From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 1 00:09:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA03041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 22:32:19 +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 WAA03031 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 22:32:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:31:37 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id MAA06304 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:19:51 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: L13 Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 11:55:24 +0100 Message-ID: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C005004546901031074@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101AD04@xion.spase.nl> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Julie Atkinson wrote: >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. > > >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 If you give someone the option of not playing the deal (by law), you cannot punish them if they elect to drop the deal. Therefore, the non-offending side should get 60% (average plus). The offending side should be punished for not counting cards, and so should get 40% (average minus). They are not partially at fault, they are *at fault*. Of course, you can separately punish the player(s) responsible for messing up the board. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 1 01:09:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA03042 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 22:32:27 +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 WAA03033 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 22:32:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:31:37 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id MAA07317 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:54:31 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: L75 Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:30:03 +0100 Message-ID: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C005004546901031075@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101AD06@xion.spase.nl> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Julie Atkinson wrote: >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 >members 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. > >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 If declarer/dummy corrects before the opening lead, then certainly the final pass from the opponents may be replaced according to L21, as it is possibly influenced by the misexplanation. The fact that L21 is not mentioned in L75D2 does not mean that it does not apply. If that were the case, then L40C also would not apply, since that one is also mentioned in L75D1, but not in L75D2. And we certainly don't want that. :-) I agree with you that the side remark in L75D1 (...who will apply L21 or L40C) either should be present in both L75D1 and L75D2, or in neither. It serves no purpose, except (apparently) to confuse people ;-) -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 1 02:34:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA04741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 02:34:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net (imail@mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.52]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA04735 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 02:34:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from default ([12.75.57.226]) by mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.31a 201-229-119-114) with SMTP id <20000229153411.CSOL15509.mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net@default> for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 15:34:11 +0000 Message-ID: <007601bf82ca$5a509b60$cc294b0c@default> From: "Richard F Beye" To: "BLML" References: <20000229151933.73605.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Re: Wrong hand Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 09:33:36 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: David Stevenson Roger Pewick wrote: RP-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'. DS- Right. So L17D applies. RP-L17D definitely gives the TD the power to cancel the board. DS- That seems a fair interpretation of the word "may" in "... the Director may allow ..." RP- It also gives the NOS the power to cancel whether the TD wants to or not. DS- I do not see that in L17D. What am I missing? ***Could Roger by confusing an old clause with the current Law 13? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 1 02:46:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA04839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 02:46:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA04833 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 02:46:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id KAA15676 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:46:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA22417 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:46:14 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:46:14 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200002291546.KAA22417@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Wrong hand X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >L17D definitely gives the TD the power to cancel the board. > From: David Stevenson > That seems a fair interpretation of the word "may" in "... the > Director may allow ..." > 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. > From: Schoderb@aol.com > whoa baby!!!!! [17D] does not givw you the authority ro "cacel" a board. Welcome back, David. I wonder whether the above is a substantive or a semantic disagreement. Let me ask some specific questions: suppose this is the first round of the event (or a team event, and the other table has not played the board), and you decide the board is unplayable. 1. Do you allow or require a redeal? 2. If no, what scores do you assign? (I think I know the answer, but humor me.) 3. If yes, do you give any penalty? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 1 04:02:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA05285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 04:02:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA05278 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 04:02:09 +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 MAA23233 for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:02:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA22486 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:02:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:02:00 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200002291702.MAA22486@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L13 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Anne Jones" > 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% = > 50% to E/W and 50%-10% = 40% to N/S. While I agree with the rest, it seems arbitrary to give different scores to the two sides in this case. Each has, after all, done exactly the same thing. It was only a matter of luck that one happened to have 12 cards and the other 14. With both sides at fault (L7B1), I'd give 40% to each. You certainly cannot give other than 60% to a side that has done nothing wrong. I have another question, though. Suppose EW had 13 cards all along, while North had 12 and South 14. South has looked at his cards, after which one card is transferred to North. How are EW to know whether they wish to play the board? Should the TD tell them which card has been transferred? EW may have a different opinion, depending on whether the card is an ace or a deuce. If the card is "inconsequential," maybe it can't hurt for EW to know what it is. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 1 04:21:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA05415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 04:21:59 +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 EAA05405 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 04:21:46 +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 12PqL0-0002Vp-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:21:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:53:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Wrong hand References: <200002290138.RAA00944@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200002290138.RAA00944@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > >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. Cancel a board means that it can no longer be played. There is no connotation of what is then done about it. In this thread it may safely be assumed that ArtASs will be applied so it seemed superfluous to say cancelled and .... -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 1 04:22:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA05418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 04:22:00 +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 EAA05406 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 04:21:46 +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 12PqL0-0002Vo-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:21:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:51:50 +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> <20000229063601.13387.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000229063601.13387.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: >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. Let us re-read L17D. OK, it is a confusing Law, but as far as the board with the wrong hand is concerned, surely a summary of what it says is that you replay the auction. The NOs make the same calls: if the Os do, then the board is playable, if not, then it is unplayable. Even after the opening lead is made you could still do this. Basically, the further the hand has got, the less likely it is to be playable. But I do not think there is an actual cut-off point. Perhaps the moment when someone else sees a card from the wrong hand. You could even imagine the hand being still playable when dummy is recognised as the wrong hand. It is a judgement matter for the Director. >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. If you look carefully through L17D the hand is playable if the calls are repeated, and not otherwise. >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. Of course a PP is legal. But the actual situation [unless my memory is faulty] is the case where the hand is kept from a previous board. This means that the board is not made unplayable for anypne else, just at this one table if the auction is not repeatable. At this table the NOs have A+, the Os get A-. It is normally enough that no PP needs to be applied additionally when a pair have got A-. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 1 05:09:45 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA05442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 04:22:23 +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 EAA05422 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 04:22:11 +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 12PqL5-0002WJ-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:21:42 +0000 Message-ID: <064tZjAh47u4Ewch@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:40:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Wrong hand References: <014701bf8265$dac4c6a0$ba9f140c@pavilion> In-Reply-To: <014701bf8265$dac4c6a0$ba9f140c@pavilion> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk nancy wrote: >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! Now c'mon, Nancy, give us a chance. We have a Law that applies - L17D - so finding some other Law and pretending it applies is not the way to go! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 1 08:20:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA06322 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 08:20:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from fe050.worldonline.dk (fe050.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.206]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA06317 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 08:20:28 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <200002292120.IAA06317@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: (qmail 22924 invoked by uid 0); 29 Feb 2000 21:19:35 -0000 Received: from 92.ppp1-6.worldonline.dk (HELO idefix) (212.54.73.92) by fe050.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 29 Feb 2000 21:19:35 -0000 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 22:19:34 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Demonstrably suggesting? Reply-to: jensogbodil@alesia.dk Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mark Abraham wrote (29 Feb 00): > On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Roger Pewick wrote: > > 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. :) In Denmark we have made this unambiguous in our regulations. You are *required* to pause for (about) 10 seconds after any[1] skip bid. Your RHO is *required* to warn you using the stop card before the skip bid. If RHO forgets to warn you, you cannot be penalized for inadvertently forgetting to pause, but dven then you may not knowingly omit the pause. . So, in Denmark it is illegal *not* to pause. [1]: Any means any. It does not mean "except when you don't believe that the auction is tempo sensitive". -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 1 08:20:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA06316 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 08:20:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from fe050.worldonline.dk (fe050.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.206]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA06311 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 08:19:55 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <200002292119.IAA06311@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: (qmail 22904 invoked by uid 0); 29 Feb 2000 21:19:33 -0000 Received: from 92.ppp1-6.worldonline.dk (HELO idefix) (212.54.73.92) by fe050.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 29 Feb 2000 21:19:33 -0000 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 22:19:34 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT Comments: Sender has elected to use 8-bit data in this message. If problems arise, refer to postmaster at sender's site. Subject: Re: Wrong hand Reply-to: jensogbodil@alesia.dk Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote (29 Feb 00): > Let me ask some specific questions: suppose this is the first round > of the event (or a team event, and the other table has not played > the board), and you decide the board is unplayable. > > 1. Do you allow or require a redeal? For teams events, the Danish regulations stipulate that the TD shall rule "redeal" whenever the board has not been played at the other table, provided it is practical and observing L86C (unlikely to make any difference, but ...). When we play several matches in parallel using the same deals, we will use a substitute deal in the affected match only. There is a footnote to this regulation which reads "From a formal point of view, this may be inconsistent with the laws, but ... the WBF does this too." In this way, the author (Jesper) has made it difficult for the laws commission (me and my pals) to declare this regulation unconstitutional. Especially since it has been there for several years, and I am demonstrating that I know this full well. For pairs events, we usually use preduplicated boards with several copies in play at the same time, so a redeal is normally not practical, and we have to award an AssAS. > 2. If no, what scores do you assign? (I think I know the answer, > but humor me.) Straight L12C1. > 3. If yes, do you give any penalty? If no one needs to get an AssAS because of the infraction, we give a warning on the first offense and a fine (½VP for teams) on the second offense in the same match. For pairs: same event; warnings carried over from one session to the next. If an AssAS is needed somewhere, we fine immediately. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 1 11:47:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA06742 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 11:47:27 +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 LAA06732 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 11:47:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12PxIC-000Ikj-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 00:47:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:36:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Wrong hand References: <200002291546.KAA22417@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200002291546.KAA22417@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> >L17D definitely gives the TD the power to cancel the board. > >> From: David Stevenson >> That seems a fair interpretation of the word "may" in "... the >> Director may allow ..." > >> 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. > >> From: Schoderb@aol.com >> whoa baby!!!!! [17D] does not givw you the authority ro "cacel" a board. > >Welcome back, David. > >I wonder whether the above is a substantive or a semantic disagreement. No, it just means it is a badly written Law, and I have misread it. Damn. OK, I have read it more carefully. Incidentally, thoughts for 2007: first [of course] delete L25B: second allow for claims with revokes: third let TDs apply L12C3: fourth re-write and re-position L17D. Sorry, you may not redeal either board under L17D. However, you may cancel them dependent on what you think the word cancel means: you may stop the players playing them and give them A+/A-. >Let me ask some specific questions: suppose this is the first round of >the event (or a team event, and the other table has not played the >board), and you decide the board is unplayable. > >1. Do you allow or require a redeal? No. Not now I have read the Law carefully. >2. If no, what scores do you assign? (I think I know the answer, > but humor me.) I am prepared to humoUr you, but not to buy you an ice-cream. A+/A-. >3. If yes, do you give any penalty? Moot. [Not normally would be the answer anyway.] -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 1 11:47:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA06741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 11:47:27 +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 LAA06731 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 11:47:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12PxI9-000IkZ-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 00:47:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:48:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Concession Canceled References: <38B9265E.E6F6C0A@omicron.comarch.pl> In-Reply-To: <38B9265E.E6F6C0A@omicron.comarch.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > 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? Just rational ones. L71C. This Law could be [and hopefully will be] enormously simplified. LAW 71 - CONCESSION CANCELLED A concession must stand, once made, except that within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C, the Director shall cancel a concession if a player has conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won, or a trick that cannot be lost by normal @ play of the remaining cards. @ 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. In the Gold Coast there was a slight problem when a defender conceded all the remaining tricks - and declarer objected. There was a prize for a beer card - and the order of tricks to be played was relevant. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 1 21:05:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA08530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 21:05:43 +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 VAA08525 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 21:05:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 11:05:03 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id KAA13328 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 10:33:47 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: L13 Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 10:40:25 +0100 Message-ID: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C005004546901031076@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101AD0C@xion.spase.nl> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >I have another question, though. Suppose EW had 13 cards all along, >while North had 12 and South 14. South has looked at his cards, after >which one card is transferred to North. How are EW to know whether >they wish to play the board? Should the TD tell them which card has >been transferred? EW may have a different opinion, depending on >whether the card is an ace or a deuce. If the card is >"inconsequential," maybe it can't hurt for EW to know what it is. That's why I never give them the choice of playing the board after correction. Every card seen by the wrong person may or may not be important, but usually you don't find out until afterwards. Cards seen by the wrong person are simply always important to me. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 1 23:20:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA08954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 23:20:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA08949 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 23:20:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-12-49.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.12.49]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA13335 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 13:20:26 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38BCE6DC.7F5BA5D2@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 10:46:04 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Superschrikkeltornooi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry for that subject name, I just couldn't resist. It is a word I coined yesterday evening, indicating a tournament that is played just once every 400 years, on super leap day (28-02-00, which, BTW, is always a tuesday). The dutch language has the interesting notion of just adding words to one another, and so we get these long words. Anyway, I was involved in a hand with an interesting problem. I'm in first seat, vulnerable, and I have six spades to KQJ and an outside Ace. I decide to consider this a weak two in spades and open a Multi two diamonds. Partner replies with the asking relay of 2NT. Now with my regular partner, 3He shows a good weak two in spades. It has been some time since I played with this particular partner, so I don't remember if we have ever agreed this, but I know she plays it with her partner, and I believe she knows I play it with mine. So I bid 3He. "I could have guessed" she says, and bids 3NT. (our club is usually quite ethical, but we also know that it is not a huge crime to give UI, just to receive it). RHO asks what 3He is. "weak two in hearts" says partner. I keep shut. RHO passes. What do I do ? You've guessed it : I pass. So does LHO and I immediately correct the explanation. I even elaborate a bit, since opponents are relative beginners. The lead is, as expected, hearts. I congratulate my opponent on the good analysis, and put down dummy. What I neglected to tell you before is that my Ace is the Heart Ace. Partner has singleton hearts, and has an easy 11 tricks for a top. The fact that opponents misdefend and allow 13 tricks to make does not make the top any greater, as the room are in +650. My question now : Is it ethical to do the "ethical" thing, even when you "could have known" that this might work to your own advantage ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 2 01:20:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA09319 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 01:20:20 +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 BAA09314 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 01:20:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from child.com (pm0-9.rbdc.com [199.171.83.150]) by rbdc.rbdc.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA02313 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 09:19:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.0.20000301091326.00ad7890@rbdc.rbdc.com> X-Sender: wflory@rbdc.rbdc.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3 Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 09:17:08 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Walt Flory Subject: Was it a psych? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I was recently told by ACBL Tournament directors that a psych was defined as a "gross distortion" and that the consensus was that a bid which showed both minor suits on a hand with two diamonds and four clubs was not considered to be a gross distortion. I welcome comments on this from the group. Walt Flory ____ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 2 03:10:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA09898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 03:10:59 +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 DAA09892 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 03:10:52 +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 IAA00535; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 08:10:52 -0800 Message-Id: <200003011610.IAA00535@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Was it a psych? In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 01 Mar 2000 09:17:08 PST." <4.3.0.20000301091326.00ad7890@rbdc.rbdc.com> Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 08:10:51 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > I was recently told by ACBL Tournament directors that a psych was defined > as a "gross distortion" and that the consensus was that a bid which showed > both minor suits on a hand with two diamonds and four clubs was not > considered to be a gross distortion. > > I welcome comments on this from the group. My opinion: It may or may not be a psych, depending on the situation. Could we have the hand and the entire auction? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 2 03:10:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA09893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 03:10:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp-out2.bellatlantic.net (smtp-out2.bellatlantic.net [199.45.39.157]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA09887 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 03:10:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from jayapfelbaum (adsl-151-201-234-95.bellatlantic.net [151.201.234.95]) by smtp-out2.bellatlantic.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA18981; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 11:10:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001301bf8398$8e13e780$5feac997@jayapfelbaum> From: "Jay Apfelbaum" To: "Bridge Laws" , "Walt Flory" References: <4.3.0.20000301091326.00ad7890@rbdc.rbdc.com> Subject: Re: Was it a psych? Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 11:09:38 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk According to the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, 1997 edition, the definition of a psychic call is: "A deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length." My opinion is that the proper test to determine whether a bid is a psych is objective in nature. That is, it does not matter whether the individual ACTUALLY BELIEVED he or she was making a deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length. It only matters whether the bid, deliberately made, IS a gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length. My reason for this approach is to eliminate the argument that a person forgot their convention. In most situations, this distinction will make no difference. A psych is permitted under the law. However, certain psychs are outlawed in ACBL (2C strong and articifical, for example). Should there be a difference between a player who "forgets" he or she was playing 2C strong and articificial (thinking it was natural and limited, with 1C strong and artificial), and a player who actually knew that 2C was strong and artificial and chose that call anyway? If we want to say that there should be a difference, then we should be willing to accept the consequences of that choice. Specifically, we must now decide whether to believe a player who tells about their mental state when he or she bid 2C (e.g., they forgot the bid). Using an objective test, we need only consider whether the 2C bid was deliberately chosen. Another point to consider. Will it made any difference during the bidding and play for the innocent and injured opponents whether the 2C bidder forgot their convention? I submit that whether the 2C bidder forgot their convention or had actual knowledge of their agreement will make no difference in the bidding or play. And if that is true, then why should the subjective state of mind for the 2C bidder make any difference in the ultimate adjustment (assuming one is needed)? Just some thoughts for the group to consider. Jay Apfelbaum Pittsburgh, PA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Walt Flory" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 9:17 AM Subject: Was it a psych? > > I was recently told by ACBL Tournament directors that a psych was defined > as a "gross distortion" and that the consensus was that a bid which showed > both minor suits on a hand with two diamonds and four clubs was not > considered to be a gross distortion. > > I welcome comments on this from the group. > > Walt Flory > ____ > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 2 03:15:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA09927 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 03:15:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA09922 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 03:15:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-33qth0i.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.196.18]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA14819; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 11:15:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000301162651.0074126c@mindspring.com> X-Sender: htcs@mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 08:26:51 -0800 To: Walt Flory From: Henry Sun Subject: Re: Was it a psych? Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:17 AM 3/1/00 -0500, you wrote: > >I was recently told by ACBL Tournament directors that a psych was defined >as a "gross distortion" and that the consensus was that a bid which showed >both minor suits on a hand with two diamonds and four clubs was not >considered to be a gross distortion. > >I welcome comments on this from the group. wow. were you really told that a 2-4 minor hand could show both minors and not be a gross distortion? that seems totally wrong to me. i've seen enough unusual notrumps with 4-4 minors to accept that, but less than 4-4 seems a cross between a gross distortion of the bid and a gross distortion of the game :) incidentally, i recall a hand from the 1974 (?) bermuda bowl final where both bobby goldman and his italian counterpart made an unusual 2nt overcall of 1h with something on the order of x; qjxx; akxx; akjx or the like. henry sun From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 2 03:37:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA10067 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 03:37:19 +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 DAA10048 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 03:37:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 08:37:08 -0800 Message-ID: <000d01bf839c$55e0dcc0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <4.3.0.20000301091326.00ad7890@rbdc.rbdc.com> Subject: Re: Was it a psych? Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 08:36:42 -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 Walt Flory wrote: > > I was recently told by ACBL Tournament directors that a psych was defined > as a "gross distortion" and that the consensus was that a bid which showed > both minor suits on a hand with two diamonds and four clubs was not > considered to be a gross distortion. > > I welcome comments on this from the group. > The Laws' definition of a psychic call is "a deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length." Bidding as if a two-card suit were a four-card or longer suit constitutes a gross distortion of suit length. I suppose those [adjective deleted] directors would say that bidding 1S with a doubleton in the auction 1H-X-1S is not a psych. But isn't the point moot? A psychic call is legal as long as there is no concealed partnership agreement that protects it (L73E). Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 2 03:54:11 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA10158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 03:54:11 +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 DAA10152 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 03:54:03 +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 KAA09127 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 10:57:53 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000301165154.007ab590@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 16:51:54 -0600 To: "Bridge Laws" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: Was it a psych? In-Reply-To: <001301bf8398$8e13e780$5feac997@jayapfelbaum> References: <4.3.0.20000301091326.00ad7890@rbdc.rbdc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:09 AM 3/1/2000 -0500, Jay Apfelbaum wrote: >According to the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, 1997 edition, the >definition of a psychic call is: > >"A deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length." > >My opinion is that the proper test to determine whether a bid is a psych is >objective in nature. That is, it does not matter whether the individual >ACTUALLY BELIEVED he or she was making a deliberate and gross misstatement >of honor strength or suit length. It only matters whether the bid, >deliberately made, IS a gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length. > >My reason for this approach is to eliminate the argument that a person >forgot their convention. In most situations, this distinction will make no >difference. A psych is permitted under the law. However, certain psychs are >outlawed in ACBL (2C strong and articifical, for example). > >Should there be a difference between a player who "forgets" he or she was >playing 2C strong and articificial (thinking it was natural and limited, >with 1C strong and artificial), and a player who actually knew that 2C was >strong and artificial and chose that call anyway? Yes. :) >If we want to say that there should be a difference, then we should be >willing to accept the consequences of that choice. Specifically, we must now >decide whether to believe a player who tells about their mental state when >he or she bid 2C (e.g., they forgot the bid). I'm willing to acceot this consequence. >Using an objective test, we need only consider whether the 2C bid was >deliberately chosen. > >Another point to consider. Will it made any difference during the bidding >and play for the innocent and injured opponents whether the 2C bidder forgot >their convention? I submit that whether the 2C bidder forgot their >convention or had actual knowledge of their agreement will make no >difference in the bidding or play. And if that is true, then why should the >subjective state of mind for the 2C bidder make any difference in the >ultimate adjustment (assuming one is needed)? It will almost certainly make a difference in the bidding and play, _especially_ with the example you have chosen but often at other times. Because, after all, the _bidder and his partner_ are participants in the auction, too. You open 2C [strong, but intended weak]. I respond 2D, waiting. [Or, worse, since you're not really strong I probably have points. If we are playing some control-showing response to 2C, I then make a totally artifical bid of 2S or something, and now we're headed straight for disaster.] 99% of the time when someone forgets an artifical bid the result is an inferior result for his own side. I am willing to live with being fixed the other 1% of the time. >Just some thoughts for the group to consider. I understand your concerns, but I'm just not nearly as afraid of either "mind-reading" or deceitful players as many others on this list are. >Jay Apfelbaum >Pittsburgh, PA BTW, as regards the actual case that brought this subject up-- I would like to see the hand and auction, but I almost certainly rule that this was a psyche. I'm not sure why I need to rule on whether it was a psyche or not, but if I have to that's probably my call. Respectfully, -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 2 04:01:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA10234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 04:01:38 +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 EAA10227 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 04:01:28 +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, 1 Mar 2000 09:01:30 -0800 Message-ID: <001501bf839f$bd464140$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <38BCE6DC.7F5BA5D2@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Superschrikkeltornooi Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 09:01:05 -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 Herman De Wael wrote (regarding action to be taken when in possession of UI). > My question now : > > Is it ethical to do the "ethical" thing, even when you > "could have known" that this might work to your own > advantage ? > I don't think ethics have anything to do with it. You are legally obligated to refrain from making any call that is occasioned by the UI, unless there is no logical alternative. Just do what the Laws require. This was the subject of a thread not long ago, but never settled satisfactorily, IMO. Suppose partner breaks tempo with a long pause before passing, and you have an obvious bid or double but decide to pass "for ethical reasons." If the pass ends up damaging the opponents they are due redress, because you have made a call that was influenced by the break in tempo, one that was not a logical alternative to some action. No PP for this one! Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 2 04:09:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA09970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 03:19:25 +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 DAA09965 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 03:19:11 +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 IAA00654; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 08:19:09 -0800 Message-Id: <200003011619.IAA00654@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Wrong hand In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:53:49 PST." Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 08:19:09 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > >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. > > Cancel a board means that it can no longer be played. There is no > connotation of what is then done about it. In this thread it may safely > be assumed that ArtASs will be applied so it seemed superfluous to say > cancelled and .... It seems like a flaw that we don't have a single verb to describe this action. I can understand why Roger spoke about "cancelling" the board; the precise way to say this would be "declaring the board unplayable and awarding an artificial adjusted score", which is terribly clunky, especially if you have to use this phrase several times in the same paragraph. I can't think of a single English verb that encompasses this concept adequately, so may I humbly suggest that we invent one. We already use "ArtAS" as an abbreviation for the noun, so perhaps we should just turn it into a verb: "The director artassed the board." Plus, we could modify it slightly to denote a similar action, that of assigning an artificial adjusted score because one is too lazy to apply L12C2 properly: "The director halfassed the board." -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 2 05:00:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA10585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 05:00:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA10580 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 05:00:29 +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 MAA00052; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 12:56:24 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001301bf8398$8e13e780$5feac997@jayapfelbaum> References: <4.3.0.20000301091326.00ad7890@rbdc.rbdc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 12:52:32 -0500 To: "Jay Apfelbaum" , "Bridge Laws" , "Walt Flory" From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Was it a psych? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:09 AM -0500 3/1/00, Jay Apfelbaum wrote: >According to the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, 1997 edition, the >definition of a psychic call is: > >"A deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length." > >My opinion is that the proper test to determine whether a bid is a psych is >objective in nature. That is, it does not matter whether the individual >ACTUALLY BELIEVED he or she was making a deliberate and gross misstatement >of honor strength or suit length. It only matters whether the bid, >deliberately made, IS a gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length. >My reason for this approach is to eliminate the argument that a person >forgot their convention. In most situations, this distinction will make no >difference. A psych is permitted under the law. However, certain psychs are >outlawed in ACBL (2C strong and articifical, for example). The problem is that the rule needs to work the other way. If a player does forget an agreement, or his partner does, we normally presume that there was a mistaken explanation, and adjust accordingly if there is damage. For example, North opens 1NT, not vulnerable against vulnerable opponents. South, holding Jxxxx x xxxx xxx, bids 2H, which North does not alert or announce. West, who holds five spades, bids 2S over 2H, and goes down two; 2H by South would have gone down five. The TD must determine whether transfers are the N-S agreement; if he cannot determine it, he will presume a mistaken explanation, and adjust the score to the result in 2H. Now what if South claims that he knew his side was not playing transfers, but he psyched 2H to keep the opponents out of their probable heart game? Such a psyche is legal, and if South's statement is accepted, there can be no adjustment. In this case, South gains an advantage by claiming a psych; in other cases, he gains an advanatge by claiming a misbid/misexplanation. The TD needs to deternmine this by looking at the evidence, primarily the hands involved, just as he does for misbid/misexplanation. (And how would you rule in this case? It's not clear. In other cases, such as a player opening a weak 2D on KQxx Jxxxx AQx x, the misbid is clear.) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 2 05:19:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA10702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 05:19:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA10697 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 05:19:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-159.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.159]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA11534; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 13:19:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <004301bf83aa$fb5083a0$9f84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Superschrikkeltornooi Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 13:21:34 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Marvin L. French To: Bridge Laws Date: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 12:19 PM Subject: Re: Superschrikkeltornooi >Herman De Wael wrote (regarding action to be taken when in possession of UI). > > >> My question now : >> >> Is it ethical to do the "ethical" thing, even when you >> "could have known" that this might work to your own >> advantage ? >> >I don't think ethics have anything to do with it. You are legally obligated to >refrain from making any call that is occasioned ###Not occasioned, but demonstrably suggested over a logical alternative### by the UI, unless there is no >logical alternative. Just do what the Laws require. > >This was the subject of a thread not long ago, but never settled satisfactorily, >IMO. > >Suppose partner breaks tempo with a long pause before passing, and you have an >obvious bid or double but decide to pass "for ethical reasons." If the pass ends >up damaging the opponents they are due redress, because you have made a call >that was influenced by the break in tempo, one that was not a logical >alternative to some action. ###(CS) If your pass was not demonstrably suggested over an LA by the tempo break they are NOT due redress. You need irregularity, damage AND action demonstrably suggested by the UI to warrant an adjustment. In the "superetc" hand, it would appear that in the absence of the extraneous comment, partner's 3NT would deny a spade fit, making pass the normal action. Bidding on in spades might be suggested by the UI over pass, and thus would be prohibited after partner has inferred (s)he has spades.### No PP for this one! > >Marv (Marvin L. French) > > > > > > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 2 05:35:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA10780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 05:35:31 +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 FAA10775 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 05:35:24 +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 NAA11259; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 13:35:10 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001501bf839f$bd464140$16991e18@san.rr.com> References: <38BCE6DC.7F5BA5D2@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 13:33:08 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws" From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Superschrikkeltornooi Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 9:01 AM -0800 3/1/00, Marvin L. French wrote: >Suppose partner breaks tempo with a long pause before passing, and you have an >obvious bid or double but decide to pass "for ethical reasons." If the >pass ends >up damaging the opponents they are due redress, because you have made a call >that was influenced by the break in tempo, one that was not a logical >alternative to some action. I don't think this interpretation is reasonable under the current Laws. L16A and L74F1 only apply if pass was "demonstrably suggested" over bid or double, and partner's slow pass could not have demonstrably suggested pass over bid since you took it to have demonstrably suggested bid over pass. While L73C requires you to avoid taking any advantage of the UI, this is only any advantage that you could expect to gain. L73C is an ethical law, and ethics require you to take the action which you believe to be proper, even if it turns out to work. The "could have known" laws are similar; if it turns out later that you gained an advantage from an infraction, there is no adjustment. If you open out of turn, barring partner, and then bid 3NT which happens to make for a top, you keep your top because you couldn't have known that 3NT was the best contract unless you had seen the board. If you hear a 5S response to Blackwood and bid an insufficient 5H, correcting to 5NT, you could have known at the time you bid 5H that barring partner is the only way to reach 5NT, and your score will be adjusted. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 2 06:09:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA10656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 05:13:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [207.213.113.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA10651 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 05:13:29 +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 KAA02504; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 10:13:23 -0800 Message-Id: <200003011813.KAA02504@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Was it a psych? In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 01 Mar 2000 11:09:38 PST." <001301bf8398$8e13e780$5feac997@jayapfelbaum> Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 10:13:23 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jay Apfelbaum wrote: > According to the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, 1997 edition, the > definition of a psychic call is: > > "A deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length." > > My opinion is that the proper test to determine whether a bid is a psych is > objective in nature. That is, it does not matter whether the individual > ACTUALLY BELIEVED he or she was making a deliberate and gross misstatement > of honor strength or suit length. It only matters whether the bid, > deliberately made, IS a gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length. So you're proposing a change in the Laws, then? The Laws deliberately use the term "deliberate". There's no way to interpret that word that allows us *not* to consider the player's intent. There may be some good arguments in favor of using an objective test to determine whether a call is a psych, instead of trying to determine what the player believed about his own call, which is a more subjective test. But to do so requires a Law change, since the current definition of a "psych" in the Laws precludes such an objective test. Then again, if the only effect of the definition is on an ACBL regulation that most of us here feel is contrary to Law 40A anyway, I guess it's not that great a stretch to abrogate another Law in the process. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 2 06:15:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA10951 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 06:15:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA10945 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 06:14:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-001kslawrP290.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.28]) by snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA23879 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 11:14:48 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000301130923.00a552e0@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: baresch@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 13:12:36 -0600 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Brian Baresch Subject: Re: Wrong hand In-Reply-To: <200003011619.IAA00654@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >It seems like a flaw that we don't have a single verb to describe this >action. I can understand why Roger spoke about "cancelling" the >board; the precise way to say this would be "declaring the board >unplayable and awarding an artificial adjusted score", which is >terribly clunky, especially if you have to use this phrase several >times in the same paragraph. Maybe we could say "canceled the deal"? We seem to use "deal" or "hand" to refer to what happens at one table, but rarely otherwise, and "board" when referring to a deal as it makes its way around to other tables. That's not a stated distinction anywhere AFAIK, just what seems, to my sleep-addled mind, to be how the words are used. (I know that we use "board" in the first of the two cases as well, but not vice versa.) Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 2 06:55:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA11118 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 06:55:52 +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 GAA11113 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 06:55:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA04137; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 11:55:36 -0800 Message-Id: <200003011955.LAA04137@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Superschrikkeltornooi In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 01 Mar 2000 13:33:08 PST." Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 11:55:37 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > At 9:01 AM -0800 3/1/00, Marvin L. French wrote: > > >Suppose partner breaks tempo with a long pause before passing, and you have an > >obvious bid or double but decide to pass "for ethical reasons." If the > >pass ends > >up damaging the opponents they are due redress, because you have made a call > >that was influenced by the break in tempo, one that was not a logical > >alternative to some action. > > I don't think this interpretation is reasonable under the current Laws. > L16A and L74F1 only apply if pass was "demonstrably suggested" over bid or > double, and partner's slow pass could not have demonstrably suggested pass > over bid since you took it to have demonstrably suggested bid over pass. > > While L73C requires you to avoid taking any advantage of the UI, this is > only any advantage that you could expect to gain. L73C is an ethical law, > and ethics require you to take the action which you believe to be proper, > even if it turns out to work. One of my favorite "war stories" is something that happened a long time ago. This was before bidding boxes were commonly used. Our auction went: Partner Me 1H 2C 3H 4NT(1) (1) standard Blackwood 4H Partner misheard my bid and thought I said 3NT. We called the director, who explained the rules, including the rule that if partner simply made his bid sufficient there would be no further penalty. (At the time, it was irrelevant that the 5H bid was conventional.) Partner bid 5H (to keep me from being barred, as he told me after the hand), which led to an ethical dilemma. I knew partner didn't necessarily have the two aces he was showing me, so I asked the director what my responsibilities were here. Director was no help at all---he said only "Well, we're not using screens." I finally decided the ethical thing to do was to assume partner did have a legitimate 5H response; so, holding two aces myself, I asked for kings, got a 6S response, and bid 7NT. Well, we were off an ace. However, my RHO had the ace, LHO led a different suit, and I guessed the hand well to take 13 tricks anyway. Even though the opponents got fixed, I don't think it would have been legal, or fair, to adjust this result, since I didn't commit an infraction and since partner's infraction had a fixed penalty that was paid. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 2 08:18:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA11322 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 08:18:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA11317 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 08:18:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2iveidp.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.185]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA09845 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 16:18:20 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000301161551.01366d3c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 16:15:51 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Was it a psych? In-Reply-To: <001301bf8398$8e13e780$5feac997@jayapfelbaum> References: <4.3.0.20000301091326.00ad7890@rbdc.rbdc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:09 AM 3/1/00 -0500, Jay wrote: >According to the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, 1997 edition, the >definition of a psychic call is: > >"A deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length." > >My opinion is that the proper test to determine whether a bid is a psych is >objective in nature. That is, it does not matter whether the individual >ACTUALLY BELIEVED he or she was making a deliberate and gross misstatement >of honor strength or suit length. It only matters whether the bid, >deliberately made, IS a gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length. Sorry, Jay, but to argue this way is to "deliberately" ignore the use of the word "deliberate" in the definition. For better or worse, intentionality is a clear requirement here. That's not to say your reasons for an alternate definition are invalid, but rather that they don't comport with the clear meaning of the Laws as written. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 2 08:32:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA11367 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 08:32:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA11362 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 08:32:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2iveidp.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.185]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA00781 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 16:31:50 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000301162921.013657a8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 16:29:21 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Superschrikkeltornooi In-Reply-To: <38BCE6DC.7F5BA5D2@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:46 AM 3/1/00 +0100, Herman wrote: >My question now : > >Is it ethical to do the "ethical" thing, even when you >"could have known" that this might work to your own >advantage ? > Of course. There is no way to parse your question to arrive at a contrary answer. Moreover, you could hardly have known in the present instance that your correction of the misexplanation would in fact work to your advantage. It is quite possible that a heart lead is necessary to defeat/hold 3nt, based only on your hand and the available information (including the UI). If you had failed to offer this explanation, and the opponents had failed to find the winning heart lead in consequence, you would have well deserved the opprobrium of a PP in addition to a score correction. The "defense" that you were only trying to protect the interests of the opponents by steering them away from what looked like a losing heart attack will not be regarded with much sympathy. Ethical decisions are not to be evaluated based on their "results", any more than are bridge decisions. Your decision was appropriate (or not) at the time you made it based on the information you actually had. Whether your correction was legally appropriate is, perhaps, a more subtle question. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 2 10:06:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA11734 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 10:06:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA11728 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 10:05:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id SAA06233 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 18:05:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA29987 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 18:05:41 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 18:05:41 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200003012305.SAA29987@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Was it a psych? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Jay Apfelbaum" > "A deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length." > > My opinion is that the proper test to determine whether a bid is a psych is > objective in nature. That is, it does not matter whether the individual > ACTUALLY BELIEVED he or she was making a deliberate and gross misstatement > of honor strength or suit length. It only matters whether the bid, > deliberately made, IS a gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length. > > My reason for this approach is to eliminate the argument that a person > forgot their convention. What are the exact regulations (ACBL or other)? It should be possible to write them based on "use," not intent, but I don't know whether any SO's have done that. (Of course the TD still has to determine what the actual agreement was, but that's no worse than any MI case.) Even if the regulations are based on intent, doubtful points are determined in favor of the NOS, so it will seldom matter in practice. Still, it feels better to say "Sorry, I know you forgot, but the rules demand an adjustment regardless," instead of "Sorry, the rules say I must discount your self-serving testimony." I don't see anything wrong with your interpretation and in fact prefer it, but I don't think it is mandated by the language. As will be seen below, 'deliberate' is subject to interpretation. Even if the interpretation Jay and I prefer is not accepted, there is still L72B1. If the "forgetter" could have known, the TD can adjust. An adjustment under this law, unlike one under a "no psyching" regulation, is, of course, far from automatic, but it will apply whenever a psych had demonstrable bridge justification. Maybe that's good enough. > From: Adam Beneschan [and Michael Dennis similarly] > So you're proposing a change in the Laws, then? No. > The Laws deliberately use the term "deliberate". There's no way to > interpret that word that allows us *not* to consider the player's > intent. Well, yes, but intent _when_? L25A talks about an "inadvertent" call. Why shouldn't 'deliberate' be the opposite: a call that is not inadvertent within the meaning of L25A, i.e. at the instant it was made? > >Another point to consider. Will it made any difference during the bidding > >and play for the innocent and injured opponents whether the 2C bidder forgot > >their convention? > From: Grant Sterling > It will almost certainly make a difference in the bidding and play, > _especially_ with the example you have chosen but often at other times. > Because, after all, the _bidder and his partner_ are participants in the > auction, too. ... > 99% of the time when someone forgets an artifical bid the result > is an inferior result for his own side. I am willing to live with being > fixed the other 1% of the time. But won't the result be the _same_ whether the bid was a simple mistake or a deliberate psych? Why should there be any difference? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 2 11:51:16 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA12181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 11:51:16 +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 LAA12176 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 11:51:08 +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 QAA09202; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 16:51:06 -0800 Message-Id: <200003020051.QAA09202@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Was it a psych? In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 01 Mar 2000 18:05:41 PST." <200003012305.SAA29987@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 16:51:04 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: [I've reordered some of the quotes] > I don't see anything wrong with your interpretation and in fact prefer > it, but I don't think it is mandated by the language. As will be seen > below, 'deliberate' is subject to interpretation. . . . > > From: Adam Beneschan > [and Michael Dennis similarly] > > So you're proposing a change in the Laws, then? > > No. > > > The Laws deliberately use the term "deliberate". There's no way to > > interpret that word that allows us *not* to consider the player's > > intent. > > Well, yes, but intent _when_? L25A talks about an "inadvertent" > call. Why shouldn't 'deliberate' be the opposite: a call that is > not inadvertent within the meaning of L25A, i.e. at the instant it > was made? Because it's obvious to anyone reading the definition of "psychic call" that that's not what that means---unless you're trying hard to make it something else. The definition is: Psychic call - A deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length Some of the text in the Laws is ambiguous and can be interpreted in more than one way. That isn't the case here. "Deliberate" here means that the player knows his call is a gross misstatement and makes it anyway. No other interpretation is reasonably possible. Usually I try to acknowledge that there are two sides of an issue, but there is no other side here. If you try to interpret this clear language as something else, you're effectively saying that you don't like the law and are trying to find a way not to follow it. But IMHO it would be better simply to say "the Law should be changed", rather than trying to propose that a ridiculous and clearly incorrect interpretation be adopted so that we can pretend we're still following the Law. Come on. I can't believe you were serious about this. > Even if the interpretation [sic] Jay and I prefer is not accepted, there is > still L72B1. If the "forgetter" could have known, the TD can adjust. > An adjustment under this law, unlike one under a "no psyching" > regulation, is, of course, far from automatic, but it will apply > whenever a psych had demonstrable bridge justification. Maybe that's > good enough. Not really. For 72B1 to apply, the offender must have committed an irregularity. An "irregularity" is defined as "a deviation from the correct procedures as set forth in the Laws." One could argue that the rule about not psyching artificial bids is not in the Laws, and therefore such a psych can't be considered an irregularity, but this isn't clear, so let's assume for the moment that it can. If someone forgets, they're still not violating the regulations about psychic artificial calls, because a psych has to be "deliberate". Therefore, someone who forgets has not violated the ACBL regulation, and therefore has not committed an irregularity; and therefore Law 72B1 cannot be applied. > Even if the regulations are based on intent, doubtful points are > determined in favor of the NOS, so it will seldom matter in practice. > Still, it feels better to say "Sorry, I know you forgot, but the rules > demand an adjustment regardless," instead of "Sorry, the rules say I > must discount your self-serving testimony." Self-serving testimony certainly shouldn't be believed blindly. On the other hand, if the rules require a director to judge whether an action was deliberate or forgetful, a director who goes in assuming that the action was deliberate and who will not let any evidence sway him from his assumption is not doing his job. > What are the exact regulations (ACBL or other)? It should be possible > to write them based on "use," not intent, but I don't know whether any > SO's have done that. (Of course the TD still has to determine what > the actual agreement was, but that's no worse than any MI case.) I think some SO's do have "automatic" penalties when someone botches a Ghestem bid or something similar. I'm not convinced such penalties are allowed by the Laws, but at least there's precedent. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 2 11:58:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA12265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 11:58:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA12260 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 11:58:43 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id r.dc.190e9e7 (3310); Wed, 1 Mar 2000 19:57:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 19:57:34 EST Subject: Re: Was it a psych? 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 67 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 3/1/00 7:54:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, adam@irvine.com writes: > Some of the text in the Laws is ambiguous and can be interpreted in > more than one way. That isn't the case here. "Deliberate" here means > that the player knows his call is a gross misstatement and makes it > anyway. No other interpretation is reasonably possible. Usually I > try to acknowledge that there are two sides of an issue, but there is > no other side here. If you try to interpret this clear language as > something else, you're effectively saying that you don't like the law > and are trying to find a way not to follow it. But IMHO it would be > better simply to say "the Law should be changed", rather than trying > to propose that a ridiculous and clearly incorrect interpretation be > adopted so that we can pretend we're still following the Law. > > Come on. I can't believe you were serious about this. > Couldn't and wouldn't try to put it better!! Please make a list of those who still think they have a different case. We need it! Congratulations, Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 2 13:08:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA12823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 13:08:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA12818 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 13:07:57 +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 12QL1m-0005Mw-0U for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 02:07:47 +0000 Message-ID: <$ZXWUeCeZTv4Ew2M@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 15:25:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Superschrikkeltornooi In-Reply-To: <38BCE6DC.7F5BA5D2@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <38BCE6DC.7F5BA5D2@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Sorry for that subject name, I just couldn't resist. > >It is a word I coined yesterday evening, indicating a >tournament that is played just once every 400 years, on >super leap day (28-02-00, which, BTW, is always a tuesday). > >The dutch language has the interesting notion of just adding >words to one another, and so we get these long words. > A Dutch word 400 years long and not a single "j". Sigh. > >Is it ethical to do the "ethical" thing, even when you >"could have known" that this might work to your own >advantage ? > I believe you are correct to do this. Your opponents are entitled to your agreements, and your cpu's, not your mistakes. I fervently believe that *regardless of your holdings* your explanation must be the same on each occasion. By way of ruling - it's rub of the green. 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 Mar 2 14:53:46 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA14038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 14:53:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp-out2.bellatlantic.net (smtp-out2.bellatlantic.net [199.45.39.157]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA14032 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 14:53:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from jayapfelbaum (adsl-151-201-234-175.bellatlantic.net [151.201.234.175]) by smtp-out2.bellatlantic.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id WAA06340; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 22:51:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000f01bf83fa$9f419040$afeac997@jayapfelbaum> From: "Jay Apfelbaum" To: "Bridge Laws" , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <200003011813.KAA02504@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: Was it a psych? Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 22:50:22 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: (much cutting) > > According to the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, 1997 edition, the > > definition of a psychic call is: > > > > "A deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length." > > > > The Laws deliberately use the term "deliberate". There's no way to > interpret that word that allows us *not* to consider the player's > intent. There may be some good arguments in favor of using an > objective test to determine whether a call is a psych, instead of > trying to determine what the player believed about his own call, which > is a more subjective test. But to do so requires a Law change, since > the current definition of a "psych" in the Laws precludes such an > objective test. > > Then again, if the only effect of the definition is on an ACBL > regulation that most of us here feel is contrary to Law 40A anyway, I > guess it's not that great a stretch to abrogate another Law in the > process. > > -- Adam Respectfully, I disagree. There are countless instances in the Law (public, not bridge) where the intentions of the parties are presumed based on their actions. Subjective intent is considered to be irrelevant. A quick example. A person deliberately starts a fire. It spreads and a person (not a firefighter) is killed. In virtually every state in the USA that person will be convicted of murder in the first degree. It does not matter whether the person intended the fire to kill someone. It only matters that the person intended to start the fire. Even if the person NEVER intended that the fire would kill anyone. As for the language. There is nothing except history to support the reading suggested by Adam's post. The history is long and well established. That does not mean it is correct. I ask the group to accept that the law writers did not intend a ridiculous or inconsistent result when they wrote this definition. Accepting this intention, let us consider two cases. In the first case a player opens 2C, intending it to be natural and 11-15 hcp, as in the Precision system. However, on this occasion the partnership is playing a Standard 2/1 convention card. In the second case a player opens 2C with the same hand, but knows that in the system it is supposed to be strong, artificial and forcing. In both cases, partner does not alert. The first player, being ethical, knows that something is wrong because he or she was expecting to hear an alert. However, the player can do nothing about it (Law 16A). In both cases, partner bids as if the 2C bid was strong, artificial and forcing. In case one, the player rebids as though the 2C bid showed clubs and 11-15 hcp. In case two, the player continues the deception. Let us assume (sake of argument) that both auctions are identical. Both results are identical. Why should the TD adjustment (if any) be different? The non-offending pair is presented with the identical auction and the identical score. In this scenario, the only difference is the subjective intent of the 2C bidder. I suggest to the group that the various Laws Commissions could not possibly intend that these two tables would get a different result based solely on the mindset of the 2C bidder. My apologies for the length of this post. Jay Apfelbaum Pittsburgh, PA From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 2 15:37:41 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA14367 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 15:37:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from fb00.eng00.mindspring.net (fb00.eng00.mindspring.net [207.69.200.31]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA14361 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 15:37:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (user-2initio.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.118.88]) by fb00.eng00.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA22490 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 23:37:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <38BDF206.D7C0A749@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 20:45:58 -0800 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Was it a psych? References: <200003011813.KAA02504@mailhub.irvine.com> <000f01bf83fa$9f419040$afeac997@jayapfelbaum> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jay Apfelbaum wrote: > > Adam Beneschan wrote: (much cutting) > > > > According to the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, 1997 edition, the > > > definition of a psychic call is: > > > > > > "A deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length." > > > > > > > The Laws deliberately use the term "deliberate". There's no way to > > interpret that word that allows us *not* to consider the player's > > intent. There may be some good arguments in favor of using an > > objective test to determine whether a call is a psych, instead of > > trying to determine what the player believed about his own call, which > > is a more subjective test. But to do so requires a Law change, since > > the current definition of a "psych" in the Laws precludes such an > > objective test. > > > > Then again, if the only effect of the definition is on an ACBL > > regulation that most of us here feel is contrary to Law 40A anyway, I > > guess it's not that great a stretch to abrogate another Law in the > > process. > > > > -- Adam > > Respectfully, I disagree. There are countless instances in the Law (public, > not bridge) where the intentions of the parties are presumed based on their > actions. Subjective intent is considered to be irrelevant. > > A quick example. A person deliberately starts a fire. It spreads and a > person (not a firefighter) is killed. In virtually every state in the USA > that person will be convicted of murder in the first degree. It does not > matter whether the person intended the fire to kill someone. It only matters > that the person intended to start the fire. Even if the person NEVER > intended that the fire would kill anyone. This is a good analogy, but not for your position. Both common law and statutory law (US) make it first degree murder when someone dies for just about any reason during the commission of a felony. If the law simply stated that first degree murder were the deliberate killing of a person, it would not be first degree in this case. There is *specific* statutory law making it murder in the case you cite. If there weren't, it wouldn't be. (and in some states, it isn't in some cases) > > As for the language. There is nothing except history to support the reading > suggested by Adam's post. The history is long and well established. That > does not mean it is correct. And the specific language. I think inventing a new definition of "deliberate" for these purposes is contrived, to say the least. In Jeff Rubens' editorial in the March BW, he decries the interpretation of a seemingly clear law to mean something against its plain language. I think this is the same thing. The wording of the law is quite clear. > > I ask the group to accept that the law writers did not intend a ridiculous > or inconsistent result when they wrote this definition. > > Accepting this intention, let us consider two cases. In the first case a > player opens 2C, intending it to be natural and 11-15 hcp, as in the > Precision system. However, on this occasion the partnership is playing a > Standard 2/1 convention card. In the second case a player opens 2C with the > same hand, but knows that in the system it is supposed to be strong, > artificial and forcing. > > In both cases, partner does not alert. The first player, being ethical, > knows that something is wrong because he or she was expecting to hear an > alert. However, the player can do nothing about it (Law 16A). In both cases, > partner bids as if the 2C bid was strong, artificial and forcing. In case > one, the player rebids as though the 2C bid showed clubs and 11-15 hcp. In > case two, the player continues the deception. > > Let us assume (sake of argument) that both auctions are identical. Both > results are identical. Why should the TD adjustment (if any) be different? Because the rule is different. We are putting the cart before the horse. To bring back your analogy, why should the rule be different if your co-criminal dies in the arson fire than if an unrelated burglar fries? Because that's the way the law is written (in some states, anyway.) (I'm addressing this as a UI situation only, and avoiding the ACBL regulation on psyching artificial openers, which is a separate subject unto itself.) Let's start with what the law says, rather than what we think it should say. > The non-offending pair is presented with the identical auction and the > identical score. > > In this scenario, the only difference is the subjective intent of the 2C > bidder. > > I suggest to the group that the various Laws Commissions could not possibly > intend that these two tables would get a different result based solely on > the mindset of the 2C bidder. Well, that's irrelevant. Intent of the lawmakers is only important when the wording of the law is vague. This law is utterly clear. If they meant something else, they should have said so. I recognize that some SO's like to make up rules in conflict with the wording of the laws and base it on a tortured reading of said laws. But I think when we have clear laws, we need to read them as written. If they didn't want "deliberate" in the definition, they could have left the word out. --JRM From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 2 15:44:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA14436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 15:44:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA14430 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 15:44:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.2]) by swarm.mosquitonet.com (8.9.1/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA05999 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 19:44:00 -0900 Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 19:44:00 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: February Bulletin appeal Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Unless I missed it, this fairly straightforward case never popped up on the list. (My February bulletin only came in Friday's mail.) The person in the hot seat is responder and holds S:K843 H:5 D:AQ4 C:Q9865 Opponents are silent, you aren't vulnerable. The auction starts 1H 1S 2S(after long hesitation) At the table, our hero bids 2NT, gets raised to 3NT and makes it. Opener turns out to hold AT7-AKT94-J5-AT3. Table director ruled no alternative to bidding on and let the score stand. "The committee could find no justification for the director's ruling. Passing 2S was an attractive alternative, and bidding anything after partner's break in tempo was deemed sugfficiently egregious to refer the matter to the recorder." Score adjusted to 2S+3. ----------- I do not claim to be an expert player. But IMO the director missed the boat slightly, and the appeals committee's logic was truly bizarre. What does the hesitation suggest? When I first saw the problem I thought "partner gave himself a rebid problem and must have raised me with three spades." (Much less likely is that he is on the borderline between 2S and 3S.) The UI is strongly suggesting spades is only a 7-card fit, and demonstrably suggests a natural 2NT over any number of spades. At no point while reading the article did it even occur to me anyone was considering passing 2S holding this hand, until I read the appeals committee's decision in the last paragraph. Do people really think stopping at the 2-level with this hand and an (absent the UI) good 8-card fit in spades is an LA, and that taking another call is such an egregious error as to warrant a recorder form? If I were ruling, I would require a game try in spades in place of 2NT from responder. Opener would surely accept the game try, but very likely by bidding 3NT, not 4S, and I would let responder pass opener's 3NT. It turns out not to make much difference which side 3NT is played from so I would rule score stands. I would be sympathetic to a table director ruling 4S-1 (appealed by the OS and put back to 3NT+3 in committee probably.) Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 2 18:23:10 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA14928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 18:23:10 +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 SAA14923 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 18:23:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 23:23:05 -0800 Message-ID: <00f101bf8418$16b67100$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200003011955.LAA04137@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: Superschrikkeltornooi Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 23:14:27 -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 Adam Beneschan wrote: > > David Grabiner wrote: > > > At 9:01 AM -0800 3/1/00, Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > >Suppose partner breaks tempo with a long pause before passing, and you have an > > >obvious bid or double but decide to pass "for ethical reasons." If the > > >pass ends > > >up damaging the opponents they are due redress, because you have made a call > > >that was influenced by the break in tempo, one that was not a logical > > >alternative to some action. > > > > I don't think this interpretation is reasonable under the current Laws. > > L16A and L74F1 only apply if pass was "demonstrably suggested" over bid or > > double, and partner's slow pass could not have demonstrably suggested pass > > over bid since you took it to have demonstrably suggested bid over pass. Some laws have obvious corrollaries. The law says I must stop at a red light. The obvious corollary, which goes without saying, is that I must not stop at a green light. L16A says a player may not take an action demonstrably suggested by UI if there is an LA. The corollary is that a player *should* take an action demonstrably suggested by UI if there is no LA. Doing otherwise is allowing the UI to affect one's bidding abnormally, which can't be right. > > > While L73C requires you to avoid taking any advantage of the UI, this is > > only any advantage that you could expect to gain. L73C is an ethical law, > > and ethics require you to take the action which you believe to be proper, > > even if it turns out to work. Where is it written that ethical considerations require a player to take an illogical action not suggested by the UI, one that no one else would take? > > One of my favorite "war stories" is something that happened a long > time ago. This was before bidding boxes were commonly used. Our > auction went: > > Partner Me > 1H 2C > 3H 4NT(1) (1) standard Blackwood > 4H > > Partner misheard my bid and thought I said 3NT. We called the > director, who explained the rules, including the rule that if partner > simply made his bid sufficient there would be no further penalty. (At > the time, it was irrelevant that the 5H bid was conventional.) > Partner bid 5H (to keep me from being barred, as he told me after the > hand), which led to an ethical dilemma. Ethics has nothing to do with it. Partner has shown two aces in response to Blackwood, and you must bid accordingly. WTP? > I knew partner didn't > necessarily have the two aces he was showing me, so I asked the > director what my responsibilities were here. Director was no help at > all---he said only "Well, we're not using screens." I hope this ruling was incorrect at the time. I think he should have said, "Pretend you don't know about the four-heart bid, and act accordingly." > I finally decided > the ethical thing to do was to assume partner did have a legitimate 5H > response; so, holding two aces myself, I asked for kings, got a 6S > response, and bid 7NT. Well, we were off an ace. However, my RHO had > the ace, LHO led a different suit, and I guessed the hand well to take > 13 tricks anyway. Ethics aside, it was the only legal thing to do. > > Even though the opponents got fixed, I don't think it would have been > legal, or fair, to adjust this result, since I didn't commit an > infraction and since partner's infraction had a fixed penalty that was > paid. Correct. Nothing I have written contradicts this conclusion. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 2 18:43:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA14978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 18:43:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns2.san.rr.com (ns2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA14973 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 18:43:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 23:43:12 -0800 Message-ID: <013c01bf841a$e60a15e0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <004301bf83aa$fb5083a0$9f84d9ce@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: Superschrikkeltornooi Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 23:37:17 -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 Craig Senior wrote: > > From: Marvin L. French > > >Herman De Wael wrote (regarding action to be taken when in possession of > UI). > > > > > >> My question now : > >> > >> Is it ethical to do the "ethical" thing, even when you > >> "could have known" that this might work to your own > >> advantage ? > >> > >I don't think ethics have anything to do with it. You are legally obligated > to > >refrain from making any call that is occasioned... > > ###Not occasioned, but demonstrably suggested over a logical alternative### I wasn't quoting the law, I was saying that one ought not to do something weird that is occasioned by partner's hesitation, even if not suggested by it. L16A says you can't take an action suggested, yeah, demonstrably suggested, by UI from partner. Nowhere do the Laws say that good ethics require you to take an illogical action when there is no LA to the action suggested by the UI, and I think it is wrong to do so. We can't have unethical players hesitating in order to stop an ethical partner from taking an obvious action. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 2 18:54:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA15017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 18:54:17 +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 SAA15011 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 18:54:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (user-38ldnat.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.221.93]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA21950 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 02:53:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <38BE2022.CB2B3E2F@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 00:02:42 -0800 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: February Bulletin appeal References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote: > > Unless I missed it, this fairly straightforward case never popped up on > the list. (My February bulletin only came in Friday's mail.) > > The person in the hot seat is responder and holds > > S:K843 > H:5 > D:AQ4 > C:Q9865 > > Opponents are silent, you aren't vulnerable. > > The auction starts > > 1H 1S > 2S(after long hesitation) > > At the table, our hero bids 2NT, gets raised to 3NT and makes it. > Opener turns out to hold AT7-AKT94-J5-AT3. > > Table director ruled no alternative to bidding on and let the score stand. > > "The committee could find no justification for the director's ruling. > Passing 2S was an attractive alternative, and bidding anything after > partner's break in tempo was deemed sugfficiently egregious to refer the > matter to the recorder." Score adjusted to 2S+3. > > ----------- > > I do not claim to be an expert player. But IMO the director missed the > boat slightly, and the appeals committee's logic was truly bizarre. > > What does the hesitation suggest? > > When I first saw the problem I thought "partner gave himself a rebid > problem and must have raised me with three spades." (Much less likely is > that he is on the borderline between 2S and 3S.) IMO, slow raises on 1m-1M-2M are usually three-card raises. 1H-1S-2S could be a number of things, but I think the two cited by Gordon are the top two. The UI is strongly > suggesting spades is only a 7-card fit, and demonstrably suggests a > natural 2NT over any number of spades. I agree completely. > > At no point while reading the article did it even occur to me anyone was > considering passing 2S holding this hand, until I read the appeals > committee's decision in the last paragraph. Do people really think > stopping at the 2-level with this hand and an (absent the UI) good 8-card > fit in spades is an LA, and that taking another call is such an egregious > error as to warrant a recorder form? I think it is close in the strict ACBL construction. I am inclined to believe not, but if playing mildly lighter openers than standard, it is. > > If I were ruling, I would require a game try in spades in place of 2NT > from responder. Opener would surely accept the game try, but very likely > by bidding 3NT, not 4S, and I would let responder pass opener's 3NT. It > turns out not to make much difference which side 3NT is played from so I > would rule score stands. I would be sympathetic to a table director ruling > 4S-1 (appealed by the OS and put back to 3NT+3 in committee probably.) My reaction to the article was to roll it to 4S, off one. 2NT is pretty egregious on this shape; clearly other options exist as tries. There is a reasonable case, playing a standard opening style, to make a game try by bidding 4S, so as not to give away clues. This may not be ideal, but it is not clear to me that after a 3C try that this will necessarily lead to 3N either. I thought the boat was missed, also. But I'm on a different ship. I think the worst probable result is 4S-1, which is the score I would assign. --JRM From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 2 19:38:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA15370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 19:38:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA15364 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 19:38:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.27] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12QR7d-000E5h-00; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 08:38:13 +0000 Message-ID: <000701bf8422$ec026e40$1b5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Gordon Bower" Cc: References: Subject: Re: February Bulletin appeal Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 08:38:10 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 4:44 AM Subject: February Bulletin appeal ----------------\x/----------------- > > The person in the hot seat is responder and holds > > S:K843 > H:5 > D:AQ4 > C:Q9865 > -------------- \x/ ---------------- > > At no point while reading the article did it even occur to me anyone was > considering passing 2S holding this hand, until I read the appeals > committee's decision in the last paragraph. Do people really think > stopping at the 2-level with this hand and an (absent the UI) good 8-card > fit in spades is an LA, and that taking another call is such an egregious > error as to warrant a recorder form? > > If I were ruling, I would require a game try in spades in place of 2NT > from responder. Opener would surely accept the game try, but very likely > by bidding 3NT, not 4S, and I would let responder pass opener's 3NT. It > turns out not to make much difference which side 3NT is played from so I > would rule score stands. I would be sympathetic to a table director ruling > 4S-1 (appealed by the OS and put back to 3NT+3 in committee probably.) > > > Gordon Bower > +=+ I wonder whether this committee would have taken another view if responder had passed and dummy had appeared with four Spades and 9 or 10 HCP? I feel more or less as you do about what I would have expected. After a try with 3C opener might find 3D. But I do think there are ways to 3NT whatever. I do not know how certain I feel that declarer might not be in 4S some of the time. Where the WBF Code of Practice operates a 12C3 adjustment is thinkable. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 2 19:50:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA15538 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 19:50:33 +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 TAA15532 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 19:50:24 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id IAA15095 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 08:49:46 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 08:49 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Was it a psych? 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: <4.3.0.20000301091326.00ad7890@rbdc.rbdc.com> Walt Flory wrote: > I was recently told by ACBL Tournament directors that a psych was > defined as a "gross distortion" and that the consensus was that a bid > which showed both minor suits on a hand with two diamonds and four > clubs was not considered to be a gross distortion. Sounds likely to have been a psyche but three possible explanations occur. 1. Playing a defence to a strong club I can show 2-suiters (at least 3-4) with up to thirteen points. Holding xxxx,xxx,AQ,AQxx my judgement tells me that the possible lead benefits of distorting this to a minor (rather than black) two-suiter outweigh the risks (in this system xxx,xxx,AQx,AQxx would be a crystal clear minor 2-suiter). - not a gross distortion 2. Holding a 3424 hand I missort to a 3244 and bid accordingly. Not deliberate - not a psyche. 3. Holding Axxx,Axx,QJ,QJT9 Bidding goes 1N 2D* X** 2H *=majors **=diamonds 2N*** ***=explained as "shows playability in both minors" - Not the world's greatest explanation but 2N is not a psyche. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 2 21:30:22 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA16021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 21:30:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA16015 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 21:30:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id LAA24811 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 11:29:57 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Mar 02 11:29:33 2000 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JMK0QDZ76W0016CX@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 11:29:01 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 02 Mar 2000 11:28:34 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 11:28:59 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: Forbo impression To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B571@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 We had our strongest yearly international team event last weekend, sponsored by Forbo, a big carpet-linoleum firm in my country (I'll send them this message). And we had it all, so my BLML preparations were very useful. 1) During play declarer calls for the TD and tells him that the spade-J played by his LHO is still in his own hand, to be played later. I was the CTD so my TD's come to me when they are in trouble. And I remembered my answer here: if this card is brought into play by LHO himself we just take it out and let him play a legal card. The pocket contained 13 cards, acording to LHO and how he got this card he didn't know. Well we knew after a short investigation, it belonged to his pocket of the board just played before. 2) Di Falco (Italy) had to make the only decision left and wanted to postpone it. So some boards later he suddenly looked up and said Jack of spades, after which they wrote down the result. (the same happened some years ago with Zia Mahmood in Cap Gemini). Is this acceptable? I wasn't called at all, so I didn't necessarily know it (coward, ok). 3) One of the Dutch teams called me at the table after finishing a round. Playing against a Swedish team LHO opponent Swede had revoked and so won an extra trick, 3 off iso 2 (800 iso 500). This wasn't noticed during play (last board) but after finishing the Dutch coach made a remark and so the Dutch discovered. I was called and the coach told me that the Swede had thought for almost a minute before revoking. He suspected him of needing this time to assure that the revoke couldn't loose (the only winning (extra) trick to be given back when discovered). I didn't want to go into that possibility, but certainly there are riskless revokes. My decision (Yes John) was to restore equity and give the Dutch one trick back. Now the Swedes came to me, asking on what law this decison was based. Always a good question. I started telling them that winning an event by collecting undeserved tricks shouldn't be their style with which they agreed (of course). Then they told me that in the (I think) Bermuda Bowl in Stockholm in '83 the same happened with Zia revoking and after play the Swedish captain noticed the revoke. The chief TD, our famous Harold Franklin, had given the captain a severe warning for interupting the game and the result was not changed. They apparently wanted their revenge here. So I showed them 81C6 and we continued. 4) There was a very unethical bid by a Chinese player, but since they hardly speak English I didn't have the possibility to explain that. And penalties without explanations are useless, so I just gave the adjusted score. 5) There was a decision taken by a TD in a match between a Polish and a Dutch team. The TD was not very clear in his communcation to the players, so the Polish came to me complaining about the decision itself and about the fact that they were not informed. Looking at the decision I I changed it and informed both sides. Now the Dutch wanted to appeal, though the decision appeared to be immaterial, no change in ranking, qualification or what so ever. Next day the appeal committee considered the appeal to be frivolous (wihout merit) and would have kept the money if the procedure had been more accurate. So they gave me the money and told me that I had to take the decision whether to give the money back! Do you consider that to be a legal decision from an AC? I gave it back and now the appeal committee started complaining the way I always do to them: how could you give it back? Good revenge. 6) We played a four nations cup with 20 board matches. In the first and second match boards 1-10 were put on a table and 11-20 on the other. In the third round one match (with the Dutch team) was presented on Teletekst (Dutch TV), so we put 18-20 in the open room and 1-17 in the closed, making it possible to follow the running score from the 4th played board on. I was called at the open tablewhen it started playing board 14. Opening the board (we play with that kind) they found the ace of spades faced up in a pocket. I told them to continue with board 15 and went to the other table, where it had been played. Asking what had happened a Dutch player told me that he had turned his cards since they were played at both tables, assuming to help me. I ran back and could save another board. Then I gave an average minus to the Dutch. Now both teams were angry. The Dutch felt penalized for cooperative behaviour and the Chinese had a really good result in 3NT in a board that probably is at least one off. (Yes I know 72B1 could be applicable, but I was convinced that this player really wanted to help me). So I stuck to my decision of average minus. Better ideas? Very entertaining tournament, good for a nice article in the Dutch quarterly for TD's. ton From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 2 23:21:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA16304 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 23:21:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.70]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA16299 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 23:21:15 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id b.df.1e7e1ee (4230); Thu, 2 Mar 2000 07:20:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 07:20:01 EST Subject: Re: Superschrikkeltornooi 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 67 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 3/2/00 2:44:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, mlfrench@writeme.com writes: > L16A says you can't take an action suggested, yeah, demonstrably suggested, > by > UI from partner. Nowhere do the Laws say that good ethics require you to > take an > illogical action when there is no LA to the action suggested by the UI, and > I > think it is wrong to do so. We can't have unethical players hesitating in > order > to stop an ethical partner from taking an obvious action. > > Marv (Marvin L. French) > right on! The important operative words of this post are WHEN THERE IS NO LOGICAL ALTERNATIVE. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 3 00:35:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA16502 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 00:35:59 +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 AAA16497 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 00:35:51 +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 IAA01328 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 08:34:57 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000302084000.006a2e10@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 08:40:00 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Was it a psych? In-Reply-To: <4.3.0.20000301091326.00ad7890@rbdc.rbdc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:17 AM 3/1/00 -0500, Walt wrote: >I was recently told by ACBL Tournament directors that a psych was defined >as a "gross distortion" and that the consensus was that a bid which showed >both minor suits on a hand with two diamonds and four clubs was not >considered to be a gross distortion. > >I welcome comments on this from the group. I should think that all depends on the situation. For example, 4NT showing both minors holding 2-4 would be a gross distortion on the auction 1S-4NT, but might be a perfectly reasonable description, not a distortion at all, on an auction like 1D-1S-X-P- 2D-2S-X-3S- 4C-4S-4NT. Knowing only that a consensus of ACBL TDs considered a particular call not to be a gross distortion is hardly sufficient to suggest that it was. 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 Mar 3 00:58:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA16578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 00:58:04 +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 AAA16572 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 00:57:56 +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 IAA04381 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 08:57:04 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000302090207.006f0808@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 09:02:07 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Superschrikkeltornooi In-Reply-To: <001501bf839f$bd464140$16991e18@san.rr.com> References: <38BCE6DC.7F5BA5D2@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:01 AM 3/1/00 -0800, Marvin wrote: >Suppose partner breaks tempo with a long pause before passing, and you have an >obvious bid or double but decide to pass "for ethical reasons." If the pass ends >up damaging the opponents they are due redress, because you have made a call >that was influenced by the break in tempo, one that was not a logical >alternative to some action. No PP for this one! Hardly. The UI rules do not provide automatic redress whenever a logical alternative action would have worked out better for the opponents; they also require that the action chosen must have been demonstrably suggested over its LAs. I think we are in general agreement that L16A may require a player to choose a call which is *not* the same call he would have made absent the UI; Marv's logic would make such a call subject to redress. 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 Mar 3 02:42:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA17035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 02:42:05 +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 CAA17030 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 02:41:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12QXjW-000FwX-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 15:41:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 15:16:40 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: Forbo impression References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B571@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B571@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B571@fdwag002s.fd.agro.n l>, Kooijman, A. writes >We had our strongest yearly international team event last weekend, sponsored >by Forbo, a big carpet-linoleum firm in my country (I'll send them this >message). And we had it all, so my BLML preparations were very useful. > >1) During play declarer calls for the TD and tells him that the spade-J >played by his LHO is still in his own hand, to be played later. I was the >CTD so my TD's come to me when they are in trouble. And I remembered my >answer here: if this card is brought into play by LHO himself we just take >it out and let him play a legal card. The pocket contained 13 cards, >acording to LHO and how he got this card he didn't know. Well we knew after >a short investigation, it belonged to his pocket of the board just played >before. > My friends in the EBU will know that Amos' Second Law of Tournament Directing is that When one player produces a card that another player also has in his hand, usually something has gone wrong (Amos' First Law is that bridge tables with three legs don't work very well) The English Bridge Union has recently been using some sponsored playing cards which all have the same backs instead of the alternately red and blue we all love. I thought that this was a bad idea because it makes duplimating more difficult, but I've also noticed a spate of these cases where cards get left behind or retained and players play with 12 or 14 (It's not helped by the colour of these cards - which are white with printing - they get mixed up with convention cards scorecards and the other trash on the table) -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 3 04:23:36 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA17345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 04:23:36 +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 EAA17339 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 04:23:27 +1100 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA12198 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 12:22:29 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200003021722.MAA12198@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: February Bulletin appeal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 12:22:29 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Gordon Bower" at Mar 01, 2000 07:44:00 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 Gordon Bower writes: > > > Unless I missed it, this fairly straightforward case never popped up on > the list. (My February bulletin only came in Friday's mail.) > > The person in the hot seat is responder and holds > > S:K843 > H:5 > D:AQ4 > C:Q9865 > > Opponents are silent, you aren't vulnerable. > > The auction starts > > 1H 1S > 2S(after long hesitation) > > At the table, our hero bids 2NT, gets raised to 3NT and makes it. > Opener turns out to hold AT7-AKT94-J5-AT3. > > Table director ruled no alternative to bidding on and let the score stand. > > "The committee could find no justification for the director's ruling. > Passing 2S was an attractive alternative, and bidding anything after > partner's break in tempo was deemed sugfficiently egregious to refer the > matter to the recorder." Score adjusted to 2S+3. > > ----------- > > I do not claim to be an expert player. But IMO the director missed the > boat slightly, and the appeals committee's logic was truly bizarre. > > What does the hesitation suggest? > > When I first saw the problem I thought "partner gave himself a rebid > problem and must have raised me with three spades." (Much less likely is > that he is on the borderline between 2S and 3S.) The UI is strongly > suggesting spades is only a 7-card fit, and demonstrably suggests a > natural 2NT over any number of spades. The point is that a natural 2NT caters to either a 3 card raise or extra strength. With a regular partner I'd expect to know which he had. Or have a real good idea. > > At no point while reading the article did it even occur to me anyone was > considering passing 2S holding this hand, until I read the appeals > committee's decision in the last paragraph. Do people really think > stopping at the 2-level with this hand and an (absent the UI) good 8-card > fit in spades is an LA, Who says anything about an 8 card fit? 3 card raises are routine for a lot of players. I think a lot depends on partnership style. If they routinely open on air and freely raise on 3 card support (and yes this is a playable style), then pass is indeed a LA. Especially if they have other ways of raising. > and that taking another call is such an egregious > error as to warrant a recorder form? It's not an error. The point they're making is that the 2NT call is knowingly making use of UI. I wouldn't be prepared to go that far without further investigation. Hopefully the committee did the investigation. Though the report is silent on this. I'd like to know ability levels as well. > If I were ruling, I would require a game try in spades in place of 2NT > from responder. Don't see this. Plus methods matter here. What would 3C be? Some form of a try to be sure but an acceptable one in their methods? > Opener would surely accept the game try, but very likely > by bidding 3NT, not 4S, and I would let responder pass opener's 3NT. I don't like this. In conjunction with the slow 2S, it's an *extremely* accurate description of the hand. We don't want to reward this. > It turns out not to make much difference which side 3NT is played from > so I would rule score stands. I would be sympathetic to a table director > ruling 4S-1 (appealed by the OS and put back to 3NT+3 in committee probably.) I think I could be convinced either way based on information we don't have. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 3 04:39:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA17420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 04:39:40 +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 EAA17415 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 04:39:34 +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 GFA8P4W1; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 11:38:38 -0600 X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 11:41:07 -0600 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: Was it a psych? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It looks to me like the question that started this thread really was something about a psychic unusual 2NT overcall or the like. The call seems to me to have been likely to be a psych, but the auction was not given, nor were the opponent's systemic use of the call, so who can tell? Adjustment under ACBL regulations would depend on the event, and on whether there was UI. ACBL regulations : Limited Convention Chart: 3.Psyching of artificial opening bids or conventional responses to artificial opening bids is not allowed. General Convention Chart: (Disallowed) 2.Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less than two notrump, to natural openings. Convention Mid Chart: (Disallowed) 2.Psyching of artificial opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto. Super Convention Chart: (Disallowed) 2.Psyching of artificial opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto. Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274 Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 3 05:34:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA17752 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 05:34:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from igngate.merck.de (igngate.merck.de [194.196.248.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA17747 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 05:34:26 +1100 (EST) From: James.Vickers@merck.de Received: from dedamsgnt02.merck.de (smtpgw.merck.de [155.250.248.234]) by igngate.merck.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA27267 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 19:33:31 +0100 (MET) X-Internal-ID: 38BD52EE00004205 Received: from dedamsg4.merck.de (155.250.249.26) by dedamsgnt02.merck.de (NPlex 2.0.123) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 19:33:30 +0100 Received: by dedamsg4.merck.de(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.5 (863.2 5-20-1999)) id C1256896.0065DE64 ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 19:32:40 +0100 X-Lotus-FromDomain: MERCK To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 19:32:47 +0100 Subject: Re: was it a psych? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jay Apfelbaum wrote: >My opinion is that the proper test to determine whether a bid is a psych is >objective in nature. That is, it does not matter whether the individual >ACTUALLY BELIEVED he or she was making a deliberate and gross misstatement >of honor strength or suit length. It only matters whether the bid, >deliberately made, IS a gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length. Marv commented: >But isn't the point moot? A psychic call is legal as long as there is no >concealed partnership agreement that protects it (L73E). This reminds me of the following hand which came up years ago in a league match played privately: Dealer W, N/S vul: 9 x x A x A 10 x x A K x x K Q J 10 x x x x J 10 x Q x x Q x x x x 10 x Q J x x x A x K x x x x K J x x x x W N E S 2H(1) 3D(2) p 3NT all pass (1) alerted, N asked and was told "weak two in hearts" (2) alerted, Hackett convention, a strong take-out W led spades, won the lead when declarer took the diamond finesse and cashed more spades for two down. N/S queried the opening bid. East admitted that they had for years used 2H as a weak two in either major until a director recently informed them this was illegal, since when they switched to playing standard weak twos. She said her partner had probably opened 2H out of habit. N/S asked me how the ruling would have gone if they had appealed. What do you think? Do you judge West's action to be: 1. a psych (no score adjustment)? 2. an illegal convention (60%/30% assigned adjusted score)? 3. a misbid (no adjustment)? Would you rule differently without East's admission of the partnership's past misdemeanours? James From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 3 06:05:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA17857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 06:05:48 +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 GAA17852 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 06:05:40 +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 LAA24606; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 11:05:38 -0800 Message-Id: <200003021905.LAA24606@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: February Bulletin appeal In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 02 Mar 2000 12:22:29 PST." <200003021722.MAA12198@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 11:05:39 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ron Johnson writes: > Gordon Bower writes: > > > > > > Unless I missed it, this fairly straightforward case never popped up on > > the list. (My February bulletin only came in Friday's mail.) > > > > The person in the hot seat is responder and holds > > > > S:K843 > > H:5 > > D:AQ4 > > C:Q9865 > > > > Opponents are silent, you aren't vulnerable. > > > > The auction starts > > > > 1H 1S > > 2S(after long hesitation) > > > > At the table, our hero bids 2NT, gets raised to 3NT and makes it. > > Opener turns out to hold AT7-AKT94-J5-AT3. . . . > > Opener would surely accept the game try, but very likely > > by bidding 3NT, not 4S, and I would let responder pass opener's 3NT. > > I don't like this. In conjunction with the slow 2S, it's an *extremely* > accurate description of the hand. We don't want to reward this. I agree with most of what you say, but not quite this part. Suppose the auction had gone: 1H 1S tank-2S 3C 3NT pass I don't think there's any logical alternative to the last pass. If partner gives you a choice of games with 3NT, I believe the only logical alternative is to play in 3NT, given the poor quality of your spades and your relatively good holdings in the minors. It's true, as you say, that the hesitation plus the 3NT bid is an accurate description of the hand; but the 3NT bid by itself is enough of a description to justify passing 3NT. I'm not saying that I'd let the score stand in the actual case. There are other logical alternatives to 2NT besides 3C. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 3 06:08:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA17874 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 06:08:08 +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 GAA17868 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 06:08:00 +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 GFA8P5QS; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 13:07:52 -0600 X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200003021722.MAA12198@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> References: from "Gordon Bower" at Mar 01, 2000 07:44:00 PM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 13:10:27 -0600 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: February Bulletin appeal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Methods surely determine logical alternatives. For me (absent UI) with partner G, 2NT is automatic. With partner N, 4S is automatic. With partner B, the matter does not arise. He bid 3NT last round. 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 Fri Mar 3 06:11:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA17897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 06:11:52 +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 GAA17892 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 06:11:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id OAA29580 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 14:11:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA00953 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 14:11:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 14:11:31 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200003021911.OAA00953@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: was it a psych? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: James.Vickers@merck.de > 1. a psych (no score adjustment)? > 2. an illegal convention (60%/30% assigned adjusted score)? > 3. a misbid (no adjustment)? Also think about MI. Was East's description of the agreement about the 2H bid ("natural, weak") complete as required by L75C? (I'm just glad the choice between 1 and 3 makes no difference.) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 3 06:44:56 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA17992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 06:44:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA17980 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 06:43:29 +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 OAA26171; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 14:41:53 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B571@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 14:32:20 -0500 To: "Kooijman, A." , "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Forbo impression Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:28 AM +0100 3/2/00, Kooijman, A. wrote: >1) During play declarer calls for the TD and tells him that the spade-J >played by his LHO is still in his own hand, to be played later. I was the >CTD so my TD's come to me when they are in trouble. And I remembered my >answer here: if this card is brought into play by LHO himself we just take >it out and let him play a legal card. The pocket contained 13 cards, >acording to LHO and how he got this card he didn't know. Well we knew after >a short investigation, it belonged to his pocket of the board just played >before. Unfortunately, you now have a UI problem, as LHO knows one of declarer's cards, and RHO knows that LHO's bids and previous plays were based on holding one more spade than he actually holds. >2) Di Falco (Italy) had to make the only decision left and wanted to >postpone it. So some boards later he suddenly looked up and said Jack of >spades, after which they wrote down the result. (the same happened some >years ago with Zia Mahmood in Cap Gemini). Is this acceptable? I wasn't >called at all, so I didn't necessarily know it (coward, ok). Could you describe this more completely? Did he have a guess and start the next board before finishing the current one? There doesn't seem to be any specific rule about this, but I don't think a player should be entitled to use his table presence for half an hour before deciding on a guess. I would probably let the result stand and give the declarer a warning for slow play; taking 30 minutes to play a card is problematic. >4) There was a very unethical bid by a Chinese player, but since they hardly >speak English I didn't have the possibility to explain that. And penalties >without explanations are useless, so I just gave the adjusted score. This doesn't seem fair; would a better action have been to impose the penalty and write a written explanation, which the player might ask an English-speaking teammate or captain to translate? >5) There was a decision taken by a TD in a match between a Polish and a >Dutch team. The TD was not very clear in his communcation to the players, so >the Polish came to me complaining about the decision itself and about the >fact that they were not informed. Looking at the decision I I changed it and >informed both sides. Now the Dutch wanted to appeal, though the decision >appeared to be immaterial, no change in ranking, qualification or what so >ever. Next day the appeal committee considered the appeal to be frivolous >(wihout merit) and would have kept the money if the procedure had been more >accurate. I do not believe that any appeal can be frivolous if a qualified tournament director, with knowledge of the facts, came to the opposite decision. If an on-the-spot decision without full information is corrected later, possibly by the same director, a frivolous appeal is possible but unlikely. Thus the AC's conclusion so far is reasonable. >So they gave me the money and told me that I had to take the >decision whether to give the money back! Do you consider that to be a legal >decision from an AC? Not in this form. The AC can ask the TD for his understanding of the facts of the case, but it is the AC's decision whether the appeal is frivolous. >I gave it back and now the appeal committee started >complaining the way I always do to them: how could you give it back? You were right here. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 3 07:27:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA18148 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 07:27:26 +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 HAA18143 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 07:27:18 +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 OAA23311 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 14:31:09 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000302142555.00799760@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 14:25:55 -0600 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: Was it a psych? In-Reply-To: <200003012305.SAA29987@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:05 PM 3/1/2000 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Grant Sterling >> It will almost certainly make a difference in the bidding and play, >> _especially_ with the example you have chosen but often at other times. >> Because, after all, the _bidder and his partner_ are participants in the >> auction, too. >... >> 99% of the time when someone forgets an artifical bid the result >> is an inferior result for his own side. I am willing to live with being >> fixed the other 1% of the time. > >But won't the result be the _same_ whether the bid was a simple mistake >or a deliberate psych? Why should there be any difference? a) Unlike Jay's imagined case, in most cases the person who psyches a bid will not in fact hold the cards for another bid that could have been mistaken for it. {I.e., most of the time when someone wants to psyche a Flannery 2D bid, they will not be holding 6 diamonds, and if they are we will be very skeptical of their claim to be psyching.} So in most cases when the bidding starts: 2C [ACBL-illegal psych].... the bidding will not continue the same way it would when it starts: 2C [with long clubs, thinking they're playing Precision].... b) Psychers don't have to continue bidding as if they had their bid, while those who have forgotten usually do. 2C [psych] X 2S [artifical control showing] 3H ??? Psycher knows his partner hasn't shown spades, and so will certainly not raise them and will probably pass. 2C [misbid] X 2S [???] 3H ??? Misbidder, unless he has woken up, will not interpret 2S as artificial control showing {since he doesn't know he's made a strong 2C}. He will interpret 2S as whatever it is in the Precision system he thinks he's playing. If that's natural, he may well raise spades with 3 or otherwise stick his head in a noose. So the only cases where the bidding will probably be the same are those where at one table someone psyches a bid holding exactly the cards for another bid that can be mistaken for it, while at the other table someone misbids and then remembers that he has misbid before partner makes any call or alert or failure to alert. Not very common cases, and ones where TD's are trained to be suspicious. -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 3 07:51:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA18242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 07:51:27 +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 HAA18237 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 07:51:19 +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 OAA01256 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 14:55:15 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000302145001.007af230@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 14:50:01 -0600 To: "Bridge Laws" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: Was it a psych? In-Reply-To: <000f01bf83fa$9f419040$afeac997@jayapfelbaum> References: <200003011813.KAA02504@mailhub.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:50 PM 3/1/2000 -0500, Jay Apfelbaum wrote: >I ask the group to accept that the law writers did not intend a ridiculous >or inconsistent result when they wrote this definition. I agree. :) >Accepting this intention, let us consider two cases. In the first case a >player opens 2C, intending it to be natural and 11-15 hcp, as in the >Precision system. However, on this occasion the partnership is playing a >Standard 2/1 convention card. In the second case a player opens 2C with the >same hand, but knows that in the system it is supposed to be strong, >artificial and forcing. As I said in my last post, this is an unusual case. In most cases psycher will not have a hand that looks exactly like a similar bid. >In both cases, partner does not alert. The first player, being ethical, >knows that something is wrong because he or she was expecting to hear an >alert. However, the player can do nothing about it (Law 16A). In both cases, >partner bids as if the 2C bid was strong, artificial and forcing. In case >one, the player rebids as though the 2C bid showed clubs and 11-15 hcp. In >case two, the player continues the deception. The player continues _what_ deception? He continues to bid as if he has a strong, artifical hand? In that case, he most certainly does _not_ bid as if he held his actual 11-15 club hand. >Let us assume (sake of argument) that both auctions are identical. Both I am willing to assume this, but it should be pointed out that on your own description of the case this is a very, very unlikely possibility. >results are identical. Why should the TD adjustment (if any) be different? The TD adjustment will not be any different except in the ACBL where this particular psych happens to be forbidden by regulation. In any case, though, this begs the question. The ACBL wants to forbid people from choosing to psyche an artificial bid. So they make the adjustment different in cases where someone psyches an artificial bid. In one case the person violated that rule, in the other case he didn't. That's why the adjustment is different. >The non-offending pair is presented with the identical auction and the >identical score. True, but not relevant. >In this scenario, the only difference is the subjective intent of the 2C >bidder. Indeed it is. And that is precisely the reason for the difference in adjustment. The ACBL has decided to penalize people for making bids with certain subjective states. Lots of other legislative bodies have made such rules before, and I see nothing wrong with them. >I suggest to the group that the various Laws Commissions could not possibly >intend that these two tables would get a different result based solely on >the mindset of the 2C bidder. Um. Why not? Again, there are many laws in many jurisdictions which take the intentions of the violator into account. >My apologies for the length of this post. No problem--difficult questions require length to discuss. >Jay Apfelbaum >Pittsburgh, PA Respectfully, -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 3 08:02:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA18293 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 08:02:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from stormy.ibl.bm (stormy.ibl.bm [199.172.192.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA18287; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 08:02:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from [199.172.230.82] by stormy.ibl.bm (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-61967U13500L12000S0V35) with SMTP id bm; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 17:02:34 -0400 Date: 02 Mar 2000 17:09:28 -0400 Message-ID: <-1260105531jrhind@ibl.bm> From: Jack Rhind Subject: Re:February Bulletin appeal To: Bridge Laws Mailing List , Gordon Bower , X-Mailer: QuickMail Pro 2.0 (Mac) X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: Jack Rhind Disposition-Notification-To: 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 IAB18288 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I must agree with you Gordon. With this hand (6 losers and a fit) I make a game try. The director made a sensible ruling and I can see no justification whatsoever for adjusting the score on this board. I don't know where the committee were when they reached this decision, but they must have had a really rough day!! *************************************************************** Voice: (441) 297-TECH Fax: (441) 293-4421 Jack A. Rhind (441) 293-0282 *************************************************************** On Friday, April 21, 1939, Gordon Bower wrote: > >Unless I missed it, this fairly straightforward case never popped up on >the list. (My February bulletin only came in Friday's mail.) > >The person in the hot seat is responder and holds > >S:K843 >H:5 >D:AQ4 >C:Q9865 > >Opponents are silent, you aren't vulnerable. > >The auction starts > >1H 1S >2S(after long hesitation) > >At the table, our hero bids 2NT, gets raised to 3NT and makes it. >Opener turns out to hold AT7-AKT94-J5-AT3. > >Table director ruled no alternative to bidding on and let the >score stand. > >"The committee could find no justification for the director's ruling. >Passing 2S was an attractive alternative, and bidding anything after >partner's break in tempo was deemed sugfficiently egregious to refer the >matter to the recorder." Score adjusted to 2S+3. > >----------- > >I do not claim to be an expert player. But IMO the director missed the >boat slightly, and the appeals committee's logic was truly >bizarre. > >What does the hesitation suggest? > >When I first saw the problem I thought "partner gave himself a rebid >problem and must have raised me with three spades." (Much less likely is >that he is on the borderline between 2S and 3S.) The UI is strongly >suggesting spades is only a 7-card fit, and demonstrably suggests a >natural 2NT over any number of spades. > >At no point while reading the article did it even occur to me anyone was >considering passing 2S holding this hand, until I read the appeals >committee's decision in the last paragraph. Do people really think >stopping at the 2-level with this hand and an (absent the UI) good 8-card >fit in spades is an LA, and that taking another call is such an egregious >error as to warrant a recorder form? > >If I were ruling, I would require a game try in spades in place of 2NT >from responder. Opener would surely accept the game try, but very likely >by bidding 3NT, not 4S, and I would let responder pass opener's 3NT. It >turns out not to make much difference which side 3NT is played from so I >would rule score stands. I would be sympathetic to a table director ruling >4S-1 (appealed by the OS and put back to 3NT+3 in committee >probably.) > > >Gordon Bower > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 3 08:10:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA18330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 08:10:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA18325 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 08:10:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2iveidb.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.171]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA31581 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 16:09:51 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000302160720.0136473c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 16:07:20 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Superschrikkeltornooi In-Reply-To: <00f101bf8418$16b67100$16991e18@san.rr.com> References: <200003011955.LAA04137@mailhub.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:14 PM 3/1/00 -0800, Marv wrote: >Some laws have obvious corrollaries. The law says I must stop at a red light. >The obvious corollary, which goes without saying, is that I must not stop at a >green light. >L16A says a player may not take an action demonstrably suggested by UI if there >is an LA. The corollary is that a player *should* take an action demonstrably >suggested by UI if there is no LA. Doing otherwise is allowing the UI to affect >one's bidding abnormally, which can't be right. Hold on a minute. "Corollary" is essentially a mathematical term, referring to a result which is true as an immediate logical deduction from an established proposition. You have mistakenly equated "a implies b" with its converse, "not a implies not b". The law which requires you to stop at a red light does not thereby make it illegal to stop at a green light, and likewise the "corollary" to L16A imposes no affirmative obligation in the absence of LA's, because it does not follow as any logical inference from that Law. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 3 08:11:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA18347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 08:11:42 +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 IAA18342 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 08:11:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from eduhi.at (petrus2.konvent [192.168.1.116]) by michael.gym (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA06891 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 22:11:52 +0100 Message-ID: <38BED8AC.E0542A99@eduhi.at> Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 22:10:04 +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: Forbo impression References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "David J. Grabiner" schrieb: > > At 11:28 AM +0100 3/2/00, Kooijman, A. wrote: > > >2) Di Falco (Italy) had to make the only decision left and wanted to > >postpone it. So some boards later he suddenly looked up and said Jack of > >spades, after which they wrote down the result. (the same happened some > >years ago with Zia Mahmood in Cap Gemini). Is this acceptable? I wasn't > >called at all, so I didn't necessarily know it (coward, ok). > > Could you describe this more completely? Did he have a guess and start the > next board before finishing the current one? > > There doesn't seem to be any specific rule about this, but I don't think a > player should be entitled to use his table presence for half an hour before > deciding on a guess. I would probably let the result stand and give the > declarer a warning for slow play; taking 30 minutes to play a card is > problematic. > What about L79A? They couldn't have left the cards on the table and meanwhile played several boards; returning them before agreeing to the number of tricks seems to be an infraction, and obviously they didn't agree until some 30 minutes later. I would certainly consider a PP. Petrus From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 3 08:58:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA18557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 08:58:02 +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 IAA18552 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 08:57:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 13:57:58 -0800 Message-ID: <014e01bf8492$4b734380$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <38BE2022.CB2B3E2F@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: February Bulletin appeal Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 13:56:18 -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 From: "John R. Mayne" > > > My reaction to the article was to roll it to 4S, off one. 2NT is pretty > egregious on this shape; clearly other options exist as tries. There is > a reasonable case, playing a standard opening style, to make a game try > by bidding 4S, so as not to give away clues. This may not be ideal, but > it is not clear to me that after a 3C try that this will necessarily > lead to 3N either. > > I thought the boat was missed, also. But I'm on a different ship. I > think the worst probable result is 4S-1, which is the score I would > assign. > Please, John, use L12C2's words: "...the most in unfavorable result that was at all probable." Don't encourage those who think that a result has to be "likely" or "probable" in order to be assigned. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 3 09:10:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA18375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 08:18:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA18370 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 08:18:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2iveidb.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.171]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA31523 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 16:18:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000302161551.013639f8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 16:15:51 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: February Bulletin appeal In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:44 PM 3/1/00 -0900, Gordon wrote: > >Unless I missed it, this fairly straightforward case never popped up on >the list. (My February bulletin only came in Friday's mail.) > >The person in the hot seat is responder and holds > >S:K843 >H:5 >D:AQ4 >C:Q9865 > >Opponents are silent, you aren't vulnerable. > >The auction starts > >1H 1S >2S(after long hesitation) > >At the table, our hero bids 2NT, gets raised to 3NT and makes it. >Opener turns out to hold AT7-AKT94-J5-AT3. > >Table director ruled no alternative to bidding on and let the score stand. > >"The committee could find no justification for the director's ruling. >Passing 2S was an attractive alternative, and bidding anything after >partner's break in tempo was deemed sugfficiently egregious to refer the >matter to the recorder." Score adjusted to 2S+3. > >If I were ruling, I would require a game try in spades in place of 2NT >from responder. Opener would surely accept the game try, but very likely >by bidding 3NT, not 4S, and I would let responder pass opener's 3NT. It >turns out not to make much difference which side 3NT is played from so I >would rule score stands. I would be sympathetic to a table director ruling >4S-1 (appealed by the OS and put back to 3NT+3 in committee probably.) > We end up at the same point by only a slightly different route. I agree that passing is simply not a LA. I too would allow a game try in spades, but 2nt is in fact just such a game try in standard methods, and I really don't see any good alternative to it. Result stands. The committee was incompetent. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 3 09:48:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA18719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 09:48:25 +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 JAA18714 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 09:48:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 14:48:21 -0800 Message-ID: <016f01bf8499$54a315a0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <38BCE6DC.7F5BA5D2@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.20000302090207.006f0808@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Superschrikkeltornooi Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 14:46:04 -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: "Eric Landau" >Marvin wrote: > > >Suppose partner breaks tempo with a long pause before passing, and you > have an > >obvious bid or double but decide to pass "for ethical reasons." If the > pass ends > >up damaging the opponents they are due redress, because you have made a call > >that was influenced by the break in tempo, one that was not a logical > >alternative to some action. No PP for this one! > > Hardly. The UI rules do not provide automatic redress whenever a logical > alternative action would have worked out better for the opponents; they > also require that the action chosen must have been demonstrably suggested > over its LAs. I think we are in general agreement that L16A may require a > player to choose a call which is *not* the same call he would have made > absent the UI; Marv's logic would make such a call subject to redress. I think you did not read my statement carefully. If it's not a logical alternative, how on earth could he be required to choose such a call? Okay, a plain case. LHO opens 4H, partner hesitates a long time, then passes. You hold S-AKQJxx H-Axx D-KQJ C-x While 4S is not a lock, no one in the world would dream of passing 4H. If you pass for ethical reasons, perhaps to teach partner not to hesitate, then you have taken an illogical action which, as Roger Pewick puts it, "cannot be explained solely by AI." That can't be right, and I interpret L16A to say that it isn't right. I don't think Roger will mind if I quote him: "Perhaps what the law ought to read is to start by restricting a player with UI to take only actions that can be explained solely by AI. Then work on." Or, another way to put it, take no action that is occasioned by UI. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 3 11:46:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA19026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 11:46:57 +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 LAA19015 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 11:46:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12QgEl-0007pd-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 00:46:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 03:55:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Movements for a KO qualifier? 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: >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? I think you have the best possible. My personal prefernece is for the three-way match with two survivors, which I think very reasonable, but given the constraints the proffered solution looks best. >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. I would certainly expect a second Director - but then I would anyway for four sections. However, I am not too experienced to having caddies helping. Maybe it depends on how good the caddies are. If I was asked to run it as a Director on my own then I would do it but I would not expect to give the players the normal standard of service. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 3 11:47:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA19032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 11:47:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA19018 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 11:46:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12QgEl-000ACn-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 00:46:36 +0000 Message-ID: <7YFOBgCQXJv4EwWT@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 04:00:16 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What is "deliberate play" of a card during the auction? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David J. Grabiner wrote: > >In 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. Seems a perfect ruling to me. We have had other scenarios about leads, and it seems to me that a lead is deliberate. Here it was played, but not as a lead, thus MPC. To be a mPC it needs to be dropped or something similar, not put deliberately on the table. In other words, the player played it, so it is an MPC: she did not lead it, so it is not a lead. >There was no appeal because the S5 lead gained a trick for the defense. What would the grounds for appeal be if it hadn't? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 3 11:46:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA19028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 11:46:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA19016 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 11:46:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12QgEo-000HYZ-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 00:46:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 03:48:11 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Helpful? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Burn 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. That'll larn you! Recent tests of this list for dramatic irony have not been entirely fruitful ....... -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 3 13:24:47 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA19399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 13:24:47 +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 NAA19394 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 13:24:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from p64s08a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.104.101] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt5-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12QhkK-00063O-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 18:23:17 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Movements for a KO qualifier? Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 02:33:24 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf84b8$d9208820$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, March 03, 2000 1:01 AM Subject: Re: Movements for a KO qualifier? >Adam Wildavsky wrote: >>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? > > I think you have the best possible. My personal prefernece is for the >three-way match with two survivors, which I think very reasonable, but >given the constraints the proffered solution looks best. > >>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. > > I would certainly expect a second Director - but then I would anyway >for four sections. However, I am not too experienced to having caddies >helping. Maybe it depends on how good the caddies are. > > If I was asked to run it as a Director on my own then I would do it >but I would not expect to give the players the normal standard of >service. I didn't address this problem when it arose, mainly because I have difficulty in understanding the vernacular of the question. I recall thinking "what's three way matches with two survivors?" However that's my problem, not yours. I remember David Burn telling me in no uncertain terms that if I didn't understand, then it was my duty to find out. So here we go. 16 teams. Session 1, Stagger movement with 8 rounds. Play 24 or 32 boards. Session 2, Stagger movement with 7 rounds Play 21 or 28 boards. Select 1st or last number of boards.(3 or 4 v each other team) Result. All teams play every other team. All teams play all of the boards except 3or4 (1 set). At the halfway stage the break is secure and can be scored. (imps or VPs) I assume the reference to caddies is because computer scoring requires pick up of table slips every round. Good if you've got it, I haven't but I'm waiting for someone to offer me a good user friendly prog! I find that players score very accurately themselves if they are used to you fining for scoring errors. 17 teams - 2 x 32 board sessions. 4 boards against each other team. 18 teams - 9 rounds and 8 rounds at 3. 3 boards against each other team. 19 teams - Split room into 3 fields,6/6/7 and juggle odd low numbers, even low numbers and high numbers, with a stationary team 19. I will elaborate if anyone is interested. This reschedules two sessions into 3, but the players are a captive audience, an extra break for scoring and coffee does not go amiss. 20 teams - 10 rounds at 3. 9 rounds at 3. 3 boards against every other team. Anne. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 3 13:42:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA19438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 13:42:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (smtp7.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.128.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA19433 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 13:42:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivegp1.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.67.33]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA17827 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 21:42:05 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000302213933.0136ba6c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 21:39:33 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Superschrikkeltornooi In-Reply-To: <016f01bf8499$54a315a0$16991e18@san.rr.com> References: <38BCE6DC.7F5BA5D2@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.20000302090207.006f0808@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:46 PM 3/2/00 -0800, Marv wrote: >If it's not a logical alternative, how on earth could he be required to choose >such a call? > >Okay, a plain case. LHO opens 4H, partner hesitates a long time, then passes. >You hold S-AKQJxx H-Axx D-KQJ C-x > >While 4S is not a lock, no one in the world would dream of passing 4H. If you >pass for ethical reasons, perhaps to teach partner not to hesitate, then you >have taken an illogical action which, as Roger Pewick puts it, "cannot be >explained solely by AI." That can't be right, and I interpret L16A to say that >it isn't right. It is _entirely_ legal to pass with this hand, though certainly not required. L16A bars you from taking actions that meet certain criteria (you have LA's, the action in question is demonstrably suggested). It says nothing about actions which do not meet those criteria. It is plainly ridiculous to pass that hand, but it is not illegal, and no score adjustment is warranted in the unlikely event that such a decision would pay off. >I don't think Roger will mind if I quote him: >"Perhaps what the law ought to read is to start by restricting a player with >UI to take only actions that can be explained solely by AI. Then work on." >Or, another way to put it, take no action that is occasioned by UI. And it is against this misinterpretation that Eric has directed his main point. L16 will often _require_ you to take an "action that is occasioned by UI." If the above hand is far weaker (make the spade A a deuce and demote the KQJ to xxx, perhaps), then you might well be inclined to bid 4S in the absence of UI, but are (arguably) constrained by L16 after partner has hesitated. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 3 16:51:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA19905 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 16:51:13 +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 QAA19900 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 16:51:06 +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, 2 Mar 2000 21:51:10 -0800 Message-ID: <01a701bf84d4$629f3f40$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200003011955.LAA04137@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.20000302160720.0136473c@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Superschrikkeltornooi Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 21:41:37 -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: "Michael S. Dennis" > At 11:14 PM 3/1/00 -0800, Marv wrote: > >Some laws have obvious corrollaries. The law says I must stop at a red light. > >The obvious corollary, which goes without saying, is that I must not stop > at a > >green light. > > >L16A says a player may not take an action demonstrably suggested by UI if > there > >is an LA. The corollary is that a player *should* take an action demonstrably > >suggested by UI if there is no LA. Doing otherwise is allowing the UI to > affect > >one's bidding abnormally, which can't be right. > > Hold on a minute. "Corollary" is essentially a mathematical term, referring > to a result which is true as an immediate logical deduction from an > established proposition. You have mistakenly equated "a implies b" with its > converse, "not a implies not b". The law which requires you to stop at a > red light does not thereby make it illegal to stop at a green light, and > likewise the "corollary" to L16A imposes no affirmative obligation in the > absence of LA's, because it does not follow as any logical inference from > that Law. This is not a mathematical mailing list. Definition #2. An immediate consequence or easily drawn conclusion. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 3 18:29:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA20056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 18:29:52 +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 SAA20050 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 18:29:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.178] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12QmWj-000OLi-00; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 07:29:33 +0000 Message-ID: <003901bf84e2$8002b680$b25608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Robert E. Harris" References: from"Gordon Bower" at Mar 01, 2000 07:44:00 PM Subject: Re: February Bulletin appeal Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 22:55:26 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 7:10 PM Subject: Re: February Bulletin appeal > > Methods surely determine logical alternatives. For me (absent UI) with > partner G, 2NT is automatic. With partner N, 4S is automatic. With > partner B, the matter does not arise. He bid 3NT last round. > REH > > Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274 Fax: 573-882-2754 > Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia > Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 > +=+ It's the chemistry, you see. +=+ ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 3 18:29:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA20061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 18:29:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA20055 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 18:29:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.178] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12QmWo-000OLi-00; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 07:29:38 +0000 Message-ID: <003c01bf84e2$82e3b660$b25608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Robert E. Harris" Cc: References: Subject: Re: Was it a psych? Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 07:29:29 -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: Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 5:41 PM Subject: Re: Was it a psych? > ACBL regulations : > Limited Convention Chart: > 3.Psyching of artificial opening bids or conventional responses to > artificial opening bids is not allowed. > > General Convention Chart: (Disallowed) > 2.Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional > responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less > than two notrump, to natural openings. > > Convention Mid Chart: (Disallowed) > 2.Psyching of artificial opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto. > > Super Convention Chart: (Disallowed) > 2.Psyching of artificial opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto. > +=+ Does this mean nowhere, no time, in ACBL? European regulations have banned such psyches in pairs events. ~G~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 3 19:38:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA20246 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 19:38:01 +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 TAA20241 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 19:37:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA13781 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 09:37:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA28155 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 09:37:13 +0100 (CET) X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 09:37:11 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Movements for a KO qualifier? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, David Stevenson wrote: > Adam Wildavsky wrote: > >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. Why? There are movements for N-teams to play each other in a single session. These movements have N-1 rounds and as many boards per round as you like. With an odd number of teams simply use 2 of them and have 1 of the groups finish a round earlier. For example, with 15 teams, section A plays 7 4-board rounds, section B plays 6 4-board rounds. > >So, here are my questions: > > > >a) What are other possible movements? If I knew the number of teams in advance and it is small (20 or less), a 2 stanza Howell. If not, this is a reasonable solution. > >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. If I have 4 clocks and some experienced caddies, then I think it is do-able. I'd basically assign one caddy to each section and have him call the rounds as well, so I can focus on directing. I'm not sure if I'd like this as a player. When a round is called, it always generates a lot of noise. With all these movements in parallel, the room will always be noisy, making it hard to concentrate. A bigger room will help a lot though. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Committee (...) was unable to reach a consensus that substantial merit was lacking. Thus, the appeal was deemed meritorious. (Orlando NABC #19). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 3 20:00:53 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA20321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 20:00:53 +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 UAA20316 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 20:00:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.6.85.121] (helo=davidburn) by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12QnwT-0000Q9-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 09:00:14 +0000 Message-ID: <005001bf84ee$a38be340$7955063e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: Forbo impression Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 08:58:25 -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 David Grabiner wrote: [TK] > >2) Di Falco (Italy) had to make the only decision left and wanted to > >postpone it. So some boards later he suddenly looked up and said Jack of > >spades, after which they wrote down the result. (the same happened some > >years ago with Zia Mahmood in Cap Gemini). Is this acceptable? I wasn't > >called at all, so I didn't necessarily know it (coward, ok). It sounds to me as though the players were not taking their responsibilities entirely seriously. However, in a head-to-head match, I would have thought that whatever the players chose to do at their own table in their own time should be considered "acceptable" if it does not interfere with the smooth running of the tournament or the enjoyment of other players. If, for example, the players had come to this arrangement in order to save themselves a slow-play penalty while giving di Falco what they all considered a "sporting" amount of time in which to make a difficult decision, I would think it reasonable enough (though strictly illegal). [TK] > >5) There was a decision taken by a TD in a match between a Polish and a > >Dutch team. The TD was not very clear in his communcation to the players, so > >the Polish came to me complaining about the decision itself and about the > >fact that they were not informed. Looking at the decision I changed it and > >informed both sides. Now the Dutch wanted to appeal, though the decision > >appeared to be immaterial, no change in ranking, qualification or what so > >ever. Next day the appeal committee considered the appeal to be frivolous > >(wihout merit) and would have kept the money if the procedure had been more > >accurate. > [DG] > I do not believe that any appeal can be frivolous if a qualified tournament > director, with knowledge of the facts, came to the opposite decision. If > an on-the-spot decision without full information is corrected later, > possibly by the same director, a frivolous appeal is possible but unlikely. I was one of the appeals committee, so I can tell you what happened (more or less). The question was one of whether this call was alertable: W N E S 1NT P 2C Dble where 1NT was 10-12 and double showed high cards, not clubs. East eventually became declarer in 2S and played as though South had long clubs, going down in a cold contract. The director first called to deal with the matter ruled that double was alertable if it did not show clubs, and adjusted the score, but for various reasons this fact did not become clear to North-South for some while after it had happened. (The difficulty was that the TD was not called at the time, since East did not discover the nature of the South hand until he compared scores with his team-mates.) When North-South found out about the adjustment, they asked the CTD (Ton) for an opinion. He ruled that there was no explicit alerting regulation covering the case, that the double of a response to a mini no trump showing high cards rather than the suit doubled was sufficiently common that it did not require an alert, and that the table result should stand. Of course, since this was all going on away from the table and after the match, East-West in turn did not find out about it for a little while. When they did, East was unhappy, and decided to appeal - as was of course his right, even though the result of this board would have no bearing on the rest of the tournament in any way. Thus, we had two things to consider: the appeal against Ton's eventual ruling, and the question of whether what had happened in terms of process had (potentially) caused a miscarriage of justice. In terms of the ruling itself, we took almost no time to decide that the table result should stand. Declarer and dummy had K8 of clubs facing AQ10x, so a lead-directing double was somewhat unlikely. The club led by the South player was in any case not consistent with a holding of four or more cards, as declarer (a many-times Dutch champion and highly experienced international player) could easily have ascertained. Whether the double did or did not require an alert, therefore, declarer had ample opportunity to deduce the true state of affairs - even if he chose not to take the simple step of asking North what was happening. Players must protect themselves as far as they reasonably can before claiming damage through misinformation. So, we decided that *if* the appeal had been solely against Ton's ruling, properly given to both sides at the table and at the time, we would have retained the deposit. However, there appeared to have been certain procedural errors which might have led to the appellant's feeling that he had been denied the opportunity to make his case properly at the time or to hear the explanation for the ruling given - with those opportunities, he might not have chosen to appeal. Those procedural errors were not a matter for the AC; they were a matter for the CTD and his staff. We thus asked the CTD to determine whether, in his opinion, the appellant might have a case in terms of having been denied due process. Ton reached a conclusion that I am sure was appropriate, and returned the deposit. I made no complaint - but one of our committee members has strong views on the subject of certain types of appeal, and I expect he made one! David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 3 20:24:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA20360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 20:24:03 +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 UAA20355 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 20:23:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12QoJB-000IL6-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 09:23:42 +0000 Message-ID: <8gwPflAExxv4EwUK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 01:58:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Psyche or not? References: <00a701bf643f$d37a7b40$cd307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> <388996EA.1CE8E3EC@zahav.net.il> <004b01bf6507$842ecfa0$16991e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <004b01bf6507$842ecfa0$16991e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >No, but it may be a psychic bid. > >A Psyche (two syllables in my dictionary) is the reincarnation of a famous >Greek lady, or perhaps a statue of her. The word Psyche, or psyche, does not >occur in the Laws, which refer to psychic calls, or psychic bids, which >suggest the short form "psych," without an e. Just as pubic suggests the form pub, without an e. [I know, but I could not think of another example: sorry for those with delicate sensibilities.] For anyone who is fairly new to this, when Marvin starts sounding innocent, you do not trust him: he is far more intelligent than he sometimes pretends, but he does like to repeat certain things until hell freezes over. He knows perfectly well that psych is American English and psyche is British English. His logic is totally flawed because words from the same root often get different appendages dependent on their usage - as Marvin knows very well! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 3 22:39:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA20725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 22:39:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.rdc2.occa.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc2.occa.home.com [24.2.8.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA20720 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 22:38:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from cc68559a ([24.5.183.132]) by mail.rdc2.occa.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <20000303113849.KBKK21941.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 03:38:49 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: February Bulletin appeal Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 03:38:35 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: <003901bf84e2$8002b680$b25608c3@dodona> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well .... I can shed a little light on this as I was present for the hearing... FYI this is appeal 17 from the Vancouver casebook. Actually the hand is mis-quoted - Q952 5 AQ4 Q9865 This is one of the few hands in the casebook that the experts supported the committee decision very close to 100% The player also stated that their partnership NEVER opens 1NT on a 5 cd major. The Recorder report was for the 3-5-2-2 hand not having a planned rebid after 1H - 1S. The commitee felt strongly that this player (an experienced client) should have a rebid planned in this everyday auction - especially when they can't open 1NT. He broke tempo and then showed up with a strong notrump and a 3-card raise. There was no intent to report to the Recorder the player with the hand shown above. I have heard that the article could have been more carefully written. Linda From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 3 22:45:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA20770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 22:45:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.rdc2.occa.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc2.occa.home.com [24.2.8.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA20765 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 22:45:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from cc68559a ([24.5.183.132]) by mail.rdc2.occa.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <20000303114500.KCGX21941.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 03:45:00 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: Forbo impression Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 03:44:45 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: <005001bf84ee$a38be340$7955063e@davidburn> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry you had such a boring tournament, Ton :-) Please keep all those gremlins in Europe - our spring Nationals starts next week and I am hoping for < 25 appeals. *hah* Linda From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 3 23:10:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA20756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 22:44:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from backrosh.inter.net.il (backrosh.inter.net.il [192.116.202.45]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA20746 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 22:44:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-3-68.access.net.il [213.8.3.68] (may be forged)) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA02769; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 13:41:49 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <38BFA531.DA42F815@zahav.net.il> Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 13:42:42 +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: James.Vickers@merck.de CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: was it a psych? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well , the case bellow is the worst for me - after the inquiring (as told ) i decide it was a concealed agreement..!!! Now use the full arsenal - adjusted score + PP + gallows.... Dany James.Vickers@merck.de wrote: > > Jay Apfelbaum wrote: > >My opinion is that the proper test to determine whether a bid is a psych is > >objective in nature. That is, it does not matter whether the individual > >ACTUALLY BELIEVED he or she was making a deliberate and gross misstatement > >of honor strength or suit length. It only matters whether the bid, > >deliberately made, IS a gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length. > > Marv commented: > >But isn't the point moot? A psychic call is legal as long as there is no > >concealed partnership agreement that protects it (L73E). > > This reminds me of the following hand which came up years ago in a league match > played privately: > > Dealer W, N/S vul: > > 9 x x > A x > A 10 x x > A K x x > K Q J 10 x x x x > J 10 x Q x x > Q x x x x > 10 x Q J x x x > A x > K x x x x > K J x x > x x > > W N E S > 2H(1) 3D(2) p 3NT > all pass > > (1) alerted, N asked and was told "weak two in hearts" > (2) alerted, Hackett convention, a strong take-out > > W led spades, won the lead when declarer took the diamond finesse and cashed > more spades for two down. N/S queried the opening bid. East admitted that they > had for years used 2H as a weak two in either major until a director recently > informed them this was illegal, since when they switched to playing standard > weak twos. She said her partner had probably opened 2H out of habit. > > N/S asked me how the ruling would have gone if they had appealed. What do you > think? Do you judge West's action to be: > > 1. a psych (no score adjustment)? > 2. an illegal convention (60%/30% assigned adjusted score)? > 3. a misbid (no adjustment)? > > Would you rule differently without East's admission of the partnership's past > misdemeanours? > > James From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 4 00:20:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA20757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 22:44:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from backrosh.inter.net.il (backrosh.inter.net.il [192.116.202.45]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA20745 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 22:44:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-3-68.access.net.il [213.8.3.68] (may be forged)) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA02812; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 13:42:14 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <38BFA543.48F3ADED@zahav.net.il> Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 13:42:59 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en-US,fr,Hebrew,en,ro,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan Endicott CC: Gordon Bower , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: February Bulletin appeal References: <000701bf8422$ec026e40$1b5908c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here are two issues I would like to discuss : The logical and ideological : --------------------------- The TD should evaluate the result of an hesitation , asking - himself and the players - the main and most important question : "...what is the "criminal"'s partner call/bid , in absence of the hesitation.." . The same for AC. I will be very happy if this secondary legislation will appear in the code of practice or anywhere it can be official. Sir Grattan ?? The second issue : the opener's support 2Maj in the sequence 1min - 1Maj -2Maj - is there any regulation to put it in the CC if it can be 3 or 4 cards ??? What are the procedures in Europe , ACBL's land Oceania and......Icarus (Neptun's satellite , if my senility didn't let me inadvertently to write it wrong - Steve ???). Dany Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Grattan Endicott '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > "Effective action is always unjust" - Jean Anouilh. > _______________________________________ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gordon Bower > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 4:44 AM > Subject: February Bulletin appeal > > ----------------\x/----------------- > > > > The person in the hot seat is responder and holds > > > > S:K843 > > H:5 > > D:AQ4 > > C:Q9865 > > > -------------- \x/ ---------------- > > > > At no point while reading the article did it even occur to me anyone was > > considering passing 2S holding this hand, until I read the appeals > > committee's decision in the last paragraph. Do people really think > > stopping at the 2-level with this hand and an (absent the UI) good 8-card > > fit in spades is an LA, and that taking another call is such an egregious > > error as to warrant a recorder form? > > > > If I were ruling, I would require a game try in spades in place of 2NT > > from responder. Opener would surely accept the game try, but very likely > > by bidding 3NT, not 4S, and I would let responder pass opener's 3NT. It > > turns out not to make much difference which side 3NT is played from so I > > would rule score stands. I would be sympathetic to a table director ruling > > 4S-1 (appealed by the OS and put back to 3NT+3 in committee probably.) > > > > > > Gordon Bower > > > +=+ I wonder whether this committee would have taken > another view if responder had passed and dummy had > appeared with four Spades and 9 or 10 HCP? > I feel more or less as you do about what I would > have expected. After a try with 3C opener might find > 3D. But I do think there are ways to 3NT whatever. I > do not know how certain I feel that declarer might not > be in 4S some of the time. > Where the WBF Code of Practice operates a > 12C3 adjustment is thinkable. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 4 00:54:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA21269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 00:54:11 +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 AAA21264 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 00:54:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA03702 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 08:53:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000303085727.006f34f4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 08:57:27 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Superschrikkeltornooi In-Reply-To: <016f01bf8499$54a315a0$16991e18@san.rr.com> References: <38BCE6DC.7F5BA5D2@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.20000302090207.006f0808@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:46 PM 3/2/00 -0800, Marvin wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" > > >Marvin wrote: >> >> >Suppose partner breaks tempo with a long pause before passing, and you >> have an >> >obvious bid or double but decide to pass "for ethical reasons." If the >> pass ends >> >up damaging the opponents they are due redress, because you have made a call >> >that was influenced by the break in tempo, one that was not a logical >> >alternative to some action. No PP for this one! >> >> Hardly. The UI rules do not provide automatic redress whenever a logical >> alternative action would have worked out better for the opponents; they >> also require that the action chosen must have been demonstrably suggested >> over its LAs. I think we are in general agreement that L16A may require a >> player to choose a call which is *not* the same call he would have made >> absent the UI; Marv's logic would make such a call subject to redress. > >I think you did not read my statement carefully. > >If it's not a logical alternative, how on earth could he be required to choose >such a call? I admit I have a problem parsing the meaning of Marv's original post, and was ignoring the effect of the words "because you have made a call... that was not a logical alternative to some action" -- because I don't think it makes any sense. What action? Everything is an alternative to something; the word "alternative" is meaningful only if its referent (what it is an alternative to) is known. For the words "logical alternative action" in L16A to be meaningful, it must be understood that it refers to alternatives to some other action, and the only other action it can refer to here is the action actually taken. It is certainly possible to choose an illogical action "among logical alternative actions" (if I'm a wolf among sheep, that doesn't make me a sheep). To ask whether the chosen action is a "logical alternative" is meaningless -- it can't be an alternative to itself, and there's nothing else for it to be an alternative to. When a player's call is subject to adjudication under L16A, the outcome properly depends on the adjudicators' view as to what constitutes the set of "logical alternative actions" to that call. I find nothing in L16A to suggest that it should depend on the adjudicators' view as to whether the call actually taken was or was not "logical", and see no justification for finding that an infraction occurred because a player made a bid that a TD or AC does not consider "logical", whether made in the presense of UI or otherwise. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 4 02:56:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA21777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 02:56:27 +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 CAA21772 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 02:56:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-33qtj41.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.204.129]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA12831; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 10:56:07 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000303160743.00819f44@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, 03 Mar 2000 08:07:43 -0800 To: Gordon Bower From: Henry Sun Subject: Re: February Bulletin appeal Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:44 PM 3/1/00 -0900, you wrote: > >Unless I missed it, this fairly straightforward case never popped up on >the list. (My February bulletin only came in Friday's mail.) > >The person in the hot seat is responder and holds > >S:K843 >H:5 >D:AQ4 >C:Q9865 > >Opponents are silent, you aren't vulnerable. > >The auction starts > >1H 1S >2S(after long hesitation) > >At the table, our hero bids 2NT, gets raised to 3NT and makes it. >Opener turns out to hold AT7-AKT94-J5-AT3. > >Table director ruled no alternative to bidding on and let the score stand. > >"The committee could find no justification for the director's ruling. >Passing 2S was an attractive alternative, and bidding anything after >partner's break in tempo was deemed sugfficiently egregious to refer the >matter to the recorder." Score adjusted to 2S+3. > >----------- > >I do not claim to be an expert player. But IMO the director missed the >boat slightly, and the appeals committee's logic was truly bizarre. > i agree on all counts. i cannot conceive of passing 2s on this auction when a sub-minimum opener gives a good play for game (eg aqxx; jxxxxx; kx; x). however, i do fault opener for not anticipating his potential rebid problem (truth be told i'm one of those old-fashioned types who would have rebid 2c and given unforced preference to 2s, so my auction would have gone 1h-1s; 2c-2nt; 3s-3nt; all pass). henry sun From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 4 04:27:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA22072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 04:27:18 +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 EAA22067 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 04:27:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 09:27:14 -0800 Message-ID: <01ca01bf8535$99b378a0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <38BCE6DC.7F5BA5D2@village.uunet.be><3.0.1.32.20000302090207.006f0808@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.20000302213933.0136ba6c@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Superschrikkeltornooi Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 09:26:08 -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 Mike Dennis wrote: > Marv wrote: > > > >Okay, a plain case. LHO opens 4H, partner hesitates a long time, then passes. > >You hold S-AKQJxx H-Axx D-KQJ C-x > > > >While 4S is not a lock, no one in the world would dream of passing 4H. > >If you pass for ethical reasons, perhaps to teach partner not to hesitate, > >then you have taken an illogical action which, as Roger Pewick puts it, > > "cannot be explained solely by AI." That can't be right, and I > >interpret L16A to say that it isn't right. > > It is _entirely_ legal to pass with this hand, though certainly not > required. L16A bars you from taking actions that meet certain criteria > (you have LA's, the action in question is demonstrably suggested). It > says nothing about actions which do not meet those criteria. It is plainly > ridiculous to pass that hand, but it is not illegal, and no score > adjustment is warranted in the unlikely event that such a decision would > pay off. > > >I don't think Roger will mind if I quote him: > > >"Perhaps what the law ought to read is to start by restricting a player > >with UI to take only actions that can be explained solely by AI. Then > >work on." > > >Or, another way to put it, take no action that is occasioned by UI. > > And it is against this misinterpretation that Eric has directed his main > point. L16 will often _require_ you to take an "action that is > occasioned by UI." If the above hand is far weaker (make the spade A a > deuce and demote the KQJ to xxx, perhaps), then you might well be > inclined to bid 4S in the absence of UI, but are (arguably) constrained > by L16 after partner has hesitated. Okay, now I get it. You are not "constrained" by UI if you do not allow it to affect your bidding. Remember the guy who backed in at the four level with J10xxx spades and a weak hand after partner hesitated? He convinced the AC that his action was not occasioned by the UI, and his argument was accepted. If the AC had not accepted his argument, he would have been wiser to pass instead of bidding 4S. The pass would have been occasioned by the UI, yes, but the judges would not have found it to be so, and that's what counts. Look at three possible calls after partner hesitates: A, B, and C. A and B are logical, C is illogical, so I'm saying you must choose between A and B. Your choice of A or B must not be occasioned by the hesitation, *in the opinion of the TD or AC.* What goes on in your mind is of no consequence. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 4 05:01:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA22134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 05:01:53 +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 FAA22129 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 05:01:46 +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 GHBLLYYH; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 12:01:36 -0600 X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <003c01bf84e2$82e3b660$b25608c3@dodona> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 12:04:13 -0600 To: "Grattan Endicott" , From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: Was it a psych? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Grattan Endicott'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >" The latter part of a wise man's life is taken up >in curing the follies, prejudices and false opinions >he had contracted in the former." - Jonathan Swift. > >_______________________________________ > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Robert E. Harris >To: >Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 5:41 PM >Subject: Re: Was it a psych? > > >> ACBL regulations : >> Limited Convention Chart: >> 3.Psyching of artificial opening bids or conventional responses to >> artificial opening bids is not allowed. >> >> General Convention Chart: (Disallowed) >> 2.Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional >> responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less >> than two notrump, to natural openings. >> >> Convention Mid Chart: (Disallowed) >> 2.Psyching of artificial opening bids and/or conventional responses >thereto. >> >> Super Convention Chart: (Disallowed) >> 2.Psyching of artificial opening bids and/or conventional responses >thereto. >> >+=+ Does this mean nowhere, no time, in ACBL? > European regulations have banned such psyches > in pairs events. ~G~ +=+ That is my understanding. See http://www.acbl.org/info/charts/convchrt.htm 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 Mar 4 05:07:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA22154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 05:07:32 +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 FAA22149 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 05:07:25 +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, 3 Mar 2000 10:07:29 -0800 Message-ID: <01eb01bf853b$38b4c940$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <00a701bf643f$d37a7b40$cd307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie><388996EA.1CE8E3EC@zahav.net.il> <004b01bf6507$842ecfa0$16991e18@san.rr.com> <8gwPflAExxv4EwUK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Psyche or not? Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 10:01:53 -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 Stevenson" > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >No, but it may be a psychic bid. > > > >A Psyche (two syllables in my dictionary) is the reincarnation of a famous > >Greek lady, or perhaps a statue of her. The word Psyche, or psyche, does not > >occur in the Laws, which refer to psychic calls, or psychic bids, which > >suggest the short form "psych," without an e. > > Just as pubic suggests the form pub, without an e. [I know, but I > could not think of another example: sorry for those with delicate > sensibilities.] > Yes, the "e" would be necessary, to save the long u sound. My dictionary has: psychedelic - long i sound, four syllables, not three. The e is not needed to save the long i sound. Or do the English say "sickadelic"? > He knows perfectly well that psych is American English > and psyche is British English. I suppose I should preface my comments on language to indicate that they apply only to American English. I have only a meager knowledge of European languages, and have no inclination to criticize (translation: criticise) any of their usages. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 4 05:15:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA22179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 05:15:11 +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 FAA22174 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 05:15:04 +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, 3 Mar 2000 10:15:09 -0800 Message-ID: <01f501bf853c$4a5e76e0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <38BCE6DC.7F5BA5D2@village.uunet.be><3.0.1.32.20000302090207.006f0808@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.20000303085727.006f34f4@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Superschrikkeltornooi Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 10:14:11 -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: "Eric Landau" > Marv wrote: >>Suppose partner breaks tempo with a long pause before passing, and you >> have an obvious bid or double but decide to pass "for ethical reasons." If the >> pass ends up damaging the opponents they are due redress, because you >> have made a call >> that was influenced by the break in tempo, one that was not a logical >> alternative to some action. No PP for this one! > I admit I have a problem parsing the meaning of Marv's original post, and > was ignoring the effect of the words "because you have made a call... that > was not a logical alternative to some action" -- because I don't think it > makes any sense. What action? Everything is an alternative to something; > the word "alternative" is meaningful only if its referent (what it is an > alternative to) is known. > Guilty as charged. Very bad syntax. For "not a logical alternative to some action," read "not a logical call," i.e., a call that makes no sense whatsoever for the player involved. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 4 07:07:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA22402 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 07:07:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA22397 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 07:07:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.2]) by swarm.mosquitonet.com (8.9.1/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA04955 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 11:07:13 -0900 Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 11:07:12 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: RE: February Bulletin appeal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thank you, Linda, for the clarification both of the partnership methods and for the purpose of the recorder form. I agree that if you are going to play those methods there is an obvious need to know how you plan to handle your rebid as opener in this auction. As for the SQ becoming the SK... I am amazed I didn't catch that sooner! In my mind I've known the hand had 3 queens and an ace all along, and didn't even notice the typo after seeing my post quoted half a dozen times. GRB From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 4 07:15:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA22424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 07:15:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA22418 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 07:15:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12QyTQ-000Nzl-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 20:14:57 +0000 Message-ID: <5iJl8VC+d+v4Ewl5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 16:25:34 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: redress for N/S References: <200002061046.VAA27550@octavia.anu.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <200002061046.VAA27550@octavia.anu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: >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. > >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. > >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. The whole idea of the way L72B1 is written is that we do not have to make any decision as to the intent of the player: we treat him the same. Thus L72B1 applies equally to case A and case B, and we would not want to apply L72B1 to case A and then say it was deliberate. >> 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. Or to L73F1. Perhaps more frequently to L73F1 than to L12A1. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 4 07:15:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA22429 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 07:15:23 +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 HAA22419 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 07:15:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12QyTT-0001CI-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 20:15:00 +0000 Message-ID: <2C3mUSCET+v4Ewno@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 16:13:56 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? References: <200001241537.KAA21690@cfa183.harvard.edu> <00a401bf66a5$3a92cf00$16991e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <00a401bf66a5$3a92cf00$16991e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >Steve Willner wrote: > >> > From: Henry Sun >> > i have by chance located the issue in >> > question (march 1982), which reads, in part: >> > >> > "When the Committee judges that North's question [during the auction] >> > may have given information to SOuth, and that the action taken by >> > South could have been suggested by the qeustion.... >> >> The BW article was correct under the 1975 Laws, but please note that >> the relevant rules changed in 1987. Some of us think the 1975 rules >> were better, but they are no longer in effect. >> >Don't agree with this. > >In 1975 the questioning of an individual call was permitted, but this was >changed to "opponents' auction" in 1987. Lille interpretation #9 reaffirmed >that L20F1 permits a request for "a full explanation of the opponents' >auction," meaning "an explanation of the whole auction," not for the >meaning of a particular call. I take this to mean that East should have >asked about the N/S understandings in regard to weak two bids without >concentrating on the heart suit in his questioning. The theoretical difference for those who subscribe to the interpretation that you may not ask about individual calls is not entirely clear when the full auction has consisted of one call. I do not see that "What does 2H mean?" is different from "What does the auction mean?" when the auction has consisted of a 2H call. Furthermore, despite the WBFLC, the words "questions may be asked about calls actually made" must mean something. Even if you do not allow individual questions this clearly gives permission to supplementaries. >The footnote to L20F1 specifically states that L16 may apply to such >questioning, so I don't understand how the BW statement is now wrong. Exactly. East's questions were of some legality, but they make UI available to partner. >I don't understand either why "What did three clubs mean?" (per 1975) is >superior to the current "Please explain your auction." Just shortens the process and allows for human beings to play bridge rather than cyphers. To have to listen to all that junk about the meaning of all the other calls is not what the customer wants. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 4 07:22:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA22473 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 07:22:37 +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 HAA22468 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 07:22:27 +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 PAA14281 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 15:22:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA02043 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 15:22:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 15:22:17 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200003032022.PAA02043@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: February Bulletin appeal X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Dany Haimovici >.....Icarus (Neptun's satellite , if my senility > didn't let me inadvertently to write it wrong - Steve ???). Hi, Dany. Icarus is a minor planet, number 1566. If memory serves, it is notable because the "low point" (perihelion) of its orbit is so close to the Sun. (I made a quick try at checking the orbital elements but didn't have any luck finding them online.) The two large satellites of Neptune are Triton and Nereid. There are a whole bunch of smaller ones -- no fewer than six more, but I think several more have recently been discovered. A superb resource is The Nine Planets: http://www.seds.org/nineplanets/nineplanets/ Informative and accurate, as far as I can tell, but not entirely up to date. The ACBL convention card has no place to indicate the frequency of 1m-1M-2M on three cards. Three-card raises are pretty common for most good players, probably infrequent for most poorer players. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 4 07:25:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA22494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 07:25:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA22489 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 07:25:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Qyd3-000OjB-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 20:24:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 20:22:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Is it ethical to negate a penalty? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David J. Grabiner wrote: > >In the January 18 World Championship bulletin, there is an article praising >the sportsmanship of a player who could have made his contract by >exploiting a penalty card (a defender had corrected a revoke), but chose >not to do so. > >When is this allowed and ethical? Do we want bridge to be played by human beings or by Bridge Lawyers? It is possible that it is a technical infringement. I would put it at the same level as saying "Low spade" when calling for a card from dummy: illegal, an infraction, but not one to worry about. >What declarer did was not waiving the penalty, but it had the same effect; >he deliberately played to make one fewer trick than he could have made >under the rules. L72A3 says that a player may not waive a penalty on his >own initiative "in duplicate tournaments", but may ask the Director to do >so, which the Director will do for cause. > >What does "in duplicate tournaments" mean here? Elsewhere in the Laws, it >is usually interpreted to exclude clubs. That is the first I have heard of this curious interpretation. Where else in the Laws, please? > Here, I could see it as allowing >a player to waive a penalty in a knockout because there is no field to >protect; however, the play in question occurred in the round-robin of the >Bermuda Bowl. Protection of the field is not something a player should ever worry about: it is not his responsibility: the main use of the term is to give an excuse to BLs. >And "for cause" is not clarified. I have assumed that the Director should >only waive a penalty if a non-offender or non-player is partly responsible >for the infraction. "for cause" means that there is a reason. Of course there are other situations: suppose the infraction is a minor one committed by a beginner. I really find the arguments of this sort making my gorge rise. Which is more important, that a person should follow his own beliefs in being actively ethical, or that he should follow the BL arguments? Yuk! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 4 07:29:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA22509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 07:29:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA22504 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 07:28:54 +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 PAA14524 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 15:28:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA02062 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 15:28:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 15:28:44 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200003032028.PAA02062@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Superschrikkeltornooi X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > see no justification for > finding that an infraction occurred because a player made a bid that a TD > or AC does not consider "logical", whether made in the presense of UI or > otherwise. While I agree with Eric's comments, it's perhaps worth mentioning that an illogical call that _takes advantage_ of the UI violates L73C. With Marv's 4S example, passing may be stupid, but it isn't an infraction as far as I can tell. We _want_ players "leaning over backward" to avoid taking advantage of UI. The last thing we want is to punish them if they lean a little further than is strictly required. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 4 07:40:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA22550 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 07:40:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f260.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA22545 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 07:40:38 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 32120 invoked by uid 0); 3 Mar 2000 20:39:59 -0000 Message-ID: <20000303203959.32119.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.18 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 03 Mar 2000 12:39:59 PST X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.18] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyche or not? Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 12:39:59 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Marvin L. French" >From: "David Stevenson" > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > >No, but it may be a psychic bid. > > > > > >A Psyche (two syllables in my dictionary) is the reincarnation of a >famous > > >Greek lady, or perhaps a statue of her. The word Psyche, or psyche, >does not > > >occur in the Laws, which refer to psychic calls, or psychic bids, which > > >suggest the short form "psych," without an e. > > > > Just as pubic suggests the form pub, without an e. [I know, but I > > could not think of another example: sorry for those with delicate > > sensibilities.] > > >Yes, the "e" would be necessary, to save the long u sound. > >My dictionary has: > >psychedelic - long i sound, four syllables, not three. The e is not needed >to save the long i sound. Or do the English say "sickadelic"? Appling rules to English is as futile a task as getting the British to abide by them. :) Corrent English is a matter of concensus, not logic. The 'e' in psychedelic is not the same type of e as in the word psyche (lower case and monosyllabic). Specifically, it's no longer silent in the longer word. It adds another syllable. The analogy is useless. Psyche (capitalized and two syllables) is a different word with a completely different meaning. Consider "I read the book yesterday" vs. "I read the newspaper everyday." Same spelling, different pronunciations, different meanings (though not that different). This is not an uncommon phenomemon in English and you should simply get used to it. The difference in meaning between psych(e) and Psyche has nothing to do with the e but is manifest in the pronunciation and capitalization. (Funny that it's not pronounciation, even though the root is pronounce.) I suggest that you get a better dictionary. 'psyche' should be listed as a variant of psych. The American Heritage is more or less a standard for American English. Merriam-Webster isn't that bad, but I wouldn't refer to it as an authority. If anyone would like to insist that psyche with the one-syllable meaning is really a two-syllable word, please use psyched as a two-syllable word also. > > He knows perfectly well that psych is American English > > and psyche is British English. Both forms are acceptable, though the spelling without the 'e' is prefered. >I suppose I should preface my comments on language to indicate that they >apply only to American English. I have only a meager knowledge of European >languages, and have no inclination to criticize (translation: criticise) >any of their usages. Ironic. Aren't you the same person who regularly brings up lengthy discussions about translation issues and clarity of usage in the laws as written in French vs. English? (Where'd that dang 'e' go again? Is "us" the root of the word "usage?") -Todd (grammar prick in thin disguise) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 4 08:10:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA22658 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 08:10:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA22653 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 08:10:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2iveh2m.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.68.86]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA10969 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 16:10:25 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000303160741.0136c514@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 16:07:41 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Superschrikkeltornooi In-Reply-To: <01a701bf84d4$629f3f40$16991e18@san.rr.com> References: <200003011955.LAA04137@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.20000302160720.0136473c@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:41 PM 3/2/00 -0800, Marv wrote: >> At 11:14 PM 3/1/00 -0800, Marv wrote: >> >Some laws have obvious corrollaries. The law says I must stop at a red light. >> >The obvious corollary, which goes without saying, is that I must not stop >> at a >> >green light. >> >> >L16A says a player may not take an action demonstrably suggested by UI if >> there >> >is an LA. The corollary is that a player *should* take an action demonstrably >> >suggested by UI if there is no LA. Doing otherwise is allowing the UI to >> affect >> >one's bidding abnormally, which can't be right. >> >> Hold on a minute. "Corollary" is essentially a mathematical term, referring >> to a result which is true as an immediate logical deduction from an >> established proposition. You have mistakenly equated "a implies b" with its >> converse, "not a implies not b". The law which requires you to stop at a >> red light does not thereby make it illegal to stop at a green light, and >> likewise the "corollary" to L16A imposes no affirmative obligation in the >> absence of LA's, because it does not follow as any logical inference from >> that Law. > >This is not a mathematical mailing list. > >Definition #2. An immediate consequence or easily drawn conclusion. It still requires sound logic to draw conclusions, with or without a familiarity with mathematical conventions. It is a common enough fallacy, but false nonetheless, to regard the converse of a proposition as deriving logically from the proposition itself. This is the mistake you have made in presuming that when L16A bans certain actions under specified conditions, it must "logically" imply that the actions are _required_ in the absence of those conditions. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 4 08:31:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA22732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 08:31:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA22727 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 08:31:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-95.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.95]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA32506 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 16:31:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <008201bf8558$26d3e360$5f84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 16:33:25 -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 >>In 1975 the questioning of an individual call was permitted, but this was >>changed to "opponents' auction" in 1987. Lille interpretation #9 reaffirmed >>that L20F1 permits a request for "a full explanation of the opponents' >>auction," meaning "an explanation of the whole auction," not for the >>meaning of a particular call. (snip) >>I don't understand either why "What did three clubs mean?" (per 1975) is >>superior to the current "Please explain your auction." >(DWS) > Just shortens the process and allows for human beings to play bridge >rather than cyphers. To have to listen to all that junk about the >meaning of all the other calls is not what the customer wants. ###This expresses clearly and concisely why the "please explain your auction" approach is fatally flawed. If there is UI conveyed by asking for what you want to know, then your partner will have to deal with the constraints you place on him. Sobeit. At the club level NO ONE ever says "please explain your auction" when they want to know what 3 clubs means. In real life away from the bridge table, where all the non-pros spend most of their time, no one talks like that either unless he be a politician or a lawyer. Such imprecision is anathema to many people who are used to saying what they mean. The game is supposed to be FUN, not needlessly lengthy and boring. Bring back 1975! -- Craig>> From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 4 08:31:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA22725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 08:31:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA22720 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 08:31:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2iveh2m.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.68.86]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA23979 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 16:30:54 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000303162821.0136eaec@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 16:28:21 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Superschrikkeltornooi In-Reply-To: <01ca01bf8535$99b378a0$16991e18@san.rr.com> References: <38BCE6DC.7F5BA5D2@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.20000302090207.006f0808@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.20000302213933.0136ba6c@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:26 AM 3/3/00 -0800, Marv wrote: >You are not "constrained" by UI if you do not allow it to affect >your bidding. Wrong. Your actions are constrained, as a matter of law, if you have multiple options, at least one of which has been suggested by the UI relative to some logical alternative. Obviously your actions are not "constrained" in the sense that you may choose to ignore your legal responsibility, but then you are operating outside of the Laws. What you have advanced is essentially the "bid what you would have without the UI" approach to coping with UI. It is an approach with a respectable pedigree, including explicit publication in some ACBL communiques, but it is incorrect. L16A states that certain actions are illegal when they meet specific objective criteria. They are not redeemed by conformance with a player's best judgement about what he would have bid in the absence of UI. >Look at three possible calls after partner hesitates: A, B, and C. > >A and B are logical, C is illogical, so I'm saying you must choose >between A and B. Your choice of A or B must not be occasioned >by the hesitation, *in the opinion of the TD or AC.* What goes on >in your mind is of no consequence. Any of A, B, and C may be legal or illegal. It depends solely on which, if any, are suggested over the others by the UI. Note that C is illegal if and only if it is made more attractive, relative to either A or B, as a result of the UI, while A (resp. B) is illegal only if it is suggested relative to B (resp. A). That is, in evaluating the illegality of a particular action under L16A, we need not concern ourselves with whether the action itself is logical or not, but only whether it has been suggested by the UI relative to one or more LA's. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 4 08:47:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA22803 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 08:47:41 +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 IAA22798 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 08:47:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA19544; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 13:47:31 -0800 Message-Id: <200003032147.NAA19544@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 03 Mar 2000 16:13:56 PST." <2C3mUSCET+v4Ewno@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 13:47:31 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > >I don't understand either why "What did three clubs mean?" (per 1975) is > >superior to the current "Please explain your auction." > > Just shortens the process and allows for human beings to play bridge > rather than cyphers. To have to listen to all that junk about the > meaning of all the other calls is not what the customer wants. My mind often goes off on strange tangents---but somehow this reminds me of the Monty Python spoof of a TV game show where the host spent lots of time explaining the complicated rules of the game and then said "Well, we're all out of time...". I suppose it concerns me that something like this might happen: LHO: 1 club. RHO: Alert. Partner: Please explain your auction. RHO: 1C is artificial, showing 16 or more HCP, 17 or more if balanced, except for balanced hands with 22-23 HCP. Partner: Pass. RHO: 1 diamond. LHO: Alert. Me: Please explain your auction. LHO: 1C is artificial, showing 16 or more HCP, 17 or more if balanced, except for balanced hands with 22-23 HCP. 1D is negative, less than 8 HCP. Me: Pass. LHO: 1 notrump. Partner: Please explain your auction. RHO: 1C is artificial, showing 16 or more HCP, 17 or more if balanced, except for balanced hands with 22-23 HCP. 1D is negative, less than 8 HCP. 1NT shows 17-19 balanced. Partner: Pass. RHO: 2 diamonds. LHO: Alert. Me: Please explain your auction. LHO: 1C is artificial, showing 16 or more HCP, 17 or more if balanced, except for balanced hands with 22-23 HCP. 1D is negative, less than 8 HCP. 1NT shows 17-19 balanced. 2D is a transfer to hearts. Me: Pass. LHO: 2 hearts. RHO: Alert. Partner: Please explain your auction. RHO: 1C is artificial, showing 16 or more HCP, 17 or more if balanced, except for balanced hands with 22-23 HCP. 1D is negative, less than 8 HCP. 1NT shows 17-19 balanced. 2D is a transfer to hearts. 2H denies four hearts--opener would make a different call with four-card support. Partner: Pass. RHO: 3 notrump. Me: Pass. LHO: Pass. Partner: Pass. My lead? Eric Idle: Well, we're all out of time... Yes, I know this is ridiculous. But that's never stopped me before. Seriously, though, I agree with David. Requiring players to ask about the entire auction, instead of about just one call, would be a good way to drive players away from the game. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 4 09:20:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA22823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 08:49:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA22818 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 08:49:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.49] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12Qzwg-000MZE-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 21:49:15 +0000 Message-ID: <000401bf855a$98ed42a0$315408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <001701bf7e6c$67605f00$9750063e@davidburn> <002701bf80cd$b0eaeba0$16991e18@san.rr.com> <003801bf816a$36d1d160$705608c3@dodona> <014701bf81c3$5a476f20$16991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: L12C2 vs L12C3 Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 21:32:40 -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: Monday, February 28, 2000 8:05 AM Subject: Re: L12C2 vs L12C3 > > > From: Marvin L. French > > > > > ------------------ \x/ ---------------- > > > > > > The word "suggested" in L16A is not an apt one, > G.E. wrote: > > > 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 ~ +=+ > Marvin: > 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. > +=+ I do not think 'occasion' is the word. One major meaning of 'occasion' is (quote) "Give rise to, esp. incidentally". There is nothing incidental in a UI case if it merits an adjusted score. The use of the UI is an action stimulated by the UI. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 4 17:42:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA24166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 17:42:23 +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 RAA24161 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 17:42:15 +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; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 01:39:07 -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; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 01:31:32 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00f101bf8418$16b67100$16991e18@san.rr.com> References: <200003011955.LAA04137@mailhub.irvine.com> <00f101bf8418$16b67100$16991e18@san.rr.com> Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 01:38:01 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Superschrikkeltornooi Cc: "Bridge Laws" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 11:14 PM -0800 3/1/00, Marvin L. French wrote: >Some laws have obvious corrollaries. The law says I must stop at a red light. >The obvious corollary, which goes without saying, is that I must not stop at a >green light. Um, no. You _need_ not stop at a green light, but the law does not _require_ that you do not. 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/AwUBOMCwM72UW3au93vOEQIjowCfTLNUYT5JMcahEGLILst74rX7eiUAn2U7 wiZBx52rAOjvdraQZywlVFB9 =KE3v -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 4 19:55:19 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA24633 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 19:55:19 +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 TAA24626 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 19:55:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 00:55:12 -0800 Message-ID: <022a01bf85b7$32d6a3a0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200003032147.NAA19544@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 00:53:57 -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: "Adam Beneschan" The ultimate something or other. > David Stevenson wrote: > > > >I don't understand either why "What did three clubs mean?" (per 1975) is > > >superior to the current "Please explain your auction." > > > > Just shortens the process and allows for human beings to play bridge > > rather than cyphers. To have to listen to all that junk about the > > meaning of all the other calls is not what the customer wants. > > My mind often goes off on strange tangents---but somehow this reminds > me of the Monty Python spoof of a TV game show where the host spent > lots of time explaining the complicated rules of the game and then > said "Well, we're all out of time...". > > I suppose it concerns me that something like this might happen: > > LHO: 1 club. > RHO: Alert. > Partner: Please explain your auction. > RHO: 1C is artificial, showing 16 or more HCP, 17 or more if balanced, > except for balanced hands with 22-23 HCP. > Partner: Pass. > RHO: 1 diamond. > LHO: Alert. > Me: Please explain your auction. > LHO: 1C is artificial, showing 16 or more HCP, 17 or more if balanced, > except for balanced hands with 22-23 HCP. 1D is negative, less than > 8 HCP. > Me: Pass. > LHO: 1 notrump. > Partner: Please explain your auction. > RHO: 1C is artificial, showing 16 or more HCP, 17 or more if balanced, > except for balanced hands with 22-23 HCP. 1D is negative, less than > 8 HCP. 1NT shows 17-19 balanced. > Partner: Pass. > RHO: 2 diamonds. > LHO: Alert. > Me: Please explain your auction. > LHO: 1C is artificial, showing 16 or more HCP, 17 or more if balanced, > except for balanced hands with 22-23 HCP. 1D is negative, less than > 8 HCP. 1NT shows 17-19 balanced. 2D is a transfer to hearts. > Me: Pass. > LHO: 2 hearts. > RHO: Alert. > Partner: Please explain your auction. > RHO: 1C is artificial, showing 16 or more HCP, 17 or more if balanced, > except for balanced hands with 22-23 HCP. 1D is negative, less than > 8 HCP. 1NT shows 17-19 balanced. 2D is a transfer to hearts. 2H > denies four hearts--opener would make a different call with > four-card support. > Partner: Pass. > RHO: 3 notrump. > Me: Pass. > LHO: Pass. > Partner: Pass. My lead? > Eric Idle: Well, we're all out of time... > > Yes, I know this is ridiculous. But that's never stopped me before. > Seriously, though, I agree with David. Requiring players to ask about > the entire auction, instead of about just one call, would be a good > way to drive players away from the game. Here we go again. One does not explain a call that has already been explained, so what you say is indeed ridiculous. You guys are insulting the intelligence of the LC who in 1987 changed the right to inquire about a call to the right to inquire about the auction. (No, the 1997 Laws did not change this requirement.) Do you really think they were stupid to have made this change? Don't you think they had a reason for it? Wasn't the reason that too many people were passing UI by asking about individual bids and getting away with it? So, let's go back to the days when it was okay for a player to ask "What did three clubs mean?" And when you call the TD, he says "They have a right to know."Then out comes a club lead, and the TD says, "He had the right to ask." Apply L16A? Don't make me laugh. I have never known a TD to do so. Of course unethical pros hate this law, as it interferes with the "pro question," asked for a client's benefit. It's not what the customer wants, right. Funny that no one thinks that L20B, which requires players to ask for a review of the entire auction rather than question an individual call, is too heavy a burden. Imagine a player in the passout position saying, "What was the first suit bid by dummy?" and then doubling a slam. That would be outrageous, forbidden by L20B and its footnote. The same principle applies to L20F1 nad L20F2, like it or not. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 4 19:58:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA24670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 19:58:44 +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 TAA24664 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 19:58:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 00:58:40 -0800 Message-ID: <023601bf85b7$af0ae760$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200003011955.LAA04137@mailhub.irvine.com><00f101bf8418$16b67100$16991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Superschrikkeltornooi Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 00:57:30 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > , Marvin L. French wrote: > >Some laws have obvious corrollaries. The law says I must stop at a red light. > >The obvious corollary, which goes without saying, is that I must not stop at a > >green light. > > Um, no. You _need_ not stop at a green light, but the law does not > _require_ that you do not. > I wrote that it goes without saying. And you can get a ticket for blocking traffic. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 5 00:43:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA25791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Mar 2000 00:43:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from fb02.eng00.mindspring.net (fb02.eng00.mindspring.net [207.69.229.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA25786 for ; Sun, 5 Mar 2000 00:43:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2iveha5.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.69.69]) by fb02.eng00.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA21126 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 08:43:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000304084059.01374168@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 08:40:59 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Superschrikkeltornooi In-Reply-To: <023601bf85b7$af0ae760$16991e18@san.rr.com> References: <200003011955.LAA04137@mailhub.irvine.com> <00f101bf8418$16b67100$16991e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:57 AM 3/4/00 -0800, Marv wrote: >Ed Reppert wrote: >> > , Marvin L. French wrote: >> >Some laws have obvious corrollaries. The law says I must stop at a red light. >> >The obvious corollary, which goes without saying, is that I must not stop at >a >> >green light. >> >> Um, no. You _need_ not stop at a green light, but the law does not >> _require_ that you do not. >> >I wrote that it goes without saying. And you can get a ticket for blocking >traffic. True, but irrelevant. You can get a ticket for blocking traffic by stopping in the middle of the road anytime, with or without a green light. The offense is blocking traffic, and has nothing to do with traffic lights, and does not derive in any manner from the requirement to stop at a red light. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 5 04:10:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA26610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Mar 2000 03:33:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA26605 for ; Sun, 5 Mar 2000 03:33:40 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA24142 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 18:33:30 +0100 Received: from ip48.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.48), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda24138; Sat Mar 4 18:33:22 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: Forbo impression Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 18:33:22 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B571@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B571@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> 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 DAA26606 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 11:28:59 +0100, "Kooijman, A." wrote: >3) One of the Dutch teams called me at the table after finishing a round. >Playing against a Swedish team LHO opponent Swede had revoked and so won an >extra trick, 3 off iso 2 (800 iso 500). This wasn't noticed during play >(last board) but after finishing the Dutch coach made a remark and so the >Dutch discovered. I was called and the coach told me that the Swede had >thought for almost a minute before revoking. He suspected him of needing >this time to assure that the revoke couldn't loose (the only winning (extra) >trick to be given back when discovered). I didn't want to go into that >possibility, but certainly there are riskless revokes. My decision (Yes >John) was to restore equity and give the Dutch one trick back. Now the >Swedes came to me, asking on what law this decison was based. Always a good >question. I started telling them that winning an event by collecting >undeserved tricks shouldn't be their style with which they agreed (of >course). Then they told me that in the (I think) Bermuda Bowl in Stockholm >in '83 the same happened with Zia revoking and after play the Swedish >captain noticed the revoke. The chief TD, our famous Harold Franklin, had >given the captain a severe warning for interupting the game and the result >was not changed. They apparently wanted their revenge here. So I showed them >81C6 and we continued. This case has also been mentioned on the Danish WWW bridge discussion forum, where the description was that it was a kibitzer who, after the round, informed the Dutch about the revoke. Ton's description above seems to indicate that the kibitzer was the captain of the Dutch team. If that is the case, is L11B1 not relevant here? How should the words "may be" in L11B1 be interpreted? -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 5 04:14:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA26863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Mar 2000 04:14:54 +1000 (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 EAA26857 for ; Sun, 5 Mar 2000 04:14:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout2.nyroc.rr.com ([24.92.226.165]) by mailhop1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 13:11:42 -0500 Received: from [24.95.202.126] by mailout2.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 13:04:09 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <023601bf85b7$af0ae760$16991e18@san.rr.com> References: <200003011955.LAA04137@mailhub.irvine.com><00f101bf8418$16b67100$16991e18@ san.rr.com> <023601bf85b7$af0ae760$16991e18@san.rr.com> Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 13:11:39 -0500 To: From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Superschrikkeltornooi Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > , Marvin L. French wrote: >> >Some laws have obvious corrollaries. The law says I must stop at >>a red light. >> >The obvious corollary, which goes without saying, is that I must >>not stop at > > > a green light. >> >> Um, no. You _need_ not stop at a green light, but the law does not >> _require_ that you do not. >> > >I wrote that it goes without saying. And you can get a ticket for blocking >traffic. C'mon, Marv. I'm not the only one who has pointed out that your logic is flawed. And yes, it's possible to get a ticket for blocking traffic - if you stop long enough to do so, and if there's any to block. What you _can't_ get, and what you claimed (by inference, if not directly) you _could_ get, is a ticket for "stopping at a green light". 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/AwUBOMFSib2UW3au93vOEQIu8ACfUOt6PLLwr2w2WY/K4sSbasUQ2WEAoLZu Nfe9KN4YG7cXvmFN5w9XdbUk =wJFx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 5 04:48:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA26984 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Mar 2000 04:48:37 +1000 (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 EAA26979 for ; Sun, 5 Mar 2000 04:48:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-58-211-186.s186.tnt1.lnhdc.md.dialup.rcn.com (HELO hdavis) (208.58.211.186) by smtp.mail.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Mar 2000 10:48:19 -0800 X-Apparently-From: Message-ID: <006a01bf860a$3824e440$bad33ad0@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <20000303203959.32119.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Psyche or not? Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 13:48:20 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 3:39 PM Subject: Re: Psyche or not? > > Appling rules to English is as futile a task as getting the British to > abide by them. :) It can't be as futile a task as applying laws to bridge, or getting players to abide by them ;) Hirsch __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 5 08:41:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA27649 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Mar 2000 08:41:26 +1000 (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 IAA27644 for ; Sun, 5 Mar 2000 08:41:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 14:41:21 -0800 Message-ID: <025a01bf862a$95a61060$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200003011955.LAA04137@mailhub.irvine.com><00f101bf8418$16b67100$16991e18@san.rr.com> <023601bf85b7$af0ae760$16991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Superschrikkeltornooi Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 14:39:59 -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 Ed Reppert wrote: > > > , Marvin L. French wrote: > >> >Some laws have obvious corollaries. The law says I must stop at > >>a red light. > >> >The obvious corollary, which goes without saying, is that I must > >>not stop at > > > > a green light. > >> > >> Um, no. You _need_ not stop at a green light, but the law does not > >> _require_ that you do not. > >> > > > >I wrote that it goes without saying. And you can get a ticket for blocking > >traffic. > > C'mon, Marv. I'm not the only one who has pointed out that your logic > is flawed. And yes, it's possible to get a ticket for blocking > traffic - if you stop long enough to do so, and if there's any to > block. What you _can't_ get, and what you claimed (by inference, if > not directly) you _could_ get, is a ticket for "stopping at a green > light". > Quit nitpicking, please. So I'm not good at analogies. Find another one for me. There are lots of rules that have obvious unspoken, unwritten corollaries. I picked a poor example, so shoot me. L40E2 You can refer to an opponent's when it is your turn to bid or play, but not to your own Obvious corollary: You can't do so at another time, and never to your own. This goes without saying. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 5 08:48:03 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA27672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Mar 2000 08:48:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA27667 for ; Sun, 5 Mar 2000 08:47:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA13663 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 17:46:54 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000304175218.0068b7d8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 17:52:18 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Superschrikkeltornooi In-Reply-To: <01ca01bf8535$99b378a0$16991e18@san.rr.com> References: <38BCE6DC.7F5BA5D2@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.20000302090207.006f0808@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.20000302213933.0136ba6c@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:26 AM 3/3/00 -0800, Marv wrote: >Mike Dennis wrote: > >> Marv wrote: >> > >> >Okay, a plain case. LHO opens 4H, partner hesitates a long time, then >passes. >> >You hold S-AKQJxx H-Axx D-KQJ C-x >> > >> >While 4S is not a lock, no one in the world would dream of passing 4H. >> >If you pass for ethical reasons, perhaps to teach partner not to >hesitate, >> >then you have taken an illogical action which, as Roger Pewick puts it, >> > "cannot be explained solely by AI." That can't be right, and I >> >interpret L16A to say that it isn't right. >> >> It is _entirely_ legal to pass with this hand, though certainly not >> required. L16A bars you from taking actions that meet certain criteria >> (you have LA's, the action in question is demonstrably suggested). It >> says nothing about actions which do not meet those criteria. It is >plainly >> ridiculous to pass that hand, but it is not illegal, and no score >> adjustment is warranted in the unlikely event that such a decision would >> pay off. >> >> >I don't think Roger will mind if I quote him: >> >> >"Perhaps what the law ought to read is to start by restricting a player >> >with UI to take only actions that can be explained solely by AI. Then >> >work on." >> >> >Or, another way to put it, take no action that is occasioned by UI. >> >> And it is against this misinterpretation that Eric has directed his main >> point. L16 will often _require_ you to take an "action that is >> occasioned by UI." If the above hand is far weaker (make the spade A a >> deuce and demote the KQJ to xxx, perhaps), then you might well be >> inclined to bid 4S in the absence of UI, but are (arguably) constrained >> by L16 after partner has hesitated. > >Okay, now I get it. > >You are not "constrained" by UI if you do not allow it to affect >your bidding. Remember the guy who backed in at the four level >with J10xxx spades and a weak hand after partner hesitated? >He convinced the AC that his action was not occasioned by the >UI, and his argument was accepted. If the AC had not accepted >his argument, he would have been wiser to pass instead of bidding >4S. The pass would have been occasioned by the UI, yes, but the >judges would not have found it to be so, and that's what counts. The judges who let the guy bid 4S wouldn't have understood the point at all, one imagines, but Marv has it right. If you have UI which constrains your actions, and that constraint prevents you from legally making the call you intended to make, you make a different call, one which has been occasioned by the UI. This is required by law. Thus it cannot be argued that one's opponents may be due redress any time you have UI and subsequently make a call different from the call you would have made without the UI. >Look at three possible calls after partner hesitates: A, B, and C. > >A and B are logical, C is illogical, so I'm saying you must choose >between A and B. Your choice of A or B must not be occasioned >by the hesitation, *in the opinion of the TD or AC.* We must distinguish two cases. If C was an illogical choice absent the UI, but has become a logical choice because of the UI, then it has been demonstrably suggested by the UI, and may not be chosen, even if you had intended to bid it, albeit illogically, without the UI. But if C remains illogical in the presence of UI, than it cannot have been demonstrably suggested over either of the logical choices A and B, and you are free to choose it. If it happens to work well, the fact that it was illogical notwithstanding, the opponents are once again fixed by an illogical action. >What goes on >in your mind is of no consequence. It could be in a very limited sense. If you take a wild, apparently illogical, stab which may have been made more attractive than otherwise by the UI and is successful, a committee might decide that your LAs are to be judged relative to a peer group who would consider wild, apparently illogical actions, and so find an LA that your call was demonstrably suggested over where they otherwise might not. ("If he made that ridiculous bid, he might just as easily made this other one, but he'd never do that after his partner huddled, so let's stick him with it.") Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 5 19:29:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA29403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Mar 2000 19:29:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA29390 for ; Sun, 5 Mar 2000 19:29:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.241] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12RXLw-000P1D-00; Sun, 5 Mar 2000 09:29:32 +0000 Message-ID: <001201bf8685$98f79d00$f15908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" References: <200003011955.LAA04137@mailhub.irvine.com><00f101bf8418$16b67100$16991e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.20000304084059.01374168@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Superschrikkeltornooi Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 21:57:40 -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: Saturday, March 04, 2000 1:40 PM Subject: Re: Superschrikkeltornooi > At 12:57 AM 3/4/00 -0800, Marv wrote: > >Ed Reppert wrote: > >> > > , Marvin L. French wrote: -------------------- \x/ --------------------- > True, but irrelevant. You can get a ticket for blocking traffic by stopping > in the middle of the road anytime, with or without a green light. The > offense is blocking traffic, and has nothing to do with traffic lights, and > does not derive in any manner from the requirement to stop at a red light. > > Mike Dennis > +=+ "The rolling English drunkard made the rolling English road". True but irrelevant - well OK, many of them were Irish. Do we still have a subject? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 5 19:29:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA29401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Mar 2000 19:29:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA29391 for ; Sun, 5 Mar 2000 19:29:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.241] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12RXLx-000P1D-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 5 Mar 2000 09:29:34 +0000 Message-ID: <001301bf8685$99ca2f40$f15908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B571@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: Forbo impression Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 22:15:50 -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, March 04, 2000 5:33 PM Subject: Re: Forbo impression ____________________________________ ________________ \x/ ________________ > Ton's description above seems to indicate that the kibitzer was > the captain of the Dutch team. If that is the case, is L11B1 not > relevant here? > > How should the words "may be" in L11B1 be interpreted? > -- > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . > http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). > +=+ There may have been a regulation specifying the rights of captains. It appears there was no appeal, so either the regulation existed or it did not matter. An appeal committee could well take the view that there is no occasion for L11B1 to exist if it is not to be a pointer to the expectation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 6 02:44:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA00916 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 02:44:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA00910 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 02:44:21 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA26399 for ; Sun, 5 Mar 2000 17:44:05 +0100 Received: from ip5.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.5), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda26397; Sun Mar 5 17:44:03 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Forbo impression Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 17:44:03 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <4b35cskq8rgeacdbbe15vq8i7d0tqjlia5@dybdal.dk> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B571@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <001301bf8685$99ca2f40$f15908c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <001301bf8685$99ca2f40$f15908c3@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 CAA00912 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 22:15:50 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >An appeal committee could well take the >view that there is no occasion for L11B1 >to exist if it is not to be a pointer to the >expectation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I've read these words several times, and I am still not sure what you mean by "a pointer to the expectation". My guess is that it means that the existence of L11B1 implies that a denial of redress is to be expected in a case like this - is that correctly understood? -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 6 07:33:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA02079 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 07:33:51 +1000 (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 HAA02073 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 07:33:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from p2es11a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.139.47] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt1-ps.global.net.uk.noc.gxn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Ridq-0004PQ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 5 Mar 2000 13:32:46 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Forbo impression Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 21:41:55 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf86eb$a060d3c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sunday, March 05, 2000 5:01 PM Subject: Re: Forbo impression >On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 22:15:50 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" > wrote: > >>An appeal committee could well take the >>view that there is no occasion for L11B1 >>to exist if it is not to be a pointer to the >>expectation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >I've read these words several times, and I am still not sure what >you mean by "a pointer to the expectation". > >My guess is that it means that the existence of L11B1 implies >that a denial of redress is to be expected in a case like this - >is that correctly understood? > I understood it to mean that the law makers, either because of a previous happening, or because they were sufficiently far sighted,anticipated that the involvement of a kibitzer is something that could cause problems.It was therefore considered prudent to make allowance in law for the eventuality. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 6 11:28:09 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA02840 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 11:28:09 +1000 (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 LAA02824 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 11:27:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12RmJ9-000PMO-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 01:27:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 21:30:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? References: <200003032147.NAA19544@mailhub.irvine.com> <022a01bf85b7$32d6a3a0$16991e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <022a01bf85b7$32d6a3a0$16991e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >Here we go again. One does not explain a call that has already been explained, >so what you say is indeed ridiculous. Aha! So you are saying we should not follow this Law as people claim it to be because it is ridiculous to do so? Good! One step toward sanity. >You guys are insulting the intelligence of the LC who in 1987 changed the right >to inquire about a call to the right to inquire about the auction. No, I am not insulting their intelligence, I am saying they made a serious mistake. > (No, the 1997 >Laws did not change this requirement.) Not true. > Do you really think they were stupid to >have made this change? No, just wrong. People who make mistakes are not thereby stupid. > Don't you think they had a reason for it? Of course they had a reason for it. Unfortunately they failed to realise that it created a much bigger problem than it solved. Why do you assume we think they are stupid? Of course we don't. They just made a blunder, that is all. > Wasn't the >reason that too many people were passing UI by asking about individual bids and >getting away with it? Possibly. >So, let's go back to the days when it was okay for a player to ask "What did >three clubs mean?" And when you call the TD, he says "They have a right to >know."Then out comes a club lead, and the TD says, "He had the right to ask." >Apply L16A? Don't make me laugh. I have never known a TD to do so. Of course we apply L16A. >Of course unethical pros hate this law, as it interferes with the "pro >question," asked for a client's benefit. It's not what the customer wants, >right. The pro question is illegal anyway, so that is a red herring. However, to follow the Law as you would have it and as it was in 1987 is very bad for the game where it matters - in the middle. I do think that this method of worrying about the game at the top and ignoring the vast majority of players is very wrong, and certain people on BLML would do well to remember it. We already have one Law solely for BLs - let's not have another just because the WBFLC have made a serious mistake. >Funny that no one thinks that L20B, which requires players to ask for a review >of the entire auction rather than question an individual call, is too heavy a >burden. Imagine a player in the passout position saying, "What was the first >suit bid by dummy?" and then doubling a slam. That would be outrageous, >forbidden by L20B and its footnote. The same principle applies to L20F1 nad >L20F2, like it or not. Look, Marvin, you are beginning to produce a few too many arguments recently that you do not believe in, because *I know* you are too intelligent. In the scenario posed in this paragraph any competent TD or AC disallows the lead without pausing for breath under the UI Laws. That is no excuse for trying to wreck the game for hundreds of thousands of people by taking away the normal information-gathering method. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 6 11:28:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA02839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 11:28:09 +1000 (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 LAA02825 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 11:27:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12RmJA-000PMQ-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 01:27:43 +0000 Message-ID: <9hHUcWA75tw4Ewtx@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 22:23:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: World Class References: <028d01bf6ff0$0689edc0$776d868b@gillp.bigpond.com> <200002071604.IAA12537@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200002071604.IAA12537@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk 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. In soccer, referees have to decide player's intent in various matters, such as whether they kicked another player intentionally or not. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 6 11:28:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA02841 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 11:28:10 +1000 (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 LAA02826 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 11:27:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12RmJB-000PMR-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 01:27:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 22:31:13 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: World Class References: <3.0.3.32.20000208124838.007d9100@pop.ihug.co.nz> <000b01bf7207$251a95a0$d15608c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <000b01bf7207$251a95a0$d15608c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >From: Patrick >> 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. Exactly. It should be run in ways that favour all players. It is my view that the advantage of not having ACs is that players will find it a more pleasurable game, though not necessarily as fair a game. However, it is my very strong view that average players would find an Appeal-less game very satisfactory, primarily because of time restraints. As to supporting one's own metier, I am used a fair amount on appeals, I direct, I play good bridge, I play in clubs, and I am conceited enough to believe that my view is well rounded [yes, and the reverse holds true, thanks]. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 6 15:10:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA03531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 15:10:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA03526 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 15:10:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id AAA18389 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 00:10:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id AAA03693 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 00:10:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 00:10:06 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200003060510.AAA03693@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Was it a psych? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ Does this mean nowhere, no time, in ACBL? > European regulations have banned such psyches [of strong forcing openings, etc.] > in pairs events. ~G~ +=+ Clubs can regulate conventions however they choose. The ban on certain psychs appears on the convention charts, and it therefore appears to me that clubs can have their own rules. It does seem to be the case that these psychs are banned in all ACBL _tournaments_. The International Team Trials are a special case. There is "commission" that sets most of the conditions of contest, and I _suspect_ they could adopt special convention rules if they chose to do so. In practice, I'm pretty sure they adopt the usual convention charts, probably the MidChart for early rounds and SuperChart later. Somebody on this list must know for sure, though. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 6 15:30:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA03629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 15:30:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA03623 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 15:30:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id AAA18500 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 00:29:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id AAA03713 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 00:29:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 00:29:52 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200003060529.AAA03713@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 > Jens & Bodil wrote: > >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. > >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. > From: David Stevenson > The whole idea of the way L72B1 is written is that we do not have to > make any decision as to the intent of the player: we treat him the same. > Thus L72B1 applies equally to case A and case B, and we would not want > to apply L72B1 to case A and then say it was deliberate. I wonder whether David responded too quickly or whether he understands the distinction Jens (and I) were trying to make. Case a is normal sorts of UI: tempo breaks and other mannerisms. I thought most of us had agreed that these are not infractions in themselves. Of course it is an infraction for partner to take advantage of the information conveyed, but that's not the issue here. David: are you saying these forms of UI -- taking a while to think, for example -- are infractions _in themselves_? Case b is things like the pro question and the informatory question. There is no doubt they are infractions; I'm sure David agrees with that. Jens and I are saying that cases a and b may be judged differently because there is a difference between 'no infraction' and 'infraction'. That is, in b (and c of course), even if the partner fulfils his obligations, there may still be an adjustment on the basis of the original infraction. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 6 15:46:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA03686 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 15:46:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA03681 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 15:46:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id AAA18578 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 00:46:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id AAA03730 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 00:46:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 00:46:16 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200003060546.AAA03730@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Superschrikkeltornooi X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > L40E2 You can refer to an opponent's when it is your turn to bid or play, but > not to your own > Obvious corollary: You can't do so at another time, and never to your own. This > goes without saying. Nothing about the "obvious corollary" seems to be correct. At Lille, the WBFLC said that looking at an opponent's CC other than at your own turn is _extraneous_, not forbidden. (We had a long thread about this subject. Grattan and others seemed certain they were disagreeing with me about this, but as far as I can tell, the text from Lille said what I had been trying to say all along. The WBFLC language was clearer than mine, of course.) The part about "never to your own" isn't exactly true. The major part of it -- looking at your own turn -- is said explicitly in L40E2, and the footnote forbids aids to memory. Still, I don't think it's necessarily an infraction to look at your own CC at an opponents' turn for the purpose of pointing out to an opponent exactly where some relevant information is written. Even to the extent they are true, neither clause of the first sentence goes without saying. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 6 17:04:44 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA03875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 17:04:44 +1000 (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 RAA03869 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 17:04:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 5 Mar 2000 23:04:35 -0800 Message-ID: <005001bf873a$2d264940$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200003032147.NAA19544@mailhub.irvine.com><022a01bf85b7$32d6a3a0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 22:54:29 -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 Stevenson wrote; > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >Here we go again. One does not explain a call that has already been explained, > >so what you say is indeed ridiculous. > > Aha! So you are saying we should not follow this Law as people claim > it to be because it is ridiculous to do so? Good! One step toward > sanity. Surely no reasonable person would think that L20F1 and L20F2 require that a previously explained call be explained again. > >You guys are insulting the intelligence of the LC who in 1987 changed the right > >to inquire about a call to the right to inquire about the auction. > > No, I am not insulting their intelligence, I am saying they made a > serious mistake. Aren't we supposed to follow the Laws, even those that we think are mistaken? > > > (No, the 1997 > >Laws did not change this requirement.) > > Not true. True. Ask Grattan, who was surprised that anyone thought the law had changed. Read the LC's interpretation of this law at Lille: #9. In relation to the phrase "a full explanation of the opponents' auction in Laws 20F1 and 20F2, it was agreed this refers to an explanation of the whole auction." No change from 1987, other than a parenthetical insert that permits asking about calls available but not made in addition to those made. > > > Do you really think they were stupid to > >have made this change? > > No, just wrong. People who make mistakes are not thereby stupid. I see. Anything in the Laws with which you do not agree is a mistake. > > > Don't you think they had a reason for it? > > Of course they had a reason for it. Unfortunately they failed to > realise that it created a much bigger problem than it solved. Why do > you assume we think they are stupid? Of course we don't. They just > made a blunder, that is all. They did not create a problem, since hardly anyone complies with L20F1. The non-compliant ones are those who are creating a problem. Their UI transmissions are seldom penalized. Perhaps this is a worse problem in ACBL-land than elsewhere, I have no knowledge of elsewhere. > > > Wasn't the > >reason that too many people were passing UI by asking about individual bids and > >getting away with it? > > Possibly. > > >So, let's go back to the days when it was okay for a player to ask "What did > >three clubs mean?" And when you call the TD, he says "They have a right to > >know."Then out comes a club lead, and the TD says, "He had the right to ask." > >Apply L16A? Don't make me laugh. I have never known a TD to do so. > > Of course we apply L16A. It is usually impossible to prove that a player is passing useful UI when s/he questions an individual call. That's why L20F1 was changed in 1987 to read as it does. > > >Of course unethical pros hate this law, as it interferes with the "pro > >question," asked for a client's benefit. It's not what the customer wants, > >right. > > The pro question is illegal anyway, so that is a red herring. Illegal, but never penalized. Never. > However, to follow the Law as you would have it and as it was in 1987 is > very bad for the game where it matters - in the middle. As it was in 1987, and as it is now. The Law is not being followed, and the game would be better if it were. > I do think that > this method of worrying about the game at the top and ignoring the vast > majority of players is very wrong, and certain people on BLML would do > well to remember it. We already have one Law solely for BLs - let's not > have another just because the WBFLC have made a serious mistake. > The vast majority of bridge players also act on UI obtained from partner's bidding tempo. That doesn't mean that laws prohibiting this are a mistake. I feel that most players don't realize how much UI they are passing by unnecessary questioning of calls and variations of tempo. They pass UI, they act on UI, and they don't know they are doing something wrong. But they are. The Laws should be followed, even the unpopular ones. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 6 17:44:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA03942 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 17:44:42 +1000 (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 RAA03937 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 17:44:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 5 Mar 2000 23:44:39 -0800 Message-ID: <005801bf873f$c69f95e0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200003060546.AAA03730@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Superschrikkeltornooi Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 23:41:48 -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 Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > L40E2 You can refer to an opponent's when it is your turn to bid or play, but > > not to your own > > Obvious corollary: You can't do so at another time, and never to your own. This > > goes without saying. > > Nothing about the "obvious corollary" seems to be correct. > > At Lille, the WBFLC said that looking at an opponent's CC other than at > your own turn is _extraneous_, not forbidden. (We had a long thread > about this subject. Grattan and others seemed certain they were > disagreeing with me about this, but as far as I can tell, the text from > Lille said what I had been trying to say all along. The WBFLC language > was clearer than mine, of course.) Let's see what they said, Steve. "7. The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that where an action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be authorised, other actions if not expressly forbidden were legitimate. The Committee ruled that this is not so." I suppose I should have written, "You can't do so legitimately at another time." Sorry about that. Big exaggeration, heinous. Yes, they went on to say that only if the information derived from such "extraneous" sources is used in the auction or play does it constitute an infraction. L16A says the same thing, it's nothing new. Coffeehousing, inappropriate remarks, sloppy placement of tricks, looking at an opposing cc whenever the mood strikes, and all other extraneous actions are not penalized unless damage results. I think, however, that they are quite suitable subjects for PPs. > > The part about "never to your own" isn't exactly true. The major part > of it -- looking at your own turn -- is said explicitly in L40E2, and > the footnote forbids aids to memory. > Still, I don't think it's > necessarily an infraction to look at your own CC at an opponents' turn > for the purpose of pointing out to an opponent exactly where some > relevant information is written. It is not proper procedure, and of course you should not do that unless the opponent is a novice who needs help. Many players do it because they want to be sure of something themselves, so this "helpful" move has to be proscribed. Most opponents know where information is to be found on the cc (on the ACBL cc, anyway. I'm not familiar with others). > > Even to the extent they are true, neither clause of the first sentence > goes without saying. I think most people reading L40E2 would draw the same conclusions from it that I do. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 6 17:50:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA03968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 17:50:09 +1000 (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 RAA03962 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 17:50:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.22]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 5 Mar 2000 23:50:07 -0800 Message-ID: <006201bf8740$89d72be0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200003060510.AAA03693@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Was it a psych? Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 23:48:08 -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 Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > +=+ Does this mean nowhere, no time, in ACBL? > > European regulations have banned such psyches [of strong forcing openings, etc.] > > in pairs events. ~G~ +=+ > > Clubs can regulate conventions however they choose. The ban on certain > psychs appears on the convention charts, and it therefore appears to me > that clubs can have their own rules. It does seem to be the case that > these psychs are banned in all ACBL _tournaments_. > > The International Team Trials are a special case. There is > "commission" that sets most of the conditions of contest, and I > _suspect_ they could adopt special convention rules if they chose to do > so. In practice, I'm pretty sure they adopt the usual convention > charts, probably the MidChart for early rounds and SuperChart later. > Somebody on this list must know for sure, though. Here's what I found on Bridge Plaza, 1998 ITT trials: Conditions of Contest, SYSTEMS The ACBL Mid-Chart will be allowed in Round 1. The ACBL Mid-Chart and Super-Chart will be allowed in all subsequent rounds. Each partnership must submit an ACBL Convention Card and descriptions of any methods being played under either the ACBL Mid-Chart or Super-Chart 24 hours prior to that team's first Knockout match (in addition, it may be to a pair's advantage to submit full system notes at the tournament, for use by the Appeals Committee). Once play begins: Pairs may not add any Mid-Chart or Super-Chart conventions to their submitted convention cards. Any changes to a convention card must be announced to the opponents before lineups are submitted for the next segment. Minor changes to convention cards, (especially defenses to opponents methods), may be made during or between segments, but pairs making minor changes must re-submit their card or the minor change at the end of any session. Players are expected to know their system, especially early in the bidding. If it is determined that the opponents have been disadvantaged by ambiguous or differing explanations, score adjustments may be applied within the limitations of ACBL regulations. If requested by a director, appeals committee or recorder, pairs shall produce any written agreements/system notes. Pairs who do not make their notes available may get the worst of any ruling or inquiry dependent on partnership understandings Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 6 17:54:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA03996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 17:54:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA03987 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 17:54:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.241] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12RsLD-000Dmq-00; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 07:54:12 +0000 Message-ID: <006501bf8741$72434b20$d55608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <200003032147.NAA19544@mailhub.irvine.com><022a01bf85b7$32d6a3a0$16991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 07:54:14 -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: Sunday, March 05, 2000 9:30 PM Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? > Marvin L. French wrote: > .---------- \x/ ----------- > > > Do you really think they were stupid to > >have made this change? > > No, just wrong. People who make mistakes are not thereby stupid. > > > Don't you think they had a reason for it? > > Of course they had a reason for it. Unfortunately they failed to > realise that it created a much bigger problem than it solved. Why do > you assume we think they are stupid? Of course we don't. They just > made a blunder, that is all. > +=+ I am not certain that the problem is much bigger. It is of a different kind, and big. But those who were urgent in their desire to change this Law were from North America and they thought they had a problem big enough to require the change. Options are unfashionable just now but there is a case for a Zonal option here. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 6 17:54:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA03997 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 17:54:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA03986 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 17:54:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.241] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12RsLB-000Dmq-00; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 07:54:10 +0000 Message-ID: <006401bf8741$7136bd20$d55608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" References: <01bf86eb$a060d3c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: Forbo impression Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 07:38:54 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: BLML Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2000 9:41 PM Subject: Re: Forbo impression > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jesper Dybdal > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Date: Sunday, March 05, 2000 5:01 PM > Subject: Re: Forbo impression > > > >On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 22:15:50 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" > > wrote: > > > >>An appeal committee could well take the > >>view that there is no occasion for L11B1 > >>to exist if it is not to be a pointer to the > >>expectation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > >I've read these words several times, and I am still not sure what > >you mean by "a pointer to the expectation". > > > >My guess is that it means that the existence of L11B1 implies > >that a denial of redress is to be expected in a case like this - > >is that correctly understood? > > > I understood it to mean that the law makers, either because of a previous > happening, or because they were sufficiently far sighted,anticipated that > the > involvement of a kibitzer is something that could cause problems.It was > therefore considered prudent to make allowance in law for the eventuality. > Anne > +=+ Law 76B denies a kibitzer the right to draw attention to an irregularity and the kibitzer who does may be sanctioned. But it does not offer to the Director any escape from the duty imposed in Law 81C6. However, Law 11B does provide that relief in the case of the spectator who is acting in the interests of a side with which he is associated. But 11B does so by giving to the Director discretion not to penalize/not to allow rectification of an irregularity - it does not indicate how he should use the discretion. The 'expectation' becomes in consequence something that should develop out of the case law provided by the decisions of appeals committees. In my experience no such case law has built up around Law 11B which is why I used the words 'could well' - I did not put it more strongly because I think it a matter that is open to decision. My personal belief is that the underlying thought of the lawmakers was that sides should not gain from the illegal actions of kibitzers for whose presence at the table they are responsible. If in the 'Forbo' case the kibitzer was connected to the team that benefited from the ruling, and if there was no regulation empowering him as captain to intervene, I would I tend to feel that an opportunity was missed - the opportunity of using the referral power in Law 81C9 for the benefit of case law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 6 18:04:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA04035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 18:04:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA04030 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 18:04:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA31916 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 09:04:02 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Mar 06 09:03:58 2000 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JMPGSPET0E0020ZL@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 09:02:59 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 06 Mar 2000 09:02:28 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 09:02:54 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Forbo impression To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B576@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 Captains did not exist in a formal way during Forbo, but honestly speaking I do not see the difference. If anybody may detect the revoke and inform the TD, why should the captain be deprived from that right? In L11 we speak about 'the right to penalize'. As I told before I did not appoint a penalty but used 64C to reach equity. That difference, though not apparent in the result, is important. So the decision was in accordance with L11. ton > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Grattan Endicott [mailto:Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk] > Verzonden: zaterdag 4 maart 2000 23:16 > Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: Re: Forbo impression > > > > Grattan Endicott '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > '''''''''''''' > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > " The latter part of a wise man's life is taken up > in curing the follies, prejudices and false opinions > he had contracted in the former." - Jonathan Swift. > > _______________________________________ > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jesper Dybdal > To: > Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2000 5:33 PM > Subject: Re: Forbo impression > ____________________________________ > ________________ \x/ ________________ > > > Ton's description above seems to indicate that the kibitzer was > > the captain of the Dutch team. If that is the case, is L11B1 not > > relevant here? > > > > How should the words "may be" in L11B1 be interpreted? > > -- > > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . > > http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). > > > +=+ There may have been a regulation > specifying the rights of captains. It appears > there was no appeal, so either the > regulation existed or it did not matter. > An appeal committee could well take the > view that there is no occasion for L11B1 > to exist if it is not to be a pointer to the > expectation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 6 23:07:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA04842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 23:07:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA04837 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 23:07:40 +1000 (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 NAA27083 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 13:07:26 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA18441 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 13:07:24 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 06 Mar 2000 13:07:22 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 NAA01398 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 13:07:20 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id NAA21940 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 13:07:20 GMT Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 13:07:20 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200003061307.NAA21940@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: dummy misplays, declarer revokes? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It looked like an easy revoke to start with... Declarer has played a hand in hearts. I am called at the end of the hand and assess a two trick penalty for declarer's revoke on a club lead from dummy, ruffed by declarer when he had some clubs (he won the revoke trick and won subsequent tricks). I am recalled by dummy, who says the lead was in dummy on the trick in question and declarer called for a heart: RHO played a club (he heard declarer call for a club), Dummy put a club in the played position, Declarer played a heart (not looking at the other cards), LHO played a club. Dummy said declarer called for a heart: she only played a club [put a club in the played position] because (declarer's) RHO played a club. Americans may regard this statement as self serving, but it is at least consistent with the facts. I quoted law 45D, and ruled that the club lead from dummy could not be withdrawn as both sides had played to the next trick. Therefore, declarer had revoked on the trick as played and the two trick penalty stood. The players were convinced but my colleagues were 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 Mar 7 00:59:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA05263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 00:59:29 +1000 (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 AAA05258 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 00:59:18 +1000 (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 JAA09828; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 09:58:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA088024715; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 09:58:35 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 09:58:20 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: dummy misplays, declarer revokes? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, rmb1@cise.npl.co.uk Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It looked like an easy revoke to start with... Declarer has played a hand in hearts. I am called at the end of the hand and assess a two trick penalty for declarer's revoke on a club lead from dummy, ruffed by declarer when he had some clubs (he won the revoke trick and won subsequent tricks). I am recalled by dummy, who says the lead was in dummy on the trick in question and declarer called for a heart: RHO played a club (he heard declarer call for a club), Dummy put a club in the played position, Declarer played a heart (not looking at the other cards), LHO played a club. Dummy said declarer called for a heart: she only played a club [put a club in the played position] because (declarer's) RHO played a club. Americans may regard this statement as self serving, but it is at least consistent with the facts. I quoted law 45D, and ruled that the club lead from dummy could not be withdrawn as both sides had played to the next trick. Therefore, declarer had revoked on the trick as played and the two trick penalty stood. The players were convinced but my colleagues were not! Robin [Laval Dubreuil] I think I should have rule like you, but I have a problem when reading Law 45C4: "A card must be played if a player names it as the card he proposed to play." This Law says "must be played" but not "is played". Here declarer called for a heart (must be played), but RHO played before dummy. Do we have a LOOT ? Followed by a play OOT by dummy or a "proper lead subsequent to irregular lead" (Law 53C)...and then by declarer. May be we have the same result, but I would like to know.... Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 7 01:19:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA05295 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 01:03:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from uucp.nl.uu.net (uucp.nl.uu.net [193.79.237.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA05289 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 01:03:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 16:02:45 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id PAA06682 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 15:33:08 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: dummy misplays, declarer revokes? Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 15:32:51 +0100 Message-ID: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C005004546901031077@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101AD80@xion.spase.nl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: >It looked like an easy revoke to start with... It still looks like one to me ;-) >Declarer has played a hand in hearts. >I am called at the end of the hand and assess a two trick penalty for >declarer's revoke on a club lead from dummy, ruffed by declarer when >he had some clubs (he won the revoke trick and won subsequent tricks). > >I am recalled by dummy, who says the lead was in dummy on the trick in >question and declarer called for a heart: > RHO played a club (he heard declarer call for a club), > Dummy put a club in the played position, > Declarer played a heart (not looking at the other cards), > LHO played a club. > >Dummy said declarer called for a heart: she only played a club [put >a club in the played position] because (declarer's) RHO played a club. >Americans may regard this statement as self serving, but it is at >least consistent with the facts. Yeah, sure. If dummy understood hearts, she should have played one. I'm not an American, but it looks indeed self serving to me. However, it does not matter what she said, because... >I quoted law 45D, and ruled that the club lead from dummy could not be >withdrawn as both sides had played to the next trick. Therefore, >declarer had revoked on the trick as played and the two trick penalty >stood. I agree. Declarer/dummy woke up too late and must pay the penalty now. Had declarer discovered the irregularity in time (before both sides played to the next trick), then all cards played since dummy's club are withdrawn without penalty (but are UI for declarer); dummy leads a heart and we continue. >The players were convinced but my colleagues were not! I am ;-) -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 7 02:18:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA05752 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 02:18:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA05742 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 02:18:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12S0Cp-000G8K-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 16:18:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 16:16:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: dummy misplays, declarer revokes? References: <200003061307.NAA21940@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200003061307.NAA21940@tempest.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <200003061307.NAA21940@tempest.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes > >It looked like an easy revoke to start with... > >Declarer has played a hand in hearts. >I am called at the end of the hand and assess a two trick penalty for >declarer's revoke on a club lead from dummy, ruffed by declarer when >he had some clubs (he won the revoke trick and won subsequent tricks). > >I am recalled by dummy, who says the lead was in dummy on the trick in >question and declarer called for a heart: > RHO played a club (he heard declarer call for a club), > Dummy put a club in the played position, > Declarer played a heart (not looking at the other cards), > LHO played a club. > >Dummy said declarer called for a heart: she only played a club [put >a club in the played position] because (declarer's) RHO played a club. >Americans may regard this statement as self serving, but it is at >least consistent with the facts. > > >I quoted law 45D, and ruled that the club lead from dummy could not be >withdrawn as both sides had played to the next trick. Therefore, >declarer had revoked on the trick as played and the two trick penalty >stood. > >The players were convinced but my colleagues were not! > >Robin > Well done Robin, I missed that at the time, and agree. But 44A the player who leads to a trick may play any card in his hand. 45B declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card. Is not the heart played regardless of the card placed in the played position? I think both defenders revoked and dummy's trick is deficient (containing a club instead of a heart), once we play the next trick. At the time I felt we should restore equity as I was not 100% confident which way to go. 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 Mar 7 02:18:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA05750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 02:18:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA05739 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 02:18:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12S0Cm-000G7t-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 16:18:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 16:17:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Forbo impression References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B576@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B576@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B576@fdwag002s.fd.agro.n l>, Kooijman, A. writes >Captains did not exist in a formal way during Forbo, but honestly speaking I >do not see the difference. If anybody may detect the revoke and inform the >TD, why should the captain be deprived from that right? In L11 we speak >about 'the right to penalize'. As I told before I did not appoint a penalty >but used 64C to reach equity. That difference, though not apparent in the >result, is important. So the decision was in accordance with L11. > >ton I think there's an additional problem. Suppose I'm the npc of team A playing team B and I spot a revoke by team B. In order to avoid losing the rights of my team I remark on this to the kibitzers. I don't suppose it'll be more than a few minutes before the TD arrives. Now am I the person who pointed it out, or was it the kibitzer? 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 Mar 7 03:14:56 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA05796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 02:22:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA05783 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 02:22:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12S0H2-000Gsm-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 16:22:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 13:44:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: redress for N/S References: <200003060529.AAA03713@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200003060529.AAA03713@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> Jens & Bodil wrote: >> >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. > >> >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. > >> From: David Stevenson >> The whole idea of the way L72B1 is written is that we do not have to >> make any decision as to the intent of the player: we treat him the same. >> Thus L72B1 applies equally to case A and case B, and we would not want >> to apply L72B1 to case A and then say it was deliberate. > >I wonder whether David responded too quickly or whether he understands >the distinction Jens (and I) were trying to make. > >Case a is normal sorts of UI: tempo breaks and other mannerisms. I >thought most of us had agreed that these are not infractions in >themselves. Of course it is an infraction for partner to take >advantage of the information conveyed, but that's not the issue here. >David: are you saying these forms of UI -- taking a while to think, for >example -- are infractions _in themselves_? Certainly. Read L73D1. Players are required to take care in certain positions: not to take such care is an infraction. >Case b is things like the pro question and the informatory question. >There is no doubt they are infractions; I'm sure David agrees with >that. Sure. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats 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 Mar 7 03:29:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA06047 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 03:29:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt5-he.global.net.uk (cobalt5-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.165]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA06042 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 03:29:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from pdbs02a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.114.220] helo=pacific) by cobalt5-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12S1Ir-0000ej-00; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 09:28:21 -0800 Message-ID: <000601bf8791$09020c00$dc7293c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Grattan Endicott'" , Subject: Re: Forbo impression Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 17:25:07 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: 'Grattan Endicott' ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 06 March 2000 08:20 Subject: RE: Forbo impression >Captains did not exist in a formal way during Forbo, but honestly speaking I >do not see the difference. If anybody may detect the revoke and inform the >TD, why should the captain be deprived from that right? In L11 we speak >about 'the right to penalize'. As I told before I did not appoint a penalty >but used 64C to reach equity. That difference, though not apparent in the >result, is important. So the decision was in accordance with L11. > >ton >> +=+ I think you have misread me. Regulations may exclude captains from the provision of Law 76B which makes it totally illegal for a kibitzer to draw attention to any irregularity. A kibitzer who does so would be removed from the playing area, I would suggest. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 7 03:36:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA06076 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 03:36:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA06070 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 03:36:36 +1000 (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 RAA06940; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 17:36:27 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA21729; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 17:36:27 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 06 Mar 2000 17:36:26 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 RAA02482; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 17:36:25 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id RAA22315; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 17:36:24 GMT Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 17:36:24 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200003061736.RAA22315@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA Subject: RE: dummy misplays, declarer revokes? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA Mon Mar 6 14:59:00 2000 > From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA > > I am recalled by dummy, who says the lead was in dummy on the trick > in question and declarer called for a heart: > RHO played a club (he heard declarer call for a club), > Dummy put a club in the played position, > Declarer played a heart (not looking at the other cards), > LHO played a club. > > Dummy said declarer called for a heart: she only played a club [put > a club in the played position] because (declarer's) RHO played a club. > Americans may regard this statement as self serving, but it is at > least consistent with the facts. > > [Laval Dubreuil] > I think I should have rule like you, but I have a problem when > reading > Law 45C4: > "A card must be played if a player names it as the card he proposed > to play." > > This Law says "must be played" but not "is played". Here declarer > called for a heart (must be played), but RHO played before dummy. > Do we have a LOOT ? Followed by a play OOT by dummy or a "proper > lead subsequent to irregular lead" (Law 53C)...and then by declarer. > May be we have the same result, but I would like to know.... I think RHO played prematurely, he did not lead out of turn. I am not really concerned with the order of dummy's and RHO's plays. So, imagine instead: Declarer called for a heart, Dummy put a club in the played position (as he heard declarer call for a club), RHO played a club (he also heard declarer call for a club), Declarer played a heart (not looking at the other cards), LHO played a club. If declarer later said he called for a heart, we might be sceptical; but say there was a gallery of kibitzers and video/audio recording which all agree that declarer called for a heart. Is declarer's play a revoke? 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 Mar 7 03:44:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA06132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 03:44:27 +1000 (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 DAA06126 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 03:44:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA06429; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 09:44:18 -0800 Message-Id: <200003061744.JAA06429@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: dummy misplays, declarer revokes? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 06 Mar 2000 16:16:47 PST." Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 09:44:18 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: > 44A the player who leads to a trick may play any card in his hand. > 45B declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card. > > Is not the heart played regardless of the card placed in the played > position? I think both defenders revoked and dummy's trick is deficient > (containing a club instead of a heart), once we play the next trick. > > At the time I felt we should restore equity as I was not 100% confident > which way to go. Hmmm . . . 45D tells us what happens if dummy misplays a card and attention is drawn to it, but it doesn't tell us what happens if dummy misplays a card and attention is *not* drawn to it. Yet another oversight. It's interesting that 45D uses the words "If dummy places in the played position a card ...", which means this Law goes out of its way *not* to say that dummy has played the card. This phrasing seems to support John's point of view. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 7 04:21:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA05798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 02:22:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA05782 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 02:22:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12S0H2-000Gsn-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 16:22:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 16:21:29 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: demonstrably- reasonably References: <200002110517.AAA08128@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200002110517.AAA08128@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "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. This was my view, and still is. I have never seen a convincing argument of any particular case where I felt here would be a difference in ruling. Basically, I have been waiting for one. One thing I would say, though. For something to be capable of being demonstrated does not mean any particular person should actually be demonstrating it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 7 04:30:48 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA05800 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 02:22:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA05786 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 02:22:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12S0H5-000DuA-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 16:22:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 13:42:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? References: <200003032147.NAA19544@mailhub.irvine.com> <022a01bf85b7$32d6a3a0$16991e18@san.rr.com> <005001bf873a$2d264940$16991e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <005001bf873a$2d264940$16991e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >David Stevenson wrote; > >> Marvin L. French wrote: >> >> >Here we go again. One does not explain a call that has already been >explained, >> >so what you say is indeed ridiculous. >> >> Aha! So you are saying we should not follow this Law as people claim >> it to be because it is ridiculous to do so? Good! One step toward >> sanity. > >Surely no reasonable person would think that L20F1 and L20F2 require that a >previously explained call be explained again. The Law does require. You really are going to have to make your mind up whether you are going to mindlessly follow the Laws or do what the rest of us do and apply some commonsense. >> >You guys are insulting the intelligence of the LC who in 1987 changed the >right >> >to inquire about a call to the right to inquire about the auction. >> >> No, I am not insulting their intelligence, I am saying they made a >> serious mistake. > >Aren't we supposed to follow the Laws, even those that we think are mistaken? No, we are ruling on a game. There are one or two places where we have to make some intelligent interpretations, such as assuming the Laws permit us to rule on an OLOOT if not accompanied by lead in turn. >> > (No, the 1997 >> >Laws did not change this requirement.) >> >> Not true. > >True. > >Ask Grattan, who was surprised that anyone thought the law had changed. Read the >LC's interpretation of this law at Lille: As I have said on many former occasions, this is one matter on which I am sure Grattan is wrong, and if the WBFLC agree with him they are wrong. Ok, let's get the tirade over with. Space for it: Now, despite what you say, Marv, some of us do not feel that the WBFLC needs to interpret Laws that do not need interpretation. We are not going to change our rulings to something else that is against the game of bridge because someone has made a mistake. I do not share your method of ridiculing people who have made a mistake and I am allowed to believe that they made a mistake and that it need not affect us. >> > Do you really think they were stupid to >> >have made this change? >> >> No, just wrong. People who make mistakes are not thereby stupid. > >I see. Anything in the Laws with which you do not agree is a mistake. No, I did not say that, neither do I believe it. Goodness, you are getting cranky. >> > Don't you think they had a reason for it? >> >> Of course they had a reason for it. Unfortunately they failed to >> realise that it created a much bigger problem than it solved. Why do >> you assume we think they are stupid? Of course we don't. They just >> made a blunder, that is all. > >They did not create a problem, since hardly anyone complies with L20F1. The >non-compliant ones are those who are creating a problem. Their UI transmissions >are seldom penalized. Perhaps this is a worse problem in ACBL-land than >elsewhere, I have no knowledge of elsewhere. If people follow the Law in the way you wish then there would be a major problem. >> >> > Wasn't the >> >reason that too many people were passing UI by asking about individual bids >and >> >getting away with it? >> >> Possibly. >> >> >So, let's go back to the days when it was okay for a player to ask "What did >> >three clubs mean?" And when you call the TD, he says "They have a right to >> >know."Then out comes a club lead, and the TD says, "He had the right to ask." >> >Apply L16A? Don't make me laugh. I have never known a TD to do so. >> >> Of course we apply L16A. > >It is usually impossible to prove that a player is passing useful UI when s/he >questions an individual call. That's why L20F1 was changed in 1987 to read as it >does. You do not prove anything. You judge and rule. >> I do think that >> this method of worrying about the game at the top and ignoring the vast >> majority of players is very wrong, and certain people on BLML would do >> well to remember it. We already have one Law solely for BLs - let's not >> have another just because the WBFLC have made a serious mistake. >The vast majority of bridge players also act on UI obtained from partner's >bidding tempo. That doesn't mean that laws prohibiting this are a mistake. No, and I did not say so. You are arguing more and more by trying to get me to admit to something I do not say and do not believe in. To require any question asked to get answers about the full auction is bad for the game and no longer required by the wording of the Law. To assume from that various other things, eg I think someone is stupid, or any other things I have not said is not true. Despite you, I am going to try to make this game as good as possible for its players. >I feel that most players don't realize how much UI they are passing by >unnecessary questioning of calls and variations of tempo. They pass UI, they act >on UI, and they don't know they are doing something wrong. But they are. The >Laws should be followed, even the unpopular ones. Fine. So we have UI Laws which we rule on, and a Law which allows questions about individual calls, which is good. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats 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 Mar 7 04:41:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA06365 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 04:41:31 +1000 (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 EAA06360 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 04:41:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout2.nyroc.rr.com ([24.92.226.121]) by mailhop1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 13:38:17 -0500 Received: from [24.95.202.126] by mailout2.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 13:30:38 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <200003060529.AAA03713@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 13:33:16 -0500 To: mailing list From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: redress for N/S Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 1:44 PM +0000 3/6/00, David Stevenson wrote: > Certainly. Read L73D1. Players are required to take care in certain >positions: not to take such care is an infraction. "Players should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side." "Where the Laws say a player 'should' do something, failure to do it is an infraction." Okay. Player is particularly careful, but still varies his tempo. Is this an infraction? I haven't measured myself with a stopwatch, but I'm not so sure I _have_ a consistent tempo. In spite of trying. :-) 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/AwUBOMP7wL2UW3au93vOEQJaiQCgjtDIigGMp5jFL5xgqrejEtEngOcAoODK CNdtytvEPtv3zfeTnu0+CjPE =6yaS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 7 08:55:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA07254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 08:55:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA07249 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 08:55:29 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA30191 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 23:55:19 +0100 Received: from ip37.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.37), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda30189; Mon Mar 6 23:55:13 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 23:55:13 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <200003032147.NAA19544@mailhub.irvine.com><022a01bf85b7$32d6a3a0$16991e18@san.rr.com> <006501bf8741$72434b20$d55608c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <006501bf8741$72434b20$d55608c3@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 IAA07250 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 07:54:14 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: David Stevenson >Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2000 9:30 PM >Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? > >> Of course they had a reason for it. Unfortunately they failed to >> realise that it created a much bigger problem than it solved. Why do >> you assume we think they are stupid? Of course we don't. They just >> made a blunder, that is all. >> >+=+ I am not certain that the problem is much bigger. It is >of a different kind, and big. But those who were urgent in >their desire to change this Law were from North America >and they thought they had a problem big enough to require >the change. > Options are unfashionable just now but there is a >case for a Zonal option here. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I agree completely with David here. It may be possible to teach the world's top players to ask about the whole auction (though I doubt even that), but it would be quite impossible to teach the rest of the bridge-playing world. The problem that it solves may possibly be big in a few top level events, but it seems to me that if the WBFLC seriously means that players in general should not be allowed to ask about individual calls, then the WBFLC has probably forgotten that top level bridge is a very small part of bridge. I don't think there is any Danish event at any level where the players would not consider such an idea quite ridiculous. It is simply not the way bridge is played in real life. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 7 09:06:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA07321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 09:06:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA07316 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 09:06:47 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA30214 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 00:06:39 +0100 Received: from ip80.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.80), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda30211; Tue Mar 7 00:06:32 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Forbo impression Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 00:06:32 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <000601bf8791$09020c00$dc7293c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <000601bf8791$09020c00$dc7293c3@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 JAA07317 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 17:25:07 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >+=+ I think you have misread me. Regulations may >exclude captains from the provision of Law 76B >which makes it totally illegal for a kibitzer to draw >attention to any irregularity. A kibitzer who does >so would be removed from the playing area, I >would suggest. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ If he does so during the round, yes. But surely we cannot prohibit kibitzers from talking to players after the round, but while the correction period has not yet expired. Ton's attitude to L11B1, which as I understand it is that L11B1 should not stop us from providing equity, but only from assigning automatic penalties, seems very reasonable. But if that was the intention with L11B1, I would expect the law to have said so more clearly. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 7 11:08:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA07755 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 11:08:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA07747 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 11:08:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12S8Tk-000GE9-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 01:08:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 00:17:14 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: redress for N/S References: <200003060529.AAA03713@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: >At 1:44 PM +0000 3/6/00, David Stevenson wrote: >> Certainly. Read L73D1. Players are required to take care in certain >>positions: not to take such care is an infraction. > >"Players should be particularly careful in positions in which >variations may work to the benefit of their side." > >"Where the Laws say a player 'should' do something, failure to do it >is an infraction." > >Okay. Player is particularly careful, but still varies his tempo. Is >this an infraction? > >I haven't measured myself with a stopwatch, but I'm not so sure I >_have_ a consistent tempo. In spite of trying. :-) You normally play a card 2.3 secs after RHO. He leads the jack with K9xxx in dummy: it looks like an attempt to find the queen. You spend 4.9 secs deciding whether to peter with xx or whether to mislead partner. You have committed an infraction: you have not taken sufficient care. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 7 11:08:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA07757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 11:08:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA07746 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 11:08:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12S8Tk-000Ml2-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 01:08:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 00:20:41 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Card exposed before auction References: <4c.1fef799.25e33bb2@aol.com> <200002220121.RAA02586@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200002220121.RAA02586@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > >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. I don't see that. If a board is in course of being played and there is a happening it is normal to curtail the play. If a board has yet to be played and something happens it is quite normal for it not to be played. There needs to be a moment at which one changes to the other. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats 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 Mar 7 12:05:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA07924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 12:05:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA07919 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 12:05:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.94] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12S9ND-000GYf-00; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 02:05:24 +0000 Message-ID: <000d01bf87d9$e38a2e00$5e5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , References: <000601bf8791$09020c00$dc7293c3@pacific> Subject: Re: Forbo impression Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 02:06:55 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 11:06 PM Subject: Re: Forbo impression ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, \x/ ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, > If he does so during the round, yes. But surely we cannot > prohibit kibitzers from talking to players after the round, but > while the correction period has not yet expired. > +=+ Read Law 76B again. There is nothing about a time limit. Agreed you cannot stop a kibitzer talking, but that does not make it lawful for him to draw attention to an irregularity whilst the matter is still capable of remedy - if the kibitzer is not one to whom 11B refers it may well be that the Director has no option but to apply the relevant law - but he can put the kibitzer right as to his illegal action and exclude him from the playing area if he continues to break the law. If the kibitzer is associated with one of the sides at the table it is not intended, in my view, for that side to be allowed to profit from his illegal action within the correction period. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 7 12:17:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA07964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 12:17:12 +1000 (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 MAA07959 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 12:17:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from isdn.net.il ([212.25.117.164]) by mail.bezeqint.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with ESMTP id <0FR1009N54ZVWL@mail.bezeqint.net> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 04:16:45 +0200 (IST) Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 04:16:50 +0200 From: Zvi Shilon Subject: Played Card? To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Message-id: <38C46692.CAD59402@isdn.net.il> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------0658B0EB6BC9ADDBD710C889" X-Accept-Language: en-US,en,Hebrew Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------0658B0EB6BC9ADDBD710C889 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here is a situation that caused much discussion and confusion at the Jerusalem branch of the Israeli Bridge Federation: Re: Law 45c1 Declarer leads a trump (heart) and LHO detaches the spade 7 so that declarer, who is looking straight ahead at dummy's cards, clearly sees the fully exposed card with his peripheral vision. LHO replaces the card and discards a diamond. Since the critical card in the hand is the spade jack, in many cases, the discard of a spade would greatly aid declarer. The director is called and has to deal with the following: Declarer repeats the above and adds that surely RHO could have seen the spade 7. He writes on a piece of paper spade 7 and gives it to the director. LHO states that he detached the card, and demonstrates how he held it. Declarer can only see the back of the card Everybody accepts that declarer was not trying to see LHO's cards. Although the Director accepts that LHO didn't hold the card the way he demonstrated, he rules that the diamond is LHO's played card, because the fact that declarer saw the card does not necessarily mean that RHO could see it. No appeal is necessary, because when declarer plays the spade king, RHO shows out and the jack is picked up. Declarer and Director discuss the ruling at length after the session. Declarer's point is that LHO was obviously confused (no suggestion of lying was ever suggested or thought), and since his explanation was virtually impossible (accepted by Director as declarer did know the card), declarer should get the benefit of the doubt. It seems to declarer that this is the crux of the matter. Director is still not sure, the reason for this inquiry. It seems obvious to declarer that the logic of the situation says that the spade 7 is a played card, but not to the Director. Would anybody like to shed some light? zvika Modiin,Israel --------------0658B0EB6BC9ADDBD710C889 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 --------------0658B0EB6BC9ADDBD710C889-- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 7 13:43:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA08232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 13:43:24 +1000 (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 NAA08227 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 13:43:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from isdn.net.il ([212.25.117.164]) by mail.bezeqint.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with ESMTP id <0FR100GVN8YOGS@mail.bezeqint.net> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 05:42:26 +0200 (IST) Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 05:42:30 +0200 From: Zvi Shilon Subject: Signature Card Attachment To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Message-id: <38C47AA6.4E4729BD@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 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I apologize for not deleting my v-card in my previous message. I became aware of it only after receiving the message. I will learn. zvika Modiin, Israel From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 7 15:55:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA08583 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 15:55:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA08578 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 15:55:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12SCxe-0007Gl-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 05:55:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 05:53:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda References: <3.0.6.32.20000109091424.008c48f0@mail.ultra.net.au> <013301bf5a41$2ce459c0$16991e18@san.rr.com> <019001bf5b8e$ccf73560$bd2b4b0c@default> <008a01bf5c45$42792e40$ab2b4b0c@default> In-Reply-To: <008a01bf5c45$42792e40$ab2b4b0c@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard F Beye wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Adam Wildavsky > >> At 11:09 AM -0600 1/10/00, Richard F Beye wrote: >> >----- Original Message ----- >> >From: Marvin L. French >> > >> >>This "announcement" seems a bit of a stretch, since L12C3 clearly states >> >>that the AC is the sole authority for varying a score (whatever that >> >>means). >> >> >> >>Delegating that responsibility, even partially, to the Chief Director >> >>looks like an abdication of responsibility and a violation of the Laws. >> > >> >Am I crazy, or is it the rest of the world? >> > >> >Please read the books words. Let us begin with 'Unless Zonal >Organizations >> >specify otherwise . . .' Seems as if they have, in accordance with the >> >Laws. >> >> For the record, here is the entire text of 12C3: >> >> 3. Powers of Appeals Committee >> Unless Zonal Organisations specify otherwise, >> an appeals committee may vary an assigned >> adjusted score in order to achieve equity. >> > > >This is not the text that appears in any of my six law books. For the >record mine reads . . . > >3. 'Unless . . . etc, etc. etc.' > >There is no line 'POWERS OF APPEALS COMMITTEE', no line. Let the record >be clear. All the Laws and parts of laws have a heading - with one exception. L12C3 does not. Accordingly, Niels Wendell Pedersen [with my approval] added a heading to L12C3 in online versions so that it would appear consistent. I think "Powers of Appeals Committees" fits with the rest of the Law book, but it us not official. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats 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 Mar 7 15:59:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA08603 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 15:59:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA08598 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 15:58:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12SD0u-00026d-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 05:58:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 05:57:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda References: <3.0.6.32.20000109091424.008c48f0@mail.ultra.net.au> <013301bf5a41$2ce459c0$16991e18@san.rr.com> <019001bf5b8e$ccf73560$bd2b4b0c@default> <008a01bf5c45$42792e40$ab2b4b0c@default> <003001bf5c6b$67a3b020$b3a801d5@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <003001bf5c6b$67a3b020$b3a801d5@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >I haven't been paying a lot of attention to this but: > >3. Powers of Appeals Committee > Unless Zonal Organisations specify otherwise, > an appeals committee may vary an assigned > adjusted score in order to achieve equity. > >I had always thought that this meant only that the SO may specify that >the AC may not vary an adjusted score, or that the AC may do so. I had >not thought that it gave the SO the power to ask the CTD (or anyone >else) to vary the score first and then ask the AC to ratify (or >otherwise) his decision. Nor had I believed that 80G, to which the >Bermuda bulletin refers, carried the implication that a "suitable >arrangement" for the hearing of an appeal encompassed getting somebody >else to make a decision before the matter came to an appeals >committee. > >I have always believed that the determination of an equitable result >on a deal is a task for more than one person; my experiences as a >referee (sole arbiter) and AC member have, over more than fifteen >years, done nothing but confirm that belief ever more strongly. I >*know* that I have made more errors acting on my own than ACs on which >I am but one member have made. However, there is in principle no >objection to asking a sole arbiter to perform the task subject to >review - particularly an arbiter with the skill and experience of >Kojak. It will be interesting to observe the results, if any; so far, >no appeals cases have appeared in the Bulletins. TDs are trained to consult. I am sure that Kojak would not provide a L12C3 ruling without consultation. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats 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 Mar 7 18:36:34 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA08929 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 18:36:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA08924 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 18:36:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA12537 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 09:36:19 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Mar 07 09:36:19 2000 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JMQW7342220026QY@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 09:34:28 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 07 Mar 2000 09:33:57 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 09:34:27 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Forbo impression To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , Jesper Dybdal , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B579@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Grattan Endicott [mailto:Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk] > Verzonden: dinsdag 7 maart 2000 3:07 > Aan: Jesper Dybdal; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: Re: Forbo impression > > > > Grattan Endicott '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > '''''''''''''' > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > " The latter part of a wise man's life is taken up > in curing the follies, prejudices and false opinions > he had contracted in the former." - Jonathan Swift. > > _______________________________________ > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jesper Dybdal > To: > Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 11:06 PM > Subject: Re: Forbo impression > ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, \x/ ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, > > > If he does so during the round, yes. But surely we cannot > > prohibit kibitzers from talking to players after the round, but > > while the correction period has not yet expired. > > > +=+ Read Law 76B again. There is nothing about > a time limit. Agreed you cannot stop a kibitzer talking, > but that does not make it lawful for him to draw > attention to an irregularity whilst the matter is still > capable of remedy - if the kibitzer is not one to whom > 11B refers it may well be that the Director has no > option but to apply the relevant law he should be happy to be able to - but he can put > the kibitzer right as to his illegal action and exclude > him from the playing area if he continues to break the > law. >If the kibitzer is associated with one of the sides > at the table it is not intended, in my view, for that > side to be allowed to profit from his illegal action > within the correction period. ~ G ~ +=+ This doesn't sound very consistent and is certainly not applicable. Are you suggesting that a kibitzer should shut up for the rest of his life about his experiences at a table he was watching? That is what the laws say, if I understand you well. We could try to define a kibitzer as a person watching a match, which means that after the match he/she stops to be one. This can be achieved within the framework of the present laws. If we don't want this we should forbid kibitzers to watch matches. Since we don't succeed in drawing public attention at all that is easy to achieve without much damage done. For our next edition of the laws we might go one step further: What I like the laws to say is that kibitzers should not interfer during the game or afterwards as long as the players themself still have options to restore mistakes, therewith avoiding a penalty. Which for example could mean that drawing attention to a revoke after play ceases but before the revoking side makes a call on the next board should have consequences. If related to the innocent side the TD should not apply 64A anymore, since revoker still could discover his mistake. If related to the revoking side he might assume that the innocent side would have noticed it in time and therefore apply 64A. If neutral the TD should do the same as when related to the innocent side, which is applying 64C, assuming the players wouldn't have noticed the revoke in time. Mind you this is theory. Is the TD going to investigate that the kibitzer was talking to one of the players at least once yesterday? Reading L76 I have the feeling that the lawmakers did intent to restrict the rights of the kibitzer during play, but they (we) better had made that cristal clear. ton From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 7 18:49:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA08969 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 18:49:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA08962 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 18:49:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.177] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12SFgG-000N1H-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 08:49:29 +0000 Message-ID: <000401bf8812$574cc0e0$b15408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200003032147.NAA19544@mailhub.irvine.com><022a01bf85b7$32d6a3a0$16991e18@san.rr.com> <006501bf8741$72434b20$d55608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 08:20:30 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 10:55 PM Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? > On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 07:54:14 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" > wrote: > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: David Stevenson > >Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2000 9:30 PM > >Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? > > > >> Of course they had a reason for it. Unfortunately they failed to > >> realise that it created a much bigger problem than it solved. Why do > >> you assume we think they are stupid? Of course we don't. They just > >> made a blunder, that is all. > >> > >+=+ I am not certain that the problem is much bigger. It is > >of a different kind, and big. But those who were urgent in > >their desire to change this Law were from North America > >and they thought they had a problem big enough to require > >the change. > > Options are unfashionable just now but there is a > >case for a Zonal option here. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > I agree completely with David here. > > It may be possible to teach the world's top players to ask about > the whole auction (though I doubt even that), but it would be > quite impossible to teach the rest of the bridge-playing world. > > The problem that it solves may possibly be big in a few top level > events, but it seems to me that if the WBFLC seriously means that > players in general should not be allowed to ask about individual > calls, then the WBFLC has probably forgotten that top level > bridge is a very small part of bridge. > > I don't think there is any Danish event at any level where the > players would not consider such an idea quite ridiculous. It is > simply not the way bridge is played in real life. > +=+ I agree with you in respect of bridge in Europe. But if my North American colleagues tell me that they have a bigger problem I am not going to say "No, you don't." Who are we to know what their problems are? This came from the ACBL drafting committee. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 7 20:38:30 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA09310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 20:38:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA09305 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 20:38:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12SHNP-000As9-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 10:38:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 10:34:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: Played Card? References: <38C46692.CAD59402@isdn.net.il> In-Reply-To: <38C46692.CAD59402@isdn.net.il> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <38C46692.CAD59402@isdn.net.il>, Zvi Shilon writes >Here is a situation that caused much discussion and confusion at the >Jerusalem branch of the Israeli Bridge Federation: Re: Law 45c1 > >Declarer leads a trump (heart) and LHO detaches the spade 7 so that >declarer, who is looking straight ahead >at dummy's cards, clearly sees the fully exposed card with his >peripheral vision. LHO replaces the card and discards a diamond. Since >the critical card in the hand is the spade jack, in many cases, the >discard of a spade would greatly aid declarer. > >The director is called and has to deal with the following: >Declarer repeats the above and adds that surely RHO could have seen the >spade 7. He writes on a piece of paper spade 7 and gives it to the >director. LHO states that he detached the card, and demonstrates how he >held it. Declarer can only see the back of the card > >Everybody accepts that declarer was not trying to see LHO's cards. >Although the Director accepts that LHO didn't hold the card the way he >demonstrated, he rules that the diamond is LHO's played card, because >the fact that declarer saw the card does not necessarily mean that RHO >could see it. No appeal is necessary, because when declarer plays the >spade king, RHO shows out and the jack is picked up. > >Declarer and Director discuss the ruling at length after the session. >Declarer's point is that LHO was obviously confused (no suggestion of >lying was ever suggested or thought), and since his explanation was >virtually impossible (accepted by Director as declarer did know the >card), declarer should get the benefit of the doubt. It seems to >declarer that this is the crux of the matter. Director is still not >sure, the reason for this inquiry. > >It seems obvious to declarer that the logic of the situation says that >the spade 7 is a played card, but not to the Director. > >Would anybody like to shed some light? > >zvika >Modiin,Israel > > > > > I hate these situations because as TD I cannot win - somebody will end up aggrieved When I ask the defender where the card was held - it is usually demonstrated as if was moved about two inches from his or her nose (in one memorable case with a lady player virtually hidden down her not inconsiderable cleavage) whereas declarer suggests that it was held face up in the middle of the table However it is clear that a defender can hold his or her cards in such a way that declarer can see them but defender's partner cannot - as long as the cards are not tilted towards partner they can be held in the middle of the table and remain unplayed In Zvi's case I think the Declarer is probably mistaken The Law is clear C. Compulsory Play of Card 1. Defender's Card A defender's card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face must be played to the current trick (It's funny too how defender's partner is never looking "I don't know where he held the card - I wasn't paying attention" - like "I didn't notice that he hesitated") Some declarers seem to think that if they see the card, it is played. The Law doesn't say that. TD just has to do his best in deciding if partner could have seen it. My guess is that it was probably right to rule this card not played - but knowledge of the players' mannerisms, veracity, TD table-presence could all make a difference glad it didn't matter too much mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 7 23:05:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA11145 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 23:05:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA11140 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 23:04:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA28547 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 08:04:02 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000307080502.006f7a94@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 08:05:02 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? In-Reply-To: References: <006501bf8741$72434b20$d55608c3@dodona> <200003032147.NAA19544@mailhub.irvine.com> <022a01bf85b7$32d6a3a0$16991e18@san.rr.com> <006501bf8741$72434b20$d55608c3@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:55 PM 3/6/00 +0100, Jesper wrote: >I agree completely with David here. > >It may be possible to teach the world's top players to ask about >the whole auction (though I doubt even that), but it would be >quite impossible to teach the rest of the bridge-playing world. > >The problem that it solves may possibly be big in a few top level >events, but it seems to me that if the WBFLC seriously means that >players in general should not be allowed to ask about individual >calls, then the WBFLC has probably forgotten that top level >bridge is a very small part of bridge. I doubt that it's a big problem in top-level events. The top-level players, for the most part, understand the ethics and proprieties of the game, and understand how they may get bitten by the UI rules if they slip up. The players who think the fact that they may ask about an opponent's call means that it's legal to ask "Did his 3C bid show clubs?" when they want a club lead are not playing in the top-level events. >I don't think there is any Danish event at any level where the >players would not consider such an idea quite ridiculous. It is >simply not the way bridge is played in real life. Exactly. The flaw in the logic of the rule is that in real life it will be applied at levels of play where it isn't needed, and ignored at the levels where the problem it purports to solve exists. 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 Mar 8 00:11:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA11387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 23:37:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo-d09.mx.aol.com (imo-d09.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA11382 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 23:37:02 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id 9.e2.2062b1d (4389); Tue, 7 Mar 2000 08:35:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 08:35:48 EST Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? To: Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 67 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 3/7/00 3:56:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk writes: > +=+ I agree with you in respect of bridge in Europe. But > if my North American colleagues tell me that they have a > bigger problem I am not going to say "No, you don't." > Who are we to know what their problems are? This > came from the ACBL drafting committee. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > My, what a startling but very valid statement! You are not at all in step with many of my European friends -- fortunately -- who seem to derive great satisfaction from pounding on the ACBL. Having some decades of experience in the ACBL, I can assure you that the UI of asking about a single call is a big problem. It is even more so when in reference to those who are not top level players since they are frequently unaware that they are "showing their hand to their partner." However, I've never seen the absurdity commented upon by some -- that each time you ask a question about an alert the entire auction must be repeated, even if already explained. Cheers Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 8 01:11:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA11183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 23:10:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA11173 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 23:10:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-218.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.218]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA11792 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 14:10:29 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38C4F75D.2672088E@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 13:34:37 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: dummy misplays, declarer revokes? References: <200003061307.NAA21940@tempest.npl.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > > Well done Robin, I missed that at the time, and agree. > > But > > 44A the player who leads to a trick may play any card in his hand. > 45B declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card. > > Is not the heart played regardless of the card placed in the played > position? I think both defenders revoked and dummy's trick is deficient > (containing a club instead of a heart), once we play the next trick. > This is indeed the only problem. L45D is totally besides the point. That Law tells us what would happen if the error is discovered in time. Since that did not happen, L45D tells us nothing. Now what card is played ? A heart or a club ? L45B tells us that a heart is played. I find nowhere that a club is played. So IMO, the trick is in hearts, and three players (dummy and defenders) revoked on it. Now figure out that one ! I cordially invite the WBFLC to clear this one up for us. > At the time I felt we should restore equity as I was not 100% confident > which way to go. > > 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 -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 8 01:12:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA11881 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 01:12:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA11876 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 01:12:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id QAA20704 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 16:12:31 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Mar 07 16:12:31 2000 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JMRA1OIU5I002KSY@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 16:10:59 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 07 Mar 2000 16:10:27 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 16:10:57 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Redress for N/S? To: "'Schoderb@aol.com'" , Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B57C@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Schoderb@aol.com [mailto:Schoderb@aol.com] > Verzonden: dinsdag 7 maart 2000 14:36 > Aan: Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: Re: Redress for N/S? > > > In a message dated 3/7/00 3:56:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, > Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk writes: > > > +=+ I agree with you in respect of bridge in Europe. But > > if my North American colleagues tell me that they have a > > bigger problem I am not going to say "No, you don't." > > Who are we to know what their problems are? This > > came from the ACBL drafting committee. > > ~ > Grattan ~ +=+ > > > My, what a startling but very valid statement! You are not > at all in step > with many of my European friends -- fortunately -- who seem > to derive great > satisfaction from pounding on the ACBL. Having some decades > of experience in > the ACBL, I can assure you that the UI of asking about a > single call is a big > problem. It is even more so when in reference to those who > are not top level > players since they are frequently unaware that they are > "showing their hand > to their partner." However, I've never seen the absurdity > commented upon by > some -- that each time you ask a question about an alert the > entire auction > must be repeated, even if already explained. > > Cheers Kojak I am missing an aspect which seems rather relevant to me. The uncontested auction in a kind of natural system goes: 1C - 1H 2D - 2S alerted and now LHO of the 2S-bidder starts asking and wants to know what 1C means etc. at last getting the information about the 2S bid. Is there anybody on this earth who doesn't know that his curiosity had just to do with the 2S-bid? Isn't that the case in most of the auctions? And if partner has a succesful but by far not obvious lead after questioning the whole auction, does that make the lead acceptable? So it might be a problem, and then not more in the ACBL than elsewhere I assume, but we do not solve it by demanding a complete interogation. And I agree with those who say that it is not bridge to start asking trivial questions. We need to solve this in another way; may I suggest L16? ton From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 8 01:18:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA11182 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 23:10:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA11172 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 23:10:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-218.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.218]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA11771 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 14:10:24 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38C4F4AF.91521436@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 13:23:11 +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: Redress for N/S? References: <200003032147.NAA19544@mailhub.irvine.com><022a01bf85b7$32d6a3a0$16991e18@san.rr.com> <006501bf8741$72434b20$d55608c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > I agree completely with David here. > > It may be possible to teach the world's top players to ask about > the whole auction (though I doubt even that), but it would be > quite impossible to teach the rest of the bridge-playing world. > > The problem that it solves may possibly be big in a few top level > events, but it seems to me that if the WBFLC seriously means that > players in general should not be allowed to ask about individual > calls, then the WBFLC has probably forgotten that top level > bridge is a very small part of bridge. > > I don't think there is any Danish event at any level where the > players would not consider such an idea quite ridiculous. It is > simply not the way bridge is played in real life. > Indeed, and I don't think it whould be changed, but neither should the laws. Only by making asking about one specific call illegal, can we make the practice punishable for L16 purposes. Without a law that says that one should ask about the whole auction, we cannot rule against somebody who asks about just the one call. After all, he is entitled to do so, isn't he ? The fact that no-one seriously follows the Law as it is written is not enough reason to abolish it, especially of the law is needed for some other reason ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 8 01:26:07 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA11952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 01:26:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com ([216.33.240.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA11947 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 01:25:59 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 8723 invoked by uid 65534); 7 Mar 2000 15:25:24 -0000 Message-ID: <20000307152524.8722.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.13.66] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <200003032147.NAA19544@mailhub.irvine.com><022a01bf85b7$32d6a3a0$16991e18@san.rr.com> <006501bf8741$72434b20$d55608c3@dodona> <000401bf8812$574cc0e0$b15408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 09:17:25 -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 ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 2:20 AM Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? > Grattan Endicott ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jesper Dybdal > To: > Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 10:55 PM > Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? > > On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 07:54:14 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" > > wrote: > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >From: David Stevenson > > >Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2000 9:30 PM > > >Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? > > > > > >> Of course they had a reason for it. Unfortunately they failed to > > >> realise that it created a much bigger problem than it solved. Why do > > >> you assume we think they are stupid? Of course we don't. They just > > >> made a blunder, that is all. > > >> > > >+=+ I am not certain that the problem is much bigger. It is > > >of a different kind, and big. But those who were urgent in > > >their desire to change this Law were from North America > > >and they thought they had a problem big enough to require > > >the change. > > > Options are unfashionable just now but there is a > > >case for a Zonal option here. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > I agree completely with David here. > > > > It may be possible to teach the world's top players to ask about > > the whole auction (though I doubt even that), but it would be > > quite impossible to teach the rest of the bridge-playing world. > > > > The problem that it solves may possibly be big in a few top level > > events, but it seems to me that if the WBFLC seriously means that > > players in general should not be allowed to ask about individual > > calls, then the WBFLC has probably forgotten that top level > > bridge is a very small part of bridge. > > > > I don't think there is any Danish event at any level where the > > players would not consider such an idea quite ridiculous. It is > > simply not the way bridge is played in real life. > > > +=+ I agree with you in respect of bridge in Europe. But > if my North American colleagues tell me that they have a > bigger problem I am not going to say "No, you don't." > Who are we to know what their problems are? This > came from the ACBL drafting committee. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ My experience in America suggests several things affect the issues contained in L20F, some of them being- When arriving at the table pairs are not taught to exchange CC's with the opponents, where the CC is to be placed for convenient viewing without making a grand production of it. Players are not taught to review the opponent's CC before the round and ask for clarification. Players are not taught that after the hand begins that the first line of disclosure is a look at the opponent's CC without making a show of it. Yea, that it is beneficial. And that the asking of questions when the CC was all that was needed is harmful. Player's are not taught to avoid inappropriate phrasing for questions. The declaring side is not taught to explain, without asking, their bidding after the auction and before the lead. It is not impressed upon players through compliance with CC regs and MI rulings that it is important, yea even beneficial, to avoid biting off more than they can chew. The razz-ma-tazz of L20F is a band-aid that fails to impress upon players that there is a conflict during the hand between the entitlement of each player's right to know what the opponent's have communicated and the powerful influence that UI can have on the outcome. My opinion only. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 8 02:13:28 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA11211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 23:15:33 +1000 (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 XAA11206 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 23:15:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from isdn.net.il ([212.179.26.207]) by mail.bezeqint.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with ESMTP id <0FR1004OXZGETV@mail.bezeqint.net> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 15:14:48 +0200 (IST) Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 15:14:15 +0200 From: Zvi Shilon Subject: Re: Played Card? To: michael amos Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <38C500A7.F315A98@isdn.net.il> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------4640715E776C233A79073334" X-Accept-Language: en-US,en,Hebrew References: <38C46692.CAD59402@isdn.net.il> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --------------4640715E776C233A79073334 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks for your input. One point I would like to clarify. Granted, the law is clear. What weight should be given to the fact that when the Director asked LHO to show how he had held the card, he held it in a way that was (accepted by the Director) not correct? Had he held it tilted toward declarer, it might be consistent with the possibility of RHO not being able to see it. But he held it with only its back showing to all the table. Then how did declarer see it? Had he indeed held it that way, the problem wouldn't have arisen. This is what declarer is referring to with the "logic of the situation". Really, on what else can the Director base his decision on? the director agrees that LHO has erred in how he held the card when asked to demonstrate. If this was easy, I wouldn't have submitted it. Basically, both the Director and myself are trying to find a general rule (if one exists) of how to approach this type of problem. For what it's worth, declarer is a top player, known for his ethical behaviour. LHO is an average player. We are not trying to prove the Director's decision was wrong; but to get some guidelines on how to approach this type of situation. zvika Modiin, Israel michael amos wrote: > In article <38C46692.CAD59402@isdn.net.il>, Zvi Shilon > writes > >Here is a situation that caused much discussion and confusion at the > >Jerusalem branch of the Israeli Bridge Federation: Re: Law 45c1 > > > >Declarer leads a trump (heart) and LHO detaches the spade 7 so that > >declarer, who is looking straight ahead > >at dummy's cards, clearly sees the fully exposed card with his > >peripheral vision. LHO replaces the card and discards a diamond. Since > >the critical card in the hand is the spade jack, in many cases, the > >discard of a spade would greatly aid declarer. > > > >The director is called and has to deal with the following: > >Declarer repeats the above and adds that surely RHO could have seen the > >spade 7. He writes on a piece of paper spade 7 and gives it to the > >director. LHO states that he detached the card, and demonstrates how he > >held it. Declarer can only see the back of the card > > > >Everybody accepts that declarer was not trying to see LHO's cards. > >Although the Director accepts that LHO didn't hold the card the way he > >demonstrated, he rules that the diamond is LHO's played card, because > >the fact that declarer saw the card does not necessarily mean that RHO > >could see it. No appeal is necessary, because when declarer plays the > >spade king, RHO shows out and the jack is picked up. > > > >Declarer and Director discuss the ruling at length after the session. > >Declarer's point is that LHO was obviously confused (no suggestion of > >lying was ever suggested or thought), and since his explanation was > >virtually impossible (accepted by Director as declarer did know the > >card), declarer should get the benefit of the doubt. It seems to > >declarer that this is the crux of the matter. Director is still not > >sure, the reason for this inquiry. > > > >It seems obvious to declarer that the logic of the situation says that > >the spade 7 is a played card, but not to the Director. > > > >Would anybody like to shed some light? > > > >zvika > >Modiin,Israel > > > > > > > > > > > I hate these situations because as TD I cannot win - somebody will end > up aggrieved > > When I ask the defender where the card was held - it is usually > demonstrated as if was moved about two inches from his or her nose (in > one memorable case with a lady player virtually hidden down her not > inconsiderable cleavage) whereas declarer suggests that it was held face > up in the middle of the table > > However it is clear that a defender can hold his or her cards in such a > way that declarer can see them but defender's partner cannot - as long > as the cards are not tilted towards partner they can be held in the > middle of the table and remain unplayed > > In Zvi's case I think the Declarer is probably mistaken > > The Law is clear > > C. Compulsory Play of Card > 1. Defender's Card > A defender's card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its > face must be played to the current trick > > (It's funny too how defender's partner is never looking "I don't know > where he held the card - I wasn't paying attention" - like "I didn't > notice that he hesitated") > > Some declarers seem to think that if they see the card, it is played. > The Law doesn't say that. TD just has to do his best in deciding if > partner could have seen it. > > My guess is that it was probably right to rule this card not played - > but knowledge of the players' mannerisms, veracity, TD table-presence > could all make a difference > > glad it didn't matter too much > > mike > -- > michael amos --------------4640715E776C233A79073334 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks for your input. One point I would like to clarify. Granted, the law is clear. What weight should be given to the fact that when the Director asked LHO to show how he had held the card, he held it in a way that was  (accepted by the Director) not correct?

