law 64c. That was really my point. Law 64c says a director must > > restore equity ( which I always knew ), but I read 12b as the > > director can't restore equity. > > > > Obviously, I am missing something in 12b - no adjusted score if the > > penalty is advantageous to either side (paraphrasing the part of 12b > > that I thought was in conflict with 64c). I am simply not very clear > > about the purpose of 12b. > > As I see it, the purpose is this: The Laws provide specific penalties > for certain infractions (1 or 2 tricks for a revoke, barring partner > for one round of the auction, etc.). In some cases, the players > and/or TD may feel this penalty hurts the offenders' score too much, > and gives the non-offenders a break they couldn't have gotten > otherwise. The TD is not allowed to adjust the score for this reason, > though. He must follow the Laws, and adjust the score only when the > Laws tell him he may. > > Applying Law 64C *is* following the Laws. > > Or to phrase another way, L12B really says just that you can't try to > restore equity unless the Laws give you the authority to do so. 64C > definitely gives this authority. > > Does this make things clearer? > > -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 29 17:36:59 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA01110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:36:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com ([216.33.240.112]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA01094 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:36:46 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 13388 invoked by uid 65534); 29 Feb 2000 06:36:01 -0000 Message-ID: <20000229063601.13387.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.13.93] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <387F60E7.A02ABC62@pinehurst.net><20000114190459.5176.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Wrong hand Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 00:36:15 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 4:14 PM Subject: Re: Wrong hand > 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'. > > Right. So L17D applies. > > >L17D definitely gives the TD the power to cancel the board. > > That seems a fair interpretation of the word "may" in "... the > Director may allow ..." > > > It also gives > >the NOS the power to cancel whether the TD wants to or not. > > I do not see that in L17D. What am I missing? > > > 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 declarers 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. > > This is a very poor approach. Either the Director should permit play > to continue or not. Nothing suggests the choice should be anything but > his. > > > It is another > >matter if L16 is breached but in that case the score is adjusted. > > Of course. > > >Personally, I am inclined to cancel the board as unplayable because offender > >can not duplicate his retracted play. > > Several earlier discussions here and in EBU Panel weekends have > convinced me that these hands usually become unplayable after a few > rounds of bidding, because it becomes impractical to apply the > requirements of L17D to the bidding. I apply L12A2. > > > The OS has earned a fair PP. > > Certainly not! I award A+/A-, of course, but as is the normal > situation, a PP is not suitable unless the player has previously been > warned or makes a habit of this infraction. Kojak is indeed right. It is not 'cancel the board' but rule the board unplayable [my intended meaning]. As for the rest of my post, it was referring to several things. First the 'issues' were not really after the application of L17D, but I was looking at the situation from the point of view for a reasonable way to recover the board as in make it playable. This seemed to be the direction of the original post. And after the opening lead it is too late to reopen the auction even if the call was canceled. My assertion that players are able to make the board unplayable after the director has play continue was just plain wrong according to L17D. Second, L17D does not look to me to provide a mechanism to do anything for replacing the canceled call as for the purpose of making the board playable. The implication seems to be there that if no one has yet called subsequently that a call is substituted for the canceled but it appears that it is left hanging. What L17D does provide for deals with the future play by these contestants of the board from which the errant hand sprouted. As for the assertion that a PP was not earned, L90 specifies that causing an ArtAS is subject to PP. Imo, an appropriate PP ranges to an educational experience upwards of a deduction from score. And in the case where opponents were deprived of the opportunity of earning a score it is not a harmless violation at all and therefore seems appropriate to deduct from their score, if modestly. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 29 20:02:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA02247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 20:02:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (tk2.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA02242 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 20:02:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from julie (p429-tnt4.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.18.104.189]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id WAA15830 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 22:01:52 +1300 Message-ID: <002001bf8293$39c553e0$0100a8c0@ihug.co.nz> From: "Julie Atkinson" To: Subject: L13 Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 21:59:01 +1300 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001D_01BF8300.2FB20DE0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001D_01BF8300.2FB20DE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, An ongoing "discussion" between myself and and other Directors: When you determine "inconsequential information" is gained and a player = (from the non-offending side) objects to playing the board , what = artificial assigned score do you allocate? The arguments: 50/60 50% to offending side being partially at fault ... no argument 60% to non -offending side L12B, L72A4 50/50 50% to offending side 50% to non -offenders as they have elected not to play. This = option is given before they select obviously. =20 I would like to hear views as I am hopelessly outnumbered at the moment = but still consider I am right, and may still be as stubborn after any = responses. Julie Atkinson =20 ------=_NextPart_000_001D_01BF8300.2FB20DE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all,
 
An ongoing "discussion" between myself = and and=20 other Directors:
When you determine "inconsequential = information" =20 is gained and a player (from the non-offending side) objects to playing = the=20 board , what artificial assigned score do you allocate?
 