Had he held it tilted toward declarer, it might be consistent with  the possibility of RHO not being able to see it. But he held it with only its back showing to all the table. Then how did declarer see it? Had he indeed held it that way, the problem wouldn't have arisen.

This is what declarer is referring to with the "logic of the situation". Really, on what else can the Director base his decision on? the director agrees that LHO has erred in how he held the card when asked to demonstrate.

If this was easy, I wouldn't have submitted it. Basically, both the Director and myself are trying to find a general rule (if one exists) of how to approach this type of problem. For what it's worth, declarer is a top player, known for his ethical behaviour. LHO is an average player.

We are not trying to prove the Director's decision was wrong; but to get some guidelines on how to approach this type of situation.

zvika
Modiin, Israel

michael amos wrote:

In article <38C46692.CAD59402@isdn.net.il>, Zvi Shilon
<zvika3@isdn.net.il> writes
>Here is a situation that caused much discussion and confusion at the
>Jerusalem branch of the Israeli Bridge Federation: Re: Law 45c1
>
>Declarer leads a trump (heart) and LHO detaches the spade 7 so that
>declarer, who is looking straight ahead
>at dummy's cards, clearly sees the fully exposed card with his
>peripheral vision. LHO replaces the card and discards a diamond. Since
>the critical card in the hand is the spade jack, in many cases, the
>discard of a spade would greatly aid declarer.
>
>The director is called and has to deal with the following:
>Declarer repeats the above and adds that surely RHO could have seen the
>spade 7. He writes on a piece of paper spade 7 and gives it to the
>director. LHO states that he detached the card, and demonstrates how he
>held it. Declarer can only see the back of the card
>
>Everybody accepts that declarer was not trying to see LHO's cards.
>Although the Director accepts that LHO didn't hold the card the way he
>demonstrated, he rules that the diamond is LHO's played card, because
>the fact that declarer saw the card does not necessarily mean that RHO
>could see it. No appeal is necessary, because when declarer plays the
>spade king, RHO shows out and the jack is picked up.
>
>Declarer and Director discuss the ruling at length after the session.
>Declarer's point is that LHO was obviously confused  (no suggestion of
>lying was ever suggested or thought), and since his explanation was
>virtually impossible (accepted by Director as declarer did know the
>card), declarer should get the benefit of the doubt. It seems to
>declarer that this is the crux of the matter. Director is still not
>sure, the reason for this inquiry.
>
>It seems obvious to declarer that the logic of the situation says that
>the spade 7 is a played card, but not to the Director.
>
>Would anybody like to shed some light?
>
>zvika
>Modiin,Israel
>
>
>
>
>
I hate these situations because as TD I cannot win - somebody will end
up aggrieved

When I ask the defender where the card was held - it is usually
demonstrated as if was moved about two inches from his or her nose (in
one memorable case with a lady player virtually hidden down her not
inconsiderable cleavage) whereas declarer suggests that it was held face
up in the middle of the table

However it is clear that a defender can hold his or her cards in such a
way that declarer can see them but defender's partner cannot - as long
as the cards are not tilted towards partner they can be held in the
middle of the table and remain unplayed

In Zvi's case I think the Declarer is probably mistaken

The Law is clear

C.      Compulsory Play of Card
1.      Defender's Card
A defender's card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its
face must be played to the current trick

(It's funny too how defender's partner is never looking  "I don't know
where he held the card - I wasn't paying attention"   - like "I didn't
notice that he hesitated")

Some declarers seem to think that if they see the card, it is played.
The Law doesn't say that.  TD just has to do his best in deciding if
partner could have seen it.

My guess is that it was probably right to rule this card not played -
but knowledge of the players' mannerisms, veracity, TD table-presence
could all make a difference

glad it didn't matter too much

mike
--
michael amos

--------------4640715E776C233A79073334-- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 8 02:46:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA12498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 02:46:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt5-he.global.net.uk (cobalt5-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.165]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA12492 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 02:45:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from pfds04a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.84.254] helo=pacific) by cobalt5-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12SN60-0001UK-00; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 08:44:32 -0800 Message-ID: <001301bf8854$14058640$fe5493c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Grattan Endicott'" , "Jesper Dybdal" , Subject: Re: Forbo impression Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 16:27:44 -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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 04:00:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA27615; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 10:00:46 -0800 Message-Id: <200003071800.KAA27615@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Played Card? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 07 Mar 2000 15:14:15 PST." <38C500A7.F315A98@isdn.net.il> Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 10:00:46 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Zvi Shilon wrote: > Thanks for your input. One point I would like to clarify. Granted, the law > is clear. What weight should be given to the fact that when the Director > asked LHO to show how he had held the card, he held it in a way that was > (accepted by the Director) not correct? IMHO, not much. All this proves is that LHO may not have been fully aware of how he held the card. It doesn't prove that LHO is a liar, or that he's deliberately trying to pull the wool over the director's eyes. It's clear that when LHO demonstrated how he held the card, he did so incorrectly. Fine. But to me, that's still not sufficient evidence that LHO held the card so that RHO could see it. The "logic of the situation" that declarer is referring to really isn't logical. > This is what declarer is referring to with the "logic of the situation". > Really, on what else can the Director base his decision on? Right, there's nothing else to base the decision on. But the only evidence available to base the decision on is very flimsy. You can't pretend that flimsy evidence is solid evidence just because there's no other evidence available. Basically, there's nothing good (from your account) to base the decision on. Perhaps the director did have a better idea of what went on than we can get by reading BLML. But in the absence of such an idea, I'd go with the "innocent until proven guilty" principle and rule the card was not played. You didn't mention whether the Director asked the other two players at the table what they saw. Their comments may be self-serving, but many, if not most, players have enough integrity that they will tell the truth about what they saw (assuming they were paying attention). -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 8 05:51:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA13159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 05:51:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA13154 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 05:51:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from Panther1204.eiu.edu (Panther1204.eiu.edu [139.67.12.189]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA06614 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 13:55:14 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000307134947.007a4e70@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 13:49:47 -0600 To: Bridge Laws From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? In-Reply-To: <38C4F4AF.91521436@village.uunet.be> References: <200003032147.NAA19544@mailhub.irvine.com> <022a01bf85b7$32d6a3a0$16991e18@san.rr.com> <006501bf8741$72434b20$d55608c3@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:23 PM 3/7/2000 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Indeed, and I don't think it whould be changed, but neither >should the laws. >Only by making asking about one specific call illegal, can >we make the practice punishable for L16 purposes. Why do you say this, Herman? L16a specifically lists questions and replies to questions among the sources of extraneous information. If we judge that questioning a single call gave extraneous information, we have grounds for an L16 ruling. L73b1 and L73c also refer to questions in this regard. There are others on this list with vastly more experience directing and playing in tournaments than I have. However, I can say that I have never seen L16/73 used because of the questioning of a single call. But neither have I ever seen a player ruled against under L20. What I fail to understand is how this 'whole auction' thing helps us at all. Since the vast majority of players have no idea that they are not allowed to question specific calls, and since no-one I know actually asks for an explanation of the whole auction when what they really want to know is why a call has been alerted or something, what difference does this law make at all? Are we really going to train our TD's to penalize players who illegally ask to have a single call explained? If so, wouldn't it make more sense to just train them to make L16/73 rulings in cases where the questions really did pass UI? Put it another way--we have a problem with some people asking questions in such a way as to communicate with partner [intentionally or otherwise]. To solve this problem, we pass a law making 99.9% of all questions illegal. If we do not enforce this law, then we are no better off than we were before. If we do enforce this law, then we are hunting mosquitos with an atom bomb. >Without a law that says that one should ask about the whole >auction, we cannot rule against somebody who asks about just >the one call. After all, he is entitled to do so, isn't he >? > >The fact that no-one seriously follows the Law as it is >written is not enough reason to abolish it, especially of >the law is needed for some other reason ! If no-one follows a law, that is IMHO grounds for seriously considering eliminating it. I do not think we should make every bridge player in the world [except our own Marvin French and his partner :)] a criminal. Since I do not yet understand how this law is needed for another reason.... >-- >Herman DE WAEL Respectfully, Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 8 07:18:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA13427 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 07:18:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo-d07.mx.aol.com (imo-d07.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA13422 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 07:18:25 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id i.68.1ad0205 (4198); Tue, 7 Mar 2000 16:17:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <68.1ad0205.25f6cbef@aol.com> Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 16:17:35 EST Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? To: axman22@hotmail.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 67 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 3/7/00 10:27:55 AM Eastern Standard Time, axman22@hotmail.com writes: > My experience in America suggests several things affect the issues contained > in L20F, some of them being- > > Followed by a bunch of "are not taughts." Where do you play bridge? Or do you really think your posting is indicative of the way bridge is played in the USA? Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 8 07:45:46 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA13527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 07:45:46 +1000 (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 HAA13522 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 07:45:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from isdn.net.il (pri-pt-8137.isdn.net.il) by mail.bezeqint.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with ESMTP id <0FR200M3TN35V2@mail.bezeqint.net> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 23:45:06 +0200 (IST) Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 23:45:11 +0200 From: Zvi Shilon Subject: Re: Played Card? To: Adam Beneschan , Bridge Laws Mailing List Message-id: <38C57867.CA1569E6@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: <200003071800.KAA27615@mailhub.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thanks, Adam. I agree that if you don't put any weight on how LHO held the card, then "innocent until proven guilty" wins out. Where I have a problem with this is I believe it is open to tremendous abuse. For example, LHO placed the spade 7 face up on the table; changed it to a diamond and both opponents say there was never any spade 7. This is outright cheating, which I have never seen, but I have had opponents hesitate 7-12 seconds and both opponents say there was no (zero) hesitation (and sometimes they believed it). That is why I am trying to establish some guidelines other than "innocent until proven guilty". But if that's the best we have, so be it. Evidence such as LHO's mistaken demonstration or the fact that declarer knew the card, I suppose are easier to evaluate when the Director is at the table. Dummy said she wasn't paying attention, and RHO, a poor player, said she didn't see the card but also wasn't paying attention. BTW, in Jerusalem, in hesitation situations, we usually just state that "we reserve our rights" rather than call the director. If an opponent asks why and then states (as well as his partner) that there was no hesitation, I didn't bother to call the director. Now, when opponents say there was no hesitation, I ask my partner and if he agree there was an obvious break in tempo, I call the Director immediately for two reasons. Sometimes, when he comes, an opponent does admit to a "small" break in tempo. Secondly, if an opponent or pair does this often, the only way to expose him is to get the incidents on record. Again, these incidents happen so often, that some guidelines would be useful. When the opponent(s) is a novice, I call the director, not really for redress, but to explain the rules as a learning process for them. zvika Modiin, Israel Adam Beneschan wrote: > Zvi Shilon wrote: > > > Thanks for your input. One point I would like to clarify. Granted, the law > > is clear. What weight should be given to the fact that when the Director > > asked LHO to show how he had held the card, he held it in a way that was > > (accepted by the Director) not correct? > > IMHO, not much. All this proves is that LHO may not have been fully > aware of how he held the card. It doesn't prove that LHO is a liar, > or that he's deliberately trying to pull the wool over the director's > eyes. > > It's clear that when LHO demonstrated how he held the card, he did so > incorrectly. Fine. But to me, that's still not sufficient evidence > that LHO held the card so that RHO could see it. The "logic of the > situation" that declarer is referring to really isn't logical. > > > This is what declarer is referring to with the "logic of the situation". > > Really, on what else can the Director base his decision on? > > Right, there's nothing else to base the decision on. But the only > evidence available to base the decision on is very flimsy. You can't > pretend that flimsy evidence is solid evidence just because there's no > other evidence available. > > Basically, there's nothing good (from your account) to base the > decision on. Perhaps the director did have a better idea of what went > on than we can get by reading BLML. But in the absence of such an > idea, I'd go with the "innocent until proven guilty" principle and > rule the card was not played. > > You didn't mention whether the Director asked the other two players at > the table what they saw. Their comments may be self-serving, but > many, if not most, players have enough integrity that they will tell > the truth about what they saw (assuming they were paying attention). > > -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 8 08:20:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA13712 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 08:20:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA13707 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 08:20:23 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA00902 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 23:20:15 +0100 Received: from ip93.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.93), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda00899; Tue Mar 7 23:20:10 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 23:20:10 +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 IAA13708 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 7 Mar 2000 08:35:48 EST, Schoderb@aol.com wrote: >Having some decades of experience in >the ACBL, I can assure you that the UI of asking about a single call is a big >problem. It is even more so when in reference to those who are not top level >players since they are frequently unaware that they are "showing their hand >to their partner." But is there any hope at all that you can ever get those non-top level players to ask about - and explain - the whole auction? It seems to me that if something really needs to be done about this in the ACBL, then it would be much better to have a regulation (or zonal option law) to the effect that when asking about the meaning of calls you must ask about all calls whose meaning you do not already know. I..e., an obligation to ensure knowledge of the meaning of the whole auction, rather than an obligation to ask for and listen to the meaning of that whole auction. Then you wouldn't have to spend time listening to explanations of lots of natural and unalerted calls before getting to the interesting call (Ton gave a good example of such an auction). That would solve the same problem and waste less time. But it would still probably be totally impossible to enforce in practice, except at higher levels. (I still find it hard to believe that even that simpler cure is not clearly worse than the disease; but like Grattan I am of course willing to accept that Americans are the best judges of what the problems are in America.) -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 8 08:35:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA13767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 08:35:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA13762 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 08:34:53 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA00912 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 23:34:45 +0100 Received: from ip225.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.225), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda00910; Tue Mar 7 23:34:43 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Forbo impression Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 23:34:43 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <160bcsk7bunjafo60qb5niv9b74915oei3@dybdal.dk> References: <000601bf8791$09020c00$dc7293c3@pacific> <000d01bf87d9$e38a2e00$5e5908c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <000d01bf87d9$e38a2e00$5e5908c3@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 IAA13763 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 7 Mar 2000 02:06:55 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >+=+ Read Law 76B again. There is nothing about >a time limit. Agreed you cannot stop a kibitzer talking, >but that does not make it lawful for him to draw >attention to an irregularity whilst the matter is still >capable of remedy - if the kibitzer is not one to whom >11B refers it may well be that the Director has no >option but to apply the relevant law - but he can put >the kibitzer right as to his illegal action and exclude >him from the playing area if he continues to break the >law. If the kibitzer is associated with one of the sides >at the table it is not intended, in my view, for that >side to be allowed to profit from his illegal action >within the correction period. ~ G ~ +=+ There is no time limit in L76B, agreed. However, once the round is over the kibitzer has become a former kibitzer. In practice, it seems to me that when a team is scoring a round and discussing the hands with each other and with their friends who have been kibitzing, then it is impossible to avoid those friends mentioning what they've seen at the table. Or the situation where they have left the playing area and are on their way to lunch somewhere else: how many kibitzers would understand that the laws of bridge limit their possible discussions with the players in that situation? And if we forbid it, the result will be that some member of the team will claim to have discovered the irregularity by himself. Or the ex-kibitzer will call attention to "that interesting board 14" so the players will check the hand records and discover it "themselves". If we really want to enforce this, I think we will have to lock up the players with no access to kibitzers during the correction period. That is not realistic. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 8 09:22:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA13945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 09:22:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA13930 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 09:22:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12STJ6-000BL6-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 23:22:29 +0000 Message-ID: <3dmWDuC7dRx4Ewmw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 14:51:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Signature Card Attachment References: <38C47AA6.4E4729BD@isdn.net.il> In-Reply-To: <38C47AA6.4E4729BD@isdn.net.il> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Zvi Shilon wrote: >I apologize for not deleting my v-card in my previous message. I became >aware of it only after receiving the message. I will learn. I understood that general Netiquette permits v-cards on Newsgroups and Mailing Lists. Am I wrong? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 8 09:22:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA13944 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 09:22:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA13927 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 09:22:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12STJ6-000BL7-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 23:22:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 16:26:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Superschrikkeltornooi References: <200003011955.LAA04137@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.20000302160720.0136473c@pop.mindspring.com> <01a701bf84d4$629f3f40$16991e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.20000303160741.0136c514@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000303160741.0136c514@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 09:41 PM 3/2/00 -0800, Marv wrote: >>> At 11:14 PM 3/1/00 -0800, Marv wrote: >>> >Some laws have obvious corrollaries. The law says I must stop at a red >light. >>> >The obvious corollary, which goes without saying, is that I must not stop >>> at a >>> >green light. This is not obvious, not a corollary, and did not go without saying. You may stop at a green light. >>> >L16A says a player may not take an action demonstrably suggested by UI if >>> there >>> >is an LA. The corollary is that a player *should* take an action >demonstrably >>> >suggested by UI if there is no LA. Doing otherwise is allowing the UI to >>> affect >>> >one's bidding abnormally, which can't be right. >>> >>> Hold on a minute. "Corollary" is essentially a mathematical term, referring >>> to a result which is true as an immediate logical deduction from an >>> established proposition. You have mistakenly equated "a implies b" with its >>> converse, "not a implies not b". The law which requires you to stop at a >>> red light does not thereby make it illegal to stop at a green light, and >>> likewise the "corollary" to L16A imposes no affirmative obligation in the >>> absence of LA's, because it does not follow as any logical inference from >>> that Law. >> >>This is not a mathematical mailing list. >> >>Definition #2. An immediate consequence or easily drawn conclusion. > >It still requires sound logic to draw conclusions, with or without a >familiarity with mathematical conventions. It is a common enough fallacy, >but false nonetheless, to regard the converse of a proposition as deriving >logically from the proposition itself. This is the mistake you have made in >presuming that when L16A bans certain actions under specified conditions, >it must "logically" imply that the actions are _required_ in the absence of >those conditions. Especially as a the reverse of the original statement is not clear. You might argue that actions are _required_ is the converse, but you might just as well argue that actions are _permitted_ is the converse. It does not matter whether this is a mathematical mailing list or not. a leads to b does not mean not a leads to not b. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 8 09:22:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA13947 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 09:22:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA13928 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 09:22:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12STJ7-000BL8-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 23:22:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 16:28:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Superschrikkeltornooi References: <38BCE6DC.7F5BA5D2@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.20000302090207.006f0808@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.20000302213933.0136ba6c@pop.mindspring.com> <01ca01bf8535$99b378a0$16991e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <01ca01bf8535$99b378a0$16991e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >Okay, now I get it. > >You are not "constrained" by UI if you do not allow it to affect >your bidding. Remember the guy who backed in at the four level >with J10xxx spades and a weak hand after partner hesitated? >He convinced the AC that his action was not occasioned by the >UI, and his argument was accepted. If the AC had not accepted >his argument, he would have been wiser to pass instead of bidding >4S. The pass would have been occasioned by the UI, yes, but the >judges would not have found it to be so, and that's what counts. > >Look at three possible calls after partner hesitates: A, B, and C. > >A and B are logical, C is illogical, so I'm saying you must choose >between A and B. Your choice of A or B must not be occasioned >by the hesitation, *in the opinion of the TD or AC.* What goes on >in your mind is of no consequence. Your choice of A or B is constrained by the hesitation, and the choice is made by the player based on his opinion of what is correct. Furthermore, he might bid C. Now, if C is suggested by the UI, logical alternative or not, it is a breach of L73C. The fact that there is a *further* test by the TD or AC does not alter the fact that the original decision is for the player. ------------------- Eric Landau wrote: >We must distinguish two cases. If C was an illogical choice absent the UI, >but has become a logical choice because of the UI, then it has been >demonstrably suggested by the UI, and may not be chosen, even if you had >intended to bid it, albeit illogically, without the UI. > >But if C remains illogical in the presence of UI, than it cannot have been >demonstrably suggested over either of the logical choices A and B, and you >are free to choose it. If it happens to work well, the fact that it was >illogical notwithstanding, the opponents are once again fixed by an >illogical action. C is not permitted if it L73C does not permit it. You are required to avoid taking advantage of UI, whether the advantage involves an LA or not. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 8 10:23:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA14162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 10:23:00 +1000 (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 KAA14156 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 10:22:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from child.com (pm0-27.rbdc.com [199.171.83.168]) by rbdc.rbdc.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA24260 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 19:22:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.0.20000307190435.00adb910@rbdc.rbdc.com> X-Sender: wflory@rbdc.rbdc.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3 Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 19:19:29 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Walt Flory Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My experience, playing in the U.S., is that many "not top level" players ask about specific calls for the benefit of their partners. Some of them do not realize that this is illegal; many of them do realize it is illegal but know from experience that nothing will be done about it. In any case the reason for asking is frequently to give partner information that may not have been gotten from the auction. And the reason for making sure partner has this information is, of course, that the asker feels the defense may be guided in the right direction by this action. Walt Walt Flory wflory on OKBridge _____ At 11:20 PM 3/7/00 +0100, Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Tue, 7 Mar 2000 08:35:48 EST, Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > > >Having some decades of experience in > >the ACBL, I can assure you that the UI of asking about a single call is > a big > >problem. It is even more so when in reference to those who are not top > level > >players since they are frequently unaware that they are "showing their hand > >to their partner." > >But is there any hope at all that you can ever get those non-top >level players to ask about - and explain - the whole auction? > >It seems to me that if something really needs to be done about >this in the ACBL, then it would be much better to have a >regulation (or zonal option law) to the effect that when asking >about the meaning of calls you must ask about all calls whose >meaning you do not already know. > >I..e., an obligation to ensure knowledge of the meaning of the >whole auction, rather than an obligation to ask for and listen to >the meaning of that whole auction. Then you wouldn't have to >spend time listening to explanations of lots of natural and >unalerted calls before getting to the interesting call (Ton gave >a good example of such an auction). > >That would solve the same problem and waste less time. But it >would still probably be totally impossible to enforce in >practice, except at higher levels. > >(I still find it hard to believe that even that simpler cure is >not clearly worse than the disease; but like Grattan I am of >course willing to accept that Americans are the best judges of >what the problems are in America.) > >-- >Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . >http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 8 10:24:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA14182 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 10:24:42 +1000 (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 KAA14177 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 10:24:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from isdn.net.il ([212.179.33.81]) by mail.bezeqint.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with ESMTP id <0FR2006ASUGE0A@mail.bezeqint.net> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 02:24:16 +0200 (IST) Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 02:24:21 +0200 From: Zvi Shilon Subject: Re: Signature Card Attachment To: David Stevenson , Bridge Laws Mailing List Message-id: <38C59DB5.522C2919@isdn.net.il> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------49E8485612F10A999ECA8D34" X-Accept-Language: en-US,en,Hebrew References: <38C47AA6.4E4729BD@isdn.net.il> <3dmWDuC7dRx4Ewmw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------49E8485612F10A999ECA8D34 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am in several newsgroups where I include my V-card, but on several occasions on this newsgroup, I have received e-mails about my use of my v-card. Now I am confused. zvika Modiin, Israel David Stevenson wrote: > Zvi Shilon wrote: > >I apologize for not deleting my v-card in my previous message. I became > >aware of it only after receiving the message. I will learn. > > I understood that general Netiquette permits v-cards on Newsgroups and > Mailing Lists. Am I wrong? > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ --------------49E8485612F10A999ECA8D34 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 --------------49E8485612F10A999ECA8D34-- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 8 11:03:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA14346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 11:03:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo-d04.mx.aol.com (imo-d04.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA14341 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 11:03:34 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id t.17.2ae1f12 (4394); Tue, 7 Mar 2000 20:02:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <17.2ae1f12.25f700bd@aol.com> Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 20:02:53 EST Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? To: wflory@alumni.wfu.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 3/7/00 7:24:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, wflory@alumni.wfu.edu writes: > My experience, playing in the U.S., is that many "not top level" players > ask about specific calls for the benefit of their partners. Some of them do > not realize that this is illegal; many of them do realize it is illegal but > know from experience that nothing will be done about it. In any case the > reason for asking is frequently to give partner information that may not > have been gotten from the auction. > > And the reason for making sure partner has this information is, of course, > that the asker feels the defense may be guided in the right direction by > this action. > > Walt Looks like you and I play in the same game. Lucidly presented. Thank you. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 8 11:32:12 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA14431 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 11:32:12 +1000 (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 LAA14426 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 11:32:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from isdn.net.il ([212.179.33.81]) by mail.bezeqint.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with ESMTP id <0FR200FKAXKOM5@mail.bezeqint.net> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 03:31:40 +0200 (IST) Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 03:31:43 +0200 From: Zvi Shilon Subject: Re: Signature Card Attachment To: FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM, Bridge Laws Mailing List Message-id: <38C5AD7F.66E361C@isdn.net.il> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------07B1C3AAF90A4C2042BA8CEE" X-Accept-Language: en-US,en,Hebrew References: <200003071704.AA31545@gateway.tandem.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------07B1C3AAF90A4C2042BA8CEE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks zvika Modiin, Israel FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM wrote: > Dear Zvika and David, > IIRC, there was a significant controversy on Usenet when v-cards > were introduced. It paled beside the HTML controversy -- in which it was > clear that HTML lost -- but had its origins in the same set of facts: > the original set of Unix-based NewsReaders were text-only (the canonical > examples are, I think, rn, trn, and xrn). As they were constructed before > MIME-based encoding, they didn't "understand" it -- and the XTerm windows > they displayed upon were, normally, text-only. > > I think the upshot was that it was up to an individual newsgroup > to determine whether v-cards were accepted or deprecated; in any event, > Usenet messages to text-only groups which have a v-card attachment are > no longer 'shoot on sight' fodder for the misplaced-binaries cancellers. > This makes sense, of course; the size of the 'binary' in a typical v-card > is close to the size of the 'binary' in a PGP signature. > > Most modern mail programs -- specifically *excluding* the one I use > to read BLML -- are capable of sorting out v-cards. Certainly it is > no problem for anyone who uses a (blecch!) net browser to read mail. And, > IMHO, it is not a problem on BLML. Keep it or lose it, but only to suit > your *own* sensibilities. > > Regards, > Wally Farley Los Gatos, CA {ACBL District 21} > > ------------ ORIGINAL ATTACHMENT -------- > SENT 03-07-00 FROM SMTPGATE (zvika3@isdn.net.il) > > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > --------------49E8485612F10A999ECA8D34 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > I am in several newsgroups where I include my V-card, but on several > occasions on this newsgroup, I have received e-mails about my use of my > v-card. Now I am confused. > > zvika > Modiin, Israel > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > Zvi Shilon wrote: > > >I apologize for not deleting my v-card in my previous message. I became > > >aware of it only after receiving the message. I will learn. > > > > I understood that general Netiquette permits v-cards on Newsgroups and > > Mailing Lists. Am I wrong? > > > > -- > > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ > > --------------49E8485612F10A999ECA8D34 > 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 > > --------------49E8485612F10A999ECA8D34-- --------------07B1C3AAF90A4C2042BA8CEE 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 --------------07B1C3AAF90A4C2042BA8CEE-- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 8 11:38:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA14471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 11:38:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA14466 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 11:38:15 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA01282 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 02:38:04 +0100 Received: from ip74.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.74), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda01279; Wed Mar 8 02:37:59 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 02:37:59 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <34bbcsc49s2rbkt6fmvdghviblqn746k5u@dybdal.dk> References: <17.2ae1f12.25f700bd@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <17.2ae1f12.25f700bd@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 LAA14467 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 7 Mar 2000 20:02:53 EST, Schoderb@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 3/7/00 7:24:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, >wflory@alumni.wfu.edu writes: > >> My experience, playing in the U.S., is that many "not top level" players >> ask about specific calls for the benefit of their partners. Some of them >do >> not realize that this is illegal; many of them do realize it is illegal >but >> know from experience that nothing will be done about it. In any case the >> reason for asking is frequently to give partner information that may not >> have been gotten from the auction. >> >> And the reason for making sure partner has this information is, of course, >> that the asker feels the defense may be guided in the right direction by >> this action. >> >> Walt >Looks like you and I play in the same game. Lucidly presented. Thank you. > >Kojak I naively thought that the problem was primarily ethical players who do not realize that they are giving partner information (or using partner's information). But if it is done deliberately to gain an illegal advantage, then it seems to me that your problem is not the laws, but the general ethics of the players. And if players are really unethical, then I doubt that a ban on asking about individual calls can really help much - even if they do ask about the whole auction, won't they just find some other way of getting illegal advantages? For instance by showing more interest in some parts of the long answer than in other parts. I believe that we should not have laws that cater too much for unethical players at the expense of making bridge a less good and enjoyable game when four ethical players are at the table. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 8 14:31:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA14973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 14:31:48 +1000 (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 OAA14967 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 14:31:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from default.maine.rr.com ([24.95.20.29]) by mail.maine.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with SMTP id com for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 23:31:21 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000307233005.007feb60@mail.maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@mail.maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 23:30:05 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Signature Card Attachment In-Reply-To: <3dmWDuC7dRx4Ewmw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <38C47AA6.4E4729BD@isdn.net.il> <38C47AA6.4E4729BD@isdn.net.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:51 PM 3/7/00 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >Zvi Shilon wrote: >>I apologize for not deleting my v-card in my previous message. I became >>aware of it only after receiving the message. I will learn. > > I understood that general Netiquette permits v-cards on Newsgroups and >Mailing Lists. Am I wrong? I'm one of the people who has objected to the attachment in the past. the objection I have is that each time a v-card is attached to an e-mail, an extra copy of it appears on my hard drive. Yes, I could set a default so that when the e-mail is deleted, the attachment is also deleted, but some attachments I wish to keep. If it really is important to distribute one's cell phone number and address with every e-mail, why can't it be done as David does it: >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ ? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 8 14:59:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA15071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 14:59:08 +1000 (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 OAA15064 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 14:58:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from calum (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA28341 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 23:58:47 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200003080458.XAA28341@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Signature Card Attachment Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <3dmWDuC7dRx4Ewmw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <38C47AA6.4E4729BD@isdn.net.il> <3dmWDuC7dRx4Ewmw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 23:58:47 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 7 March 2000 at 14:51, David Stevenson wrote: >Zvi Shilon wrote: >>I apologize for not deleting my v-card in my previous message. I became >>aware of it only after receiving the message. I will learn. > > I understood that general Netiquette permits v-cards on Newsgroups and >Mailing Lists. Am I wrong? > so long as it's McQuary-compliant, I have no problem with it, as with any .sig. Unfortunately, I haven't found any yet that are. Seriously, though, as one of the many who can't read them, I find them annoying, and I appreciate any effort taken to avoid transmitting them to me. But it's not a big thing. Sorry about the no-bridge-content post. Michael. -- "4x80 should be enough for everybody!" - Not Bill Gates From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 8 15:20:56 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA15114 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 15:20:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.85]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA15108 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 15:20:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from pavilion (ip175.southern-pines.nc.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.55.175]) by gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA10971 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 21:20:34 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <004501bf88bd$cf6a2620$0101a8c0@pavilion> From: "ndressing" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200003071704.AA31545@gateway.tandem.com> <38C5AD7F.66E361C@isdn.net.il> Subject: Re: Signature Card Attachment Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 00:18:58 -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 What is a v-card?????? Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Zvi Shilon" To: ; "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 8:31 PM Subject: Re: Signature Card Attachment > Thanks > > zvika > Modiin, Israel > > FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM wrote: > > > Dear Zvika and David, > > IIRC, there was a significant controversy on Usenet when v-cards > > were introduced. It paled beside the HTML controversy -- in which it was > > clear that HTML lost -- but had its origins in the same set of facts: > > the original set of Unix-based NewsReaders were text-only (the canonical > > examples are, I think, rn, trn, and xrn). As they were constructed before > > MIME-based encoding, they didn't "understand" it -- and the XTerm windows > > they displayed upon were, normally, text-only. > > > > I think the upshot was that it was up to an individual newsgroup > > to determine whether v-cards were accepted or deprecated; in any event, > > Usenet messages to text-only groups which have a v-card attachment are > > no longer 'shoot on sight' fodder for the misplaced-binaries cancellers. > > This makes sense, of course; the size of the 'binary' in a typical v-card > > is close to the size of the 'binary' in a PGP signature. > > > > Most modern mail programs -- specifically *excluding* the one I use > > to read BLML -- are capable of sorting out v-cards. Certainly it is > > no problem for anyone who uses a (blecch!) net browser to read mail. And, > > IMHO, it is not a problem on BLML. Keep it or lose it, but only to suit > > your *own* sensibilities. > > > > Regards, > > Wally Farley Los Gatos, CA {ACBL District 21} > > > > ------------ ORIGINAL ATTACHMENT -------- > > SENT 03-07-00 FROM SMTPGATE (zvika3@isdn.net.il) > > > > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > --------------49E8485612F10A999ECA8D34 > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > I am in several newsgroups where I include my V-card, but on several > > occasions on this newsgroup, I have received e-mails about my use of my > > v-card. Now I am confused. > > > > zvika > > Modiin, Israel > > > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > Zvi Shilon wrote: > > > >I apologize for not deleting my v-card in my previous message. I became > > > >aware of it only after receiving the message. I will learn. > > > > > > I understood that general Netiquette permits v-cards on Newsgroups and > > > Mailing Lists. Am I wrong? > > > > > > -- > > > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > > > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > > > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > > > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ > > > > --------------49E8485612F10A999ECA8D34 > > 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 > > > > --------------49E8485612F10A999ECA8D34-- > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 8 15:20:45 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA15107 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 15:20:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.85]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA15101 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 15:20:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from pavilion (ip175.southern-pines.nc.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.55.175]) by gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA10063 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 21:20:12 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <004101bf88bd$c2c74920$0101a8c0@pavilion> From: "ndressing" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200003071704.AA31545@gateway.tandem.com> <38C5AD7F.66E361C@isdn.net.il> Subject: Re: Signature Card Attachment Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 00:18:25 -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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk What is a v-card?????? Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Zvi Shilon" To: ; "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 8:31 PM Subject: Re: Signature Card Attachment > Thanks > > zvika > Modiin, Israel > > FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM wrote: > > > Dear Zvika and David, > > IIRC, there was a significant controversy on Usenet when v-cards > > were introduced. It paled beside the HTML controversy -- in which it was > > clear that HTML lost -- but had its origins in the same set of facts: > > the original set of Unix-based NewsReaders were text-only (the canonical > > examples are, I think, rn, trn, and xrn). As they were constructed before > > MIME-based encoding, they didn't "understand" it -- and the XTerm windows > > they displayed upon were, normally, text-only. > > > > I think the upshot was that it was up to an individual newsgroup > > to determine whether v-cards were accepted or deprecated; in any event, > > Usenet messages to text-only groups which have a v-card attachment are > > no longer 'shoot on sight' fodder for the misplaced-binaries cancellers. > > This makes sense, of course; the size of the 'binary' in a typical v-card > > is close to the size of the 'binary' in a PGP signature. > > > > Most modern mail programs -- specifically *excluding* the one I use > > to read BLML -- are capable of sorting out v-cards. Certainly it is > > no problem for anyone who uses a (blecch!) net browser to read mail. And, > > IMHO, it is not a problem on BLML. Keep it or lose it, but only to suit > > your *own* sensibilities. > > > > Regards, > > Wally Farley Los Gatos, CA {ACBL District 21} > > > > ------------ ORIGINAL ATTACHMENT -------- > > SENT 03-07-00 FROM SMTPGATE (zvika3@isdn.net.il) > > > > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > --------------49E8485612F10A999ECA8D34 > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > I am in several newsgroups where I include my V-card, but on several > > occasions on this newsgroup, I have received e-mails about my use of my > > v-card. Now I am confused. > > > > zvika > > Modiin, Israel > > > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > Zvi Shilon wrote: > > > >I apologize for not deleting my v-card in my previous message. I became > > > >aware of it only after receiving the message. I will learn. > > > > > > I understood that general Netiquette permits v-cards on Newsgroups and > > > Mailing Lists. Am I wrong? > > > > > > -- > > > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > > > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > > > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > > > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ > > > > --------------49E8485612F10A999ECA8D34 > > 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 > > > > --------------49E8485612F10A999ECA8D34-- > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 8 15:21:14 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA15134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 15:21:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.85]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA15115 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 15:21:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from pavilion (ip175.southern-pines.nc.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.55.175]) by gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA11712 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 21:20:51 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <004601bf88bd$d9bb7200$0101a8c0@pavilion> From: "ndressing" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200003071704.AA31545@gateway.tandem.com> <38C5AD7F.66E361C@isdn.net.il> Subject: Re: Signature Card Attachment Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 00:19:15 -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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk What is a v-card?????? Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Zvi Shilon" To: ; "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 8:31 PM Subject: Re: Signature Card Attachment > Thanks > > zvika > Modiin, Israel > > FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM wrote: > > > Dear Zvika and David, > > IIRC, there was a significant controversy on Usenet when v-cards > > were introduced. It paled beside the HTML controversy -- in which it was > > clear that HTML lost -- but had its origins in the same set of facts: > > the original set of Unix-based NewsReaders were text-only (the canonical > > examples are, I think, rn, trn, and xrn). As they were constructed before > > MIME-based encoding, they didn't "understand" it -- and the XTerm windows > > they displayed upon were, normally, text-only. > > > > I think the upshot was that it was up to an individual newsgroup > > to determine whether v-cards were accepted or deprecated; in any event, > > Usenet messages to text-only groups which have a v-card attachment are > > no longer 'shoot on sight' fodder for the misplaced-binaries cancellers. > > This makes sense, of course; the size of the 'binary' in a typical v-card > > is close to the size of the 'binary' in a PGP signature. > > > > Most modern mail programs -- specifically *excluding* the one I use > > to read BLML -- are capable of sorting out v-cards. Certainly it is > > no problem for anyone who uses a (blecch!) net browser to read mail. And, > > IMHO, it is not a problem on BLML. Keep it or lose it, but only to suit > > your *own* sensibilities. > > > > Regards, > > Wally Farley Los Gatos, CA {ACBL District 21} > > > > ------------ ORIGINAL ATTACHMENT -------- > > SENT 03-07-00 FROM SMTPGATE (zvika3@isdn.net.il) > > > > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > --------------49E8485612F10A999ECA8D34 > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > I am in several newsgroups where I include my V-card, but on several > > occasions on this newsgroup, I have received e-mails about my use of my > > v-card. Now I am confused. > > > > zvika > > Modiin, Israel > > > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > Zvi Shilon wrote: > > > >I apologize for not deleting my v-card in my previous message. I became > > > >aware of it only after receiving the message. I will learn. > > > > > > I understood that general Netiquette permits v-cards on Newsgroups and > > > Mailing Lists. Am I wrong? > > > > > > -- > > > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > > > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > > > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > > > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ > > > > --------------49E8485612F10A999ECA8D34 > > 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 > > > > --------------49E8485612F10A999ECA8D34-- > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 8 16:28:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA15329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 16:28:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA15324 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 16:28:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id BAA01044 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 01:27:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id BAA06581 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 01:27:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 01:27:53 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200003080627.BAA06581@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: redress for N/S X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk SW>Case a is normal sorts of UI: tempo breaks and other mannerisms. I SW>thought most of us had agreed that these are not infractions in SW>themselves. > From: David Stevenson > Certainly. Read L73D1. Players are required to take care in certain > positions: not to take such care is an infraction. ... > You normally play a card 2.3 secs after RHO. > > He leads the jack with K9xxx in dummy: it looks like an attempt to > find the queen. > > You spend 4.9 secs deciding whether to peter with xx or whether to > mislead partner. > > You have committed an infraction: you have not taken sufficient care. Oh, David. Why change the subject? Yes, of course this is an infraction, but it isn't what we were talking about. If you want an example from play, how about this? Declarer leads a card that might be a singleton, and I take awhile to decide whether to win my ace on this trick. Eventually, I play low. After this, everybody knows I have the ace, but of course partner cannot take advantage of the information. The hesitation cannot work to my advantage unless partner is unethical _and_ the TD is incompetent. Is my taking time to think an infraction? Specifically, is it an infraction of 73B1? I would have thought the standard answer to be 'no'. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 8 17:53:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA15494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 17:53:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA15489 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 17:53:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.55] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12SbGz-000PZ6-00; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 07:52:49 +0000 Message-ID: <000301bf88d3$97a652c0$375408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , References: Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 07:47:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 10:20 PM Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? > On Tue, 7 Mar 2000 08:35:48 EST, Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > > > It seems to me that if something really needs to be done about > this in the ACBL, then it would be much better to have a > regulation (or zonal option law) to the effect that when asking > about the meaning of calls you must ask about all calls whose > meaning you do not already know. > +=+ I came to a working agreement with Kaplan that where Zone 1 and Zone 2 had opposite visions and could not agree a compromise we would create options in the laws. It allows each Zone to operate within the law without a fight to the death as to what the law should be. It is called 'tolerance'. I still advocate tolerance, and options where they are needed but in the WBFLC as presently constituted there seems to be only minority recognition of any value in this approach. We set the options in a way that we believed would create for international bodies no necessity of regulation in respect of their own tournaments. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 8 17:53:04 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA15488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 17:53:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA15482 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 17:52:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.55] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12SbGx-000PZ6-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 07:52:47 +0000 Message-ID: <000201bf88d3$967091e0$375408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <000601bf8791$09020c00$dc7293c3@pacific> <000d01bf87d9$e38a2e00$5e5908c3@dodona> <160bcsk7bunjafo60qb5niv9b74915oei3@dybdal.dk> Subject: Re: Forbo impression Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 07:33:30 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 10:34 PM Subject: Re: Forbo impression > On Tue, 7 Mar 2000 02:06:55 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" > wrote: > > >+=+ Read Law 76B again. There is nothing about > >a time limit. Agreed you cannot stop a kibitzer talking, > >but that does not make it lawful for him to draw > >attention to an irregularity whilst the matter is still > >capable of remedy - if the kibitzer is not one to whom > >11B refers it may well be that the Director has no > >option but to apply the relevant law - but he can put > >the kibitzer right as to his illegal action and exclude > >him from the playing area if he continues to break the > >law. If the kibitzer is associated with one of the sides > >at the table it is not intended, in my view, for that > >side to be allowed to profit from his illegal action > >within the correction period. ~ G ~ +=+ > > There is no time limit in L76B, agreed. However, once the round > is over the kibitzer has become a former kibitzer. > > In practice, it seems to me that when a team is scoring a round > and discussing the hands with each other and with their friends > who have been kibitzing, then it is impossible to avoid those > friends mentioning what they've seen at the table. Or the > situation where they have left the playing area and are on their > way to lunch somewhere else: how many kibitzers would understand > that the laws of bridge limit their possible discussions with the > players in that situation? > > And if we forbid it, the result will be that some member of the > team will claim to have discovered the irregularity by himself. > Or the ex-kibitzer will call attention to "that interesting board > 14" so the players will check the hand records and discover it > "themselves". > > If we really want to enforce this, I think we will have to lock > up the players with no access to kibitzers during the correction > period. That is not realistic. > -- +=+ I have not said that the state of the laws is ideal. Far from it. But we do have to face the fact of what the law says. Even after the end of the round the status of a non-participant at a tournament is still that of "spectator". Spectators have no rights to be intervening in the tournament. The tournament is an encounter between players, not between players and their supporters, I would suggest. Law 76A is indicated as dealing with matters during the Bidding or Play, 76B is general and extends to non-intervention at any time, which realistically is up to the point at which the Director ceases to have power to make a ruling. In my view it is quite plainly beyond the pale if a team's own associate as a spectator draws attention to an irregularity and the Director does not use the power given him in 11B. Why else do you suggest 11B was invented? How often contestants will get away with hiding the fact that it was a spectator who drew their attention to what they had missed is another matter; the law is one of those that depends in some respects on the honesty of the teams, and it could be argued this is unsatisfactory. Perhaps we should never rely upon players' honesty? As for the rights of Captains, these are normally the subject of a regulation and I would expect a Captain to have the right to intervene; we seem to be told the need for any such regulation was not considered to exist in the Forbo. There is a case for NCBOs to consider a blanket regulation to affect any tournament they licence. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 8 18:10:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA15537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 18:10:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA15532 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 18:10:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA28826 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 09:10:06 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Mar 08 09:10:05 2000 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JMS9JUW7QW002RZM@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 09:08:12 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 08 Mar 2000 09:07:39 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 09:03:57 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Redress for N/S? To: "'Grant Sterling'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B57D@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 Grant Sterling wrote: > There are others on this list with vastly more experience > directing and playing in tournaments than I have. However, I can > say that I have never seen L16/73 used because of the questioning > of a single call. But neither have I ever seen a player ruled against > under L20. > I am not sure I understand what you are saying. I myself regularly have ruled use of UI after questioning a single call. But would have done the same if the whole auction had been questioned. L16/73 deal with UI used, not with the way it was received. ton From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 8 18:39:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA15604 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 18:39:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA15598 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 18:39:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA21085 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 09:39:03 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Mar 08 09:38:58 2000 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JMSAM1W1R4002SGX@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 09:38:12 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 08 Mar 2000 09:37:39 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 09:33:26 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Forbo impression To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , "Kooijman, A." , "'Grattan Endicott'" , Jesper Dybdal , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B57E@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 > >> > >> > ---- Original Message ----- > >> From: Jesper Dybdal > >> To: > >> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 11:06 PM > >> Subject: Re: Forbo impression > >> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, \x/ ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, > >> > the correction period. ~ G ~ +=+ > > > >This doesn't sound very consistent and is certainly not applicable. > >Are you > >suggesting that a kibitzer should shut up for the rest of > his life about his > >experiences at a table he was watching? > > +=+ I am saying that it is illegal (76B) for > a kibitzer to draw attention to an irregularity > as long as it can have any effect on the result. Can you tell us which law you read/apply to be able to draw that conclusion? What law forbids us to define a kibitzer as a person who is kibitzing? I wasn't joking when I said that in your approach a kibitzer is a life-time quality once he saw one board being played. Don't tell me that 79C defines the existence as a kibitzer as related to the protest time. All these discussions occur because we do not have or do not recognize general guidelines or principles on which the laws are based. Yes, I know, we have our SCOPE, but that seems seperated from the laws. Reading the laws and trying to understand them I interpreted a personal guide line. Which I used in this case and for which I found sufficient support in the laws. The result of a match should be based on the number of tricks legally won in a match; or even more practical: those playing bridge best should win. That is why we have 81C6 and 64C (of course I accept penalty tricks, but the reason that players object 7S being made with opponents having spade ace but revoking has exactly the same background). The reason we have L11 is that players might be deprived from their rights or become aware of their rights if kibitzers interfere during play. If my opponent doesn't see my insufficient bid and calls it becomes legal and accepted. No kibitzer should interrupt this. ton From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 8 19:11:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA15663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 19:11:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA15653 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 19:11:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.56] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12ScUw-0002Lg-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 09:11:19 +0000 Message-ID: <004001bf88de$8ebf9260$375408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000109091424.008c48f0@mail.ultra.net.au><013301bf5a41$2ce459c0$16991e18@san.rr.com><019001bf5b8e$ccf73560$bd2b4b0c@default><008a01bf5c45$42792e40$ab2b4b0c@default><003001bf5c6b$67a3b020$b3a801d5@davidburn> Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 08:44:51 -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: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 5:57 AM Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda > David Burn wrote: > >I haven't been paying a lot of attention to this but: > > ..................... \x/ ................... > > > >I have always believed that the determination of an equitable result > >on a deal is a task for more than one person; my experiences as a > >referee (sole arbiter) and AC member have, over more than fifteen > >years, done nothing but confirm that belief ever more strongly. I > >*know* that I have made more errors acting on my own than ACs on which > >I am but one member have made. However, there is in principle no > >objection to asking a sole arbiter to perform the task subject to > >review - particularly an arbiter with the skill and experience of > >Kojak. It will be interesting to observe the results, if any; so far, > >no appeals cases have appeared in the Bulletins. > > TDs are trained to consult. I am sure that Kojak would not provide a > L12C3 ruling without consultation. > -- > David Stevenson > +=+ You bet! In Bermuda Kojak was consulting four and as many as seven sources of opinion before making any judgemental ruling. That could include discussion with another expert in law matters ton, Ralph, myself. On the basic subject here, let us be clear that the Laws do not instruct an appeals committee how to deal with a 93B appeal; they set out powers for the committee. It is difficult to see what argument there can be against telling the Chief Director to refer a matter to himself acting for the committee and take an early 93A decision in relation to 12C3. That the committee's arrangements should incorporate the possibility of a further review by the appeals committee in such an event is again nowhere prohibited by Law, and is I think desirable. Law 80G is widely drawn and contains no exclusions; what opinion x or y may have of suitable arrangements is immaterial; the sponsoring organization is empowered to make such arrangements as it thinks fit and the only restriction would be conformity with civil law. We would think concepts of natural justice should prevail. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 8 19:11:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA15664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 19:11:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA15654 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 19:11:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.56] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12ScUy-0002Lg-00; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 09:11:20 +0000 Message-ID: <004101bf88de$8fd3c180$375408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "William Schoder" Cc: Subject: 76B - 11B - 81C6. Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 09:12:10 -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; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 19:56:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from xtra.co.nz ([210.55.83.127]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with ESMTP id <20000308095620.UHIS13910061.mta1-rme@xtra.co.nz> for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 22:56:20 +1300 Message-ID: <38C624DB.8C53B90C@xtra.co.nz> Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 23:01:00 +1300 From: Bruce Small X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Simultaneous Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all Quick query. What constitutes simultaneous? i.e. how close do the cards have to be. Situation: South declarer. East leads DA face up. West not looking says "My lead?" and puts D8 on table. All agree there was probably a few seconds between the two cards. TD called it as simultaneous. Correct lead is D8 and DA must be played as major penalty card. Some of us felt it was OLOOT and south should have had the usual options. D8 is major penalty card but if south does not accept OLOOT he can still forbid Diamond lead and D8 remains while DA is picked up. So back to the original question What constitutes simultaneous? Cheers Bruce From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 8 20:13:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA15803 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 20:13:46 +1000 (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 UAA15798 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 20:13:26 +1000 (EST) From: david.burn@bt.com Received: from chqlubnt02.lon.bt.com by marvin (local) with ESMTP; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 10:10:11 +0000 Received: by chqlubnt02.lon.bt.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.88) id ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 10:09:52 -0000 Message-ID: To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: redress for N/S Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 09:32:38 -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 Steve Willner wrote: SW>Case a is normal sorts of UI: tempo breaks and other mannerisms. I SW>thought most of us had agreed that these are not infractions in SW>themselves. > From: David Stevenson > Certainly. Read L73D1. Players are required to take care in certain > positions: not to take such care is an infraction. ... > You normally play a card 2.3 secs after RHO. > > He leads the jack with K9xxx in dummy: it looks like an attempt to > find the queen. > > You spend 4.9 secs deciding whether to peter with xx or whether to > mislead partner. > > You have committed an infraction: you have not taken sufficient care. [SW] Oh, David. Why change the subject? Yes, of course this is an infraction, but it isn't what we were talking about. If you want an example from play, how about this? Declarer leads a card that might be a singleton, and I take awhile to decide whether to win my ace on this trick. Eventually, I play low. After this, everybody knows I have the ace, but of course partner cannot take advantage of the information. The hesitation cannot work to my advantage unless partner is unethical _and_ the TD is incompetent. Is my taking time to think an infraction? Specifically, is it an infraction of 73B1? I would have thought the standard answer to be 'no'. Interesting. L73B1 says: Calls and plays should be made... without undue hesitation or haste... Of course, we all know that when players "should" do something, to fail to do it is an infraction of Law. But the word "undue" in L73B1 implies that there are cases in which hesitation may be "due", and that to make a call or play after "due" hesitation is not an infraction. A "due hesitation" is presumably one for which there is some objectively discernible "bridge reason". Students of English may enjoy attempting to work out whether the Law implies that there are situations in which a call or play might be made with "due haste". One can confidently say, then, that a call or play made after "undue" hesitation is an infraction in itself. I have never subscribed to the notion that to vary tempo or manner is not an infraction in itself, for the Law says quite clearly that in circumstances where the variation is undue, such calls or plays are indeed infractions in themselves. L73B1 and L73D1 are not entirely consistent with one another in this regard. No doubt, as DWS will argue, "we all know what they mean". But that, of course, is a hugely dangerous and foolish assumption. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 8 22:51:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA16248 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 22:51:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA16243 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 22:50:58 +1000 (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 MAA09274; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 12:50:48 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA19886; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 12:50:47 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 08 Mar 2000 12:50:47 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 MAA09413; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 12:50:46 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id MAA27197; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 12:50:46 GMT Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 12:50:46 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200003081250.MAA27197@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, Bruce.Small@xtra.co.nz Subject: Re: Simultaneous X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Quick query. What constitutes simultaneous? i.e. how close do the cards > have to be. Situation: South declarer. East leads DA face up. West not > looking says "My lead?" and puts D8 on table. All agree there was > probably a few seconds between the two cards. TD called it as > simultaneous. Correct lead is D8 and DA must be played as major penalty > card. Some of us felt it was OLOOT and south should have had the usual > options. D8 is major penalty card but if south does not accept OLOOT he > can still forbid Diamond lead and D8 remains while DA is picked up. So > back to the original question What constitutes simultaneous? > > Cheers > > Bruce Philosophically and (meta-)physically there are problems with determining and observing simultaneity. I offer two practical definitions: 1) "actions can be treated as simultaneous if there was not time for one action to have been done as a result of seeing another action"; 2) "a TD will rule that actions were simulataneous if he can not determine to his satisfaction which action came first". The intent of L58A appears to be (1): a legal actions stands if it was not influenced by the illegal action. With this interpretation, we could allow the legal lead of D8. Given the wording of L58A, I think we have to rule as in (2). If all agree there were seconds between the two cards, they were not simultaneous and we rule as "some of us" wanted. Robin -- Robin Barker | Eail: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CISE, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 8 23:15:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA16327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 23:15:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA16322 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 23:15:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA25733 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 08:14:16 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000308081525.006fe8c0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 08:15:25 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Signature Card Attachment In-Reply-To: <38C59DB5.522C2919@isdn.net.il> References: <38C47AA6.4E4729BD@isdn.net.il> <3dmWDuC7dRx4Ewmw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:24 AM 3/8/00 +0200, Zvi wrote: >I am in several newsgroups where I include my V-card, but on several >occasions on this newsgroup, I have received e-mails about my use of my >v-card. Now I am confused. > >zvika >Modiin, Israel > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Zvi Shilon wrote: >> >I apologize for not deleting my v-card in my previous message. I became >> >aware of it only after receiving the message. I will learn. >> >> I understood that general Netiquette permits v-cards on Newsgroups and >> Mailing Lists. Am I wrong? Sending v-cards does not violate general netiquette, but in BLML there is simply no need or reason to do so. In my case, and I would imagine for most of us, the v-cards are detached and placed in a mail attachments directory, from which I then manually delete them unread. I would be surprised to learn that anyone ever actually made any use of them, and would urge our members not to send them. 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 Mar 8 23:25:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA16360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 23:25:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com ([216.33.240.17]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA16355 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 23:25:10 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 28932 invoked by uid 65534); 8 Mar 2000 13:24:34 -0000 Message-ID: <20000308132434.28931.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.13.132] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <68.1ad0205.25f6cbef@aol.com> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 07:25:00 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 3:17 PM Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? > In a message dated 3/7/00 10:27:55 AM Eastern Standard Time, > axman22@hotmail.com writes: > > > My experience in America suggests several things affect the issues contained > > in L20F, some of them being- > > > > > Followed by a bunch of "are not taughts." Where do you play bridge? > Or do you really think your posting is indicative of the way bridge is played > in the USA? > > Kojak It is my observation that most bridge players are human. It is my observation that the most human of traits is to communicate as thoroughly as possible through as many senses as possible. And at the bridge table, most humans are compelled to perform the most human of traits even when having motivation to not do so. It is my observation that this can be explained by the instinct to win despite the skill level needed to do so has not yet been achieved. My observations were of what I have found that at least most players at the table do not do. Observations as to what most players do would be on a different page and would largely be an irritation to write. However, my observations cover only a few thousand sessions located in NA ranging from WA to FL to TX to Quebec, including play in clubs and national contests, and therefore may indeed not be indicative of the whole. And maybe this is not what you seek. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 9 00:18:26 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA16552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 00:18:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.163]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA16545 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 00:18:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from p94s01a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.113.149] helo=pacific) by cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12SJdo-0005jJ-00; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 13:03:12 +0000 Message-ID: <001001bf8908$9f4e0f60$957193c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." Cc: "Grattan Endicott" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Forbo impression Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 14:12:55 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 01:05:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 16:04:06 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id MAA19666 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 12:59:49 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'BLML'" Subject: RE: Simultaneous Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 12:59:39 +0100 Message-ID: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C005004546901031078@xion.spase.nl> 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: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101ADAC@xion.spase.nl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bruce Small wrote: >Hi all > >Quick query. What constitutes simultaneous? i.e. how close do the cards >have to be. Situation: South declarer. East leads DA face up. West not >looking says "My lead?" and puts D8 on table. All agree there was >probably a few seconds between the two cards. TD called it as >simultaneous. Correct lead is D8 and DA must be played as major penalty >card. Some of us felt it was OLOOT and south should have had the usual >options. D8 is major penalty card but if south does not accept OLOOT he >can still forbid Diamond lead and D8 remains while DA is picked up. So >back to the original question What constitutes simultaneous? Simultaneous is when the TD says so. To determine whether two cards are played simultaneously, TD should ask the players which card was played first. If the players cannot decide which card was played first, they are simultaneous, although several seconds could be between them. In the above case, it was agreed by the players that East played first. The two cards where therefore not simultaneous and we have an OLOOT by East and a major penalty card for West. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 9 01:31:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA16783 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 01:31:17 +1000 (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 BAA16771 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 01:31:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12SiQJ-000Alv-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 15:30:56 +0000 Message-ID: <1Xh9CBA6xmx4EwWK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 15:06:34 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Impossible to appeal References: <2.12ec615.25e73449@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <2.12ec615.25e73449@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kojak wrote: >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. Some people might not see what is wrong with cancelling the board [apart from it being illegal, I mean]. Perhaps an example would help. You are playing a part-score board. Your oppos and you go a bit mad and eventually you bid 4D, doubled slowly by LHO, which is good for you since it is making for 710. Assuming your team-mates are not stupid you will gain about 11 imps. However, RHO "uses" the UI from his partner doubling slowly, and pulls it to 4H. Of course you double, but you only get 500, which will net you only 9 imps. Thus the breach of L73C has cost you 2 imps, and you call the Director. He cancels the board, and you play a replacement board, losing 1 imp on an overtrick. Fair? No, of course it isn't, and that is why we rule per the Laws, not just cancel the board. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 9 01:31:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA16776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 01:31:13 +1000 (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 BAA16766 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 01:31:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12SiQD-000Al3-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 15:30:51 +0000 Message-ID: <$HP$mKAD5mx4EwXb@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 15:14:11 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Impossible to appeal References: <00ca01bf8134$3cab3940$2f8c01d4@default> In-Reply-To: <00ca01bf8134$3cab3940$2f8c01d4@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk magda thain wrote: >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. That is covered by the Laws so there is no reason per se to redeal. But it depends on the details. If he did so once the auction period has started then apply L24 - or if during the play l48 to L51, as appropriate. However, if it is before the auction period started then L16B applies, and probably L16B3, so the board is cancelled. Now I think if the board has not been played before, would not L6D3 be a possible alternative to L12C1, ie redeal rather than give A+/A-? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 9 01:31:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA16782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 01:31:14 +1000 (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 BAA16765 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 01:31:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12SiQD-000Al0-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 15:30:50 +0000 Message-ID: <2Xc9SGAOzmx4EwXD@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 15:07:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Impossible to appeal References: <200002251908.OAA19604@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200002251908.OAA19604@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: 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. In principle, I think the redeal is allowable generally when the alternative is L12C1, ie no result can be obtained. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 9 01:57:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA16905 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 01:57:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA16900 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 01:57:21 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA03384; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 16:57:12 +0100 Received: from ip27.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.27), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda03381; Wed Mar 8 16:57:08 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Forbo impression Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 16:57:08 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <21uccsc5gvio9r2tjgvpi8g0952dvrcull@dybdal.dk> References: <000601bf8791$09020c00$dc7293c3@pacific> <000d01bf87d9$e38a2e00$5e5908c3@dodona> <160bcsk7bunjafo60qb5niv9b74915oei3@dybdal.dk> <000201bf88d3$967091e0$375408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <000201bf88d3$967091e0$375408c3@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 BAA16901 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 8 Mar 2000 07:33:30 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >+=+ I have not said that the state of the laws is ideal. Far from >it. But we do have to face the fact of what the law says. Even >after the end of the round the status of a non-participant at a >tournament is still that of "spectator". It seems to me that the laws leave that point open to interpretation and that both interpretations have advantages and disadvantages. >How often contestants >will get away with hiding the fact that it was a spectator >who drew their attention to what they had missed is >another matter; the law is one of those that depends in >some respects on the honesty of the teams, and it could >be argued this is unsatisfactory. Perhaps we should >never rely upon players' honesty? No; of course we should generally rely on players' honesty when we have to. But we should also try to avoid laws that cause players to easily get into situations where they can gain by a little dishonesty. And lose by honesty: in reality, every kibitzer (except a few TD-types) would tell the players what they saw, and would thus destroy the players' own chance of detecting the irregularity in time. I don't really see anything bad for the game in allowing irregularities to be rectified when a kibitzer - after the round, so the time for penalty tricks and such is over - tells the players what he has seen. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 9 02:08:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA17113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 02:08:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA17107 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 02:08:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from Panther1204.eiu.edu (Panther1204.eiu.edu [139.67.12.189]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA18149 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 10:12:37 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000308100711.00793b00@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 10:07:11 -0600 To: Bridge Laws From: Grant Sterling Subject: RE: Redress for N/S? In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B57D@fdwag002s.fd.agro .nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:03 AM 3/8/2000 +0100, Kooijman, A. wrote: > >I am not sure I understand what you are saying. I myself regularly have >ruled use of UI after questioning a single call. But would have done the >same if the whole auction had been questioned. L16/73 deal with UI used, not >with the way it was received. > >ton I suspect you don't understand me because I don't understand the point of the 'whole auction' approach. The problem was supposed to be that people were asking questions that conveyed UI, and TD's weren't ruling against their partnership when that UI was used. So the idea came about that if people were to ask about the entire auction, rather than specific calls, this would transmit less UI. So this was then made law. I don't understand how this helps, and I was pointing out that I have never seen this law invoked [again, in my very limited experience]. So, again, I ask: Suppose an opponent makes a bid, and I question one specific call rather than ask for an explanation of the entire auction. Will you, as TD: a) Never rule against me, since virtually everyone else on earth asks questions about single calls all the time? In this case, the 'whole auction' rule is worthless. b) Rule against me if and only if my question conveyed UI to partner, and partner acted upon it causing damage? In this case, the 'whole auction' rule is worthless, because you could have ruled against me just as easily under the old Laws. c) Rule against me for asking a question about a specific call, even if no UI-use or damage resulted. In this case, the 'whole auction' approach is not worthless--it is positively pernicious, since it is in effect penalizing someone innocent in an over-reaction against past failures to penalize UI-users. Suppose, OTOH, I actually do question the entire auction. Since it is about 99% likely that partner can figure out which call I am interested in, suppose I have now passed UI and partner [deliberately or not] acts upon it. Will you, as TD, not rule against us because I asked about the entire auction? As I said, this is probably just a case of my own lack of imagination. Respectfully, Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 9 02:58:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA17279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 02:58:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.165]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA17268 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 02:58:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from pe0s07a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.167.225] helo=pacific) by cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12SSUC-00077G-00; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 22:29:52 +0000 Message-ID: <003601bf891f$0bbeac20$e1a793c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , Subject: Re: Forbo impression Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 16:32:59 -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; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 02:58:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from pe0s07a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.167.225] helo=pacific) by cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12SSUD-00077G-00; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 22:29:54 +0000 Message-ID: <003701bf891f$0ca080a0$e1a793c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , Subject: Re: Forbo impression Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 16:54:14 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 09:42:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Sq5h-0002FO-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 23:42:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 17:40:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: redress for N/S References: <200003080627.BAA06581@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200003080627.BAA06581@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >SW>Case a is normal sorts of UI: tempo breaks and other mannerisms. I >SW>thought most of us had agreed that these are not infractions in >SW>themselves. > >> From: David Stevenson >> Certainly. Read L73D1. Players are required to take care in certain >> positions: not to take such care is an infraction. >... >> You normally play a card 2.3 secs after RHO. >> >> He leads the jack with K9xxx in dummy: it looks like an attempt to >> find the queen. >> >> You spend 4.9 secs deciding whether to peter with xx or whether to >> mislead partner. >> >> You have committed an infraction: you have not taken sufficient care. > >Oh, David. Why change the subject? Yes, of course this is an >infraction, but it isn't what we were talking about. Yes, we were. You split the whole thing into Case A that was not infractions and Case B that was. Then you lumped tempo breaks into Case A. I not only disagreed with this but provided an example. How is this changing the subject? >If you want an example from play, how about this? Declarer leads a >card that might be a singleton, and I take awhile to decide whether to >win my ace on this trick. Eventually, I play low. After this, >everybody knows I have the ace, but of course partner cannot take >advantage of the information. The hesitation cannot work to my >advantage unless partner is unethical _and_ the TD is incompetent. > >Is my taking time to think an infraction? Specifically, is it an >infraction of 73B1? I would have thought the standard answer to >be 'no'. Now *that* case had nothing to do with the argument. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 9 09:49:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA18784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 09:49:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA18779 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 09:48:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12SqC9-000Krp-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 23:48:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 23:47:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B57D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3.0.6.32.20000308100711.00793b00@eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000308100711.00793b00@eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: >At 09:03 AM 3/8/2000 +0100, Kooijman, A. wrote: >> >>I am not sure I understand what you are saying. I myself regularly have >>ruled use of UI after questioning a single call. But would have done the >>same if the whole auction had been questioned. L16/73 deal with UI used, not >>with the way it was received. >> >>ton > > I suspect you don't understand me because I don't understand >the point of the 'whole auction' approach. The problem was supposed to >be that people were asking questions that conveyed UI, and TD's weren't >ruling against their partnership when that UI was used. So the idea >came about that if people were to ask about the entire auction, rather >than specific calls, this would transmit less UI. So this was then >made law. I don't understand how this helps, and I was pointing out that >I have never seen this law invoked [again, in my very limited experience]. > > So, again, I ask: > Suppose an opponent makes a bid, and I question one specific >call rather than ask for an explanation of the entire auction. Will >you, as TD: > a) Never rule against me, since virtually everyone else on earth >asks questions about single calls all the time? In this case, the >'whole auction' rule is worthless. I will rule against you when UI is conveyed and used. > b) Rule against me if and only if my question conveyed UI to >partner, and partner acted upon it causing damage? In this case, the >'whole auction' rule is worthless, because you could have ruled against >me just as easily under the old Laws. I will rule against you when UI is conveyed and used. > c) Rule against me for asking a question about a specific call, >even if no UI-use or damage resulted. In this case, the 'whole auction' >approach is not worthless--it is positively pernicious, since it is in >effect penalizing someone innocent in an over-reaction against past >failures to penalize UI-users. No way will I rule against you for this. > Suppose, OTOH, I actually do question the entire auction. Since it >is about 99% likely that partner can figure out which call I am interested >in, suppose I have now passed UI and partner [deliberately or not] acts upon >it. Will you, as TD, not rule against us because I asked about the entire >auction? Of course I shall rule against you if necessary. > As I said, this is probably just a case of my own lack of >imagination. And mine. the totality of my experience as Director, player, Appeals Committee member and member of two L&ECs is that the 'whole auction' approach has nothing to commend it, having no advantages, and serious disadvantages. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 9 11:41:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA19216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 11:41:41 +1000 (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 LAA19211 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 11:41:32 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id 5.4e.29cf3e7 (9639); Wed, 8 Mar 2000 20:40:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4e.29cf3e7.25f85aff@aol.com> Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 20:40:15 EST Subject: Re: Forbo impression To: A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL, Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk, 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 67 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 3/7/00 3:38:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL writes: > If he does so during the round, yes. But surely we cannot > > > prohibit kibitzers from talking to players after the round, but > > > while the correction period has not yet expired. > > > > > +=+ Read Law 76B again. There is nothing about > > a time limit. Agreed you cannot stop a kibitzer talking, > > but that does not make it lawful for him to draw > > attention to an irregularity whilst the matter is still > > capable of remedy - if the kibitzer is not one to whom > > 11B refers it may well be that the Director has no > > option but to apply the relevant law KKKK But doesn't Law 81C6 very carefully put forward the time limit wherein the kibitzer cannot take any action? KKKK > > he should be happy to be able to > > - but he can put > > the kibitzer right as to his illegal action and exclude > > him from the playing area if he continues to break the > > law. > > > >If the kibitzer is associated with one of the sides > > at the table it is not intended, in my view, for that > > side to be allowed to profit from his illegal action > > within the correction period. ~ G ~ +=+ > > This doesn't sound very consistent and is certainly not applicable. KKKK Are we reading a different Law book? Sounds clear to me. KKKK Are you > suggesting that a kibitzer should shut up for the rest of his life about his > experiences at a table he was watching? That is what the laws say, if I > understand you well. We could try to define a kibitzer as a person watching > a match, which means that after the match he/she stops to be one. This can > be achieved within the framework of the present laws. If we don't want this > we should forbid kibitzers to watch matches. Since we don't succeed in > drawing public attention at all that is easy to achieve without much damage > done. > For our next edition of the laws we might go one step further: > What I like the laws to say is that kibitzers should not interfer during the > game or afterwards as long as the players themself still have options to > restore mistakes, therewith avoiding a penalty. KKKK Why? It's all already within the Laws as written KKKK. > > Which for example could mean that drawing attention to a revoke after play > ceases but before the revoking side makes a call on the next board should > have consequences. If related to the innocent side the TD should not apply > 64A anymore, since revoker still could discover his mistake. If related to > the revoking side he might assume that the innocent side would have noticed > it in time and therefore apply 64A. If neutral the TD should do the same as > when related to the innocent side, which is applying 64C, assuming the > players wouldn't have noticed the revoke in time. > Mind you this is theory. Is the TD going to investigate that the kibitzer > was talking to one of the players at least once yesterday? > > Reading L76 I have the feeling that the lawmakers did intent to restrict the > rights of the kibitzer during play, but they (we) better had made that > cristal clear. KKKK It's clear to me right now. KKKK "Crystal" not "cristal" please. > > ton > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 9 13:25:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA19534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 13:25:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA19521 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 13:25:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12StZP-000Cyx-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 03:25:04 +0000 Message-ID: <4A6O3$BWjxx4Ewmo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 03:21:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Comments? References: <01b601bf689b$fff61480$3cdf868b@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <01b601bf689b$fff61480$3cdf868b@gillp.bigpond.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: >Btu wrote: >>Hello, guys, what would you think of this as >>(a) a director and (b) a kibitzer? >> >Bd: 1 Dlr N Nil Vul > > S:974 North East South West > H:8 pass pass 2H -a pass-b > D:AQT964 pass 2S -c pass 4S -d > C:T86 pass pass pass >S:KJT52 S:AQ86 >H:KQ965 H:T7 a: undisciplined, 0-12, 5/6H >D:- D:KJ872 b: 3-5sec after stop card picked up >C:AJ4 C:32 c: very slow, 20 seconds plus > S:3 d: immediate. > H:AJ432 > D:53 Making four. Director called. > C:KQ975 Facts agreed by all as above. >> >6. It may be useful to send the email to yourself first, and >tidy up the spacing using the space bar before sending it >to the group. Having been a "layout offender" myself, that's >what I usually do, even if it consumes a few minutes. Hmmmm. The trouble is, Peter, that your offering has the format out of whack, the original one was perfect. It is important that everyone posting or reading this group uses non- proportional fonts, and no tabs. Of course, Peter cannot read this since he has gone walkabout. ---------- Craig Senior wrote: >Well, the original email was so garbled that I found it totally unreadable. >If Peter hadn't claned it up, I would have had to delete the whole thread. >Peter's response was perfectly clear in every respect. I am using Outlook >Express. This is worrying. Are you sure, Craig, that you are using a non- proportional font? Are you using Courier or Courier New, for example? PWD -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 9 13:25:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA19528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 13:25:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA19522 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 13:25:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12StZQ-0003rx-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 03:25:05 +0000 Message-ID: <7QKOz7BXhxx4EwmY@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 03:19:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Comments? References: <200001280046.TAA25325@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.20000128083700.006e38f4@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000128083700.006e38f4@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 07:46 PM 1/27/00 -0500, Steve wrote: > >>What are the stop card regulations in Taiwan, and what, exactly, >>happened? If the stop card was left out for 10 seconds and then >>picked up, and West waited an extra 3-5 seconds, it's not obvious >>whether it gives any useful UI or not. Still, if this is the >>scenario, 3-5 seconds is a lot longer than the normal 1-2, so >>there might well be some UI present, depending on West's normal >>tempo in skip bid situations. > >There are undoubtedly some players out there whose sense of timing is so >finely accurate that 11-12 seconds might constitute "normal tempo" after a >skip bid while 13-15 seconds might be "unmistakable hesitation", but for >most mere mortals this simply isn't the case. One wonders how much less >time spent on rulings and appeals, and how many fewer opportunities to >create hard feelings, there would be if players and ACs didn't concern >themselves with splitting hairs over 2-3 seconds' thought. It is valid in >theory to contend that "there might well be some UI present, depending on >West's normal tempo", but can we really expect our TDs and ACs to be so >conversant with the personality traits of every player who comes before >them as to justify trying to make such judgments? > >I suggest that it would be enlightening for us to occasionally ask a random >friend to engage in an experiment in which we ask them, while thinking >about something substantive rather than counting time, to say something in >what they think is 10 seconds from our mark, and time their response. > >Let's worry about the players who make it manifestly obvious that they're >not thinking about what to bid but are simply counting time, and then act >after exactly 10 seconds, and not about the players who are obviously >considering their call, and then act after 5 seconds, or 15. This sounds very reasonable, but I wonder .... The method used in much of the world outside the ACBL is that the Stop card is left on the table for a time, usually 7 to 12 seconds, then removed, and LHO is not allowed to call until it is removed. OK, we have had some *very* rude comments from NAmericans on this procedure, but let us consider the advantages. This gives LHO some thinking time, but does not let him control the exact time. So, once the Stop card is removed, there is rarely a good reason for LHO not to call immediately. He has had time to think, and that applies whether he had an obvious call, or one that needed 6 or 8 seconds thought. So, if a player takes 4 seconds *more* then it really is significant. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 9 16:30:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA20018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 16:30:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA20013 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 16:30:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id BAA08364 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 01:30:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id BAA07951 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 01:30:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 01:30:30 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200003090630.BAA07951@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: David Stevenson > Yes, we were. You split the whole thing into Case A that was not > infractions and Case B that was. Then you lumped tempo breaks into Case > A. I not only disagreed with this but provided an example. How is this > changing the subject? OK, David was just back from his trip and hadn't absorbed the whole thread. No problem. The subject was UI and whether _giving_ the UI is (normally) an infraction. Certainly tempo breaks can mislead the opponents and be illegal, and sometimes they can be illegal for other reasons. But what about the common sort where a player simply takes time to think: > >If you want an example from play, how about this? Declarer leads a > >card that might be a singleton, and I take awhile to decide whether to > >win my ace on this trick. Eventually, I play low. After this, > >everybody knows I have the ace, but of course partner cannot take > >advantage of the information. The hesitation cannot work to my > >advantage unless partner is unethical _and_ the TD is incompetent. > > > >Is my taking time to think an infraction? Specifically, is it an > >infraction of 73B1? I would have thought the standard answer to > >be 'no'. > > Now *that* case had nothing to do with the argument. On the contrary, it is exactly on the original point. We all know that if partner _acts on_ the information that I have the ace, or even if he fails to take full care to _avoid_ acting on the information, that's an infraction (L16A in most cases). But what about the hesitation itself? Does it violate L73B1? Or some other law? > From: david.burn@bt.com > Interesting. L73B1 says: > > Calls and plays should be made... without undue hesitation or haste... L73A2, actually. See also 73D1: It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made does not in itself constitute a violation of propriety.... This seems to me to say that thinking is not an infraction. > Of course, we all know that when players "should" do something, to fail to > do it is an infraction of Law. But the word "undue" in L73B1 implies that > there are cases in which hesitation may be "due", and that to make a call or > play after "due" hesitation is not an infraction. A "due hesitation" is > presumably one for which there is some objectively discernible "bridge > reason". Yes, I agree with the last sentence, and I thought it was the standard position. My example at the beginning was intended to illustrate this concept. So, David S.? We all agree that some hesitations can be infractions, but what about the run of the mill hesitations where there is a genuine bridge problem that needs a bit of thought, but the hesitation has the undesirable side effect of revealing something to partner. Is the hesitation itself an infraction or not? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 9 18:22:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA20254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 18:22:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA20249 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 18:22:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA13811 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 09:21:28 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Mar 09 09:21:21 2000 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JMTO9TTOPA0035O0@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 09:20:04 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 09 Mar 2000 09:19:24 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 09:19:55 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Forbo impression To: "'Schoderb@aol.com'" , "Kooijman, A." , Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk, jesper@dybdal.dk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B583@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 > > > > Reading L76 I have the feeling that the lawmakers did > intent to restrict > the > > rights of the kibitzer during play, but they (we) better > had made that > > cristal clear. > > KKKK It's clear to me right now. KKKK "Crystal" not > "cristal" please. > > > > ton > > > > Crystal it be, but I wasn't sure it was that clear yet. ton From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 9 21:14:46 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA20620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 21:14:46 +1000 (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 VAA20615 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 21:14:28 +1000 (EST) From: david.burn@bt.com Received: from cclmsent02.lon.bt.com by babelfish.axion.bt.co.uk (local) with ESMTP; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 10:49:58 +0000 Received: by cclmsent02.lon.bt.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.88) id ; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 10:49:46 -0000 Message-ID: To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: redress for N/S Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 10:49:43 -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 Steve wrote: [DB] > Interesting. L73B1 says: > > Calls and plays should be made... without undue hesitation or haste... [SW] >L73A2, actually. Sorry - got ahead of myself. L73A2 is the one which specifies that a call or play made after a hesitation may be an infraction if the hesitation was not a "due" one, which makes nonsense of the assertion that a tempo violation is never an infraction in itself. L73B1 says: Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, through questions asked or not asked of the opponents or through alerts and explanations given or not given to them. Of course, this means that *if* there is "communication" between partners by such means, it is a (very serious) infraction of Law. For communication to occur, however, there must be a sender of information and a receiver of information. For evidence that communication has occurred (and such evidence is required before we say that a violation of Law has happened), it must be demonstrable that information has been both illegally transmitted and acted upon. Now, a player who breaks tempo, or asks a question, or looks surprised, transmits information thereby. And his partner, sitting across the table, receives this information (in the majority of cases). In order not to violate L73B1, then, the recipient of information must not act on it - the effect of this will, in a simplistic view, be the same as if he had not received it, or it had not been sent. [SW] >See also 73D1: >It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made does not in itself constitute a violation of propriety.... >This seems to me to say that thinking is not an infraction. It does not seem to me to say this at all. Thinking is *not* an "inadvertent" variation of tempo. It is a deliberate action (by definition), and is not remotely covered by the wording above. What L73D1 says is that fumbling during the play or wool-gathering during the auction is not a violation provided you couldn't fool anyone by doing it. L73A2 is the Law which says that you're allowed to do things slowly provided that the tempo violation is "due" - the Law which says that thinking is not an infraction. (How, incidentally, is the very difficult English word "undue" translated into other languages?) L73D1 has got nothing to do with whether or not thinking is an infraction. It does, however, establish that inadvertent variations of tempo need not be infractions if care was taken only to commit them when they could not work to the benefit of the perpetrators. [SW] So, David S.? We all agree that some hesitations can be infractions, but what about the run of the mill hesitations where there is a genuine bridge problem that needs a bit of thought, but the hesitation has the undesirable side effect of revealing something to partner. Is the hesitation itself an infraction or not? A variation of tempo is an infraction if: (a) it was inadvertent, but it occurred in a position where it might work to the benefit of the perpetrator (L73D1); or (b) it was deliberate, and it was "undue" ((L73A2); or (c) it was deliberate, and there was "due" reason for it, but that reason was to mislead an opponent (L73D2). Whether of itself an infraction or not, a variation of tempo may form part of an infraction committed by a partnership if it conveyed UI, and that UI was both received and acted upon. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 10 00:45:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA21551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 00:45:02 +1000 (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 AAA21546 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 00:44:54 +1000 (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 JAA15579 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 09:44:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id JAA03061; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 09:44:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 09:44:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200003091444.JAA03061@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Minor penalty card question Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A defender is winning the current trick with the DA, and a small club clearly accidentally falls from his hand. He is now on lead with a minor penalty card outstanding. The question is, is he now required to lead a club at this point (but he may substitute a club honour if he wishes), or can he lead anything at all? L50C does not say that he must lead a club, unlike L50D1. Thanks, Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 10 00:58:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA21632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 00:58:33 +1000 (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 AAA21627 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 00:58:25 +1000 (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 JAA17479 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 09:58:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id JAA08010; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 09:58:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 09:58:09 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200003091458.JAA08010@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Is this a Revoke or a Joke? Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This problem was given to me by another (and much more experienced) director. A defender is on lead. His partner has a major penalty card, let's say a club. The declarer excercises his option of requesting a club lead, the card is picked up, and defender leads a diamond. He is asked if he has any clubs (in ACBL, an ok question; in rest of the world, would this be illegal underL61?). Defender says no, play continues, and lo and behold defender later comes up with a club (for the sake of arguement, it was mixed in with the spade suit/stuck to another card/was on the floor) Would failure to play a club as required be considered a revoke, or something else? Thanks, Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 10 01:45:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA22045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 01:45:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA22040 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 01:45:32 +1000 (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 PAA27773; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 15:45:05 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA24276; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 15:45:04 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Thu, 09 Mar 2000 15:45:03 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA13661; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 15:45:01 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id PAA28093; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 15:45:01 GMT Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 15:45:01 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200003091545.PAA28093@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Is this a Revoke or a Joke? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > This problem was given to me by another (and much more > experienced) director. > A defender is on lead. His partner has a major penalty > card, let's say a club. The declarer excercises his option > of requesting a club lead, the card is picked up, and defender > leads a diamond. He is asked if he has any clubs (in ACBL, an > ok question; in rest of the world, would this be illegal underL61?). > Defender says no, play continues, and lo and behold defender later > comes up with a club (for the sake of arguement, it was mixed in > with the spade suit/stuck to another card/was on the floor) Would > failure to play a club as required be considered a revoke, or > something else? Thanks, > Tony (aka ac342) > L60A Failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44 or failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by law or specified by an opponent in accordance with an agreed penalty, constitutes a revoke (but see Law 59 when unable to comply). i.e. ... failure to lead ... , when able, a ... suit ... specified by an opponent in accordance with an agreed penalty, constitutes a revoke so its a revoke. 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 Mar 10 02:19:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA22371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 02:19:25 +1000 (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 CAA22366 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 02:19:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA32750; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 08:19:16 -0800 Message-Id: <200003091619.IAA32750@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Is this a Revoke or a Joke? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 09 Mar 2000 09:58:09 PST." <200003091458.JAA08010@freenet10.carleton.ca> Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 08:19:14 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tony wrote: > This problem was given to me by another (and much more > experienced) director. > A defender is on lead. His partner has a major penalty > card, let's say a club. The declarer excercises his option > of requesting a club lead, the card is picked up, and defender > leads a diamond. He is asked if he has any clubs (in ACBL, an > ok question; in rest of the world, would this be illegal underL61?). > Defender says no, play continues, and lo and behold defender later > comes up with a club (for the sake of arguement, it was mixed in > with the spade suit/stuck to another card/was on the floor) Would > failure to play a club as required be considered a revoke, or > something else? Thanks, > Tony (aka ac342) Law 61A. Definition of Revoke Failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44 or failure to lead or ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ play, when able, a card or suit required by law or specified by an ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ opponent in accordance with an agreed penalty, constitutes a revoke ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (but see Law 59 when unable to comply). So yes, it's a revoke. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 10 02:30:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA21828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 01:28:07 +1000 (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 BAA21821 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 01:27:57 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id 2.6b.241216c (4311); Thu, 9 Mar 2000 10:27:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <6b.241216c.25f91cc3@aol.com> Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 10:26:59 EST Subject: Re: Minor penalty card question To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca, 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 3/9/00 9:47:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, ac342@freenet.carleton.ca writes: > A defender is winning the current trick with the DA, and > a small club clearly accidentally falls from his hand. > He is now on lead with a minor penalty card outstanding. > The question is, is he now required to lead a club at this > point (but he may substitute a club honour if he wishes), > or can he lead anything at all? L50C does not say that he > must lead a club, unlike L50D1. Thanks, > Tony (aka ac342) > The only restriction upon both defenders when one possesses a minor penalty card is the one that is specified in Law 50 C. when that suit is lead by any player. He may lead "anything at all." Oh yes, there is one other -- when it is the last card of the led suit in his hand he has to follow suit. Cheers, Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 10 02:32:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA22437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 02:32:46 +1000 (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 CAA22430 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 02:32:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from p76s05a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.101.119] helo=pacific) by cobalt11-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12SjYy-0007cQ-00; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 16:43:57 +0000 Message-ID: <00ec01bf89e4$895d38c0$776593c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Forbo impression Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 15:19:21 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL ; Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk ; jesper@dybdal.dk ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 09 March 2000 02:00 Subject: Re: Forbo impression >In a message dated 3/7/00 3:38:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, >A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL writes: > >> If he does so during the round, yes. But surely we cannot >> > > prohibit kibitzers from talking to players after the round, but >> > > while the correction period has not yet expired. >> > > >> > +=+ Read Law 76B again. There is nothing about >> > a time limit. Agreed you cannot stop a kibitzer talking, >> > but that does not make it lawful for him to draw >> > attention to an irregularity whilst the matter is still >> > capable of remedy - if the kibitzer is not one to whom >> > 11B refers it may well be that the Director has no >> > option but to apply the relevant law > >KKKK But doesn't Law 81C6 very carefully put forward the time limit wherein >the kibitzer cannot take any action? KKKK >> +=+ This stresses a point in a way that I have sought to avoid. I did not wish to say that the Director in this instance had failed to appreciate the law when making his ruling - i.e. that within the correction period the breach of law by the kibitzer came to his attention and he was required by law to do something in that regard to discharge his 81C6 responsibility - admonishment perhaps? I was seeking merely to allow that the Director was required to rectify the infraction the kibitzer had drawn to attention, albeit if the kibitzer were a person to whom 11B applied the Director had the option 11B provides (but was not wrong, merely unwise in my opinion, if he did not avail himself of the option). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 10 02:50:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA22555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 02:50:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA22550 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 02:50:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-37.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.37]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA08831; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 11:49:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002101bf89e7$dcf8b240$2584d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , Subject: Re: Minor penalty card question Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 11:52:30 -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 Quite so. He may choose to lead any suit. But if he does choose to lead a club he must lead an honour or the mpc. He cannot lead another club below honour rank. And in following to any other trick (or discarding) he may not play any other club below honour rank until the mpc has been played. -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: A. L. Edwards To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, March 09, 2000 9:55 AM Subject: Minor penalty card question >A defender is winning the current trick with the DA, and >a small club clearly accidentally falls from his hand. >He is now on lead with a minor penalty card outstanding. >The question is, is he now required to lead a club at this >point (but he may substitute a club honour if he wishes), >or can he lead anything at all? L50C does not say that he >must lead a club, unlike L50D1. Thanks, > Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 10 03:11:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA21842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 01:28:22 +1000 (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 BAA21831 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 01:28:07 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id 2.de.229986a (4311); Thu, 9 Mar 2000 10:27:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 10:27:00 EST Subject: Re: Is this a Revoke or a Joke? To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca, 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 3/9/00 10:00:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, ac342@freenet.carleton.ca writes: > A defender is on lead. His partner has a major penalty > card, let's say a club. The declarer excercises his option > of requesting a club lead, the card is picked up, and defender > leads a diamond. He is asked if he has any clubs (in ACBL, an > ok question; in rest of the world, would this be illegal underL61?). KKKK It is only illegal if the other defender or the dummy asks the question. KKKK > Defender says no, play continues, and lo and behold defender later > comes up with a club (for the sake of arguement, it was mixed in > with the spade suit/stuck to another card/was on the floor) Would > failure to play a club as required be considered a revoke, or > something else? KKKK Since I can't think of a "something else" my answer is YES. KKKK Thanks, > Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 10 03:49:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA22764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 03:49:04 +1000 (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 DAA22759 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 03:48:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12T73C-000Ipv-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 17:48:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 12:37:09 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: redress for N/S References: <200003090630.BAA07951@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200003090630.BAA07951@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> Yes, we were. You split the whole thing into Case A that was not >> infractions and Case B that was. Then you lumped tempo breaks into Case >> A. I not only disagreed with this but provided an example. How is this >> changing the subject? > >OK, David was just back from his trip and hadn't absorbed the whole >thread. No problem. Well, silly me, and I thought the argument was in the articles I read. Ok, I think my being away on a trip is a red herring. With the number of articles on BLML is often difficult to keep a full thread in mind. You wrote a specific thing to which I replied. I still think you are probably wrong but I expect it does not matter. However, I can see that you are only talking about a specific type of case and my example did not come under those. However, you divided cases A and B into deliberate and non-deliberate actions. You then propose L72B1 - and I stick to my comments: you do not need to nor is it desirable to decide whether something is deliberate in the use of that Law. [s] >This seems to me to say that thinking is not an infraction. > >> Of course, we all know that when players "should" do something, to fail to >> do it is an infraction of Law. But the word "undue" in L73B1 implies that >> there are cases in which hesitation may be "due", and that to make a call or >> play after "due" hesitation is not an infraction. A "due hesitation" is >> presumably one for which there is some objectively discernible "bridge >> reason". > >Yes, I agree with the last sentence, and I thought it was the standard >position. My example at the beginning was intended to illustrate this >concept. > >So, David S.? We all agree that some hesitations can be infractions, >but what about the run of the mill hesitations where there is a genuine >bridge problem that needs a bit of thought, but the hesitation has the >undesirable side effect of revealing something to partner. Is the >hesitation itself an infraction or not? Well, whether we deal with it under L72B1 has nothing to do with whether it is deliberate or not. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it will get treated as a duck by L72B1 and if it is a hen in disguise, tough luck. Your real question is whether it is illegal under L73B1 not L72B1 then. I think it is illegal if it is deliberate, not so otherwise, under this 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 Fri Mar 10 04:32:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA23087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 04:32:21 +1000 (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 EAA23081 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 04:32:10 +1000 (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 NAA15922; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 13:31:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA094406705; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 13:31:45 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 13:31:36 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Minor penalty card question Mime-Version: 1.0 To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, rts48u@ix.netcom.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 EAA23083 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Message d'origine----- De: rts48u Date: 9 mars, 2000 11:53 À: ac342; bridge-laws Cc: rts48u Objet: Re: Minor penalty card question Quite so. He may choose to lead any suit. But if he does choose to lead a club he must lead an honour or the mpc. He cannot lead another club below honour rank. And in following to any other trick (or discarding) he may not play any other club below honour rank until the mpc has been played. -- Craig [Laval Dubreuil] That is the way I understand Law 50 too. Lead penalties apply only to major penalty cards (50D2). Laval Du Breuil >A defender is winning the current trick with the DA, and >a small club clearly accidentally falls from his hand. >He is now on lead with a minor penalty card outstanding. >The question is, is he now required to lead a club at this >point (but he may substitute a club honour if he wishes), >or can he lead anything at all? L50C does not say that he >must lead a club, unlike L50D1. Thanks, > Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 10 04:45:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA23160 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 04:45:58 +1000 (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 EAA23154 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 04:45:41 +1000 (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 NAA16374; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 13:45:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA098387526; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 13:45:26 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 13:45:13 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Is this a Revoke or a Joke? To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This problem was given to me by another (and much more experienced) director. A defender is on lead. His partner has a major penalty card, let's say a club. The declarer excercises his option of requesting a club lead, the card is picked up, and defender leads a diamond. He is asked if he has any clubs (in ACBL, an ok question; in rest of the world, would this be illegal underL61?). Defender says no, play continues, and lo and behold defender later comes up with a club (for the sake of arguement, it was mixed in with the spade suit/stuck to another card/was on the floor) Would failure to play a club as required be considered a revoke, or something else? Thanks, Tony (aka ac342) [Laval Dubreuil] Just a simple revoke clearly defined by Law 61A: Failure to lead a suit specified by an opponent in accordance with an agreed penalty constitutes a revoke. Apply Law 64. Laval Du Breuil From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 10 06:44:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA23639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 06:44:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe41.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.98]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA23634 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 06:44:26 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 41978 invoked by uid 65534); 9 Mar 2000 20:43:47 -0000 Message-ID: <20000309204347.41977.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.13.207] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <6b.241216c.25f91cc3@aol.com> Subject: Re: Minor penalty card question Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 14:44:14 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2000 9:26 AM Subject: Re: Minor penalty card question > In a message dated 3/9/00 9:47:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, > ac342@freenet.carleton.ca writes: > > > A defender is winning the current trick with the DA, and > > a small club clearly accidentally falls from his hand. > > He is now on lead with a minor penalty card outstanding. > > The question is, is he now required to lead a club at this > > point (but he may substitute a club honour if he wishes), > > or can he lead anything at all? L50C does not say that he > > must lead a club, unlike L50D1. Thanks, > > Tony (aka ac342) > > > > The only restriction upon both defenders when one possesses a minor penalty > card is the one that is specified in Law 50 C. when that suit is lead by > any player. He may lead "anything at all." > Oh yes, there is one other -- when it is the last card of the led suit in his > hand he has to follow suit. An interesting thought occurred to me where cards not of honor rank are promoted to master rank. Take the situation where offender's partner holds the deuce and the only other card out is say, the trey. Where the trey is located would seem relevant to the defense. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas > Cheers, Kojak > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 10 08:05:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA24013 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 08:05:19 +1000 (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 IAA24008 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 08:05:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-58-217-207.s207.tnt3.lnhdc.md.dialup.rcn.com (HELO hdavis) (208.58.217.207) by smtp.mail.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Mar 2000 14:02:13 -0800 X-Apparently-From: Message-ID: <008201bf8a13$21877380$cfd93ad0@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B57D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 17:02:05 -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: "Kooijman, A." To: "'Grant Sterling'" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 3:03 AM Subject: RE: Redress for N/S? > > I am not sure I understand what you are saying. I myself regularly have > ruled use of UI after questioning a single call. But would have done the > same if the whole auction had been questioned. L16/73 deal with UI used, not > with the way it was received. > > ton > ISTM the only way for a player to avoid a UI ruling in some circumstances is for the player to develop the habit of asking the meaning of the auction every time it is his turn to call, whether or not the information is necessary. That would eliminate the UI aspect of questioning, if done consistently. Of course, it would also have an unsalutory effect on the length of the game... This seems to me to be one of the major conflicts in the Laws. We have a right to full disclosure of opponents' methods. Nevertheless, when we inquire about them, we may be conveying UI to partner, who is then constrained in his actions. So, we have conflict. Do we inquire about the information to which we are entitled and risk UI, or do we avoid asking and risk acting in ignorance of information to which we are entitled? Stringently enforced CC regulations would help, but would not solve all of the problems. Perhaps it is time to address this conflict. If we are to come down on the side of full disclosure, that would involve a redefinition of UI, so that questions properly asked in the time and manner allowed by law would no longer be UI. Alternatively, we could limit disclosure (which is the more or less the approach that is in effect now) and recognize that we are *not* entitled to full information about our opponents methods if the inquiry would provide UI to partner. ISTM if this is the approach we are taking, there is a need to rewrite L20, so that the limitations on inquiry are explicitly laid out in a way that players at all levels, including newcomers, would know when they can and cannot inquire about the opponents' auction. Is there any other sport where a player may take an action which is allowed to him under the rules of the game, in the time and manner allowed to him under the rules of the game, and still risk an adverse ruling? I have seen more than one novice give up bridge in frustration at being faced with this particular dilemma. Hirsch __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 10 08:06:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA24028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 08:06:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA24023 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 08:06:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.102] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12TB4Q-000LJf-00; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 22:06:14 +0000 Message-ID: <000201bf8a13$fbddebe0$665608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , , , "Craig Senior" References: Subject: Re: Minor penalty card question Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 22:02:43 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: ; ; Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2000 6:31 PM Subject: RE: Minor penalty card question >------------- \x/ -------------- [Laval Dubreuil] That is the way I understand Law 50 too. Lead penalties apply only to major penalty cards (50D2). Laval Du Breuil +=+ I would say 50C is even more clear on the point. And it adds something about UI. I would recommend the Director when dealing with a mechanical, book ruling, to read from the book to the players. It is irresponsible if a wrong ruling is given simply because the Director is too proud to read out a law that he is uncertain about. Of course, if he reads it out and is still uncertain about it we must sympathize. :-) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 10 09:23:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA24347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 09:23:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA24342 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 09:23:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.114] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12TCGY-000P24-00; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 23:22:50 +0000 Message-ID: <004301bf8a1e$af5ca6c0$0d5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Hirsch Davis" , "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B57D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <008201bf8a13$21877380$cfd93ad0@hdavis> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 23:14:40 -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: Bridge Laws Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2000 10:02 PM Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? > This seems to me to be one of the major conflicts in the Laws. We have > a right to full disclosure of opponents' methods. Nevertheless, when we > inquire about them, we may be conveying UI to partner, who is then > constrained in his actions. So, we have conflict. Do we inquire about > the information to which we are entitled and risk UI, or do we avoid > asking and risk acting in ignorance of information to which we are > entitled? > > Stringently enforced CC regulations would help, but would not solve all > of the problems. > > Perhaps it is time to address this conflict. > +=+ Again, that is. We never did have an outcome to the drafting efforts that left satisfaction throughout the bridge world on this item. There are two questions in my mind: (a) how far can we go in the introduction of screens? "Not much further down the pyramid than we have already gone" they answer. So (b) how far can we go in excluding the UI element from the law when a question is asked about an alerted call? Well, I suppose the game will survive if we put this question by for 2003. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 10 11:00:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA24778 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:00:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from praseodumium.btinternet.com (praseodumium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA24773 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:00:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.129.242] (helo=davidburn) by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12TDmS-0002G0-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 00:59:52 +0000 Message-ID: <000d01bf8a2c$384e1a60$f28101d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B57D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <008201bf8a13$21877380$cfd93ad0@hdavis> <004301bf8a1e$af5ca6c0$0d5608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 01:01:50 -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 Grattan wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Hirsch Davis > To: Bridge Laws > Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2000 10:02 PM > Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? > > > This seems to me to be one of the major conflicts in the Laws. We have > > a right to full disclosure of opponents' methods. Nevertheless, when we > > inquire about them, we may be conveying UI to partner, who is then > > constrained in his actions. So, we have conflict. Do we inquire about > > the information to which we are entitled and risk UI, or do we avoid > > asking and risk acting in ignorance of information to which we are > > entitled? > > > > Stringently enforced CC regulations would help, but would not solve all > > of the problems. > > > > Perhaps it is time to address this conflict. > > > +=+ Again, that is. We never did have an outcome to > the drafting efforts that left satisfaction throughout the > bridge world on this item. > There are two questions in my mind: > (a) how far can we go in the introduction > of screens? > "Not much further down the pyramid > than we have already gone" they answer. > So (b) how far can we go in excluding the UI > element from the law when a question is > asked about an alerted call? > Well, I suppose the game will survive if we > put this question by for 2003. We kick this one around in the much-despised EBU L&E Committee every so often. The dilemma has been stated reasonably clearly by Hirsch, but is worth exposing further for those who care. Suppose the opponents conduct this auction: West North East South 1S Pass 4C ? Now, many of the world's better pairs play that: if 4C is a splinter, double asks for a heart lead; if 4C is Swiss, then double asks for a club lead. 4C will be alerted in either case, which does not help. Can these pairs play these methods? Not without risk, for suppose I am South and I have hearts. I ask (because I genuinely need to know) what 4C shows, and I am told it is Swiss, so I pass. This combination of circumstances has forced me to transmit UI to partner, who now may not lead a heart. As Hirsch says, it is intolerable that players should be forced by regulation to break the Laws. The concession that I have been able to gain after hammering this subject into the ears of my fellow committee members is that provided pairs who play these methods pre-define sequences in which problems will occur, and agree to always ask in those positions, they will not necessarily be found guilty of transmitting and using UI. The simple fact of the matter is that all alerts should be, by regulation, followed as a matter of compulsion by a question and an explanation. "But that would slow the game down" is the universal bleat whenever this is proposed. "So what?" I invariably reply. "Would you rather play a slow game fairly or cheat fast?" David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 10 12:19:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA25336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:19:48 +1000 (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 MAA25324 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:19:37 +1000 (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 12TF1Q-000Dej-0Y for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 02:19:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 01:40:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? References: <200003032147.NAA19544@mailhub.irvine.com> <022a01bf85b7$32d6a3a0$16991e18@san.rr.com> <006501bf8741$72434b20$d55608c3@dodona> <000401bf8812$574cc0e0$b15408c3@dodona> <20000307152524.8722.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000307152524.8722.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <20000307152524.8722.qmail@hotmail.com>, Roger Pewick writes > >The declaring side is not taught to explain, without asking, their bidding >after the auction and before the lead. > To my mind this one action resolves 90% of potential UI. I strongly think declarer should explain all the bids in the auction that may cause a problem for the oppo, and dummy should correct any MI, before the opening lead is faced. It makes for a smoother game, takes very little time, and is only subject to real problems if :- MI has occurred and the other side gets to declare - but that's a problem anyway The opponents have different methods depending on the meaning of a particular call, which DALB discussed well and fully Failure to do this is in any event a contravention of L40C insofar as full disclosure is concerned. The best games I've played in are always those where the players explain calls without being prompted (subject to the Law of course) > >Roger Pewick >Houston, Texas > > -- 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 Mar 10 12:19:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA25342 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:19:57 +1000 (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 MAA25334 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:19:45 +1000 (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 12TF1Q-000Del-0Y for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 02:19:25 +0000 Message-ID: <1oaM2iARtFy4Ew87@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 02:17:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Impossible to appeal References: <00ca01bf8134$3cab3940$2f8c01d4@default> <$HP$mKAD5mx4EwXb@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <$HP$mKAD5mx4EwXb@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <$HP$mKAD5mx4EwXb@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >magda thain wrote: >>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. > > That is covered by the Laws so there is no reason per se to redeal. >But it depends on the details. If he did so once the auction period has >started then apply L24 - or if during the play l48 to L51, as >appropriate. However, if it is before the auction period started then >L16B applies, and probably L16B3, so the board is cancelled. Now I >think if the board has not been played before, would not L6D3 be a >possible alternative to L12C1, ie redeal rather than give A+/A-? > I so rule in teams matches regardless of the method of dealing the boards selected by the TD (if necessary I make a second copy and give it to the other table if computer deals are in use). One of the jobs given to the most junior TD at an EBU event is to make up a couple of boards with duplicates using board numbers not in play and board coloUrs different from those in play. These can easily be dropped in when this situation occurs. (I use home-use grey plastic wallets at events I CTD, and have a pair made-up in my directing brief case as a matter of course.) In pairs games where there is only a single section (pre-duplicated boards) I would rule the same if it is the first time played, otherwise I'd award an ArtAss. Essentially the customers are there to play bridge and if I can achieve that, then well and good. cheers john > > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 10 12:19:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA25335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:19:47 +1000 (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 MAA25325 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:19:39 +1000 (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 12TF1Q-000Dek-0Y for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 02:19:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 01:58:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Signature Card Attachment References: <200003071704.AA31545@gateway.tandem.com> <38C5AD7F.66E361C@isdn.net.il> <004101bf88bd$c2c74920$0101a8c0@pavilion> In-Reply-To: <004101bf88bd$c2c74920$0101a8c0@pavilion> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <004101bf88bd$c2c74920$0101a8c0@pavilion>, ndressing writes >What is a v-card?????? Nancy A Frenchman posting a knave (J) -- 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 Mar 10 12:22:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA25383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:22:44 +1000 (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 MAA25376 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:22:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA11343; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 18:22:29 -0800 Message-Id: <200003100222.SAA11343@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 10 Mar 2000 01:01:50 PST." <000d01bf8a2c$384e1a60$f28101d5@davidburn> Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 18:22:30 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > Suppose the opponents conduct this auction: > > West North East South > 1S Pass 4C ? > > Now, many of the world's better pairs play that: if 4C is a splinter, > double asks for a heart lead; if 4C is Swiss, then double asks for a > club lead. 4C will be alerted in either case, which does not help. Can > these pairs play these methods? Not without risk, for suppose I am > South and I have hearts. I ask (because I genuinely need to know) what > 4C shows, and I am told it is Swiss, so I pass. This combination of > circumstances has forced me to transmit UI to partner, who now may not > lead a heart. > > As Hirsch says, it is intolerable that players should be forced by > regulation to break the Laws. The concession that I have been able to > gain after hammering this subject into the ears of my fellow committee > members is that provided pairs who play these methods pre-define > sequences in which problems will occur, and agree to always ask in > those positions, they will not necessarily be found guilty of > transmitting and using UI. The simple fact of the matter is that all > alerts should be, by regulation, followed as a matter of compulsion by > a question and an explanation. "But that would slow the game down" is > the universal bleat whenever this is proposed. "So what?" I invariably > reply. "Would you rather play a slow game fairly or cheat fast?" It shouldn't slow the game down enough to bother anyone if there are only a handful of alerts on a hand. It could cause a problem if someone is playing Match-Point Precision or---worse---a relay system. Perhaps if we adopt this kind of rule, we should write the rule so it doesn't apply to consecutive alerts starting with the third or fourth? Another refinement: If an alert must be followed by a question and explanation, well, there's no need for the question any more. The player can simply alert and explain the alert. Actually, there wouldn't be a need to say "alert" any more, either. Just announce everything. (Until you hit the third or fourth consecutive announcement, and then start alerting.) This should reduce the amount by which it slows down the game. However, one objection is that if alerts are required to be followed by a question or explanation, the explanations will help the opponents more than the askers. Yes, the opponents are supposed to treat their partners' explanations as UI, but it doesn't always happen that way. That's why some people don't ask questions until the auction is over (and why, in the USA, a few other people ask their opponents not to alert at all). (By the way, I could live with this problem; most of the time it happens, I'd have a clear case for an adjustment, given a competent TD, and the rest of the time, I probably wouldn't be any worse off than if the opponents had remembered their system anyway.) Finally, in the case you cite, your proposed rule wouldn't help at all in jurisdictions where all bids over 3NT are "delayed alerts". (In the USA, delayed alerts start only with opener's rebid.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 10 14:53:02 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA26800 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 14:53:02 +1000 (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 OAA26792 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 14:52:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2iveh9m.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.69.54]) by fb01.eng00.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA18135 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 23:52:29 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000309234956.01276f98@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 23:49:56 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? In-Reply-To: <008201bf8a13$21877380$cfd93ad0@hdavis> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B57D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You are entirely correct in identifying this situation as untenable. There is, surprisingly, an easy fix to this dilemma. Prior to 1987, the Laws distinguished between UI deriving from infractions and violations of accepted procedure and UI deriving from normal or even required actions. The way this differention was applied was essentially a "burden-of-proof" approach. That is, for an action to be illegal in the presence of the "bad" UI, it was sufficient that it be suggested only over some LA, broadly defined. But for an action to be illegal in the presence of "benign" UI, it needed both to be suggested over some LA and in its own right an unusual action, perhaps only explainable in the light of the UI. It may be that this structure was deemed overly complex. I never heard the explanation for why it was dropped, but it yields a closer approximation of equity, IMO. L16 imposes a fairly drastic sanction on the recipient of UI, forcing many reasonable, sensible actions into a zone of illegality. Where the UI is the result of improper procedure (a mis-explanation or a call out of tempo), this is perhaps reasonable. But where the UI results from proper, lawful action (correct alert or explanation or a normal, simple inquiry about an unusual bid), it seems to impose a harsh penalty on non-offending players. Mike Dennis At 05:02 PM 3/9/2000 -0500, Hirsch wrote: >ISTM the only way for a player to avoid a UI ruling in some >circumstances is for the player to develop the habit of asking the >meaning of the auction every time it is his turn to call, whether or not >the information is necessary. That would eliminate the UI aspect of >questioning, if done consistently. Of course, it would also have an >unsalutory effect on the length of the game... > >This seems to me to be one of the major conflicts in the Laws. We have >a right to full disclosure of opponents' methods. Nevertheless, when we >inquire about them, we may be conveying UI to partner, who is then >constrained in his actions. So, we have conflict. Do we inquire about >the information to which we are entitled and risk UI, or do we avoid >asking and risk acting in ignorance of information to which we are >entitled? > >Stringently enforced CC regulations would help, but would not solve all >of the problems. > >Perhaps it is time to address this conflict. If we are to come down on >the side of full disclosure, that would involve a redefinition of UI, so >that questions properly asked in the time and manner allowed by law >would no longer be UI. Alternatively, we could limit disclosure (which >is the more or less the approach that is in effect now) and recognize >that we are *not* entitled to full information about our opponents >methods if the inquiry would provide UI to partner. ISTM if this is the >approach we are taking, there is a need to rewrite L20, so that the >limitations on inquiry are explicitly laid out in a way that players at >all levels, including newcomers, would know when they can and cannot >inquire about the opponents' auction. > >Is there any other sport where a player may take an action which is >allowed to him under the rules of the game, in the time and manner >allowed to him under the rules of the game, and still risk an adverse >ruling? I have seen more than one novice give up bridge in frustration >at being faced with this particular dilemma. > >Hirsch > > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. >http://im.yahoo.com > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 10 15:43:12 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA27784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 15:43:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27775 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 15:42:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.129.242] (helo=davidburn) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12TIBk-0002Sq-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 05:42:16 +0000 Message-ID: <00a501bf8a53$9a92e4e0$f28101d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200003100222.SAA11343@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 05:43:45 -0000 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam wrote: [DB] > > The simple fact of the matter is that all > > alerts should be, by regulation, followed as a matter of compulsion by > > a question and an explanation. "But that would slow the game down" is > > the universal bleat whenever this is proposed. "So what?" I invariably > > reply. "Would you rather play a slow game fairly or cheat fast?" > > It shouldn't slow the game down enough to bother anyone if there are > only a handful of alerts on a hand. I am not sure about this - if others spotted at this point that Adam was not being entirely serious, I will cheerfully accept the "Chump of the Month" badge. I was just wondering how there could be more than one handful of alerts on one hand. > It could cause a problem if > someone is playing Match-Point Precision or---worse---a relay system. What is Match-Point Precision? How could a relay system be worse? It's an education, this list, so it is. > Perhaps if we adopt this kind of rule, we should write the rule so it > doesn't apply to consecutive alerts starting with the third or fourth? Still trying to treat Adam's post in serious vein, this rule would more or less completely miss the point. The notion is that you do not know when you might really need to ask a question, but that you must never be afraid to ask whevever you can (i.e. whenever a call is alerted). That way, partner can never derive any kind of UI from your questions, whereas he could derive UI from your questions if they were prescribed. As long as you ask about every alert, from the forcing pass upwards, you cannot transmit UI. (Incidentally, this approach would more or less solve the present ludicrous debate revolving around L20, but this is a mere by-product.) > Another refinement: If an alert must be followed by a question and > explanation, well, there's no need for the question any more. The > player can simply alert and explain the alert. It is at this point that even I can see that Adam is being frivolous. Of course, a player does not explain his own alert. Neither, at the not inconsiderable risk of sounding like DWS, did I ever suggest that he should. > Actually, there > wouldn't be a need to say "alert" any more, either. Just announce > everything. (Until you hit the third or fourth consecutive > announcement, and then start alerting.) This should reduce the amount > by which it slows down the game. This makes no sense, nor does it address the question to which Hirsch Davis and I had turned our collective and inexpressibly feeble minds. > However, one objection is that if alerts are required to be followed > by a question or explanation, the explanations will help the opponents > more than the askers. This, as I understand it, was the principal difficulty. All that can be said about it is that we are prepared (a) to rely on the honesty of players; (b) to construct a framework within which dishonest players canot operate. > Finally, in the case you cite, your proposed rule wouldn't help at all > in jurisdictions where all bids over 3NT are "delayed alerts". (In > the USA, delayed alerts start only with opener's rebid.) And if my aunt had whiskers, she'd be my uncle. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 10 17:23:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA29732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 17:23:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from uucp.nl.uu.net (uucp.nl.uu.net [193.79.237.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA29720 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 17:23:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 08:22:29 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id RAA12458; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 17:19:21 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: , Subject: RE: Minor penalty card question Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 17:19:07 +0100 Message-ID: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690103107A@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101ADC2@xion.spase.nl> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A. L. Edwards wrote: >A defender is winning the current trick with the DA, and >a small club clearly accidentally falls from his hand. >He is now on lead with a minor penalty card outstanding. >The question is, is he now required to lead a club at this >point (but he may substitute a club honour if he wishes), >or can he lead anything at all? L50C does not say that he >must lead a club, unlike L50D1. Thanks, He may lead whatever he wants; but if he wants to play a club, it must be either an honour or the minor penalty card (L50C). On the other hand, a major penalty card must be played at the earliest legal opportunity, so here offender has no choice (L50D1). -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 10 17:23:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA29733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 17:23:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from uucp.nl.uu.net (uucp.nl.uu.net [193.79.237.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA29723 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 17:23:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 08:22:29 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id RAA12309 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 17:13:08 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: Is this a Revoke or a Joke? Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 17:12:53 +0100 Message-ID: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C005004546901031079@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101ADC3@xion.spase.nl> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A. L. Edwards wrote: >This problem was given to me by another (and much more >experienced) director. >A defender is on lead. His partner has a major penalty >card, let's say a club. The declarer excercises his option >of requesting a club lead, the card is picked up, and defender >leads a diamond. He is asked if he has any clubs (in ACBL, an >ok question; in rest of the world, would this be illegal underL61?). >Defender says no, play continues, and lo and behold defender later >comes up with a club (for the sake of arguement, it was mixed in >with the spade suit/stuck to another card/was on the floor) Would >failure to play a club as required be considered a revoke, or >something else? Thanks, It is a revoke. The possibility of a lead penalty is explicitly mentioned in L61A, the law defining a revoke. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 10 18:18:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA00540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 18:18:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA00533 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 18:17:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA20659 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 09:17:54 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Mar 10 09:17:53 2000 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JMV2GR97JM0008DF@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 09:17:14 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 09:16:40 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 09:17:12 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Redress for N/S? To: "'David Burn'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B587@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: David Burn [mailto:Dburn@btinternet.com] > Verzonden: vrijdag 10 maart 2000 2:02 > Aan: Bridge Laws > > > > Stringently enforced CC regulations would help, but would not > solve all > > > of the problems. > > > > > > Perhaps it is time to address this conflict. > > > > > +=+ Again, that is. We never did have an outcome to > > the drafting efforts that left satisfaction throughout the > > bridge world on this item. > > There are two questions in my mind: > > (a) how far can we go in the introduction > > of screens? > > "Not much further down the pyramid > > than we have already gone" they answer. > > So (b) how far can we go in excluding the UI > > element from the law when a question is > > asked about an alerted call? > > Well, I suppose the game will survive if we > > put this question by for 2003. > > We kick this one around in the much-despised EBU L&E Committee every > so often. The dilemma has been stated reasonably clearly by Hirsch, > but is worth exposing further for those who care. > > Suppose the opponents conduct this auction: > > West North East South > 1S Pass 4C ? > > Now, many of the world's better pairs play that: if 4C is a splinter, > double asks for a heart lead; if 4C is Swiss, then double asks for a > club lead. 4C will be alerted in either case, which does not help. Can > these pairs play these methods? Not without risk, for suppose I am > South and I have hearts. I ask (because I genuinely need to know) what > 4C shows, and I am told it is Swiss, so I pass. This combination of > circumstances has forced me to transmit UI to partner, who now may not > lead a heart. > > As Hirsch says, it is intolerable that players should be forced by > regulation to break the Laws. The concession that I have been able to > gain after hammering this subject into the ears of my fellow committee > members is that provided pairs who play these methods pre-define > sequences in which problems will occur, and agree to always ask in > those positions, they will not necessarily be found guilty of > transmitting and using UI. What about automatically explaining such calls by partner, so not just a gesture that might be understood as an alert, but explaining? In well dsecribed situations. Given as an option to the SO. ton The simple fact of the matter is that all > alerts should be, by regulation, followed as a matter of compulsion by > a question and an explanation. "But that would slow the game down" is > the universal bleat whenever this is proposed. "So what?" I invariably > reply. "Would you rather play a slow game fairly or cheat fast?" > > David Burn > London, England > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 10 19:33:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA01202 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 19:33:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt9-he.global.net.uk (cobalt9-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.169]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA01195 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 19:33:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from pc4s07a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.103.197] helo=pacific) by cobalt9-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Sx2N-0003BE-00; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 07:07:12 +0000 Message-ID: <001401bf8a73$275642e0$c56793c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Forbo impression Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 09:14:50 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: gester@globalnet.co.uk Date: 08 March 2000 19:28 Subject: Re: Forbo impression >Dear Grattan, > This is about the third 'null' message I have seen from you in your >'gester' incarnation in the past couple of days. Is there something in the >attachment that my antiquated mail-reader is just not seeing? > >Regards, > WWFiv > Wally Farley > Los Gatos, CA {ACBL District 21} > > +=+ No. It seems I had a full stop ('period') point on a line to itself somewhere just after the quote. It was a tiny speck on my screen and I had failed to see it. It seems it sent our good friend 'maj*rd*mo' mad, snipping away with his scissors. If you see this message the fault is repaired. Sorry - and sorry too that I do not know which of my less sane comments have gone down the tube. And thank you to Jesper who identified what was amiss. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 10 20:21:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA01629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 20:21:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from igngate.merck.de (igngate.merck.de [194.196.248.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA01623 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 20:21:23 +1000 (EST) From: James.Vickers@merck.de Received: from dedamsgnt02.merck.de (smtpgw.merck.de [155.250.248.234]) by igngate.merck.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA00534 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:20:44 +0100 (MET) X-Internal-ID: 38BD52EE0001EA3B Received: from dedamsg1.merck.de (155.250.248.233) by dedamsgnt02.merck.de (NPlex 2.0.123) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:20:43 +0100 Received: by dedamsg1.merck.de(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.5 (863.2 5-20-1999)) id C125689E.0038D13A ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:20:35 +0100 X-Lotus-FromDomain: MERCK To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:19:47 +0100 Subject: Rant / answers please! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello, everyone. I hope you will forgive a little criticism, but I did originally post this example not to pass the time of day, but in the hope of hearing your opinions. Is the subject matter so uninteresting that it warrants only a single one-line answer from a mailing list which supposedly exists as a forum for discussing the laws of bridge, whereas the merits and demerits of "v-card" attachments to mails stimulates lively and passionate debate? (I don't know what they are either, and I care even less). My plea then: leave out all "v-cards", so we never have to waste time discussing them. And keep the debate on bridge-related topics flowing, and the less abstract the better. Here it is again under a new heading, incorporating Dany's answer: Jay Apfelbaum wrote: >My opinion is that the proper test to determine whether a bid is a psych is >objective in nature. That is, it does not matter whether the individual >ACTUALLY BELIEVED he or she was making a deliberate and gross misstatement >of honor strength or suit length. It only matters whether the bid, >deliberately made, IS a gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length. Marv commented: >But isn't the point moot? A psychic call is legal as long as there is no >concealed partnership agreement that protects it (L73E). This reminds me of the following hand which came up years ago in a league match played privately: Dealer W, N/S vul: 9 x x A x A 10 x x A K x x K Q J 10 x x x x J 10 x Q x x Q x x x x 10 x Q J x x x A x K x x x x K J x x x x W N E S 2H(1) 3D(2) p 3NT all pass (1) alerted, N asked and was told "weak two in hearts" (2) alerted, Hackett convention, a strong take-out W led spades, won the lead when declarer took the diamond finesse and cashed more spades for two down. N/S queried the opening bid. East admitted that they had for years used 2H as a weak two in either major until a director recently informed them this was illegal, since when they switched to playing standard weak twos. She said her partner had probably opened 2H out of habit. N/S asked me how the ruling would have gone if they had appealed. What do you think? Do you judge West's action to be: 1. a psych (no score adjustment)? 2. an illegal convention (60%/30% assigned adjusted score)? 3. a misbid (no adjustment)? 4. Concealed partnership understanding, (60%/30% assigned adjusted score, and grease the trapdoor on the gallows (Dany)) Would you rule differently without East's admission of the partnership's past misdemeanours? James From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 10 21:07:52 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA02002 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 21:07:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt7-ps.global.net.uk (cobalt7-ps.global.net.uk [195.147.248.167]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA01996 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 21:07:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from pa7s02a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.114.168] helo=pacific) by cobalt7-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12TNFL-00052G-00; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:06:19 +0000 Message-ID: <001f01bf8a80$547a2040$a87293c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'David Burn'" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:03:04 -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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: 'David Burn' ; Bridge Laws Date: 10 March 2000 08:28 Subject: RE: Redress for N/S? > > >> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- >> Van: David Burn [mailto:Dburn@btinternet.com] >> Verzonden: vrijdag 10 maart 2000 2:02 >> Aan: Bridge Laws >> >> > > Stringently enforced CC regulations would help, but would not >> solve all >> > > of the problems. >> > > >> > > Perhaps it is time to address this conflict. >> > > >> > +=+ Again, that is. We never did have an outcome to >> > the drafting efforts that left satisfaction throughout the >> > bridge world on this item. >> > There are two questions in my mind: >> > (a) how far can we go in the introduction >> > of screens? >> > "Not much further down the pyramid >> > than we have already gone" they answer. >> > So (b) how far can we go in excluding the UI >> > element from the law when a question is >> > asked about an alerted call? >> > Well, I suppose the game will survive if we >> > put this question by for 2003. >> >> We kick this one around in the much-despised EBU L&E Committee every >> so often. The dilemma has been stated reasonably clearly by Hirsch, >> but is worth exposing further for those who care. >> >> Suppose the opponents conduct this auction: >> >> West North East South >> 1S Pass 4C ? >> >> Now, many of the world's better pairs play that: if 4C is a splinter, >> double asks for a heart lead; if 4C is Swiss, then double asks for a >> club lead. 4C will be alerted in either case, which does not help. Can >> these pairs play these methods? Not without risk, for suppose I am >> South and I have hearts. I ask (because I genuinely need to know) what >> 4C shows, and I am told it is Swiss, so I pass. This combination of >> circumstances has forced me to transmit UI to partner, who now may not >> lead a heart. >> >> As Hirsch says, it is intolerable that players should be forced by >> regulation to break the Laws. The concession that I have been able to >> gain after hammering this subject into the ears of my fellow committee >> members is that provided pairs who play these methods pre-define >> sequences in which problems will occur, and agree to always ask in >> those positions, they will not necessarily be found guilty of >> transmitting and using UI. > >What about automatically explaining such calls by partner, so not just a >gesture that might be understood as an alert, but explaining? In well >dsecribed situations. Given as an option to the SO. > >ton > +=+ SOs could also have the option of requiring that the explanation is not spoken but is made by pointing to the place on the CC. This too has its drawbacks, but maybe can be qualified by adding that only if it is not on the CC should the meaning be given orally And let Laws 16 and 75C take care of any situation where the hand the call was made on demonstrates that the caller had a different meaning in mind~ G ~ +=+ > >The simple fact of the matter is that all >> alerts should be, by regulation, followed as a matter of compulsion by >> a question and an explanation. "But that would slow the game down" is >> the universal bleat whenever this is proposed. "So what?" I invariably >> reply. "Would you rather play a slow game fairly or cheat fast?" >> >> David Burn >> London, England >> >> > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 10 21:32:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA02131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 21:32:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f183.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.183]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA02126 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 21:32:33 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 78741 invoked by uid 0); 10 Mar 2000 11:31:54 -0000 Message-ID: <20000310113154.78740.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.219 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 03:31:54 PST X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 03:31:54 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote >The simple fact of the matter is that all >alerts should be, by regulation, followed as a matter of compulsion by >a question and an explanation. "But that would slow the game down" is >the universal bleat whenever this is proposed. "So what?" I invariably >reply. "Would you rather play a slow game fairly or cheat fast?" > >David Burn >London, England > My wife, who is not the greatest striker of the ball, always asks what every bid means. This is not because the knowledge does her any good, but because she has no idea what any conventions mean at all, with the possible exception of Stayman. While this can get a bit tedious, the upside is that I never have to worry about whether I'm getting UI: I never am. It slows things up a bit, but since so much time is wasted on other things (non-sensical post mortems, pairs moving to the wrong table, tea breaks) it hardly makes that much difference. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 10 22:37:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA02538 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 22:37:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA02533 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 22:37:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id NAA05691 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 13:37:21 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Mar 10 13:37:20 2000 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JMVBHA2N1K000CKU@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 13:35:45 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 13:35:11 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 13:35:43 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Redress for N/S? To: "'Hirsch Davis'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B589@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 Hirsch Davis wrote: > ..... methods if the inquiry would provide UI to partner. ISTM if > this is the > approach we are taking, there is a need to rewrite L20, so that the > limitations on inquiry are explicitly laid out in a way that > players at > all levels, including newcomers, would know when they can and cannot > inquire about the opponents' auction. > Is there any other sport where a player may take an action which is > allowed to him under the rules of the game, in the time and manner > allowed to him under the rules of the game, and still risk an adverse > ruling? I have seen more than one novice give up bridge in > frustration > at being faced with this particular dilemma. > > Hirsch Aren't you exaggerating this? Once more my reaction is that the need to rewrite law 20 in this respect is not that big. A player when it is his turn to call may inquire about opponents calls (or one call when I am the TD). But after such an inquiry about the 2 club bid from later dummy the first lead from QJT Q954 983 972 should probably not be club 7 in AQTxx from partner. By the way the lead is neither acceptable when partner has Q64 and declarer makes 4 tricks now, but who cares in that case? Novices can't be taught early enough not to make such leads. ton From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 10 22:47:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA02601 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 22:47:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA02596 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 22:47:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-190.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.190]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA08176 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 13:47:37 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38C8EC96.3A1D097B@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 13:37:42 +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: Is this a Revoke or a Joke? References: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C005004546901031079@xion.spase.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot (and others) wrote: > > > It is a revoke. The possibility of a lead penalty is explicitly > mentioned in L61A, the law defining a revoke. > Next question. Declarer refuses a club lead. Defender leads a club. Declarer asks him (as he is allowed to), and defender replies, "I have nothing but clubs". Two tricks later, he discovers a heart. Is that a revoke ? Yes it is. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 10 22:50:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA02639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 22:50:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA02629 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 22:50:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12TOs3-000Lle-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:50:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:40:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Having none? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In another thread, Tony Edwards wrote A defender is on lead. His partner has a major penalty card, let's say a club. The declarer exercises his option of requesting a club lead, the card is picked up, and defender leads a diamond. Funnily enough this really happened to me yesterday in the club (a very friendly 6 table individual tournament SWISS no less what I was running and playing in :))). Table 1 last round I had a major penalty card - a club as it happens when partner gained the lead - I explained declarer's rights (they all trust me) and Sheila said "I'll have a Club lead" Mukund, my partner rather sheepishly confessed to not being able to comply with this request and Sheila said "What happens next?" I said "I know which cards to hang on to " :)) Soon afterwards, declarer conceded two top clubs to me and a flat board was enjoyed by all. Sometime later I was telling someone else this story and wondered if in a different situation it would have been legal for me to use my knowledge of partner's void to gain a ruff and of course by extension whether it is legal for me to "know which cards to hang on to" It feels as if this is Unauthorised Information What think you? :) -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 10 22:50:47 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA02640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 22:50:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA02630 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 22:50:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12TOs3-000G25-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:50:23 +0000 Message-ID: <$IwmnDADlOy4EwOD@mamos.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:23:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: Rant / answers please! References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , James.Vickers@merck.de writes rant snipped > >This reminds me of the following hand which came up years ago in a league match >played privately: > >Dealer W, N/S vul: > > 9 x x > A x > A 10 x x > A K x x > K Q J 10 x x x x > J 10 x Q x x > Q x x x x > 10 x Q J x x x > A x > K x x x x > K J x x > x x > > W N E S > 2H(1) 3D(2) p 3NT > all pass > >(1) alerted, N asked and was told "weak two in hearts" >(2) alerted, Hackett convention, a strong take-out > >W led spades, won the lead when declarer took the diamond finesse and cashed >more spades for two down. N/S queried the opening bid. East admitted that they >had for years used 2H as a weak two in either major until a director recently >informed them this was illegal, since when they switched to playing standard >weak twos. She said her partner had probably opened 2H out of habit. > >N/S asked me how the ruling would have gone if they had appealed. What do you >think? Do you judge West's action to be: > >1. a psych (no score adjustment)? >2. an illegal convention (60%/30% assigned adjusted score)? >3. a misbid (no adjustment)? >4. Concealed partnership understanding, (60%/30% assigned adjusted score, and >grease the trapdoor on the gallows (Dany)) > >Would you rule differently without East's admission of the partnership's past >misdemeanours? > >James > I know it's irritating when everyone ignores your fascinating post and writes drivel about other things but .... that's bridge players .... I say "You hold this ......." they completely ignore my amazing account of my brilliancy and want to tell me instead about some boring hand they played.... Counter rant ends :) Psyches are DELIBERATE **Psychic Call - A deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength or suit length.** If psyches reveal evidence of concealed partnership understandings then the TD may adjust the score EBU TDs are also trained to recognise that Misbids can also reveal evidence of concealed partnership understandings - and just as we must consider the actions of the psycher's partner so we also need to consider the actions of the misbidders partner I'd want to ask some more questions "Did Weak 2 = 6 carder?" If so East's pass seems amazing - pairs smart enough to be playing fancy two level conventions surely are going to pre-empt a bit in Hs in this situation - 4H seems normal "Why didn't you bid 4H over 3D?" If East offers the least tiny suggestion that he had any doubts about his partner's 2H opener, he's a dead man -ILLEGAL CONVENTION - SCORE ADJUSTMENT I guess that at the table EW would have to be very convincing to prevent me from score adjustment - let an appeal committee determine their innocence (On the other hand Declarer has been very wet here - Surely top spade top spade (presumably I duck) is very suspicious when West is KNOWN to hold a good H suit ... and if Weak Two shows six, then cashing a top H would discover a funny thing .... so I wouldn't be very surprised if an appeal committee decided that South was a drip and deserved his bad score) mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 10 23:08:10 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA02747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 23:08:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f8.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA02742 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 23:08:00 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 43884 invoked by uid 0); 10 Mar 2000 13:07:22 -0000 Message-ID: <20000310130722.43883.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.219 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 05:07:22 PST X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Rant / answers please! Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 05:07:22 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: James.Vickers@merck.de >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Subject: Rant / answers please! >Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:19:47 +0100 > >Hello, everyone. I hope you will forgive a little criticism, but I did >originally post this example not to pass the time of day, but in the hope >of >hearing your opinions. Is the subject matter so uninteresting that it >warrants >only a single one-line answer from a mailing list which supposedly exists >as a >forum for discussing the laws of bridge, whereas the merits and demerits of >"v-card" attachments to mails stimulates lively and passionate debate? (I >don't >know what they are either, and I care even less). > >My plea then: leave out all "v-cards", so we never have to waste time >discussing >them. And keep the debate on bridge-related topics flowing, and the less >abstract the better. > >Here it is again under a new heading, incorporating Dany's answer: > >Jay Apfelbaum wrote: > >My opinion is that the proper test to determine whether a bid is a psych >is > >objective in nature. That is, it does not matter whether the individual > >ACTUALLY BELIEVED he or she was making a deliberate and gross >misstatement > >of honor strength or suit length. It only matters whether the bid, > >deliberately made, IS a gross misstatement of honor strength or suit >length. > >Marv commented: > >But isn't the point moot? A psychic call is legal as long as there is no > >concealed partnership agreement that protects it (L73E). > >This reminds me of the following hand which came up years ago in a league >match >played privately: > >Dealer W, N/S vul: > > 9 x x > A x > A 10 x x > A K x x > K Q J 10 x x x x > J 10 x Q x x > Q x x x x > 10 x Q J x x x > A x > K x x x x > K J x x > x x > > W N E S > 2H(1) 3D(2) p 3NT > all pass > >(1) alerted, N asked and was told "weak two in hearts" >(2) alerted, Hackett convention, a strong take-out > >W led spades, won the lead when declarer took the diamond finesse and >cashed >more spades for two down. N/S queried the opening bid. East admitted that >they >had for years used 2H as a weak two in either major until a director >recently >informed them this was illegal, since when they switched to playing >standard >weak twos. She said her partner had probably opened 2H out of habit. > >N/S asked me how the ruling would have gone if they had appealed. What do >you >think? Do you judge West's action to be: > >1. a psych (no score adjustment)? >2. an illegal convention (60%/30% assigned adjusted score)? >3. a misbid (no adjustment)? >4. Concealed partnership understanding, (60%/30% assigned adjusted score, >and >grease the trapdoor on the gallows (Dany)) > >Would you rule differently without East's admission of the partnership's >past >misdemeanours? > >James > It's a misbid. West forgot the system, East told N/S what the agreement was, finito Benito. South may well feel aggrieved, but to some extent he was the architect of his own misfortune. Even if you think that 2H was a psyche rather than a misbid, I can't see how N/S have been damaged by improper action. East said after the event that her partner had probably opened 2H out of habit. Although this was probably well-meaning, it only stoked the fires of N/S's ire. Why, I don't know. What telepathic powers does East possess that allow her to claim knowledge of how West bid as she did? Why not ask West? If West's answer is that she accidentally made an anti-systemic bid that's the end of the story (Unless the hanging and flogging brigade want to impose a penalty for amnesia, as they so often seem to do). ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 10 23:19:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA02909 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 23:19:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from hera.frw.uva.nl (HERA.frw.uva.nl [145.18.122.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA02903 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 23:19:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from jppals (DHCP-ivip-121.frw.uva.nl [145.18.125.121]) by hera.frw.uva.nl (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA15396 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 14:18:34 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200003101318.OAA15396@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, 10 Mar 2000 14:16:03 +0100 Subject: Re: Rant / answers please! Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk James wrote: ---snip--- > This reminds me of the following hand which came up years ago in a > league match played privately: > > Dealer W, N/S vul: > > 9 x x > A x > A 10 x x > A K x x > K Q J 10 x x x x > J 10 x Q x x > Q x x x x > 10 x Q J x x x > A x > K x x x x > K J x x > x x > > W N E S > 2H(1) 3D(2) p 3NT > all pass > > (1) alerted, N asked and was told "weak two in hearts" > (2) alerted, Hackett convention, a strong take-out > > W led spades, won the lead when declarer took the diamond finesse and > cashed more spades for two down. N/S queried the opening bid. East > admitted that they had for years used 2H as a weak two in either major > until a director recently informed them this was illegal, since when > they switched to playing standard weak twos. She said her partner had > probably opened 2H out of habit. > > N/S asked me how the ruling would have gone if they had appealed. What > do you think? Do you judge West's action to be: > > 1. a psych (no score adjustment)? > 2. an illegal convention (60%/30% assigned adjusted score)? > 3. a misbid (no adjustment)? > 4. Concealed partnership understanding, (60%/30% assigned adjusted > score, and grease the trapdoor on the gallows (Dany)) I would say both 2 and 4, especially in view of East's failure to raise her partner's "hearts". > Would you rule differently without East's admission of the > partnership's past misdemeanours? I would rule against EW and advise them to appeal. BTW, South didn't make the best of it..... JP From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 11 00:59:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA03449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 00:59:39 +1000 (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 AAA03443 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 00:59:31 +1000 (EST) From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id p.d2.17bcab3 (9819) for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 09:58:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 09:58:47 EST Subject: From a frequent lurker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows sub 28 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Could those of you who consistently quoteback the entire email you are responding to please consider just extracting a small but recognizable portion of that email? I do try to keep up with the threads in case I might contribute something however it is difficult (not to say annoying) to have to wander through yards of quote before I come to anything new. Thanks, Karen From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 11 01:14:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA03516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 01:14:24 +1000 (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 BAA03511 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 01:14:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-248.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.248]) by fb01.eng00.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA08883; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 10:14:05 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001c01bf8aa3$a9108e00$f884d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: Signature Card Attachment Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 10:16:45 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Does that mean a valet is a jack of all trades? By the way, what IS a v-card? -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, March 09, 2000 9:33 PM Subject: Re: Signature Card Attachment >In article <004101bf88bd$c2c74920$0101a8c0@pavilion>, ndressing > writes >>What is a v-card?????? Nancy > >A Frenchman posting a knave (J) >-- >John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 >451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou >London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk >+44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 11 01:17:19 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA03534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 01:17:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt1-he.global.net.uk (cobalt1-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.161]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA03528 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 01:17:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from p85s05a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.165.134] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt1-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12TR8h-00003C-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 07:15:44 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Rant / answers please! Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 15:16:40 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf8aa3$a28fd220$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: James.Vickers@merck.de To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, March 10, 2000 10:33 AM Subject: Rant / answers please! >Hello, everyone. I hope you will forgive a little criticism, but I did >originally post this example not to pass the time of day, but in the hope of >hearing your opinions. ===references to obscene postcards snipped=== > >Here it is again under a new heading, incorporating Dany's answer: > >Jay Apfelbaum wrote: >>My opinion is that the proper test to determine whether a bid is a psych is >>objective in nature. That is, it does not matter whether the individual >>ACTUALLY BELIEVED he or she was making a deliberate and gross misstatement >>of honor strength or suit length. It only matters whether the bid, >>deliberately made, IS a gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length. The lawbook definition is that a psych is "deliberate". So it _does_ matter what the bidder actually believed. > >Marv commented: >>But isn't the point moot? A psychic call is legal as long as there is no >>concealed partnership agreement that protects it (L73E). > >This reminds me of the following hand which came up years ago in a league match >played privately: > >Dealer W, N/S vul: > > 9 x x > A x > A 10 x x > A K x x > K Q J 10 x x x x > J 10 x Q x x > Q x x x x > 10 x Q J x x x > A x > K x x x x > K J x x > x x > > W N E S > 2H(1) 3D(2) p 3NT > all pass > >(1) alerted, N asked and was told "weak two in hearts" >(2) alerted, Hackett convention, a strong take-out > >W led spades, won the lead when declarer took the diamond finesse and cashed >more spades for two down. N/S queried the opening bid. East admitted that they >had for years used 2H as a weak two in either major until a director recently >informed them this was illegal, since when they switched to playing standard >weak twos. She said her partner had probably opened 2H out of habit. > >N/S asked me how the ruling would have gone if they had appealed. What do you >think? Do you judge West's action to be: > >1. a psych (no score adjustment)? A psych is a deliberate and gross mis-statement. It is necessary to ascertain what was in West's mind when he bid 2H. In this instance I expect him to say, without prompting from East, that he made a mistake.Therefore, no intent to deceive, no psych. >2. an illegal convention (60%/30% assigned adjusted score)? If the CC supported Easts' claim that they had changed their system to a legal one, then I would not rule this way. >3. a misbid (no adjustment)? If West claims to have tried to confuse the auction, I rule psych, if he says he made a mistake, I rule misbid. Adjustment is dependant on what I think of Easts' action, and whether I think that damage ocurred, and that it was a consequence of this action. >4. Concealed partnership understanding, (60%/30% assigned adjusted score, and >grease the trapdoor on the gallows (Dany)) I do not see evidence of this. > >Would you rule differently without East's admission of the partnership's past >misdemeanours? East has not said that West has forgotten before, East said, we used to play it differently but have now changed our style to conform to the regulations. I do not see this as a misdemeanour. However I am now going to examine Easts' actions. Did the "weak 2" promise two top honours at this vulnerability? Has East got alternative logical actions to consider? Did East chose an action suggested by a suspicion of "I have been here before"? Were N/S damaged? Was the damage caused by the fielding of a misbid? I arrive at the stage where I think possible alternative actions for East are 4H, or Double. I think that everything about this auction is telling East to Pass, and that any other action is not logical.If West has a wk 2H, then with one stop and Spades and Diamonds South will make 3NT. If East doubles, and South is not blessed with Diamonds, they may find their Spade contract.East "knows" that N/S have a Spade contract. His partner has a weak hand 6-9? points and he has 5. What are we thinking about? I rule 3. Misbid. No field. Result stands. Good, now I have not got to worry about how egregious was the error in play that failed to make 3NT.(This weak 2 Hearts has turned up with KQ of Spades. It is common sence to either play East for the Diamond Queen, or play for the drop, both of which work, and result in 1 Spade,4 Diamonds, 2 Clubs and 2 Hearts.) Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 11 01:32:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA03588 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 01:32:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from uucp.nl.uu.net (uucp.nl.uu.net [193.79.237.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA03582 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 01:32:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 16:31:39 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id QAA22976; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 16:17:41 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'michael amos'" , Subject: RE: Having none? Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 16:17:28 +0100 Message-ID: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690103107B@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101ADDF@xion.spase.nl> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk michael amos wrote: >I had a major penalty card - a club as it happens when partner gained >the lead - I explained declarer's rights (they all trust me) and Sheila >said "I'll have a Club lead" > >Mukund, my partner rather sheepishly confessed to not being able to >comply with this request and Sheila said "What happens next?" > >I said "I know which cards to hang on to " :)) > >Soon afterwards, declarer conceded two top clubs to me and a flat board >was enjoyed by all. > > >Sometime later I was telling someone else this story and wondered if in >a different situation it would have been legal for me to use my >knowledge of partner's void to gain a ruff and of course by extension >whether it is legal for me to "know which cards to hang on to" > >It feels as if this is Unauthorised Information > >What think you? This information is authorised. It follows from a legal play by partner, who cannot "follow" in clubs, as clubs is requested by declarer. Compare this with the following case, which occurred some years ago on a TD course: S: - H: 42 D: 2 C: Q6 S: - S: - H: QJT98 H: K3 D: - D: 64 C: - C: 2 S: - H: - D: Q98 C: A7 South is declarer in a NT contract. East has H3 as a major penalty card, and West is on lead. South forbids hearts. West plays a heart anyway; East overtakes and returns a heart, and West takes the remaining tricks. Same story: is East entitled to the information that West has nothing but hearts? The answer is again yes, I think: West does not "follow" in spades, diamonds and clubs. Again this is information resulting from a legal play by West. The other side is that if West later has a non-heart (or partner in your example has a club), then he revoked in the trick where declarer made his/her request. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 11 01:49:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA03643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 01:49:57 +1000 (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 BAA03638 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 01:49:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from pecs01a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.129.237] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12TReS-0000ki-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 07:48:32 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Rant / answers please! Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 15:49:46 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf8aa8$42602800$ed8193c3@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Anne Jones To: BLML Date: Friday, March 10, 2000 3:39 PM Subject: Re: Rant / answers please! >-----Original Message----- >From: James.Vickers@merck.de >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: Friday, March 10, 2000 10:33 AM >Subject: Rant / answers please! > > >I rule 3. Misbid. No field. Result stands. >Good, now I have not got to worry about how egregious was the error in play >that failed >to make 3NT.(This weak 2 Hearts has turned up with KQ of Spades. It is >common sence to >either play East for the Diamond Queen, OoooPs! I meant exit to Easts safe hand.(for one off of course!) or play for the drop, both of which >work, and >result in 1 Spade,4 Diamonds, 2 Clubs and 2 Hearts.) >Anne > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 11 01:58:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA03680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 01:58:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from [208.1.218.2] ([208.1.218.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA03675 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 01:58:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from EHCMAIL by [208.1.218.2] via smtpd (for octavia.anu.edu.au [150.203.5.35]) with SMTP; 10 Mar 2000 15:58:15 UT Received: from ehc.edu (JKUCHEN [172.16.225.37]) by ehcmail.ehc.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id 17SA04JM; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:03:46 -0500 Message-ID: <38C91D45.D9A5D273@ehc.edu> Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:05:25 -0500 From: John Kuchenbrod X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Signature Card Attachment References: <001c01bf8aa3$a9108e00$f884d9ce@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > > Does that mean a valet is a jack of all trades? > > By the way, what IS a v-card? > -- > Craig A vCard is an electronic business card developed by the versit consortium. For more information, please peruse: http://www.imc.org/pdi/ Several mailers allow a vCard to be attached to a message or for an electronic business card to be attached as a vCard. That way, the exchange of personal information can be automated (paraphrased from the pdi page) instead of plucked out of .signature files. John -- | Dr. John A. Kuchenbrod | jkuchen@ehc.edu | lazarus.ehc.edu/~jkuchen | | fight hunger--visit http://www.thehungersite.com daily | From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 11 02:09:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA03898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 02:09:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA03893 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 02:09:08 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id i.c6.272b184 (7543); Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:08:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:08:11 EST Subject: Re: Impossible to appeal To: john@probst.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 67 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 3/9/00 9:22:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, john@probst.demon.co.uk writes: > In pairs games where there is only a single section (pre-duplicated > boards) I would rule the same if it is the first time played, otherwise > I'd award an ArtAss. > > Essentially the customers are there to play bridge and if I can achieve > that, then well and good. cheers john KKKK Of course, and I agree. What I didn't agree with in the original thread was to solve a problem for which there is adequate remedy in the Laws by throwing out the problem, the infraction, and starting over from scratch by thinking this is fair, just, correct, or anything other than avoidance of doing a proper job. Picking the Laws to enforce and rejecting those which cause us exposure, work, and judgement is not what I expect from a TD. KKKK I'm also going to get an answer from Blaiss as soon as I can. See ya, Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 11 02:29:09 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA03965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 02:29:09 +1000 (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 CAA03960 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 02:28:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA22604; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 08:28:56 -0800 Message-Id: <200003101628.IAA22604@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 10 Mar 2000 05:43:45 PST." <00a501bf8a53$9a92e4e0$f28101d5@davidburn> Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 08:28:56 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > Adam wrote: > > [DB] > > > The simple fact of the matter is that all > > > alerts should be, by regulation, followed as a matter of > compulsion by > > > a question and an explanation. "But that would slow the game down" > is > > > the universal bleat whenever this is proposed. "So what?" I > invariably > > > reply. "Would you rather play a slow game fairly or cheat fast?" > > > > It shouldn't slow the game down enough to bother anyone if there are > > only a handful of alerts on a hand. > > I am not sure about this - if others spotted at this point that Adam > was not being entirely serious, I will cheerfully accept the "Chump of > the Month" badge. I was just wondering how there could be more than > one handful of alerts on one hand. No, this time I was being serious. I shouldn't have said "handful"---I meant something like one or two, or occasionally three. So maybe I have small hands. (Actually, I don't. I can reach an octave plus three notes comfortably...) > > It could cause a problem if > > someone is playing Match-Point Precision or---worse---a relay > system. > > What is Match-Point Precision? How could a relay system be worse? It's > an education, this list, so it is. MPP is a variant of Precision, but it has a lot more toys than Wei's original system---more asking bids, a very different system over a 1NT opening, etc. So MPP players would alert a lot more things than "standard" players. I could be wrong---I've only played this system a couple times. > > Perhaps if we adopt this kind of rule, we should write the rule so > it > > doesn't apply to consecutive alerts starting with the third or > fourth? > > Still trying to treat Adam's post in serious vein, this rule would > more or less completely miss the point. The notion is that you do not > know when you might really need to ask a question, but that you must > never be afraid to ask whevever you can (i.e. whenever a call is > alerted). That way, partner can never derive any kind of UI from your > questions, whereas he could derive UI from your questions if they were > prescribed. As long as you ask about every alert, from the forcing > pass upwards, you cannot transmit UI. (Incidentally, this approach > would more or less solve the present ludicrous debate revolving around > L20, but this is a mere by-product.) My point was to try to find a compromise between the UI problems and the problems of slowing down the game. > > Another refinement: If an alert must be followed by a question and > > explanation, well, there's no need for the question any more. The > > player can simply alert and explain the alert. > > It is at this point that even I can see that Adam is being frivolous. > Of course, a player does not explain his own alert. Neither, at the > not inconsiderable risk of sounding like DWS, did I ever suggest that > he should. Now I think I've just been misunderstood. I didn't suggest that a player explain his own alertable call. I meant that the player who would normally say "Alert" would, instead, just drop the word and explain partner's bid without having to be asked. (It looks like Ton suggested approximately the same thing.) To put it another way: a player *does* explain his own alert, if you take this to mean that the player who does the alerting is the same one who explains the call. Which is how I meant it. The reason I suggested it was that it speeds the game up a tiny bit if the players don't have to say "Alert" or "Please explain the alert"---two phrases that would become redundant if requesting an explanation becomes compulsory. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 11 03:12:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 03:12:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.169]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA04107 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 03:12:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from p75s10a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.106.118] helo=pacific) by cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12T1HP-0007N3-00; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 11:38:59 +0000 Message-ID: <007201bf8ab3$512dd340$766a93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Grattan Endicott" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Forbo impression Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 17:08:04 -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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott> >+=+ No. It seems I had a full stop ('period') point >on a line to itself somewhere just after the >quote. It was a tiny speck on my screen and >I had failed to see it. It seems it sent our good >friend 'maj*rd*mo' mad, snipping away with his >scissors. +++ I knew it was happening because the messages arrived, sanitised, at the Hermes lodge. In one of them I said this; I do not know whether it escaped or not: (Quote) I just thought I would go back and read Law 76 again. My book says:"A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake". My book contains no limitation of time in this law. Therefore it lasts until its provisions cease to be effectual. The logic of the situation tells me this is at the point when there is no possibility of the players asking for a ruling. Law 76B is ambiguously worded as to whether 'except by request of a Director' applies to the whole of 76B or just to the second part of it; I incline to believe the latter from the position of the comma. Out of the above I say, with as much force as I can muster, that a person who has learnt of an irregularity or mistake as a spectator is forbidden by law from drawing attention to it until it can no longer affect the result on the board. I do not say this is a good or a bad law, I do not say it is readily carried into effect unless the players are honest, but I do say, firmly, it is the law. I also express the opinion, more controversially since it is nowhere written that I recall, that any attendee at a tournament whose presence is not provided for in law or regulation, is to be classed as a 'spectator'. That is a question that might be addressed. ~Grattan~ ------------------------------------------------------------------- Health warning "No opinion, unless the recorded corporate decision of the committee, should be considered to have the authority of a committee decision. Directors seeking guidance should refer to their respective NCBOs." (WBF Laws Committee) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (Unquote) I think I should make sure the bit about referring to NCBOs is not lost down a pipe. Taken together with later postings, I think my position on the state of the law here is established. But, except as stated above, nothing that you read on blml over-rides what your NCBO tells you. This is the message that the WBFLC considered we must get across. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 11 04:12:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04177 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 03:26:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA04158 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 03:25:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12TTAR-0006mq-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 17:25:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:43:11 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? References: <001f01bf8a80$547a2040$a87293c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <001f01bf8a80$547a2040$a87293c3@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ SOs could also have the option of >requiring that the explanation is not spoken >but is made by pointing to the place on the >CC. This too has its drawbacks, but maybe >can be qualified by adding that only if it is >not on the CC should the meaning be given >orally And let Laws 16 and 75C take care >of any situation where the hand the call was >made on demonstrates that the caller had a >different meaning in mind~ G ~ +=+ The reason that I have always taken issue with Marvin when he suggests that questions of things on the CC should not be answered [apart from the legality of not answering] is that experience shows that you get information that is more complete *and* more accurate from questions than from the CC. Come to think of it, I believe a couple of people [Kojak?] suggested that CCs are a better method than alerts. This is my answer to them as well. Plus, of course, poorer players have in some cases, learnt to ask but they haven't learnt to fill in CCs and we *must* consider their problems as well as those of the better players. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 11 05:07:06 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA04642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 05:07:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.165]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA04636 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 05:06:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from p8as06a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.134.139] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12TDRL-0006JS-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 00:38:03 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 19:06:28 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf8ac3$bcea7100$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 Cc: adam@irvine.com Date: Friday, March 10, 2000 4:39 PM Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? > >David Burn wrote: > >> >> Still trying to treat Adam's post in serious vein, this rule would >> more or less completely miss the point. The notion is that you do not >> know when you might really need to ask a question, but that you must >> never be afraid to ask whevever you can (i.e. whenever a call is >> alerted). That way, partner can never derive any kind of UI from your >> questions, whereas he could derive UI from your questions if they were >> prescribed. As long as you ask about every alert, from the forcing >> pass upwards, you cannot transmit UI. (Incidentally, this approach >> would more or less solve the present ludicrous debate revolving around >> L20, but this is a mere by-product.) > >My point was to try to find a compromise between the UI problems and >the problems of slowing down the game. > >> > Another refinement: If an alert must be followed by a question and >> > explanation, well, there's no need for the question any more. The >> > player can simply alert and explain the alert. >> >> It is at this point that even I can see that Adam is being frivolous. >> Of course, a player does not explain his own alert. Neither, at the >> not inconsiderable risk of sounding like DWS, did I ever suggest that >> he should. > >Now I think I've just been misunderstood. I didn't suggest that a >player explain his own alertable call. I meant that the player who >would normally say "Alert" would, instead, just drop the word and >explain partner's bid without having to be asked. (It looks like Ton >suggested approximately the same thing.) To put it another way: a >player *does* explain his own alert, if you take this to mean that the >player who does the alerting is the same one who explains the call. >Which is how I meant it. > >The reason I suggested it was that it speeds the game up a tiny bit if >the players don't have to say "Alert" or "Please explain the >alert"---two phrases that would become redundant if requesting an >explanation becomes compulsory. > Perish the thought that there was a time before alerts. There was a time when alerts above the level of 3NT were illegal, there was a time when a pair could ask their opps not to alert. While the UI obtained by a player because of his partner's interest in the auction may be a problem, the UI information obtained from the alert itself is significant. The AI received by a prospective declarer from a question asked is also significant. Whether he uses this information, or whether the questions were asked for the reason he thought, is a decision he makes at his own peril. DWS said "Plus, of course, poorer players have in some cases, learnt to ask but they haven't learnt to fill in CCs and we *must* consider their problems as well as those of the better players." > Of course all these better players never get their system wrong. Of course they are not reminded by an alert or an explanation. Of course all the poorer players are able to detect that UI has been used, and know exactly what to do about it. I know of instances where an alert is accompanied by an explanation, stopped in it's tracks by an opponents "I didn't ask". Well done I say. I know of instances where an alert is accompanied by an explanation and this starts a discussion between the bidding partnership as to how they actually play this. Being careful to be ethical of course. There's too much overt UI in Bridge anyway. How much of it is used is another matter, but if it's not there it cannot be used. No. The alerting procedure definitely helps the better players more than it does the poorer players. The ones that DWS thinks have not learned to write yet. Most of them can read. They just bid what they see regardless of the opponents bidding. How often have you used Ghestem to show 5/5 majors, explain it well. and find your poorer opp bid Spades naturally and end up with either a good or a bad board. If it's good, they are thrilled. If it's bad, well it was against a good player so how should they expect any better. The poorer players may well improve in time. The better players do not need the alerting procedures to get good results against poorer players. Bidding boxes have helped considerably with the reduction of UI.Let us strive to achieve a silent auction. Back to the CC v Alerting argument. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 11 05:08:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA04658 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 05:08:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA04653 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 05:08:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.119.109] (helo=host213-1-119-109.btinternet.com) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12TUlh-0006Td-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 19:08:14 +0000 From: Pam Hadfield To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 19:05:52 +0000 Reply-To: pam@hadpaddock.com Message-ID: <8shics4t66lvkgtscp4j9f817a2ti4rdd2@4ax.com> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B57D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <008201bf8a13$21877380$cfd93ad0@hdavis> <004301bf8a1e$af5ca6c0$0d5608c3@dodona> <000d01bf8a2c$384e1a60$f28101d5@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <000d01bf8a2c$384e1a60$f28101d5@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 FAA04654 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 01:01:50 -0000, David wrote: > >We kick this one around in the much-despised EBU L&E Committee every >so often. The dilemma has been stated reasonably clearly by Hirsch, >but is worth exposing further for those who care. > >Suppose the opponents conduct this auction: > >West North East South >1S Pass 4C ? > >Now, many of the world's better pairs play that: if 4C is a splinter, >double asks for a heart lead; if 4C is Swiss, then double asks for a >club lead. 4C will be alerted in either case, which does not help. Can >these pairs play these methods? Not without risk, for suppose I am >South and I have hearts. I ask (because I genuinely need to know) what >4C shows, and I am told it is Swiss, so I pass. This combination of >circumstances has forced me to transmit UI to partner, who now may not >lead a heart. > Could not many of the world's better players who play this find out before play starts whether their ops are playing Swiss or Splinters? Now one of the world's better players I am certainly not but if I vary a defence depending on the meaning of a bid I either find out what ops are playing before play or I wish I had when it turns up. In neither case would I ask the meaning of a bid if one of my options might be a pass. > ..snip.. > The simple fact of the matter is that all >alerts should be, by regulation, followed as a matter of compulsion by >a question and an explanation. "But that would slow the game down" is >the universal bleat whenever this is proposed. "So what?" I invariably >reply. "Would you rather play a slow game fairly or cheat fast?" Personally I'd rather do neither - I'm not certain however that it is possible :) Pam (Most definitely not a fan of a question followed by pass during an auction). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 11 05:10:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 03:26:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA04180 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 03:26:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12TTAf-0005k9-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 17:25:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 16:04:27 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda References: <003e01bf6ce3$676f8100$bab4f1c3@kooijman> In-Reply-To: <003e01bf6ce3$676f8100$bab4f1c3@kooijman> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk 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. >(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 Not me. I think that [a] it is probably an arguable interpretation and [b] we have a sufficiently high authority in favour of allowing it. As far as I am concerned it is legal therefore. ------------ Craig Senior wrote: >FWIW I have the 97 Laws UK (Portland Club) version downloaded thru DWS web >site and it DOES contain the heading. The title is in the same (italic) text >as all the other headings. It is in light grey. As noted elsewhere in the text it is an addition by Niels Wendell Pedersen with my agreement because it is the only sub- section without a heading. ------------ Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ 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. I have just read sixty articles on this subject in attempt to catch up from Oz. Despite Grattan and Kojak saying this, I believe the tenor of the articles does not suggest it. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I ahve not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles upt to nine weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 11 05:11:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 03:16:16 +1000 (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 DAA04128 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 03:16:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-248.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.248]) by fb01.eng00.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA10603; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:15:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <004801bf8ab4$aabfb4e0$f884d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" Subject: Re: Rant / answers please! Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:18:32 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It still seems to be common sense to play for the diamond queen to be with west for the very reasons you suggest. Then the roof falls in of course when the finesse loses. As you have demonstrated that is hardly an egregious error. In fact the risks appear much lower as a 6-2 spade break doesn't seem tp be in the cards. Any damage does appear to be consequent; even if the declarer play is inferior (a debatable proposition) it is not egregiously bad. Should we even be considering PP here though? East has been quite forthright about the formar partnership practice...not revealing it at the time proably means he did not consciously think that a misbid had occured. Why not continue the preempt? Perhaps he felt 4H would drive them into a makeable 4S and 5H was too likely to be off 800. I'd certainly ask him why...but I'm not ready to drag out the gallows yet. As for Jim's rant: relax! If you aren't interested in v-whatever they are's use the delete key! It's entirely reasonable to discuss technical matters that can result in clearer message transmission for the benefit of all. And thanks to you Anne for showing us the order and mental processes of a director endeavouring to do her job well. Even with the error you help to give us all a lesson in how to approach a situation. :-) -- Craig Senior >From: Anne Jones >>I rule 3. Misbid. No field. Result stands. >>Good, now I have not got to worry about how egregious was the error in play >>that failed >>to make 3NT.(This weak 2 Hearts has turned up with KQ of Spades. It is >>common sence to >>either play East for the Diamond Queen, >OoooPs! I meant exit to Easts safe hand.(for one off of course!) > >or play for the drop, both of which >>work, and >>result in 1 Spade,4 Diamonds, 2 Clubs and 2 Hearts.) > >>Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 11 05:19:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA04722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 05:19:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo-d04.mx.aol.com (imo-d04.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA04717 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 05:19:09 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id q.b7.1542be3 (4238); Fri, 10 Mar 2000 14:18:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 14:18:25 EST Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? 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 3/10/00 1:14:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: > The reason that I have always taken issue with Marvin when he suggests > that questions of things on the CC should not be answered [apart from > the legality of not answering] is that experience shows that you get > information that is more complete *and* more accurate from questions > than from the CC. > > Come to think of it, I believe a couple of people [Kojak?] suggested > that CCs are a better method than alerts. This is my answer to them as > well. Plus, of course, poorer players have in some cases, learnt to ask > but they haven't learnt to fill in CCs and we *must* consider their > problems as well as those of the better players. > > -- KKKK Yet I can't remember being called for an adjustment when reference was made to the CC. Yes, I've been called to help get the CC explained, but the verbal questions method usually leads to discussions, leading questions, assumed answers, etc., that are then the "basis" for getting a better score than was obtained by playing the hand. Also, let's not forget the inflections when partner is listening! I beg to differ with you on this. I think anybody that can play a rudimentary bridge hand has the capacity to be instructed and trained in procedures established to keep the game honest. Some amount of work for the TD, even in the clubs, but after fixing the coffee and refreshments, what else is there to do? Cheers, (I know I'll get a listing of "what else is there to do." ) Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 11 06:11:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA04944 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 06:07:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA04925 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 06:07:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12TVgT-000NRh-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 20:06:54 +0000 Message-ID: <7IsFmUCefUy4Ewul@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 19:07:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: DWS\'s new working hours References: <4.1.20000112135822.00982840@popmid.minfod.com> <200001122215.IAA20333@cuda.jcu.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <200001122215.IAA20333@cuda.jcu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laurie Kelso wrote: > >As some you may be aware, David Stevenson is currently >in Australia working at the Summer Bridge Festival in >Canberra. It may surprise many that we managed to >dragged him out of bed and get him over to the >alternative venue by 7.30am this morning where he got >to set up and dress tables! I don't expect *anyone* to believe Laurie. I had to get up again some days later. Terrible! -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I have not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles upt to nine weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 11 06:14:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 03:26:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA04167 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 03:26:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12TTAR-0006mp-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 17:25:40 +0000 Message-ID: <0SRmwTAqxOy4EwP4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:36:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B57D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <008201bf8a13$21877380$cfd93ad0@hdavis> <004301bf8a1e$af5ca6c0$0d5608c3@dodona> <000d01bf8a2c$384e1a60$f28101d5@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <000d01bf8a2c$384e1a60$f28101d5@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >As Hirsch says, it is intolerable that players should be forced by >regulation to break the Laws. The concession that I have been able to >gain after hammering this subject into the ears of my fellow committee >members is that provided pairs who play these methods pre-define >sequences in which problems will occur, and agree to always ask in >those positions, they will not necessarily be found guilty of >transmitting and using UI. The simple fact of the matter is that all >alerts should be, by regulation, followed as a matter of compulsion by >a question and an explanation. "But that would slow the game down" is >the universal bleat whenever this is proposed. "So what?" I invariably >reply. "Would you rather play a slow game fairly or cheat fast?" I think a lot of people would prefer to play fast without cheating. More and more do I think this list needs to consider the effects of Laws on the mediocre player. I would be quite happy at the rules being changed in these sort of areas at top levels, but I think we must consider the lesser game, and I am afraid that BLML too often does not do so. You are not going to get lesser players to ask when they are not interested. How about Announcements? I quite like these despite the problems, the main one seems to be people with little idea when to announce. I find it sad that the ACBL club I play in does not seem to use Announcements at all. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 11 06:23:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04176 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 03:26:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA04157 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 03:25:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12TTAR-0005k9-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 17:25:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:31:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B57D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <008201bf8a13$21877380$cfd93ad0@hdavis> In-Reply-To: <008201bf8a13$21877380$cfd93ad0@hdavis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: >ISTM the only way for a player to avoid a UI ruling in some >circumstances is for the player to develop the habit of asking the >meaning of the auction every time it is his turn to call, whether or not >the information is necessary. That would eliminate the UI aspect of >questioning, if done consistently. Of course, it would also have an >unsalutory effect on the length of the game... > >This seems to me to be one of the major conflicts in the Laws. We have >a right to full disclosure of opponents' methods. Nevertheless, when we >inquire about them, we may be conveying UI to partner, who is then >constrained in his actions. So, we have conflict. Do we inquire about >the information to which we are entitled and risk UI, or do we avoid >asking and risk acting in ignorance of information to which we are >entitled? As a player I ask anything I need to, expect partner to behave ethically, and accept the odd bad effect. >Stringently enforced CC regulations would help, but would not solve all >of the problems. > >Perhaps it is time to address this conflict. If we are to come down on >the side of full disclosure, that would involve a redefinition of UI, so >that questions properly asked in the time and manner allowed by law >would no longer be UI. Alternatively, we could limit disclosure (which >is the more or less the approach that is in effect now) and recognize >that we are *not* entitled to full information about our opponents >methods if the inquiry would provide UI to partner. ISTM if this is the >approach we are taking, there is a need to rewrite L20, so that the >limitations on inquiry are explicitly laid out in a way that players at >all levels, including newcomers, would know when they can and cannot >inquire about the opponents' auction. > >Is there any other sport where a player may take an action which is >allowed to him under the rules of the game, in the time and manner >allowed to him under the rules of the game, and still risk an adverse >ruling? I have seen more than one novice give up bridge in frustration >at being faced with this particular dilemma. No, and it does not happen in bridge. Giving UI is not an offence. The adverse ruling is because of using UI, which is different. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 11 07:11:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA04957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 06:07:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA04926 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 06:07:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12TVgT-000NRi-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 20:06:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 19:14:41 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claim or Rovoke? References: <00a501bf643f$477db080$cd307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> In-Reply-To: <00a501bf643f$477db080$cd307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >In a top class international IMP event, declarer is in 4H. Eight tricks >have been played, declarer has lost two tricks and everyone knows the end >position. Declarer calls for a Club from Dummy. A defender holding a Club >and two master trumps, attempts to speed things up by showing the two master >trumps to his opponent thereby claiming two tricks and conceding three for >4H minus one. > >Declarer however calls the TD insisting that the defender has revoked on >this ninth trick and has led a trump to the tenth trick thereby establishing >the revoke for 4H plus one! > >How do you rule? Give declarer a PP for wasting everyone's time. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I have not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles upt to nine weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 11 07:34:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA04964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 06:07:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA04942 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 06:07:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12TVgY-000JQy-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 20:07:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 20:03:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A curiosity References: <003101bf7688$8668ace0$089e01d5@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <003101bf7688$8668ace0$089e01d5@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U 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? I leave that to others, because I cannot think how. There was a story of a Londoner playing a grand slam that was not a very good contract. Anyway, he led a winner from dummy, RHO ruffed, he over-ruffed and went three off. Of course, he should have discarded. He was four tricks shy of his contract, but if he discards a loser, then he is one trick better off. RHO has revoked, and wins the revoke trick, so that is two more tricks. Furthermore, RHO would now be endplayed. Never could play Bridge, these Londoners. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 11 07:39:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 03:26:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA04191 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 03:26:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12TTAh-0005k8-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 17:25:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 16:04:38 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda References: <3.0.6.32.20000109091424.008c48f0@mail.ultra.net.au> <3879E62D.3962FBF@meteo.fr> <02fd01bf5bd0$6adc2240$16991e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <02fd01bf5bd0$6adc2240$16991e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >From: Jean Pierre Rocafort of France: >>As I >>understand it, varying a score means averaging different adjusted >scores >>when you can't decide which only one to assign; this is already a >>practice used in some places by Subaltern Directors! (in the French >Law >>Book, "vary" has been translated by "modifier." >Excellent! As is so often the case, the French express the intent of >the law more clearly than the English text from which they are >translating. A sensible reading of L12C3 is that it supplements and >is subordinate to 12C2, not that it is an alternative to L12C2. That >is, when applying L12C2 the score assignments can be modified >somewhat per L12C3 if that seems more equitable. > >The usual cases for this would be (1) when it cannot be agreed by an >AC which of two or more favorable or unfavorable potential results >has a greater probability; or (2) when the probabilities >individually do not meet the thresholds established by L12C2, but do >so when summed; or (3) when multiple results with different >probabilities meet the threshold. > >Example (1): Two potential favorable results for the NOS are +620 >and +170, but the AC cannot agree on which is more likely. Assign an >average of the scores (matchpoints, IMPs) that would have been >produced by each result, which is more equitable than picking one. This seems to be a consequence of the strange ACBL ruling that most favourable does not mean most favourable. Outside the ACBL, the wording of the Law book is followed: there is no requirement to decide which is more likely [try reading L12C2] so the more favourable to the NOs is chosen. that is what the Law says unambiguously, and I can think of no reason why the ACBL does not follow it. It just seems another attempt by the ACBL to penalise the NOs, which policy I have never understood. [s] >I believe if L12C3 were clearly restricted to this sort of >modification of L12C2, it would be more readily accepted in >ACBL-land. Nothing in the language of L12C3 grants the sort of >license to penalize in any fashion desired by an AC, as was the case >(for instance) in Lille. If that is how it is to be interpreted, the >ACBL was wise in rejecting it. I have never understood this argument. Unlike L12C2, where the language is clear [and still the ACBL does not follow it] the language of L12C3 is very vague, so it would be a simple matter for the ACBL to enable it and control it by regulation. So if they do not like Lille- type adjustments [which were often illegal in England, for example] they do not need to allow them, while still enabling L12C3. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I ahve not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles upt to nine weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 11 07:49:46 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 03:26:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA04179 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 03:26:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12TTAb-0006mp-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 17:25:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 16:02:06 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda References: <000f01bf6d38$2b3a4b20$0b00000a@mike> In-Reply-To: <000f01bf6d38$2b3a4b20$0b00000a@mike> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mike Dodson wrote: >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) Now hold it right there, young Mike. Think of what the aim is, the effect, and then tell me whether you do not want the Os to get a better result. Let us look at an example. Suppose you are North, your partner opens 1NT, and you have five spades, and enough points to think vaguely about slam. Before you can do anything, RHO bids 2D and you are told this shows spades and another suit. You double, there is a confused auction, the oppos reach a diamond contract, neither you nor your partner is able to double, and you bid 3NT, down one. You then discover that you have been misinformed, and that 2D actually shows hearts and another suit. Naturally, you ask for a ruling, and there has been MI, and it seems you have been damaged since twelve tricks are cold in spades. Should the assigned score be 4S+2 or 6S=? Let's think about what is *fair*. Suppose that you would have reached 6S if correctly informed three times out of four. Then you would get 6S=, and that is clearly fair. You were deprived of your chance to show your expertise, and you might easily have got there. Suppose you might have reached 6S one time in two. Now, the ruling will give you 6S=, but it is no longer so obviously fair. Ok, you have had your chance to show your expertise lost, but still, it does seem a little bit of a windfall. Now consider the case where you would reach 6S one time in three. What is fair? Well, you might have reached there. 4S+2 certainly does not seem fair - but do you really feel you have deserved 6S=? The ACBL have tried to allow for this by making most favourable = most likely in contravention of the law: they would give you 4S+2, which certainly is unfair. The rest of the world would give you 6S=, which seems dubious. L12C3 will give you something like 50% 6S=, 50% 4S+2. Does this not seem fair? >If 12c3 is used will the NOS and OS each receive the same result? Usually. However, the same rules as in L12C2 apply. If a player uses irrational, wild or gambling action, then he will keep his bad score, and L12C3 will only be applied to his opponents. Occasionally there could be a case where an AC weights a score for one side, while giving the other side a single score, using the distinction in L12C2 between the NOs and the Os. >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. Practice as well as education. If the ACBL brought it in then they should do so by degrees, initially with clear guidelines, only in specific ruling types and only in top events. Then, as people got more used to it, it could grow. Actually, perhaps top events is wrong. I think the best place to initiate it is in Flt B and Flt C events where people would probably find "fair" rulings acceptable. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I ahve not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles upt to nine weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 11 08:13:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA04963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 06:07:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA04937 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 06:07:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12TVgX-000NRh-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 20:06:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 19:42:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: law 25 again References: <3893EE9A.C174D0CB@xtra.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <3893EE9A.C174D0CB@xtra.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bruce Small wrote: >Hi All >Sorry to bring this up again and I've no doubt this variation has been >discussed somewhere but couldn't put my finger on it. > Bd 11 Nil S >hands irrelevant >Bidding N E S W > p 1C(1) (1) precision >16+ any > p 1D(2)p 1H(3) (2) negative 0-7 any >(3) 19+ any > p 2H(4)p 3H (4) 5-7 5+ hearts > p 3S p 4C(5) (5) ace asking > p 4H(6)p 4S (7) (6) one (7) king >asking > p p p* *at the >point that S had passed out E said ops I've > made >an inadvertant bid Director please. Director > ruled >that you can't make an inadvertant pass bid > >stands. East argued that he was thinking ahead to pass > 5H and >that he confused his no king reply with pass. > He was I know we have said it so often, but if you want sensible answers to questions you need to using a posting method that does not result in the above. Please, everyone, check that your posts do not use tabs, HTML or proportional fonts. Thanks to Martin for reformatting it so I can read it. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I have not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles upt to nine weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 11 08:32:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA04965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 06:07:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA04939 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 06:07:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12TVgX-000NRi-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 20:06:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 19:50:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Beveren References: <00d301bf740c$394c6240$70e7f1c3@default> In-Reply-To: <00d301bf740c$394c6240$70e7f1c3@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jac Fuchs wrote: >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). No adjustment. While the comment is AI for declarer, it is extraneous, and not a regular part of the game. Anyway, what Law would we adjust under? I think the same applies to the original case. Of course, it would be polite to translate, and few people would object, but I am sure it is not a right for declarer to be assisted to hear extraneous comments that she has missed due to language, hearing or any other reasons. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I have not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles upt to nine weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 11 08:50:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA05625 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 08:50:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA05620 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 08:50:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2iveia6.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.70]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA30351 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 17:50:06 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000310174732.012788b8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 17:47:32 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? In-Reply-To: References: <008201bf8a13$21877380$cfd93ad0@hdavis> <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B57D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <008201bf8a13$21877380$cfd93ad0@hdavis> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:31 PM 3/10/2000 +0000, David S wrote: >>Is there any other sport where a player may take an action which is >>allowed to him under the rules of the game, in the time and manner >>allowed to him under the rules of the game, and still risk an adverse >>ruling? I have seen more than one novice give up bridge in frustration >>at being faced with this particular dilemma. > > No, and it does not happen in bridge. > > Giving UI is not an offence. > > The adverse ruling is because of using UI, which is different. A misstatement of UI law. Of course an adverse ruling _may_ be given for this offense, but in general the adverse ruling is given because a player has "chosen from among logical alternatives ..." . There is no legal presumption that such a player "used" UI, and in many cases it will be fairly clear that he did not. If a player chooses a suggested option which would, in your judgement, have been chosen anyway by 2/3 of his peers without the UI, then L16 makes such a call illegal, even though it seems likely that he would have made the same call without the UI. Although I do agree with your first statement. A player will not, in general, risk an adverse ruling by behaving legally. The problem Hirsch and I are more specifically concerned with is that the Laws impose a severe penalty (in the form of restriction of legal actions) even in situations where nothing improper has taken place. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 11 08:57:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA05657 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 08:57:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA05652 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 08:57:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2iveia6.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.70]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA30382 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 17:57:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000310175504.012788b8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 17:55:04 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Rant / answers please! In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:19 AM 3/10/2000 +0100, James wrote: >Dealer W, N/S vul: > > 9 x x > A x > A 10 x x > A K x x > K Q J 10 x x x x > J 10 x Q x x > Q x x x x > 10 x Q J x x x > A x > K x x x x > K J x x > x x > > W N E S > 2H(1) 3D(2) p 3NT > all pass > >(1) alerted, N asked and was told "weak two in hearts" >(2) alerted, Hackett convention, a strong take-out > >W led spades, won the lead when declarer took the diamond finesse and cashed >more spades for two down. N/S queried the opening bid. East admitted that they >had for years used 2H as a weak two in either major until a director recently >informed them this was illegal, since when they switched to playing standard >weak twos. She said her partner had probably opened 2H out of habit. > >N/S asked me how the ruling would have gone if they had appealed. What do you >think? Do you judge West's action to be: > >1. a psych (no score adjustment)? >2. an illegal convention (60%/30% assigned adjusted score)? >3. a misbid (no adjustment)? >4. Concealed partnership understanding, (60%/30% assigned adjusted score, and >grease the trapdoor on the gallows (Dany)) 3. A misbid. Do I believe that West made a deliberate misstatement of his hand? I do not. I believe that the evidence points clearly to the correctness of East's analysis. >Would you rule differently without East's admission of the partnership's past >misdemeanours? I would seek some clarification from EW about the reason for the strange 2H bid. Presumably I would get something of the same answer in the end. The illegality of EW's former methods is irrelevant, of course. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 11 09:11:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA04966 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 06:07:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA04954 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 06:07:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12TVgY-000NRg-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 20:06:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 19:57:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Partner alerts your inadvertent call - Law 25 again References: <001901bf74ff$381bed20$7e6199d0@john> In-Reply-To: <001901bf74ff$381bed20$7e6199d0@john> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director wrote: >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. Under L25A you are allowed to correct an inadvertent call subject to the usual conditions. Nothing says how you realise it is inadvertent. So I allow a change. ----------- Patrick wrote: > >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" Interesting. This paragraph agrees with my answer above, but then it goes on, and tells the TD to rule *against* the Laws in a specific situation. If a player has bid 2H holding a heart suit and playing transfers then it is reasonable to advise a TD to be suitably sceptical before allowing a L25A change: but it is not a reasonable regulation. If someone has made such an inadvertent call, then L25A gives him a *right* to change it, and the NZCBA should not be removing that right by regulation. Such a regulation is in contravention of L80F. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I have not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles upt to nine weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 11 09:45:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA05824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 09:45:23 +1000 (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 JAA05814 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 09:45:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12TZ5X-000BY6-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 23:45:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 23:42:11 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B References: <00d501bf6cf8$df207a00$8e84d9ce@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: <00d501bf6cf8$df207a00$8e84d9ce@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: >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. Hmmm. Why? What you are inferring is that 9 out of 11 wanted a change and thus there should have been a change. Not so. 9 out of 11 think L25B is seriously flawed. Good. However, that does not mean that we should make a change now. Look, whether you like it or not, the current method of disseminating WBFLC decisions is cumbersome and inefficient. There is only one method they employ that works at all well: they approve a lawbook every so often. When they added a footnote to L12C2 how many jurisdictions actually told their Directors about it? Ok, so it is better now, because most countries have annoying people who say "BLML says that ..." but it does not alter the fact that *if* they make a Law change now the average TD will not hear about it. Does your local club Director read BLML? my website? the EBL website? Anna's website? I think the most important matter on the WBFLC agenda is how to tell the world their decisions. But I am not on the WBFLC and they are concentrating on what they think is right. Continual changes are a very dangerous phenomenon: even if they are right that does not mean they should be implemented because of the totally random nature of implementation. So while it may be that L25B is a bad law that does *not* automatically mean it should be changed at this time. That is a totally separate question with other ramifications. 9 out of 11 think it is bad: how many of those think that if they change it now such changes will be made known to *all* the Directors in the world? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I have not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles upt to nine weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 11 09:45:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA05823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 09:45:22 +1000 (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 JAA05813 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 09:45:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12TZ5X-000BY5-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 23:45:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 23:41:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B References: <000401bf69a4$f8baadc0$2b7693c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Fri, 28 Jan 2000 15:27:57 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" > wrote: > >>"It was agreed to look in any major review of >>the laws at a possibility of merging the >>procedures under Laws 26A and 26B. I really wonder why this is thought to be desirable. Yes, it needs rewording to take account of the possibilities of shown suits, half- shown suits and so on, but I think the current distinction a good one. >Did the committee discuss the general problem with the new L16C2 >in relation to automatic penalty laws like this? > >With the new L16C2, there is no need for a L26 at all. Indeed? Well, why not? You mean that the TD can do it all via UI, which would add a large and in my view intolerable burden on club directors. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I have not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles upt to nine weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 11 10:09:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA05889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 10:09:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA05884 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 10:09:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.229] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12TZSv-00027u-00; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 00:09:10 +0000 Message-ID: <00ba01bf8aee$5368f460$e55908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <003e01bf6ce3$676f8100$bab4f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 21:06:40 -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: Friday, March 10, 2000 4:04 PM Subject: Re: 12C3 and the CTD in Bermuda > ------------ > > ------------ > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >+=+ My cynical mind, perhaps, > > -- > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > > I am going through old BLML threads that I have not yet read. So some > of these replies are to articles upto to nine weeks old. > +=+Well, don't spend too long selling stale bread. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 11 10:20:14 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA04962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 06:07:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA04929 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 06:07:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12TVgW-000NRn-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 20:06:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 19:42:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: law 25 again References: <3893EE9A.C174D0CB@xtra.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <3893EE9A.C174D0CB@xtra.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bruce Small wrote: >Hi All >Sorry to bring this up again and I've no doubt this variation has been >discussed somewhere but couldn't put my finger on it. > Bd 11 Nil S >hands irrelevant >Bidding N E S W > p 1C(1) (1) precision 16+ any > p 1D(2) p 1H(3) (2) negative 0-7 any > p 2H(4) p 3H (3) 19+ any > p 3S p 4C(5) (4) 5-7 5+ hearts > p 4H(6) p 4S(7) (5) ace asking > p p p* (6) one (7) king asking > >*at the point that S had passed out E said ops I've made >an inadvertant bid Director please. Director ruled >that you can't make an inadvertant pass bid >stands. Well, whatever the outcome, this shows that the TD did not really understand the position. Any call could be inadvertent. East argued that he was thinking ahead to pass 5H and >that he confused his no king reply with pass. That certainly does not sound inadvertent. To be an inadvertent call, East must have been intending to bid something but passed instead. It seems that at the moment of bidding he had got confused and intended to pass. He was >truly horrified to see the pass (written bidding) All players agree >that it was obvious that there had been no delay in thought >The final pass had been made and E played in a 4/1 spade contract only >going three light for bottom board. >1) E argued that it was an inadvertant pass TD argued it was a stupid >mistake. Who is right? I think that the TD was right. I think he intended to pass at the moment of the call. >2) He further argued that under 25B2b2 he should have been allowed to >substitute a call in which case he would have bid 5H which makes six for >average score then reverts to average- so a 40% board. Not once LHO has passed. L25B does not apply. >3) If this is correct then what score do the NO side get after a >successful appeal by E. East has no reason to suppose his appeal will succeed. =--==--==--==--= Anne Jones wrote: >The bid was not inadvertent, but he may request permission to make a > delayed and deliberate change of call under Law 25B and If the change of >call was not accepted by LHO, at penalty of the best result of 40% on the > board. His opponents would achieve the actual table result -480(680). > >However this is not what happened, LHO was not given the option, so >there is no going back.What we now have is an error by the TD and this > is corrected by application of Law 82C. 60% to each side. No. L25B does not apply, since LHO had passed. Actually, if it had, L82C requires assigned adjusted scores, not artificial. =--==--==--==--= Martin Sinot wrote: >Bruce Small wrote: >>1) E argued that it was an inadvertant pass TD argued it was a stupid >>mistake. Who is right? >It is widely agreed that L25A refers to purely mechanical errors, i.e. >the hand (or the mouth) does something other than the mind. Often caused >by sticky bidding cards, or the hand placed next to the intended bid. Now >to begin with, the pass cards are in a different section of the bidding >box than the bids, so it looks not inadvertent to begin with. This was the original advice, but time and experience have suggested otherwise: people do produce the strangest calls when their brains have temporarily become disengaged. In this case, however, it was written bidding, so bidding boxes are irrelevant. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I have not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles upt to nine weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 11 10:30:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA06003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 10:30:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA05998 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 10:29:56 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id q.30.24b2bb1 (4215); Fri, 10 Mar 2000 19:29:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <30.24b2bb1.25faed50@aol.com> Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 19:29:04 EST Subject: Re: Claim or Rovoke 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 3/10/00 4:17:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: > Give declarer a PP for wasting everyone's time. > Dear Mr. Stevenson, You are much too kind. Not only would I consider a PP for the declarer, I would invite him/her to a Conduct and Ethics Committee to explain how they play bridge. This kind of crap doesn't fly in my tournaments. Sorry for the semi=profanity. I'm open to suggestions for better wording. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 11 10:59:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA06120 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 10:59:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt11-he.global.net.uk.noc.gxn.net (cobalt11-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.171]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA06115 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 10:59:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from p6es05a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.117.111] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt11-he.global.net.uk.noc.gxn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12TBFE-0001kb-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 22:17:25 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Claim or Rovoke Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 00:58:49 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf8af4$f630a660$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: Schoderb@aol.com To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Saturday, March 11, 2000 12:40 AM Subject: Re: Claim or Rovoke >In a message dated 3/10/00 4:17:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, >bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: > >> Give declarer a PP for wasting everyone's time. >> >Dear Mr. Stevenson, You are much too kind. Not only would I consider a PP >for the declarer, I would invite him/her to a Conduct and Ethics Committee >to explain how they play bridge. This kind of crap doesn't fly in my >tournaments. >Sorry for the semi=profanity. I'm open to suggestions for better wording. Try This attitude is allowed no credance in the tournaments I direct. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 11 11:01:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA06142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 11:01:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA06137 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 11:01:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12TaHJ-000KWI-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 01:01:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 00:59:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B57D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <008201bf8a13$21877380$cfd93ad0@hdavis> <004301bf8a1e$af5ca6c0$0d5608c3@dodona> <000d01bf8a2c$384e1a60$f28101d5@davidburn> <0SRmwTAqxOy4EwP4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <0SRmwTAqxOy4EwP4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <0SRmwTAqxOy4EwP4@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes snip > > How about Announcements? I quite like these despite the problems, the >main one seems to be people with little idea when to announce. I find >it sad that the ACBL club I play in does not seem to use Announcements >at all. > 1) The TD is incompetent, about par for the ACBL - he hasn't read the FLB in 20 years, and is totally unaware of the convention charts. 2) We always sit the same direction. It's great fun being allowed to say "transfer" or "12-14", and like you I think there's a great deal to be said for the method. -- 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 Mar 11 11:04:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA06161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 11:04:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA06156 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 11:04:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12TaJu-000AJn-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 01:03:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 01:02:38 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B57D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <008201bf8a13$21877380$cfd93ad0@hdavis> <004301bf8a1e$af5ca6c0$0d5608c3@dodona> <000d01bf8a2c$384e1a60$f28101d5@davidburn> <8shics4t66lvkgtscp4j9f817a2ti4rdd2@4ax.com> In-Reply-To: <8shics4t66lvkgtscp4j9f817a2ti4rdd2@4ax.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <8shics4t66lvkgtscp4j9f817a2ti4rdd2@4ax.com>, Pam Hadfield writes >> > >Could not many of the world's better players who play this find out >before play starts whether their ops are playing Swiss or Splinters? Do you want me to explain that we play splinters direct and FMS via a forcing relay, that we invert S and NT over all "known" 5-card H suits, and that ..... . All these things will affect your decision. There are limits to how much I can tell you. But then you and I play acol where we can pass pretty much when we like 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 Mar 11 11:27:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA06256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 11:27:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA06251 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 11:26:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Tag1-0007i5-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 01:26:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 01:25:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: A curiosity References: <003101bf7688$8668ace0$089e01d5@davidburn> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >David Burn wrote: > >>A trivial question for you all: is it still possible to make a grand >>slam missing the ace of trumps, assuming only that the defenders do >>not revoke? We have had the failure to contribute a card to a trick, and then having to put one in later without changing ownership. I've come up with another possible solution. Any offers? > > Never could play Bridge, these Londoners. > Ahem 1st John Probst and Caroline Butt 59% 0.90points 2nd= David Stevenson and Didi Kunz 55% 0.54points -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 11 11:28:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA06067 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 10:47:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA06062 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 10:47:10 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA11064 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 01:47:01 +0100 Received: from ip153.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.153), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda11062; Sat Mar 11 01:46:51 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 01:46:51 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <000401bf69a4$f8baadc0$2b7693c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id KAA06063 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 23:41:42 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >>With the new L16C2, there is no need for a L26 at all. > > Indeed? Well, why not? You mean that the TD can do it all via UI, >which would add a large and in my view intolerable burden on club >directors. No, I mean there is no logical need. In particular, there is no (logical or practical) need for a complicated and detailed L26. A simple L26 that will handle 95% of those cases adequately in a quick and simple way, combined with L16C2 to allow adjustment in the 5% of those cases where the simple way does not provide sufficient redress for the NOS. During your catching-up, you may encounter a thread called "Automatic penalties and UI", in which I wrote a message that extensively covers my view of the general UI versus automatic penalty situation (posted on Mon, 31 Jan 2000 00:43:06 +0100). Nobody replied to that message, so I assume everybody agrees :-) -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 11 12:24:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA06239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 11:20:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA06234 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 11:20:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12TaZV-000BEL-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 01:20:02 +0000 Message-ID: <7E+P9fBC8Zy4Ewe5@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 01:18:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Having none? References: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101ADDF@xion.spase.nl> <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690103107B@xion.spase.nl> In-Reply-To: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690103107B@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690103107B@xion.spase.nl>, Martin Sinot writes > >Compare this with the following case, which occurred some years ago on >a TD course: > > S: - > H: 42 > D: 2 > C: Q6 >S: - S: - >H: QJT98 H: K3 >D: - D: 64 >C: - C: 2 > S: - > H: - > D: Q98 > C: A7 > >South is declarer in a NT contract. East has H3 as a major penalty card, >and West is on lead. South forbids hearts. West plays a heart anyway; >East overtakes and returns a heart, and West takes the remaining >tricks. Result stands. Declarer's error :)) -- 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 Mar 11 13:36:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA06300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 11:36:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA06295 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 11:35:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Taoj-00089t-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 01:35:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 01:33:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Claim or Rovoke References: <30.24b2bb1.25faed50@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <30.24b2bb1.25faed50@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <30.24b2bb1.25faed50@aol.com>, Schoderb@aol.com writes >In a message dated 3/10/00 4:17:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, >bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: > >> Give declarer a PP for wasting everyone's time. >> >Dear Mr. Stevenson, You are much too kind. Not only would I consider a PP >for the declarer, I would invite him/her to a Conduct and Ethics Committee >to explain how they play bridge. This kind of crap doesn't fly in my >tournaments. >Sorry for the semi=profanity. I'm open to suggestions for better wording. I will never forget the first time I played in a tournament where Kojak was TD. There was a ruckus at a table at the other end of the room. Kojak, who might agree he is not the most mobile person in the world, had reached a good 4m/sec (a steady trot) by the time he reached the table and greeted the players with a withering and loud "I will not have this sort of behavioUr in games that I run". In the deafening silence which followed he made his ruling and the next four days was characterised by being one of my most pleasant bridge experiences. ok Bill, so sue me. John > >Kojak -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 12 05:31:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA09520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 05:31:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA09505 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 05:31:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.222] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12TrbK-000A1K-00; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 19:31:02 +0000 Message-ID: <002401bf8b90$a44ca0a0$de5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , References: <30.24b2bb1.25faed50@aol.com> Subject: Re: Claim or Rovoke Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 19:31:04 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2000 1:33 AM Subject: Re: Claim or Rovoke > In article <30.24b2bb1.25faed50@aol.com>, Schoderb@aol.com writes > >In a message dated 3/10/00 4:17:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, > >bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: > ----------- \x/ --------------- > > I will never forget the first time I played in a tournament where Kojak > was TD. There was a ruckus at a table at the other end of the room. > Kojak, who might agree he is not the most mobile person in the world, > +=+ It should not pass unremarked that the TD who makes stately progress to a table that has called gives himself time to compose himself, think, prepare to give a carefully considered ruling, and finish the cream bun in his mouth. The occasional TD, on the other hand, has developed his andante to the point where he rarely needs to do anything about these things since the eager fool will get there before the contemplative angel. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 12 05:31:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA09521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 05:31:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA09509 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 05:31:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.222] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12TrbJ-000A1K-00; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 19:31:01 +0000 Message-ID: <002301bf8b90$a36acc20$de5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , References: <000401bf69a4$f8baadc0$2b7693c3@pacific> Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 19:28:30 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2000 12:46 AM Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B ____________ \x/ ----------------------- > Nobody replied to that message, so I assume everybody agrees :-) > -- > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . > http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). > +=+ I could offer an alternative reason why I might not have commented. There are some threads where at the beginning I think : 'just a matter of practical tournament directing' and I more or less switch off, deleting all and only glancing occasionally to see if a contribution from one of a small number of blml subscribers is saying something that draws me back into the thread. Actually, Jesper, you are one of that small number. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 12 05:31:22 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA09519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 05:31:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA09504 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 05:31:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.222] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12TrbH-000A1K-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 19:30:59 +0000 Message-ID: <002201bf8b90$a23cac60$de5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <00d501bf6cf8$df207a00$8e84d9ce@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 19:26:48 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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, March 10, 2000 11:42 PM Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B > Craig Senior wrote: > >Let me see if I understand. > > DWS: > Hmmm. Why? > > > Look, whether you like it or not, the current method of disseminating > WBFLC decisions is cumbersome and inefficient. There is only one method > they employ that works at all well: they approve a lawbook every so > often. > > When they added a footnote to L12C2 how many jurisdictions actually > told their Directors about it? > > > I think the most important matter on the WBFLC agenda is how to tell > the world their decisions. But I am not on the WBFLC and they are > concentrating on what they think is right. Continual changes are a very > dangerous phenomenon: even if they are right that does not mean they > should be implemented because of the totally random nature of > implementation. > > So while it may be that L25B is a bad law that does *not* > automatically mean it should be changed at this time. That is a totally > separate question with other ramifications. > > 9 out of 11 think it is bad: how many of those think that if they > change it now such changes will be made known to *all* the Directors in > the world? > +=+ The argument David puts forward is the only one I have heard in favour of delay that strikes me as sane. This was *not* what members of the committee said. There have been two 'reasons' given in the committee - (a) that it is more efficient to make all the changes in the law book at one time, as a matter of co-ordination between various laws; (b) that we should stick to past practice because it is a proven way of doing the job. I would feel more sympathy for these arguments if I thought that experience supported them. I do not. Remaining philosophical about the decision not to seek to make progress with reviews of any of the laws until 2003, for implementation 2005, I can nevertheless reflect that apart from myself the two principal engines for change are likely to be ton and Kojak. Like me with 25B and with the definition of 'convention', each of these certainly has a desire to make changes. In the case of ton I think it is a kind of wishful anticipation on his part that has led to the odd anomalous curiosity in his application of law in his sometime role of Director. I do think that if we were prepared to make just a little piecemeal progress each of the three of us could have a small slice of his cake, but this it seems is not to be. As things are it does not seem we are even able to start discussion of a few things in order to explore how we might eventually meet perceived needs. As for communication: it is not quite as David says. We do get information to the NCBOs. It is their responsibility to pass it to their Directors. With past decisions the method adopted in not issuing the information at NCBO level and below has been not to incorporate it in the local law book or any published written matter.. No matter what we do we will not get through to local Directors if the NCBO obstructs passage of the information; we need co-operation. There is more experience in the pipeline - we have just sent the CoP to NCBOs, also the recent decisions of the WBFLC. I wonder how readily this information will be published to Directors world-wide? Will lethargy and failure to appreciate the nature of the news leave it in some pigeonholes half way down the pyramid of the world structure of bridge? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ the From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 12 05:49:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA09586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 05:49:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA09574 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 05:48:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.241] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12TrsM-000Akl-00; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 19:48:39 +0000 Message-ID: <003c01bf8b93$19b970a0$de5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , References: <003101bf7688$8668ace0$089e01d5@davidburn> Subject: Re: A curiosity Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 19:39:50 -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, March 11, 2000 1:25 AM Subject: Re: A curiosity > Ahem 1st John Probst and Caroline Butt 59% 0.90points > 2nd= David Stevenson and Didi Kunz 55% 0.54points > +=+ Yeah - which is all Butt a good result. +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 12 06:12:02 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA09636 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 05:57:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from ms1.freezone.co.uk (IDENT:root@ms1.purplenet.co.uk [212.1.130.118]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA09630 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 05:57:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (ppp-1-244.cvx4.telinco.net [212.1.148.244]) by ms1.freezone.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA10996; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 19:55:28 GMT Message-ID: <005201bf8b93$68858f20$f49401d4@default> From: "magda thain" To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 19:51:33 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear, oh dear, another long message quoting yards of what has gone before ::-) mt To: BLML Date: 11 March 2000 04:41 Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? > >-----Original Message----- >From: Adam Beneschan >To: Bridge Laws >Cc: adam@irvine.com >Date: Friday, March 10, 2000 4:39 PM >Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? > > >> >>David Burn wrote: >> >>> >>> Still trying to treat Adam's post in serious vein, this rule would >>> more or less completely miss the point. The notion is that you do not >>> know when you might really need to ask a question, but that you must >>> never be afraid to ask whevever you can (i.e. whenever a call is >>> alerted). That way, partner can never derive any kind of UI from your >>> questions, whereas he could derive UI from your questions if they were >>> prescribed. As long as you ask about every alert, from the forcing >>> pass upwards, you cannot transmit UI. (Incidentally, this approach >>> would more or less solve the present ludicrous debate revolving around >>> L20, but this is a mere by-product.) >> >>My point was to try to find a compromise between the UI problems and >>the problems of slowing down the game. >> >>> > Another refinement: If an alert must be followed by a question and >>> > explanation, well, there's no need for the question any more. The >>> > player can simply alert and explain the alert. >>> >>> It is at this point that even I can see that Adam is being frivolous. >>> Of course, a player does not explain his own alert. Neither, at the >>> not inconsiderable risk of sounding like DWS, did I ever suggest that >>> he should. >> >>Now I think I've just been misunderstood. I didn't suggest that a >>player explain his own alertable call. I meant that the player who >>would normally say "Alert" would, instead, just drop the word and >>explain partner's bid without having to be asked. (It looks like Ton >>suggested approximately the same thing.) To put it another way: a >>player *does* explain his own alert, if you take this to mean that the >>player who does the alerting is the same one who explains the call. >>Which is how I meant it. >> >>The reason I suggested it was that it speeds the game up a tiny bit if >>the players don't have to say "Alert" or "Please explain the >>alert"---two phrases that would become redundant if requesting an >>explanation becomes compulsory. >> >Perish the thought that there was a time before alerts. There was a time >when alerts above the level of 3NT were illegal, there was a time when a >pair could ask their opps not to alert. >While the UI obtained by a player because of his partner's interest in the >auction may be a problem, the UI information obtained from the alert >itself is significant. >The AI received by a prospective declarer from a question asked is also >significant. Whether he uses this information, or whether the questions >were asked for the reason he thought, is a decision he makes at his >own peril. >DWS said >"Plus, of course, poorer players have in some cases, learnt to ask >but they haven't learnt to fill in CCs and we *must* consider their >problems as well as those of the better players." >> >Of course all these better players never get their system wrong. >Of course they are not reminded by an alert or an explanation. >Of course all the poorer players are able to detect that UI has been used, >and know exactly what to do about it. >I know of instances where an alert is accompanied by an explanation, stopped >in it's tracks by an opponents "I didn't ask". Well done I say. >I know of instances where an alert is accompanied by an explanation and >this starts a discussion between the bidding partnership as to how they >actually play this. Being careful to be ethical of course. >There's too much overt UI in Bridge anyway. How much of it is used is >another matter, but if it's not there it cannot be used. >No. The alerting procedure definitely helps the better players more than it >does the poorer players. The ones that DWS thinks have not learned to write >yet. Most of them can read. They just bid what they see regardless of the >opponents bidding. How often have you used Ghestem to show 5/5 majors, >explain it well. and find your poorer opp bid Spades naturally and end up >with >either a good or a bad board. >If it's good, they are thrilled. If it's bad, well it was against a good >player so >how should they expect any better. >The poorer players may well improve in time. The better players do not need >the alerting procedures to get good results against poorer players. >Bidding boxes have helped considerably with the reduction of UI.Let us >strive >to achieve a silent auction. >Back to the CC v Alerting argument. >Anne > > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 12 07:40:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA09937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 07:40:45 +1000 (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 HAA09932 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 07:40:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-58-212-55.s309.tnt1.lnhdc.md.dialup.rcn.com (HELO hdavis) (208.58.212.55) by smtp.mail.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Mar 2000 13:40:26 -0800 X-Apparently-From: Message-ID: <00c001bf8ba2$6b510d60$37d43ad0@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <008201bf8a13$21877380$cfd93ad0@hdavis><67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B57D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl><008201bf8a13$21877380$cfd93ad0@hdavis> <3.0.1.32.20000310174732.012788b8@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 16:40:22 -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: "Michael S. Dennis" To: Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 5:47 PM Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? > At 12:31 PM 3/10/2000 +0000, David S wrote: > >>Is there any other sport where a player may take an action which is > >>allowed to him under the rules of the game, in the time and manner > >>allowed to him under the rules of the game, and still risk an adverse > >>ruling? I have seen more than one novice give up bridge in frustration > >>at being faced with this particular dilemma. > > > > No, and it does not happen in bridge. > > > > Giving UI is not an offence. > > This is correct, and I'm sure that it is a great comfort to the player, as I adjust the score in favor of his opponents, that he has not committed an infraction. > > The adverse ruling is because of using UI, which is different. > As Mike explains below, the L16 ruling is not necessarily for using UI. If I believe that a player is actually using UI, the adjustment will be accompanied by a strong warning, procedural penalty, or a referral to the recorder for Conduct and Ethics action, depending on the exact circumstances of the offense. > A misstatement of UI law. Of course an adverse ruling _may_ be given for > this offense, but in general the adverse ruling is given because a player > has "chosen from among logical alternatives ..." . There is no legal > presumption that such a player "used" UI, and in many cases it will be > fairly clear that he did not. If a player chooses a suggested option which > would, in your judgement, have been chosen anyway by 2/3 of his peers > without the UI, then L16 makes such a call illegal, even though it seems > likely that he would have made the same call without the UI. > > Although I do agree with your first statement. A player will not, in > general, risk an adverse ruling by behaving legally. The problem Hirsch and > I are more specifically concerned with is that the Laws impose a severe > penalty (in the form of restriction of legal actions) even in situations > where nothing improper has taken place. > Not only has nothing improper taken place, but the player has exercised a right explicitly permitted to him by Law. L20 seems to say that players have a right to inquire about the auction at their turn to call. In practice, exercising this right can put a player's side in jeopardy. How is this for a principle that might apply? -A player who performs an action permitted by law, in the time and manner allowed by law, shall not be subject to restriction or penalty arising from that action.- This seems like a reasonable principle to me. Yet, as we have seen, it does not apply in certain areas of bridge law. > Mike Dennis Hirsch __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 12 07:51:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA09977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 07:51:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA09972 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 07:51:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id QAA15145 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 16:51:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA10535 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 16:51:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 16:51:22 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200003112151.QAA10535@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > As Hirsch says, it is intolerable that players should be forced by > regulation to break the Laws. We have fewer problems with this in North America, I think, because a question is _expected_. Of course our problem is that _not_ asking conveys UI. > The simple fact of the matter is that all > alerts should be, by regulation, followed as a matter of compulsion by > a question and an explanation. If you are serious about this, wouldn't it be better to replace all alerts with announcements? Perhaps a worthwhile compromise is to use announcements only on the first round of bidding. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 12 07:55:08 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA10003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 07:55:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from ruthenium ([194.73.73.138]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA09996 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 07:54:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.132.11] (helo=davidburn) by ruthenium with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12Ttsj-0003j4-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 21:57:09 +0000 Message-ID: <001601bf8ba4$ade92b60$0b8401d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200003101628.IAA22604@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 21:56:38 -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 Adam wrote: > No, this time I was being serious. I shouldn't have said > "handful"---I meant something like one or two, or occasionally three. > So maybe I have small hands. > > (Actually, I don't. I can reach an octave plus three notes > comfortably...) I can reach seven octaves and a half. You must have small arms. But I was breaking a promise I made earlier not to be frivolous on this list again, and I shall try to stick to it. > MPP is a variant of Precision, but it has a lot more toys than Wei's > original system---more asking bids, a very different system over a 1NT > opening, etc. So MPP players would alert a lot more things than > "standard" players. I could be wrong---I've only played this system a > couple times. Thank you. I wonder whether anyone has actually estimated the percentage of calls that are alerted? It might be worth trying to quantify the extent to which the "explain everything" approach actually would slow the game down. Even practitioners of the most highly artificial methods will, in my estimation, do natural things more than half the time, and I'd guess that around 85-90% of all calls made at the bridge table do not require an alert. > My point was to try to find a compromise between the UI problems and > the problems of slowing down the game. Quite so, and a valid point it is - but I wonder whether the problem of slowing down the game is as serious as people believe it might be? If, as I have suggested above, only 10-15% of calls actually get alerted, I surmise that no nore than 50% of those - 5-7.5% of all calls, for the benefit of any laymen who may have wandered in - would require an explanation lasting more than a couple of seconds. Moreover, since in the present scheme of things most of those calls get explained anyway, either during or at the end of the auction, it seems to me that the "problems of slowing down the game" may be substantially less than at first thought. However, my figures are guesses - the thing is to do some research. Next time I play, I shall count the number of alerted calls and estimate the extent to which the "always explain" rule would slow things down. > Now I think I've just been misunderstood. I didn't suggest that a > player explain his own alertable call. I meant that the player who > would normally say "Alert" would, instead, just drop the word and > explain partner's bid without having to be asked. (It looks like Ton > suggested approximately the same thing.) To put it another way: a > player *does* explain his own alert, if you take this to mean that the > player who does the alerting is the same one who explains the call. > Which is how I meant it. > > The reason I suggested it was that it speeds the game up a tiny bit if > the players don't have to say "Alert" or "Please explain the > alert"---two phrases that would become redundant if requesting an > explanation becomes compulsory. My fault entirely, and my humble apologies for having misunderstood what would have been obvious on more careful reading. I think that the above suggestion is a sensible one if the "always explain" approach were to be adopted - indeed, I think that it already has been adopted to some extent in the ACBL's "announcements" - and I agree with it. I should say that whereas I regard this discussion as interesting, I think that the chances of an "always explain" approach actually being implemented by an NCBO or other SO are pretty close to zero, since it would be a drastic cure to a minor problem. If it had been so from the beginning, the game would be a better game, but it wasn't so it isn't. However, I will continue to urge that pairs who wish to use an "always ask" approach should in no circumstances be *forbidden* by regulation from doing so, which is what happens under the present foolish policy in force in my own and other countries. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 12 08:06:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA10056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 08:06:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA10051 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 08:05:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.132.11] (helo=davidburn) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12Tu14-0006Xv-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 22:05:46 +0000 Message-ID: <002801bf8ba6$353a2be0$0b8401d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B57D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <008201bf8a13$21877380$cfd93ad0@hdavis> <004301bf8a1e$af5ca6c0$0d5608c3@dodona> <000d01bf8a2c$384e1a60$f28101d5@davidburn> <8shics4t66lvkgtscp4j9f817a2ti4rdd2@4ax.com> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 22:07:34 -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 Pam wrote: > Could not many of the world's better players who play this find out > before play starts whether their ops are playing Swiss or Splinters? > > Now one of the world's better players I am certainly not but if I vary a > defence depending on the meaning of a bid I either find out what ops are > playing before play or I wish I had when it turns up. In neither case > would I ask the meaning of a bid if one of my options might be a pass. Oh, quite so. The problem does not, however, entirely disappear. I may look at your convention card and see that you play a 4C response to 1S as a splinter - and indeed, such is my practice. But that will not tell me whether you play, for example, 1H-1S-3D as a splinter, and I do not suggest that players spend a great deal of time at the beginning of every round attempting to discover such things before the game begins. It is absolutely necessary in some conditions for me (and others) to ask about a call, alerted or otherwise, when one of my options may be a pass. If I hear my LHO open 1NT and my RHO respond 2NT (alerted), then with such as: Ax xx Kxx AJxxxx I have to know whether this is Baron, or "maybe weak with either minor", or clubs, before I can know what to do. If I ask this question only when I have the above hand, because that is what the regulations force me to do, then I am being forced by regulation to break the Law - and that is not tolerable. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 12 09:18:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA10251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 09:18:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA10241 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 09:18:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.177] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12Tv9d-000Huy-00; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 23:18:41 +0000 Message-ID: <003801bf8bb0$71866000$b15608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" Cc: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B57D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <008201bf8a13$21877380$cfd93ad0@hdavis> <004301bf8a1e$af5ca6c0$0d5608c3@dodona> <000d01bf8a2c$384e1a60$f28101d5@davidburn> <8shics4t66lvkgtscp4j9f817a2ti4rdd2@4ax.com> <002801bf8ba6$353a2be0$0b8401d5@davidburn> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Sat, 11 Mar 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: Bridge Laws Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2000 10:07 PM Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? -------------------- \x/ ------------------ > Oh, quite so. The problem does not, however, entirely disappear. I may > look at your convention card and see that you play a 4C response to 1S > as a splinter - and indeed, such is my practice. But that will not > tell me whether you play, for example, 1H-1S-3D as a splinter, and I > do not suggest that players spend a great deal of time at the > beginning of every round attempting to discover such things before the > game begins. It is absolutely necessary in some conditions for me (and > others) to ask about a call, alerted or otherwise, when one of my > options may be a pass. If I hear my LHO open 1NT and my RHO respond > 2NT (alerted), then with such as: Ax xx Kxx AJxxxx I have to know > whether this is Baron, or "maybe weak with either minor", or clubs, > before I can know what to do. If I ask this question only when I have > the above hand, because that is what the regulations force me to do, > then I am being forced by regulation to break the Law - and that is > not tolerable. > +=+ Just so. But being aware of the problem you are probably in the habit of asking a question about situations in which they play splinters when you first look at their CC. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 12 09:18:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA10249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 09:18:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA10240 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 09:18:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.177] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12Tv9a-000Huy-00; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 23:18:40 +0000 Message-ID: <003701bf8bb0$702f0d60$b15608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Peace on earth, good will to men Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 23:11:32 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 12:23:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Ty21-0005pA-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 02:23:01 +0000 Message-ID: <5jO1MgAXwvy4Ew9x@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 02:08:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? References: <008201bf8a13$21877380$cfd93ad0@hdavis> <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B57D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <008201bf8a13$21877380$cfd93ad0@hdavis> <3.0.1.32.20000310174732.012788b8@pop.mindspring.com> <00c001bf8ba2$6b510d60$37d43ad0@hdavis> In-Reply-To: <00c001bf8ba2$6b510d60$37d43ad0@hdavis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: >From: "Michael S. Dennis" >> At 12:31 PM 3/10/2000 +0000, David S wrote: >> >>Is there any other sport where a player may take an action which is >> >>allowed to him under the rules of the game, in the time and manner >> >>allowed to him under the rules of the game, and still risk an >adverse >> >>ruling? I have seen more than one novice give up bridge in >frustration >> >>at being faced with this particular dilemma. >> > No, and it does not happen in bridge. >> > >> > Giving UI is not an offence. >This is correct, and I'm sure that it is a great comfort to the player, >as I adjust the score in favor of his opponents, that he has not >committed an infraction. Well, it is if you can possibly avoid giving him the wrong impression. Perhaps a modicum of explanation would help. >> > The adverse ruling is because of using UI, which is different. >As Mike explains below, the L16 ruling is not necessarily for using UI. >If I believe >that a player is actually using UI, the adjustment will be accompanied >by a strong warning, procedural penalty, or a referral to the recorder >for Conduct and Ethics action, depending on the exact circumstances of >the offense. Oh, come on. That is for using UI deliberately. If you take out your partner's doubtful double it is a normal usage of English that you have used UI - but there is no suggestion that you have used UI deliberately. As I have said a number of times, I think that some posts have to be of a reasonable length. I do not believe *every* post needs therefore to have every nuance of every part of it examined in detail, nor do I believe we should automatically assume a poster is wrong because he uses a shortcut. I made a distinction between giving UI and using UI, and I do not think a long dissertation on the wording I have used does any good,. If you do not like the wording, good, use a different term, but semantic arguments which completely miss the point are of no practical use, except to send some of our readers to sleep. >> A misstatement of UI law. Of course an adverse ruling _may_ be given >for >> this offense, but in general the adverse ruling is given because a >player >> has "chosen from among logical alternatives ..." . Correct. And that is popularly referred to as "using UI". [s] >Not only has nothing improper taken place, but the player has exercised >a right explicitly permitted to him by Law. L20 seems to say that >players have a right to inquire about the auction at their turn to call. >In practice, exercising this right can put a player's side in jeopardy. > >How is this for a principle that might apply? -A player who performs an >action permitted by law, in the time and manner allowed by law, shall >not be subject to restriction or penalty arising from that action.- >This seems like a reasonable principle to me. Yet, as we have seen, it >does not apply in certain areas of bridge law. So, what you are saying, is that we should make it *legal* that my partner only leads a club against 3NT after Stayman if I ask. You are seriously suggesting this should be legal? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 12 12:23:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA10700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 12:23:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA10690 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 12:23:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Ty24-0005pF-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 02:23:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 01:58:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? References: <200003101628.IAA22604@mailhub.irvine.com> <001601bf8ba4$ade92b60$0b8401d5@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <001601bf8ba4$ade92b60$0b8401d5@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >Adam wrote: David Burn wrote: >Adam wrote: [s] >> My point was to try to find a compromise between the UI problems and >> the problems of slowing down the game. >Quite so, and a valid point it is - but I wonder whether the problem >of slowing down the game is as serious as people believe it might be? >If, as I have suggested above, only 10-15% of calls actually get >alerted, I surmise that no nore than 50% of those - 5-7.5% of all >calls, for the benefit of any laymen who may have wandered in - would >require an explanation lasting more than a couple of seconds. >Moreover, since in the present scheme of things most of those calls >get explained anyway, either during or at the end of the auction, it >seems to me that the "problems of slowing down the game" may be >substantially less than at first thought. However, my figures are >guesses - the thing is to do some research. Next time I play, I shall >count the number of alerted calls and estimate the extent to which the >"always explain" rule would slow things down. The problem is that you are using a very poor sample for your statistical analysis: you play in a good game. The big question to my mind is how the "always explain" rule is going to impinge on the poorer player - whose explanations of very simple calls is already far longer than the expert explanation. [s] >I should say that whereas I regard this discussion as interesting, I >think that the chances of an "always explain" approach actually being >implemented by an NCBO or other SO are pretty close to zero, since it >would be a drastic cure to a minor problem. If it had been so from the >beginning, the game would be a better game, but it wasn't so it isn't. >However, I will continue to urge that pairs who wish to use an "always >ask" approach should in no circumstances be *forbidden* by regulation >from doing so, which is what happens under the present foolish policy >in force in my own and other countries. The problem with the alternative approach is it does not happen. I know that players argue on RGB that hey always ask, or they ask randomly. Good, no problem, but they are not everyone. Do you think the poorer players are going to ask questions when holding a couple of tens? The reason for this rule is not because good players will not do what you suggest: it is because the average player won't. There are problems in controlling the amount of UI given by a poorer player, and this rule is an attempt to control it. It may be that there are better solutions, but all the "better" solutions that I have seen here and on RGB are concerned with the better players. What about the rest of the players? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 12 23:22:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA12032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 23:22:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo-d09.mx.aol.com (imo-d09.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA12027 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 23:22:18 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id q.8.244b710 (4242); Sun, 12 Mar 2000 08:21:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8.244b710.25fcf3d4@aol.com> Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 08:21:24 EST Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? 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 3/11/00 9:27:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: > As I have said a number of times, I think that some posts have to be > of a reasonable length. I do not believe *every* post needs therefore > to have every nuance of every part of it examined in detail, nor do I > believe we should automatically assume a poster is wrong because he uses > a shortcut. > > I made a distinction between giving UI and using UI, and I do not > think a long dissertation on the wording I have used does any good,. If > you do not like the wording, good, use a different term, but semantic > arguments which completely miss the point are of no practical use, > except to send some of our readers to sleep. Unfortunately, dear David this is EXACTLY one of the BLML's main activities -- re the Laws. Pick, pick, pick, and refuse to see the forest for the trees. Cheers, Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 13 01:13:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA12415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 01:11:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA12410 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 01:11:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2iveiiu.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.74.94]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA21060 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 10:10:57 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000312100826.0127cc18@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 10:08:26 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? In-Reply-To: <5jO1MgAXwvy4Ew9x@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <00c001bf8ba2$6b510d60$37d43ad0@hdavis> <008201bf8a13$21877380$cfd93ad0@hdavis> <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B57D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <008201bf8a13$21877380$cfd93ad0@hdavis> <3.0.1.32.20000310174732.012788b8@pop.mindspring.com> <00c001bf8ba2$6b510d60$37d43ad0@hdavis> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:08 AM 3/12/2000 +0000, David S wrote: >>> A misstatement of UI law. Of course an adverse ruling _may_ be given >>for >>> this offense, but in general the adverse ruling is given because a >>player >>> has "chosen from among logical alternatives ..." . > > Correct. And that is popularly referred to as "using UI". While I have no doubt that David understands this distinction, I think a more precise wording is in order. When someone of David's stature avails himself of this short-hand, he contributes to a widely held misunderstanding that equates a L16 violation to a form of cheating (which it occasionally is, of course). If a player takes the same action he would have taken in the absence of UI, then in no reasonable sense can he be said to have "used UI," even though his action might well be illegal under L16. To suggest otherwise is both sloppy and misleading. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 13 01:15:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA12434 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 01:15:14 +1000 (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 BAA12429 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 01:15:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2iveiiu.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.74.94]) by fb01.eng00.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA24216 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 10:14:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000312101227.0127aa38@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 10:12:27 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? In-Reply-To: <8.244b710.25fcf3d4@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:21 AM 3/12/2000 EST, you wrote: >In a message dated 3/11/00 9:27:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, >bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: > >> As I have said a number of times, I think that some posts have to be >> of a reasonable length. I do not believe *every* post needs therefore >> to have every nuance of every part of it examined in detail, nor do I >> believe we should automatically assume a poster is wrong because he uses >> a shortcut. >> >> I made a distinction between giving UI and using UI, and I do not >> think a long dissertation on the wording I have used does any good,. If >> you do not like the wording, good, use a different term, but semantic >> arguments which completely miss the point are of no practical use, >> except to send some of our readers to sleep. > >Unfortunately, dear David this is EXACTLY one of the BLML's main activities >-- re the Laws. Pick, pick, pick, and refuse to see the forest for the trees. > Yes, how very tedious that discussions about laws should turn so much on careful analysis and interpretation of legal language. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 13 01:50:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA12550 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 01:50:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA12545 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 01:50:21 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA16096 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 16:50:13 +0100 Received: from ip94.virnxr3.ras.tele.dk(195.215.245.94), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda16094; Sun Mar 12 16:50:11 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 16:50:11 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <00d501bf6cf8$df207a00$8e84d9ce@oemcomputer> <002201bf8b90$a23cac60$de5908c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <002201bf8b90$a23cac60$de5908c3@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 BAA12546 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 19:26:48 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >As for communication: it is not quite as David says. >We do get information to the NCBOs. Yes, it seems to work well now - at least the DBF did receive the Lille and Bermuda WBFLC minutes without problems. (It has not always worked: I believe the primary reason for the 1987 laws L12C2 footnote to be totally unknown in Denmark for years was that nobody told the DBF; and getting hold of a copy of the 1997 laws for translation was not easy.) >It is their >responsibility to pass it to their Directors. Yes, and I think that would be much easier if it were actually law changes. Every TD has a law book. If the WBFLC makes changes to that book, then it is at least obvious that the NCBOs ought to publish those changes widely. If they don't, then it is clearly the NCBOs that are at fault. But when the WBFLC issues "statements" or "decisions" in other than law-book format, then the situation is much less clear: it is far from obvious that a WBFLC decision means that the law book is no longer valid. So I agree with David that the only form of communication that works really well is laws; but I also believe that minor laws changes between major revisions could have a decent chance of being communicated well. >There is more experience >in the pipeline - we have just sent the CoP to >NCBOs, also the recent decisions of the WBFLC. >I wonder how readily this information will be >published to Directors world-wide? Will lethargy >and failure to appreciate the nature of the news >leave it in some pigeonholes half way down the >pyramid of the world structure of bridge? Information that is not laws may need not only translation but also adaptation. The CoP concerns many matters, some of which are open to local variation. We may, for instance, want to modify some of the wording on psyches to better suit Danish traditions before giving the CoP status as a regulation in Denmark. This may delay matters, so I don't think that the CoP will provide any experience that can be used to judge things like how fast a L25B change would be propagated. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 13 02:12:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA12469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 01:25:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA12464 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 01:25:03 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA16004 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 16:24:53 +0100 Received: from ip154.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.154), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda16002; Sun Mar 12 16:24:52 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 16:24:52 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <008201bf8a13$21877380$cfd93ad0@hdavis> <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B57D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <008201bf8a13$21877380$cfd93ad0@hdavis> <3.0.1.32.20000310174732.012788b8@pop.mindspring.com> <00c001bf8ba2$6b510d60$37d43ad0@hdavis> <5jO1MgAXwvy4Ew9x@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <5jO1MgAXwvy4Ew9x@blakjak.demon.co.uk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id BAA12465 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 12 Mar 2000 02:08:23 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >Hirsch Davis wrote: >>From: "Michael S. Dennis" >>> has "chosen from among logical alternatives ..." . > > Correct. And that is popularly referred to as "using UI". In general, I certainly agree that short and simple terms for the concepts that we discuss often are good. But not when the short and simple term can be misunderstood as an accusation of a more serious irregularity than the one actually meant. And "using UI" is actually a precise description of a more serious irregularity. So in this specific situation, I always carefully avoid saying "using UI" when I mean "choosing an action forbidden by L16". Of course it does not matter much in a BLML discussion, but if I regularly use the imprecise term here then I am afraid that I will one day accidentally also use it when adjusting a score or writing a regulation. Everybody knows that using UI is a "crime", and I find it important to give such rulings in a way that does not make the players feel accused of a "crime". It is possible that everybody in England knows that "using UI" is shorthand for "choosing an action forbidden by L16", but that is certainly not the case in Denmark. As I have also said long ago, I find it unfortunate that the WBF CoP uses the term "use of UI" when that is not actually what is meant. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 13 02:14:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA12776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 02:14:51 +1000 (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 CAA12771 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 02:14:43 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id d.75.2302e5e (4215); Sun, 12 Mar 2000 11:14:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <75.2302e5e.25fd1c49@aol.com> Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 11:14:01 EST Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? To: msd@mindspring.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 67 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 3/12/00 10:16:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, msd@mindspring.com writes: > Yes, how very tedious that discussions about laws should turn so much on > careful analysis and interpretation of legal language. > > Mike Dennis No, not tedious at all. I applaud those postings which say in essence that the intent and desire of the lawmakers is understood, but that the use of language is wanting. That is where the BLML does a great service to the Laws. I don't appreciate those postings where the fault of poor wording becomes the reason to depart from what was meant to be said when it comes to making rulings. I often wonder if there were the same exhortations and handwringing going on if we had a Book of Rules, rather than Laws. Would there be this intense desire to ascribe meanings to the words that require sometimes convoluted reasoning? Pick at the words, and I'll be right there with you trying to build a better mousetrap - so long as we continue to build mousetraps and not traps. Discard the Scope of the Laws, the interrelations between the Laws, the sequence and graded focus of the Laws, and you'll have to read my displeasure unless you can get to the delete key fast enough. cheers, Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 13 08:22:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA13975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:22:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from ms1.freezone.co.uk (IDENT:root@ms1.purplenet.co.uk [212.1.130.118]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA13969 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:22:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (ppp-1-158.cvx6.telinco.net [212.1.156.158]) by ms1.freezone.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA20567; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 22:20:43 GMT Message-ID: <00f901bf8c70$dc173f00$9e9c01d4@default> From: "magda thain" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 22:17:45 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I thought the laws called it taking advantage of unauthorised information from his partner? mt To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 12 March 2000 17:46 Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? >So in this specific situation, I always carefully avoid saying >"using UI" when I mean "choosing an action forbidden by L16". Of >course it does not matter much in a BLML discussion, but if I >regularly use the imprecise term here then I am afraid that I >will one day accidentally also use it when adjusting a score or >writing a regulation. Everybody knows that using UI is a >"crime", and I find it important to give such rulings in a way >that does not make the players feel accused of a "crime". From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 13 08:22:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA13970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:22:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from ms1.freezone.co.uk (IDENT:root@ms1.purplenet.co.uk [212.1.130.118]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA13963 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:22:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (ppp-1-158.cvx6.telinco.net [212.1.156.158]) by ms1.freezone.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA20564; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 22:20:41 GMT Message-ID: <00f801bf8c70$db356a80$9e9c01d4@default> From: "magda thain" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 22:13:56 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It is tedious. What bridge players need to know is how the law is applied, not what every tiny word means or whether the man in the corner of the bar disagrees with what they do. mt To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 12 March 2000 16:15 Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? >At 08:21 AM 3/12/2000 EST, you wrote: >>In a message dated 3/11/00 9:27:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, >>bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: >> >>> As I have said a number of times, >> (cut) >>Unfortunately, dear David this is EXACTLY one of the BLML's main activities >>-- re the Laws. Pick, pick, pick, and refuse to see the forest for the >trees. >> >Yes, how very tedious that discussions about laws should turn so much on >careful analysis and interpretation of legal language. > >Mike Dennis > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 13 10:50:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA14600 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 10:50:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA14595 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 10:50:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from PeterB.enrichnz.co.nz ([210.55.93.201]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <20000313004938.HNIR13910061.mta1-rme@PeterB.enrichnz.co.nz> for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 13:49:38 +1300 Message-ID: <00b501bf8c85$db73c680$6700a8c0@enrichnz.co.nz> From: "Peter Bowyer" To: Subject: What's the Contract? Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 13:44:44 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bear with me please, a little outside what BLML is about, but I do believe it is in our brief What specific law covers whether or not a player (suffering a memory lapse) can ask (or not) what the contract is after the 2nd or later trick has been played? Regards from New Zealand Peter Bowyer From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 13 11:12:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA14714 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:12:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA14709 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:12:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12UJP9-000E5y-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 01:12:19 +0000 Message-ID: <2JkceZCvAEz4EwH7@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 01:11:11 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: What's the Contract? References: <00b501bf8c85$db73c680$6700a8c0@enrichnz.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <00b501bf8c85$db73c680$6700a8c0@enrichnz.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <00b501bf8c85$db73c680$6700a8c0@enrichnz.co.nz>, Peter Bowyer writes >Bear with me please, a little outside what BLML is about, but I do believe >it is in our brief >What specific law covers whether or not a player (suffering a memory lapse) >can ask (or not) what the contract is after the 2nd or later trick has been >played? >Regards from New Zealand >Peter Bowyer > Read law 41C -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 13 11:50:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA14994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:50:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from rsc.anu.edu.au (rsc [150.203.35.129]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA14989 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:50:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from appenzeller.anu.edu.au (appenzeller.anu.edu.au [150.203.35.97]) by rsc.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA01542; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:49:51 +1100 (EST) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:49:50 +1100 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@appenzeller.anu.edu.au To: Peter Bowyer cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What's the Contract? In-Reply-To: <00b501bf8c85$db73c680$6700a8c0@enrichnz.co.nz> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Peter Bowyer wrote: > Bear with me please, a little outside what BLML is about, but I do believe > it is in our brief Normally this sort of question should go on rec.games.bridge. BLML tends to discuss shortcomings of existing laws, suggested revisions, unusual rulings, some trivia. It is not normally a resource for people with a specific enquiry that doesn't come under those sort of topics. The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge are online and may be found at http://www.math.auc.dk/~nwp/bridge/laws/laws97e The text below is taken directly from there. > What specific law covers whether or not a player (suffering a memory lapse) > can ask (or not) what the contract is after the 2nd or later trick has been > played? Law 41 C 2 C. Opening Lead Faced Following this question period, the opening lead is faced, the play period begins, and dummy's hand is spread. After it is too late to have previous calls restated (see B, above), declarer or either defender, at his own turn to play, is entitled to be informed as to what the contract is and whether, but not by whom, it was doubled or redoubled. Cheers, Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 13 11:54:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA15026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:54:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA15021 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:54:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.2]) by swarm.mosquitonet.com (8.9.1/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA07095 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 16:53:58 -0900 Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 16:53:58 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [snip] > > The problem with the alternative approach is it does not happen. I > know that players argue on RGB that hey always ask, or they ask > randomly. Good, no problem, but they are not everyone. Do you think > the poorer players are going to ask questions when holding a couple of > tens? > > The reason for this rule is not because good players will not do what > you suggest: it is because the average player won't. There are problems > in controlling the amount of UI given by a poorer player, and this rule > is an attempt to control it. > > It may be that there are better solutions, but all the "better" > solutions that I have seen here and on RGB are concerned with the better > players. What about the rest of the players? In my neck of the woods, "poorer players" come in two common flavours. One species are the little old ladies who ask us not to alert, never ask what my calls mean, and wouldn't bat an eye if I opened a weak 2H with 14 points and a six-card club suit. There are UI problems with the way the LOLs tend to land on their feet a remarkable percentage of the time with seemingly no explainable agreements; but alert rules don't help us much here. The other common flavour of poorer player is the beginner. In my experience, a substantial majority of them ask much more often than they need to, just because they are curious what they are doing. Yes, their natural inclination is to ask even if they have two tens and the answer can't matter on this hand. These people keep asking about everything until one of two things happens. First possibility: they get burned one time too many by unethical opponents bidding based on their partner's answers. They tend not to know they should call the director when this happens, or perhaps the director doesn't do his job well when they call him, and they reach the conclusion that it was their question, not the opponent's abuse of UI, that was the error. Second possibility: Over and over again, they hear the people they look up to (whether better players or directors r a columnist in a bridge magazine) saying "don't ask unless you really need to know!", offering either the "you create UI problems for yourself" rationale or the "don't make it easy for your unethical opponents to cheat you" rationale - more commonly the latter in my experience. I am driven to the inescapable conclusion that we would be much better off if we let these people follow their own natural tendencies. In the fulness of time we can make them aware of the need to be aware of the hazards of UI from partner. The way we do it now with discouraging questions is IMO wrongwrongwrongwrong and does more harm than good. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 13 12:01:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA15061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:01:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA15055 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:01:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from PeterB.enrichnz.co.nz ([210.55.93.201]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <20000313020039.IIAQ13910061.mta1-rme@PeterB.enrichnz.co.nz>; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:00:39 +1300 Message-ID: <00fc01bf8c8f$c6a86580$6700a8c0@enrichnz.co.nz> From: "Peter Bowyer" To: "Mark Abraham" Cc: References: Subject: Re: What's the Contract? Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 14:59:24 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 Thank you Mark But... How think you that 41 should have a revision/addendum Say 41E "Contract Re-Stated" separate paragraph to itself? "After it is too late.....etc" Surely "Opening Lead Faced" is not the correct place for this part of the law?? Thanks again Mark All the best Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Abraham" To: "Peter Bowyer" Cc: Sent: Monday, 13 March 2000 14:49 Subject: Re: What's the Contract? > On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Peter Bowyer wrote: > > > Bear with me please, a little outside what BLML is about, but I do believe > > it is in our brief > > Normally this sort of question should go on rec.games.bridge. BLML tends > to discuss shortcomings of existing laws, suggested revisions, unusual > rulings, some trivia. It is not normally a resource for people with a > specific enquiry that doesn't come under those sort of topics. > > The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge are online and may be found at > > http://www.math.auc.dk/~nwp/bridge/laws/laws97e > > The text below is taken directly from there. > > > What specific law covers whether or not a player (suffering a memory lapse) > > can ask (or not) what the contract is after the 2nd or later trick has been > > played? > > Law 41 C 2 > C. Opening Lead Faced > Following this question period, the opening lead is faced, the play > period begins, > and dummy's hand is spread. After it is too late to have previous > calls restated > (see B, above), declarer or either defender, at his own turn to > play, is entitled to be > informed as to what the contract is and whether, but not by whom, > it was doubled > or redoubled. > > Cheers, > > Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 13 12:11:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA15117 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:11:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from umc-mail01.missouri.edu (umc-mail01.missouri.edu [128.206.10.216]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA15111 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:10:57 +1000 (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 GZWXSVKF; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 20:10:47 -0600 X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00b501bf8c85$db73c680$6700a8c0@enrichnz.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 20:13:38 -0600 To: "Peter Bowyer" , From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: What's the Contract? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Bear with me please, a little outside what BLML is about, but I do believe >it is in our brief >What specific law covers whether or not a player (suffering a memory lapse) >can ask (or not) what the contract is after the 2nd or later trick has been >played? >Regards from New Zealand >Peter Bowyer 41c REH Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274 Fax: 573-882-2754 email: HarrisR@missouri.edu Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 13 13:12:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA15135 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:12:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from rsc.anu.edu.au (rsc [150.203.35.129]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA15130 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:12:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from appenzeller.anu.edu.au (appenzeller.anu.edu.au [150.203.35.97]) by rsc.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA03268; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 13:11:59 +1100 (EST) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 13:11:54 +1100 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@appenzeller.anu.edu.au To: Peter Bowyer cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What's the Contract? In-Reply-To: <00fc01bf8c8f$c6a86580$6700a8c0@enrichnz.co.nz> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Peter Bowyer wrote: > Thank you Mark > But... > How think you that 41 should have a revision/addendum Say 41E "Contract > Re-Stated" separate paragraph to itself? > "After it is too late.....etc" > Surely "Opening Lead Faced" is not the correct place for this part of the > law?? That sounds quite reasonable - in fact it probably warrants not being in law 41 at all (whose title is "Commencement of Play"). This section we are discussion is more like "Contestant's Rights" in the manner of L42 "Dummy's Rights" and may be worth stating as a new law in the next revision. I suggest between current Laws 41 and 42 for its position. Cheers Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 13 18:56:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA16796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 18:56:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA16791 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 18:56:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.190] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12UQdt-000NUD-00; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:56:02 +0000 Message-ID: <000401bf8cca$44c4e4e0$be5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "magda thain" , , "Michael S. Dennis" References: <00f801bf8c70$db356a80$9e9c01d4@default> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:16:47 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: ; Michael S. Dennis Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2000 10:13 PM Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? > It is tedious. What bridge players need to know is how the law is applied, > not what every tiny word means or whether the man in the corner of the > bar disagrees with what they do. mt; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 01:59:27 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA09325 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 10:59:13 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200003131559.KAA09325@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 10:59:12 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Mar 12, 2000 01:58:25 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 David Stevenson writes: > > David Burn wrote: > >Adam wrote: > David Burn wrote: > >Adam wrote: > > [s] > > >> My point was to try to find a compromise between the UI problems and > >> the problems of slowing down the game. > > >Quite so, and a valid point it is - but I wonder whether the problem > >of slowing down the game is as serious as people believe it might be? > >If, as I have suggested above, only 10-15% of calls actually get > >alerted, I surmise that no nore than 50% of those - 5-7.5% of all > >calls, for the benefit of any laymen who may have wandered in - would > >require an explanation lasting more than a couple of seconds. > >Moreover, since in the present scheme of things most of those calls > >get explained anyway, either during or at the end of the auction, it > >seems to me that the "problems of slowing down the game" may be > >substantially less than at first thought. However, my figures are > >guesses - the thing is to do some research. Next time I play, I shall > >count the number of alerted calls and estimate the extent to which the > >"always explain" rule would slow things down. > > The problem is that you are using a very poor sample for your > statistical analysis: you play in a good game. The big question to my > mind is how the "always explain" rule is going to impinge on the poorer > player - whose explanations of very simple calls is already far longer > than the expert explanation. > > [s] > > >I should say that whereas I regard this discussion as interesting, I > >think that the chances of an "always explain" approach actually being > >implemented by an NCBO or other SO are pretty close to zero, since it > >would be a drastic cure to a minor problem. If it had been so from the > >beginning, the game would be a better game, but it wasn't so it isn't. > >However, I will continue to urge that pairs who wish to use an "always > >ask" approach should in no circumstances be *forbidden* by regulation > >from doing so, which is what happens under the present foolish policy > >in force in my own and other countries. > > The problem with the alternative approach is it does not happen. I > know that players argue on RGB that hey always ask, or they ask > randomly. Good, no problem, but they are not everyone. Do you think > the poorer players are going to ask questions when holding a couple of > tens? > > The reason for this rule is not because good players will not do what > you suggest: it is because the average player won't. There are problems > in controlling the amount of UI given by a poorer player, and this rule > is an attempt to control it. > > It may be that there are better solutions, but all the "better" > solutions that I have seen here and on RGB are concerned with the better > players. What about the rest of the players? > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ > -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 02:27:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA18728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 02:27:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.emr.ca [132.156.47.