The arguments:
50/60  50% to offending side being = partially=20 at fault ... no argument
    =      =20 60% to non -offending side L12B, L72A4
 
50/50  50% to offending = side
       =20   50% to non -offenders as they have elected not to play. This = option=20 is given before they select obviously.  
 
 
I would like to hear views as I am = hopelessly=20 outnumbered at the moment but still consider I am right, and may still = be as=20 stubborn after any responses.
 
 
Julie Atkinson  =
------=_NextPart_000_001D_01BF8300.2FB20DE0-- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 29 20:28:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA02350 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 20:28:56 +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 UAA02344 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 20:28:49 +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 ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 04:25:38 -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 ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 04:18:09 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 04:25:28 -0500 To: blml From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Demonstrably suggesting? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >In the absence of a Stop card (or in the presence of an opponent who >withdraws it too soon) this seems quite a reasonable approach. >Nonetheless I've had a TD assure me it's illegal... when pressed they >didn't have a good reason why. :) It may be illegal in Australia - I don't know your regs on the stop card. In the ACBL it is far from illegal. It's required. As for not being able to give a good reason, I'd submit that a TD ought to be able to do that - and if he can't, he better go find one. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBOLuRO72UW3au93vOEQKa8ACfZ9SECipbUn3cyHELHfCFPtiZjgEAniL3 TRZ6xwno4dTgfU9zH5S17A04 =V6oq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 29 20:43:07 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA02422 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 20:43:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp4.ihug.co.nz (smtp4.ihug.co.nz [203.109.252.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA02416 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 20:42:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from julie (p216-tnt5.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.194.216]) by smtp4.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id WAA03906 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 22:42:47 +1300 Message-ID: <001101bf8298$f1b9f8c0$0100a8c0@ihug.co.nz> From: "Julie Atkinson" To: Subject: L75 Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 22:39:55 +1300 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000C_01BF8305.E6EE1120" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01BF8305.E6EE1120 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all again , Playing on a club night, and playing transfer pre-empts I open 3s ( a 4 = level minor pre-empt) which is not alerted and raised to 6S by = partner.... it even had succesive lines of play which did'nt work. = Anyway as declarer I alert the opponents to the 3S bid before the = opening lead is made. L75D2 The Director is called and we are advised to call him back at the end of = play. Since we are member s of the same household this came up for = discussion later.... He ruled L75D21, came back at the end of the hand and no adjustment as = it was a rock bottom for us. I suggested that under L 21 the auction was = not yet over and therefore the final pass could retract their bid.=20 If you read all of L75 then section D1 refers you to Law 21 which D2 = does not. Is the unference then that for all intents under D2 the = auction is completed and we rule from there? or are we still meant to = refer to 21 ?? I am happy to agree that the lawmakers intent is that the auction is = complete BUT why can it not make this crystal clear? What are your interpretations ?? Julie Atkinson ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01BF8305.E6EE1120 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all again ,
 
Playing on a club night, and playing = transfer=20 pre-empts I open 3s ( a 4 level minor pre-empt) which is not alerted and = raised=20 to 6S by partner.... it even had succesive lines of play which did'nt=20 work.   Anyway as declarer I alert the opponents to the 3S bid = before=20 the opening lead is made.  L75D2
 
The Director is called and we are = advised to call=20 him back at the end of play. Since we are member s of the same household = this=20 came up for discussion later....
 
He ruled L75D21, came back at the end = of the hand=20 and no adjustment as it was a rock bottom for us. I suggested that under = L 21=20 the auction was not yet over and therefore the final pass could retract = their=20 bid.
 
If you read all of L75 then section D1 = refers you=20 to Law 21 which D2 does not. Is the unference then that for all intents = under D2=20 the auction is completed and we rule from there? or are we still meant = to refer=20 to 21 ??
 
I am happy to agree that the lawmakers = intent is=20 that the auction is complete BUT why can it not make this crystal=20 clear?
 
What are your interpretations = ??
 
 
Julie Atkinson
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_000C_01BF8305.E6EE1120-- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 29 23:38:27 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA03466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 23:38:27 +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 XAA03461 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 23:38:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from pa7s06a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.86.168] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt11-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12PPcR-0000Py-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 12:49:47 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: L13 Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:46:34 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf82b3$02d91040$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0017_01BF82B3.02D91040" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0017_01BF82B3.02D91040 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I believe it is a mixture of these. Assume that a board has arrived at the table with 12 cards in the East hand and 14 cards in the North hand. Both have examined the face of = their cards. The stray card is C2. a) A player excersises the option not to play the board. Neither North or East counted their cards. (Law 7B1) so both sides are partially at fault. However the reason the board cannot be played is = that North has seen a card belonging to East. So in this instance I award = 60%-10% =3D 50%=20 to E/W and 50%-10% =3D 40% to N/S. b) Assume only North has looked at his hand, but East has not. E/W are = totally blameless so I award 60% to E/W and 40% to N/S. While it is not common practice here, because it is not always certain = that the previous people to play the board are the guilty, the TD could fine both E/W and = N/S at the last table to play the board for breach of Law 7C. TDs have been known to remove a board and put it back wrong, or even = during a post-mortem at the table South (in our example not involved) could be the one who = got it wrong. East was possibly not to blame. c) Alternatively look at the situation where North has 14 cards and = South has 12. The stray=20 is still C2. TD allows excersise of right not to play board. Here we = have E/W who are totally blameless. I award them 60% and N/S 40% regardless of who = chooses not to play. Law 13 gives them the right to opt this way. No mention of penalty. Law = 88 sets the level of adjustment. Hope this helps. Anne -----Original Message----- From: Julie Atkinson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, February 29, 2000 9:32 AM Subject: L13 =20 =20 Hi all, =20 An ongoing "discussion" between myself and and other Directors: When you determine "inconsequential information" is gained and a = player (from the non-offending side) objects to playing the board , what = artificial assigned score do you allocate? =20 The arguments: 50/60 50% to offending side being partially at fault ... no = argument 60% to non -offending side L12B, L72A4 =20 50/50 50% to offending side 50% to non -offenders as they have elected not to play. = This option is given before they select obviously. =20 =20 =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0017_01BF82B3.02D91040 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I believe it is a mixture of = these.
Assume that a = board has=20 arrived at the table with 12 cards in the
East hand and 14 cards in the North hand. Both have = examined=20 the face of their cards. 
The stray card is C2.
a) A player excersises the option not to play the=20 board. 
Neither North or East counted their cards. (Law 7B1) = so both=20 sides 
are partially at fault. However the reason the board = cannot be=20 played is that 
North has seen a card belonging to East. So in this = instance I=20 award 60%-10% =3D 50%  
to E/W and 50%-10% =3D 40% to=20 N/S.
b) Assume only North has looked at his hand, but = East has not.=20 E/W are totally blameless 
so I award 60% to E/W and 40% to = N/S. 
While it is not common practice here, because it is = not always=20 certain that the previous 
people to play the board are the guilty, the TD = could fine=20 both E/W and N/S at the 
last table to play the board for breach of Law=20 7C. 
TDs have been known to remove a board and put it = back wrong,=20 or even during a post-mortem 
at the table South (in our example not involved) = could be the=20 one who got it wrong. East was 
possibly not to blame. 
c) Alternatively look at the situation where North = has 14=20 cards and South has 12. The stray  
is still C2. TD allows excersise of right not to = play board.=20 Here we have E/W who are 
totally blameless. I award them 60% and N/S 40% = regardless of=20 who chooses not to play.
Law 13 gives them the right to opt this way. No = mention of=20 penalty. Law 88 sets the level of 
adjustment. 
Hope this helps. 
Anne 
-----Original = Message-----
From:=20 Julie Atkinson <jatkinsn@ihug.co.nz>
To:= =20 bridge-laws@octavia.anu.ed= u.au=20 <bridge-laws@octavia.anu.ed= u.au>
Date:=20 Tuesday, February 29, 2000 9:32 AM
Subject:=20 L13

Hi all,
 
An ongoing "discussion" = between=20 myself and and other Directors:
When you determine = "inconsequential=20 information" is gained and a player (from the non-offending = side)=20 objects to playing the board , what artificial assigned score do you = allocate?
 
The arguments:
50/60  50% to offending side = being=20 partially at fault ... no argument
   =20       60% to non -offending side L12B,=20 L72A4
 
50/50  50% to offending = side
    =    =20   50% to non -offenders as they have elected not to play. = This=20 option is given before they select = obviously.  
 
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0017_01BF82B3.02D91040--