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA18723 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 02:27:31 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA10708 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:27:17 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200003131627.LAA10708@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:27:17 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Mar 12, 2000 01:58:25 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 Sorry for the duplicate. Sticky keyboard. David Stevenson writes: > The problem with the alternative approach is it does not happen. I > know that players argue on RGB that hey always ask, or they ask > randomly. Good, no problem, but they are not everyone. Do you think > the poorer players are going to ask questions when holding a couple of > tens? This point has come up before many times. Obviously your experience is different than mine, but I do have a lot of experience in this area. And it's my experience that weak players questions are precisely as revealing as their hesitations. It never pays to guess what a weak player is thinking. Even if they were trying to convey information, they lack the judgement to know what's important. There is a class of player that thinks it's OK to use questions to convey their hand. (Interrogations about club length after an opening club bid for instance. Their questions followed by a pass nicely shows the hand), but the rules are more than adequate here (some directors choose not to follow the rules - and I'm thinking of NA club games here - but that's a separate issue.) No special treatment is required. A legitimate question may transmit UI, that's a fact. > The reason for this rule is not because good players will not do what > you suggest: it is because the average player won't. There are problems > in controlling the amount of UI given by a poorer player, and this rule > is an attempt to control it. > > It may be that there are better solutions, but all the "better" > solutions that I have seen here and on RGB are concerned with the better > players. What about the rest of the players? Any real solution here (if there is in fact a problem - I'll stipulate that there is one though I've never seen evidence of it.) lies in education. A pamphlet geared towards inexperienced players explaining UI (with example hands) might be the way to go. It's my experience that most card players will understand the topic. There are similar concepts in hearts, spades or any of the whist family. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 03:59:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA19079 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 03:59:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA19073 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 03:59:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id MAA19241 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:58:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA12758 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:58:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:58:47 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200003131758.MAA12758@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What's the Contract? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Mark Abraham > This section we are > discussion is more like "Contestant's Rights" in the manner of L42 > "Dummy's Rights" and may be worth stating as a new law in the next > revision. I suggest between current Laws 41 and 42 for its position. Also have a look at L20. Reviews of the auction are a closely related topic. It would be nice to have everything together, either as part of L20 or in a new law as Mark suggests. Clearly not the highest priority for revision, but maybe worth a sentenc in Grattan's overstuffed notebook. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 04:12:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA18902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 03:18:05 +1000 (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 DAA18897 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 03:17:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12UYTO-000L6M-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:17:43 +0000 Message-ID: <$Lu0GcAU53y4EweA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 11:24:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Risley: a claim MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I directed at Risley yesterday, in Merseyside, and the following deal occurred. Declarer [South] was in 2NT, playing matchpoints, and had made eight tricks: -- -- J4 -- -- -- T -- Q K6 -- -- -- 9 T -- At this point, with the lead in dummy [North], East said "one each". West pointed out that he could win two tricks, declarer could see no problem, and they scored it up as eight tricks, and took the hands out of the next board. At this point, before the first call, dummy calls the TD and asks for a ruling. East, while bidding 1S on the next board [he is an offensive sort of fellow], says that if a small diamond is led off the dummy, of course he will duck even though he thinks declarer has the ten, and could he get on with this board because he is getting late. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats 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 Mar 14 05:16:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA19368 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 05:16:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA19362 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 05:16:07 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA19733 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 20:15:58 +0100 Received: from ip118.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.118), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda19730; Mon Mar 13 20:15:52 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 20:15:52 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <00f901bf8c70$dc173f00$9e9c01d4@default> In-Reply-To: <00f901bf8c70$dc173f00$9e9c01d4@default> 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 FAA19363 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 12 Mar 2000 22:17:45 -0000, "magda thain" wrote: >I thought the laws called it taking advantage of unauthorised >information from his partner? mtWhen a player has available to him unauthorised information from >his partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, >mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he >must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to >his side. This is one thing you are not allowed to do: take advantage of UI. L16A says: >After a player makes available to his partner extraneous >information that may suggest a call or play, as by means >of a remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by >unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, >tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, the >partner may not choose from among logical alternative >actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested >over another by the extraneous information. This is another thing you are not allowed to do: choose a logical alternative action that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by UI. There is a difference between these two things that you may not do: the former is unethical (if you know it is illegal), but the latter can occur through no real fault of the player: it may just be the result of a bridge judgement that is different from that of the TD. It can happen than an ethical player who knows the law perfectly well judges that a certain action is the only logical alternative action; he therefore takes that action even though it is also suggested by UI. He has not "used UI" or "taken advantage of UI", since he would take the same action without UI. The TD may nevertheless adjust the score: this does not mean that the player is accused of anything more serious than having a bridge judgement that differs from that of the TD, resulting in the choice of an action which, in the TD's judgement, violates L16A. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 05:29:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA19407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 05:29:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA19402 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 05:29:26 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id TAA27244 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 19:28:48 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 19:28 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? 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: <5jO1MgAXwvy4Ew9x@blakjak.demon.co.uk> David Stevenson wrote: > >As Mike explains below, the L16 ruling is not necessarily for using UI. > >If I believe > >that a player is actually using UI, the adjustment will be accompanied > >by a strong warning, procedural penalty, or a referral to the recorder > >for Conduct and Ethics action, depending on the exact circumstances of > >the offense. > > Oh, come on. That is for using UI deliberately. If you take out your > partner's doubtful double it is a normal usage of English that you have > used UI - but there is no suggestion that you have used UI deliberately. David you may consider it normal to use UI to take out a doubtful double. If I take out a doubtful double it is because of one of the following: 1) Very occasionally I do not consciously notice the hesitation and thus fail to consider LAs (and will not appeal any ruling on these grounds). 2) Sometimes I misinterpret the suggestion made by the UI 3) Otherwise it is because I consider my hand to admit no logical alternative in the context of the available AI Only 1 above (by far the least common) can even be considered to be using UI. 2) and 3) involve judgement issues which I would not expect every player, despite their best endeavours, to get right every time and which will sometimes require adjustments. Of course there are thousands of players out there who do use UI in blissful ignorance of the laws and many more who, again in ignorance, fail to take appropriate precautions in the presence of UI. I suggest that we would be better served by the, admittedly slightly more clumsy, "inappropriate action in the presence of UI" than "using UI" which has nasty connotations for most people. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 05:35:27 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA19443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 05:35:27 +1000 (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 FAA19435 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 05:35:16 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id D83AC1565E; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 14:35:02 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000d01bf8a2c$384e1a60$f28101d5@davidburn> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B57D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <008201bf8a13$21877380$cfd93ad0@hdavis> <004301bf8a1e$af5ca6c0$0d5608c3@dodona> <000d01bf8a2c$384e1a60$f28101d5@davidburn> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 14:34:26 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 1:01 AM +0000 3/10/00, David Burn wrote: >Suppose the opponents conduct this auction: > >West North East South >1S Pass 4C ? > >Now, many of the world's better pairs play that: if 4C is a splinter, >double asks for a heart lead; if 4C is Swiss, then double asks for a >club lead. 4C will be alerted in either case, which does not help. Can >these pairs play these methods? Not without risk, for suppose I am >South and I have hearts. I ask (because I genuinely need to know) what >4C shows, and I am told it is Swiss, so I pass. This combination of >circumstances has forced me to transmit UI to partner, who now may not >lead a heart. I use these methods in the ACBL and the WBF, I had thought without risk. In fact I must ask about 4C - not asking would convey the UI that I have no preference as to partner's lead. When I pass a splinter, whether or not I've asked what it meant, partner will alert and if asked will explain that I could have doubled for a heart lead. I should ask about 4C even if I know what it means, since partner will not know whether to alert my pass otherwise! >However, I will continue to urge that pairs who wish to use an "always >ask" approach should in no circumstances be *forbidden* by regulation >from doing so, which is what happens under the present foolish policy >in force in my own and other countries. This policy, which is certainly sounds foolish, have been alluded to here on the BLML, but I have never seen it stated. Can someone please post a copy? As Steve Willner noted, here in the ACBL we don't seem to have this particular problem. An alert is generally followed by the ACBL prescribed "Please explain." I would be surprised to see a director or committee adjust a pairs' score if they ask, using those two words, immediately following the alert. Certainly we do adjust for possible use of UI occasioned by improper questions. One of the most blatant examples is when a player asks questions prior to his final pass, and his partner will be on lead. At 7:05 PM +0000 3/10/00, Pam Hadfield wrote: >Could not many of the world's better players who play this find out >before play starts whether their ops are playing Swiss or Splinters? At 11:16 PM +0000 3/11/00, Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ Just so. But being aware of the problem you >are probably in the habit of asking a question >about situations in which they play splinters when >you first look at their CC. A policy which requires this seems foolish to me. It slows down every round for a call which may come up once per session. So long as I have defenses prepared for all conventions which are legal in my event I see no reason I should be required to look at the opponents' convention card or quiz them as to their methods before playing two boards against them. >Pam (Most definitely not a fan of a question followed by pass during an >auction). I hope you'll reconsider, Pam. While on your side of the pond you may have regulations which require this point of view, they are not in effect everywhere. While I'll reserve final judgement until I've seen a copy, based on what I know so far they should not be in effect anywhere. AW From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 05:49:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA19488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 05:49:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA19483 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 05:48:56 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA19804 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 20:48:48 +0100 Received: from ip152.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.152), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda19802; Mon Mar 13 20:48:46 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 20:48:46 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <00f901bf8c70$dc173f00$9e9c01d4@default> 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 FAA19484 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 20:15:52 +0100, I wrote: >The laws use more than expression. That should of course be "more than one expression". -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 06:23:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA19607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 06:23:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from adm.sci-nnov.ru (adm.sci-nnov.ru [195.122.226.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA19602 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 06:23:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from satellite (foxy.p2p.sci-nnov.ru [194.190.176.114]) by adm.sci-nnov.ru (8.9.3/Dmiter-4.1) with SMTP id XAA78462 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 23:18:24 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <000f01bf8d29$8cb7e220$0200a8c0@vmv.sandy.ru> From: "Sergei Litvak" To: Subject: Regional pairs. Case 1 Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 23:20:16 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2417.2000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Pairs Dealer: E, Vul: EW A87432 975 Q 652 -- 5 2 8643 AKJ98532 T76 A973 KQJT4 KQJT96 AKQJT 8 4 Bidding N E S W p 1C* 1D Dbl** p 1S 4D 4s p*** p 5D p p 5S 6D Dbl p p p * - Prrecision ** - explained at the table as 5-8 HCP any distribution *** - after undisputed hesitation Lead from dQ. 13 trick made. TD was first called after 6D bid and after the end of the board What should TD do? Sergei Litvak. Chief TD of RBL From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 06:33:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA19636 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 06:33:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from adm.sci-nnov.ru (adm.sci-nnov.ru [195.122.226.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA19631 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 06:33:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from satellite (foxy.p2p.sci-nnov.ru [194.190.176.114]) by adm.sci-nnov.ru (8.9.3/Dmiter-4.1) with SMTP id XAA79949 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 23:32:52 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <001901bf8d2b$91e24ae0$0200a8c0@vmv.sandy.ru> From: "Sergei Litvak" To: Subject: Regional Pairs. Case 2. Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 23:34:43 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2417.2000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk S,NS A5 K86432 AJ65 6 T K987 5 QT9 QT8732 K94 QJ542 A93 QJ6432 AJ7 -- KT87 Bidding: N E S W 2d p 2NT p 3h 4d 4h Dbl 4s p p Dbl p p p 2d - Multi 2NT - forcing 3h - weak on hearts Dummy asked partner after the opening lead what was hapened. North explained that he take wrong card from the bidding-box. He wants to bid 3d (strong on spades). At this moment TD was called. After the play (just made) TD was called again. What should TD do? Sergei Litvak. Chief TD of RBL. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 06:44:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA19693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 06:44:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA19688 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 06:44:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.2]) by swarm.mosquitonet.com (8.9.1/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA13499 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:43:48 -0900 Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:43:48 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Jesper Dybdal wrote: [snip] > There is a difference between these two things that you may not > do: the former is unethical (if you know it is illegal), but the > latter can occur through no real fault of the player: it may just > be the result of a bridge judgement that is different from that > of the TD. > > It can happen than an ethical player who knows the law perfectly > well judges that a certain action is the only logical alternative > action; he therefore takes that action even though it is also > suggested by UI. He has not "used UI" or "taken advantage of > UI", since he would take the same action without UI. > > The TD may nevertheless adjust the score: this does not mean that > the player is accused of anything more serious than having a > bridge judgement that differs from that of the TD, resulting in > the choice of an action which, in the TD's judgement, violates > L16A. Given that we expect a fair bit of variety in bridge judgment from one player to the next, and we are in no danger of discovering an accepted objective standard of what "correct bridge judgment" is -- it seems to me that it should be a very rare event indeed to keep deposits / assess appeal-without-merit points when someone appeals and runs into a committee whose bridge judgment happens to be the same as the TD's. And yet, incredibly often people post "what is your ruling?" questions and get replies saying "keep the deposit and shoot him in the back on his way out the door too." Does anyone else find this mildly disturbing? GRB From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 07:46:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA19860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 07:46:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA19855 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 07:45:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.219] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12Ucem-000Irf-00; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 21:45:44 +0000 Message-ID: <001101bf8d35$cbc176a0$db5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , References: <00d501bf6cf8$df207a00$8e84d9ce@oemcomputer> <002201bf8b90$a23cac60$de5908c3@dodona> Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 21:46:51 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2000 3:50 PM Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B > (It has not always worked: I believe the primary reason for the > 1987 laws L12C2 footnote to be totally unknown in Denmark for > years was that nobody told the DBF; and getting hold of a copy of > the 1997 laws for translation was not easy.) > +=+ In the Kaplan era the way it was supposed to work was that member NCBOs learnt of decisions via the Executive Council minutes, as I understood. The WBFLC minutes are incorporated when these minutes are ratified by the Exec. I believe this still happens since my despatches to NCBOs are a response to ton's wish that we improve our lines of communication and are technically in excess of requirements. What would be interesting to know, vaguely interesting in a historical way, is whether those minutes were received by NCBOs as Edgar said. The answer identifies the location of the bottleneck before we are able to say for sure 'nobody told them'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 07:47:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA19884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 07:47:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from tantalum.btinternet.com (tantalum.btinternet.com [194.73.73.80]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA19878 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 07:47:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.181.57] (helo=davidburn) by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12UcYe-0005Pj-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 21:39:25 +0000 Message-ID: <000f01bf8d35$f166ea20$39b501d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <00f901bf8c70$dc173f00$9e9c01d4@default> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 21:48:56 -0000 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper wrote: > On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 20:15:52 +0100, I wrote: > > >The laws use more than expression. > > That should of course be "more than one expression". No, it should not. The Laws do indeed use more than expression, as Magda and Kojak and others have tried to point out. Why, if expression were all that the Laws used, some of us pitiful toilers at the coal-face would expect some reward for working out what the Laws express. Instead, we are told by very many eminent authorities (Kojak himself, Grattan, and Stevenson when it suits his purpose) that the important thing to do is to work out what was in the minds of the lawmakers - and, if we can't work that out because the words are deliberately opaque, to accept what they tell us rather than try to work out what the words in which they have chosen to express themselves actually mean. I bow my head, I do not understand - but I take solace in these words of W.H. Auden: No matter. He shall be denied. White Aphrodite is on our side. What though his threat To organise us grow more critical? Zeus willing, we - the unpolitical - Shall beat him yet. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 07:58:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA19930 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 07:58:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA19919 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 07:58:06 +1000 (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 QAA18812; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 16:57:47 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001901bf8d2b$91e24ae0$0200a8c0@vmv.sandy.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 16:53:22 -0500 To: "Sergei Litvak" , From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Regional Pairs. Case 2. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:34 PM +0300 3/13/00, Sergei Litvak wrote: >S,NS > A5 > K86432 > AJ65 > 6 >T K987 >5 QT9 >QT8732 K94 >QJ542 A93 > QJ6432 > AJ7 > -- > KT87 >Bidding: >N E S W > 2d p >2NT p 3h 4d >4h Dbl 4s p >p Dbl p p >p >2d - Multi >2NT - forcing >3h - weak on hearts > >Dummy asked partner after the opening lead what was hapened. North explained >that he take wrong card from the bidding-box. He wants to bid 3d (strong on >spades). At this moment TD was called. After the play (just made) TD was >called again. >What should TD do? Is there UI or MI? According to these details, South appears to have misbid; thus there was no MI. If North explained 3H (not simply alerting it), there could be UI from the explanation. In that case, a pass by South is an LA. However, 4Hx also makes, so there can only be an adjustment if it is at all probable that West would have pulled the double of 4H. I don't know West's methods; if the pass over 4S is forcing, then West would probably have pulled 4Hx to 5C, corrected to 5D and doubled by North. However, it seems to me that this goes for 800 (losing one spade, one heart, two diamonds, and two clubs; there are entry and trump control problems which make it unlikely that only one trick will be lost in either minor). SInce 800 is worse than 790, there does not appear to be damage. In order to adjust, we would need to establish that there was UI, and that it was likely (awarding +500/-500) or at all probable (awarding +500/-790) that West would pull 4Hx and go down only three in 5Dx. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 07:58:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA19928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 07:58:12 +1000 (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 HAA19918 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 07:58:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA28520; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 13:58:06 -0800 Message-Id: <200003132158.NAA28520@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Regional pairs. Case 1 In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 13 Mar 2000 23:20:16 PST." <000f01bf8d29$8cb7e220$0200a8c0@vmv.sandy.ru> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 13:58:07 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sergei Litvak wrote: > Pairs > Dealer: E, Vul: EW > > A87432 > 975 > Q > 652 > -- 5 > 2 8643 > AKJ98532 T76 > A973 KQJT4 > KQJT96 > AKQJT > 8 > 4 > > Bidding > N E S W > p 1C* 1D > Dbl** p 1S 4D > 4s p*** p 5D > p p 5S 6D > Dbl p p p > > * - Prrecision > ** - explained at the table as 5-8 HCP any distribution > *** - after undisputed hesitation > > Lead from dQ. 13 trick made. > TD was first called after 6D bid and after the end of the board > > What should TD do? This one is close. If the hesitation suggests East has some diamond support, and thus suggests a save, it's clear to roll the contract back to 4 or 5 spades, making six (to me, it fits within the "at all likely" criterion that West might lead a second high diamond looking for a trump promotion, but I don't think it's at all probable that West would double 5S). However, the hesitation could suggest that East is thinking about doubling. On this auction, North might have been pressured into bidding 4S on less-than-excellent trump support, so it's conceivable that East could have good enough spades to think about doubling. Here, I think it's more likely that East is thinking about saving, and is reluctant because of the vulnerability. So I rule that West's 6D is suggested over passing by the hesitation and is therefore illegal. I'd probably allow the 5D bid, but that's irrelevant once I rule 6D illegal---the score is the same either way. I wouldn't be surprised to be overruled by a committee. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 08:13:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA20007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:13:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA20002 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:13:01 +1000 (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 RAA26143; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:12:49 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000f01bf8d29$8cb7e220$0200a8c0@vmv.sandy.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:00:21 -0500 To: "Sergei Litvak" , From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Regional pairs. Case 1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:20 PM +0300 3/13/00, Sergei Litvak wrote: >Pairs >Dealer: E, Vul: EW > > A87432 > 975 > Q > 652 >-- 5 >2 8643 >AKJ98532 T76 >A973 KQJT4 > KQJT96 > AKQJT > 8 > 4 > > Bidding >N E S W > p 1C* 1D >Dbl** p 1S 4D >4s p*** p 5D >p p 5S 6D >Dbl p p p > >* - Prrecision >** - explained at the table as 5-8 HCP any distribution >*** - after undisputed hesitation >Lead from dQ. 13 trick made. >TD was first called after 6D bid and after the end of the board The hesitation demonstrably suggests 6D over pass, and pass is an LA. If West had passed over 5S, East would not have bid 6D, since he did not even raise 4D to 5D. The contract should thus be adjusted to 5S, which makes five, +450 to N/S and -450 to E/W. (It could be argued that West's 5D should be disallowed; I wouldn't disallow it, but it makes no difference.) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 08:26:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA20064 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:26:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA20059 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:26:38 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA20203 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 23:26:27 +0100 Received: from ip36.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.36), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda20201; Mon Mar 13 23:26:20 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 23:26:20 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3upqcs434pnm77k922mhdimih3miukl244@dybdal.dk> References: <00d501bf6cf8$df207a00$8e84d9ce@oemcomputer> <002201bf8b90$a23cac60$de5908c3@dodona> <001101bf8d35$cbc176a0$db5408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <001101bf8d35$cbc176a0$db5408c3@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 IAA20060 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 21:46:51 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >+=+ In the Kaplan era the way it was supposed to work was >that member NCBOs learnt of decisions via the Executive >Council minutes, as I understood. The WBFLC minutes are >incorporated when these minutes are ratified by the Exec. >I believe this still happens since my despatches to NCBOs >are a response to ton's wish that we improve our lines >of communication and are technically in excess of >requirements. What would be interesting to know, vaguely >interesting in a historical way, is whether those minutes >were received by NCBOs as Edgar said. The answer >identifies the location of the bottleneck before we are >able to say for sure 'nobody told them'. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I don't know where the communication failed, but I have had my current function in the DBF since 1993, and the Lille minutes were the first WBFLC minutes I have ever seen. The problem in our case may be with the DBF; I'll try to find out. While I am confident that a letter to the DBF with the heading "WBF Laws Commission Meeting Minutes" will be forwarded by the secretariat to relevant people, I could imagine that it may not be quite so obvious to the secretariat that "Executive Council Minutes" are to be copied to the people concerned with law interpretation. I definitely support the idea of sending WBFLC minutes separately. Of course, it also helps being told on BLML that there is some interesting material on its way: that means that I can check with the secretariat if I do not receive it soon after. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 08:52:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA20123 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:52:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA20117 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:52:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.101] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12Udh4-000NK2-00; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 22:52:10 +0000 Message-ID: <003d01bf8d3f$138fa3e0$db5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ron Johnson" , References: <200003131627.LAA10708@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 22:52:15 -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: Monday, March 13, 2000 4:27 PM Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? -------- \x/ ------- > Any real solution here (if there is in fact a problem - I'll stipulate > that there is one though I've never seen evidence of it.) lies in > education. A pamphlet geared towards inexperienced players > explaining UI (with example hands) might be the way to go. > > It's my experience that most card players will understand the > topic. There are similar concepts in hearts, spades or any of > the whist family. > +=+ Whilst this 'solution' is a commonplace, perhaps the first need (if I understand your comment) is 'education' of NA club directors. If they will not apply a law, how is any player to develop the understanding before going on to higher things? In writing the law the drafting committee was not so mutton-headed as to believe players would suddenly give up the bad habits of a lifetime, but now, when it happens, the law is 'unarguable' (sic - E.K.) and the breach of law opens the door to PPs for repeated offences requiring adjusted scores. A remedy is in the Director's hands but the legislators could only lead the horse to water, they cannot make it kick. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 08:57:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA20156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:57:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA20150 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:56:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id RAA15907 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:56:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA13152 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:56:48 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:56:48 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200003132256.RAA13152@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: L16A terminology X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jesper Dybdal > So in this specific situation, I always carefully avoid saying > "using UI" when I mean "choosing an action forbidden by L16". We desparately need a short, clear phrase to mean "choosing an action forbidden by L16A" (or 16C2, I suppose). "L16A violation" would be clear on BLML but not to most players. "Using UI" is wrong for the reasons Jesper and others give. The best I can do is "choosing an illegal logical alternative," but I really don't like it. It is clumsy and not very clear. "Choosing an illegal action when unauthorized information was available" may be clearer, but it seems too long. Can someone do better? If we come up with a good phrase, we should try to have it used whenever the occasion arises. I bet Linda would help get it into the ACBL case books, for example, and all the TD's who read BLML could use it routinely. If it's good, eventually it will catch on. So let's think of a good phrase. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 09:08:49 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA20197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 09:08:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp-out2.bellatlantic.net (smtp-out2.bellatlantic.net [199.45.39.157]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA20192 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 09:08:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from jayapfelbaum (adsl-151-201-232-161.bellatlantic.net [151.201.232.161]) by smtp-out2.bellatlantic.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id SAA28168 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 18:07:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <005f01bf8d40$d7fd7a80$4aebc997@jayapfelbaum> From: "Jay Apfelbaum" To: "BLML Group" Subject: Reno Case Book (long) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 18:06:59 -0500 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 I am pleased to report the Reno Case Book is finally published. As part of this effort, I proposed a process to handle violations of Law 16A (Extraneous Information). I now submit this to the group in hopes of receiving its comments. (NOTE: Please ignore all page references) ***************************** Handling the Laws - A Process Most of the Reno cases presented the problem of what to do when a player obtains extraneous information from his or her partner. This section will begin, therefore, with a suggested process for handling this often thorny problem. Other items include possible definitions of logical alternative and demonstrably suggest, and a possible standard for imposing procedural penalties. As a caveat, what follows are my suggestions. The National Laws Commission has not taken any position on the merits of these remarks. Part I - Unauthorized Information from Partner When reading this portion, please refer to the extract of Law 16A on page 113 and the extract of Law 73C on page 119. It is completely legal for a player to make a call or play based on information obtained from (1) legal calls or plays and (2) mannerisms of opponents. Basing a call or play on other extraneous information may violate the laws. Law 16A tells us that extraneous information can be given by “a remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like.” What strikes me about these examples is that all of them are behaviors. When partner provides us with extraneous information, he or she is giving us extra information to help determine our best next call or play. This extra information is the sum of the bridge inferences that are made available from the extraneous information. Of course, Law 73C says we must carefully avoid using this extraneous information. The list of examples of extraneous information is fundamentally different from what we think of as unauthorized information. They are related in that the unauthorized information is the sum of the bridge inferences available from the extraneous information. In practice, extraneous information from partner nearly always will result in unauthorized information. However, if the unauthorized information is coextensive with the authorized information there can be no violation of Law 16. The first two questions for a Director or Appeals Committee are, therefore: 1. Did partner provide extraneous information? 2. Did the extraneous information suggest something about partner's hand different from what the player understood to be suggested by the authorized information? If the answer to either question is no, there is no violation of law. My suggestions handle the alert procedure. ACBL requires a player to alert certain calls when the opponents are not expected to know their meaning. An alert is extraneous information because it is neither a legal call nor play. However, the underlying agreement is authorized information. Therefore, before anyone can violate Law 16 the extraneous information has to suggest something different about the player’s hand than the authorized information. When an alert is properly made and both partners know their agreement, the bridge inferences available from the extraneous information (alert) are identical to the bridge inferences from the authorized information (agreement). Because the unauthorized information is coextensive with the authorized information, there can be no violation of law. However, when (1) the alert causes the player to remember an otherwise forgotten agreement or (2) the explanation does not match the player’s understanding of the agreement, the unauthorized information is not identical to the authorized information. There can be a violation of law. The third question a Director or Appeals Committee should answer is: 3) Did the unauthorized information demonstrably suggest the action chosen over another action that is a logical alternative? (NOTE: The action chosen need not be a logical alternative.) If the answers to these three questions are “yes”, there is an infraction. The Director or Appeals Committee should try to replay the hand from the point of the infraction. The next paragraphs describe how each side may be assigned a score. The offenders should receive the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. To reach the most unfavorable result that was at all probable, the Director or Appeals Committee should examine the bidding or play from the point of the infraction and give the benefit of the doubt to the non-offenders. Figure out the worst possible score and the chances of getting that score. Then look at each progressively better result and add the chances of getting each together until they get to the worst score where the probabilities add to about a one chance in six. The non-offenders should receive the most favorable result that was likely had there been no infraction. To reach the most favorable result that was likely, the Director or Appeals Committee should examine the bidding or play from the point of the infraction and give the benefit of the doubt to the non-offenders. Figure out the best possible score and the chances of getting that score. Then look at each progressively worse result and add the chances of getting each together until they get to the best score where the probabilities add to about a one chance in three. There is a possible exception for non-offenders who “fail to play bridge.” First, the non-offenders must be able to get at least as good a score after the infraction as if the infraction never happened. The Director or Committee will have to determine the best likely score for the non-offenders had there been no infraction. The non-offenders are not required to play perfectly - the correct standard is reasonable for the class of player involved. If the non-offenders cannot get as good a score once the infraction occurs this exception will not apply. Next the Committee should decide if a non-offender made a bid or play that is “clearly wrong” for that class of player. Careless or inferior is not “clearly wrong.” A clearly wrong call or play might break the causal connection between infraction and final result. The Director or Committee could allow the non-offenders to keep their score. However, this exception should be invoked only rarely. This approach will often lead to different scores for the offenders and non-offenders. Sometimes, it is impossible to predict events from the point of the infraction. A Director or Appeals Committee should reach this conclusion only after a good faith effort to determine a result. In these cases, the Director or Appeals Committee may award an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity. Normally, this will mean an average plus and average minus. Part II - Suggested Definitions “Demonstrably Suggests” means there is a fairly direct and largely non-contradictory line of reasoning that shows the unauthorized information suggests the action actually chosen over another action that is a logical alternative. This phrase is new to the 1997 Laws, replacing the “may suggest” language in the previous version. It reflects a desire by the law makers to require a stronger connection between the unauthorized information and what it suggests. Demonstrable means something that is clearly evident or obvious. Therefore, the need for a fairly direct line of reasoning. The second half, largely non-contradictory, is designed to eliminate a bridge argument that the extraneous information suggests one kind of hand, when it might just as easily suggest another. “Logical Alternative” means a call or play that is a rational choice that would be seriously considered by the class of player in the absence of the extraneous information. This is the test adopted by the ACBL National Laws Commission. However, interpreting it is difficult because of certain, unfortunate language. Bridge is a thinking person’s game, and the best players will seriously consider every option before making any call or play. In fact, a call or play must be evaluated to decide if it is a logical alternative. This has led to some confusion. I suggest the better test is whether the call or play is a rational choice that might be chosen by the class of player. Consider a hypothetical situation where a player must decide whether to bid a game knowing it will depend solely on five trumps splitting 3-2 (67%). While most players faced with this decision will bid the game, I suspect there will be some that will not bid it. Perhaps they need to create a swing on the board. In a second hypothetical, the decision is whether to bid a game knowing it will depend solely on four trumps splitting no worse than 3-1 (90%). In this hypothetical, I suspect that everyone will bid the game. However, in both hypothetical examples the player would have to seriously consider both options before deciding. Part III - Procedural Penalties The cases in Reno, plus those before and since, have caused a great deal of discussion what to do with appeals that are without merit. Law 92 gives every player the right to appeal a Director's decision made at their table. In our current legal system, every person has a right to sue another. That does not mean they will succeed. And if the Court finds they had no reasonable basis for their suit, the vexatious and dilatory litigant can be and often is made to pay the other’s expenses. It is reasonable, therefore, for an Appeals Committee to impose a reasonable procedural penalty upon the appellants for taking an appeal without merit. Such an appeal delays the orderly completion of the game and inconveniences the opponents and appeal committee members specifically and the field in general. (See Law 90A, at Page 122) Before imposing whatever penalty is authorized, the Appeals Committee should decide whether there was any rational basis upon which the class of players who appealed might expect a favorable decision. Asking the Appeals Committee to change the appellees’ score only is acceptable. However, asking an Appeals Committee to impose a procedural penalty without changing the bridge result is not acceptable. The goal should be to minimize the number of appeals, and allowing a player to go to an appeals committee over a procedural penalty would have the opposite effect. Some have expressed concern that a Director might take an appeal personally. Writing as a former Director, I knew it was every person’s right to appeal a decision made at their table. Reasonable people can disagree. And even an unreasonable person is entitled to exercise their rights. I did not take this person’s actions personally, and never thought the appeal challenged my authority. This is also current ACBL policy. On a second matter, a Director or Appeals Committee may choose to impose a procedural penalty upon a contestant for violations of procedure or regulation This means a gross, deliberate, or multiple violation of the partnership's system or carding methods. Examples include (1) failing to alert or inform opponents, (2) misinforming opponents, (3) failing to properly correct partner's non-alert, or (4) failing to properly correct partner’s misinformation. Before imposing a penalty, the Director or Appeals Committee should first determine if the player had actual knowledge of the correct procedure or the player's background is such they should be charged with knowledge of the correct procedure. Even if the violator meets these conditions, the Director or Appeals Committee may decide not to sanction him or her if there are sufficient facts mitigating against a sanction. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 10:49:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA20734 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:49:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.163]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA20729 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:48:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from pa1s09a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.121.162] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12UHrv-0007cD-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 23:33:56 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: L16A terminology Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 00:18:14 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf8d4a$ca360f20$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: Steve Willner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, March 13, 2000 11:15 PM Subject: L16A terminology >> From: Jesper Dybdal >> So in this specific situation, I always carefully avoid saying >> "using UI" when I mean "choosing an action forbidden by L16". > >We desparately need a short, clear phrase to mean "choosing an action >forbidden by L16A" (or 16C2, I suppose). "L16A violation" would be >clear on BLML but not to most players. "Using UI" is wrong for the >reasons Jesper and others give. > >The best I can do is "choosing an illegal logical alternative," but I >really don't like it. It is clumsy and not very clear. "Choosing an >illegal action when unauthorized information was available" may be >clearer, but it seems too long. Can someone do better? > "You'r nicked" springs to mind. But seriously, how about; I believe you had a choice of calls, and I am ruling that you chose one that could have been suggested by the hesitation.(or whatever UI it was). Even, "could possibly have been suggested" or " could conceivably have been suggested" Important to make it sound as though a deliberate attempt to "Use UI" is the farthest thing from my mind:-) > >If we come up with a good phrase, we should try to have it used >whenever the occasion arises. I bet Linda would help get it into the >ACBL case books, for example, and all the TD's who read BLML could use >it routinely. If it's good, eventually it will catch on. So let's >think of a good phrase. > > Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 11:12:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA20775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:50:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA20759 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:50:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.88] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12UfXB-0002hq-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 00:50:06 +0000 Message-ID: <008301bf8d4f$8d38b5a0$db5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <00f901bf8c70$dc173f00$9e9c01d4@default> <000f01bf8d35$f166ea20$39b501d5@davidburn> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 23:30:02 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 9:48 PM Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? > Jesper wrote: > > > > On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 20:15:52 +0100, I wrote: > > > > >The laws use more than expression. > > > > That should of course be "more than one expression". > > No, it should not. The Laws do indeed use more than expression, as > Magda and Kojak and others have tried to point out. > ----------- \x/ ------------------- I bow my head, I do not understand - but I > take solace in these words of W.H. Auden: > > No matter. He shall be denied. > White Aphrodite is on our side. > What though his threat > To organise us grow more critical? > Zeus willing, we - the unpolitical - > Shall beat him yet. > > David Burn > London, England > "At length the silver'd sunlight of awakening day Through dappled arches drifts, So Hope renews And how my heart uplifts." From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 11:17:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA20849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 11:17:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA20844 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 11:17:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id UAA18677 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 20:16:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id UAA13365 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 20:16:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 20:16:27 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200003140116.UAA13365@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Risley: a claim X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson Mostly a simple book ruling, as David undoubtedly knows. Probably a good case for a TD training course, though. > Declarer [South] was in 2NT, playing matchpoints, and had > made eight tricks: > -- > -- > J4 > -- > -- -- > T -- > Q K6 > -- -- > -- > 9 > T > -- > > At this point, with the lead in dummy [North], East said "one each". OK, at this moment, we have a claim of one trick and a concession of one (L68B). > West pointed out that he could win two tricks, In this situation, L68B says "no concession has occurred." (I'd have preferred to say the concession is cancelled, but it's the same result.) So now we have a claim but no concession, which again according to L68B, can only be a claim for all the tricks. > declarer could see no > problem, and they scored it up as eight tricks, and took the hands out > of the next board. Temporarily there is an acquiescence. > At this point, before the first call, dummy calls the TD and asks for > a ruling. L69A says the acquiescence isn't final yet, because neither North nor South has called on the next board, and the round hasn't ended. So we are back to East having claimed all the tricks, and the TD simply rules on the claim in the usual way. Easy enough if you have a copy of the FLB at hand. :-) As far as I can tell, East made no claim statement about ducking the D-4. The TD therefore has to judge whether playing the K would be irrational. Unless there is a _very obvious_ reason East must know the position is not one with the South and West hands exchanged, it would seem rational to play the K. From the language of the claim, it seems unlikely that such a reason exists. So I would probably rule 9 tricks, but it might be necessary to consider how the earlier play went. > East, while bidding 1S on the next board [he is an offensive > sort of fellow], says that if a small diamond is led off the dummy, of > course he will duck even though he thinks declarer has the ten, and > could he get on with this board because he is getting late. Maybe a word about how to behave when the TD is making a ruling would be in order or even a PP if this is a repeat offense. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 11:24:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA20883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 11:24:25 +1000 (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 LAA20878 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 11:24:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Ufz2-000HSl-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 01:18:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 18:25:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? References: <008201bf8a13$21877380$cfd93ad0@hdavis> <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B57D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <008201bf8a13$21877380$cfd93ad0@hdavis> <3.0.1.32.20000310174732.012788b8@pop.mindspring.com> <00c001bf8ba2$6b510d60$37d43ad0@hdavis> <5jO1MgAXwvy4Ew9x@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >Everybody knows that using UI is a >"crime", and I find it important to give such rulings in a way >that does not make the players feel accused of a "crime". I don't. How can it be a crime? To use UI means that part of your decision-making process involves the UI from partner. That is only a crime if it is deliberate - and it usually isn't. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 11:25:04 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA20899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 11:25:04 +1000 (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 LAA20884 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 11:24:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Ufyy-000HSi-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 01:18:50 +0000 Message-ID: <9invv4Aq3Tz4EwU4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 19:13:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Resolving claim disputes without the TD References: <20000216202627.94731.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000216202627.94731.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: > "Play ceases" has become a mantra here. Well, I have no idea what a mantra is. I thought it was a lrge spider. > 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? Surely: unless claimer is trying it on, he only has Plan A and he assumes it is going to work. > 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. First point: you are assuming that declarer is claiming. this may be true in most cases, but not in all cases. Second point: if declarer is allowed to play on then in most cases one of two things will happen. Declarer, not being an idiot, will have some idea of what is wrong with his claim, so either he [a] now does the right thing *because* of the claim, which is inherently unfair or [b] he feels he has to do the wrong thing *because* of his claim which is hardly fair to him: he is being asked to act unnaturally. Why not let an arbiter sort it out. > 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. It is nothing to do with information. There is no reason to "play it out". Declarer has stated a line, and it merely needs arbitration. -------- Todd Zimnoch wrote: > 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. I do not agree with this. This type of thing leads to the biggest, loudest, and longest arguments. Most players will make the extra trick if allowed to play on after a claim because they know why the claim is being challenged. Their opponents will not let this go without a fight!! > 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? It is not a question of abuses. A line has been stated and someone has to adjudicate on that line and what it means. If a player plays on then it will be very difficult to say whether he has followed the line. There will be two main effects of playing on. [1] More bad claims will succeed than do now. [2] More arguments and ill-feeling will be created than are now. > 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. You are assuming what would happen otherwise: trust me, you are wrong! You would get slower hands and longer arguments otherwise. > 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. There is no reason why Directors should necessarily have a basic understanding of why the Law is as it is. -------- Todd Zimnoch wrote: > 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. Since I was not there, I cannot be certain. But if there was the slightest possibility [including carelessness] that West would discard the wrong card then I would give South a trick - and so would most TDs. However, it may have been completely obvious that West would get it right. > 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. Maybe, but a PP is going a bit far!! It is not the general approach to give PPs except to repeat offenders. > 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. Very contrived. This case may be fair, but it is not the normal case, and it is difficult to see declarer disagreeing with three down. > 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. Oh, no. Too often such a player waits for ages for a lead. You seem to be assuming that claims go wrong. When a player claims it is accepted without much question in about 95+% of cases. That is why it saves time. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I have not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles up to ten weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 11:27:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA20915 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 11:27:05 +1000 (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 LAA20897 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 11:25:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Ufyy-000HSh-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 01:18:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 18:40:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What's the Contract? References: <00fc01bf8c8f$c6a86580$6700a8c0@enrichnz.co.nz> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mark Abraham wrote: >On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Peter Bowyer wrote: > >> Thank you Mark >> But... >> How think you that 41 should have a revision/addendum Say 41E "Contract >> Re-Stated" separate paragraph to itself? >> "After it is too late.....etc" >> Surely "Opening Lead Faced" is not the correct place for this part of the >> law?? > >That sounds quite reasonable - in fact it probably warrants not being in >law 41 at all (whose title is "Commencement of Play"). This section we are >discussion is more like "Contestant's Rights" in the manner of L42 >"Dummy's Rights" and may be worth stating as a new law in the next >revision. I suggest between current Laws 41 and 42 for its position. Oho! Suddenly it has become a suitable question for BLML, yes, Mark? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats 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 Mar 14 11:27:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA20931 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 11:27:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (law2-f122.hotmail.com [216.32.181.122]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA20924 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 11:27:28 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 73110 invoked by uid 0); 14 Mar 2000 01:20:09 -0000 Message-ID: <20000314012009.73109.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.31.48.11 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:20:09 PST X-Originating-IP: [200.31.48.11] From: "jorge pellegrini" To: fox@appl.sci-nnov.ru, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Regional pairs. Case 1 Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 21:20:09 CLT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I like this rule : N/S = 6 Dx Made = - 1740 E/O = 5 Spade Made = - 450 JORGE Jorge Pellegrini J. Santiago - Chile pellegri@hotmail.com web.site. www.geocities.com/jorgepelle/ >From: "Sergei Litvak" >To: >Subject: Regional pairs. Case 1 >Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 23:20:16 +0300 > >Pairs >Dealer: E, Vul: EW > > A87432 > 975 > Q > 652 >-- 5 >2 8643 >AKJ98532 T76 >A973 KQJT4 > KQJT96 > AKQJT > 8 > 4 > > Bidding >N E S W > p 1C* 1D >Dbl** p 1S 4D >4s p*** p 5D >p p 5S 6D >Dbl p p p > >* - Prrecision >** - explained at the table as 5-8 HCP any distribution >*** - after undisputed hesitation > >Lead from dQ. 13 trick made. >TD was first called after 6D bid and after the end of the board > >What should TD do? > >Sergei Litvak. >Chief TD of RBL > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 12:12:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA20774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:50:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA20758 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:50:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.88] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12UfXF-0002hq-00; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 00:50:09 +0000 Message-ID: <008501bf8d4f$8f058660$db5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Adam Wildavsky" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B57D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl><008201bf8a13$21877380$cfd93ad0@hdavis><004301bf8a1e$af5ca6c0$0d5608c3@dodona><000d01bf8a2c$384e1a60$f28101d5@davidburn> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 23:58:39 -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, March 13, 2000 7:34 PM Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? > At 11:16 PM +0000 3/11/00, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >+=+ Just so. But being aware of the problem you > >are probably in the habit of asking a question > >about situations in which they play splinters when > >you first look at their CC. > > A policy which requires this seems foolish to me. > +=+ Are you aware of a policy that requires it? I was looking at ways of avoiding an anticipated problem which could leave David struggling for a ruling in his favour. And I do know that David is both intelligent and painstaking about his bridge, he even gets to be a member of the last team standing in the process for selecting the English Olympiad team entry. [Felicitations, David] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 12:18:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA21172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:18:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA21167 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:17:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.208] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12Ugtq-0004oq-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 02:17:34 +0000 Message-ID: <00c901bf8d5b$c5616ce0$db5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 01:53:16 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 8:43 PM Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? > >-- it seems to me > that it should be a very rare event indeed to keep deposits / assess > appeal-without-merit points when someone appeals and runs into a committee > whose bridge judgment happens to be the same as the TD's. And yet, > incredibly often people post "what is your ruling?" questions and get > replies saying "keep the deposit and shoot him in the back on his way out > the door too." Does anyone else find this mildly disturbing? > +=+ I think I have just walked into fog. In what circumstances could a deposit be retained etc. if the AC did not agree with the Director's ruling? Is it not when they DO agree, AND think for the class of player that it should be manifest the Director's ruling will be upheld, that the further sanction is applied? And is not the responder who talks of shooting really thinking of shooting an incompetent AC that stopped short of appropriate action (in the judgement of that responder)? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 13:12:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA21159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:16:47 +1000 (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 MAA21150 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:16:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Ufyy-000HSf-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 01:18:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 18:31:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B References: <00d501bf6cf8$df207a00$8e84d9ce@oemcomputer> <002201bf8b90$a23cac60$de5908c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 19:26:48 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" > wrote: > >>As for communication: it is not quite as David says. >>We do get information to the NCBOs. > >Yes, it seems to work well now - at least the DBF did receive the >Lille and Bermuda WBFLC minutes without problems. While in Australia, I quoted a Lille decision to two Australian TDs, one fairly senior, one very senior. The fairly senior one had no idea what I was talking about, and had not heard of Lille. The very senior one agreed that the ABF had passed nothing on: in his case I feel his excuse was a little less convincing since he subscribes to BLML ..... -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 13:41:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA20773 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:50:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA20760 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:50:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.88] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12UfXG-0002hq-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 00:50:11 +0000 Message-ID: <008601bf8d4f$8ff823c0$db5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <00f901bf8c70$dc173f00$9e9c01d4@default> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 00:50:12 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 7:15 PM Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? > > It can happen than an ethical player who knows the law perfectly > well judges that a certain action is the only logical alternative > action; he therefore takes that action even though it is also > suggested by UI. He has not "used UI" or "taken advantage of > UI", since he would take the same action without UI. > > The TD may nevertheless adjust the score: this does not mean that > the player is accused of anything more serious than having a > bridge judgement that differs from that of the TD, resulting in > the choice of an action which, in the TD's judgement, violates > L16A. > +=+ This slightly understates matters. Firstly, it should not be the TD's judgement but, even prior to the CoP which all NCBOs are now strongly urged* to adopt uncorrupted, the judgement of the TD in consultation with a number of people; good practice has long not had such judgements made, if it can be avoided, by one person unassisted. Secondly, if the decision goes against the player, the significance is that he is deemed to have failed to make an objective judgement under the influence of UI; he was under a duty not automatically to make the call he would always have made but to consider what proportions of his peers would have considered (and whether any would have made), in his position, alternative calls. If he fails it is because, consciously or not, his thinking has not overcome the influence of the UI and he has failed to avoid taking advantage of the UI. ~ G ~ +=+ [* by the WBF and, in Zone 1, also the EBL] From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 14:17:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA21611 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 14:17:28 +1000 (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 OAA21606 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 14:17:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from appenzeller.anu.edu.au (appenzeller.anu.edu.au [150.203.35.97]) by rsc.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA03892; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 15:17:03 +1100 (EST) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 15:17:03 +1100 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@appenzeller.anu.edu.au To: David Stevenson cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What's the Contract? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, David Stevenson wrote: > Mark Abraham wrote: > >On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Peter Bowyer wrote: > > > >> Thank you Mark > >> But... > >> How think you that 41 should have a revision/addendum Say 41E "Contract > >> Re-Stated" separate paragraph to itself? > >> "After it is too late.....etc" > >> Surely "Opening Lead Faced" is not the correct place for this part of the > >> law?? > > > >That sounds quite reasonable - in fact it probably warrants not being in > >law 41 at all (whose title is "Commencement of Play"). This section we are > >discussion is more like "Contestant's Rights" in the manner of L42 > >"Dummy's Rights" and may be worth stating as a new law in the next > >revision. I suggest between current Laws 41 and 42 for its position. > > Oho! Suddenly it has become a suitable question for BLML, yes, Mark? The original post, perhaps not. The following discussion appears to be suitable. Youth does not automatically imply impetuousness David :-P Mark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 14:22:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA21267 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:58:40 +1000 (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 MAA21257 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:58:12 +1000 (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 12UhWs-000BGT-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 02:57:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 02:27:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Simultaneous References: <38C624DB.8C53B90C@xtra.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <38C624DB.8C53B90C@xtra.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bruce Small wrote: >Quick query. What constitutes simultaneous? i.e. how close do the cards >have to be. Situation: South declarer. East leads DA face up. West not >looking says "My lead?" and puts D8 on table. All agree there was >probably a few seconds between the two cards. TD called it as >simultaneous. Correct lead is D8 and DA must be played as major penalty >card. Some of us felt it was OLOOT and south should have had the usual >options. D8 is major penalty card but if south does not accept OLOOT he >can still forbid Diamond lead and D8 remains while DA is picked up. So >back to the original question What constitutes simultaneous? If cards are played a few seconds apart then they are not simultaneous. Cards take a certain time to be played so the cards must be being played at the same moment to be simultaneous. Suppose it takes two seconds to play a card. If a card is started to be played at 2.00.00 and another is taken from the hand at 2.00.01 then they are simultaneous since the first card is still in process of being played when the second card starts being played. However, if the second card was started to be played at 2.00.03 then it is not simultaneous. The way you have described the story then they were not simultaneous. BTW, Kojak thinks I do not quote my sources enough, probably correctly: this one is just my opinion, based more on my feelings developed as a player than as a Director. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I have not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles up to ten weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 14:28:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA21646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 14:28:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA21638 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 14:28:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12UiwW-0006lb-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 04:28:29 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 04:26:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Regional pairs. Case 1 References: <20000314012009.73109.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000314012009.73109.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk jorge pellegrini wrote: >I like this rule : > N/S = 6 Dx Made = - 1740 > E/O = 5 Spade Made = - 450 Very nice, Jorge, but why? Either you allow the 6D bid, in which case the table result stands, or you do not, and why should N/S get -1740. Are you suggesting the double of 6D was irrational, wild or gambling? Personally, I rule it as 5S=. >>From: "Sergei Litvak" >>To: >>Subject: Regional pairs. Case 1 >>Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 23:20:16 +0300 >> >>Pairs >>Dealer: E, Vul: EW >> >> A87432 >> 975 >> Q >> 652 >>-- 5 >>2 8643 >>AKJ98532 T76 >>A973 KQJT4 >> KQJT96 >> AKQJT >> 8 >> 4 >> >> Bidding >>N E S W >> p 1C* 1D >>Dbl** p 1S 4D >>4s p*** p 5D >>p p 5S 6D >>Dbl p p p >> >>* - Prrecision >>** - explained at the table as 5-8 HCP any distribution >>*** - after undisputed hesitation >> >>Lead from dQ. 13 trick made. >>TD was first called after 6D bid and after the end of the board >> >>What should TD do? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 14:31:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA21278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:58:52 +1000 (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 MAA21258 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:58:17 +1000 (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 12UhWr-000BGS-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 02:57:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 02:20:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Software References: <20000210125645.49127.qmail@hotmail.com> <00c501bf7bf4$a19fbbe0$0bd53ad0@hdavis> In-Reply-To: <00c501bf7bf4$a19fbbe0$0bd53ad0@hdavis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: >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. I suppose for the computer-literate defaults are unnecessary, but many people are not very adept and tend to stick to defaults. It is thus helpful if the defaults are correct. >> 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). However, one problem with OE is that it will *not* permit a working sig separator. Thus not only will OE not strip sigs, it won't allow the person at the other end to do so either. >> 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) Ok, not necessarily red. Different colour is all that I meant. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I have not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles up to ten weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 15:12:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA21155 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:16:44 +1000 (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 MAA21148 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:16:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Ufyy-000HSg-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 01:18:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 18:40:00 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What's the Contract? References: <00b501bf8c85$db73c680$6700a8c0@enrichnz.co.nz> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mark Abraham wrote: >On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Peter Bowyer wrote: > >> Bear with me please, a little outside what BLML is about, but I do believe >> it is in our brief > >Normally this sort of question should go on rec.games.bridge. BLML tends >to discuss shortcomings of existing laws, suggested revisions, unusual >rulings, some trivia. It is not normally a resource for people with a >specific enquiry that doesn't come under those sort of topics. I must say that I disagree with this extremely strongly. There is no need for anyone to reply who does not want to, but I and several other posters are always prepared to answer simple questions about the Laws, and I believe a "Bridge-Laws mailing list" is and should be a perfect place to ask any sort of question about the Laws of Bridge. While I was in Australia, I got an email that I found rather upsetting, that suggested that lesser lights on this list [not my description] were finding it difficult to get answers and finding it a bit intimidating, especially if their first language was not English. I think this is very unfortunate. While some people's only interest is deep discussions, that is not everyone's only interest. I certainly will attempt to answer any question posed unless I feel it has been answered adequately by someone else. As far as RGB is concerned, it does not have the wealth of talent in the knowledge of the Laws that this list does, and I would hope anyone with a question, however simple, should come to us here. Perhaps we could go further in some way, and get a specific word to be put into the Subject line so that people who have no interest in such matters can delete such posts unread. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats 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 Mar 14 15:53:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA21283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:59:01 +1000 (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 MAA21259 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:58:20 +1000 (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 12UhWk-000BGT-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 02:57:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 02:07:27 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? References: <00f901bf8c70$dc173f00$9e9c01d4@default> <000f01bf8d35$f166ea20$39b501d5@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <000f01bf8d35$f166ea20$39b501d5@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >Jesper wrote: > > >> On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 20:15:52 +0100, I wrote: >> >> >The laws use more than expression. >> >> That should of course be "more than one expression". > >No, it should not. The Laws do indeed use more than expression, as >Magda and Kojak and others have tried to point out. Why, if expression >were all that the Laws used, some of us pitiful toilers at the >coal-face would expect some reward for working out what the Laws >express. Instead, we are told by very many eminent authorities (Kojak >himself, Grattan, and Stevenson when it suits his purpose) that the >important thing to do is to work out what was in the minds of the >lawmakers - and, if we can't work that out because the words are >deliberately opaque, to accept what they tell us rather than try to >work out what the words in which they have chosen to express >themselves actually mean. I bow my head, I do not understand - but I >take solace in these words of W.H. Auden: I see that here and on RGB David has gone back to his style of regularly being rude to me. Perhaps someone would like to explain to me what I have done to deserve this. He is now regularly sniping about what DWS would do, and what Stevenson said. Sometimes he tells the truth: about half the time he quotes something I neither said nor believe in. However, it is the fact that it is so frequent that I dislike. David is a lovely chap when you meet him, and I have considered him a friend for a long time. That is why I find so incomprehensible his efforts to upset me on RGB and here. He is, of course, successful: as people realise I am thin-skinned and get very upset by repeated personal innuendo. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats 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 Mar 14 16:00:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA21277 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:58:51 +1000 (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 MAA21256 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:58:11 +1000 (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 12UhWj-000BGR-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 02:57:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 02:03:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote: > > >On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Jesper Dybdal wrote: >[snip] >> There is a difference between these two things that you may not >> do: the former is unethical (if you know it is illegal), but the >> latter can occur through no real fault of the player: it may just >> be the result of a bridge judgement that is different from that >> of the TD. >> >> It can happen than an ethical player who knows the law perfectly >> well judges that a certain action is the only logical alternative >> action; he therefore takes that action even though it is also >> suggested by UI. He has not "used UI" or "taken advantage of >> UI", since he would take the same action without UI. >> >> The TD may nevertheless adjust the score: this does not mean that >> the player is accused of anything more serious than having a >> bridge judgement that differs from that of the TD, resulting in >> the choice of an action which, in the TD's judgement, violates >> L16A. > >Given that we expect a fair bit of variety in bridge judgment from one >player to the next, and we are in no danger of discovering an accepted >objective standard of what "correct bridge judgment" is -- it seems to me >that it should be a very rare event indeed to keep deposits / assess >appeal-without-merit points when someone appeals and runs into a committee >whose bridge judgment happens to be the same as the TD's. And yet, >incredibly often people post "what is your ruling?" questions and get >replies saying "keep the deposit and shoot him in the back on his way out >the door too." Does anyone else find this mildly disturbing? No. there have only been a few, and they have been so ridiculous that one doubts whether the player who appealed really believed he had any chance. in real life, most appeals have merit. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats 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 Mar 14 16:13:39 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA21298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:59:25 +1000 (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 MAA21284 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:59:09 +1000 (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 12UhWv-000BGP-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 02:57:58 +0000 Message-ID: <47++5KCPeaz4EwlH@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 02:44:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Rant / answers please! References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk James wrote: >Hello, everyone. I hope you will forgive a little criticism, but I did >originally post this example not to pass the time of day, but in the hope of >hearing your opinions. Is the subject matter so uninteresting that it warrants >only a single one-line answer from a mailing list which supposedly exists as a >forum for discussing the laws of bridge, whereas the merits and demerits of >"v-card" attachments to mails stimulates lively and passionate debate? (I don't >know what they are either, and I care even less). > >My plea then: leave out all "v-cards", so we never have to waste time discussing >them. And keep the debate on bridge-related topics flowing, and the less >abstract the better. I have not seen this hand before. However, I think people will talk about the subjects that interest them, and mailing lists will always have some comments on Netiquette - why not? The failure of people to reply to this earlier can be for a number of reasons - for example it may not have been so clear before - but I am willing to wager that is has nothing to do with v-cards. >Here it is again under a new heading, incorporating Dany's answer: > >Jay Apfelbaum wrote: >>My opinion is that the proper test to determine whether a bid is a psych is >>objective in nature. That is, it does not matter whether the individual >>ACTUALLY BELIEVED he or she was making a deliberate and gross misstatement >>of honor strength or suit length. It only matters whether the bid, >>deliberately made, IS a gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length. That does not accord with normal usage of the English language. A deliberate and gross misstatement is hardly going to be accidental!!!! No, if it is deliberate, then it is deliberate. An accidental gross misstatement is not a psyche. In England we treat them similarly but not identically. >Marv commented: >>But isn't the point moot? A psychic call is legal as long as there is no >>concealed partnership agreement that protects it (L73E). > >This reminds me of the following hand which came up years ago in a league match >played privately: > >Dealer W, N/S vul: > > 9 x x > A x > A 10 x x > A K x x > K Q J 10 x x x x > J 10 x Q x x > Q x x x x > 10 x Q J x x x > A x > K x x x x > K J x x > x x > > W N E S > 2H(1) 3D(2) p 3NT > all pass > >(1) alerted, N asked and was told "weak two in hearts" >(2) alerted, Hackett convention, a strong take-out > >W led spades, won the lead when declarer took the diamond finesse and cashed >more spades for two down. N/S queried the opening bid. East admitted that they >had for years used 2H as a weak two in either major until a director recently >informed them this was illegal, since when they switched to playing standard >weak twos. She said her partner had probably opened 2H out of habit. > >N/S asked me how the ruling would have gone if they had appealed. What do you >think? Do you judge West's action to be: > >1. a psych (no score adjustment)? >2. an illegal convention (60%/30% assigned adjusted score)? >3. a misbid (no adjustment)? >4. Concealed partnership understanding, (60%/30% assigned adjusted score, and >grease the trapdoor on the gallows (Dany)) Hmmm. No wonder you got few answers. Surely the answer is "You had to be there"? I ask the questions, and make the judgement. I never assume people are lying [with two exceptions, two people I mean, who I always assume are lying] unless it becomes fairly obvious that they are. Anyway, you have given us the story. Assuming we believe East then West's call was a misbid - but why have you only told us what East said? I would specifically ask West why s/he opened 2H, and since you have not told us West's answer I am not sure how I would rule. >Would you rule differently without East's admission of the partnership's past >misdemeanours? When I get the facts I make a ruling. Of course, if the facts are different, the ruling may be different. In this case, it is West's opinion I really need. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I have not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles up to ten weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 17:17:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA22169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 17:17:58 +1000 (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 RAA22164 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 17:17:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from appenzeller.anu.edu.au (appenzeller.anu.edu.au [150.203.35.97]) by rsc.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA13474 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 18:17:50 +1100 (EST) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 18:17:49 +1100 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@appenzeller.anu.edu.au To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Subject matter for BLML In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, David Stevenson wrote: > Mark Abraham wrote: > >On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Peter Bowyer wrote: > > > >> Bear with me please, a little outside what BLML is about, but I do believe > >> it is in our brief > > > >Normally this sort of question should go on rec.games.bridge. BLML tends > >to discuss shortcomings of existing laws, suggested revisions, unusual > >rulings, some trivia. It is not normally a resource for people with a > >specific enquiry that doesn't come under those sort of topics. > > I must say that I disagree with this extremely strongly. There is no > need for anyone to reply who does not want to, but I and several other > posters are always prepared to answer simple questions about the Laws, > and I believe a "Bridge-Laws mailing list" is and should be a perfect > place to ask any sort of question about the Laws of Bridge. In that case BLML would be performing the dual function of a discussion & learning forum for the above-mentioned topics, and provide people (TDs or players) with a resource to save them learning much about the inside of TFLB provided that they're prepared to wait up to 12 hours for an answer from a resident expert. When I joined BLML in 1996 (thanks to a pointer from DWS) I received the distinct impression that "What's the ruling here" posts were not automatically appropriate for the list. Clearly they can be and on occasions are relevant, mostly when the poster plans some follow up questions for discussion - as Peter did in the thread that prompted this discussion. Can I suggest that those people planning to post a situation, then post again once the list has responded and ruled, indicate this in their post? I normally read the first email in a new thread and proceed to discard most threads that simply ask for a ruling, unless I happen to notice something peculiar. I suspect I would not be the only one to do this, judging by the usual volume of daily traffic on BLML. An indication of forthcoming discussion might prevent those of us who may become interested from throwing out some interesting threads with some that are not so interesting for some. Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 17:28:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA22200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 17:28:32 +1000 (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 RAA22195 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 17:28:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from eduhi.at (petrus2.konvent [192.168.1.116]) by michael.gym (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA32326; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:35:02 +0100 Message-ID: <38CDE9C5.8EDB9760@eduhi.at> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:27:01 +0100 From: Petrus Schuster OSB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [de] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan Endicott , BLML Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B References: <00d501bf6cf8$df207a00$8e84d9ce@oemcomputer> <002201bf8b90$a23cac60$de5908c3@dodona> <001101bf8d35$cbc176a0$db5408c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott schrieb: > +=+ In the Kaplan era the way it was supposed to work was > that member NCBOs learnt of decisions via the Executive > Council minutes, as I understood. The WBFLC minutes are > incorporated when these minutes are ratified by the Exec. > I believe this still happens since my despatches to NCBOs > are a response to ton's wish that we improve our lines > of communication and are technically in excess of > requirements. What would be interesting to know, vaguely > interesting in a historical way, is whether those minutes > were received by NCBOs as Edgar said. The answer > identifies the location of the bottleneck before we are > able to say for sure 'nobody told them'. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I have been a member of the Austrian NLC from 1976-88, and of the Executive from 1985-88. I cannot remember having ever seen any such minutes. So either the League Secretary regularly disposed of them, or they just didn't get here. Petrus From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 18:58:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA22359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 18:58:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA22348 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 18:58:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.58] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12Un9m-000DIo-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:58:27 +0000 Message-ID: <003801bf8d93$c609c060$3a5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <47++5KCPeaz4EwlH@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Rant / answers please! Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:59:21 -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 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, March 14, 2000 2:44 AM Subject: Re: Rant / answers please! > James wrote: > >Hello, everyone. I hope you will forgive a little criticism, but I did > >originally post this example not to pass the time of day, but in the hope of > >hearing your opinions. Is the subject matter so uninteresting that it warrants > >only a single one-line answer from a mailing list which supposedly exists as a > >forum for discussing the laws of bridge, > > -------------------- \x/ ---------------- > >This reminds me of the following hand which came up years ago in a league match > >played privately: > > > When I get the facts I make a ruling. Of course, if the facts are > different, the ruling may be different. In this case, it is West's > opinion I really need. > +=+ When I saw the hand my mind diverted to wondering whether Declarer's nose was blocked. Why has LHO not led a Heart from a solid suit with a Spade entry? So I asked myself whether I would have held up the Spade and played the Diamonds the other way. I got no answer so I had nothing to say. Of course there might have been an item of law to think about but I was elsewhere at the time and David has pointed to the incomplete exposure of the facts. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 18:58:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA22358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 18:58:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA22349 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 18:58:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.58] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12Un9l-000DIo-00; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:58:25 +0000 Message-ID: <003701bf8d93$c527ebe0$3a5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Petrus Schuster OSB" , "BLML" References: <00d501bf6cf8$df207a00$8e84d9ce@oemcomputer> <002201bf8b90$a23cac60$de5908c3@dodona> <001101bf8d35$cbc176a0$db5408c3@dodona> <38CDE9C5.8EDB9760@eduhi.at> Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:39:32 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" 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 ; BLML Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 7:27 AM Subject: Re: Laws 26A and 26B > I have been a member of the Austrian NLC from 1976-88, and of the > Executive from 1985-88. I cannot remember having ever seen any such > minutes. So either the League Secretary regularly disposed of them, or > they just didn't get here. > +=+ I think I am persuaded that I lived in a cocoon cosy with illusion. Obviously it did not happen. I wonder what illusions hang about my grey years? Possibly dissemination of information from the WBF is left to Zonal orgs - whereupon lethargy or wilful disregard take over. The Zonal representatives certainly have them. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 19:28:21 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA22451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 19:28:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f226.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.226]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA22445 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 19:28:12 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 80755 invoked by uid 0); 14 Mar 2000 09:27:34 -0000 Message-ID: <20000314092734.80754.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 152.174.90.129 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 01:27:34 PST X-Originating-IP: [152.174.90.129] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Resolving claim disputes without the TD Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 01:27:34 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > "Play ceases" has become a mantra here. > > Well, I have no idea what a mantra is. I thought it was a lrge >spider. An incantation, for instance, a sound uttered during meditation to allow your thoughts to run clear. [snip] > > 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. > > First point: you are assuming that declarer is claiming. this may be >true in most cases, but not in all cases. No I'm not. "As declarer,..." "As a defender..." Not much later I stated that I think a distinction between claiming as a declarer and claiming as a defender should be made. > Second point: if declarer is allowed to play on then in most cases one >of two things will happen. Declarer, not being an idiot, will have some >idea of what is wrong with his claim, so either he [a] now does the >right thing *because* of the claim, which is inherently unfair or This is the general situation I thought would be the common source for complaint. The example of a two-way finesse was offered. >[b] he >feels he has to do the wrong thing *because* of his claim which is >hardly fair to him: he is being asked to act unnaturally. Why not let >an arbiter sort it out. I've questioned their judgement. I recently made a bad claim where director originally gave one trick. The best argument at the time was for one trick. Then he discovered a line of play that avoids losing any tricks and assigns it to me! I protested. The director came back an hour later to offer 3 tricks on a play that opponents hadn't considered. Ill gotten MP if you asked me. (Kudos to the director for thinking about it so long, but I think his first ruling was the correct one.) > It is nothing to do with information. There is no reason to "play it >out". Declarer has stated a line, and it merely needs arbitration. A good 80% of the time I encounter a claim, no explanation is given nor needed. (Sometimes it is needed and given.) In the cases where it is needed and there's a question regarding the claim, I've never seen its lack penalized. > >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. > > I do not agree with this. This type of thing leads to the biggest, >loudest, and longest arguments. Most players will make the extra trick >if allowed to play on after a claim because they know why the claim is >being challenged. Their opponents will not let this go without a >fight!! Who relinquished the right to call for the director? I really shouldn't be surprized by bridge players' lack of prudence. After all, some still play with me. ;) > > 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? > > It is not a question of abuses. A line has been stated and someone >has to adjudicate on that line and what it means. If a player plays on >then it will be very difficult to say whether he has followed the line. It's not currently a question about abuses because the practise of playing out after a claim is disallowed. It was disallowed for some reason, presumably because the game isn't fair without the prohibition. Otherwise, the law would be a waste of ink. > There will be two main effects of playing on. [1] More bad claims >will succeed than do now. [2] More arguments and ill-feeling will be >created than are now. Do we care about 1? If opponents cannot realise that they were entitled to another trick, do they deserve it? With a completely different spin, should we allow team A to abuse team B's naivete while team C is too ethical to do the same? [snip] > > 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. > > There is no reason why Directors should necessarily have a basic >understanding of why the Law is as it is. As opposed to why it isn't elsewise, perhaps. Without any understanding for the rationale, or the situations where Law 23 would be applicable, how do you expect the director to rule efficiently with it? [snip] > > 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. > > Since I was not there, I cannot be certain. But if there was the >slightest possibility [including carelessness] that West would discard >the wrong card then I would give South a trick - and so would most TDs. > > However, it may have been completely obvious that West would get it >right. If it weren't just a club game, I would have appealed the ruling. East knows that her claim relies on west's discard. She wasn't so foolish to think that her 2D would win with the K and J out against it. Exposing her hand to preclude the possibility that her partner could make a mistake is an action I consider akin to cheating. It's possible (actually, most likely) that she had complete faith in her partner's ability to count the cards, in which case her partner's discard would have quickly followed my exit. She should have known that also. Whether or not west would have made the right play, I think that a claim in this situation should be strongly discouraged. To allow east to claim like this repeatedly would have her opponents question her ethics. [snip] > > 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. > > Oh, no. Too often such a player waits for ages for a lead. Someone recently asked if you'd rather play a fair game slowly or cheat fast. > You seem to be assuming that claims go wrong. When a player claims it >is accepted without much question in about 95+% of cases. That is why >it saves time. I know with certainty that claims go wrong. If 50% of the hands do not get played to the final trick and we play more than 20 boards a session, there would be a questionable claim once every 2 sessions. In my experience (thankfully) it's been much lower than this. Maybe one incidence every 2 or 3 months, but it's no less a problem to me. -Todd ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 22:59:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA23141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 22:59:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA23132 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 22:58:57 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id MAA07302 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:58:18 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:58 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? 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: <008601bf8d4f$8ff823c0$db5408c3@dodona> Grattan, in yet another example of overbearing arrogance wrote: > Secondly, if the decision goes against the player, the > significance is that he is deemed to have failed to make an > objective judgement under the influence of UI; he was > under a duty not automatically to make the call he would > always have made but to consider what proportions of > his peers would have considered (and whether any > would have made), in his position, alternative calls. > If he fails it is because, consciously or not, his thinking > has not overcome the influence of the UI and he has > failed to avoid taking advantage of the UI. Admittedly this is a possibility but more likely# the player concerned has considered what *those he considers his peers* would do (a judgement he is far better placed to make than the TD) while the TD, lacking such detailed knowledge must accept a far wider group of "peers". Why not try, as a player, making a list of your peers (those with the same system, style, temperament, bidding judgement, hand evaluation, table presence, knowledge of opposition etc) from among those you know well - short, isn't it? Try asking those people to perform the same exercise and eliminate from your list all those who didn't include you - still some there? Excellent - you are now in a reasonable position to estimate what they would do and analyse your LAs. You might want to check with these players some bids you consider "automatic" - do you really believe their judgement will differ? #among well-informed, ethical players. There is undoubtedly a group who are simply unaware of their obligations under the laws. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 14 22:59:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA23142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 22:59:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA23131 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 22:58:57 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id MAA07293 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:58:17 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:58 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Regional pairs. Case 1 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: <000f01bf8d29$8cb7e220$0200a8c0@vmv.sandy.ru> From: "Sergei Litvak" > > Pairs > Dealer: E, Vul: EW > > A87432 > 975 > Q > 652 > -- 5 > 2 8643 > AKJ98532 T76 > A973 KQJT4 > KQJT96 > AKQJT > 8 > 4 > > Bidding > N E S W > p 1C* 1D > Dbl** p 1S 4D > 4s p*** p 5D > p p 5S 6D > Dbl p p p > > * - Prrecision > ** - explained at the table as 5-8 HCP any distribution > *** - after undisputed hesitation > > Lead from dQ. 13 trick made. > TD was first called after 6D bid and after the end of the board > > What should TD do? He should determine what is likely suggested by East's hesitation and whether there exist logical alternatives to West's actual subsequent choices.:-) Note however that if the 4S bid was made without the required pause then I would be reluctant to adjust - that thinking time is for everyone not just LHO of the jump bidder. The hesitation is ambiguous (ie could be on QJ9,xxxxx,x,QJxx) but seems to me more likely to suggest bidding than passing. As to LAs that will depend on the definition in your jurisdiction. I seriously doubt I could find one decent player in four who, even at adverse vulnerability, would sell out to 5S. I believe I could find several who would seriously consider doing so before rejecting the possibility. However I do think that 6C by West (passed by East) is a beautifully descriptive bid which might prove more successful opposite certain hands which would have a clear-cut pass of 4D (eg xx,xxxxx,x,KQxxx). This contract is likely to be held to 12 tricks by the HA lead. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 15 00:01:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA23346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 00:01:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.emr.ca [132.156.47.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA23341 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 00:01:31 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA09486 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 09:01:18 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200003141401.JAA09486@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 09:01:18 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <003d01bf8d3f$138fa3e0$db5408c3@dodona> from "Grattan Endicott" at Mar 13, 2000 10:52:15 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 Grattan Endicott writes: > +=+ Whilst this 'solution' is a commonplace, perhaps the first > need (if I understand your comment) is 'education' of NA > club directors. If they will not apply a law, how is any player > to develop the understanding before going on to higher > things? I totally agree with both points. No idea of how to accomplish said education though. This by the way is not intended as a blanket indictment of NA club games. I've played in plenty where the Laws were not treated as optional. There's simply no guarantees. A lot of owner/directors seem to be afraid of offending their customers. Worth noting that this attitude seems more common in very small clubs. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 15 00:16:58 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA23452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 00:16:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA23447 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 00:16:49 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id OAA13711 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 14:16:11 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 14:16 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Regional Pairs. Case 2. 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: > From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mon Mar 13 22:04:09 2000 > Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au (octavia.anu.edu.au [150.203.5.35]) > by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA03562 > for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 22:04:07 GMT > X-Envelope-From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA19930 > for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 07:58:15 +1000 (EST) > Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) > by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA19919 > for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 07:58:06 +1000 > (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 QAA18812; > Mon, 13 Mar 2000 16:57:47 -0500 (EST) > X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org > Message-Id: > In-Reply-To: <001901bf8d2b$91e24ae0$0200a8c0@vmv.sandy.ru> > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 16:53:22 -0500 > To: "Sergei Litvak" , > > From: "David J. Grabiner" > Subject: Re: Regional Pairs. Case 2. > Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Precedence: bulk > Apparently-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk > > At 11:34 PM +0300 3/13/00, Sergei Litvak wrote: > >S,NS > > A5 > > K86432 > > AJ65 > > 6 > >T K987 > >5 QT9 > >QT8732 K94 > >QJ542 A93 > > QJ6432 > > AJ7 > > -- > > KT87 > >Bidding: > >N E S W > > 2d p > >2NT p 3h 4d > >4h Dbl 4s p > >p Dbl p p > >p > >2d - Multi > >2NT - forcing > >3h - weak on hearts > > > >Dummy asked partner after the opening lead what was hapened. North > explained > >that he take wrong card from the bidding-box. He wants to bid 3d > (strong on > >spades). At this moment TD was called. After the play (just made) TD > was > >called again. > >What should TD do? > > Is there UI or MI? According to these details, South appears to have > misbid; thus there was no MI. If North explained 3H (not simply > alerting it), there could be UI from the explanation. South appears to have mis-pulled rather than misbid and if we accept this (as I am inclined to do) then the explanation provides no information of which South was unaware. > In that case, a > pass by South is an LA. However, 4Hx also makes, so there can only be > an adjustment if it is at all probable that West would have pulled the > double of 4H. I don't know West's methods; if the pass over 4S is > forcing, then West would > probably have pulled 4Hx to 5C, corrected to 5D and doubled by North. > However, it seems to me that this goes for 800 (losing one spade, one > heart, two diamonds, and two clubs; there are entry and trump control > problems which make it unlikely that only one trick will be lost in > either minor). Since 800 is worse than 790, there does not appear to be > damage. ..Were I to determine that passing 4H was an LA then I think the lead of C6 by North is reasonably likely. I would also think that rising with the Ace and playing a small club from dummy at trick 2 is not too hard to find. This line seems to lead to a fairly simple 3 off for -500. I would not argue with an L12C3 adjustment of eg 60% -500 and 40% -800. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 15 04:02:14 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 04:02:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA24382 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 04:02:05 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA22958 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 19:01:54 +0100 Received: from ip86.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.86), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda22956; Tue Mar 14 19:01:45 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 19:01:45 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <00f901bf8c70$dc173f00$9e9c01d4@default> <008601bf8d4f$8ff823c0$db5408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <008601bf8d4f$8ff823c0$db5408c3@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 EAA24383 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 00:50:12 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: Jesper Dybdal >> >> It can happen than an ethical player who knows the law perfectly >> well judges that a certain action is the only logical alternative >> action; he therefore takes that action even though it is also >> suggested by UI. He has not "used UI" or "taken advantage of >> UI", since he would take the same action without UI. >> >> The TD may nevertheless adjust the score: this does not mean that >> the player is accused of anything more serious than having a >> bridge judgement that differs from that of the TD, resulting in >> the choice of an action which, in the TD's judgement, violates >> L16A. >> >+=+ This slightly understates matters. Firstly, it should not >be the TD's judgement but, even prior to the CoP which >all NCBOs are now strongly urged* to adopt uncorrupted, >the judgement of the TD in consultation with a number of >people; good practice has long not had such judgements >made, if it can be avoided, by one person unassisted. Of course that is how it should preferably be done. I took the liberty of using the term "TD" for "one or more persons providing a bridge judgement to use in a ruling", since I did not find the details of who where ruling relevant here. > Secondly, if the decision goes against the player, the >significance is that he is deemed to have failed to make an >objective judgement under the influence of UI; he was >under a duty not automatically to make the call he would >always have made but to consider what proportions of >his peers would have considered (and whether any >would have made), in his position, alternative calls. I disagree with this. There is no such thing as "objective judgement" - judgements differ. Often there is no reason at all to suspect the player of not having carefully judged the situation and considered that there was no LA. To accuse such a player of automatically making the call he would always have made or of not having considered alternative actions is not reasonable, unless there is other evidence to support it. >If he fails it is because, consciously or not, his thinking >has not overcome the influence of the UI In general, it is impossible for a player to know for certain what the set of actions allowed by L16A is, since that is determined later by TD and/or AC. Often ACs will deliberate for some time and not even then reach agreement on what the set of LAs in a case is. To imply that a player is failing in his duty because be is unable to predict what conclusion a TD/AC would reach is not reasonable. >and he has >failed to avoid taking advantage of the UI. If has taken the action he would have taken without the UI, then he has definitely not taken advantage of UI - though he may not have "taken the disadvantage" of the UI that it is later ruled that he ought to have. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 15 07:40:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA24992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 07:40:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA24987 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 07:40:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivehh1.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.70.33]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA21453 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 16:40:25 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000314163725.01283500@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 16:37:25 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? In-Reply-To: References: <008201bf8a13$21877380$cfd93ad0@hdavis> <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B57D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <008201bf8a13$21877380$cfd93ad0@hdavis> <3.0.1.32.20000310174732.012788b8@pop.mindspring.com> <00c001bf8ba2$6b510d60$37d43ad0@hdavis> <5jO1MgAXwvy4Ew9x@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:25 PM 3/13/2000 +0000, David S wrote: >>Everybody knows that using UI is a >>"crime", and I find it important to give such rulings in a way >>that does not make the players feel accused of a "crime". > > I don't. How can it be a crime? > > To use UI means that part of your decision-making process involves the >UI from partner. > > That is only a crime if it is deliberate - and it usually isn't. I thought I had understood you earlier, but now I am uncertain. You seemed in an earlier post to be saying that you intended the phrase "using UI" as a shorthand for L16 violations, and that everyone should be clear that such violations do not necessarily include the incorporation of UI into a player's decision-making process. Although I disliked your terminology, it seemed that we were at least on the same page as to the substantive meaning of a L16 violation. But your new definition of "using UI" seems to depend on the player's thought process (conscious or otherwise) in making a decision. While that conforms much better to the ordinary meaning of the English language, it is misleading and inaccurate as a description of L16 violations (it describes more aptly violations of L73). So at the risk of repeating myself: A violation of L16A occurs when a player chooses an action demonstrably suggested by UI in favor of one or more logical alternatives. It will often be the case that this violation is also a L73 violation, or a "use" of UI, and this is what Jesper has described as a "crime", at least by the knowledgeable player. But it will also frequently be the case that a violation of L16A will _not_ involve the "use" of UI, as you have re-defined it above, as the player will have made his decision without reference to the UI. This is especially so when SO's have instituted very broad criteria for determination of what constitutes a LA. As a matter of law, the distinction between these two subsets of L16 violations is essentially meaningless, because we don't even try to separate these out except in the egregious cases that warrant C&E proceedings. The reason it is important to stress the distinction is that TD's and AC's need to understand that a L16 investigation is not generally concerned with the "use" of UI, but only with the objective criteria of LA's and demonstrably suggesteds. It is also worth noting that the description of such violations in the precise terminology of the Laws makes an adjustment far easier to accept than one which employs loaded terms like "using UI", which challenge the honesty and integrity of the offending player. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 15 07:53:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA25027 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 07:53:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA25021 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 07:53:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.131] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12UzFV-0005qL-00; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 21:53:09 +0000 Message-ID: <011f01bf8e00$004c2e40$835908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Cc: References: Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 21:53:39 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 12:58 PM Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? > > Why not try, as a player, making a list of your peers (those with the same > system, style, temperament, bidding judgement, hand evaluation, table > presence, knowledge of opposition etc) +=+ May I, Tim, with the greatest humility, point to the dictionary* definition of your 'peer' as "a person of the same effectiveness or ability" as yourself. A peer is an equal, not a clone. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [*I use nothing but the best. ;-) ] From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 15 07:53:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA25032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 07:53:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA25026 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 07:53:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.131] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12UzFT-0005qL-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 21:53:07 +0000 Message-ID: <011e01bf8dff$ff2ed760$835908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <00f901bf8c70$dc173f00$9e9c01d4@default> <008601bf8d4f$8ff823c0$db5408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 21:49:57 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 6:01 PM Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? >------------------\x/--------------- > If has taken the action he would have taken without the UI, then > he has definitely not taken advantage of UI - though he may not > have "taken the disadvantage" of the UI that it is later ruled > that he ought to have. > +=+ I am sorry, but this is not so. Once he had the UI the criteria by which he was permitted to judge his choice of action were no longer those existing prior to receiving the UI. Now he is required to put aside his own judgement and to act upon standards set by his peers in not selecting action that is suggested over a logical alternative action by the UI. If he is held to have misjudged this he is deemed to have been influenced in his misjudgement by the UI since he has not matched the unbiased objectivity of the unaffected sample. There is now a WBF standard set by which to judge what is a logical alternative - see the CoP plus any local advice placing values (at least temporarily) on the principle enunciated. And, of course, it may be 'overbearing arrogance' to state the basis upon which Directors and ACs are to make their judgements of players' actions, but if so we must expect more and more of that kind of thing as the WBF makes its intended progress, painful perhaps, resisted assuredly by some, towards its newly conceived purpose of establishing a jurisprudence for universal acceptance. It is of course the very essence of conceit for a player to assert that he has few, if any, peers. Even the worst player cannot justifiably claim to lack for them. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 15 08:00:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA25064 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:00:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA25059 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:00:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.221] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12UzM7-0006Cq-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 21:59:59 +0000 Message-ID: <012d01bf8e00$f4c8ae80$835908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: 'Peers', an afterthought. Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 22:00:49 -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; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:01:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivehh1.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.70.33]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA18378 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 17:01:13 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000314165813.01284038@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 16:58:13 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? In-Reply-To: <008601bf8d4f$8ff823c0$db5408c3@dodona> References: <00f901bf8c70$dc173f00$9e9c01d4@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:50 AM 3/14/2000 -0000, Grattan wrote: > Secondly, if the decision goes against the player, the >significance is that he is deemed to have failed to make an >objective judgement under the influence of UI; he was >under a duty not automatically to make the call he would >always have made but to consider what proportions of >his peers would have considered (and whether any >would have made), in his position, alternative calls. >If he fails it is because, consciously or not, his thinking >has not overcome the influence of the UI and he has >failed to avoid taking advantage of the UI. Wrong. He has simply failed to reached the same "objective judgement" as the TD (who may well have had the benefit of consultation) and/or the AC. In no way does it then follow, as you appear to argue, that he has taken advantage of UI. Although this may not be what you intend. The tortured construction "failed to avoid taking advantage" -- can that be rendered, in simpler terms, as "took advantage"? My guess it that if you had intended this rather clearer wording, you would have used it. The problem is, this subtlety is precisely the one which is lost on the broader bridge public. Consider these gradations of meaning: "failed to avoid the possible appearance of taking advantage" "failed to avoid taking advantage" "took advantage" I will concede that a L16A violation can be described accurately by the first phrase, but not in general by the third. I think most folks would read the second as equivalent to the third, although you perhaps intended as closer in spirit to the first. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 15 08:25:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA25154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:25:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA25149 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:25:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivehh1.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.70.33]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA15807 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 17:25:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000314172215.01288b9c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 17:22:15 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? In-Reply-To: <011e01bf8dff$ff2ed760$835908c3@dodona> References: <00f901bf8c70$dc173f00$9e9c01d4@default> <008601bf8d4f$8ff823c0$db5408c3@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:49 PM 3/14/2000 -0000, Grattan wrote: >+=+ I am sorry, but this is not so. Once he had the >UI the criteria by which he was permitted to judge his >choice of action were no longer those existing prior >to receiving the UI. Now he is required to put aside >his own judgement and to act upon standards set >by his peers in not selecting action that is suggested >over a logical alternative action by the UI. A player who "puts aside his own judgement" is wholly incapable of meeting his L16 obligations, which implicitly require much judgement. Moreover, he can hardly act upon "standards set by his peers", as these do not exist except in a purely hypothetical sense. That is, a player must _use_ his own judgement in constructing a set of imaginary standards. Especially considering the wise CoP counsel for TD's to seek advice from others in evaluating such cases, it is obvious that judgements will differ, and that there is in fact no "objective judgement" (oxymoron?) to which we might aspire. >If he is held to have misjudged this he is deemed to have >been influenced in his misjudgement by the UI since >he has not matched the unbiased objectivity of the >unaffected sample. Deemed by whom? The Laws require no such "deeming". It is both unnecessary and counter-productive to the enforcement of the Laws to equate a L16 violation with "having been influenced... by the UI". And the phrase "unbiased objectivity of the unaffected sample" is particularly silly. There is no sample, unaffected or otherwise, except in the minds of those evaluating the case. And though they will certainly try to execute their responsibilities fairly and objectively, there is no reliable way to remove its evaluation from the context of the real problem, with the UI. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 15 10:32:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA25454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 10:32:33 +1000 (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 KAA25449 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 10:32:25 +1000 (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 12V1jS-000L2E-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 00:32:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 04:44:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: bum claim References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >an easy one I think, in DWS's absence It got 73 posts, so even before I read it, I am suspicious!! Anyway, two months after the original post, I am reading it. > Jxxx > > >AQTxx K9xx claim by W (rest of hand trumps) > > - Do we take it declarer is WEST? O god, the modern generation: do you not know, John, that South plays ALL hands in bridge articles? >careless or irrational? > >club game, mps, competent mid-stake rubber bridge player > >I ruled 1 trick to the opponents, anyone disagree? Not me! If he would have never forgotten the safety play then he would have mentioned it at the time of the claim. >claimer's partner commented "sloppy, serves u right!" I agree. Now to read the other 72 articles!!!!!!! -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I have not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles up to ten weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 15 10:32:49 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA25460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 10:32:49 +1000 (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 KAA25455 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 10:32:35 +1000 (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 12V1jS-000L2F-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 00:32:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 05:01:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: bum claim References: <387EC57A.EA03D9C1@alltel.net> In-Reply-To: <387EC57A.EA03D9C1@alltel.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Norman Hostetler wrote: >No. When running a combined long suit with "no problems," it's normal to >start with the high cards in the shorter hand. So the lead is the king, >or to the king, discovering the void. Too late. Reverse the location of >the E/W hands, however, and now the "normal" play of the king discovers >the void with the lead in the correct hand for taking a finesse. So in >that case, no trick to the opponents. Anyone disagree? Yes. If declarer was as careful as you suggest he would have made a full claim. --------- Herman De Wael wrote: >As blml, we should look at the larger picture. And I am >quit certain that at certain tables, it would be irrational >to believe that the player would not be able to play this >hand correctly. I do not believe this. any player who is always careful with this holding will also mention it when claiming. >Nor would the fact of claiming be any indication of a >careless miscounting. >At some tables, hands like these are routinely claimed. True, but claimed correctly. --------- Herman De Wael wrote: >Suppose you would have done this, and could convince the >director that of course, you knew there are 13 cards in this >suit. >Would you expect the TD to rule against you, if he believes >you ? Of course. No player who was careful enough to always play this suit correctly would not be careful enough to mention it in his claim. >Certainly not. Playing the Ace or Queen first is beginners >stuff. >"They never get it wrong". Nor would you, and besides, a >claim is a sort of protection against silly mistakes. Not careless ones, and this is careless. After all, we know declarer is a careless player. >OTOH, It seems to me that Zia would claim in such a >position, and he would not expect to be ruled against. Not >because he never makes a mistake, but because he expects >that everyone can see that one should cash the ace first. I would rule against Zia if he claimed this way. >So for Zia, the fact that he claims is not evidence that he >forgot to count to 13. He is mortal. If you prick him, does he not bleed [watws]. >Now do you see the difference ? No. --------- Herman De Wael wrote: >When faced with the real playing problem, no sane player, >with more than one year expertise, will fail to correctly >execute AQ10xx - K9xx, provided he realises there are 4 of >them out. No sane player, with more than one year expertise, will fail to correctly claim AQ10xx - K9xx by explaining, provided he realises there are 4 of them out. Anyone wh does not maention this suit *may* have forgotten the problem. >Playing the King first is therefor irrational. For almost >everyone. Nope, careless, especially for someone who forgets to mention the problem. >The real problem we are facing here is whether this player >knew there were four out. If Zia claims this, there is no >problem in seeing that this is not proof that he has >miscounted a suit. For some other players, this might be >evidence to that fact. > >NOW it becomes merely careless. > >Do you understand the difference ? No. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I have not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles up to ten weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 15 11:02:18 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA25548 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 11:02:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA25543 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 11:02:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id UAA24584 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 20:01:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id UAA14564 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 20:01:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 20:01:46 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200003150101.UAA14564@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Reno Case Book (long) X-Sun-Charset: ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Jay Apfelbaum" > I am pleased to report the Reno Case Book is finally published. Great! Thanks to all those who do the work. > Handling the Laws - A Process ... Mostly looks pretty good. Is this what was published, or is there still time for changes? > The list of examples of extraneous information is fundamentally different > from what we think of as unauthorized information. I think the 'un' in the next to last word must be a misprint. > The first two questions for a Director or Appeals Committee are, therefore: > > 1. Did partner provide extraneous information? > > 2. Did the extraneous information suggest something about partner's hand > different from what the player understood to be suggested by the authorized > information? Why 'understood to be'? > 3) Did the unauthorized information demonstrably suggest the action chosen > over another action that is a logical alternative? (NOTE: The action chosen > need not be a logical alternative.) > > If the answers to these three questions are “yes”, there is an infraction. Yes. Of course you only assign an adjusted score if the infraction causes damage. I'm not sure how to work that into the discussion. Maybe it's too obvious to mention, but I don't think so. > The offenders should receive the most unfavorable result that was at all > probable. To reach the most unfavorable result that was at all probable, the > Director or Appeals Committee should examine the bidding or play from the > point of the infraction and give the benefit of the doubt to the > non-offenders. Figure out the worst possible score and the chances of > getting that score. Then look at each progressively better result and add > the chances of getting each together until they get to the worst score where > the probabilities add to about a one chance in six. This seems to confuse two methods of finding a result. If you are going to consider all possible results, then you don't give the NOS the benefit of doubt. Just take your best shot at estimating probabilities for each result, and take the one that crosses the 1/6 threshold. (This would be the approach I prefer if there are many possibilities, but I'm a quantitative-minded person.) An alternative, perhaps easier, approach is to look for the line that gives the worst result to the OS but exclude all lines that are ridiculous. Here you do give benefit of doubt to the NOS, but you don't need any quantitative estimate of probabilities. > The non-offenders should receive the most favorable result that was likely > had there been no infraction. The quantitative method is the same except for using probability 1/3. The simpler method: if there are only three or fewer non-ridiculous results, give the NOS the best one. If there are more, give the second-best (unless there are a whole lot more). > The non-offenders are not required to play > perfectly - the correct standard is reasonable for the class of player > involved. This still sounds a bit unsympathetic to the NOS. I think you want to say something closer to "avoid irrational, wild, or gambling actions." Didn't the ACBL LC adopt something like those words? I'm sure the WBF LC has. The point is that a normal bridge mistake doesn't cancel the right to redress; only something that is well out of the ordinary will do that. > This approach will often lead to different scores for the offenders and > non-offenders. You need to qualify this, I think. The difference between 1/6 and 1/3 will seldom lead to different results, although it can happen if there are a whole lot of possibilities. If there was 'irrational, wild, or gambling' action from the NOS, they keep the table result. The OS still get an adjusted score, but I _think_ it is proper to consider results even with the infraction. (This was, however, controversial when BLML discussed it, and I don't believe there has been official guidance.) Under this theory, if a pair use hesitation BW to reach a slam, which is doomed until the NOS revoke, the NOS get 6X=, but the OS get 6X-1 (or whatever). Regardless of whether you agree with the above or just want to ignore the whole issue -- maybe wisest! -- I think you need to distinguish between split scores because of 1/3 vs. 1/6 from split scores because of wild, gambling, irrational. In the first case, both sides are getting adjusted scores, but the scores are different. In the second, the NOS keep the table result. > Sometimes, it is impossible to predict events from the point of the > infraction. A Director or Appeals Committee should reach this conclusion > only after a good faith effort to determine a result. In these cases, the > Director or Appeals Committee may award an artificial adjusted score > according to responsibility for the irregularity. Normally, this will mean > an average plus and average minus. NO, NO, please, NO not ever!!! Assign some real result. Just do the best you can. Nobody expects AC's to be perfect, especially when there are many possible lines of play. But please don't give artificial scores when a result has been obtained. > “Demonstrably Suggests” means there is a fairly direct and largely > non-contradictory line of reasoning that shows the unauthorized information > suggests the action actually chosen over another action that is a logical > alternative. > > This phrase is new to the 1997 Laws, replacing the “may suggest” language in > the previous version. Actually, "could reasonably have been suggested" was replaced by "could demonstrably have been suggested." > It reflects a desire by the law makers to require a > stronger connection between the unauthorized information and what it > suggests. Demonstrable means something that is clearly evident or obvious. Too strong, I think. It means an argument strong enough to convince most fair-minded bridge players. It doesn't mean most bridge players should be able to think of the line of reasoning in the first place. > “Logical Alternative” means a call or play that is a rational choice that > would be seriously considered by the class of player in the absence of the > extraneous information. > I suggest the better test is whether the call or play is a rational choice > that might be chosen by the class of player. The question is what "serious" consideration means, as opposed to mere consideration. There's a BW editorial that translates LA as something like "not a clear bridge mistake." I like that a lot better. If I pick up a hand with a bunch of spades, I may "consider" opening 1H or 1C or (more plausibly) 2S, but if the hand is a normal 1-bid, those would be clear mistakes and thus not LA's. On the other hand, if the suit is good and high card strength near minimum, both 1S and 2S might be LA's, but bidding other suits still would not be. (It doesn't matter that I might open one of those suits once a decade or so.) > Consider a hypothetical > situation where a player must decide whether to bid a game knowing it will > depend solely on five trumps splitting 3-2 (67%). While most players faced > with this decision will bid the game, I suspect there will be some that will > not bid it. Perhaps they need to create a swing on the board. We should take into account whether the player in question needs to create a swing. If not, passing is not a LA. It would be a clear bridge mistake. If he does need a swing, maybe it's a LA. > Before imposing a penalty, the Director or Appeals Committee should first > determine if the player had actual knowledge of the correct procedure or the > player's background is such they should be charged with knowledge of the > correct procedure. There is a discussion of PP's on David S.'s web page. I think the appropriate standard is not actual knowledge but rather whether a player at that experience level should have been expected to have knowledge. Actual knowledge is the standard for a C&E case. Please do see the discussion, which is arranged rather differently than yours. Thanks again for your work. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 15 11:40:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA25658 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 11:40:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA25648 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 11:40:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.4] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12V2nX-000FLT-00; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 01:40:31 +0000 Message-ID: <003f01bf8e1f$c3e5a240$045408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" References: <00f901bf8c70$dc173f00$9e9c01d4@default><008601bf8d4f$8ff823c0$db5408c3@dodona> <3.0.1.32.20000314172215.01288b9c@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 01:25:32 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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, March 14, 2000 10:22 PM Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? > > Deemed by whom? +=+ Those appointed to judge the matter. Bridge players are subject to judgement of their actions by Directors and by Appeals Committees. Please note: "When use of unauthorized information is alleged there are four key questions for the appeals committee:.....etc" [CoP] This is a defining statement. If the answer to the four questions is 'yes' in each case then the action is defined as use of unauthorized information. The infraction is basing 'a call or play on other extraneous information', a matter further amplified thereafter in the same law which specifies what uses of extraneous information as the basis for a choice of call or play are infractions.. The matter is judged as I have already described. Apart from the adjustment of the score the infraction may also incur a procedural penalty. ~Grattan~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 15 11:40:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA25659 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 11:40:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA25649 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 11:40:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.4] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12V2nY-000FLT-00; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 01:40:33 +0000 Message-ID: <004001bf8e1f$c4d09e80$045408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" References: <00f901bf8c70$dc173f00$9e9c01d4@default> <3.0.1.32.20000314165813.01284038@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 01:40:26 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 9:58 PM Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? > Wrong. He has simply failed to reached the same "objective judgement" as > the TD (who may well have had the benefit of consultation) and/or the AC. > In no way does it then follow, as you appear to argue, that he has taken > advantage of UI. > +=+ Although you may argue this as being the 'fact', the law nevertheless states it to be an infraction since contrary to Law 16 extraneous information has been illegally used as the basis of a call or play. The player is told he has based his call (play) on information that it is illegal to make use of, namely extraneous information from Partner. And the grounds for his being told this is that those who are empowered by the laws to judge his actions have so determined. You may squirm, but that is how it is. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 15 13:48:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA26163 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 13:48:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA26157 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 13:48:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivehhs.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.70.60]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA26834 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 22:48:37 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000314224533.01285458@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 22:45:33 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? In-Reply-To: <004001bf8e1f$c4d09e80$045408c3@dodona> References: <00f901bf8c70$dc173f00$9e9c01d4@default> <3.0.1.32.20000314165813.01284038@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:40 AM 3/15/2000 -0000, Grattan wrote: >> Wrong. He has simply failed to reached the same "objective judgement" as >> the TD (who may well have had the benefit of consultation) and/or the AC. >> In no way does it then follow, as you appear to argue, that he has taken >> advantage of UI. >> >+=+ Although you may argue this as being the 'fact', >the law nevertheless states it to be an infraction since >contrary to Law 16 extraneous information has been >illegally used as the basis of a call or play. Law 16 does state it to be an infraction to "choose a call...". Nowhere in the language of L16 is there any instruction that such an infraction constitutes an illegal use of UI. It is, in general, merely an illegal action, subject to redress. If we find substantial reason to believe that, beyond the technical violation of choosing an action which meets the L16 criteria, a player has actually "used" UI, in the sense of allowing his choice to be advantageously influenced by the the UI, then of course procedural or other disciplinary action may well be in order. But these are not the same thing. Consider the flip side. To equate a technical violation of L16 with taking advantage of UI means that we should be inclined to find in favor of a player whose integrity we respect, even when the LA's and demonstrably suggesteds point the other way. We _know_ that a player with the high ethical standards of Grattan (for example) would never have taken advantage of UI, and since that could not have happened, we cannot fault him for a L16 violation regardless of the circumstances. Mike Dennis The player >is told he has based his call (play) on information >that it is illegal to make use of, namely extraneous >information from Partner. And the grounds for his >being told this is that those who are empowered >by the laws to judge his actions have so determined. >You may squirm, but that is how it is. Not surprisingly, it is not how your great and good friend Edgar Kaplan saw it, at least in his public writings. But we have strayed so far from his view of the Laws that one more minor revision can hardly be considered a significant diminution of his reputation. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 15 17:56:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA26714 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:56:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA26709 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:56:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.155] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12V8en-000Lqm-00; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 07:55:54 +0000 Message-ID: <000701bf8e54$34d47880$9b5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" References: <00f901bf8c70$dc173f00$9e9c01d4@default><3.0.1.32.20000314165813.01284038@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20000314224533.01285458@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 07:50:48 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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, March 15, 2000 3:45 AM Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? > > Not surprisingly, it is not how your great and good friend Edgar Kaplan saw > it, at least in his public writings. But we have strayed so far from his > view of the Laws that one more minor revision can hardly be considered a > significant diminution of his reputation. > > Mike Dennis > +=+ Such views are in the mind of the beholder. For some "strayed" is "progressed". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 15 19:39:27 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA26999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 19:39:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA26994 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 19:39:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.6.102.218] (helo=davidburn) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12VAGP-0005Of-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 09:38:49 +0000 Message-ID: <003201bf8e62$8c8aa960$da66063e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <00f901bf8c70$dc173f00$9e9c01d4@default><008601bf8d4f$8ff823c0$db5408c3@dodona> <3.0.1.32.20000314172215.01288b9c@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 09:40:49 -0000 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael wrote: > At 09:49 PM 3/14/2000 -0000, Grattan wrote: > >+=+ I am sorry, but this is not so. Once he had the > >UI the criteria by which he was permitted to judge his > >choice of action were no longer those existing prior > >to receiving the UI. Now he is required to put aside > >his own judgement and to act upon standards set > >by his peers in not selecting action that is suggested > >over a logical alternative action by the UI. Part of the difficulty may be that this is not what he's required by the Law to do. This is what he is (in effect) required by the implementation of the Law to do, because a "logical alternative" is defined (in broad terms) as something which some of the player's peers, being of sound mind, might have thought about doing or actually done. The Law itself says that he is not supposed to allow the UI to influence his actions to the point at which he selects from among the logical alternatives that occur to *him* one that is suggested *over another* by the UI. Because we cannot read the player's mind to determine whether or not he has actually done this, we create an objective test by which we determine whether or not he might have done. So, it may be that a player takes an action A in the presence of UI, and the TD adjusts the score on the basis that action B was a logical alternative, and that in the minds of some people A could have been suggested over B by means of the UI. The player may justifiably and truthfully say: "It never occurred to me to do B, nor would it ever have done!". For this player, then, B was not a logical alternative (and he will consider that he has been mistreated according to the Law - which, strictly speaking, he has been; in his case, justice has actually miscarried assuming that he is speaking the truth and assuming that action B was not suppressed by his subconscious mind as a result of the UI). > A player who "puts aside his own judgement" is wholly incapable of meeting > his L16 obligations, which implicitly require much judgement. Moreover, he > can hardly act upon "standards set by his peers", as these do not exist > except in a purely hypothetical sense. Again, the difficulty is that the Law itself does not require a player to do any of that. But the way in which the Law is implemented does. This difference between the requirements on players placed by the Law itself and the requirements on players placed by the implementation of the Law is at the heart of the disagreement between Michael (and others) and Grattan (and others). It is incapable of resolution while the words of the Law and the way in which it is implemented remain the same. The word "demonstrably" in the latest version of L16 goes some little way towards indicating to players that some kind of objective "demonstration" will be considered in determining whether they have met their legal obligation, but it is my view that no player could understand from reading the Law itself what he is supposed to do in terms of complying with it (which is a pity). > That is, a player must _use_ his own > judgement in constructing a set of imaginary standards. Again, this is only a requirement of the implementation of the Law, not of the Law. > Deemed by whom? The Laws require no such "deeming". It is both unnecessary > and counter-productive to the enforcement of the Laws to equate a L16 > violation with "having been influenced... by the UI". To put the position as simply as I can: To infract is to violate the Law. To cheat is deliberately to violate the Law. Infraction is subject to redress for damage; cheating is subject also to disciplinary penalty. It is an infraction to take an action that a cheat would have taken, regardless of whether or not you are actually a cheat. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 15 20:06:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA27052 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 20:06:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA27047 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 20:06:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from xtra.co.nz ([210.55.83.234]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with ESMTP id <20000315100529.SGNU14603188.mta1-rme@xtra.co.nz> for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 23:05:29 +1300 Message-ID: <38CF6177.F2DCC11D@xtra.co.nz> Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 23:10:00 +1300 From: Bruce Small X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Cards from wrong board Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all Quick question. Situation is: East is declarer. South leads and dummy lays down. Declarer calls director and explains there are two DK one in her hand and one in Dummy. Transpires West had removed souths cards from previous board. Law 17D appears to cover during auction period but this is now finished. Board is obviously unplayable. West is offender. Do we just use 12C1 and award 60% NS an 40%EW? Thanks Bruce From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 15 22:43:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA27689 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 22:43:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA27679 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 22:43:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-218.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.218]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA08462 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 13:43:07 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38CF68D6.8AF366A3@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 11:41:26 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Reno Case Book (long) References: <200003150101.UAA14564@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: "Jay Apfelbaum" > > > Sometimes, it is impossible to predict events from the point of the > > infraction. A Director or Appeals Committee should reach this conclusion > > only after a good faith effort to determine a result. In these cases, the > > Director or Appeals Committee may award an artificial adjusted score > > according to responsibility for the irregularity. Normally, this will mean > > an average plus and average minus. > > NO, NO, please, NO not ever!!! Assign some real result. Just do the > best you can. Nobody expects AC's to be perfect, especially when there > are many possible lines of play. But please don't give artificial > scores when a result has been obtained. > I agree with Steve that AS's should be avoided as much as possible. But do not forget, Steve, that this is an ACBL document. Thus, you do not have the advantage of being able to use L12C3. When one does have that possibility, it is possible for the AC to decide that the deal had not progressed sufficiently far for the L12C3 adjustment to differ from the L12C1 one. So in the "real" (:-)) world, I would not say NEVER NEVER. Of course if the abolition of L12C3 in the ACBL means that they cannot go from L12C2 to L12C1, then your comment is correct. But that is only the case in zone 2 (and 7 ?) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 15 22:43:23 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA27688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 22:43:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA27678 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 22:43:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-218.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.218]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA08448 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 13:43:04 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38CF6640.58CA437A@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 11:30:24 +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: bum claim References: <387EC57A.EA03D9C1@alltel.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Of course David would disagree with me. I was just waiting for him to catch up. David Stevenson wrote: > > Norman Hostetler wrote: > > >No. When running a combined long suit with "no problems," it's normal to > >start with the high cards in the shorter hand. So the lead is the king, > >or to the king, discovering the void. Too late. Reverse the location of > >the E/W hands, however, and now the "normal" play of the king discovers > >the void with the lead in the correct hand for taking a finesse. So in > >that case, no trick to the opponents. Anyone disagree? > > Yes. If declarer was as careful as you suggest he would have made a > full claim. > > --------- > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >As blml, we should look at the larger picture. And I am > >quit certain that at certain tables, it would be irrational > >to believe that the player would not be able to play this > >hand correctly. > > I do not believe this. any player who is always careful with this > holding will also mention it when claiming. > > >Nor would the fact of claiming be any indication of a > >careless miscounting. > >At some tables, hands like these are routinely claimed. > > True, but claimed correctly. > > --------- > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >Suppose you would have done this, and could convince the > >director that of course, you knew there are 13 cards in this > >suit. > >Would you expect the TD to rule against you, if he believes > >you ? > > Of course. No player who was careful enough to always play this suit > correctly would not be careful enough to mention it in his claim. > > >Certainly not. Playing the Ace or Queen first is beginners > >stuff. > >"They never get it wrong". Nor would you, and besides, a > >claim is a sort of protection against silly mistakes. > > Not careless ones, and this is careless. After all, we know declarer > is a careless player. > > >OTOH, It seems to me that Zia would claim in such a > >position, and he would not expect to be ruled against. Not > >because he never makes a mistake, but because he expects > >that everyone can see that one should cash the ace first. > > I would rule against Zia if he claimed this way. > > >So for Zia, the fact that he claims is not evidence that he > >forgot to count to 13. > > He is mortal. If you prick him, does he not bleed [watws]. > > >Now do you see the difference ? > > No. > > --------- > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >When faced with the real playing problem, no sane player, > >with more than one year expertise, will fail to correctly > >execute AQ10xx - K9xx, provided he realises there are 4 of > >them out. > > No sane player, with more than one year expertise, will fail to > correctly claim AQ10xx - K9xx by explaining, provided he realises there > are 4 of them out. Anyone wh does not maention this suit *may* have > forgotten the problem. > > >Playing the King first is therefor irrational. For almost > >everyone. > > Nope, careless, especially for someone who forgets to mention the > problem. > > >The real problem we are facing here is whether this player > >knew there were four out. If Zia claims this, there is no > >problem in seeing that this is not proof that he has > >miscounted a suit. For some other players, this might be > >evidence to that fact. > > > >NOW it becomes merely careless. > > > >Do you understand the difference ? > > No. > Sorry David, if I keep repeating it ad nauseam : When determining what constitutes careless play after a claim, we need to determine what picture of the hand the player had in his mind. A careless claim statement can be evidence that there is something wrong with this picture but IT NEED NOT BE. A careless claim statement can also be proof of the fact that claimer thought it was too obvious to mention. Now I agree with you that in those areas of the world where players are taught that careless claim statements will work to their disadvantage, a careless statement constitutes more of a proof than in other areas. And so John's ruling is probably correct. But the exact same facts, for a different declarer in a different part of the world could lead to a different ruling. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 00:02:20 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA28115 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:02:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA28109 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:02:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA01321 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 09:01:07 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000315090316.006cf904@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 09:03:16 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Reno Case Book (long) In-Reply-To: <005f01bf8d40$d7fd7a80$4aebc997@jayapfelbaum> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:06 PM 3/13/00 -0500, Jay wrote: I've snipped a lot of good stuff with which I agree. But I think Jay goes a bit off the tracks here... >There is a possible exception for non-offenders who “fail to play bridge.” >First, the non-offenders must be able to get at least as good a score after >the infraction as if the infraction never happened. The Director or >Committee will have to determine the best likely score for the non-offenders >had there been no infraction. The non-offenders are not required to play >perfectly - the correct standard is reasonable for the class of player >involved. If the non-offenders cannot get as good a score once the >infraction occurs this exception will not apply. Next the Committee should >decide if a non-offender made a bid or play that is “clearly wrong” for that >class of player. Careless or inferior is not “clearly wrong.” A clearly >wrong call or play might break the causal connection between infraction and >final result. The Director or Committee could allow the non-offenders to >keep their score. This would set the standard for "break[ing] the causal connection" far too low. The NOs are not required to "play reasonably" nor to avoid a "'clearly wrong'" action. They are merely required to avoid making an EGREGIOUS error, i.e. one that is totally absurd and irrational. More snippage... >“Demonstrably Suggests” means there is a fairly direct and largely >non-contradictory line of reasoning that shows the unauthorized information >suggests the action actually chosen over another action that is a logical >alternative. > >This phrase is new to the 1997 Laws, replacing the “may suggest” language in >the previous version. It reflects a desire by the law makers to require a >stronger connection between the unauthorized information and what it >suggests. Demonstrable means something that is clearly evident or obvious. >Therefore, the need for a fairly direct line of reasoning. The second half, >largely non-contradictory, is designed to eliminate a bridge argument that >the extraneous information suggests one kind of hand, when it might just as >easily suggest another. "Demonstrably suggests" replaced "reasonably suggests". This means that the "suggestion" must not only be a reasonable possibility, but most be, as Jay says "clearly evident or obvious". Snip snip... >It is reasonable, therefore, for an Appeals Committee to impose a reasonable >procedural penalty upon the appellants for taking an appeal without merit. >Such an appeal delays the orderly completion of the game and inconveniences >the opponents and appeal committee members specifically and the field in >general. (See Law 90A, at Page 122) > >Before imposing whatever penalty is authorized, the Appeals Committee should >decide whether there was any rational basis upon which the class of players >who appealed might expect a favorable decision. I think it should be explicitly stated that the AC must not impose a meritless appeal penalty in any case in which they failed to uphold the TD's original ruling. If an appellant believes that the TD made an incorrect ruling it should suffice to give merit to an appeal that he be right; he should not be additionally required to know that the correct ruling will (or might) lead to a decision in his favor. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 00:45:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA28376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:45:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA28371 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:44:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id JAA07574 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 09:44:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id JAA14903 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 09:44:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 09:44:29 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200003151444.JAA14903@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: "Grattan Endicott" > "When use of unauthorized information > is alleged there are four key questions for > the appeals committee:.....etc" [CoP] Didn't some people object to this wording when the CoP was posted? It seems most unfortunate for the reasons Michael has so eloquently explained. All of us will _rule_ the same way, of course, given the same situation and bridge judgment, but it seems to me we ought to _explain_ the ruling using the language of L16 and not language that suggests a more invidious offense. The CoP ought to reflect that. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 01:20:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA28638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 01:20:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA28631 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 01:20:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-10.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.10]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA00823 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 10:20:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002601bf8e92$6d43ea00$0a84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 10:23:31 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I suspect the last person who would have wanted the laws to remain stagnant in a dynamic world would have been EK who was the architect of many a revision he deemed would improve them. Whether he would agree with or approve of every variation in recent years only he could tell us. We know he did modify his opinion on some issues during his lifetime. But I feel he would wholeheartedly approve of the ongoing attempt to improve the laws, and would decry having them cast in bronze as an unfitting memorial to him. -- Craig Senior >From: Michael S. Dennis >> Not surprisingly, it is not how your great and good friend Edgar Kaplan >saw >> it, at least in his public writings. But we have strayed so far from his >> view of the Laws that one more minor revision can hardly be considered a >> significant diminution of his reputation. >> >> Mike Dennis >> >+=+ Such views are in the mind of the beholder. > For some "strayed" is "progressed". > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 02:13:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA29541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 02:10:48 +1000 (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 CAA29535 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 02:10:40 +1000 (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 12VGNR-0007MH-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 16:10:29 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 01:34:00 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: bum claim 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: >John Probst wrote: >> an easy one I think, in DWS's absence >> >> Jxxx >> >> >> AQTxx K9xx claim by W (rest of hand trumps) >> >> - >> >> careless or irrational? >> club game, mps, competent mid-stake rubber bridge player >> I ruled 1 trick to the opponents, anyone disagree? >> claimer's partner commented "sloppy, serves u right!" > >This may be cultural difference between duplicate and rubber. > >Amongst good rubber players I believe the correct form for the claim would >be to spread the cards. With players of a slightly lesser standard spread >the cards with the words "playing safe". With intermediate players then >state "cashing the ace and finessing if necessary" and against poor >players cash the ace and, if necessary state "finessing against North". >the aim always being to get to the next hand as quickly as possible >without insulting the intelligence of opponents. > >Playing in 4M I've fiarly often made/accepted a claim along the lines of >"There are twelve tricks on a squeeze but I need a few minutes to work out >the position" No, this is not a comparable situation. You only need some sort of disclaimer to make it obvious that you are not overlooking something. I would accept this claim from you, but not the one that is the subject of the thread: if you did not mention any problem then I would believe you had overlooked it. >However, I wouldn't necessarily argue the ruling. It is sloppy to treat >duplicate players like competent rubber players! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 03:41:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA01842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 03:41:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA01834 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 03:41:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id MAA15871 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 12:41:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA15052 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 12:41:28 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 12:41:28 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200003151741.MAA15052@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: "Grattan Endicott" > Law 16 does say that > basing a call or play on extraneous information > (which is undeniably a use of the information) > may be an infraction. Law 16 A,B,C then goes > on to detail in which cases (A,C2) it is an > infraction and (B, C1) in which cases it is not. Agreed that L16A and C2 define infractions. The infractions do not in any way require _use_ of UI. An infraction requires merely that UI was _made available_ and that a forbidden action was _chosen_. Whether the UI was in fact used is irrelevant. This was the dramatic innovation made in 1975. It is now possible to say (truthfully!) to a player, "I believe you completely when you say you didn't notice your partner's hesitation, but I am still adjusting the score." The player did not use UI, but he still committed an infraction. I am astonished that this is controversial. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 04:12:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA01235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 03:21:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA01230 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 03:21:22 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id RAA18014 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:20:40 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:20 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? 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: <011f01bf8e00$004c2e40$835908c3@dodona> Grattan Endicott Is Pride, the never-failing vice of fools." (Pope) Despite Pope's enviable mastery of language I would suggest that pride is a vice by no means restricted to the foolish (or perhaps just makes fools of us all in the end). > > > > > Why not try, as a player, making a list of your peers (those with the > > same > > system, style, temperament, bidding judgement, hand evaluation, table > > presence, knowledge of opposition etc) > > +=+ May I, Tim, with the greatest humility, point to That's better:-) > the dictionary* definition of your 'peer' as "a person > of the same effectiveness or ability" as yourself. A > peer is an equal, not a clone. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Indeed. However, in a bridge context I have seen references to something like "system, style, and ability" on which I was trying to expand. I must confess I should have used "similar" rather than "the same" even with this amendment the list of peers is usually very short. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 05:12:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA04512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 05:05:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA04504 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 05:05:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.6.84.32] (helo=host62-6-84-32.btinternet.com) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12VJ6V-0007DK-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 19:05:12 +0000 From: Pam Hadfield To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: bum claim Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 19:04:57 +0000 Reply-To: pam@hadpaddock.com Message-ID: References: <387EC57A.EA03D9C1@alltel.net> <38CF6640.58CA437A@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <38CF6640.58CA437A@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 FAA04507 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 11:30:24 +0100, Herman wrote: >But the exact same facts, for a different declarer in a >different part of the world could lead to a different >ruling. There seem to be directors that would give 2 different declarers in the same club different rulings for the exact same facts. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 05:54:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA01226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 03:21:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.163]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA01219 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 03:20:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from p58s12a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.124.89] helo=pacific) by cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12UtpB-0004yC-00; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 16:05:38 +0000 Message-ID: <001b01bf8ea2$40d96b60$597c93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200003151444.JAA14903@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:15:56 -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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: 15 March 2000 14:44 Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? > All of us will _rule_ the same way, of course, given the same situation > and bridge judgment, but it seems to me we ought to _explain_ the > ruling using the language of L16 and not language that suggests a more > invidious offence. The CoP ought to reflect that. > +=+ Far from objecting, the Group took my original draft and revised it. The fact is as I have explained in other replies: Law 16 does say that basing a call or play on extraneous information (which is undeniably a use of the information) may be an infraction. Law 16 A,B,C then goes on to detail in which cases (A,C2) it is an infraction and (B, C1) in which cases it is not. Very sorry, extremely humble, and all that, but 'use' is intended and is right. The laws are not the place for whitewashes. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 06:12:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA05276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 05:29:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA05266 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 05:28:57 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA25811 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 20:28:49 +0100 Received: from ip82.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.82), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda25809; Wed Mar 15 20:28:42 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 20:28:42 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <200003151741.MAA15052@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200003151741.MAA15052@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 FAA05271 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 12:41:28 -0500 (EST), Steve Willner wrote: >It is now possible to say (truthfully!) to a player, "I believe you >completely when you say you didn't notice your partner's hesitation, >but I am still adjusting the score." The player did not use UI, but he >still committed an infraction. > >I am astonished that this is controversial. So am I. It has always seemed to me to be the whole point of the (IMO very fine) wording of L16. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 06:27:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA29555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 02:11:11 +1000 (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 CAA29545 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 02:10:55 +1000 (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 12VGNR-0007MF-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 16:10:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 01:31:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: bum claim References: <200001142133.IAA12958@octavia.anu.edu.au> <200001142326.PAA09248@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200001142326.PAA09248@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > >Jens wrote: > >> John Probst asked: >> > >> > an easy one I think, in DWS's absence >> > >> > Jxxx >> > >> > >> > AQTxx K9xx claim by W (rest of hand trumps) >> > >> > - >> > >> > careless or irrational? >> > >> > club game, mps, competent mid-stake rubber bridge player >> >> Players who are so good that they play the ace or queen as a matter >> of routine, but who are careless enough not to mention that that is >> what they are doing when they are claiming, are also careless enough >> to overlook the right play now and then. One trick to the defenders >> is my ruling too. > >Can we assume that someone who doesn't mention anything extra in their >claim statement is careless? I don't think so. Depending on the >circumstances, it's certainly possible that the player thinks the >correct play is so obvious to everyone, including the opponents, that >he's not going to waste time spelling it out. It is not the player who is careless. We do not say a player is careless. However, this misplay ios careless for the class of player involved - because I believe it to be careless at any level. >Suppose West had played the ace first, and South showed out. Now West >claims, without a claim statement. Would you argue that since West >was careless enough not to mention that he is going to take the marked >finesse, he would be careless enough to overlook the finesse? Of >course not. No. this is a totally different and incomparable situation. it would now be irrational not to take the finesse. > The finesse is too obvious. Obviously there's a line >somewhere between plays that are so simple that they don't need to be >stated, and more subtle plays that, we could rule, could be overlooked >due to carelessness. The line depends on "the class of player >involved" (Footnote 20 in the Laws). I maintain that, for experienced >players, this suit layout falls on the "too simple" side of the line, >since it is such a well-known position that appears frequently in >textbooks. I have seen good players get the first sort of holding wrong, but not the second holding. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 06:27:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA06716 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 06:27:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA06709 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 06:27:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivei59.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.72.169]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA13897 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 15:27:09 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000315152352.01287750@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 15:23:52 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? In-Reply-To: <002601bf8e92$6d43ea00$0a84d9ce@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:23 AM 3/15/2000 -0500, Craig wrote: >I suspect the last person who would have wanted the laws to remain stagnant >in a dynamic world would have been EK who was the architect of many a >revision he deemed would improve them. Whether he would agree with or >approve of every variation in recent years only he could tell us. We know he >did modify his opinion on some issues during his lifetime. But I feel he >would wholeheartedly approve of the ongoing attempt to improve the laws, and >would decry having them cast in bronze as an unfitting memorial to him. Quite right, of course. My invocation of Kaplan and his views is a feeble sort of defense against Grattan's on-high pronouncements. It would be much better for all of us and for the vitality of this forum if arguments could be made (and judged) on their own merits, rather than depending on Authority, living or dead. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 07:06:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA06009 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 05:51:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA06001 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 05:51:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-10.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.10]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA06498; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 14:51:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <005a01bf8eb8$3e650e00$0a84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 14:54:14 -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 While this certainly seems correct, why would you assume it is non-controversial. The many thousands of bridge players below the rank of expert continue to be baffled and offended when they are told they must be penalised for taking a perfectly normal call because of a hesitation by partner of which they were not even aware. Is this better than having to call someone a cheat in every UI situation? Well, I wouldn't want to have the lawsuits. :-) But it is still widely misunderstood, and you will never convince Susie Kumquat that when she made the bid she always would have made she has done anything wrong. She will, often loudly, curse and condemn the bridge lawyers who are trying to swindle her out of her (to her view) legitimately obtained result. She may also vote with her feet and go to the bingo hall next week instead...another customer lost, another regular game become a Howell on the way to being descheduled. In a perfect world there should be no penalty for UI unless it is actually used. The law as written is complex, and compliance with it may be beyond the ken of many lesser lights. I don't have the solution...but I assure you the subject remains controversial after 25 years. To no little degree this is exacerbated by the ACBL's draconian definition of LA and the extreme way in which some poorly trained directors have extended it to "if it hesitates shoot it." I suspect the British 30% and ROW 25% standard (the one we once had here) would eliminate much of the problem. -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: Steve Willner >Agreed that L16A and C2 define infractions. The infractions do not in >any way require _use_ of UI. An infraction requires merely that UI was >_made available_ and that a forbidden action was _chosen_. Whether the >UI was in fact used is irrelevant. This was the dramatic innovation >made in 1975. > >It is now possible to say (truthfully!) to a player, "I believe you >completely when you say you didn't notice your partner's hesitation, >but I am still adjusting the score." The player did not use UI, but he >still committed an infraction. > >I am astonished that this is controversial. > > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 07:59:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA08820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 07:59:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA08812 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 07:59:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.99.53.10] (helo=host5-99-53-10.btinternet.com) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12VLp1-0003ND-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 21:59:20 +0000 From: Pam Hadfield To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 21:59:20 +0000 Reply-To: pam@hadpaddock.com Message-ID: References: <005a01bf8eb8$3e650e00$0a84d9ce@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: <005a01bf8eb8$3e650e00$0a84d9ce@oemcomputer> 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 HAA08815 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 14:54:14 -0500, Craig wrote: > > But it is still widely misunderstood, and you will never convince Susie >Kumquat that when she made the bid she always would have made she has done >anything wrong. She will, often loudly, curse and condemn the bridge lawyers >who are trying to swindle her out of her (to her view) legitimately obtained >result. She may also vote with her feet and go to the bingo hall next week >instead...another customer lost, another regular game become a Howell on the >way to being descheduled. If the only way to keep the game going is to "adjust" the rules to suit the Susie Kumquats rather than educate them as to how the game should be played then it deserves to die. I think you are wrong though - if Susie Kumquat knew exactly how the rules would be applied in every case to her and the all other players, be they Zia or the Director's niece she might just reserve another night to play in the club in the next town where all the "good players" go. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 08:01:40 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA05188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 05:26:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA05173 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 05:26:40 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA25804 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 20:26:29 +0100 Received: from ip82.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.82), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpdb25799; Wed Mar 15 20:26:20 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 20:26:20 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <0invcsgtuacdgua8kdomfn4g8ub4smgh4l@dybdal.dk> References: <00f901bf8c70$dc173f00$9e9c01d4@default><008601bf8d4f$8ff823c0$db5408c3@dodona> <3.0.1.32.20000314172215.01288b9c@pop.mindspring.com> <003f01bf8e1f$c3e5a240$045408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <003f01bf8e1f$c3e5a240$045408c3@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 FAA05177 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 01:25:32 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: > "When use of unauthorized information >is alleged there are four key questions for >the appeals committee:.....etc" [CoP] > This is a defining statement. If the answer >to the four questions is 'yes' in each case then >the action is defined as use of unauthorized >information. What does this "defining statement" define? It seems to me that this makes sense only if what it defines is a very non-standard meaning of the word "use". The four questions are concerned with such things as what information is available and whether there was damage. That you have certain information and take a certain action does not in itself imply that you have used that information to choose the action. And it is certainly possible to use UI even if there is no damage. Even if we do take this wording literally, I don't see why it is a defining statement. It says that when a certain irregularity is alleged, then the AC should answer certain questions in order to decide whether to adjust the score. Unfortunately, if taken literally, it says nothing at all about what the AC should do when it is alleged that a player has violated L16A with no suggestion that there was actual use of UI - and that is the kind of allegations that actually occur often. As I also pointed out just after the CoP was first published, I cannot read this "use of" wording as anything other than one of the very few serious errors in the wording of the CoP. It has no basis in law; it destroys some of the good work done in the wording of L16A. > The infraction is basing 'a call >or play on other extraneous information', a >matter further amplified thereafter in the >same law which specifies what uses of >extraneous information as the basis for a >choice of call or play are infractions.. That is one possible infraction, yes. But the infraction that the four key questions are concerned with is the (different, and often much less serious) infraction that L16A carefully does not call "using UI": that of choosing "among logical alternative actions one that ...". As I read it, the beginning of L16 defines the problem that L16 tries to solve: that of using UI. L16A then goes on to specify exactly which actions are infractions. In order to make it possible to rule in practice, L16A does not define infractions in terms of "using UI", since it is difficult or impossible to determine whether UI has actually been used. Instead it defines an infraction by more objective standards: as the choice of certain calls when in possession of certain information. The actions thus defined as infractions by L16A include those that the beginning of L16 identify as the problem, but they also include other actions; this is necessary in order to get a definition of infraction that is useful in practice. These other actions, which for the sake of practical ruling result in adjustments, should not be called "using UI". L16 makes sense to me; the "use of UI" statement in the CoP does not. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 08:24:27 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA09477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 08:24:27 +1000 (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 IAA09469 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 08:24:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA05567; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 14:24:15 -0800 Message-Id: <200003152224.OAA05567@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: bum claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 15 Mar 2000 01:31:42 PST." Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 14:24:15 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > >Jens wrote: > > > >> John Probst asked: > >> > > >> > an easy one I think, in DWS's absence > >> > > >> > Jxxx > >> > > >> > > >> > AQTxx K9xx claim by W (rest of hand trumps) > >> > > >> > - > >> > > >> > careless or irrational? > >> > > >> > club game, mps, competent mid-stake rubber bridge player > >> > >> Players who are so good that they play the ace or queen as a matter > >> of routine, but who are careless enough not to mention that that is > >> what they are doing when they are claiming, are also careless enough > >> to overlook the right play now and then. One trick to the defenders > >> is my ruling too. > > > >Can we assume that someone who doesn't mention anything extra in their > >claim statement is careless? I don't think so. Depending on the > >circumstances, it's certainly possible that the player thinks the > >correct play is so obvious to everyone, including the opponents, that > >he's not going to waste time spelling it out. > > It is not the player who is careless. We do not say a player is > careless. However, this misplay is careless for the class of player > involved - because I believe it to be careless at any level. The number of posts in this thread indicates that not everyone shares your belief. This leads to questions about whether the Laws should be written so as to depend on a TD's belief---more on this later. > >Suppose West had played the ace first, and South showed out. Now West > >claims, without a claim statement. Would you argue that since West > >was careless enough not to mention that he is going to take the marked > >finesse, he would be careless enough to overlook the finesse? Of > >course not. > > No. this is a totally different and incomparable situation. it would > now be irrational not to take the finesse. Some of the arguments in the thread said that West might have been careless enough to miscount E-W's diamonds and think there were 10, and that the safety play would therefore be unnecessary. If West is one of those players, then when South shows out, he might still think the finesse is unnecessary, since there are only two diamonds left, so he might plunk down the king anyway. (I don't always take marked finesses if I "know" a suit will drop---perhaps an instinctive reaction to all the times when I've blocked suits by winning tricks too cheaply.) Would this be irrational or careless of West? Anyway, we could argue for months about whether not taking the safety play is "careless" or "irrational". My problem isn't so much with your belief that it's careless. My main problem is that if there's such disagreement about what should be considered irrational or careless, and there's no objective criteria for deciding which is which, then should the Laws be based on this distinction? When I claim, how am I to know what I need to say and what I don't? Or should I spell out every trick in detail, all the time? In the case where West takes the ace first, you say (along with everyone else) that it's irrational not to finesse, but is it possible that a TD and/or AC may see things differently? After all, I was able to come up with a possible (albeit weak) reason why it might be considered "careless" instead of "irrational", so what protection would I have against a BL that argues along those lines and a TD who buys it? The Laws don't help me here, since it leaves "careless" and "irrational" completely up to subjective judgment. (OK, maybe L70E does protect me in this particular situation, but one can easily come up with a comparable situation that doesn't involve a finesse.) I have a lot of sympathy for someone who simply lays down his hand and claims with AQTxx/K9xx, thinking that the safety play is so obvious that it doesn't need to be mentioned; if the TD later rules against him, the player has a right to wonder, "how was I supposed to know this wasn't a good enough claim?", since he would not be able to figure this out by reading the Laws. My feeling is that the Laws on claims need to be more explicit about what is considered "irrational" or "careless", or they need to be rewritten to avoid these concepts entirely. In either case, the Laws need to let us know exactly what has to be stated explicitly and what can be implied. In fact, I believe that the Bridge World (March 2000) included this as one of the areas where they believe the Laws are too ambiguous and leave themselves too open to bad TD/AC decisions. So even if I'm totally wrong, at least I'm in good company. :) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 08:54:02 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA05190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 05:26:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA05176 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 05:26:44 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA25803 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 20:26:29 +0100 Received: from ip82.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.82), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda25799; Wed Mar 15 20:26:19 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 20:26:19 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <1hovcssv89vnu7v02c77h5dfg8ch46a6s4@dybdal.dk> References: <00f901bf8c70$dc173f00$9e9c01d4@default> <008601bf8d4f$8ff823c0$db5408c3@dodona> <011e01bf8dff$ff2ed760$835908c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <011e01bf8dff$ff2ed760$835908c3@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 FAA05182 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 21:49:57 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: Jesper Dybdal >To: >Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 6:01 PM >Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? > >> If has taken the action he would have taken without the UI, then >> he has definitely not taken advantage of UI - though he may not >> have "taken the disadvantage" of the UI that it is later ruled >> that he ought to have. >> >+=+ I am sorry, but this is not so. There must be something wrong with my understanding of the English language. To me, the language works as follows: "Take advantage of UI" means to choose an action that (a) gives you an advantage and (b) would not have been chosen without UI. If you take the same action that you would have taken without UI and get the same result that you would get without UI, then I simply cannot understand how you can have "taken advantage of UI". > Once he had the >UI the criteria by which he was permitted to judge his >choice of action were no longer those existing prior >to receiving the UI. Yes. > Now he is required to put aside >his own judgement and to act upon standards set >by his peers in not selecting action that is suggested >over a logical alternative action by the UI. Yes. We are discussing a player who does what he can to do so, but has a bridge judgement that differs from that of the TD/AC. > If he is >held to have misjudged this he is deemed to have >been influenced in his misjudgement by the UI since >he has not matched the unbiased objectivity of the >unaffected sample. He judges that there is only one logical action, and takes that action. I don't understand "matched the unbiased objectivity of the unaffected sample" - does it mean anything other than "made the same judgement that the TD/AC made later"? We are talking about a bridge judgement: is a certain call an LA or not? Even if you do call it "the unbiased objectivity of the unaffected sample", it is still a judgement to be made in the future, with a result that may depend on who happens to be on an AC. He _should_ actually have been influenced by the UI to choose an action other than the one he would normally choose, and he has failed to do so because he did not consider that action an LA. >And, of course, it may >be 'overbearing arrogance' to state the basis upon >which Directors and ACs are to make their >judgements of players' actions, but if so we must >expect more and more of that kind of thing as the >WBF makes its intended progress, painful perhaps, >resisted assuredly by some, towards its newly >conceived purpose of establishing a jurisprudence >for universal acceptance. We are not talking about how the judgment should be made or the criteria for an adjustment under L16A. We are only talking about whether we should use terms like "use UI" and "take advantage of UI" about situations like one where the player has (a) made a call that he would also have made without UI, and (b) tried carefully to judge what LAs there were, but (c) nevertheless received a score adjustment because the TD/AC judged LAs differently and thus ruled that there was a L16A infraction. The difference is that it is fairly easy for a player to avoid "taking advantage of UI", but it can be extremely difficult to judge a future AC's judgment of LAs correctly. An ethical and careful player who knows the law will not fail to avoid "taking advantage of UI", but he may sometimes violate L16A by failing to judge the LAs correctly. Therefore, saying that a player has "taken advantage of UI" tends to imply that he is not an ethical and careful player who knows the law - and players do not like such implications. I would never accuse a player of "taking advantage of UI" unless I had reason to believe that he actually did try to gain an advantage by choosing an action different from the one he would have chosen without UI. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 09:12:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA07711 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 07:15:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA07706 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 07:15:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-10.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.10]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA15167; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 16:15:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <007b01bf8ec4$02fe07c0$0a84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: bum claim Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 16:18:24 -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 And rightly so. Surely you do not maintain that logical alternatives do not vary by the class of player? The line between careless and irrational has to reflect the level of play. Almost no line of play is irrational to Susie Kumquat! :-) -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: Pam Hadfield To: Bridge Laws Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 2:40 PM Subject: Re: bum claim >On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 11:30:24 +0100, Herman wrote: > >>But the exact same facts, for a different declarer in a >>different part of the world could lead to a different >>ruling. > > >There seem to be directors that would give 2 different declarers in the >same club different rulings for the exact same facts. > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 09:54:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA11774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 09:54:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA11768 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 09:54:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id SAA12171 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 18:54:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA15513 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 18:54:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 18:54:12 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200003152354.SAA15513@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: bum claim X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Craig Senior" > Surely you do not maintain that logical alternatives do not > vary by the class of player? Wasn't this thread about claims? What do LA's have to do with them? > The line between careless and irrational has to > reflect the level of play. Almost no line of play is irrational to Susie > Kumquat! :-) You might want to have a look at just what that prepositional phrase "for the class of player involved" modifies in the footnotes to L69/70/71. (Hint: it isn't the word 'irrational'.) If you believe claims are to be judged by "what the player might do if he played on," then of course you will agree with Craig. That isn't what the laws seem to me to be saying. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 10:03:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA08002 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 07:29:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo-d05.mx.aol.com (imo-d05.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA07995 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 07:28:55 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id d.55.355b518 (3701); Wed, 15 Mar 2000 16:28:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <55.355b518.26015a67@aol.com> Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 16:28:07 EST Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? To: msd@mindspring.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 67 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 3/15/00 3:29:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, msd@mindspring.com writes: > . It would be much > better for all of us and for the vitality of this forum if arguments could > be made (and judged) on their own merits, rather than depending on > Authority, living or dead. Ah come'on now Michael. Where did you ever find ".....arguments.... on their own merits...." where these merits were not ascribed to them by people. What is meritorious to some is not to others. It's one of the reasons why we have Authority, living, and/or dead. The differences you decry are what makes this forum of any value -- without them there would be no reason for its existence other than as a vehicle to posture by those who feel the need. I understand the need for Authority as you so quaintly put it, -- it gives a semblance of order to any of our endeavors. Without it we would further disintegrate into a babble of musings. Beware the Ides of March! Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 10:14:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA11115 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 09:28:26 +1000 (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 JAA11107 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 09:28:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA06635; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 15:28:18 -0800 Message-Id: <200003152328.PAA06635@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 15 Mar 2000 21:59:20 PST." Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 15:28:19 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Pam Hadfield wrote: > On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 14:54:14 -0500, Craig wrote: > > > > > > But it is still widely misunderstood, and you will never convince Susie > >Kumquat that when she made the bid she always would have made she has done > >anything wrong. She will, often loudly, curse and condemn the bridge lawyers > >who are trying to swindle her out of her (to her view) legitimately obtained > >result. She may also vote with her feet and go to the bingo hall next week > >instead...another customer lost, another regular game become a Howell on the > >way to being descheduled. > > If the only way to keep the game going is to "adjust" the rules to suit > the Susie Kumquats rather than educate them as to how the game should be > played then it deserves to die. As someone who lives in a country that has problems maintaining the game's popularity, I find this attitude extremely unhelpful. Basically, you're saying that if we can't find enough people who can understand the rules as written, we should just give the whole thing up. Why? What's so important about the "rules as written", that we have to keep them as they are? Were they handed to us on stone tables on Mt. Sinai? Why would it be such a bad idea to consider changing them? I kind of like the UI rule the way it is; but if the cost of keeping the rule this way would be that the number of duplicate players in the US shrinks to 180 and major pair events at national tournaments were five tables, I'd consider the cost to be too high, and I'd certainly be willing to consider a rule change. Of course, there's only so far I'd want to go; I'd possibly no longer enjoy the game if players were able to make unlimited use of UI, as Jim Davis proposed. And if the cost of keeping the rule is that we lose 0.5% percent of our membership, that's probably not too high a cost. It's a tradeoff. But the apparent attitude here, that we must keep the rules the way they are regardless of the cost, seems counterproductive to me. I do tend to agree that we should do more to educate the less-experienced players about the rules. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 11:02:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA07670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 07:14:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA07663 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 07:13:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2iveh8a.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.69.10]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA06445 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 16:13:43 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000315160946.01269614@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 16:09:46 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? In-Reply-To: <000701bf8e54$34d47880$9b5408c3@dodona> References: <00f901bf8c70$dc173f00$9e9c01d4@default> <3.0.1.32.20000314165813.01284038@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20000314224533.01285458@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:50 AM 3/15/2000 -0000, Grattan wrote: > >Grattan Endicott===================================== >"Of all the causes which conspire to blind >Man's erring judgement, and misguide the mind, >What the weak head with strongest bias rules >Is Pride, the never-failing vice of fools." > (Pope) >> Not surprisingly, it is not how your great and good friend Edgar Kaplan >saw >> it, at least in his public writings. But we have strayed so far from his >> view of the Laws that one more minor revision can hardly be considered a >> significant diminution of his reputation. >> >> Mike Dennis >> >+=+ Such views are in the mind of the beholder. > For some "strayed" is "progressed". > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ As I acknowledged in my reply to Craig, it is certainly wrong-headed for me (or anyone) to rely too heavily on the 20-year-old pronouncements of the late Edgar Kaplan, and Craig was undoubtedly correct that Kaplan would not have wished that his would be the final word in the evolution of legal understanding. So yes, Grattan, progress is good, whether or not Kaplan would have agreed in any particular instance. But how is this progress? Kaplan understood (as you and David evidently do not) that the ability to rule effectively to protect the NOS is weakened, rather than strengthened, when every L16 inquiry is framed in terms of who did or not take advantage of UI. Kaplan understood (as you and David do not) that the present language in L16 was carefully crafted _for the precise purpose_ of shifting the investigatory focus away from the emotionally charged language of "using UI" to the more neutral and objective issues of LA's and such. His understanding of these issues is shared by most of the correspondents who have contributed to this thread, for the simple reason that it accords with our bridge values and with our understanding of human nature. It is in no way "progress" for us to revert to the earlier treatment of UI investigations, and neither you nor David have advanced any argument at all about the advantages of such a regressive change. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 11:15:37 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA29564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 02:11:22 +1000 (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 CAA29554 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 02:11:06 +1000 (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 12VGNR-0007MG-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 16:10:30 +0000 Message-ID: <$$I$Y3AU2uz4Ewkt@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 01:55:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Resolving claim disputes without the TD References: <20000314092734.80754.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000314092734.80754.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: >I wrote >>Todd Zimnoch wrote: >>[b] he >>feels he has to do the wrong thing *because* of his claim which is >>hardly fair to him: he is being asked to act unnaturally. Why not let >>an arbiter sort it out. > > I've questioned their judgement. I recently made a bad claim where >director originally gave one trick. The best argument at the time was for >one trick. Then he discovered a line of play that avoids losing any tricks >and assigns it to me! I protested. The director came back an hour later to >offer 3 tricks on a play that opponents hadn't considered. Ill gotten MP if >you asked me. (Kudos to the director for thinking about it so long, but I >think his first ruling was the correct one.) I do not believe that a bad ruling is a sufficient reason to change a Law. [s] >> I do not agree with this. This type of thing leads to the biggest, >>loudest, and longest arguments. Most players will make the extra trick >>if allowed to play on after a claim because they know why the claim is >>being challenged. Their opponents will not let this go without a >>fight!! > > Who relinquished the right to call for the director? I don't know. I don't understand the question, and I certainly did not say anything about this. I just said your procedure would lead to extra arguments. > I really >shouldn't be surprized by bridge players' lack of prudence. After all, some >still play with me. ;) > >> > 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? >> >> It is not a question of abuses. A line has been stated and someone >>has to adjudicate on that line and what it means. If a player plays on >>then it will be very difficult to say whether he has followed the line. > > It's not currently a question about abuses because the practise of >playing out after a claim is disallowed. It was disallowed for some reason, >presumably because the game isn't fair without the prohibition. Otherwise, >the law would be a waste of ink. That statement has little logic. Why should not the Law be written because it seemed the best way? I think you are approaching it wrong. There is no real prohibition. A claim is made, and play ceases: to call it a prohibition is like saying that after you have played five tricks you are "prohibited" from picking up all your cards and starting again. Certainly you are, but asking why there is a prohibition seems wrong. It is the way bridge is played. You carry on playing cards until one of two things happens: either [a] there is a claim or [b] you run out of cards. >> There will be two main effects of playing on. [1] More bad claims >>will succeed than do now. [2] More arguments and ill-feeling will be >>created than are now. > > Do we care about 1? If opponents cannot realise that they were >entitled to another trick, do they deserve it? I thought you were actually arguing that playing on was a good thing? Of course we care about [1]. > With a completely different spin, should we allow team A to abuse team >B's naivete while team C is too ethical to do the same? Has this got anything to do with anything in this thread? [s] >> There is no reason why Directors should necessarily have a basic >>understanding of why the Law is as it is. > > As opposed to why it isn't elsewise, perhaps. Without any >understanding for the rationale, or the situations where Law 23 would be >applicable, how do you expect the director to rule efficiently with it? You do move the goalposts!!!! If you do not understand the situations where L23 applies, then you cannot apply L23 effectively. That is true, obvious, and completely irrelevant. You do not need to know why they wrote L23 as they did to apply it. >> Since I was not there, I cannot be certain. But if there was the >>slightest possibility [including carelessness] that West would discard >>the wrong card then I would give South a trick - and so would most TDs. >> >> However, it may have been completely obvious that West would get it >>right. > > If it weren't just a club game, I would have appealed the ruling. East >knows that her claim relies on west's discard. She wasn't so foolish to >think that her 2D would win with the K and J out against it. Exposing her >hand to preclude the possibility that her partner could make a mistake is an >action I consider akin to cheating. Yeah. Of course. Or perhaps she was bored, thought it was obvious, and wanted to speed it up. Or perhaps she was sure partner would get it right. Or perhaps she made a mistake and forgot that it made a difference. Of course it is not akin to cheating. > It's possible (actually, most likely) >that she had complete faith in her partner's ability to count the cards, in >which case her partner's discard would have quickly followed my exit. She >should have known that also. > Whether or not west would have made the right play, I think that a >claim in this situation should be strongly discouraged. To allow east to >claim like this repeatedly would have her opponents question her ethics. Sure. but what evidence is there that this was not an isolated occurrence? Have you never made a mistake? > >[snip] > >> > 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. >> >> Oh, no. Too often such a player waits for ages for a lead. > > Someone recently asked if you'd rather play a fair game slowly or cheat >fast. That's true. And I answered that I like a fast game. It was a fairly trite and meaningless question and did not help an understanding of the game. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 11:47:35 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA14353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:47:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA14346 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:47:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.6.72.92] (helo=davidburn) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12VPNB-0001OT-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 01:46:49 +0000 Message-ID: <000501bf8ee9$c3cbc9e0$5c48063e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200003152224.OAA05567@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: bum claim Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 01:48:43 -0000 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam wrote: > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > > > >Jens wrote: > > > > > >> John Probst asked: > > >> > > > >> > an easy one I think, in DWS's absence > > >> > > > >> > Jxxx > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > AQTxx K9xx claim by W (rest of hand trumps) > > >> > > > >> > - > > >> > > > >> > careless or irrational? > > >> > > > >> > club game, mps, competent mid-stake rubber bridge player > > >> > > >> Players who are so good that they play the ace or queen as a matter > > >> of routine, but who are careless enough not to mention that that is > > >> what they are doing when they are claiming, are also careless enough > > >> to overlook the right play now and then. One trick to the defenders > > >> is my ruling too. > > > > > >Can we assume that someone who doesn't mention anything extra in their > > >claim statement is careless? I don't think so. Depending on the > > >circumstances, it's certainly possible that the player thinks the > > >correct play is so obvious to everyone, including the opponents, that > > >he's not going to waste time spelling it out. > > > > It is not the player who is careless. We do not say a player is > > careless. However, this misplay is careless for the class of player > > involved - because I believe it to be careless at any level. > > The number of posts in this thread indicates that not everyone shares > your belief. This leads to questions about whether the Laws should be > written so as to depend on a TD's belief---more on this later. They should not. MOre on this later. > > >Suppose West had played the ace first, and South showed out. Now West > > >claims, without a claim statement. Would you argue that since West > > >was careless enough not to mention that he is going to take the marked > > >finesse, he would be careless enough to overlook the finesse? Of > > >course not. > > > > No. this is a totally different and incomparable situation. it would > > now be irrational not to take the finesse. > > Some of the arguments in the thread said that West might have been > careless enough to miscount E-W's diamonds and think there were 10, > and that the safety play would therefore be unnecessary. If West is > one of those players, then when South shows out, he might still think > the finesse is unnecessary, since there are only two diamonds left, so > he might plunk down the king anyway. (I don't always take marked > finesses if I "know" a suit will drop---perhaps an instinctive > reaction to all the times when I've blocked suits by winning tricks > too cheaply.) Would this be irrational or careless of West? > > Anyway, we could argue for months about whether not taking the safety > play is "careless" or "irrational". My problem isn't so much with > your belief that it's careless. My main problem is that if there's > such disagreement about what should be considered irrational or > careless, and there's no objective criteria for deciding which is > which, then should the Laws be based on this distinction? When I > claim, how am I to know what I need to say and what I don't? Or > should I spell out every trick in detail, all the time? In the case > where West takes the ace first, you say (along with everyone else) > that it's irrational not to finesse, but is it possible that a TD > and/or AC may see things differently? After all, I was able to come > up with a possible (albeit weak) reason why it might be considered > "careless" instead of "irrational", so what protection would I have > against a BL that argues along those lines and a TD who buys it? The > Laws don't help me here, since it leaves "careless" and "irrational" > completely up to subjective judgment. (OK, maybe L70E does protect me > in this particular situation, but one can easily come up with a > comparable situation that doesn't involve a finesse.) I have a lot of > sympathy for someone who simply lays down his hand and claims with > AQTxx/K9xx, thinking that the safety play is so obvious that it > doesn't need to be mentioned; if the TD later rules against him, the > player has a right to wonder, "how was I supposed to know this wasn't > a good enough claim?", since he would not be able to figure this out > by reading the Laws. The Laws, as I seem to have said before, should say: "A claimer should state what tricks he expects to win, and in what order he intends to play his remaining cards. Any cards not covered explicitly by this statement of claim should be deemed to be played in the legal order most disadvantageous to the claimer." Now, such statements of claim would have a negligible cost in terms of speeding up the play. Moreover, they would lead to this eminently desirable outcome: there would never again be such a thing as a contested claim. Not ever. People whose primary justification for existing is to argue about the Laws would think this a bad thing, but nobody else would. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 12:19:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA13668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:18:29 +1000 (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 LAA13647 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:18:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12VOv6-0006J5-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 01:17:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 01:00:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Cards from wrong board References: <38CF6177.F2DCC11D@xtra.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <38CF6177.F2DCC11D@xtra.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bruce Small wrote: >Hi all > >Quick question. Situation is: East is declarer. South leads and dummy >lays down. Declarer calls director and explains there are two DK one in >her hand and one in Dummy. Transpires West had removed souths cards from >previous board. Law 17D appears to cover during auction period but this >is now finished. Board is obviously unplayable. West is offender. Do we >just use 12C1 and award 60% NS an 40%EW? Err - probably. L17D actually says you should give the player the correct hand and invite him to start again, but I think that since we know where another card is [the other DK] this does not work. OK, L12C1, A+/A-. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 13:12:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA13690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:18:57 +1000 (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 LAA13673 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:18:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12VOvC-0006JH-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 01:17:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 16:56:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? References: <00f901bf8c70$dc173f00$9e9c01d4@default> <008601bf8d4f$8ff823c0$db5408c3@dodona> <3.0.1.32.20000314172215.01288b9c@pop.mindspring.com> <003201bf8e62$8c8aa960$da66063e@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <003201bf8e62$8c8aa960$da66063e@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >Michael wrote: >> A player who "puts aside his own judgement" is wholly incapable of >meeting >> his L16 obligations, which implicitly require much judgement. >Moreover, he >> can hardly act upon "standards set by his peers", as these do not >exist >> except in a purely hypothetical sense. > >Again, the difficulty is that the Law itself does not require a player >to do any of that. But the way in which the Law is implemented does. >This difference between the requirements on players placed by the Law >itself and the requirements on players placed by the implementation of >the Law is at the heart of the disagreement between Michael (and >others) and Grattan (and others). It is incapable of resolution while >the words of the Law and the way in which it is implemented remain the >same. The word "demonstrably" in the latest version of L16 goes some >little way towards indicating to players that some kind of objective >"demonstration" will be considered in determining whether they have >met their legal obligation, but it is my view that no player could >understand from reading the Law itself what he is supposed to do in >terms of complying with it (which is a pity). It always seems to me that L16A and L73F tell the TD/AC what to do, but the instructions to the players are contained in L73C. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 13:20:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA13670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:18:31 +1000 (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 LAA13650 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:18:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12VOv6-0006J2-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 01:17:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:01:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: bum claim 2 References: <3886EA68.12A84AA9@omicron.comarch.pl> In-Reply-To: <3886EA68.12A84AA9@omicron.comarch.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >James.Vickers@merck.de pressed the following keys: >> >> Konrad wrote: >> >Nothing in this world can prevent you from taking >> >a trick for the sK and the cJ. They are all yours. >> >> I described the losing play as "convoluted", presumably an apt description if >> you can't see it. It is not, however irrational, given that South believes all >> his cards are winners. On a spade lead South could take the rest by discarding >> diamonds on dummy's hearts and taking three club tricks. He could lose three >> tricks by crossing to the club J and leading a diamond, giving West D ace and >> the last two spades, or lose two tricks by discarding clubs on the hearts and >> then crossing to the club J, assuming West discards correctly. There are other >> possible ways of playing. The last two are perfectly logical plays, given >> declarer's mistaken view of the situation. >> >> James Vickers >> > > James, my dear James, this is exactly what I wrote (or at least >I thought so). I rule that declarer will take to tricks for sK and cJ >et nihil supra. Playing a spade to the jack and cashing diamonds is >not irrational if declarer thinks all his diamonds are good. I'm >on your side, I'm the good guy. > I intended to be sarcasting; my commentary just showed the >willingness >to give _all_ the tricks to the defenders because, as a bridge player, >this is what I firmly believe declarer deserves for his play (sorry!!). >However, as a TD (which I'm not, BTW), I can't do that. Sadly, nothing >can prevent South from taking two tricks for the sK and the cJ. Why do you not take a trick with the DJ? It would be irrational to discard it. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I have not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles up to ten weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 14:12:56 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA13697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:19:04 +1000 (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 LAA13664 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:18:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12VOvA-0006J3-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 01:17:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 01:02:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: bum claim References: <3.0.1.32.20000119082556.0068a498@pop.cais.com> <200001191642.IAA07372@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200001191642.IAA07372@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >OK, I have a question for those who would award one trick to the >defenders regardless of claimer's ability. > >In a trump contract, declarer has AQx in hand, Kxxxx in dummy, in a >side suit. Trumps are gone, and declarer has only one loser in hand >to dispose of. Dummy has only one possible entry outside this suit. >Declarer cashes the ace and both follow; then he claims saying he will >set the suit up with a ruff if necessary. The opponents now call the >TD, saying that declarer didn't state the order in which he'd take his >winners, and that playing the king before the queen (thus preventing >him from getting to dummy to take the long winner) would be >"careless", not "irrational", and that therefore the defense should >get a trick. > >How do you rule? Declarer gets all the tricks. >If you rule in declarer's favor on my example, what's the difference >between this layout and the one in question, AQTxx / K9xx? Is there a >fundamental difference between these two types of situations that >would cause us to use different criteria for determining whether a >line of play is careless or irrational? Or is the difference one of >degree---i.e. you believe the correct play in my example is more >"obvious" than the one John had to rule on, or something similar? No, I rule on the available evidence. In this situation there is evidence that declarer has noticed the possible problems. Given that, it is irrational that, having noticed the possible problems, he would not play for them. In the original case there is evidence that he has not noticed the problem. It is routine to make a correct claim statement, especially in simple cases, and failure to do so is evidence that declarer has missed the problem. How about Belgium, where it is _apparently_ normal to make bad claim statements? Sorry, the same standard applies. You do not get given a bonus for normally making bad claim statements: the evidence remains. ------------------- Craig Senior wrote: >And so I find myself in total disagreement with two of you I respect highly. >I would think it to be insulting for an opponent to suggest that any player >of quality did not have an obvious claim in this situation. I would never >consider contesting it unless I thought the player was a complete doofus, >and would not wish to socialize with anyone who would contest such an >obvious claim. If people are going to act in such a rude/insulting fashion that they cannot be bothered to make a reasonable claim then they deserve what they get. There are one or two people in this thread who seem to think that better players "get away with things" when they claim. If you are not going to contest a claim in this sort of position then on occasion they will. Good players make mistakes. In this situation you know that the player has made a mistake. As an opponent, you have the right to assume his mistake is in the statement if you wish. You won't always be right. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I have not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles up to ten weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 14:28:49 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA13682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:18:47 +1000 (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 LAA13661 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:18:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12VOvC-0006J2-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 01:17:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 01:04:09 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Bum claim References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk James wrote: >I quite agree with Pam, sarcasm and all. I have said this many times, and it is >something we all know: when a player makes a claim they should accompany it >with >a statement explaining how they intend to take the tricks. Anyone who fails to >do so either doesn't know how they intend to play or is too blase to comply >with >correct procedure. Sitting back, waving your master point certificate and >waiting for the director to work out the best line of play for you, under the >awed gaze of the spectators, is really no substitute. > >It is not up to the director to work out "how the play probably would have gone >in absence of the claim" (as some people seem to assume). Why on earth should >they? Because it is their job? One of the skills of a Director is judging claims. There is more judgement allowed in claims than in most other things that a Director deals with. > The onus is on the claimer to show they knew what was going on, if they >fail to do so they must expect the ruling to go against them. That is not the same thing. L70 tells the TD how to deal with a Contested Claim, and there are certainly cases under it where a flawed Claim statement nevertheless is accepted because it would be irrational for the play to go in a way that loses claimer a trick. There is no statement in the Laws that the Director needs to do more than get the facts. these facts include the claim statement and the opponents' objections. Ok, they may include knowing how the play has gone to date. But it is not then up to claimer to demonstrate why his claim is correct. ----------- Todd Zimnoch wrote: > It's so unfortunate, that the footnote, "'normal' includes play that >would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved...." is ruled >that a player of high standing couldn't be that careless rather than that by >all means he could. You don't think that you might be mixing up whether rulings are correct with whether the Laws are correct? Certainly, all players do careless things at times. > You'll notice that the irrational qualifier is not >qualified as "irrational for the class of player involved." By my thinking, >the footnote is asking that directors do not take the class of player into >consideration when making a ruling, although that's clearly not the case. It is clear that the definition of irrational includes the class of player because a Director looks at a possible play and has to consider whether to classify it as careless or irrational. If he is using the class of player as part of his decision-making then he is using it for both possibilities. Some posters seem to assume that the distinction between levels of player works in favour of the strong players. I believe this to be wrong: it does on some hands, and works the other way on other hands. ----------- Adam Beneschan wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >> I assert that a player at any level would be far less >> likely to carelessly lead the 2 from AKQ2 in that position than to start >> with the K in the problem position. > >I do not believe this assertion. At some levels (very good to >expert), I believe it would be entirely automatic to start with the >ace or queen in the layout AQTxx / K9xx. Personally, I think that >even on a day when I am half asleep, can't remember whether declarer >discarded in a suit, can't remember what my partner signalled on the >first round of the suit, can't remember what my partner played on the >last trick, can't remember what contract we're playing or how many >spades I started with---I would *still*, with my eyes half-closed and >unsure of whether I'm doing it consciously or in my dreams, start this >suit with the ace, out of habit. And if you claimed, would you not also mention this? Your assertion is that a player would never be careless enough to misplay this suit, but that the *same* player would be careless enough to claim without mentioning this. Of course there are many players who are so careful they would *never* get this suit wrong. However, such careful players would also not forget to mention it in some way as they claim. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I have not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles up to ten weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 15:14:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA18551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 15:14:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA18546 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 15:14:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.200.87] (helo=davidburn) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12VSbH-0005mM-00; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 05:13:35 +0000 Message-ID: <009501bf8f06$a6317ca0$5c48063e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <00f901bf8c70$dc173f00$9e9c01d4@default><008601bf8d4f$8ff823c0$db5408c3@dodona><3.0.1.32.20000314172215.01288b9c@pop.mindspring.com><003201bf8e62$8c8aa960$da66063e@davidburn> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 05:15:29 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > It always seems to me that L16A and L73F tell the TD/AC what to do, > but the instructions to the players are contained in L73C. It may be worth quoting that Law: When a player has available to him unauthorised information from his partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side. And yet, I cannot see (as Michael Dennis and others cannot see) how a player can reasonably be expected to extrapolate from this the notion that when he takes action A in a position where action B simply would not have occurred to him, he should accept with good grace an adjustment based on the "fact" that he might have chosen action B. This may be a fault in my vision, but it is a fault that (as I know from long experience of having to explain AC decisions to miffed players after the event) many average players share. I do not disagree with what is generally done (how could I, since I generally do it myself to the poor people who have the misfortune to come before me as AC chair every so often?) I just wish that the Laws would codify common practice to the extent that I could point to the book and say; "This is why I am ruling against you." Instead, I have to resort to an explanation along the tedious lines that I set out in my previous post: "We're not saying that on this occasion you personally cheated, we're just saying that had you been a pair of cheats, you'd have ended up doing what it turned out that you actually did, so...". This has been known to convince about 10% of appellants; the other 90% go away thinking that not only is the TD a bastard but the appeals committee must also have been born out of wedlock. Thanks to Edgar's good offices, there is a huge footnote to Law 75D. A similar footnote should be appended to L73. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 16:32:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA20051 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 16:32:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA20044 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 16:31:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.200.87] (helo=davidburn) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12VToZ-0003Li-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 06:31:24 +0000 Message-ID: <00b701bf8f11$848b4940$5c48063e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: Bum claim Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 06:33:16 -0000 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > >It is not up to the director to work out "how the play probably would have gone > >in absence of the claim" (as some people seem to assume). Why on earth should > >they? > > Because it is their job? One of the skills of a Director is judging > claims. There is more judgement allowed in claims than in most other > things that a Director deals with. But it ought not to be their job. As far as is possible, no umpire or referee or tournament director or appeals committee should ever have to work out what would have happened. Insofar as the laws of a game require that its officials make subjective judgements of that nature, that game is (for practical purposes) flawed. How can we eliminate an element of subjective judgement from a claim? Only by requiring the claimer to make a comprehensive statement of the order in which he proposes to play his cards, the tricks he will win, and the tricks (if any) he will lose. Once he has done that, the Law (not the director) should take over; if the player's claim is found defective in any way, then he should lose the maximum number of tricks consistent with any legal play of the remaining cards. I say again: this would speed up the game appreciably, and would mean that there was never again such a thing as a contested claim. Moreover, it would lead to a consistent application of the rules from here to the nor'nor'west of Nome, something that can by no means be said of the present approach. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 17:51:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA22062 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 17:51:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA22055 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 17:51:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.175] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12VV3y-0006Be-00; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 07:51:24 +0000 Message-ID: <000601bf8f1c$be233d60$af5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , References: <00f901bf8c70$dc173f00$9e9c01d4@default><008601bf8d4f$8ff823c0$db5408c3@dodona> <3.0.1.32.20000314172215.01288b9c@pop.mindspring.com> <003201bf8e62$8c8aa960$da66063e@davidburn> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 23:19:53 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 9:40 AM Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? > Part of the difficulty may be that this is not what he's required by > the Law to do. This is what he is (in effect) required by the > implementation of the Law to do, because a "logical alternative" is > defined (in broad terms) as something which some of the player's > peers, being of sound mind, might have thought about doing or actually > done. The Law itself says that he is not supposed to allow the UI to > influence his actions to the point at which he selects from among the > logical alternatives that occur to *him* one that is suggested *over > another* by the UI. Because we cannot read the player's mind to > determine whether or not he has actually done this, we create an > objective test by which we determine whether or not he might have > done. > +=+ Yes, David, and those who would deny me have a nice point of language to argue, which they do by severing the preamble of Law 16 from its parts. And what you say here is true enough since the law requires a judgement to be made and the world has indicated how this is to be done. Nevertheless (a) what the preamble describes is clearly a use of the UI so that the specifications in A,B and C, list 'uses' of extraneous information and which of them are illegal. The consequence is that the player is adjudged to have based a call (play) illegally upon extraneous information from an inspection of his behaviour, not of his mind.In doing so he is adjudged to have 'used' UI. But this discussion leads nowhere. The WBF has published guidance and the words in the CoP were not agreed inadvertently. Those who feel squeamish about the taint which attaches to 'use' must face the fact that it has been purposefully ordered so. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 18:08:34 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA22392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:08:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f292.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.86]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA22384 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:08:25 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 55345 invoked by uid 0); 16 Mar 2000 08:07:46 -0000 Message-ID: <20000316080746.55344.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 152.206.235.239 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:07:46 PST X-Originating-IP: [152.206.235.239] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Resolving claim disputes without the TD Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:07:46 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson >Reply-To: David Stevenson >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Subject: Re: Resolving claim disputes without the TD >Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 01:55:32 +0000 > >Todd Zimnoch wrote: > >I wrote > >>Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > >>[b] he > >>feels he has to do the wrong thing *because* of his claim which is > >>hardly fair to him: he is being asked to act unnaturally. Why not let > >>an arbiter sort it out. > > > > I've questioned their judgement. I recently made a bad claim where > >director originally gave one trick. The best argument at the time was >for > >one trick. Then he discovered a line of play that avoids losing any >tricks > >and assigns it to me! I protested. The director came back an hour later >to > >offer 3 tricks on a play that opponents hadn't considered. Ill gotten MP >if > >you asked me. (Kudos to the director for thinking about it so long, but >I > >think his first ruling was the correct one.) > > I do not believe that a bad ruling is a sufficient reason to change a >Law. > > [s] > > >> I do not agree with this. This type of thing leads to the biggest, > >>loudest, and longest arguments. Most players will make the extra trick > >>if allowed to play on after a claim because they know why the claim is > >>being challenged. Their opponents will not let this go without a > >>fight!! > > > > Who relinquished the right to call for the director? > > I don't know. I don't understand the question, and I certainly did >not say anything about this. I just said your procedure would lead to >extra arguments. > > > I really > >shouldn't be surprized by bridge players' lack of prudence. After all, >some > >still play with me. ;) > > > >> > 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? > >> > >> It is not a question of abuses. A line has been stated and someone > >>has to adjudicate on that line and what it means. If a player plays on > >>then it will be very difficult to say whether he has followed the line. > > > > It's not currently a question about abuses because the practise of > >playing out after a claim is disallowed. It was disallowed for some >reason, > >presumably because the game isn't fair without the prohibition. >Otherwise, > >the law would be a waste of ink. > > That statement has little logic. Why should not the Law be written >because it seemed the best way? I think you are approaching it wrong. >There is no real prohibition. A claim is made, and play ceases: to call >it a prohibition is like saying that after you have played five tricks >you are "prohibited" from picking up all your cards and starting again. >Certainly you are, but asking why there is a prohibition seems wrong. >It is the way bridge is played. You carry on playing cards until one of >two things happens: either [a] there is a claim or [b] you run out of >cards. > > >> There will be two main effects of playing on. [1] More bad claims > >>will succeed than do now. [2] More arguments and ill-feeling will be > >>created than are now. > > > > Do we care about 1? If opponents cannot realise that they were > >entitled to another trick, do they deserve it? > > I thought you were actually arguing that playing on was a good thing? > > Of course we care about [1]. > > > With a completely different spin, should we allow team A to abuse >team > >B's naivete while team C is too ethical to do the same? > > Has this got anything to do with anything in this thread? > > [s] > > >> There is no reason why Directors should necessarily have a basic > >>understanding of why the Law is as it is. > > > > As opposed to why it isn't elsewise, perhaps. Without any > >understanding for the rationale, or the situations where Law 23 would be > >applicable, how do you expect the director to rule efficiently with it? > > You do move the goalposts!!!! If you do not understand the situations >where L23 applies, then you cannot apply L23 effectively. That is true, >obvious, and completely irrelevant. You do not need to know why they >wrote L23 as they did to apply it. > > >> Since I was not there, I cannot be certain. But if there was the > >>slightest possibility [including carelessness] that West would discard > >>the wrong card then I would give South a trick - and so would most TDs. > >> > >> However, it may have been completely obvious that West would get it > >>right. > > > > If it weren't just a club game, I would have appealed the ruling. >East > >knows that her claim relies on west's discard. She wasn't so foolish to > >think that her 2D would win with the K and J out against it. Exposing >her > >hand to preclude the possibility that her partner could make a mistake is >an > >action I consider akin to cheating. > > Yeah. Of course. > > Or perhaps she was bored, thought it was obvious, and wanted to speed >it up. > > Or perhaps she was sure partner would get it right. > > Or perhaps she made a mistake and forgot that it made a difference. > > Of course it is not akin to cheating. > > > It's possible (actually, most likely) > >that she had complete faith in her partner's ability to count the cards, >in > >which case her partner's discard would have quickly followed my exit. >She > >should have known that also. > > Whether or not west would have made the right play, I think that a > >claim in this situation should be strongly discouraged. To allow east to > >claim like this repeatedly would have her opponents question her ethics. > > Sure. but what evidence is there that this was not an isolated >occurrence? Have you never made a mistake? > > > >[snip] > > > >> > 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. > >> > >> Oh, no. Too often such a player waits for ages for a lead. > > > > Someone recently asked if you'd rather play a fair game slowly or >cheat > >fast. > > That's true. And I answered that I like a fast game. It was a fairly >trite and meaningless question and did not help an understanding of the >game. > > > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 19:12:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA22722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:28:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA22709 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:28:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.3] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12VVdH-0007Kn-00; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 08:27:51 +0000 Message-ID: <005a01bf8f21$d6afc740$af5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , "David Stevenson" , References: <00f901bf8c70$dc173f00$9e9c01d4@default><008601bf8d4f$8ff823c0$db5408c3@dodona><3.0.1.32.20000314172215.01288b9c@pop.mindspring.com><003201bf8e62$8c8aa960$da66063e@davidburn> <009501bf8f06$a6317ca0$5c48063e@davidburn> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 08:07:45 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: David Stevenson ; Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 5:15 AM Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? > David Stevenson wrote: > > > It always seems to me that L16A and L73F tell the TD/AC what to > do, > > but the instructions to the players are contained in L73C. > > It may be worth quoting that Law: > > When a player has available to him unauthorised information from his > partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, > special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully > avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side. > +=+ I believe it is a false representation to quote this law without its preamble preparing the way for 16A and the rest. You must read them together. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 19:33:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA23928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 19:33:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA23914 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 19:33:25 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id JAA12472 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 09:32:46 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 09:32 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <000601bf8f1c$be233d60$af5908c3@dodona> Grattan wrote: > But this discussion leads nowhere. The WBF > has published guidance and the words in the > CoP were not agreed inadvertently. Those who > feel squeamish about the taint which attaches to > 'use' must face the fact that it has been > purposefully ordered so. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Of course the discussion goes nowhere if you refuse to listen when people tell you they believe you have made a mistake. I don't think anyone here will be squeamish about cases where UI has obviously been taken advantage of. But if we are forced to tell ethical players who arrive at a judgement that differs from the eventual ruling that they are doing something they consider abhorrent then one or more of the following may happen. TD/ACs will avoid giving such derogatory judgements in borderline cases thus reducing the protection to the NOS. Many opponents, who see this as a judgement, rather than a "criminal", issue will be less likely to call for the TD and the chance to educate the ignorant as to their obligations will be lost. Ethical players will have their respect for authority and enjoyment of the game undermined - perhaps driving them away, perhaps teaching them that good ethics are pointless since they'll be accused of poor ethics anyway. Any such ruling made against me, or the many who no doubt feel the same, will no longer be acceptable and will be escalated to national level, along with a demand for a formal published apology. I don't expect to get every judgement call the same as an unknown independent panel with an unknown level of knowledge of my style/ability - why should I. But if someone accuses me of poor ethics my blood will boil. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 20:01:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA24559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 20:01:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA24551 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 20:01:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.27] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12VX5P-000CED-00; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:00:59 +0000 Message-ID: <001d01bf8f2e$d98801a0$1b5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <00f901bf8c70$dc173f00$9e9c01d4@default><008601bf8d4f$8ff823c0$db5408c3@dodona><3.0.1.32.20000314172215.01288b9c@pop.mindspring.com><003201bf8e62$8c8aa960$da66063e@davidburn> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:02:14 -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: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 4:56 PM Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? > > It always seems to me that L16A and L73F tell the TD/AC what to do, > but the instructions to the players are contained in L73C. > +=+ I would not wish to embarrass anyone with quoting from my box of deleted files, but have we not read of shootings and the bastinado for those who have been deemed to use UI? As judged, that is, by subscribers to blml? Was this to avoid the use of stronger language or to discourage the use of UI? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 20:06:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA22720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:28:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA22708 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:28:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.3] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12VVdF-0007Kn-00; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 08:27:50 +0000 Message-ID: <005901bf8f21$d5ac6100$af5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , "David Stevenson" , References: <00f901bf8c70$dc173f00$9e9c01d4@default><008601bf8d4f$8ff823c0$db5408c3@dodona><3.0.1.32.20000314172215.01288b9c@pop.mindspring.com><003201bf8e62$8c8aa960$da66063e@davidburn> <009501bf8f06$a6317ca0$5c48063e@davidburn> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 08:05:13 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: David Stevenson ; Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 5:15 AM Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? >"We're not saying that on this occasion you > personally cheated, we're just saying that had you been a pair of > cheats, you'd have ended up doing what it turned out that you actually > did, so...". This has been known to convince about 10% of appellants; > the other 90% go away thinking that not only is the TD a bastard but > the appeals committee must also have been born out of wedlock. Thanks > to Edgar's good offices, there is a huge footnote to Law 75D. A > similar footnote should be appended to L73. > +=+ I do not believe the word 'cheat' is appropriate for a straightforward violation of law. I think the intent to cheat is always unproven in a UI case, and usually not present.. Of course I do know that players and officials commonly describe it as cheating. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 20:12:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA22727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:28:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA22717 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:28:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.3] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12VVdJ-0007Kn-00; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 08:27:53 +0000 Message-ID: <005b01bf8f21$d7ab8c60$af5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" References: <00f901bf8c70$dc173f00$9e9c01d4@default><3.0.1.32.20000314165813.01284038@pop.mindspring.com><3.0.1.32.20000314224533.01285458@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20000315160946.01269614@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 08:29:18 -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 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, March 15, 2000 9:09 PM Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? > At 07:50 AM 3/15/2000 -0000, Grattan wrote: > > > > But how is this progress? Kaplan understood (as you and David evidently do > not) that the ability to rule effectively to protect the NOS is weakened, > rather than strengthened, when every L16 inquiry is framed in terms of who > did or not take advantage of UI. Kaplan understood (as you and David do > not) that the present language in L16 was carefully crafted _for the > precise purpose_ of shifting the investigatory focus away from the > emotionally charged language of "using UI" to the more neutral and > objective issues of LA's and such. > +=+ I had the pleasure of many long face-to-face discussions on the laws with Edgar. These have led me to a belief that discussion at WBFLC levels produced different attitudes from those exhibited sometimes in his journalism. I also worked with him in drafting the 1997 laws and as his Vice Chairman, and as chairman of the EBL Laws Cttee, on drafting of the 1987 laws. So maybe I do not understand, but if not there can be little excuse for it. I would allow that in his journalism EK may have put a coating of sugar on the pill which he had no reason to do in the WBFLC . I doubt there has ever been change but what only some have regarded it as (desirable) progress. Lacking humility I think that the view of the WBF on 'progress' is the superior one, and pragmatically I recognize that it is the one provided as shepherd for the whole bridge world (though some sheep will stray). ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 20:17:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA24742 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 20:17:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f243.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.243]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA24735 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 20:17:32 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 43185 invoked by uid 0); 16 Mar 2000 10:16:52 -0000 Message-ID: <20000316101652.43184.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 152.174.116.82 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 02:16:51 PST X-Originating-IP: [152.174.116.82] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Resolving claim disputes without the TD Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 02:16:51 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Wow, hotmail will send a blank message if you get disconnected. My apologies. I promise that my real reply will at least have content. I cannot guarantee substance. ;) -Todd ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 20:37:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA24936 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 20:37:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA24931 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 20:37:51 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id KAA17007 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:37:13 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:37 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? 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: Pam Hadfield > If the only way to keep the game going is to "adjust" the rules to suit > the Susie Kumquats rather than educate them as to how the game should be > played then it deserves to die. If, as Craig suggests, it is the ACBL interpretation of LA that drives away the Kumquats while the international 25% rule would give a decent chance at successful education it hardly seems fair to condemn the American game to death before considering a revision to their approach. I can beleive that great difficulties arise because, for a Kumquat, there will always be "peers" who would seriously consider, and perhaps take, some apparently senseless action. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 21:36:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA25746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 21:36:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA25740 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 21:36:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.133.185] (helo=davidburn) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12VYZh-0006WY-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:36:21 +0000 Message-ID: <00fe01bf8f3c$124b55c0$5c48063e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <00f901bf8c70$dc173f00$9e9c01d4@default><008601bf8d4f$8ff823c0$db5408c3@dodona><3.0.1.32.20000314172215.01288b9c@pop.mindspring.com><003201bf8e62$8c8aa960$da66063e@davidburn> <009501bf8f06$a6317ca0$5c48063e@davidburn> <005a01bf8f21$d6afc740$af5908c3@dodona> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:37:54 -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 Grattan wrote: > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > It always seems to me that L16A and L73F tell the TD/AC what to > > do, > > > but the instructions to the players are contained in L73C. > > [DB] > > It may be worth quoting that Law: > > > > When a player has available to him unauthorised information from his > > partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, > > special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully > > avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side. [GE] > +=+ I believe it is a false representation to quote > this law without its preamble preparing the way > for 16A and the rest. You must read them together. Yes, I know. But the point others have been trying to make is that players who are ruled against do not know. The reason for this, as I pointed out at great length, is that the Law says: "You must not do X". A player will say: "Well, I did not do X, and if you say I did, you're calling me a cheat". We then say: "Yes, we believe you did not do X, and we're not calling you a cheat, but your actions were the same as if you had done X, so we're going to rule against you anyway". The player says: "What's the effective difference between that and saying that I had in fact done X?" We scratch our heads, or take to our heels if the player is appreciably bigger than we are. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 22:05:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA26213 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 22:05:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA26208 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 22:05:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.133.185] (helo=davidburn) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12VZ1J-0002uj-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 12:04:53 +0000 Message-ID: <010e01bf8f40$1a764260$5c48063e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <00f901bf8c70$dc173f00$9e9c01d4@default><008601bf8d4f$8ff823c0$db5408c3@dodona> <3.0.1.32.20000314172215.01288b9c@pop.mindspring.com> <003201bf8e62$8c8aa960$da66063e@davidburn> <000601bf8f1c$be233d60$af5908c3@dodona> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 12:06:46 -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: > +=+ Yes, David, and those who would deny me have > a nice point of language to argue, which they do by > severing the preamble of Law 16 from its parts. And > what you say here is true enough since the law requires > a judgement to be made and the world has indicated > how this is to be done. Nevertheless (a) what the > preamble describes is clearly a use of the UI so that > the specifications in A,B and C, list 'uses' of > extraneous information and which of them are illegal. > The consequence is that the player is adjudged to > have based a call (play) illegally upon extraneous > information from an inspection of his behaviour, > not of his mind.In doing so he is adjudged to have > 'used' UI. > But this discussion leads nowhere. The WBF > has published guidance and the words in the > CoP were not agreed inadvertently. Those who > feel squeamish about the taint which attaches to > 'use' must face the fact that it has been > purposefully ordered so. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The difficulty people have is that as the laws are currently worded, it is not at all easy for TDs or ACs to deal with injured players. For as long as it remains the case that 'using UI' and selecting from among logical alternatives one that... ' are regarded as synonymous by eminent authorities, so that "everybody knows that I mean that bit in L16 which is too long to quote when I say 'using UI' instead", the people at the sharp end are going to have a hard time with the paying customers. I'm not trying to deny anything or anybody. *I* know what the Laws say, and I know where my duty under them lies. But I have been studying them and implementing them for a very long time, during which I have had to use the pitifully small amount of tact and diplomacy I possess to soothe some very ruffled feathers. I don't think anyone's asking for a substantive change in the Laws. But we would, I think, like to be given an easier time of it when it comes the the explanations. If this discussion leads to that, it will have achieved something. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 23:25:30 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA26591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 23:25:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from igngate.merck.de (igngate.merck.de [194.196.248.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA26586 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 23:25:19 +1000 (EST) From: James.Vickers@merck.de Received: from dedamsgnt02.merck.de (smtpgw.merck.de [155.250.248.234]) by igngate.merck.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA04677 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 14:24:41 +0100 (MET) X-Internal-ID: 38BD52EE000310B3 Received: from dedamsg1.merck.de (155.250.248.233) by dedamsgnt02.merck.de (NPlex 2.0.123) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 14:24:40 +0100 Received: by dedamsg1.merck.de(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.5 (863.2 5-20-1999)) id C12568A4.0049A9AF ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 14:24:35 +0100 X-Lotus-FromDomain: MERCK To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 14:23:35 +0100 Subject: Re: rant / answers please! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thanks to all of you who took the time to answer. I'm still not sure I'm any the wiser, though. Some of you seem to come pretty close to saying "I would have found a better line of play so no adjusted score". (This temptation is common, and does wonders for the director's ego if they fancy themselves as a player, but is not really relevant to the ruling). True, you must look critically at East's failure to raise hearts and at South's failure to play better, but does South lose all rights to an adjusted score just because he didn't think everything through? Steve Wilner wrote: >There were several responses; perhaps you missed them? I suggested >that the TD had to consider MI (East's explanation). There is no >need to decide between psych and misbid, as far as I can tell. OK, I missed this answer. But East explained the 2H call correctly according to their (new) agreement. If the explanation was wrong surely they were playing an illegal convention? Anne wrote: >>I rule 3. Misbid. No field. Result stands. >>Good, now I have not got to worry about how egregious was the error in play >>that failed to make 3NT.(This weak 2 Hearts has turned up with KQ of Spades. It is >>common sence to either play East for the Diamond Queen, >OoooPs! I meant exit to Easts safe hand.(for one off of course!) >>or play for the drop, both of which >>work, and result in 1 Spade,4 Diamonds, 2 Clubs and 2 Hearts.) I can go along with the misbid bit, but I don't follow the rest. West can't have Sp: K Q (x) H: Q J 10 x x x (already maximum for a vulnerable weak two in my book) and the diamond Q so finessing East for that card is maybe unimaginative, but not unreasonable. And with a string of cashing spades the East hand is far from safe. Is South supposed to expect a psych / misbid, and play on that assumption? Mike Dennis wrote: >I would seek some clarification from EW about the reason for the strange 2H >bid. Presumably I would get something of the same answer in the end. The >illegality of EW's former methods is irrelevant, of course. I don't think so. If West is still bidding according to his old agreement, albeit through forgetfulness, then E/W have stopped using illegal methods in name only. They are still playing them and getting good scores from them, something we surely want to stop. DWS wrote: > Hmmm. No wonder you got few answers. Surely the answer is "You had >to be there"? I ask the questions, and make the judgement. I never >assume people are lying [with two exceptions, two people I mean, who I >always assume are lying] unless it becomes fairly obvious that they are. > > Anyway, you have given us the story. Assuming we believe East then >West's call was a misbid - but why have you only told us what East said? >I would specifically ask West why s/he opened 2H, and since you have not >told us West's answer I am not sure how I would rule. > > When I get the facts I make a ruling. Of course, if the facts are >different, the ruling may be different. In this case, it is West's >opinion I really need. West's comments (if any) were not made available to me. Furthermore (unlike DWS and Grattan) I consider them irrelevant. I believe there are a significant number of players who will lie in this situation. Are you seriously suggesting that you would ask West whether the call was a misbid and if he says "yes" either never adjust the score or accuse him openly of lying? What is the difference between this and asking a player "Did you take the UI into account when you chose your call?" when deciding whether or not to adjust under L16A? As I have said before, I don't like basing rulings on the TD's assessment of a player's honesty or integrity. At best it just introduces a further element of randomness into the process. James ********************** Original message: This reminds me of the following hand which came up years ago in a league match played privately: Dealer W, N/S vul: 9 x x A x A 10 x x A K x x K Q J 10 x x x x J 10 x Q x x Q x x x x 10 x Q J x x x A x K x x x x K J x x x x W N E S 2H(1) 3D(2) p 3NT all pass (1) alerted, N asked and was told "weak two in hearts" (2) alerted, Hackett convention, a strong take-out W led spades, won the lead when declarer took the diamond finesse and cashed more spades for two down. N/S queried the opening bid. East admitted that they had for years used 2H as a weak two in either major until a director recently informed them this was illegal, since when they switched to playing standard weak twos. She said her partner had probably opened 2H out of habit. N/S asked me how the ruling would have gone if they had appealed. What do you think? Do you judge West's action to be: 1. a psych (no score adjustment)? 2. an illegal convention (60%/30% assigned adjusted score)? 3. a misbid (no adjustment)? 4. Concealed partnership understanding, (60%/30% assigned adjusted score, and grease the trapdoor on the gallows (Dany)) Would you rule differently without East's admission of the partnership's past misdemeanours? James From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 16 23:42:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA26717 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 23:42:27 +1000 (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 XAA26712 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 23:42:20 +1000 (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 IAA24188; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 08:42:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA029814120; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 08:42:00 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 08:41:01 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Cards from wrong board Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, Bruce.Small@xtra.co.nz 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 XAA26713 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all Quick question. Situation is: East is declarer. South leads and dummy lays down. Declarer calls director and explains there are two DK one in her hand and one in Dummy. Transpires West had removed souths cards from previous board. Law 17D appears to cover during auction period but this is now finished. Board is obviously unplayable. West is offender. Do we just use 12C1 and award 60% NS an 40%EW? Thanks Bruce [Laval Dubreuil] I hate artificial scores, but IMHO you have no choice. Board becomes unplayable. Law 17D says that a call made from a wrong board should be cancelled. You cannot restart calls form there when cards have been exposed. Laval Du Breuil From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 17 02:58:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA29505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 02:58:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt3-he.global.net.uk (cobalt3-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.163]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA29495 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 02:58:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from pc2s09a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.89.195] helo=pacific) by cobalt3-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12VdaU-0006wP-00; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 08:57:30 -0800 Message-ID: <000201bf8f68$55f2a7c0$c35993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Tim Westmead" Cc: "Bridge Laws" , "Tim Westmead" References: Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 16:26:09 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: 16 March 2000 09:32 Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? > In-Reply-To: <000601bf8f1c$be233d60$af5908c3@dodona> > Grattan wrote: > > But this discussion leads nowhere. The WBF > > has published guidance and the words in the > > CoP were not agreed inadvertently. Those who > > feel squeamish about the taint which attaches to > > 'use' must face the fact that it has been > > purposefully ordered so. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Of course the discussion goes nowhere if you >refuse to listen when people > tell you they believe you have made a mistake +=+ "made a mistake"? I think you are a little premature in saying that because I defend the WBF position I "refuse to listen". I am industriously collecting (all of two to now) items of feedback on the CoP. The CoP is an official statement of policy publishing the consensus opinion of John Wignall, Jens Auken, Ernesto d'Orsi, Joan Gerard, myself, Mazhar Jafri, Ton Kooijman, Jeffrey Polisner, William Schoder, and Robert S. Wolff.[i.e. Several Vice Presidents of the World Bridge Federation, its General Counsel, the Chairman of its Appeals Committee, its Chief Tournament Director, the Chairman of its Laws Committee (who questioned no aspect of law in it), and the Chairman of the EBL Appeals Committee.] The document has the approval and endorsement of the President of the World Bridge Federation and of the President of the European Bridge League. As I understand it, you desire that the feedback I am to carry to the foregoing should be that they have "made a mistake"? And this would be the judgement of a number of pundits on blml, plus one or two people of acknowledged status in their own national Federations, in respect of something to which each of its authors has subscribed? Had you suggested that they "might like to review their choice of language" I could imagine a slightly less chilly reception than a printout of this actual correspondence would achieve, against which the plainness of your words could perhaps be respected. I am a lot less sure that one could suggest fruitfully even then that the purpose of the revision would be to soften the impact of the agreed policy upon the player. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 17 02:58:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA29506 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 02:58:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt3-he.global.net.uk (cobalt3-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.163]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA29496 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 02:58:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from pc2s09a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.89.195] helo=pacific) by cobalt3-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12VdaX-0006wP-00; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 08:57:34 -0800 Message-ID: <000301bf8f68$58029c00$c35993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "BLML" Cc: "Ron Endicott" , "paul endicott" , "Patricia Davidson" , "Nick Doe" , "Lynn & Dan Hunt" , "Egden Wignall & Co." , "cathie ritchie" Subject: EBL engagement Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 16:38:17 -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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 03:41:34 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id BC71330EF8; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 12:41:23 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <7QKOz7BXhxx4EwmY@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <200001280046.TAA25325@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.20000128083700.006e38f4@pop.cais.com> <7QKOz7BXhxx4EwmY@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 12:10:11 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Comments? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 3:19 AM +0000 3/9/00, David Stevenson wrote: > The method used in much of the world outside the ACBL is that the Stop >card is left on the table for a time, usually 7 to 12 seconds, then >removed, and LHO is not allowed to call until it is removed. > > OK, we have had some *very* rude comments from NAmericans on this >procedure, but let us consider the advantages. Not from this NAmerican! The procedure you describe is clearly best, except perhaps that ones opponent should always be allowed a full ten seconds for thought, even if the Stop card is not left out that long. The greatest advantage of this approach can be seen at lower levels, where typically calls are taken immediately after the Stop Card is shown, or within one or two seconds thereafter. No longer must a director decide which side to believe when one player says "I waited the full ten seconds" and his opponents say "he passed immediately." The director can simply check to see whether the Stop card is still on the table. If it is, unauthorized information is available, and the director will inform the partner of the impatient bidder of his legal responsibilities. I am disappointed that the ACBL, having adopted this approach several years ago, saw fit to exchange it for one much inferior. AW From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 17 04:05:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA29980 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 04:05:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA29975 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 04:05:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-202.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.202]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA09502 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 13:05:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <004401bf8f72$9af11dc0$ca84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 13:08:15 -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 -----Original Message----- From: Grattan Endicott Nevertheless (a) what the >preamble describes is clearly a use of the UI so that >the specifications in A,B and C, list 'uses' of >extraneous information and which of them are illegal. >The consequence is that the player is adjudged to >have based a call (play) illegally upon extraneous >information from an inspection of his behaviour, >not of his mind.In doing so he is adjudged to have >'used' UI. > But this discussion leads nowhere. The WBF >has published guidance and the words in the >CoP were not agreed inadvertently. Those who >feel squeamish about the taint which attaches to >'use' must face the fact that it has been >purposefully ordered so. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Actually the CoP does not have the force of law except in WBF events and perhaps now in Europe. For those of us in the ACBL and ROW the use of use is still a debatable proposition, as the zonal and national authorities decide how or whether to implement the CoP. If by rephasing we can avoid making unwarranted implications of ethical lapse and thereby make the game more pleasant for all while no less well regulated I would hope we might do so. -- Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 17 04:08:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA00119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 04:08:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA00105 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 04:08:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id NAA05008 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 13:08:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA16284 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 13:08:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 13:08:18 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200003161808.NAA16284@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: rant / answers please! X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: James.Vickers@merck.de > But East explained the 2H call correctly according to > their (new) agreement. If the explanation was wrong surely > they were playing an illegal convention? No, but East may have failed to comply with the "partnership experience" part of L75C. This may not be the correct ruling for the actual case, but it's something the TD should consider. I agree there's a difficult distinction between "experience" and "agreement." At some ill-defined point, experience becomes an agreement, which may be an illegal one. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 17 05:13:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA00541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 04:46:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA00536 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 04:46:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-202.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.202]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA08124; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 13:46:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <005e01bf8f78$5643e1c0$ca84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , Cc: Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 13:49:17 -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 -----Original Message----- From: Tim West-meads >Any such ruling made against me, or the many who no doubt feel the same, >will no longer be acceptable and will be escalated to national level, >along with a demand for a formal published apology. I don't expect to get >every judgement call the same as an unknown independent panel with an >unknown level of knowledge of my style/ability - why should I. But if >someone accuses me of poor ethics my blood will boil. Still it is an ill wind that blows no good. One can expect such a policy to receive the ringing endorsement of the American Trail Lawyers Association. It will also be interesting to see what changes in the law are brought about by the bankruptcy of the ACBL. :-) for those who somehow missed the intent -- Craig From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 17 05:34:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA00811 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 05:34:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from Tandem.com (suntan.tandem.com [192.216.221.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA00806 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 05:34:50 +1000 (EST) From: FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM Received: from gateway.tandem.com (dss1.mis.tandem.com [130.252.223.220]) by Tandem.com (8.9.3/2.0.1) with SMTP id LAA16181 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:34:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by gateway.tandem.com (4.20/4.11) id AA1337; 16 Mar 0 11:34:11 -0800 Date: 16 Mar 0 11:31:00 -0800 Message-Id: <200003161134.AA1337@gateway.tandem.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: rant / answers please! Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: James.Vickers@merck.de >> But East explained the 2H call correctly according to >> their (new) agreement. If the explanation was wrong surely >> they were playing an illegal convention? > >No, but East may have failed to comply with the "partnership >experience" part of L75C. This may not be the correct ruling for the >actual case, but it's something the TD should consider. > >I agree there's a difficult distinction between "experience" and >"agreement." At some ill-defined point, experience becomes an >agreement, which may be an illegal one. Steve and I had a brief e-mail discussion on this. I expected our responses would have been squarely in the "you had to be there" camp. The initial posting suggested an established partnership. It is probable (IMHO) that there is partnership experience relating to how well each member of the partnership remembers that they have changed their agreements. There was no indication of whether this was the first weak-two since the partnership changed its agreements, or the twentieth. In order for me to judge this misinformation, rather than misbid, I would require at least one of the following: the (purported) misbidder has had a demonstrable history of forgetting system changes (sufficiently many other 'forgets' to have become a part of the partnership understanding), OR the purported misbidder had previously forgotten this particular system change. In either case, when (if) asked, his partner should have described the (new) systemic agreement and continued with something along the lines of "... but we recently changed the system, and he *might* be mistakenly using our old agreement". This could be fleshed out in as much detail as seems appropriate -- it would, IMHO, be relevent whether the prior errors were on this specific bit of system, or whether partner simply suffered from system inertia. System inertia *does* happen. I have played far too many 23HCP 3NT contracts because a pickup partner and I agreed on 12-14HCP 1NT openers, but partner's 'system inertia' had him (or her) making a raise to 2NT on a 'good 9' HCP. *Very rarely* did one of these partners open 1NT with a 15-17 HCP hand; slightly more frequently they would open 1m with a weak NT and have trouble on succeeding rounds. It seems that (for players who would agree to play with me) the initial actions are nearly always performed with the agreed system in mind; it is the follow-up actions that tend to become rote. But note that caveat: that is *my* experience. YMMV. Wally Farley Los Gatos, CA {ACBL Districe 21} From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 17 06:17:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA29658 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 03:20:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp.callnet0800.com (smtp.callnet0800.com [212.67.128.145]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA29647 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 03:20:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from da136d143.dialup.callnetuk.com [212.67.136.143] by smtp.callnet0800.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id A09E9F40164; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 16:49:34 +0000 From: Pam Hadfield To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 16:49:11 +0000 Reply-To: pam@hadpaddock.com Message-ID: References: <200003152328.PAA06635@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200003152328.PAA06635@mailhub.irvine.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id DAA29653 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 15:28:19 PST, Adam wrote: > >Pam Hadfield wrote: > I wrote: >> >way to being descheduled. >> >> If the only way to keep the game going is to "adjust" the rules to suit >> the Susie Kumquats rather than educate them as to how the game should be >> played then it deserves to die. > >As someone who lives in a country that has problems maintaining the >game's popularity, I find this attitude extremely unhelpful. >Basically, you're saying that if we can't find enough people who can >understand the rules as written, we should just give the whole thing >up. Why? What's so important about the "rules as written", that we >have to keep them as they are? I think you misunderstand me. I have no problem with changing the rules - I do have a problem with adjusting the rules on the fly depending on who is being given a ruling and I do have a problem with rules that treat one player one way and another player in a different way. That's why I put the word "adjust" in quotes. I also think this is probably in the wrong thread - It was so long ago I cannot remember how this thread started - but this probably belongs under "Bum Claim". Pam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 17 06:19:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA00240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 04:15:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA00225 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 04:15:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-202.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.202]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA25194; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 13:14:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <004d01bf8f73$e6304f80$ca84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 13:17:23 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Pam Hadfield >On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 14:54:14 -0500, Craig wrote: > > >> >> But it is still widely misunderstood, and you will never convince Susie >>Kumquat that when she made the bid she always would have made she has done >>anything wrong. She will, often loudly, curse and condemn the bridge lawyers >>who are trying to swindle her out of her (to her view) legitimately obtained >>result. She may also vote with her feet and go to the bingo hall next week >>instead...another customer lost, another regular game become a Howell on the >>way to being descheduled. > >If the only way to keep the game going is to "adjust" the rules to suit >the Susie Kumquats rather than educate them as to how the game should be >played then it deserves to die. > >I think you are wrong though - if Susie Kumquat knew exactly how the >rules would be applied in every case to her and the all other players, be >they Zia or the Director's niece she might just reserve another night to >play in the club in the next town where all the "good players" go. > One bad solution is to adjust the rules. A better one is to recognise that the rules are going to be a genuine source of controversy and aggravation to Kumquat class players, and to explain VERY carefully that no one is asserting she did anything "wrong." It would also be wise to be very careful in interpreting what "demonstrably suggested" means to Susie. We perhaps must have a different level of demonstration necessary to show that something was actually suggested to a weaker player. There are some of them, after all, who do not find a bid of some large number of hearts "demonstrably suggested" holding - xxxxxxx - xxxxxx opposite a one heart opener. (I couldn't bid partner...I didn't have any points!) That an LA is suggested to you, to me, to Meckwell or to DWS does not demonstrate necessarilty it is suggested to her. Being aware of this is not adjusting the rules but applying them as written and revised. -- Craig From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 17 06:27:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA01178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 06:27:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA01173 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 06:27:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.2]) by swarm.mosquitonet.com (8.9.1/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA15909 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:27:09 -0900 Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:27:08 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Bum claim In-Reply-To: <00b701bf8f11$848b4940$5c48063e@davidburn> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, David Burn wrote: > How can we eliminate an element of subjective judgement from a claim? > Only by requiring the claimer to make a comprehensive statement of the > order in which he proposes to play his cards, the tricks he will win, > and the tricks (if any) he will lose. Once he has done that, the Law > (not the director) should take over; if the player's claim is found > defective in any way, then he should lose the maximum number of tricks > consistent with any legal play of the remaining cards. I say again: > this would speed up the game appreciably, and would mean that there > was never again such a thing as a contested claim. Moreover, it would > lead to a consistent application of the rules from here to the > nor'nor'west of Nome, something that can by no means be said of the > present approach. This certainly seems like the best proposed fix to the claim problem to me. Players and directors alike will have a fit over it, of course, and it would take a major education effort to make it work in practice. I would like to see it happen, though. It is less of a change than forbidding the playing out of the hand after a contested claim in 1975 (?) was. Perhaps older hands than I could give us some information on how quickly major changes to the laws in the past gained understanding and acceptance from the players? GRB From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 17 07:12:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA29646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 03:20:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA29638 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 03:19:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-202.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.202]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA15919; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 12:19:34 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001001bf8f6c$39248d80$ca84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: bum claim Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 12:22:33 -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: Steve Willner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 7:03 PM Subject: Re: bum claim >> From: "Craig Senior" >> Surely you do not maintain that logical alternatives do not >> vary by the class of player? > >Wasn't this thread about claims? What do LA's have to do with them? I was rebutting the proposition that the application of the laws should not vary based upon the class of player and gave a rather obvious example of when the laws specifically indicate that it should. That was in the part of the thread that apparently was snipped. >> The line between careless and irrational has to >> reflect the level of play. Almost no line of play is irrational to Susie >> Kumquat! :-) > >You might want to have a look at just what that prepositional phrase >"for the class of player involved" modifies in the footnotes to >L69/70/71. (Hint: it isn't the word 'irrational'.) Quite so. While I have always read the footnote to imply that the phrase also modifies irrational (and caeless) it does directly and plainly modify inferior. You make my point better than i did! We can almost count on Susie to find a most inferior line! Meckwell, Zia and Baze would probably find a better one much of the time. The class of player DOES matter. Were it Susie claiming without statement she indeed might be presumed not to play off her trump with the 100% safety play. It would have to be very drunk out for any of the others to do likewise. And all of us, (perhaps even John) might be persuaded to admit that rationality diminishes as spirits rise. :-) >If you believe claims are to be judged by "what the player might do if >he played on," then of course you will agree with Craig. That isn't >what the laws seem to me to be saying. Please Steve, I don't like it any better than DWS when you put words in my mouth. I have never suggested that claims should be judged in this manner. But they should be judged according to what the claimer obviously intended. Carelessness is one thing...BL style nitpicking is another. What the player clearly intended by his claim, adduced by the bridge evidence as well as by any self serving statements, should not be overridden by some abstruse and unlikely convoluted line of play dreamed up to contest it. Irrational lines (such as not winning all tricks with AQ9xx opposite KTxx for a good player) do not deserve consideration. -- Craig From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 17 07:13:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA01364 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 07:13:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA01353 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 07:13:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.123] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12VhaH-0000hI-00; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 21:13:33 +0000 Message-ID: <004e01bf8f8c$ce89e440$7b5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Craig Senior" , , Cc: References: <005e01bf8f78$5643e1c0$ca84d9ce@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 21:14:40 -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: ; Cc: Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 6:49 PM Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim West-meads > >Any such ruling made against me, or the many who no doubt feel the same, > >will no longer be acceptable and will be escalated to national level, > >along with a demand for a formal published apology. I don't expect to get > >every judgement call the same as an unknown independent panel with an > >unknown level of knowledge of my style/ability - why should I. But if > >someone accuses me of poor ethics my blood will boil. > > > Still it is an ill wind that blows no good. One can expect such a policy to > receive the ringing endorsement of the American Trail Lawyers Association. > It will also be interesting to see what changes in the law are brought about > by the bankruptcy of the ACBL. > > :-) for those who somehow missed the intent > -- > Craig > +=+ Dear me, how some people do go on. Have they only just noticed how the law is written? And I'll bet he does not know when he agrees to be subject to the laws and regulations as he enters a competition. He must read the Conditions of Contest ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 17 07:13:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA01363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 07:13:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA01352 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 07:13:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.123] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12VhaD-0000hI-00; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 21:13:29 +0000 Message-ID: <004c01bf8f8c$cc585e40$7b5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Craig Senior" , References: <004401bf8f72$9af11dc0$ca84d9ce@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 20:53:53 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 6:08 PM Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Grattan Endicott > Nevertheless (a) what the > >preamble describes is clearly a use of the UI so that > >the specifications in A,B and C, list 'uses' of > >extraneous information and which of them are illegal. > >The consequence is that the player is adjudged to > >have based a call (play) illegally upon extraneous > >information from an inspection of his behaviour, > >not of his mind.In doing so he is adjudged to have > >'used' UI. > > But this discussion leads nowhere. The WBF > >has published guidance and the words in the > >CoP were not agreed inadvertently. Those who > >feel squeamish about the taint which attaches to > >'use' must face the fact that it has been > >purposefully ordered so. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > Actually the CoP does not have the force of law except in WBF events and > perhaps now in Europe. For those of us in the ACBL and ROW the use of use is > still a debatable proposition, as the zonal and national authorities decide > how or whether to implement the CoP. If by rephasing we can avoid making > unwarranted implications of ethical lapse and thereby make the game more > pleasant for all while no less well regulated I would hope we might do so. > > -- > Craig Senior > +=+ I have no comment upon the position of the ACBL, except that is, that anything represented as being the WBF Code of Practice must present the WBFCoP unmodified. On the wider front the WBF is now seeking to lead the whole world into common practices. It is believed this will be a long and arduous task but that the effort must persist. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 17 08:07:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA01569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 08:07:34 +1000 (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 IAA01563 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 08:07:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA26224; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 14:07:28 -0800 Message-Id: <200003162207.OAA26224@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 16 Mar 2000 16:49:11 PST." Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 14:07:29 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Pam Hadfield wrote: > On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 15:28:19 PST, Adam wrote: > > > > >Pam Hadfield wrote: > > > I wrote: > >> >way to being descheduled. > >> > >> If the only way to keep the game going is to "adjust" the rules to suit > >> the Susie Kumquats rather than educate them as to how the game should be > >> played then it deserves to die. > > > >As someone who lives in a country that has problems maintaining the > >game's popularity, I find this attitude extremely unhelpful. > >Basically, you're saying that if we can't find enough people who can > >understand the rules as written, we should just give the whole thing > >up. Why? What's so important about the "rules as written", that we > >have to keep them as they are? > > I think you misunderstand me. > > I have no problem with changing the rules - I do have a problem with > adjusting the rules on the fly depending on who is being given a ruling > and I do have a problem with rules that treat one player one way and > another player in a different way. > > That's why I put the word "adjust" in quotes. Oh, I see. I missed that. My apologies. You're correct, of course, that whatever rules we have, we have to apply them equally and fairly. On the other hand, I don't think Craig or anyone else was suggesting we go light on the Kumquats, so I wasn't sure where your response came from. By the way, it seems acceptable to me to have a different set of rules for club games and novice games than for other games (as long as everyone who plays in the same game plays by the same rules, of course). If we, say, used a different version of L16 in novice games that seemed more sensible to the less-experienced players but allowed bigger loopholes, and if we found that this helped keep players in the game, I wouldn't see anything wrong with it. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 17 08:09:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA01589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 08:09:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA01584 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 08:08:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id RAA25170 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 17:08:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA16610 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 17:08:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 17:08:45 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200003162208.RAA16610@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: "Grattan Endicott" > Had you suggested that they "might like to review > their choice of language" I could imagine a slightly less > chilly reception Most of us are utterly disqualified for membership on the LC or any official body. No surprise. > I am a lot less sure that one could suggest fruitfully > even then that the purpose of the revision would be to > soften the impact of the agreed policy upon the player. How about "bring the language of the CoP into closer agreement with the language used in the laws?" Let me tell the group a little story. Some time ago, I played a session at the club with a LOL as partner. (He was a pleasant elderly gentleman.) On _almost every call_ and about _half of his plays_ he would hesitate and make faces, yet only three times during the evening did I think his mannerisms suggested one action over another. (Maybe I'm dense, but the hesitations and faces seemed pretty random.) On two occasions there was no problem, or at least I didn't perceive any: I just chose the alternative NOT suggested by his mannerism. The third time was a problem: his hesitation suggested bidding on, but I really had quite a lot more cards in his suit than I had shown and hardly any in the opponents' suit. Right or wrong, I convinced myself that pass was not a LA and raised his suit. This resulted in a good score. I am confident any committee in most of the world would have agreed with me, but we have quite a stringent standard for LA here in North America, and I can imagine a committee here deciding that pass was a LA after all. (I don't _expect_ they would, mind you, and it wasn't a LA in _my_ bridge judgment, but it wouldn't have been a ridiculous decision.) So, Grattan, what is my ethical position? Did I "use UI?" (And was that in the first two cases, where my choice of action changed, or in the third one, where it didn't?) If the facts above were established before your C&E committee, what penalties would you give? And would your opinion change if, in the third case, an AC had decided that my raise was illegal and adjusted the score? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 17 08:14:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA01476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 07:48:17 +1000 (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 HAA01470 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 07:48:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA25847; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 13:48:12 -0800 Message-Id: <200003162148.NAA25847@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Bum claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 16 Mar 2000 01:04:09 PST." Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 13:48:12 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > >Eric Landau wrote: > > > >> I assert that a player at any level would be far less > >> likely to carelessly lead the 2 from AKQ2 in that position than to start > >> with the K in the problem position. > > > >I do not believe this assertion. At some levels (very good to > >expert), I believe it would be entirely automatic to start with the > >ace or queen in the layout AQTxx / K9xx. Personally, I think that > >even on a day when I am half asleep, can't remember whether declarer > >discarded in a suit, can't remember what my partner signalled on the > >first round of the suit, can't remember what my partner played on the > >last trick, can't remember what contract we're playing or how many > >spades I started with---I would *still*, with my eyes half-closed and > >unsure of whether I'm doing it consciously or in my dreams, start this > >suit with the ace, out of habit. > > And if you claimed, would you not also mention this? Your assertion > is that a player would never be careless enough to misplay this suit, > but that the *same* player would be careless enough to claim without > mentioning this. I don't think that argument works. If I believed that it's totally automatic to get this layout right, then I'd believe that it would be irrational not to play it right, and therefore I'd believe that it wouldn't be necessary, according to the Laws, to spell out what I'm going to do. Not mentioning the safety play would then not be "careless". "Misinformed" might be a more accurate term. Then again, "misinformed" isn't even really accurate, since there's nothing in the Laws nor the written policies of any SO I'm aware of that says "missing an easy safety play is always deemed careless and not irrational." So an even better term might be "unable to predict what a TD will judge to be irrational." The problem, as I tried to explain in my previous post, is that since there's no statement, anywhere, that elucidates what is considered irrational and what isn't, there's no way for a player to know what needs to be said and what doesn't. So how can anyone know that, when claiming with AQx opposite KJTxx (with the long suit in an entryless dummy), it's not necessary to state explicitly that you're going to cash the A and Q first; but that with AQTxx opposite K9xx, that it *is* necessary to state explicitly that you're going to cash the ace first? How can you consider it "careless" not to know that, when it isn't spelled out anywhere? (Of course, if it *was* written somewhere that missing a safety play is always considered "careless", then it *would* be careless not to mention the safety play in the claim.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 17 08:46:08 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA01725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 08:46:08 +1000 (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 IAA01720 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 08:45:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from pa1s03a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.163.162] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt11-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12VMjC-0000KE-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 22:57:22 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: rant / answers please! Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 22:46:01 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf8f99$67372a20$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: James.Vickers@merck.de To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, March 16, 2000 1:36 PM Subject: Re: rant / answers please! >Thanks to all of you who took the time to answer. I'm still not sure I'm any the >wiser, though. Some of you seem to come pretty close to saying "I would have >found a better line of play so no adjusted score". (This temptation is common, >and does wonders for the director's ego if they fancy themselves as a player, >but is not really relevant to the ruling). True, you must look critically at >East's failure to raise hearts and at South's failure to play better, but does >South lose all rights to an adjusted score just because he didn't think >everything through? > >Steve Wilner wrote: >>There were several responses; perhaps you missed them? I suggested >>that the TD had to consider MI (East's explanation). There is no >>need to decide between psych and misbid, as far as I can tell. > >OK, I missed this answer. But East explained the 2H call correctly according to >their (new) agreement. If the explanation was wrong surely they were playing an >illegal convention? > >Anne wrote: >>>I rule 3. Misbid. No field. Result stands. >>>Good, now I have not got to worry about how egregious was the error in play >>>that failed to make 3NT.(This weak 2 Hearts has turned up with KQ of Spades. >It is >>>common sence to either play East for the Diamond Queen, >>OoooPs! I meant exit to Easts safe hand.(for one off of course!) > >>>or play for the drop, both of which >>>work, and result in 1 Spade,4 Diamonds, 2 Clubs and 2 Hearts.) > >I can go along with the misbid bit, but I don't follow the rest. West can't have >Sp: K Q (x) H: Q J 10 x x x (already maximum for a vulnerable weak two in my >book) and the diamond Q so finessing East for that card is maybe unimaginative, >but not unreasonable. And with a string of cashing spades the East hand is far >from safe. Is South supposed to expect a psych / misbid, and play on that >assumption? > I was obviously quite wrong with my analysis of the play, having not given much thought to it. As I said, I rule -No field- Result stands, so that the play of the hand is not relevant However if I had ruled that the misbid had been fielded, then if the NOs are damaged by it, I think that we are expected to consider egregious error. It is possible that in the event of a psych or misbid, that the situation be exposed, and the NOs may well be considered partially responsible for their own downfall, if they failed to recognise this. In this example S has no reason to expect this yet, so the answer to your question is No. We do not have to differentiate between psych and misbid for a ruling in this example, but before we rule, we need the evidence. Certainly we need to know the thought processes of East and West before we make our decision as to "field". In this example, no infraction by East, no redress for damage. "Rub of the green". What about West, who forgot his system (we will guess).It is not an offence to forget your system, but is is an inconvenience to your opps. Who wants to fine him? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 17 09:13:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA01773 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 09:02:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from Tandem.com (suntan.tandem.com [192.216.221.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA01768 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 09:02:17 +1000 (EST) From: FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM Received: from gateway.tandem.com (dss1.mis.tandem.com [130.252.223.220]) by Tandem.com (8.9.3/2.0.1) with SMTP id PAA26778 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 15:02:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by gateway.tandem.com (4.20/4.11) id AA19257; 16 Mar 0 15:01:37 -0800 Date: 16 Mar 0 14:58:00 -0800 Message-Id: <200003161501.AA19257@gateway.tandem.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: bum claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > But they should be judged according to what the claimer obviously > intended. Carelessness is one thing...BL style nitpicking is another. > What the player clearly intended by his claim, adduced by the bridge > evidence as well as by any self serving statements, should not be > overridden by some abstruse and unlikely convoluted line of play > dreamed up to contest it. Irrational lines (such as not winning all > tricks with AQ9xx opposite KTxx for a good player) do not deserve > consideration. Maybe the game has changed *a lot* in the time I've been away. I played ACBL bridge seriously (by my lights, at least) from 1977-1981, and then stopped for about 18 years, so my memory may be both suspect and old-fashioned. In the 49er games (limited to each player < 50 masterpoints), *no one* claimed. Maybe 'never' is an overbid, but any claim would be one that no bridge lawyer could subvert -- all the trumps, for example. The *reason* no one claimed was not that some people did not know how, but that the purpose of a claim is to save time. In general, it saved time to play yhe hand out. 49er players -- particularly those denigrated as 'career 49ers' -- didn't like claims, made a fuss, and ended up wasting any potential time savings. 49er pair events (IIRC) *always* ran slowly; you didn't need to claim to save time But players graduated to the 50+ Master Pairs, and here claims did occur. Playing mostly at Los Angeles area Sectionals, I began to recognize the experts that showed up every week. They tended to keep a weather-eye on newcomers to the Master ranks. Once basic competence was found, they *would* claim against you -- and thereby saved time, which they typically used to tear me to shreds on the second board. Most of the AQxxx-KTxx and/or AQ9xx-KTxx hands that claims were made on (against me) were slams, or games where we had cashed our tricks at the beginning. I *never* had anyone claim without a statement. At first, the claims would be made *after* cashing the Ace; later, they would claim by saying 'taking the safety play', with the Ace or Queen held out a bit further than the others. Was it just that they had been taught to claim well? I doubt it. Perhaps they had mis-claimed once, and lost a trick they should have won *solely because* of a sloppy claim statement. It is amazing what an effect the loss of matchpoints, or IMPs, or money, has on the forms in which one phrases future claims! Those that let experienced -- even expert -- players get away with poorly phrased claims are doing them no service, IMHO. Far better that they should learn how to properly phrase a claim statement. The next time they make a poorly-worded one, they might not have someone who knows there level of skill as the TD. "Clearly intended" is what someone *says* they are going to do, not what we think a player of their ability would have done. WWFiv Wally Farley Los Gatos, CA {ACBL District 21} From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 17 10:39:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA02110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 10:39:11 +1000 (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 KAA02105 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 10:39:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA29108; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 16:39:07 -0800 Message-Id: <200003170039.QAA29108@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: bum claim In-reply-to: Your message of "16 Mar 0 14:58:00 -0800 ." <200003161501.AA19257@gateway.tandem.com> Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 16:39:09 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Wally Farley wrote: > In the 49er games (limited to each player < 50 masterpoints), *no one* > claimed. Maybe 'never' is an overbid, but any claim would be one that > no bridge lawyer could subvert -- all the trumps, for example. The > *reason* no one claimed was not that some people did not know how, but > that the purpose of a claim is to save time. In general, it saved time > to play yhe hand out. 49er players -- particularly those denigrated > as 'career 49ers' -- didn't like claims, made a fuss, and ended up > wasting any potential time savings. 49er pair events (IIRC) *always* > ran slowly; you didn't need to claim to save time I can see how that would be possible. When I was a 49er, I didn't have a clue what I was doing on defense. I knew how to follow suit, play second hand low, third hand high, and if the setting trick happened to pop up in my hand, I took it. I didn't do much thinking, since I wouldn't have had a clue what to think about anyway. I suspect at the 49er level, most players defend about the same way. So I can see why claiming wouldn't save all that much time. These days, if declarer starts taking top tricks, I have to stare at the hand for a couple minutes to figure out if we're about to be the victim of a double squeeze or an endplay or something, so that I know what to discard. Not that I'd actually recognize it if I were squeezed. In fact, half the time I still don't have a clue what I'm supposed to think about on defense. But at least I recognize that I'm supposed to be thinking about something, so I have to spend time staring at the hand and trying to guess what it is I'm supposed to think about. So if declarer really has the rest of the tricks, everyone appreciates it if declarer claims instead of playing it out. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 17 11:39:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA02268 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:39:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA02263 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:39:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.5] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12Vliz-000Cxo-00; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 01:38:50 +0000 Message-ID: <002001bf8fb1$ddf57e60$055408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Paul Endicott" Cc: "Bill Segraves" , Subject: Fw: EBL engagement Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 01:40:12 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: BLML Cc: Ron Endicott ; paul endicott ; Patricia Davidson ; Nick Doe ; Lynn & Dan Hunt ; Egden Wignall & Co. ; cathie ritchie Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 4:38 PM Subject: EBL engagement > > Grattan Endicott ================================ > "We owe almost all our knowledge not to > those who have agreed, but to those who > have differed." (C.C. Colton) > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > gester will be unattended from 17th > to 27th March inclusive. EBL Mixed > Pairs/Teams Chmpp, Bellaria, Italy. > The same applies to Hermes of > course after about 3 a.m. on 17th > until 26th. > I have to be at Manchester Airport > by 5.30 a.m. Ugh. > +=+ Hermes also over and out +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 17 11:39:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA02261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:39:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA02256 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:38:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.5] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12Vliw-000Cxo-00; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 01:38:46 +0000 Message-ID: <001f01bf8fb1$dbcb9980$055408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200003162208.RAA16610@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 01:35:30 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 10:08 PM Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? > So, Grattan, what is my ethical position? Did I "use UI?" (And was > that in the first two cases, where my choice of action changed, or in > the third one, where it didn't?) If the facts above were established > before your C&E committee, what penalties would you give? And would > your opinion change if, in the third case, an AC had decided that my > raise was illegal and adjusted the score? > +=+ I do not see an ethical problem. Much of the difficulty in the discussion is that people interpret what I say as implying something akin to cheating. I do not. I regard it as a simple infraction of law when UI is 'used' in the manner L16 prohibits. (I will not go thru' all that again, linking the preamble to the specific occasions in A,B,C.) If it were deemed there was an LA less suggested by the UI I would substitute that alternative at the point where the violation occurred; that might be an end of the auction* establishing a contract, if not I would assess the probabilities of ensuing action and determine a 12C3 score attributable to both sides. I would penalize the OS a standard penalty of, let us say, 5 imps or 15% for the infraction**. Some other appeals chairmen have a different approach to the way of imposing a penalty, not seeking as I do to regard the infraction element as the same in a part score hand as in a slam. Nothing is yet set in stone; all we have is some years of experience out of which we have yet to come to an agreed method.. But this is how *I* approach the problem. Restore the equity and penalize the offender. And that I believe is what you asked. I just think 12C2 operates on a kind of lottery basis. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [* or play] [**whether the auction continued or not] From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 17 12:13:07 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA02348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:47:38 +1000 (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 LAA02322 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:47:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Vlqg-0008M1-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 01:46:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 17:09:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Resolving claim disputes without the TD References: <20000316101652.43184.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000316101652.43184.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: > Wow, hotmail will send a blank message if you get disconnected. My >apologies. I promise that my real reply will at least have content. I >cannot guarantee substance. ;) I read it twice without finding the pearls of wisdom! :)) -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 17 13:13:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA02349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:47:41 +1000 (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 LAA02321 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:47:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Vlqf-0008M0-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 01:46:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 17:03:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? 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: <011f01bf8e00$004c2e40$835908c3@dodona> >Grattan Endicott> Is Pride, the never-failing vice of fools." (Pope) > >Despite Pope's enviable mastery of language I would suggest that pride is >a vice by no means restricted to the foolish (or perhaps just makes fools >of us all in the end). That's a relief! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 17 13:13:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA02677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 13:13:37 +1000 (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 NAA02671 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 13:13:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12VnCM-000AiJ-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 03:13:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 02:17:11 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Bum claim References: <200003162148.NAA25847@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200003162148.NAA25847@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> And if you claimed, would you not also mention this? Your assertion >> is that a player would never be careless enough to misplay this suit, >> but that the *same* player would be careless enough to claim without >> mentioning this. >I don't think that argument works. If I believed that it's totally >automatic to get this layout right, then I'd believe that it would be >irrational not to play it right, and therefore I'd believe that it >wouldn't be necessary, according to the Laws, to spell out what I'm >going to do. Oh, I totally agree with the logic - but not the premise. I have seen good players get this type of layout wrong. > Not mentioning the safety play would then not be >"careless". "Misinformed" might be a more accurate term. Then again, >"misinformed" isn't even really accurate, since there's nothing in the >Laws nor the written policies of any SO I'm aware of that says >"missing an easy safety play is always deemed careless and not >irrational." So an even better term might be "unable to predict what >a TD will judge to be irrational." > >The problem, as I tried to explain in my previous post, is that since >there's no statement, anywhere, that elucidates what is considered >irrational and what isn't, there's no way for a player to know what >needs to be said and what doesn't. So how can anyone know that, when >claiming with AQx opposite KJTxx (with the long suit in an entryless >dummy), it's not necessary to state explicitly that you're going to >cash the A and Q first; but that with AQTxx opposite K9xx, that it >*is* necessary to state explicitly that you're going to cash the ace >first? How can you consider it "careless" not to know that, when it >isn't spelled out anywhere? I really do not think you need to tell players that safety plays need to be mentioned - but obvious unblocking does not. i think the vast majority of good players would follow that automatically. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 17 13:13:46 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA02682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 13:13:46 +1000 (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 NAA02672 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 13:13:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12VnCM-000AiK-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 03:13:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 02:31:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? References: <000201bf8f68$55f2a7c0$c35993c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <000201bf8f68$55f2a7c0$c35993c3@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ "made a mistake"? > I think you are a little premature in saying that >because I defend the WBF position I "refuse to listen". >I am industriously collecting (all of two to now) items >of feedback on the CoP. The CoP is an official >statement of policy publishing the consensus opinion of >John Wignall, Jens Auken, Ernesto d'Orsi, Joan Gerard, >myself, Mazhar Jafri, Ton Kooijman, Jeffrey Polisner, >William Schoder, and Robert S. Wolff.[i.e. Several Vice >Presidents of the World Bridge Federation, its General >Counsel, the Chairman of its Appeals Committee, its >Chief Tournament Director, the Chairman of its Laws >Committee (who questioned no aspect of law in it), and >the Chairman of the EBL Appeals Committee.] > The document has the approval and endorsement of >the President of the World Bridge Federation and of the >President of the European Bridge League. As I >understand it, you desire that the feedback I am to carry >to the foregoing should be that they have "made a >mistake"? And this would be the judgement of a >number of pundits on blml, plus one or two people of >acknowledged status in their own national Federations, >in respect of something to which each of its authors has >subscribed? > Had you suggested that they "might like to review >their choice of language" I could imagine a slightly less >chilly reception than a printout of this actual >correspondence would achieve, against which the >plainness of your words could perhaps be respected. > I am a lot less sure that one could suggest fruitfully >even then that the purpose of the revision would be to >soften the impact of the agreed policy upon the player. I am very disappointed in this post. You seem to be saying that because there are great and learned men involved [plus one woman] that they can not have made a mistake. A little humility becomes all of us. We all make mistakes, and in my view it is perfectly possible for John Wignall, Jens Auken, Ernesto d'Orsi, Joan Gerard, Grattan Endicott, Mazhar Jafri, Ton Kooijman, Jeffrey Polisner, William Schoder, Robert S. Wolff, several Vice Presidents of the World Bridge Federation, its General Counsel, the Chairman of its Appeals Committee, its Chief Tournament Director, the Chairman of its Laws Committee, and the Chairman of the EBL Appeals Committee to make a mistake. We know that the WBFLC have made mistakes: we can point to some of them. It does no particular good, except to make sure that matters are revised. However, to presume that people at this level are above making mistakes is not acceptable. The feeling behind this article seems to be that for a mere member of BLML to suggest that all these "important" men [and one woman] is not right: sort of a "What does he know?" approach. When you set yourself up to produce a document of far-reaching important, it may be looked at by others, and mistakes may be found. It is very reasonable that someone else may point out a mistake: not seeing the forest for the trees has bedevilled committees ever since the Last Supper. It would be better for an argument to be produced why something is not a mistake than to assume it is not a mistake because the people who drafted the CoP are more important than a single member of BLML: who says they are, anyway? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 17 13:15:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA02347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:47:39 +1000 (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 LAA02324 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:47:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Vlqg-0008M2-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 01:46:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 17:07:00 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? References: <005a01bf8eb8$3e650e00$0a84d9ce@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Pam Hadfield wrote: >I think you are wrong though - if Susie Kumquat knew exactly how the >rules would be applied in every case to her and the all other players, be >they Zia or the Director's niece she might just reserve another night to >play in the club in the next town where all the "good players" go. I doubt that she would believe it. There are some situations where you will get a more favourable ruling if you are a lesser player [including some UI ones] but the lesser player does not believe that. I have often received complaints about the fact that Directors rule in favour of the better players [from poorer players] and also about the fact that Directors rule in favour of the poorer players [from better players]. It is a matter of perception. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 17 14:13:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA02535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 12:21:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA02519 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 12:21:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12VmNY-000GKQ-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 02:20:45 +0000 Message-ID: <$E4OdmDCWZ04Ewuc@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 02:16:34 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: bum claim References: <387EC57A.EA03D9C1@alltel.net> <38CF6640.58CA437A@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Pam Hadfield writes >On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 11:30:24 +0100, Herman wrote: > >>But the exact same facts, for a different declarer in a >>different part of the world could lead to a different >>ruling. > > >There seem to be directors that would give 2 different declarers in the >same club different rulings for the exact same facts. > > The AQTxx K9xx claim. I'd rule against Hamman too. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 17 14:19:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA02325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:47:21 +1000 (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 LAA02315 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:47:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Vlqe-0008Lz-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 01:46:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 16:59:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? References: <00f901bf8c70$dc173f00$9e9c01d4@default> <008601bf8d4f$8ff823c0$db5408c3@dodona> <3.0.1.32.20000314172215.01288b9c@pop.mindspring.com> <003201bf8e62$8c8aa960$da66063e@davidburn> <009501bf8f06$a6317ca0$5c48063e@davidburn> <005a01bf8f21$d6afc740$af5908c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <005a01bf8f21$d6afc740$af5908c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > David Burn wrote: >> David Stevenson wrote: >> > It always seems to me that L16A and L73F tell the TD/AC what to >> do, >> > but the instructions to the players are contained in L73C. >> It may be worth quoting that Law: >> >> When a player has available to him unauthorised information from his >> partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, >> special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully >> avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side. >+=+ I believe it is a false representation to quote >this law without its preamble preparing the way >for 16A and the rest. You must read them together. There is no such preamble in my Law book. L73C stands on its own, and there is no common bit of Law in L73 which would apply to all sections. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 17 14:22:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA02895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 14:22:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA02890 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 14:22:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivehs4.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.71.132]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA23118 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 23:22:14 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000316231713.0127026c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 23:17:13 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? In-Reply-To: <009501bf8f06$a6317ca0$5c48063e@davidburn> References: <00f901bf8c70$dc173f00$9e9c01d4@default> <008601bf8d4f$8ff823c0$db5408c3@dodona> <3.0.1.32.20000314172215.01288b9c@pop.mindspring.com> <003201bf8e62$8c8aa960$da66063e@davidburn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:15 AM 3/16/2000 -0000, David B wrote: >I do not disagree with what is generally done (how could I, since I >generally do it myself to the poor people who have the misfortune to >come before me as AC chair every so often?) I just wish that the Laws >would codify common practice to the extent that I could point to the >book and say; "This is why I am ruling against you." Instead, I have >to resort to an explanation along the tedious lines that I set out in >my previous post: "We're not saying that on this occasion you >personally cheated, we're just saying that had you been a pair of >cheats, you'd have ended up doing what it turned out that you actually >did, so...". This has been known to convince about 10% of appellants; >the other 90% go away thinking that not only is the TD a bastard but >the appeals committee must also have been born out of wedlock. It is little wonder that you are dissatisfied with the above explanation. In the first place, it is a misleading explanation of the legal basis for the adverse ruling, and in the second place it does very little to soothe the ruffled feathers of players who feel their honesty has been challenged. Why not the truth? "The Laws require us to evaluate these types of situatations according to a prescribed formula. Once we determined that UI was _available_ to you (not that you necessarily used it or even noticed it), we looked at possible alternatives to the bid you made. We felt that in this situation, some of your peers without UI would have passed, even if this alternative seems ridiculous to you. By law, that makes passing a Logical Alternative. We then considered whether your partner's hesitation had the logical effect of making your bid more attractive (not necessarily to you, but just as a matter of bridge logic). Obviously it makes your bid more likely to work out when your partner was apparently considering acting on his own. Under these conditions, the Laws make your actual bid illegal, and so we had to adjust the score. "Please understand that this does not mean that we believe you took advantage of your partner's hesitation. The right way to view this is the same as an adjustment for any other technical violation, like a revoke or a bid out of turn." Too wordy? Maybe. But something like this can go a long way toward educating players about the process and about the standards which should be used, and can have the salutory effect of deflecting the attention away from a personal challenge (if it doesn't bore them to death first, anyway). Plus, you can show them right in the book where this procedure is spelled out. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 17 14:24:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA02534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 12:21:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA02521 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 12:21:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12VmNe-000GKc-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 02:20:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 02:01:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? References: <200003151741.MAA15052@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200003151741.MAA15052@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <200003151741.MAA15052@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "Grattan Endicott" >> Law 16 does say that >> basing a call or play on extraneous information >> (which is undeniably a use of the information) >> may be an infraction. Law 16 A,B,C then goes >> on to detail in which cases (A,C2) it is an >> infraction and (B, C1) in which cases it is not. > >Agreed that L16A and C2 define infractions. The infractions do not in >any way require _use_ of UI. An infraction requires merely that UI was >_made available_ and that a forbidden action was _chosen_. Whether the >UI was in fact used is irrelevant. This was the dramatic innovation >made in 1975. > >It is now possible to say (truthfully!) to a player, "I believe you >completely when you say you didn't notice your partner's hesitation, >but I am still adjusting the score." The player did not use UI, but he >still committed an infraction. > >I am astonished that this is controversial. > I frequently say, when I'm adjusting, and wouldn't say it unless I believed it "I have no doubt that this is the call you would normally make in this auction. Nonetheless it is not a call which I can permit under the Laws [much quoting of Law] and so I'm adjusting". Players accept this with no more than a muttered curse (which is ok by me) and tend not to appeal such rulings. cheers john > > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 17 15:13:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA02536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 12:21:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA02520 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 12:21:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12VmNd-000GKb-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 02:20:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 02:08:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: What's the Contract? References: <00b501bf8c85$db73c680$6700a8c0@enrichnz.co.nz> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >Mark Abraham wrote: >>On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Peter Bowyer wrote: >> >>> Bear with me please, a little outside what BLML is about, but I do believe >>> it is in our brief >> >>Normally this sort of question should go on rec.games.bridge. BLML tends >>to discuss shortcomings of existing laws, suggested revisions, unusual >>rulings, some trivia. It is not normally a resource for people with a >>specific enquiry that doesn't come under those sort of topics. > > I must say that I disagree with this extremely strongly. There is no >need for anyone to reply who does not want to, but I and several other >posters are always prepared to answer simple questions about the Laws, >and I believe a "Bridge-Laws mailing list" is and should be a perfect >place to ask any sort of question about the Laws of Bridge. > > While I was in Australia, I got an email that I found rather bridge laws mailing list. Bridge Laws Mailing List IMO anyone wanting to ask any question about any aspect of bridge law has an unassailable right to post here, without fear of being threatened with "shooting and bastinado". Like DWS I too endeavoUr to answer such questions. If we don't use this opportunity to educate, why do we have blml? cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 17 15:27:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA02350 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:47:43 +1000 (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 LAA02326 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:47:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Vlqj-0008M5-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 01:46:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 17:13:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: rant / answers please! References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk James wrote: >DWS wrote: >> Hmmm. No wonder you got few answers. Surely the answer is "You had >>to be there"? I ask the questions, and make the judgement. I never >>assume people are lying [with two exceptions, two people I mean, who I >>always assume are lying] unless it becomes fairly obvious that they are. >> >> Anyway, you have given us the story. Assuming we believe East then >>West's call was a misbid - but why have you only told us what East said? >>I would specifically ask West why s/he opened 2H, and since you have not >>told us West's answer I am not sure how I would rule. >> >> When I get the facts I make a ruling. Of course, if the facts are >>different, the ruling may be different. In this case, it is West's >>opinion I really need. >West's comments (if any) were not made available to me. Furthermore (unlike DWS >and Grattan) I consider them irrelevant. I believe there are a significant >number of players who will lie in this situation. Are you seriously suggesting >that you would ask West whether the call was a misbid and if he says "yes" >either never adjust the score or accuse him openly of lying? What is the >difference between this and asking a player "Did you take the UI into account >when you chose your call?" when deciding whether or not to adjust under L16A? As >I have said before, I don't like basing rulings on the TD's assessment of a >player's honesty or integrity. At best it just introduces a further element of >randomness into the process. If you do not ask West then you are ruling without the full facts and that is unacceptable. You have to make a judgement here, and you need all the evidence before you do. I do not accuse people of lying. I assess all the facts and then make a judgement. I try to rule in such a way that everyone understands that I accuse no-one of lying. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 17 15:32:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA02352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:47:42 +1000 (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 LAA02323 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:47:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Vlqa-0008M2-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 01:46:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 16:52:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Bum claim References: <00b701bf8f11$848b4940$5c48063e@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <00b701bf8f11$848b4940$5c48063e@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > >> >It is not up to the director to work out "how the play probably >would have gone >> >in absence of the claim" (as some people seem to assume). Why on >earth should >> >they? >> >> Because it is their job? One of the skills of a Director is >judging >> claims. There is more judgement allowed in claims than in most >other >> things that a Director deals with. > >But it ought not to be their job. As far as is possible, no umpire or >referee or tournament director or appeals committee should ever have >to work out what would have happened. Insofar as the laws of a game >require that its officials make subjective judgements of that nature, >that game is (for practical purposes) flawed. > >How can we eliminate an element of subjective judgement from a claim? >Only by requiring the claimer to make a comprehensive statement of the >order in which he proposes to play his cards, the tricks he will win, >and the tricks (if any) he will lose. Once he has done that, the Law >(not the director) should take over; if the player's claim is found >defective in any way, then he should lose the maximum number of tricks >consistent with any legal play of the remaining cards. I say again: >this would speed up the game appreciably, and would mean that there >was never again such a thing as a contested claim. Moreover, it would >lead to a consistent application of the rules from here to the >nor'nor'west of Nome, something that can by no means be said of the >present approach. I am not so worried about what the Law should be: my offerings on this thread have been about what the Law is. But I feel I must take issue with you on one point: if you really make people claim in the way you state then play will be considerably slowed, not speeded. First, claims will be slower, and second, they will be fewer. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 17 15:40:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA02320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:47:19 +1000 (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 LAA02307 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:47:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Vlqa-0008M1-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 01:46:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 16:48:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: bum claim References: <200003152224.OAA05567@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200003152224.OAA05567@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: [s] >> It is not the player who is careless. We do not say a player is >> careless. However, this misplay is careless for the class of player >> involved - because I believe it to be careless at any level. > >The number of posts in this thread indicates that not everyone shares >your belief. This leads to questions about whether the Laws should be >written so as to depend on a TD's belief---more on this later. Of course people are disagreeing. With the number of posts in this thread I would have thought it should "go without saying that people do not agree" - but it didn't. :)) [s] >Anyway, we could argue for months about whether not taking the safety >play is "careless" or "irrational". It is not impossible that some arguments may convince others: that is the point to arguing, is it not? > My problem isn't so much with >your belief that it's careless. My main problem is that if there's >such disagreement about what should be considered irrational or >careless, and there's no objective criteria for deciding which is >which, then should the Laws be based on this distinction? When I >claim, how am I to know what I need to say and what I don't? Or >should I spell out every trick in detail, all the time? In the case >where West takes the ace first, you say (along with everyone else) >that it's irrational not to finesse, but is it possible that a TD >and/or AC may see things differently? After all, I was able to come >up with a possible (albeit weak) reason why it might be considered >"careless" instead of "irrational", so what protection would I have >against a BL that argues along those lines and a TD who buys it? The >Laws don't help me here, since it leaves "careless" and "irrational" >completely up to subjective judgment. (OK, maybe L70E does protect me >in this particular situation, but one can easily come up with a >comparable situation that doesn't involve a finesse.) I have a lot of >sympathy for someone who simply lays down his hand and claims with >AQTxx/K9xx, thinking that the safety play is so obvious that it >doesn't need to be mentioned; if the TD later rules against him, the >player has a right to wonder, "how was I supposed to know this wasn't >a good enough claim?", since he would not be able to figure this out >by reading the Laws. He should be able to figure it out by playing bridge. If people really think that they do not need to mention safety plays when claiming then I believe they are off the planet. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 17 16:14:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA02357 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:47:52 +1000 (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 LAA02351 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:47:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Vlqr-0008Lz-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 01:46:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 01:44:41 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Bermuda Bowl -- Appeal 5 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: >In appeals case 6, the committee applied L12C3 and claim it is the forst >12C3 WBF decision. Pardon? I was involved in L12C3 decisions in Lille. ------------ Adam Wildavsky wrote: >One of my objections to 12C3, though not my major objection, is that >there is no objective way of knowing when it should apply. In >particular, neither this Law now any other defines "equity". This >means that the committee will apply it when they feel like doing so, >and they will assign any result that feels right to them. This kind >of procedure will lead to even less respect for committees than >exists at present. You have made this comment without explanation on a numbe of occasions. There is no apparent logic behind it, and I really wonder if you have thought it through. Perhaps you might like to do so. If ACs apply L12C3 on a subjective basis, it is not impossible that the players will find it fairer than not using L12C2. This is the case in English appeals. Why should this lead to less respect for ACs? My guess is that you are swayed by one of two things: [1] A couple of horrendous decisions in Lille. This never impresses because horrendous decisions under L12C2 are going to be worse for the players than under L12C3, and thus lead to less respect still. [2] Your statement, oft repeated, that ACs will go mad if given L12C3 power. There seems little or no evidence for this, but even so, if the ACBL were to enable L12C3, no doubt it would be covered by regulation. Thus ACs would be seen to be making fairer decisions which again would not lead to less respect but more. ---------- Thomas wrote: >After a clear infraction, "equity" IMHO is described >by 12C2. It is not "equity" if the AC decides >to let the non offenders be deprived of >their chance to make the right decision without the MI. >The offenders blew their own chances by providing MI. Well, this seems totally opposed to the whole spirit of L12C3. If a pair might bid 4S or 6S roughly equally without the infraction, and in fact doubled a making 4H, then either L12C2 or L12C3 allows ACs to cancel the 4H*, and assign 4S or 6S. L12C2 says that we give the NOs 6S= if it is making, 4S+1 if slam is not making. You state that this is equity: it is nothing of the sort. It is a windfall gain from their opponent's infraction. Equity is the final score that might have been expected just before the infraction. An AC might give a score of 6S= 65%, 4S+2 35% if slam makes, or 4S+1 65%, 6S-1 35% if it does not. This is closer to equity than the L12C2 ruling, and redresses the balance fairly. Ok, hardliners might go for L12C2, but a majority of players find L12C3 reasonable when applied fairly with some generosity to the NOs. But whichever approach you go for, the equity approach is the L12C3 one. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I have not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles up to ten weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 17 17:54:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA03317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 17:54:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA03312 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 17:54:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.153.102] (helo=davidburn) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12VraN-00009n-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 07:54:20 +0000 Message-ID: <001701bf8fe6$34f53b40$669901d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200003162148.NAA25847@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: Bum claim Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 07:55:46 -0000 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > I really do not think you need to tell players that safety plays need > to be mentioned - but obvious unblocking does not. i think the vast > majority of good players would follow that automatically. But we do not need a set of laws that work for "the vast majority". We need a set of laws that work for *everyone*, that can consistently be applied to *every* situation without requiring subjective judgement on the part of directors, committees or players. We will never have a complete set of such laws, for obvious reasons, but that does not mean we should not amend the laws we do have so that they will work in this way wherever possible. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 17 18:24:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA03471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:24:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp.callnet0800.com (smtp.callnet0800.com [212.67.128.145]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA03466 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:24:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from da128d230.dialup.callnetuk.com [212.67.128.230] by smtp.callnet0800.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id ABC05FDF0052; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 08:24:32 +0000 From: Pam Hadfield To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 08:24:08 +0000 Reply-To: pam@hadpaddock.com Message-ID: References: <005a01bf8eb8$3e650e00$0a84d9ce@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id SAA03467 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 17:07:00 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > > I have often received complaints about the fact that Directors rule in >favour of the better players [from poorer players] and also about the >fact that Directors rule in favour of the poorer players [from better >players]. It is a matter of perception. And some unhappy players... I think it shouldn't BE a matter of perception - if all classes of player were treated in the same manner a director wouldn't have to decide how good a player was. Pam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 17 19:58:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA03734 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 19:58:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA03728 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 19:58:45 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id JAA13441 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 09:58:03 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 09:58 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <004e01bf8f8c$ce89e440$7b5408c3@dodona> Grattan wrote: > +=+ Dear me, how some people do go on. Have they > only just noticed how the law is written? And I'll bet > he does not know when he agrees to be subject to the > laws and regulations as he enters a competition. > He must read the Conditions of Contest ~ G ~ +=+ Well, in the sure knowledge that replying to Grattan in his absence will have as much effect as when he is around:-) Many of us have been taught, primarily by Grattan, that attempting to interpret the laws as written is a fairly pointless exercise. If it's not a case of "the intent of the lawmakers was.." or "in the minutes of..." or quite possibly "Article 119 of the treaty of Rome says.." we discover that that particular law is generally agreed to be flawed but now is not the time to tackle it. L16, as it is currently *applied* and frequently understood, allows for the possibility of "no blame/no accusation" adjustments in UI cases (it also allows for severe penalties for gross misuse of UI) - some of us would like to see it kept that way. Indeed I have argued in the past that "infraction" is the wrong word to use in such complicated and borderline UI judgement cases. Just for the record I am not arguing that there should be fewer/different adjustments under my preferred application of L16. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 17 23:53:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA04337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 23:53:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA04332 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 23:53:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA05215 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 08:52:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000317085449.006db6e8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 08:54:49 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? In-Reply-To: <001d01bf8f2e$d98801a0$1b5408c3@dodona> References: <00f901bf8c70$dc173f00$9e9c01d4@default> <008601bf8d4f$8ff823c0$db5408c3@dodona> <3.0.1.32.20000314172215.01288b9c@pop.mindspring.com> <003201bf8e62$8c8aa960$da66063e@davidburn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:02 AM 3/16/00 -0000, Grattan wrote: >+=+ I would not wish to embarrass anyone with >quoting from my box of deleted files, but have we >not read of shootings and the bastinado for those >who have been deemed to use UI? As judged, >that is, by subscribers to blml? Was this to avoid >the use of stronger language or to discourage the >use of UI? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ It was to discourage the use of UI. That attitude is entirely consistent with the same folks' objection to the idea that to transgress L16A does not mean that the offender has used UI. It's a simple syllogism: Asserted: Any player who uses UI should be shot. Asserted: Not every player who violates L16A should be shot. Therefore: Not every player who violates L16A uses UI. Q.E.D. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 02:08:49 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA05017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 02:08:49 +1000 (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 CAA05010 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 02:08:40 +1000 (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 LAA11104; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:08:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA107209304; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:08:24 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:08:13 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: Subject matter for BLML (Was: What's the Contract?) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, john@probst.demon.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 CAA05012 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>Normally this sort of question should go on rec.games.bridge. BLML tends >>to discuss shortcomings of existing laws, suggested revisions, unusual >>rulings, some trivia. It is not normally a resource for people with a >>specific enquiry that doesn't come under those sort of topics. > > I must say that I disagree with this extremely strongly. There is no >need for anyone to reply who does not want to, but I and several other >posters are always prepared to answer simple questions about the Laws, >and I believe a "Bridge-Laws mailing list" is and should be a perfect >place to ask any sort of question about the Laws of Bridge. > > While I was in Australia, I got an email that I found rather bridge laws mailing list. Bridge Laws Mailing List IMO anyone wanting to ask any question about any aspect of bridge law has an unassailable right to post here, without fear of being threatened with "shooting and bastinado". Like DWS I too endeavoUr to answer such questions. If we don't use this opportunity to educate, why do we have blml? cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 [Laval Dubreuil] Thx David and John for making this clear. I confess I was the guy who wrote to David some months ago saying I was no more confortable on the List and thought to leave. I had the impression that it was more and more reserved to "experts" discussing the Law text itself and not its applications in real TD life. I felt as if it was becoming risky for "ordinary" members to say something, and even more if you do not perfectly master English language. As you both, I think BLML must remain an open place to discuss all aspects of bridge Laws and where all members feel free to ask questions and give their opinion, no matter who they are. It is the normal definition of that kind of "non modarated lists" on the Internet, and it is how it works on many other lists I use for years in my professionnal life. Despite the different levels of members I think everybody learn. We could have two different lists: one for "lawyers" and the other for "ordinary rulings", but I do think we would all lose. But some rules should be usefull to make things easier. May be we should have some conventions (or treatments..) on the subject line to help selecting messages. By example, specific queries about a ruling could begin by "CR" (Current Ruling) or something else (CR- What is the contract?). May be we can ask David to propose such "subject line conventions". I also suggest that anybody asking for a ruling makes the effort of searching in the Law book and say something like: - I had this problem recently; - I think the solution is this and this according to Laws nos x and y. - I would like your opinion on my ruling. An ordinary member of BLML Laval Du Breuil Quebec City . From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 02:51:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA05177 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 02:51:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA05172 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 02:51:40 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id QAA26311 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 16:51:02 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 16:51 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? 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: <000201bf8f68$55f2a7c0$c35993c3@pacific> "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ "made a mistake"? > I think you are a little premature in saying that > because I defend the WBF position I "refuse to listen". Defending a position is the first sign of refusing to listen (as I know only too well). When one "listens" one hears, and empathises with, the concerns of others. One then tries to explain. Something along the lines of "When the CoP was debated these concerns were raised but we felt it was more important to..because.." > I am industriously collecting (all of two to now) items > of feedback on the CoP. I do know that is possible to read the CoP without noticing that all L16 adjustments should now be presented to players as "We have found you to have used UI.." - had I noticed at the time you would have heard from me. > The CoP is an official statement of policy Every piece of major UK legislation in the last 15 years has been subjected to scrutiny by an equally eminent list of experts/interested parties - AFAICR every one has subsequently been found to contain major flaws. Since the age of three I have always found "because we say so" to be a less than compelling rationale regardless of the issuing authority. > As I understand it, you desire that the feedback I am to carry > to the foregoing should be that they have "made a > mistake"? Actually the words I used were "people tell you they *believe* you have made a mistake" not being a politician I felt this to be reasonable phrasing. The feedback I want you to carry is along the lines of "Several people have expressed real concerns for how L16 is now to be presented to players by TDs, it seems that the words "using UI" are very emotive - are we happy that the benefit of choosing these words outweighs the possible effects on players at club level?" > Had you suggested that they "might like to review > their choice of language" I could imagine a slightly less > chilly reception than a printout of this actual > correspondence would achieve, against which the > plainness of your words could perhaps be respected. I'd rather just hope that my arguments will stand by their merits or fall by their flaws. > I am a lot less sure that one could suggest fruitfully > even then that the purpose of the revision would be to > soften the impact of the agreed policy upon the player. In terms of the effect of L16 adjustments made I didn't see it as having any impact on "the player" - in terms of securing player buy-in, improving the prospects of educating players, and generally improving the player TD relationship I would see a change as having a huge positive impact. Perhaps I'm wrong but then to err is human, Hermes OTOH is a .. ah, understanding begins to dawn:-) Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 03:25:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA05303 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 03:25:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail2.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.193]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA05297 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 03:25:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-010.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.202]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA23325 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 17:24:20 GMT Message-ID: <000301bf9035$f7386d40$ca307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: St. Patrick's Day Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 17:26:38 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Greetings to all my friends on BLML Happy St. Patrick's Day Fearghal From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 03:49:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA05368 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 03:49:02 +1000 (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 DAA05363 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 03:48:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA10884; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 09:48:55 -0800 Message-Id: <200003171748.JAA10884@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Subject matter for BLML (Was: What's the Contract?) In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:08:13 PST." Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 09:48:55 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laval wrote: > I confess I was the guy who wrote to David some months ago > saying I was no more confortable on the List and thought to > leave. I had the impression that it was more and more reserved > to "experts" discussing the Law text itself and not its applications > in real TD life. I felt as if it was becoming risky for "ordinary" > members to say something, and even more if you do not perfectly > master English language. I don't think BLML has become "reserved" to those who want to discuss the Law text (nor should it be). What seems to happen is that such problems naturally generate a whole lot more discussion, because a person believes the Laws say one thing, another believes the Laws say something else, a third person thinks that the second person's interpretation is immoral and unjust and would destroy the game, a fourth believes the other interpretations malign the English language, and before you know it, the posts breed like rabbits and you have 294 messages arguing over what the definition of "is" is. On the other hand, if someone posts a question where the meaning of the Laws is clear but the bridge judgment required to apply the Laws is unclear, you'll usually get some responses, but there won't be as much argument even when the responses disagree. I'm not sure why that is. But I can understand why it might seem to some that BLML is "supposed" to be a forum for arguing about the Law text, since such a large percentage of the messages end up being about that. But I thought BLML was supposed to be a resource for anyone who wants to know more about the Laws and how to apply them. So to me, any question involving the Laws is appropriate here, even those that involve solely questions of bridge judgment necessary for applying the Laws (do you think this is a logical alternative? is it "likely" that the opponents would have bid their game if given the correct information?). -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 03:55:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA05446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 03:55:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from igngate.merck.de (igngate.merck.de [194.196.248.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA05441 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 03:55:21 +1000 (EST) From: James.Vickers@merck.de Received: from dedamsgnt02.merck.de (smtpgw.merck.de [155.250.248.234]) by igngate.merck.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA08911 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:54:41 +0100 (MET) X-Internal-ID: 38BD52EE00035D76 Received: from dedamsg1.merck.de (155.250.248.233) by dedamsgnt02.merck.de (NPlex 2.0.123) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:54:41 +0100 Received: by dedamsg1.merck.de(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.5 (863.2 5-20-1999)) id C12568A5.0062619C ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:54:35 +0100 X-Lotus-FromDomain: MERCK To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:54:18 +0100 Subject: Re: rant / answers please! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > If you do not ask West then you are ruling without the full facts and >that is unacceptable. You have to make a judgement here, and you need >all the evidence before you do. > > I do not accuse people of lying. I assess all the facts and then make >a judgement. I try to rule in such a way that everyone understands that >I accuse no-one of lying. I don't see the point of asking West what he intended by his call if it has no bearing on your ruling. And you are not going to rule on the basis of West's self-serving statement, are you? In the same way, as I said, we do not ask a player "What would you have done in absence of partner's hesitation (question, grimace, etc)?" because we make the same ruling whatever the answer would be. I still don't understand how you come to make your judgement, David. Maybe you are blessed with a special gift for sifting out truths from half-truths from downright lies, but what are the rest of us directors supposed to do? James From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 05:36:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA06047 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 05:36:18 +1000 (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 FAA06042 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 05:36:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA11853; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 10:57:51 -0800 Message-Id: <200003171857.KAA11853@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Bum claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 17 Mar 2000 07:55:46 PST." <001701bf8fe6$34f53b40$669901d5@davidburn> Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 10:57:51 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > David Stevenson wrote: > > > I really do not think you need to tell players that safety plays > > need > > to be mentioned - but obvious unblocking does not. i think the vast > > majority of good players would follow that automatically. > > But we do not need a set of laws that work for "the vast majority". We > need a set of laws that work for *everyone*, that can consistently be > applied to *every* situation without requiring subjective judgement on > the part of directors, committees or players. We will never have a > complete set of such laws, for obvious reasons, but that does not mean > we should not amend the laws we do have so that they will work in this > way wherever possible. Plus, even if everyone is in agreement that safety plays are on the "need to be mentioned" side of the line, and obvious unblocking plays are on the other side, we still don't know just where the line is. I believe I'd always mention the safety play too, especially after reading all the posts in this thread. But since I often make terse claims, I'm a bit worried that someday I might get caught when I think something (less complicated than a safety play but more complicated than the unblock) doesn't need mentioning, but a TD/AC, buying into arguments by a clever bridge lawyer, somehow decide it does. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 06:17:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA05721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 04:27:49 +1000 (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 EAA05695 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 04:27:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12W1SP-00033D-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:26:46 +0000 Message-ID: <0k2N+UBxll04EwNd@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 16:12:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: L35A: inadmissible double condoned MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk P P Dbl P According to L35A, the double and subsequent pass are cancelled, and the bidding proceeds as though there was no irregularity. The new auction: P P 1C 2S Are the original double and pass authorised to their partner? For example, the replacement 2S is a Strong Jump Overcall. May the partner of the 1C opener infer partner does not have a long club suit? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 07:13:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA05769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 04:35:52 +1000 (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 EAA05764 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 04:35:40 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id r.af.1b756f8 (4240); Fri, 17 Mar 2000 13:28:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 13:28:56 EST Subject: Re: Subject matter for BLML (Was: What's the Contract?) 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 67 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 3/17/00 12:52:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, adam@irvine.com writes: > But I thought BLML was supposed to be a resource for anyone who wants > to know more about the Laws and how to apply them. So to me, any > question involving the Laws is appropriate here, even those that > involve solely questions of bridge judgment necessary for applying the > Laws (do you think this is a logical alternative? is it "likely" that > the opponents would have bid their game if given the correct > information?). > > -- Adam KKKK ---- Thank you Adam, well put. I hope these profound, sometimes esoteric, and wordy arguments over "How to shoot John in words that can't be misunderstood" don't scare people away from one of the best reasons for BLMLs existence -- Education. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 07:30:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA05730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 04:28:03 +1000 (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 EAA05718 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 04:27:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12W1SI-00033D-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:26:40 +0000 Message-ID: <8SwvTlAqxj04EwvD@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 14:08:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? References: <005a01bf8eb8$3e650e00$0a84d9ce@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Pam Hadfield wrote: >On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 17:07:00 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > >> >> I have often received complaints about the fact that Directors rule in >>favour of the better players [from poorer players] and also about the >>fact that Directors rule in favour of the poorer players [from better >>players]. It is a matter of perception. > >And some unhappy players... > >I think it shouldn't BE a matter of perception - if all classes of player >were treated in the same manner a director wouldn't have to decide how >good a player was. Pam: I am including rulings that are identical for all classes of player: it *is* a matter of perception. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 07:40:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA06382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 07:40:22 +1000 (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 HAA06377 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 07:40:12 +1000 (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 QAA22840; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 16:40:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA219399199; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 16:39:59 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 16:39:46 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: L35A: inadmissible double condoned Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="BDY.RTF" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="BDY.RTF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id HAA06378 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: P P Dbl P According to L35A, the double and subsequent pass are cancelled, and the bidding proceeds as though there was no irregularity. The new auction: P P 1C 2S Are the original double and pass authorised to their partner? For example, the replacement 2S is a Strong Jump Overcall. May the partner of the 1C opener infer partner does not have a long club suit? [Laval Dubreuil] I think so. Law 35: "When, after any indamissible call, the offender's LHO makes a call before a penalty has been asseeed, there is no penalty for the inadmissible call...and : A Double... If the inadmissible call is a double....that call and all subsequent are cancelled. The auction reverts to the player whose turn it is to call, and proceeds as though there has been no irregularity." I am quite sure you think we have no more to bother with UI in this case... Laval Du Breuil From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 07:49:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA06430 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 07:49:16 +1000 (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 HAA06425 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 07:49:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA14967; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 13:49:10 -0800 Message-Id: <200003172149.NAA14967@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: L35A: inadmissible double condoned In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 17 Mar 2000 16:12:33 PST." <0k2N+UBxll04EwNd@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 13:49:11 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > P P Dbl P > > According to L35A, the double and subsequent pass are cancelled, and > the bidding proceeds as though there was no irregularity. The new > auction: > > P P 1C 2S > > Are the original double and pass authorised to their partner? For > example, the replacement 2S is a Strong Jump Overcall. May the partner > of the 1C opener infer partner does not have a long club suit? My opinion: I believe L16C applies: information from withdrawn calls is UI to the offending side, AI to the non-offending side. I don't think L16C describes a "penalty"; therefore, it is not superseded by the phrase in L35 that "there is no penalty for the inadmissible call". Usually, the Laws state explicitly which restrictions are considered penalties (see L36, for example). The side that made the legal double is an offending side; I don't think condoning the call is an "offense" that makes the other side an offending side (note that L35 refers to "the offender" as if there is still only one offender after an inadmissible call is condoned). Therefore, the double and pass are UI to the doubler's partner, but AI to the passer's partner. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 08:20:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA05272 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 03:14:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from tarantula.emtex.com (IDENT:root@ns0.emtex.com [193.243.232.67]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA05266 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 03:14:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from emtex.com (delld1pc.emtex.com [193.243.232.151]) by tarantula.emtex.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA10143; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 17:26:11 GMT Message-ID: <38D26880.E1B10536@emtex.com> Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 17:16:48 +0000 From: Trevor Walker Organization: Emtex Ltd. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Bum Claim Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >David Stevenson wrote: >> And if you claimed, would you not also mention this? Your assertion >> is that a player would never be careless enough to misplay this suit, >> but that the *same* player would be careless enough to claim without >> mentioning this. >I don't think that argument works. If I believed that it's totally >automatic to get this layout right, then I'd believe that it would be >irrational not to play it right, and therefore I'd believe that it >wouldn't be necessary, according to the Laws, to spell out what I'm >going to do. There is a serious problem with the laws here - the footnote to L70 says: 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. The Webster dictionary defines careless as (inter alia): (The miss-spelling of spontaneous is theirs!) W> Without thought or purpose; without due care; without attention to rule or system; unstudied; W> inconsiderate; spontaneouse; W> rash; as, a careless throw; a careless expression. He framed the careless rhyme. Beatie. But it gives irrational as: W> Not according to reason; absurd; foolish. It follows that it is impossible to be careless without being irrational. Trevor -- Trevor Walker, Emtex Ltd. 70 St Albans Rd., Watford, Hertfordshire, UK Tel +44 (0)1923 242420 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 08:31:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA05804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 04:42:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA05799 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 04:42:42 +1000 (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 NAA02973 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 13:42:31 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <005a01bf8eb8$3e650e00$0a84d9ce@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 13:35:55 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 5:07 PM +0000 3/16/00, David Stevenson wrote: > I doubt that she would believe it. There are some situations where >you will get a more favourable ruling if you are a lesser player >[including some UI ones] but the lesser player does not believe that. > I have often received complaints about the fact that Directors rule in >favour of the better players [from poorer players] and also about the >fact that Directors rule in favour of the poorer players [from better >players]. It is a matter of perception. The problem also depends on the nature of the ruling. These AQ9xx/KTxx claims are an example; if a weak player is presumed not to know about the safety play or to have miscounted the suit, while a stronger player is presumed to have forgotten to say, "taking the safety play", this creates the perception of unfairness. This is the reason for the apparent BLML consensus that an expert who claims with AQ9xx/KTxx with no statement should also lose a trick if possible. As another case, suppose that E-W bid 4S for +420 after making a bid suggested by UI, and the TD/AC rules that the contract should be adjusted to 4H by South. 4H can be made on a criss-cross squeeze. Should the TD/AC rule that it is "likely" that an expert would find the criss-cross and award +620, but "not likely" that a weaker player would find it and award -100? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 09:10:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA06596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 09:10:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt1-he.global.net.uk (cobalt1-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.161]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA06591 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 09:10:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from p9cs10a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.90.157] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt1-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12W5rR-00042P-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 15:08:53 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: L35A: inadmissible double condoned Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 23:10:21 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf9065$f85cef40$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: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, March 17, 2000 9:53 PM Subject: RE: L35A: inadmissible double condoned > >David Stevenson wrote: > > > P P Dbl P > > According to L35A, the double and subsequent pass are cancelled, > and > the bidding proceeds as though there was no irregularity. The new > auction: > > P P 1C 2S > > Are the original double and pass authorised to their partner? For > example, the replacement 2S is a Strong Jump Overcall. May the > partner > of the 1C opener infer partner does not have a long club suit? > > [Laval Dubreuil] > I think so. > Law 35: "When, after any indamissible call, the offender's LHO makes > a call before a penalty has been asseeed, there is no penalty for > the inadmissible call...and : > > A Double... If the inadmissible call is a double....that call and all > subsequent > are cancelled. The auction reverts to the player whose turn it is to > call, > and proceeds as though there has been no irregularity." > > I am quite sure you think we have no more to bother with UI in this > case... I disagree and apply Law 16C. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 09:19:38 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA05713 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 04:27:46 +1000 (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 EAA05690 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 04:27:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12W1SP-00033F-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:26:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:10:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A 12C3 ruling not appealed. References: <002e01bf681a$81babac0$91a493c3@pacific> <001501bf685c$2448e460$c68401d5@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <001501bf685c$2448e460$c68401d5@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >Jesper wrote: > >> Please do not post attached word processor documents to BLML, >> Grattan. Not everybody can read WordPerfect files. >I guess that for those who can, the attachment is better than nothing. >Those who can't might just ignore it. I for one would have been a bit >miffed to read Grattan's message, and then not know what it was about! To be honest, can or can't is not the only point. Even if you can, that is not what this list is about. I can read nearly every post that contains bad Netiquette of various sorts, but in many cases I do not bother. Why should I? I read about 300 posts or emails a day and I see no reason to read ones that are made difficult. Now, before you think I am only thinking of myself, I reckon the same applies to a lot of people. There are a couple of people whose posts here are fairly unreadable. When I don't feel in the mood, I skip them, and I am sure others do. There seems to be an idea on Usenet that it is acceptable to do your own thing. I am not convinced. When you write a letter, would you use light orange ink on a bright yellow background? I think that people should write posts in a way that is helpful for the recipients rather than suits themselves. My ISP gave me a long document on Netiquette, and I have some articles on my Generalpage on the subject. I wonder how many people have never read anything on Netiquette. http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/gen_men2.htm#netiquette -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I have not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles up to ten weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 09:29:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA05688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 04:27:17 +1000 (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 EAA05680 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 04:26:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12W1SI-00033C-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:26:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 14:06:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Bum claim References: <200003162148.NAA25847@mailhub.irvine.com> <001701bf8fe6$34f53b40$669901d5@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <001701bf8fe6$34f53b40$669901d5@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > >> I really do not think you need to tell players that safety plays >need >> to be mentioned - but obvious unblocking does not. i think the vast >> majority of good players would follow that automatically. > >But we do not need a set of laws that work for "the vast majority". We >need a set of laws that work for *everyone*, that can consistently be >applied to *every* situation without requiring subjective judgement on >the part of directors, committees or players. We will never have a >complete set of such laws, for obvious reasons, but that does not mean >we should not amend the laws we do have so that they will work in this >way wherever possible. Just to go off at a tangent for a moment: I think one reason we have such very long discussions which are often difficult to follow is that many of the threads are mixes between what the situation is, and what it ought to be. For example, this comment here of David's does not really disagree with mine, even though some might think it does: it is making a different point. I am saying what I believe to be the case under the current Laws: David saying what he believes the case should be under future Laws. I think people that shift would help some of our readers when they do so if they made this point clearer. Actually, I think it would help to start a new thread when one shifts between the future and the present. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 09:35:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA05728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 04:27:57 +1000 (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 EAA05707 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 04:27:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12W1SI-00033E-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:26:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 14:30:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Premature play by a defender References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laval wrote: >South playing a NT contract, at trick twelve remaining cards are: > > North > S --- > H 8 > D 4 > C --- >West East >S -- S -- >H -- H -- >D 8 D 10 >C 6 C 10 > South > S 10 > H --- > D --- > C 8 > >S played S10. W discarded C6, than put D8 faced UP on >table before E played to the current trick. Called to the table, >the TD was told by E that he knows from previous C tricks >that his partner has no more C and he will keep C10 anyway. > >As I read the first sentence in Law 68: "a claim or a >concession must refer to tricks other than one in progress" >I understand that trick twelve has no relation with this Law. I do not understand this. If you claim at T12 you are referring to what will happen at TR12 and T13: T13 is not the one in progress so a T12 claim is perfectly valid. >So I would rule "Premature play by a defender" (Law 57) >and allow declarer to (57A3) "forbid offender's partner to play >a card of an other suit" ie forbid a D discard if he is awaken.... On the other hand, L57 says: "When a defender leads to the next trick before his partner has played to the current trick, or plays out of turn before his partner has played, .....". Since neither of these happened, I cannot see how L57 applies. >As for trick 13, no prob.... This seems a simple case of UI. If it can be demonstrated that East has no LA to keeping the correct card we let him: otherwise we adjust to him making the wrong discard. A small reminder to West would not go amiss if we do not adjust. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I have not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles up to ten weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 10:16:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA05729 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 04:28:00 +1000 (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 EAA05711 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 04:27:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12W1SI-00033F-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:26:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 14:36:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: LOOT - Simultaneous Leads? References: <200001251900.LAA30476@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Odlin wrote: > >At a friendly club game in Green Valley, Arizona recently, we had an odd >sort of situation present itself. The auction was a routine NT opening on >my right, followed by either a routine Stayman or a transfer sequence [or >just a 2NT maybe - not sure now], and then 3NT by opener, pass - pass - >pass. > >I was the opening leader and had no problem, owning five spades to the KJ >that I always knew I was going to lead from. In a matter of one or two >seconds at most, my opening small spade was out there, face down for an >instant, and as this was not the kind of auction which ever needs a >'question period', I flipped it over, picking up pen and cc in the next >motion to enter the contract in it. All this happened in much less time than >it takes to tell it. Well, you won't get sympathy from me for flipping your card over. I think the game flows better when rules are followed - and I would find it offensive if partner did not wait for me before turning the card over. The auction is irrelevant. >When I looked up, dummy had not put any cards down, declarer was pointing at >the Spade Q sitting face up in front of partner, and talk of a lead out of >turn ensued. I didn't see it go down on the table at all, but it seemed >apparent that pard thought she was on lead and led face up, rather than >following to my lead before dummy was faced. As it looked to me, her >play was at best simultaneous to mine, if not actually subsequent to >it. Seemed like it would take her bit longer to decide on Q from Qx than it >took me to lead fourth-of-my-longest-and-strongest. > >Director comes, and it soon is apparent that nobody at the table is aware of >the exact timing or order of play. [Seems a good looking lady passed by the >table right near the end of the auction - I didn't notice!] I suggested >maybe looking at the simultaneous leads and plays section. Anyway the 5S >sits in front of me, the QS in front of pard. This is a matter for Director expertise, and not being there I cannot advise. If they were simultaneous, then of course the Laws on simultaneous are to be followed. >I should add that the face-down opening lead was not apparently followed to >the letter of the law at all times in this friendly club. Face-up happened >regularly, as well as face-down. It is my belief that clubs are friendlier when simple rules are followed. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I have not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles up to ten weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 10:16:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA05513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 04:03:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from igngate.merck.de (igngate.merck.de [194.196.248.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA05508 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 04:03:12 +1000 (EST) From: James.Vickers@merck.de Received: from dedamsgnt02.merck.de (smtpgw.merck.de [155.250.248.234]) by igngate.merck.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA09009 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 19:02:31 +0100 (MET) X-Internal-ID: 38BD52EE00035DA6 Received: from dedamsg1.merck.de (155.250.248.233) by dedamsgnt02.merck.de (NPlex 2.0.123) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 19:02:31 +0100 Received: by dedamsg1.merck.de(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.5 (863.2 5-20-1999)) id C12568A5.0063172F ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 19:02:19 +0100 X-Lotus-FromDomain: MERCK To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 19:02:05 +0100 Subject: Bum claim Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk James: >It is not up to the director to work out "how the play probably would have gone in absence of the claim" (as some >people seem to assume). Why on earth should they? DWS: >Because it is their job? One of the skills of a Director is judging claims. There is more judgement allowed in >claims than in most other things that a Director deals with. David Burn: >But it ought not to be their job. As far as is possible, no umpire or >referee or tournament director or appeals committee should ever have >to work out what would have happened. Insofar as the laws of a game >require that its officials make subjective judgements of that nature, >that game is (for practical purposes) flawed. DWS: >I am not so worried about what the Law should be: my offerings on this >thread have been about what the Law is. Where is it written that it is the TD's job to try to work out how the play would have gone? I find no support for this under Law70. I posted the following hand under the heading "Bum claim2": > K > 10 8 > - > K Q 5 > > 10 9 7 N - > - W E - > A 4 S 8 6 2 > 2 9 4 3 > > 8 > - > K J > J 7 6 > >Playing in no trumps with West on lead South laid his hand down and claimed the rest, announcing that all his cards were high (thinking the diamond ace >had been played). I can tell you for sure how the play would have gone if West had led a spade, for I was South. I would have played two hearts discarding two diamonds from hand and then taken three club tricks for no loser. I think this is clearly the most straightforward way of cashing my "winners", and the line most players would choose as it requires the least to-ing and fro-ing from hand to hand. Yet I expect the director to award three tricks to E/W as if the play had gone: spade lead, club to J, diamond (oops!), two more spade losers. The majority of replies agreed with this. I would certainly not expect the director to solicit my opinion as claimer. James From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 10:22:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA05727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 04:27:57 +1000 (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 EAA05701 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 04:27:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12W1SO-00033C-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:26:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 16:12:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Good Sportsmanship References: <3.0.1.32.20000208162743.012270c4@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000208162743.012270c4@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >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. No, I do not agree. I agree in the type of case that you have quoted here, but there are cases where the suggestion might be made legitimately, so I object to "should ever ask". If a player is infirm or somewhat senile, and makes a mechanical mistake, there is nothing wrong in a TD pointing out the Law that says he may only waive penalties if the other side request it. Mind you, pointing it out should be the limit. > 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. *That* I agree with. --------- Marvin L. French wrote: >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. What do you want, a BL's charter? No, Marv, let's allow human beings a bit of leeway, right? Please remember we are talking about the Laws for everyone here: you really want people to play for blood in friendly clubs? There is a difference between someone who plays hard, fairly and ethically, and someone who does everything legal to increase his chance of winning. Pray god we move towards the first person. Would you really want to say at he end of a tourney: "I won: a player with MS dropped a card face up, and that was the action that gave me the winning matchpoint!"? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I have not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles up to ten weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 10:23:14 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA05696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 04:27:34 +1000 (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 EAA05683 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 04:27:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12W1SP-00033E-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:26:46 +0000 Message-ID: <3EENWYB7ll04EwOn@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 16:12:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Mess caused by Kibitzer References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Aavo Heinlo 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). L81C6. The TD has had a potential irregularity drawn to his attention and he is *required* to deal with it. I had a very stroppy email from Kojak some months back when I suggested not dealing with an irregularity properly. He is right: TDs do not have the right not to deal with an irregularity because of the way they hear about it. L81C6 includes the words "of which he becomes aware in any manner". >Then the Kibitzer went to smoking-room >and made some comments. Very naughty. But quite understandable. > Another player >conveyd information to the players of >opponent team B before the end of match. >The case was put before TD. Right: now he has to deal with it [well, he always did, but it is more obvious now]. >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. See the mess the TD has got into by not following the Law? There is no question of either team agreeing to anything. A matter has been brought to the TD's attention and it is up to *him* to rule, not to ask people whether they agree to a course of action. >(The ethics of A is not issue here.) Well, except that eventually they appeared to be trying to accept a score for a trick they did not win. Even if the Law was not explained to htem [as it seemingly wasn't] that is a fairly dubious effort as far as ethics go, >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. Yipppeeee!!!!!!! Next time I am running a multiple teams and they ask for a ruling I shall give both sides +3400. Do you think there will be an appeal? While [of course] 22:9 is legal of itself, it is not satisfactory to give both teams good scores because the TD cannot be bothered to open his Law book. >Other teams protested. While they have no right technically, I am not surprised!!!! >AC took the case and found out. Oh yeah? How did it get to the AC? If they took it as a result of protests from other teams then they have no jurisdiction and anything they decide is meaningless. You have no right to challenge a ruling at another table. This is not only the Law but is necessary to get tournaments finished within two days of the end of play. >1) The result was agreed at the table (79A). OK. >2) there was no error in computing or tabulating >the agreed-upon score (79C doesn't apply) OK. >3) The TD may award an adjusted score only >when these Laws empower him to do so (12A) >and this was not the case. L79B? >AC decided that +/-110 stands and asked >team A to reconsider their refusal to >change the result. They didn't. The AC are a disgrace. Either the ruling should be one thing or it should be another. The AC have no right to make this pronouncement. If they think team A have done something wrong then they should adjust: if not then they should shut up. >Does the AC interpreted the Laws properly? No. >Is there any difference if it had happened >after the end of round (79B) but before the >end of correction period? Yes. There is no question of an adjusted score here. The number of tricks was agreed at the time - no problem - and the score entered correctly. Subsequently a disagreement arose as to the number of tricks won and it was the responsibility of the TD and the AC to determine how many tricks were won. If they determined that seven tricks were won then the score *is* -50. It does not matter that the players agreed a different score. Furthermore, team A had no right to +110. Once they were convinced they had made seven tricks then L72C comes into play: LAW 72 - GENERAL PRINCIPLES A. Observance of Laws 2. Scoring of Tricks Won A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win, or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose. There is no mention in this Law of "unless a kibitzer pointed it out illegally". This Law should have been read out to the players. >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? Who knows? They were off the planet!!!!! >Or is it correct that the result can't >be changed in both situations >at all? The score must be changed to -50 for Team A: the Law requires it. If the round has ended then the TD has discretion [see L79B] as to whether to give team B +50 or let them keep their -110. Before the round ends he has no such discretion and they get +50.. ------------------- Aavo Heinlo wrote: >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. Exactly. Well, someone seemed to have given team A the mistaken idea that they had a choice. Read L72A2 to them. >Controversial, of course. >Both, TD and AC, treated it as the >refusal to change agreed-upon result. Neither seemed to have realised that it was their decision. >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. That's true! >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. So the national body wants it to be played under the Laws, so it breaks the Laws to make sure? The only people who may bring an appeal are the players at the table, their captain, and the TD. L92A and L81C9. >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. So the AC were not prepared to do their job? ---------- What a mess! however, I think the subject is wrong. The mess was caused by the following factors: [1] A mistake by the players [2] Several mistakes by the TD [3] Mistakes by the AC [4] Failure of the national authority to follow the Laws [5] Indiscretions by a kibitzer -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I have not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles up to ten weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 11:42:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA06978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 11:42:17 +1000 (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 LAA06971 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 11:42:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA18725; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 17:42:13 -0800 Message-Id: <200003180142.RAA18725@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Bum claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 17 Mar 2000 19:02:05 PST." Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 17:42:15 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk James Vickers wrote: > James: > >It is not up to the director to work out "how the play probably > >would have gone > >in absence of the claim" (as some >people seem to assume). Why on > >earth should they? > > DWS: > >Because it is their job? . . . > > Where is it written that it is the TD's job to try to work out how > the play would have gone? I find no support for this under Law70. Law 70 says, "The Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides . . .". Unfortunately, this wording is awfully vague and doesn't really tell Director what he's supposed to base the final score on. L70C, D, and E tell TD what to do in some specific problem situations, but it hardly constitutes a complete definition of "adjudicate the result equitably". I think the idea that the director works out "how the play probably would have gone" is how L70 is generally interpreted, and that's good enough for me. Actually, it's probably inaccurate to say the TD has to work out "how the play probably would have gone". Rather, the TD's job is to work out *all* the different ways that the play could have gone, that are consistent with claimer's claim statement and that do not involve irrationality, and award the result based on the possible line of play least favorable to the claimer. If you look at it in this clearer way, then there's no contradiction at all in your example: > K > 10 8 > - > K Q 5 > > 10 9 7 N - > - W E - > A 4 S 8 6 2 > 2 9 4 3 > > 8 > - > K J > J 7 6 > > Playing in no trumps with West on lead South laid his hand down and > claimed the rest, announcing that all his cards were high (thinking > the diamond ace had been played). > > I can tell you for sure how the play would have gone if West had led > a spade, for I was South. I would have played two hearts discarding > two diamonds from hand and then taken three club tricks for no > loser. I think this is clearly the most straightforward way of > cashing my "winners", and the line most players would choose as it > requires the least to-ing and fro-ing from hand to hand. . . . Hope this helps, -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 11:49:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA07011 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 11:49:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f20.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA07006 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 11:49:17 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 98901 invoked by uid 0); 18 Mar 2000 01:48:39 -0000 Message-ID: <20000318014839.98900.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.18 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 17:48:39 PST X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.18] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Premature play by a defender Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 17:48:39 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson >Laval wrote: > >South playing a NT contract, at trick twelve remaining cards are: > > > > North > > S --- > > H 8 > > D 4 > > C --- > >West East > >S -- S -- > >H -- H -- > >D 8 D 10 > >C 6 C 10 > > South > > S 10 > > H --- > > D --- > > C 8 > > > >S played S10. W discarded C6, than put D8 faced UP on > >table before E played to the current trick. Called to the table, > >the TD was told by E that he knows from previous C tricks > >that his partner has no more C and he will keep C10 anyway. > > > >As I read the first sentence in Law 68: "a claim or a > >concession must refer to tricks other than one in progress" > >I understand that trick twelve has no relation with this Law. > > I do not understand this. If you claim at T12 you are referring to >what will happen at TR12 and T13: T13 is not the one in progress so a >T12 claim is perfectly valid. TrickS, plural, with an s. For the pedantic, claims can only occur up to and including trick 11. This is not the case in practice. > >So I would rule "Premature play by a defender" (Law 57) > >and allow declarer to (57A3) "forbid offender's partner to play > >a card of an other suit" ie forbid a D discard if he is awaken.... > > On the other hand, L57 says: "When a defender leads to the next trick >before his partner has played to the current trick, or plays out of turn >before his partner has played, .....". Since neither of these happened, >I cannot see how L57 applies. Depends on whether or not you consider a card placed face up on the table to be a lead or play of the card rather than exposure. > >As for trick 13, no prob.... > > This seems a simple case of UI. If it can be demonstrated that East >has no LA to keeping the correct card we let him: otherwise we adjust to >him making the wrong discard. A small reminder to West would not go >amiss if we do not adjust. East's statement is self-serving. I'd request a stronger reason for knowing that west was out of clubs. (He couldn't have shown out earlier.) Offhand, I can't think of a play of the hand which would logically prohibit west's and south's 8's to be exchanged unless south showed out of diamonds or west signaled a count of diamonds and hasn't shown all of them yet. In that case, east's statement should have been that south has no diamonds, so keeping the 10D is a waste. It's much more straight-forward. You also have the cards played still on the table and you can verify east's statement. I've stated before that I think this sort of claim should be discouraged. Logical alternatives or not, east is not incapable of a memory lapse while west is capable of knowing better. -Todd ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 12:55:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA07187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 12:55:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA07181 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 12:55:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12W9O3-000H6I-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 02:54:48 +0000 Message-ID: <4EgHjXAs8u04EweI@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 02:51:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: St. Patrick's Day References: <000301bf9035$f7386d40$ca307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> In-Reply-To: <000301bf9035$f7386d40$ca307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <000301bf9035$f7386d40$ca307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie>, Fearghal O'Boyle writes >Greetings to all my friends on BLML >Happy St. Patrick's Day > >Fearghal > > I have had a really hard night down at the YC. They're not all Irish but they drank like they were. Total anarchy. 1400's both sides of several travellers. Fabulous game. Happy Customers. I'm going to need to have a quiet word with a few of them, but that's par for the course. -- 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 Mar 18 12:55:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA07180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 12:55:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA07174 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 12:54:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12W9O3-000JWd-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 02:54:47 +0000 Message-ID: <20DEfLAj1u04Ew9D@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 02:43:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: rant / answers please! References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , James.Vickers@merck.de writes >DWS wrote: >> If you do not ask West then you are ruling without the full facts and >>that is unacceptable. You have to make a judgement here, and you need >>all the evidence before you do. >> >> I do not accuse people of lying. I assess all the facts and then make >>a judgement. I try to rule in such a way that everyone understands that >>I accuse no-one of lying. > >I don't see the point of asking West what he intended by his call if it has no >bearing on your ruling. And you are not going to rule on the basis of West's >self-serving statement, are you? In the same way, as I said, we do not ask a >player "What would you have done in absence of partner's hesitation (question, >grimace, etc)?" because we make the same ruling whatever the answer would be. > >I still don't understand how you come to make your judgement, David. Maybe you >are blessed with a special gift for sifting out truths from half-truths from >downright lies, but what are the rest of us directors supposed to do? Sometimes I get really fed up with the constant sniping at DWS. Occasionally I think he's a complete idiot, mostly I think he's brilliant. ... but .... look, this guy *really knows* his stuff. He asks everyone everything he can possibly think of because he doesn't know what *is* or *is not* germane to his ruling. When he has all the _facts_ he can lay hands on he sifts the evidence. So do I. Then he rules. So do I. Do you want him to miss out on an *important* piece of evidence because it might be self serving or irrelevant, or do you want the most measured ruling he can produce? He wants the best he can do. So do I. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 14:13:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:06:56 +1000 (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 NAA07274 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:06:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12W9YZ-0009bt-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 03:05:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 22:54:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L12C2 References: <033801bf6c78$c6b21c60$16991e18@san.rr.com> <389703F3.B465CBFC@omicron.comarch.pl> In-Reply-To: <389703F3.B465CBFC@omicron.comarch.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > The 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. "without being intended" would seem a better phrase. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I have not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles up to ten weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 15:04:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:07:29 +1000 (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 NAA07305 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:06:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12W9Yd-0009bv-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 03:05:46 +0000 Message-ID: <8P+$0yDTEu04EweB@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 01:51:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: YABC (Yet another bad claim) References: <002501bf80f9$7448bfc0$f65608c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <002501bf80f9$7448bfc0$f65608c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >+==+ 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. :-))) I suppose this means you do not want to be reminded of a certain Spring Fours semi-final where the popular opinion was that the player failed to pull the wool over the TD's eyes but succeeded with the crusty old cynical appeal committee man? Hehe. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I have not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles up to ten weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 15:15:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:07:41 +1000 (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 NAA07339 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:07:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12W9Yq-0009bt-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 03:06:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 02:55:27 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) 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> In-Reply-To: <007701bf6b8d$0d6ef700$c05408c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott 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 Well, that should kill off a few Bridge Clubs. I wonder whether everyone in the people looking at the Laws remembers that there are TDs in clubs and elsewhere who are not very good. Making life very difficult for them should not be the aim of the lawmakers. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I have not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles up to ten weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 15:50:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07355 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:07:30 +1000 (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 NAA07326 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:07:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12W9Yn-0009bv-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 03:05:56 +0000 Message-ID: <4u+u8OER$u04Ew8w@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 02:54:09 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: YABC (Yet another bad claim) References: <200002242106.QAA05110@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <002901bf7f77$c999d140$6f5408c3@dodona> <38B67C4A.BB36CD2@village.uunet.be> <20000225141142.55334.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000225141142.55334.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: >I 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? Why is it inferior? Declarer admitted she thought a heart was played at T1. Given that as a premise, playing a heart at T2 is a 100% line for the contract: nothing else is. The DA could be ruffed or something. Having done so, ace and another club looks obvious enough. One off. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I have not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles up to ten weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 16:02:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:07:31 +1000 (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 NAA07311 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:06:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12W9Yi-0009bt-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 03:05:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 01:55:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: YABC (Yet another bad claim) References: <007901bf821f$8443dbe0$dc84d9ce@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: <007901bf821f$8443dbe0$dc84d9ce@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > 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. Law and Order has been on British TV for a long time, and is one of my favourite programs. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 16:13:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07362 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:07:41 +1000 (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 NAA07330 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:07:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12W9Yn-0009bu-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 03:05:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 02:55:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: dummy misplays, declarer revokes? References: <200003061736.RAA22315@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200003061736.RAA22315@tempest.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>I quoted law 45D, and ruled that the club lead from dummy could not be >>withdrawn as both sides had played to the next trick. Therefore, >>declarer had revoked on the trick as played and the two trick penalty >>stood. >> >>The players were convinced but my colleagues were not! >Well done Robin, I missed that at the time, and agree. > > But > >44A the player who leads to a trick may play any card in his hand. >45B declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card. > >Is not the heart played regardless of the card placed in the played >position? I think both defenders revoked and dummy's trick is deficient >(containing a club instead of a heart), once we play the next trick. No, that is the whole point of L45D. The "wrong" card must be withdrawn up to a certain point in time - but once that point is reached it can no longer be withdrawn so it stands as played. ---------- Robin Barker wrote: >I think RHO played prematurely, he did not lead out of turn. >I am not really concerned with the order of dummy's and RHO's >plays. So, imagine instead: > >Declarer called for a heart, >Dummy put a club in the played position (as he heard declarer call for a club), >RHO played a club (he also heard declarer call for a club), >Declarer played a heart (not looking at the other cards), >LHO played a club. > >If declarer later said he called for a heart, we might be sceptical; >but say there was a gallery of kibitzers and video/audio recording >which all agree that declarer called for a heart. Is declarer's play >a revoke? Yes, it becomes a revoke as soon as the card may no longer be withdrawn under L45D [and under no other Law either]. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I have not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles up to ten weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 16:34:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:07:04 +1000 (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 NAA07272 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:06:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12W9YU-0009bu-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 03:05:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 22:50:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U 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. These rulings are not legal in the EBU, where they are referred to as Reveley rulings. However, I am not sure that that part of the rest of the world that uses L12C3 agrees. Certainly my experience at Lille, the case at Albuquerque, and various discussions suggest otherwise. Max Bavin has suggested to me that they are considered legal at WBF level. To say they are not legal is not correct, I fear. I think the wording of L2C3 permits them. I believe that they should be illegal, but I think it needs either a Law change or a supplementary regulation from the SO. In effect, the EBU has the latter through promulgation from the L&EC. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I have not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles up to ten weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 16:49:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07258 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:06:10 +1000 (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 NAA07224 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:05:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12W9YH-0009bs-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 03:05:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 19:14:37 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: rant / answers please! References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk James wrote: >DWS wrote: >> If you do not ask West then you are ruling without the full facts and >>that is unacceptable. You have to make a judgement here, and you need >>all the evidence before you do. >> >> I do not accuse people of lying. I assess all the facts and then make >>a judgement. I try to rule in such a way that everyone understands that >>I accuse no-one of lying. >I don't see the point of asking West what he intended by his call if it has no >bearing on your ruling. And you are not going to rule on the basis of West's >self-serving statement, are you? Why not? There is no rule that says you do not use self-serving statements as evidence, even if some people think there is. And why do you suggest it has no bearing on the ruling? > In the same way, as I said, we do not ask a >player "What would you have done in absence of partner's hesitation (question, >grimace, etc)?" because we make the same ruling whatever the answer would be. > >I still don't understand how you come to make your judgement, David. Maybe you >are blessed with a special gift for sifting out truths from half-truths from >downright lies, but what are the rest of us directors supposed to do? Start by getting all the evidence, and stop assuming that self-serving statements are to be ignored. Actually, if you read what people say, there seems to be an approach that you ignore self-serving statements by the Os, but give them full weight by the NOs! You will find that it is possible to make judgements when you have all the evidence - but to judge in the absence of it all [or by automatically ignoring some of it] will not get you anywhere. You seem to be assuming that you know what the players will say to you. Well, start with these assumptions: [1] Very few players tell downright lies. [2] If you assume something, you will *often* be wrong. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 17:09:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:07:41 +1000 (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 NAA07333 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:07:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12W9Yi-0009bw-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 03:05:51 +0000 Message-ID: <7+IuYHEI+u04Ewct@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 02:52:56 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L70C3 & something similar References: <38ABCC14.90CDB6AF@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article <38ABCC14.90CDB6AF@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael >>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. Certainly not. We just apply the Law. Of course it usually means small diamond - but that is what the Law says! Declarer's intent is not incontrovertible even in the UK when his intent is incontrovertible. -------- Herman De Wael wrote: >"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. >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. Don't worry, it was nothing like what John said. The declarer called for a heart, and a small heart would not have been a very sensible play. The AC finally decided that his different intention was not incontrovertible - *BUT* - there was no suggestion that it never was, just that it wasn't in this particular case. One funny thing was that a letter was produced about the case afterwards by one of declarer's team, which included the words: "We asked a hundred top-class players in London, and they said ....". we all wanted to know where they found a hundred top-class players in London!! :) -------- [After what happened on RGB when I tried an honest answer I expect to be severely criticised for this answer] Robert E. Harris wrote: >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. This is a matter of judgement. So you listen to all the available evidence, and then you make a judgement. The example that is usually quoted is where declarer says "Play anything" and dummy contains six losing small cards and an ace. It is not unreasonable to judge that his intention was to discard anything *except* the ace. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 17:16:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07270 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:06:20 +1000 (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 NAA07239 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:05:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12W9YH-0009bu-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 03:05:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 19:50:34 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Played Card? References: <38C46692.CAD59402@isdn.net.il> <38C500A7.F315A98@isdn.net.il> In-Reply-To: <38C500A7.F315A98@isdn.net.il> 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 NAA07248 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Zvi Shilon wrote: > Thanks for your input. One point I would like to clarify. Granted, > the law is clear. What weight should be given to the fact that when > the Director asked LHO to show how he had held the card, he held it > in a way that was  (accepted by the Director) not correct? > > Had he held it tilted toward declarer, it might be consistent with  > the possibility of RHO not being able to see it. But he held it > with only its back showing to all the table. Then how did declarer > see it? Had he indeed held it that way, the problem wouldn't have > arisen. > > This is what declarer is referring to with the "logic of the > situation". Really, on what else can the Director base his decision > on? the director agrees that LHO has erred in how he held the card > when asked to demonstrate. > > If this was easy, I wouldn't have submitted it. Basically, both the > Director and myself are trying to find a general rule (if one > exists) of how to approach this type of problem. For what it's > worth, declarer is a top player, known for his ethical behaviour. > LHO is an average player. > > We are not trying to prove the Director's decision was wrong; but > to get some guidelines on how to approach this type of situation. Well, you certainly should be getting declarer to demonstrate. He is the one that seems to know what happened. Let me tell you a story. In the Gold Coast I arrived at a table to find East being bitchy to North. She was telling her to name the card!!!! When I could get a word in edgeways I found that East [defending] had half-played a card and North suggested it was played. East had replaced the card and was now telling North to name the supposed card. I told East to stop asking and said I was not going to allow North to reply [and it would have been irrelevant anyway]. West told me to stop talking to his wife that way, South [dummy] said there was no problem, everyone knew the card was the C5 and East continued bitching. Great. I shut everyone up, asked East to demonstrate the action [using a played card], got North disagreeing, so I asked North to demonstrate the action. North did, and since it was clearly invisible to South, I ruled the card not played [and I ruled that the C5 was AI to West since he had got to hear of it from South]. I then suggested a modicum of better behaviour would help. The five tables around this one stopped listening and went back to playing [though several of them had comments to make to me - apparently East is not unknown!]. North spoke to the Recorder about the incident at the end of the session. The actual ruling - that East did not play the card - was actually easy! -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I have not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles up to ten weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 17:33:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07318 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:07:10 +1000 (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 NAA07284 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:06:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12W9YZ-0009bw-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 03:05:40 +0000 Message-ID: <6dXegYD2Is04Ew+a@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 23:39:34 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action References: <001601bf7329$04983300$d7307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> <200002091958.LAA26640@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200002091958.LAA26640@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >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. How about this hand: AJ76 -- xx x KT94 J92 -- -- You are in 4H, having lost three tricks. There are no trumps out. All the minor cards are losers. To make the contract you have to guess the spade suit. You have an inferential count, but there is unlikely to be a squeeze. Before you commit yourself to the spade guess, surely you will cash a trump to see if it helps your count. So you play ..... You only need to consider how someone plays J92 opposite -- when they are good, not when the whole hand is good. ---------- Steve Willner wrote: >> 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). I don't think it needs to be common. Does it happen? >2. How declarers play when they play a hand out is not relevant for >judging irrational vs. normal lines. Why not? We are judging "normal" play. Why should not declarer's normal play be relevant to what is normal? >3. Nothing I see suggests any difference based on whether the suit is >in dummy or declarer's hand. Nor me. ---------- Steve Willner wrote: >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? Yes. Bridge is not played the same way throughout the world, and until it is [which will be a very sad day] there will be differences. Some of those differences may affect the way Laws are applied. This is a general answer, not referring to the specific example. ---------- Adam Beneschan wrote: >What I'm saying is that: (1) someone who makes a mistake >shouldn't complain about having to pay for the mistake; Wouldn't the game be pleasant if this happened? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I have not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles up to ten weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 17:51:20 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:07:10 +1000 (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 NAA07287 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:06:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12W9YZ-0009bs-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 03:05:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 01:03:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action References: <3.0.6.32.20000210143833.007c7100@eiu.edu> <200002110017.QAA20226@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.20000210212551.007aa100@eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000210212551.007aa100@eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: >At 04:17 PM 2/10/00 PST, Adam Beneschan wrote: >>Grant Sterling wrote: >>> 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. I favour the principle of letting oppos have a trick when declarer holds J92 and they have a 6. However, there are three provisos. First, I approve of a regulation that says you assume top-down. I am merely arguing what the rules are currently in the absence of such a regulation. Second, I think that among the inexperienced players, they do always play top-down, so I would not give their oppos a trick [sorry, Pam!]. Third, this comment of Grant's is the only other argument I have seen which goes any way to convincing me that I may be wrong. Perhaps it is irrational to play the 2, even though I know people who do it. --------- Herman wrote: > If we want to encourage > claiming (and discourage 3 boards in 32 minutes) we want to ALWAYS allow > this claim. This reminds me of ACBL Club Directors who [I have been told] do not adjust because the players they adjust against will be pi^H^Hfed up. What about their oppos? Of course a declarer who is told he is losing a trick in these sort of circumstances may be unhappy. But if his oppo thinks he should get a trick [and the TD will not be called otherwise] that oppo will be unhappy if you rule otherwise. Let us try to get claims right, and not worry about ruling one way just to keep one side happy. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 18:01:04 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07273 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:06:32 +1000 (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 NAA07259 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:05:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12W9YP-0009bt-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 03:05:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 22:12:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: PPs References: <016901bf6ac0$01e652c0$16991e18@san.rr.com> <001901bf6ac9$f31b8120$3b2f63c3@davidburn> <01b001bf6b18$1b2d3d40$16991e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <01b001bf6b18$1b2d3d40$16991e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >Thus began the use of PPs, in existence at least since the early >1930s, for disciplinary purposes. One wonders why the name was >changed (corrected?) from Disciplinary Penalties to Procedural >Penalties in the1975 version of the Laws. Anyone know? Perhaps it >is time to undo that change, and to add an item 9. to L90B in >order to shut me up: I cannot believe it would be that easy! >9. Insufficiently Penalized Infractions > Infractions for which the prescribed penalty is deemed to be >insufficient punishment > >And then delete the last sentence in The Scope of the Laws: > >The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for >irregularities, but for redress of damage. Actually, I cannot see why this is necessary, unless you are one of the people [there are some, but I would be surprised at you] who ignore the word "primarily". ----------- ton kooijman wrote: >Interesting issue about L12B; among more Marvin French wrote: > >>The English language is pretty tricky at times. Let me give an example: >> >>I decide that I am going to drive 100 mph along a busy freeway. What is the >>worst result that is likely? Let's say the probabilities are: >> >>(1) 10% that I get killed >>(2) 20% that I total my car, am badly injured, but survive >>(3) 45% that I damage my car, with little or no injury to myself >>(4) 25% that nothing bad happens. >> >>So which is the worst result that is likely? Most people familiar with the >>English language would say (1). > >Good example of the problems arising when interpreting a language. In the >Netherlands we understand 'most favorable result that was likely' as not to >include (1) and (2) and I am surprised that Marvin writes that for English >people it does include (1). We would choose (1) when 'most unfavorable at >all probable' is the criterion'. > >Do English people support Marvin's view? Not me. (2) might be likely - see below - but not (1). Of course, I would treat (2) as likely because I believe the Willner adding method is fair - and (1) + (2) is certainly likely. >The ACBL LC would say that (1) is too >>improbable, and choose (2). It is not the most likely of the unfavorable >>results, but it is the most unfavorable result that was likely. >Is 20% 'likely'? I think in England we tend to think 20% is about the borderline. Of course, we rarely need to worry, because discussions of what constitute a "likely result" usually do not matter so long as a likely result is always an LA. In other words, if the probability needed to be an LA is greater than required to be likely it is not easy to think of a situation where it matters. "At all probable" is something we need a standard for. We have not really laid anything down, though I would have thought about 8% would be in line with our thinking. I believe the better TDs in England are trying to move away from percentages somewhat. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I have not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles up to ten weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 18:10:56 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:06:21 +1000 (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 NAA07226 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:05:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12W9YH-0009bw-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 03:05:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 20:16:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Subject matter for BLML (Was: What's the Contract?) References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laval wrote: > Thx David and John for making this clear. > > I confess I was the guy who wrote to David some months ago > saying I was no more confortable on the List and thought to > leave. I had the impression that it was more and more reserved > to "experts" discussing the Law text itself and not its applications > in real TD life. I felt as if it was becoming risky for "ordinary" > members to say something, and even more if you do not perfectly > master English language. > > As you both, I think BLML must remain an open place to discuss > all aspects of bridge Laws and where all members feel free to ask > questions and give their opinion, no matter who they are. > It is the normal definition of that kind of "non modarated lists" > on the Internet, and it is how it works on many other lists I > use for years in my professionnal life. Despite the different > levels of members I think everybody learn. We could have two > different lists: one for "lawyers" and the other for "ordinary > rulings", but I do think we would all lose. > > But some rules should be usefull to make things easier. > May be we should have some conventions (or treatments..) > on the subject line to help selecting messages. By example, > specific queries about a ruling could begin by "CR" (Current > Ruling) or something else (CR- What is the contract?). May > be we can ask David to propose such "subject line conventions". While I am a great user of abbreviations I have actually been thinking that this is the wrong place. When people come to a list like this and see LA in the text they may work it out, but if they say CR in a subject line I think it would just put people off. I have been thinking for some time about this. I think we should assume that if anyone asks a question that is not too clever they would know it, and perhaps they could always start the subject with Ruling: or [perhaps better] Ruling please: followed by something to give an idea of the problem. I then suggest that if people feel there are complicated ramifications that they might think of starting a new thread, accepting that threads marked Ruling: or Ruling please: are not the place for complex arguments. Suppose we have a thread >> Ruling please: What about a sixth card played to a trick? then if someone wants to produce complicated arguments and ramifications then >> What about a sixth card played to a trick? would be good. Actually, on a similar subject, I do think that we would do well to separate argument about the Laws as they are from the Laws as we wish they were. So if there is a thread on how we interpret an LA in South America I suggest that a new thread would be suitable for how to change the law on LAs even though it comes from that thread. I know this will take a bit of work but I think we need to take a bit of effort to make BLML comprehensible. Suppose we have a thread >> LA in S America then if someone wants to look at the possibilities of Law changes then perhaps a thread >> Change: LA in S America would be good. The prime aim of this is to split the threads into simple question threads [Ruling: or Ruling please:], threads about possible/actual/intended/.. Law changes [Change:] and other threads. Ok, it will take a bit of effort, but I feel we need a bit of effort here. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 18:13:22 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07356 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:07:31 +1000 (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 NAA07316 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:06:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12W9Yk-0009bs-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 03:05:53 +0000 Message-ID: <4O1uEIE$+u04Ewem@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 02:53:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Was it a psych? References: <4.3.0.20000301091326.00ad7890@rbdc.rbdc.com> <001301bf8398$8e13e780$5feac997@jayapfelbaum> In-Reply-To: <001301bf8398$8e13e780$5feac997@jayapfelbaum> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jay Apfelbaum wrote: >According to the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, 1997 edition, the >definition of a psychic call is: > >"A deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length." > >My opinion is that the proper test to determine whether a bid is a psych is >objective in nature. That is, it does not matter whether the individual >ACTUALLY BELIEVED he or she was making a deliberate and gross misstatement >of honor strength or suit length. It only matters whether the bid, >deliberately made, IS a gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length. No, that is a tangle of the wording. A deliberate misstatement is one that was intended. A psyche is defined as deliberate, so it must be intended. Otherwise it is a Misbid. >My reason for this approach is to eliminate the argument that a person >forgot their convention. In most situations, this distinction will make no >difference. A psych is permitted under the law. However, certain psychs are >outlawed in ACBL (2C strong and articifical, for example). > >Should there be a difference between a player who "forgets" he or she was >playing 2C strong and articificial (thinking it was natural and limited, >with 1C strong and artificial), and a player who actually knew that 2C was >strong and artificial and chose that call anyway? That is easy. If the ACBL intended them to be treated the same, then they should outlaw both a psyche and a misbid of 2C! There is no need to alter the meaning of psyche from the Laws to cover something like this. >If we want to say that there should be a difference, then we should be >willing to accept the consequences of that choice. Specifically, we must now >decide whether to believe a player who tells about their mental state when >he or she bid 2C (e.g., they forgot the bid). That is for the ACBL to decide. >Using an objective test, we need only consider whether the 2C bid was >deliberately chosen. > >Another point to consider. Will it made any difference during the bidding >and play for the innocent and injured opponents whether the 2C bidder forgot >their convention? I submit that whether the 2C bidder forgot their >convention or had actual knowledge of their agreement will make no >difference in the bidding or play. And if that is true, then why should the >subjective state of mind for the 2C bidder make any difference in the >ultimate adjustment (assuming one is needed)? Again, that is for the ACBL to consider. --------- Steve Willner wrote: >But won't the result be the _same_ whether the bid was a simple mistake >or a deliberate psych? Why should there be any difference? *I* don't know. This was concerned with an ACBL regulation that you are not allowed to psyche a 2C opening. They had a perfect right to say that you are not allowed to psyche or misbid a 2C opening. It is the ACBL that decided to treat these differently, and if they don't want to then they can change their regulation: it is their choice. --------- Walt Flory wrote: > >I was recently told by ACBL Tournament directors that a psych was defined >as a "gross distortion" Approximately true. > and that the consensus was that a bid which showed >both minor suits on a hand with two diamonds and four clubs was not >considered to be a gross distortion. Don't believe all you hear! This is a gross misstatement of suit length. The ACBL have given guidance that gross means either a king different in honour strength or two cards different in suit length. So even under this guidance it certainly is a gross misstatement. There are several situations where one card different is clearly a gross misstatement, even though there are some that aren't. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I have not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles up to ten weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 18:24:27 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:06:16 +1000 (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 NAA07227 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:05:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12W9YH-0009bt-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 03:05:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 19:32:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L13 References: <002001bf8293$39c553e0$0100a8c0@ihug.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <002001bf8293$39c553e0$0100a8c0@ihug.co.nz> 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 NAA07236 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Julie Atkinson wrote: > 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 As a general rule, there is no excuse for giving more than 100% on a board unless there was an outside influence. If one side has 14-12 and the other 13-13 then you give A-/A+, the side with 14-12 is fully at fault. I know that the preceding table should have put the cards back right, but the Law is worded deliberately to make the main offence the recipients. A warning for the previous table would be appropriate [unless they are regular offenders when issue a PP]. If one side has 14-13 and the other 12-13, both sides are partly at fault and A/A is suitable. > 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.   They are non-offenders and have elected to follow an option given them by Law: you cannot penalise them for following the Law!!!! > 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. Uh oh! ------- Anne Jones wrote: > 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% = 50%   > to E/W and 50%-10% = 40% to N/S. Both sides are equally at fault: surely they must receive the same score? Of course North has seen a card and East has not but they are both required to count their cards. ------- Steve Willner wrote: >I have another question, though. Suppose EW had 13 cards all along, >while North had 12 and South 14. South has looked at his cards, after >which one card is transferred to North. How are EW to know whether >they wish to play the board? Should the TD tell them which card has >been transferred? EW may have a different opinion, depending on >whether the card is an ace or a deuce. If the card is >"inconsequential," maybe it can't hurt for EW to know what it is. They do know that the TD has deemed it inconsequential. Anyway, I am sure that the TD has no right to increase the UI however inconsequential. -------- Martin Sinot wrote: >That's why I never give them the choice of playing the board after >correction. Every card seen by the wrong person may or may not be >important, but usually you don't find out until afterwards. Cards >seen by the wrong person are simply always important to me. If Susie Kumquat is playing Mrs Guggenheim at the Yarra Valley bridge Club, the DA is inconsequential because they won't remember it beyond the second call of the auction. I really think you should review "never". Players pay entry fees to play bridge, not to get averages, and especially at low levels it is better to let them play it usually. At higher levels the reverse probably applies. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I have not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles up to ten weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 18:40:05 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:07:18 +1000 (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 NAA07285 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:06:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12W9YQ-0009bv-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 03:05:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 22:25:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) References: <3896DA7F.4E239668@village.uunet.be> <03ff01bf6ce5$8c9eef40$16991e18@san.rr.com> <000d01bf6cf4$a1924140$178201d5@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <000d01bf6cf4$a1924140$178201d5@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >Marvin wrote: >> 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. I would be happy to look at what the field has done if we know that they have used the same tools. But we don't, do we? Suppose that we have a situation where the bidding has gone 1D 3C x P P P 3C is described as the majors, and duly makes when it is found to contain C & H. MI is present, so what do we adjust to? If you look at the traveller you will find that the room with a couple of exceptions has played in 3NT making. So, do you adjust to 3NT making? Let us say that this is a top tourney with a recorder at each table. You check the records, and the auction at *every* table that played 3NT is 1NT P 2NT P 3NT P P P How does this affect your judgement? Well, it is obviously irrelevant, and I cannot believe you would adjust to 3NT just because everyone else has played there. Now, how does this translate to the ordinary tourney? You can look at the traveller, but you have *no idea* what the bidding was at the other tables. It is not a fair method of making judgements. ---------- David Burn wrote: >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. I had thought that we tended to lean towards the NOs, giving them some benefit of the doubt. Consider the 50% of people bidding slam problem. L12C2 gives the NOs 980 and the Os -980. Grattan gives the NOs 50% of 980, 50% of 480 and the Os 50% of -980, 50% of -480, and a PP. David B gives the NOs 50% of 980, 50% of 480 and the Os -980. I give the NOs 60% of 980, 40% of 480 and the Os 40% of -980, 60% of -480. Herman give the NOs 60% of 980, 40% of 480 and the Os 30% of -980, 70% of -480. Interesting!! -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I have not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles up to ten weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 18:50:56 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:07:27 +1000 (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 NAA07304 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:06:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12W9Yd-0009bu-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 03:05:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 01:32:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: possible L25 controversy References: <20000223152306.68427.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000223152306.68427.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: >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. I have read this a few times, and cannot see what you are driving at. L25 does not apply: it says so in uncompromising terms: "When the original bid was insufficient, apply Law 27" It does not say anything about whether the correction was legal or illegal: L25B just does not apply. On to L27. "If an insufficient bid made in rotation is not accepted, it must be corrected by the substitution of either a sufficient bid or a pass." Well, if it must, it must, so the 2C bid [as well as the 1C bid] are cancelled. That seems clear enough. Suppose the bid is corrected to the lowest in the same denomination [assuming both non-conventional] there is no penalty, but: "If the Director judges that the insufficient bid conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side, he shall assign an adjusted score." That presumably applies to the 1C bid. What about the 2C bid? Under L16C2 it is UI. OK, we all do UI rulings! While all this seems simple enough, i don't understand why you suggest >that a player has a right to change a call to an >illegal call and escape without penalty when he suffers the same penalty as he would have if he had never corrected to 2C, and he has UI restrictions as well. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I have not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles up to ten weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 19:06:51 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:06:26 +1000 (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 NAA07243 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:05:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12W9YH-0009bv-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 03:05:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 19:58:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Played Card? References: <38C46692.CAD59402@isdn.net.il> In-Reply-To: <38C46692.CAD59402@isdn.net.il> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Zvi Shilon wrote: >Here is a situation that caused much discussion and confusion at the >Jerusalem branch of the Israeli Bridge Federation: Re: Law 45c1 > >Declarer leads a trump (heart) and LHO detaches the spade 7 so that >declarer, who is looking straight ahead >at dummy's cards, clearly sees the fully exposed card with his >peripheral vision. LHO replaces the card and discards a diamond. Since >the critical card in the hand is the spade jack, in many cases, the >discard of a spade would greatly aid declarer. > >The director is called and has to deal with the following: >Declarer repeats the above and adds that surely RHO could have seen the >spade 7. He writes on a piece of paper spade 7 and gives it to the >director. LHO states that he detached the card, and demonstrates how he >held it. Declarer can only see the back of the card > >Everybody accepts that declarer was not trying to see LHO's cards. >Although the Director accepts that LHO didn't hold the card the way he >demonstrated, he rules that the diamond is LHO's played card, because >the fact that declarer saw the card does not necessarily mean that RHO >could see it. No appeal is necessary, because when declarer plays the >spade king, RHO shows out and the jack is picked up. > >Declarer and Director discuss the ruling at length after the session. >Declarer's point is that LHO was obviously confused (no suggestion of >lying was ever suggested or thought), and since his explanation was >virtually impossible (accepted by Director as declarer did know the >card), declarer should get the benefit of the doubt. It seems to >declarer that this is the crux of the matter. Director is still not >sure, the reason for this inquiry. > >It seems obvious to declarer that the logic of the situation says that >the spade 7 is a played card, but not to the Director. It is fairly easy to hold a card so that your LHO and your RHO can see it but it is invisible to partner. From the description here it sounds to me as though the card was not played. Players often think that if declarer or dummy [or both] can see it then that means something. It does not. Did the Director get declarer to repeat the action [using one of the played cards]? I think you might find it was never visible to partner. No, I do not mean the defender!!!!!! See http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/plydcd.htm ---------- Adam Beneschan wrote: >Zvi Shilon wrote: > >> Thanks for your input. One point I would like to clarify. Granted, the law >> is clear. What weight should be given to the fact that when the Director >> asked LHO to show how he had held the card, he held it in a way that was >> (accepted by the Director) not correct? > >IMHO, not much. All this proves is that LHO may not have been fully >aware of how he held the card. It doesn't prove that LHO is a liar, >or that he's deliberately trying to pull the wool over the director's >eyes. > >It's clear that when LHO demonstrated how he held the card, he did so >incorrectly. Fine. But to me, that's still not sufficient evidence >that LHO held the card so that RHO could see it. The "logic of the >situation" that declarer is referring to really isn't logical. >> This is what declarer is referring to with the "logic of the situation". >> Really, on what else can the Director base his decision on? >Right, there's nothing else to base the decision on. But the only >evidence available to base the decision on is very flimsy. You can't >pretend that flimsy evidence is solid evidence just because there's no >other evidence available. Now hang on. You speak to all the players, you get them to demonstrate the action, and *then* you judge. >Basically, there's nothing good (from your account) to base the >decision on. Perhaps the director did have a better idea of what went >on than we can get by reading BLML. But in the absence of such an >idea, I'd go with the "innocent until proven guilty" principle and >rule the card was not played. Absolutely no way! You cannot use that in a civil case in American Law - and that is what rulings are. TDs *have* to judge: it is part of the job. No cop-outs, please. >You didn't mention whether the Director asked the other two players at >the table what they saw. Their comments may be self-serving, but >many, if not most, players have enough integrity that they will tell >the truth about what they saw (assuming they were paying attention). Look, nearly all comments made by players are self-serving. So what? You assess the evidence, you judge, you rule. -------- Zvi Shilon wrote: >Thanks, Adam. I agree that if you don't put any weight on how LHO held the card, >then "innocent until proven guilty" wins out. > >Where I have a problem with this is I believe it is open to tremendous abuse. >For example, LHO placed the spade 7 face up on the table; changed it to a >diamond >and both opponents say there was never any spade 7. This is outright cheating, >which I have never seen, but I have had opponents hesitate 7-12 seconds and both >opponents say there was no (zero) hesitation (and sometimes they believed it). >That is why I am trying to establish some guidelines other than "innocent until >proven guilty". But if that's the best we have, so be it. it is *not* acceptable. You have to decide between two people. There is no innocent side, no proving, no guilty. This is not the way that you rule. >Evidence such as LHO's mistaken demonstration or the fact that declarer knew the >card, I suppose are easier to evaluate when the Director is at the table. >Dummy said she wasn't paying attention, and RHO, a poor player, said she didn't >see the card but also wasn't paying attention. The TD gets all the evidence and then he rules. He has to make a decision - and he should not be biased towards either side. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am going through old BLML threads that I have not yet read. So some of these replies are to articles up to ten weeks old. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 18 19:19:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA08066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 19:19:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp.callnet0800.com (smtp.callnet0800.com [212.67.128.145]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA08061 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 19:19:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from da128d206.dialup.callnetuk.com [212.67.128.206] by smtp.callnet0800.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id AA211A9E01FE; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 09:19:29 +0000 From: Pam Hadfield To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 09:19:02 +0000 Reply-To: pam@hadpaddock.com Message-ID: References: <3.0.6.32.20000210143833.007c7100@eiu.edu> <200002110017.QAA20226@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.20000210212551.007aa100@eiu.edu> 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 TAA08062 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 01:03:54 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > > Second, I think that among the inexperienced players, they do always >play top-down, so I would not give their oppos a trick [sorry, Pam!]. Why apologise? If that's what you believe the laws say then that is how you MUST rule. I just don't like laws that mean the director has to be an esper (or an arrogant pig) to be 100% *certain* of getting it right. I have seen the odd inexperienced player take great delight in taking tricks with low cards (and Bridge Baron does it all the time :) ) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 19 01:11:48 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA08800 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 01:11:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe9.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.113]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA08795 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 01:11:38 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 50543 invoked by uid 65534); 18 Mar 2000 15:10:59 -0000 Message-ID: <20000318151059.50542.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.13.62] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <20000223152306.68427.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: possible L25 controversy Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 08:40:58 -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 The law requires the illegal call to be accepted or cancelled [legally corrected], no dissent there. But, I look at what has happened. A call was corrected to 3C, the lowest sufficient bid which was incontrovertibly not conventional of the same denomination. Per 27B1a, there is no penalty AND 16C2 does not apply. L27B1 does not seem to do a good job with the situation where the player infracts 27B along the way. According to law because the condition of 27B1a has been met by 3C [from 2C] 16C2 does not apply. I seem to see a case, however, that L16C2 applies to 1C but not 2C. And L27B1b applies to 2C and not 1C- why? Because 1C was not corrected to the lowest sufficient bid which was incontrovertibly not conventional of the same denomination, but was CHANGED to an illegal call. But it seems logical that L16C2 ought to apply in all cases instead of some cases to the side at fault. I see no valid reasoning that for a player who retracted an illegal call that his partner is entitled to draw inferences from the retracted call. And the point I was out to make was that an illegal correction is kindred to a change of meaning. Why? because a player who is required to do one thing and does another is communicating that they were not inclined to do what was required. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 7:32 PM Subject: Re: possible L25 controversy > Roger Pewick wrote: > > >Here is an RGB thread that Marvin replied to that might provide some fodder: > > > >Hirsch Davis" wrote in message > > > > 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. > > I have read this a few times, and cannot see what you are driving at. > > L25 does not apply: it says so in uncompromising terms: Undoubtedly. An [illegal] call was changed to an [illlegal] call. So, applying the footnote of 25 sends us to 27. > "When the original bid was insufficient, apply Law 27" > > It does not say anything about whether the correction was legal or > illegal: L25B just does not apply. On to L27. > > "If an insufficient bid made in rotation is not accepted, it must be > corrected by the substitution of either a sufficient bid or a pass." > > Well, if it must, it must, so the 2C bid [as well as the 1C bid] are > cancelled. That seems clear enough. > > Suppose the bid is corrected to the lowest in the same denomination > [assuming both non-conventional] there is no penalty, but: > > "If the Director judges that the insufficient bid conveyed such > information as to damage the non-offending side, he shall assign an > adjusted score." > > That presumably applies to the 1C bid. What about the 2C bid? > > Under L16C2 it is UI. OK, we all do UI rulings! > > While all this seems simple enough, i don't understand why you suggest > >that a player has a right to change a call to an > >illegal call and escape without penalty > when he suffers the same penalty as he would have if he had never > corrected to 2C, and he has UI restrictions as well. It is not I who suggests there is no penalty, but the law. I was suggesting it was incongruous. The player has infracted L27B and the Law says there is no penalty for this infraction when certain things are not done and certain things are done. There was no penalty for either case. THere are only UI restrictions and possible adjusted scores. > > -- > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 19 02:30:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA09158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 02:30:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from tisch.mail.mindspring.net (tisch.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.157]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA09153 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 02:30:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-33qtgn3.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.194.227]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA28632 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 11:30:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000318164205.00708540@mindspring.com> X-Sender: htcs@mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 08:42:05 -0800 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Henry Sun Subject: Re: Mess caused by Kibitzer Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:12 PM 3/17/00 +0000, you wrote: > There is no question of an adjusted score here. The number of tricks >was agreed at the time - no problem - and the score entered correctly. >Subsequently a disagreement arose as to the number of tricks won and it >was the responsibility of the TD and the AC to determine how many tricks >were won. If they determined that seven tricks were won then the score >*is* -50. It does not matter that the players agreed a different score. > david- is this a consequence of the famous german-canadian scoring error from the 1990 rosenblum cup? that case was different because the attention to the scoring error did not occur during the session but only after the match was over, but if my memory serves me correctly the facts of the case were (1) that a scoring error was made, (2) that the scoring error wasn't 'manifestly incorrect,' and (3) that therefore the incorrect score stood. henry sun From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 19 02:36:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA09225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 02:36:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA09216 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 02:36:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12WMDH-0006Gn-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 16:36:37 +0000 Message-ID: <9$u$4yEQ1v04Ewt0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 03:51:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L35A: inadmissible double condoned References: <0k2N+UBxll04EwNd@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <200003172149.NAA14967@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200003172149.NAA14967@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > >> P P Dbl P >> >> According to L35A, the double and subsequent pass are cancelled, and >> the bidding proceeds as though there was no irregularity. The new >> auction: >> >> P P 1C 2S >> >> Are the original double and pass authorised to their partner? For >> example, the replacement 2S is a Strong Jump Overcall. May the partner >> of the 1C opener infer partner does not have a long club suit? > >My opinion: > >I believe L16C applies: information from withdrawn calls is UI to the >offending side, AI to the non-offending side. I don't think L16C >describes a "penalty"; therefore, it is not superseded by the phrase >in L35 that "there is no penalty for the inadmissible call". Usually, >the Laws state explicitly which restrictions are considered penalties >(see L36, for example). The side that made the legal double is an >offending side; I don't think condoning the call is an "offense" that >makes the other side an offending side (note that L35 refers to "the >offender" as if there is still only one offender after an inadmissible >call is condoned). Therefore, the double and pass are UI to the >doubler's partner, but AI to the passer's partner. Oh, goody. Next time my RHO doubles inadmissibly, I shall make an extra bid/pass before pointing it out, which means that *I* get two calls for the price of one, but he does not! Do you see what I mean? With a long spade suit but a weak hand I can pass over the double. now, when it is corrected I can jump in spades and partner will know I am weak. Alternatively I can bid 1S over the double, and now 2S is strong. Can this be right? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 19 02:36:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA09226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 02:36:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA09215 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 02:36:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12WMDH-0006Gm-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 16:36:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 03:43:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Premature play by a defender References: <20000318014839.98900.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000318014839.98900.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: >>From: David Stevenson >>Laval wrote: [s] >> I do not understand this. If you claim at T12 you are referring to >>what will happen at TR12 and T13: T13 is not the one in progress so a >>T12 claim is perfectly valid. > TrickS, plural, with an s. For the pedantic, claims can only occur up >to and including trick 11. This is not the case in practice. Hah! No, I don't think so, Todd. Few people would say "trick or tricks" in such a position. I have just played snooker in a club. There was a rule that we were not allowed to bring women into the club. Do you really think I would have got away with a single woman? >> >So I would rule "Premature play by a defender" (Law 57) >> >and allow declarer to (57A3) "forbid offender's partner to play >> >a card of an other suit" ie forbid a D discard if he is awaken.... >> On the other hand, L57 says: "When a defender leads to the next trick >>before his partner has played to the current trick, or plays out of turn >>before his partner has played, .....". Since neither of these happened, >>I cannot see how L57 applies. > Depends on whether or not you consider a card placed face up on the >table to be a lead or play of the card rather than exposure. No, there have been several other related cases. A lead does seem to be a deliberate attempt to play the first card to a trick. L57 only appears to apply to plays on the current trick. >> This seems a simple case of UI. If it can be demonstrated that East >>has no LA to keeping the correct card we let him: otherwise we adjust to >>him making the wrong discard. A small reminder to West would not go >>amiss if we do not adjust. [s] > I've stated before that I think this sort of claim should be >discouraged. Logical alternatives or not, east is not incapable of a memory >lapse while west is capable of knowing better. I really don't think that this sounds like a deliberate claim as against a piece of sheer stupidity. Still, as I said, a small reminder to West would not go amiss. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 19 03:10:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA09300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 03:10:45 +1000 (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 DAA09293 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 03:10:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-58-211-246.s246.tnt1.lnhdc.md.dialup.rcn.com (HELO hdavis) (208.58.211.246) by smtp.mail.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Mar 2000 09:10:27 -0800 X-Apparently-From: Message-ID: <009101bf90fc$e0d6e000$f6d33ad0@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <00b701bf8f11$848b4940$5c48063e@davidburn> Subject: Re: Bum claim Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 12:10:29 -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, March 16, 2000 11:52 AM Subject: Re: Bum claim > David Burn wrote: > > > >How can we eliminate an element of subjective judgement from a claim? > >Only by requiring the claimer to make a comprehensive statement of the > >order in which he proposes to play his cards, the tricks he will win, > >and the tricks (if any) he will lose. Once he has done that, the Law > >(not the director) should take over; if the player's claim is found > >defective in any way, then he should lose the maximum number of tricks > >consistent with any legal play of the remaining cards. I say again: > >this would speed up the game appreciably, and would mean that there > >was never again such a thing as a contested claim. Moreover, it would > >lead to a consistent application of the rules from here to the > >nor'nor'west of Nome, something that can by no means be said of the > >present approach. > > I am not so worried about what the Law should be: my offerings on this > thread have been about what the Law is. > > But I feel I must take issue with you on one point: if you really make > people claim in the way you state then play will be considerably slowed, > not speeded. First, claims will be slower, and second, they will be > fewer. > In my experience, the real loss of time occurs in contested claims. One contested claim can eliminate all of the time saved by several good ones. Even if claims are slower and fewer, we get the time back in the reduction of arguments. Further, David Burn's proposition would go far to eliminating the subjective aspect of adjudicating claims (and the arguments and appeals so generated). A defective statement of claim is adjudicating by awarding the maximum number of tricks available by legal play to the NOS (forgive my poor paraphrasing of the concept). Simple and to the point, easily understood, and easily enforced. Completely out of character for bridge law, of course, but I can dream... Hirsch __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 19 05:49:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA09641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 05:49:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from tisch.mail.mindspring.net (tisch.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.157]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA09636 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 05:49:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivegnq.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.250]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA31017 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 14:49:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000318144700.0129531c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 14:47:00 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? In-Reply-To: References: <005a01bf8eb8$3e650e00$0a84d9ce@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:35 PM 3/17/2000 -0500, David G wrote: >As another case, suppose that E-W bid 4S for +420 after making a bid >suggested by UI, and the TD/AC rules that the contract should be adjusted >to 4H by South. 4H can be made on a criss-cross squeeze. Should the TD/AC >rule that it is "likely" that an expert would find the criss-cross and >award +620, but "not likely" that a weaker player would find it and award >-100? Obviously the specific answer depends on more detail but the general principle seems correct. In adjusting the score, we are protecting the reasonable equity of the NOS, and the language of L12C2 seems appropriate to that task. An expert is obviously more likely than a novice to find a difficult line of play; it is one of the things that makes him an expert. Thus he has a greater equity to protect when success depends on an especially tricky line. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 19 10:39:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA10392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 10:39:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.70]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA10387 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 10:39:36 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id d.86.19216ff (4380); Sat, 18 Mar 2000 19:38:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <86.19216ff.26057b9c@aol.com> Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 19:38:52 EST Subject: Re: Mess caused by Kibitzer To: htcs@mindspring.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 67 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 3/18/00 11:34:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, htcs@mindspring.com writes: > > There is no question of an adjusted score here. The number of tricks > >was agreed at the time - no problem - and the score entered correctly. > >Subsequently a disagreement arose as to the number of tricks won and it > >was the responsibility of the TD and the AC to determine how many tricks > >were won. If they determined that seven tricks were won then the score > >*is* -50. It does not matter that the players agreed a different score. > > > > david- > > is this a consequence of the famous german-canadian scoring error from > the 1990 rosenblum cup? that case was different because the attention > to the scoring error did not occur during the session but only after > the match was over, but if my memory serves me correctly the facts > of the case were (1) that a scoring error was made, (2) that the > scoring error wasn't 'manifestly incorrect,' and (3) that therefore > the incorrect score stood. > > henry sun > Hey, an easy one. You got it exactly correct , sir, if you add that attention was first draw to the problem at 08:30 AM th following day, far beyond any Laws anticipated provisions to change the result. Would you have ruled any differently? Did the Tournament Committee rule correctly, after the players were told by me that an AC, overruling me would not be able to do so according to the Laws, thereby saving them the time of going that route, and having them directly address the Tournament Committee at 30 minutes before game time for the next match? Interesting that these old things keep coming up. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 19 10:52:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA10464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 10:52:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA10448 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 10:52:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12WTwg-000PmE-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 00:51:57 +0000 Message-ID: <+370ZRAb7704Ewth@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 17:37:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Mess caused by Kibitzer References: <1.5.4.32.20000318164205.00708540@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.20000318164205.00708540@mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henry Sun wrote: >At 04:12 PM 3/17/00 +0000, you wrote: >> There is no question of an adjusted score here. The number of tricks >>was agreed at the time - no problem - and the score entered correctly. >>Subsequently a disagreement arose as to the number of tricks won and it >>was the responsibility of the TD and the AC to determine how many tricks >>were won. If they determined that seven tricks were won then the score >>*is* -50. It does not matter that the players agreed a different score. >> > >david- This is my interpretatio of the Law, not a memory thing. >is this a consequence of the famous german-canadian scoring error from >the 1990 rosenblum cup? that case was different because the attention >to the scoring error did not occur during the session but only after >the match was over, but if my memory serves me correctly the facts >of the case were (1) that a scoring error was made, (2) that the >scoring error wasn't 'manifestly incorrect,' and (3) that therefore >the incorrect score stood. I never heard the details of this so could not comment about it. But my current interpretation is nothing to do with it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 19 10:52:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA10462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 10:52:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA10447 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 10:52:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12WTwg-000HzW-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 00:51:57 +0000 Message-ID: <5XB1xXAx9704EwuA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 17:40:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action References: <3.0.6.32.20000210143833.007c7100@eiu.edu> <200002110017.QAA20226@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.20000210212551.007aa100@eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Pam Hadfield wrote: >On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 01:03:54 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >> >> Second, I think that among the inexperienced players, they do always >>play top-down, so I would not give their oppos a trick [sorry, Pam!]. > >Why apologise? If that's what you believe the laws say then that is how >you MUST rule. I just don't like laws that mean the director has to be an >esper (or an arrogant pig) to be 100% *certain* of getting it right. I >have seen the odd inexperienced player take great delight in taking >tricks with low cards (and Bridge Baron does it all the time :) ) I apologise because I know you do not like rulings which are different for different classes of player. No competent Director would ever be stupid enough to think he is right 100% of the time, but I don't see the relevance. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 19 10:52:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA10463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 10:52:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA10449 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 10:52:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12WTwg-000HzX-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 00:51:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 17:43:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: possible L25 controversy References: <20000223152306.68427.qmail@hotmail.com> <20000318151059.50542.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000318151059.50542.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: >The law requires the illegal call to be accepted or cancelled [legally >corrected], no dissent there. > >But, I look at what has happened. A call was corrected to 3C, the lowest >sufficient bid which was incontrovertibly not conventional of the same >denomination. Per 27B1a, there is no penalty AND 16C2 does not apply. >L27B1 does not seem to do a good job with the situation where the player >infracts 27B along the way. According to law because the condition of 27B1a >has been met by 3C [from 2C] 16C2 does not apply. It was met by 3C *from* 1C. L16C2 applies to 2C. >I seem to see a case, however, that L16C2 applies to 1C but not 2C. And >L27B1b applies to 2C and not 1C- why? Because 1C was not corrected to the >lowest sufficient bid which was incontrovertibly not conventional of the >same denomination, but was CHANGED to an illegal call. That gets cancelled, and 1C "must be" changes to a sufficient bid [or a pass], and was changed to 3C. >But it seems logical that L16C2 ought to apply in all cases instead of some >cases to the side at fault. I see no valid reasoning that for a player who >retracted an illegal call that his partner is entitled to draw inferences >from the retracted call. Back to what should be. I am not unhappy with this bit of the Law. >And the point I was out to make was that an illegal correction is kindred to >a change of meaning. Why? because a player who is required to do one thing >and does another is communicating that they were not inclined to do what was >required. Not usually: normally it is ignorance or stupidity. In this case, I'll bet 2C was a knee-jerk reaction "to make it good". -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 19 12:37:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA10753 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 12:37:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA10748 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 12:36:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-33qtjj4.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.206.100]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA27279 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 21:36:43 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000319024830.006f2500@mindspring.com> X-Sender: htcs@mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 18:48:30 -0800 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Henry Sun Subject: Re: Mess caused by Kibitzer Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:37 PM 3/18/00 +0000, you wrote: >Henry Sun wrote: >>is this a consequence of the famous german-canadian scoring error from >>the 1990 rosenblum cup? that case was different because the attention >>to the scoring error did not occur during the session but only after >>the match was over, but if my memory serves me correctly the facts >>of the case were (1) that a scoring error was made, (2) that the >>scoring error wasn't 'manifestly incorrect,' and (3) that therefore >>the incorrect score stood. > > I never heard the details of this so could not comment about it. But >my current interpretation is nothing to do with it. the facts of the matter, as far as i can determine from the literature published about the events, are as follows: in the third quarter of the germany-canada semifinal match, a scoring error was made involving hobart-kirr from canada and rohowsky-nippgen from germany. R-N took a sacrifice in 5cx, down 6 nv, which should have been scored as -1400 (new scoring) but was in fact scored as -1100, and each player indicated that the declarer took 6 tricks when in fact he only took 5. (the official handbook suggests that the tournament director may have played a role in this by admonishing the players in question to speed up because play to this point had been rather slow.) the other table result was +1430 in 6s, so the scoring error resulted in +7 to germany instead of +1; the germans eventually won the match by 3 imps. had the board been scored correctly, the canadians would have won. after the match was completed, hobart realized that the board had been mis-scored. early the next morning, before the germans were scheduled to play an american team in the final, some sort of appeal was lodged with the chief tournament director, bill schroder. (it would be interesting to hear schoder's side of the controversy.) eventually, the facts of the case were determined: the german declarer was down 6 and the board was misscored. schroder ruled that the score should stand but advised the canadians to appeal to the tournament appeals committee. five members of the committee (auken, damiani, o'orsi, kaplan, and endicott [chair]) heard the case, and after deliberation ruled that the score should stand. this decision was apparently based on the meaning of 'manifestly incorrect' and the committee decided that since the mis-scored board was not manifestly incorrect since the record of tricks taken and score were in agreement, the score could not be changed. a fairly full discussion of the controvery is available in the 1990 handbook of the world bridge championships; it was also the subject of an extended editorial in the bridge world. henry sun From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 19 14:55:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA11001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 14:55:20 +1000 (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 OAA10995 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 14:55:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-58-211-246.s246.tnt1.lnhdc.md.dialup.rcn.com (HELO hdavis) (208.58.211.246) by smtp.mail.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Mar 2000 20:54:47 -0800 X-Apparently-From: Message-ID: <009601bf915f$44fb3e20$f6d33ad0@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <20000223152306.68427.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: possible L25 controversy Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 23:54:47 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 8:32 PM Subject: Re: possible L25 controversy > Roger Pewick wrote: > > >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? > > > I have read this a few times, and cannot see what you are driving at. > > L25 does not apply: it says so in uncompromising terms: > > "When the original bid was insufficient, apply Law 27" > > It does not say anything about whether the correction was legal or > illegal: L25B just does not apply. On to L27. > > "If an insufficient bid made in rotation is not accepted, it must be > corrected by the substitution of either a sufficient bid or a pass." > > Well, if it must, it must, so the 2C bid [as well as the 1C bid] are > cancelled. That seems clear enough. > > Suppose the bid is corrected to the lowest in the same denomination > [assuming both non-conventional] there is no penalty, but: > > "If the Director judges that the insufficient bid conveyed such > information as to damage the non-offending side, he shall assign an > adjusted score." > > That presumably applies to the 1C bid. What about the 2C bid? > > Under L16C2 it is UI. OK, we all do UI rulings! > > While all this seems simple enough, i don't understand why you suggest > >that a player has a right to change a call to an > >illegal call and escape without penalty > when he suffers the same penalty as he would have if he had never > corrected to 2C, and he has UI restrictions as well. > David, Note the pass after the attempted correction. The auction was 2H-P-P-1C/2C/3C-P-? (TD). If I have understood your postings on a similar auction a little while ago, the auction is now 2H-P-P-1C-P-?, with the 2C and 3C calls being UI to partner. Under L27, the call condoned by the pass by RHO is the insufficient call. Have I remembered this incorrectly? Hirsch __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 20 00:15:31 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA12269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:15:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt11-he.global.net.uk.noc.gxn.net (cobalt11-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.171]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA12263 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:15:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from p8fs05a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.165.144] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt11-he.global.net.uk.noc.gxn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12WHTq-0001D4-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 11:33:18 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: possible L25 controversy Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 14:16:01 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf91ad$a7b526e0$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: Hirsch Davis To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sunday, March 19, 2000 5:33 AM Subject: Re: possible L25 controversy > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Stevenson" >To: >Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 8:32 PM >Subject: Re: possible L25 controversy > > >> Roger Pewick wrote: >> >> >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? >> > > >> I have read this a few times, and cannot see what you are driving >at. >> >> L25 does not apply: it says so in uncompromising terms: >> >> "When the original bid was insufficient, apply Law 27" >> >> It does not say anything about whether the correction was legal or >> illegal: L25B just does not apply. On to L27. >> >> "If an insufficient bid made in rotation is not accepted, it must be >> corrected by the substitution of either a sufficient bid or a pass." >> >> Well, if it must, it must, so the 2C bid [as well as the 1C bid] are >> cancelled. That seems clear enough. >> >> Suppose the bid is corrected to the lowest in the same denomination >> [assuming both non-conventional] there is no penalty, but: >> >> "If the Director judges that the insufficient bid conveyed such >> information as to damage the non-offending side, he shall assign an >> adjusted score." >> >> That presumably applies to the 1C bid. What about the 2C bid? >> >> Under L16C2 it is UI. OK, we all do UI rulings! >> >> While all this seems simple enough, i don't understand why you >suggest >> >that a player has a right to change a call to an >> >illegal call and escape without penalty >> when he suffers the same penalty as he would have if he had never >> corrected to 2C, and he has UI restrictions as well. >> > >David, > >Note the pass after the attempted correction. The auction was >2H-P-P-1C/2C/3C-P-? (TD). If I have understood your postings on a >similar auction a little while ago, the auction is now 2H-P-P-1C-P-?, >with the 2C and 3C calls being UI to partner. Under L27, the call >condoned by the pass by RHO is the insufficient call. Have I remembered >this incorrectly? > This was what David said. I must admit I didn't like it at the time, but on much reflection I think it does make sence. I have ruled in this way, the players accept it well. It saves the problem of conventional replacements, and the UI is easier to deal with. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 20 02:22:46 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA12454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:29:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA12447 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:29:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Wgha-000AH7-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 14:29:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 12:00:40 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: possible L25 controversy References: <20000223152306.68427.qmail@hotmail.com> <009601bf915f$44fb3e20$f6d33ad0@hdavis> In-Reply-To: <009601bf915f$44fb3e20$f6d33ad0@hdavis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: >From: "David Stevenson" >To: >Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 8:32 PM >Subject: Re: possible L25 controversy > > >> Roger Pewick wrote: >> >> >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? >> > > >> I have read this a few times, and cannot see what you are driving >at. >> >> L25 does not apply: it says so in uncompromising terms: >> >> "When the original bid was insufficient, apply Law 27" >> >> It does not say anything about whether the correction was legal or >> illegal: L25B just does not apply. On to L27. >> >> "If an insufficient bid made in rotation is not accepted, it must be >> corrected by the substitution of either a sufficient bid or a pass." >> >> Well, if it must, it must, so the 2C bid [as well as the 1C bid] are >> cancelled. That seems clear enough. >> >> Suppose the bid is corrected to the lowest in the same denomination >> [assuming both non-conventional] there is no penalty, but: >> >> "If the Director judges that the insufficient bid conveyed such >> information as to damage the non-offending side, he shall assign an >> adjusted score." >> >> That presumably applies to the 1C bid. What about the 2C bid? >> >> Under L16C2 it is UI. OK, we all do UI rulings! >> >> While all this seems simple enough, i don't understand why you >suggest >> >that a player has a right to change a call to an >> >illegal call and escape without penalty >> when he suffers the same penalty as he would have if he had never >> corrected to 2C, and he has UI restrictions as well. >> > >David, > >Note the pass after the attempted correction. The auction was >2H-P-P-1C/2C/3C-P-? (TD). If I have understood your postings on a >similar auction a little while ago, the auction is now 2H-P-P-1C-P-?, >with the 2C and 3C calls being UI to partner. Under L27, the call >condoned by the pass by RHO is the insufficient call. Have I remembered >this incorrectly? No, I have misread the question. The blurb as written originally does not mention that pass. However, you are correct, if that pass was made, it has condoned the 1C bid. The 2C bid remains as UI. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 20 06:08:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA13766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 06:08:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from adm.sci-nnov.ru (adm.sci-nnov.ru [195.122.226.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA13761 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 06:08:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from satellite (foxy.p2p.sci-nnov.ru [194.190.176.114]) by adm.sci-nnov.ru (8.9.3/Dmiter-4.1) with SMTP id XAA30779 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 23:06:22 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <003601bf91de$e0e90cc0$0200a8c0@vmv.sandy.ru> From: "Sergei Litvak" To: Subject: Transfer?! Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 23:07:51 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2417.2000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Local club (Matchponts. Level of players - above average). Brd 2, E,NS AT8543 832 A62 3 KQ J97 96 AJT54 J54 Q AKQT62 J975 62 KQ7 KT98 84 E S W N p p 1NT 2c* 2d^ p 3c p 3h p 3NT all pass 1NT - 16-18 balanced * - alerted and explained as single-suitter (Capeletti) ^ - explained a s natural S called TD after final pass and eaplained to him the situation (before opening lead and not at the table). spade lead and 9 tricks for Declarer. your ruling? From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 20 07:32:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA13972 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 07:32:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA13965 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 07:32:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.180] (dhcp165-180.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.180]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA26387; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 16:32:17 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <003601bf91de$e0e90cc0$0200a8c0@vmv.sandy.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 16:29:51 -0500 To: "Sergei Litvak" , From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Transfer?! Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:07 PM +0300 3/19/00, Sergei Litvak wrote: >Local club (Matchponts. Level of players - above average). >Brd 2, E,NS > > AT8543 > 832 > A62 > 3 >KQ J97 >96 AJT54 >J54 Q >AKQT62 J975 > 62 > KQ7 > KT98 > 84 > > E S W N > p p 1NT 2c* >2d^ p 3c p >3h p 3NT all pass > >1NT - 16-18 balanced >* - alerted and explained as single-suitter (Capeletti) >^ - explained a s natural East has UI, and without the UI, East would assume that 3C was a super-accept. Therefore, 4H by East is a LA, passed by West (as the bid is impossible if 2D was natural). I don't think South would double this, as he expects only one trump trick if West holds the HA. 4H goes down two, losing two hearts, a diamond, a spade, and a club ruff. This suggests an adjustment to +100 for N-S, -100 for E-W. >S called TD after final pass and eaplained to him the situation (before >opening lead and not at the table). >spade lead and 9 tricks for Declarer. If the MI was corrected before the opening lead, North cannot get an adjustment based on the claim that he would have led a heart or diamond. On the actual hand, this is irrelevant, as a diamond lead beats 3NT one trick, a heart lead beats it two tricks, and we already have a two-trick set based on UI. I would not allow the heart lead even if the MI was not corrected in time, as the MI makes the heart lead more attractive, not less. The final adjustment is 4H by East down one, +100/-100. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 20 07:50:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA14040 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 07:50:02 +1000 (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 HAA14033 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 07:49:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from p5fs07a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.87.96] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12WPH9-0001MI-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 19:52:43 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Transfer?! Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 21:50:16 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf91ed$1cb40620$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> 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 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Sergei Litvak To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sunday, March 19, 2000 8:27 PM Subject: Transfer?! >Local club (Matchponts. Level of players - above average). >Brd 2, E,NS > > AT8543 > 832 > A62 > 3 >KQ J97 >96 AJT54 >J54 Q >AKQT62 J975 > 62 > KQ7 > KT98 > 84 > > E S W N > p p 1NT 2c* >2d^ p 3c p >3h p 3NT all pass > >1NT - 16-18 balanced >* - alerted and explained as single-suitter (Capeletti) >^ - explained a s natural > >S called TD after final pass and eaplained to him the situation (before >opening lead and not at the table). > >spade lead and 9 tricks for Declarer. > your ruling? > Was 2d natural and forcing, or natural and non-forcing _in their system_? Has East mis bid, or was their agreement transfers? Before taking 9 tricks West has to give South a heart trick. Why did South not switch a diamond, South can see dummy and knows that it was not what West was expecting? Please tell all! Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 20 08:42:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA14174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 08:42:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA14169 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 08:42:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA23889 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 17:41:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000319174424.006df364@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 17:44:24 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L70C3 & something similar In-Reply-To: <7+IuYHEI+u04Ewct@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <38ABCC14.90CDB6AF@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:52 AM 3/18/00 +0000, David wrote: >Robert E. Harris wrote: > >>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. > > This is a matter of judgement. So you listen to all the available >evidence, and then you make a judgement. > > The example that is usually quoted is where declarer says "Play >anything" and dummy contains six losing small cards and an ace. It is >not unreasonable to judge that his intention was to discard anything >*except* the ace. I had what I thought was an easy example recently: Declarer (at notrump) played a small diamond to AKQJx in dummy, called "ace", then "king of diamonds" (showing out), then "another diamond", Before dummy had actually pulled a card, an opponent put the D10 on the table. Dummy then pulled the DQ, at which point the opponent called for a director. (Being firmly in David's "self-serving statements can be evidence too" camp, I asked declarer what he had intended, he said he meant to keep playing diamonds from the top (of course); I asked him why he hadn't said so earlier, he said it all happened very fast, and once the TD had been called he didn't think he should say anything until I got there. I had no reason to disbelieve either statement.) I ruled that declarer's intent to continue cashing high diamonds was incontrovertable, and that the queen stood played. (Not appealed.) 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 Mar 20 08:54:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA14203 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 08:54:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA14197 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 08:54:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.180] (dhcp165-180.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.180]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA17251 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 17:54:14 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000319170522.01296c18@pop.mindspring.com> References: <003601bf91de$e0e90cc0$0200a8c0@vmv.sandy.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 17:41:48 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Transfer?! Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 5:05 PM -0500 3/19/00, Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 04:29 PM 3/19/2000 -0500, David G wrote: >>At 11:07 PM +0300 3/19/00, Sergei Litvak wrote: >>>Local club (Matchponts. Level of players - above average). >>>Brd 2, E,NS >>> >>> AT8543 >>> 832 >>> A62 >>> 3 >>>KQ J97 >>>96 AJT54 >>>J54 Q >>>AKQT62 J975 >>> 62 >>> KQ7 >>> KT98 >>> 84 >>> >>> E S W N >>> p p 1NT 2c* >>>2d^ p 3c p >>>3h p 3NT all pass >>> >>>1NT - 16-18 balanced >>>* - alerted and explained as single-suitter (Capeletti) >>>^ - explained a s natural >> >>East has UI, and without the UI, East would assume that 3C was a >>super-accept. > >But suppose EW don't play super-accepts (Many don't. In fact I don't in my >favorite partnership). Suppose that West's only systemic alternative is to >accept the transfer. What then? In that case, the impossible response wakes East up to the misunderstandang, and East can do whatever he wants. (However, 3C over a natural 2D is equivalent to a super-accept, so it might be hard for me to believe that West could not bid 3C over a transfer; that's why I didn't consider it in the original.) If the error has been corrected before the opening lead, there is no damage because there is no MI. If it has been corrected after the opening lead, I could see allowing a diamond lead. which beats 3NT by two tricks, not one as I thought beforehand. (North can lead a heart after winning the third diamond, or South can lead one after winning the fourth diamond.) On a spade opening lead, 3NT can be made if declarer blocks the diamonds; therefore, allowing 3NT to make is not an egregious error. So is it "likely" or "at all probable" that North would lead a diamond? Most players with a six-card suit and an outside entry will lead the six-card suit, particuarly when the bidding suggests that the opponents are not confident about notrump. As TD, I would rule it was "at all probable" but not "likely" that a diamond would be led with no MI, and score -400/-100; I wouldn't object to +100/-100 in a jurisdiction in which TD's have little discretion. I would expect the AC to rule that the diamond is not at all probable and let the table result of -400/+400 stand. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 20 09:32:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA14391 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 09:32:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA14386 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 09:32:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.180] (dhcp165-180.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.180]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA27512 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 18:31:52 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <01bf91ed$1cb40620$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 18:23:57 -0500 To: "BLML" From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Transfer?! Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 9:50 PM +0000 3/19/00, Anne Jones wrote: >From: Sergei Litvak >>Local club (Matchponts. Level of players - above average). >>Brd 2, E,NS >> >> AT8543 >> 832 >> A62 >> 3 >>KQ J97 >>96 AJT54 >>J54 Q >>AKQT62 J975 >> 62 >> KQ7 >> KT98 >> 84 >> >>E S W N >>p p 1NT 2c* >>2d^ p 3c p >>3h p 3NT all pass >> >>1NT - 16-18 balanced >>* - alerted and explained as single-suitter (Capeletti) >>^ - explained a s natural >> >>S called TD after final pass and eaplained to him the situation (before >>opening lead and not at the table). >> >>spade lead and 9 tricks for Declarer. >> your ruling? >Was 2d natural and forcing, or natural and non-forcing _in their system_? This is a good question to ask, although I haven't seen 2D as natural and forcing. If it is forcing, the UI that it has been misunderstood is still the same; either 3C is an impossible reply to a transfer (no UI) or it is a possible reply (and 4H down to is a LA). >Has East mis bid, or was their agreement transfers? This is relevant in the MI situation, although it would be hard to resolve here; I assumed that there was MI. >Before taking 9 tricks West has to give South a heart trick. No, he doesn't. He can win the opening spade lead, cash six rounds of clubs throwing hearts from dummy, and lead the SQ to set up his ninth trick. Even if South never throws a diamond, declarer can block the diamond suit by playing for North to have Axx, deciding that ATxxxx xxx xxx x is not a vulnerable overcall. This is not a necessary line of play, but it is a reasonable one, and therefore I don't think N-S committed an egregious error in letting the contract make. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 20 10:10:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA14520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 10:10:26 +1000 (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 KAA14515 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 10:10:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-58-212-40.s294.tnt1.lnhdc.md.dialup.rcn.com (HELO hdavis) (208.58.212.40) by smtp.mail.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Mar 2000 15:38:53 -0800 X-Apparently-From: Message-ID: <002a01bf91fc$4e250ba0$28d43ad0@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <003601bf91de$e0e90cc0$0200a8c0@vmv.sandy.ru> Subject: Re: Transfer?! Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 18:38:52 -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: "Sergei Litvak" To: Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2000 3:07 PM Subject: Transfer?! > Local club (Matchponts. Level of players - above average). > Brd 2, E,NS > > AT8543 > 832 > A62 > 3 > KQ J97 > 96 AJT54 > J54 Q > AKQT62 J975 > 62 > KQ7 > KT98 > 84 > > E S W N > p p 1NT 2c* > 2d^ p 3c p > 3h p 3NT all pass > > 1NT - 16-18 balanced > * - alerted and explained as single-suitter (Capeletti) > ^ - explained a s natural > > S called TD after final pass and eaplained to him the situation (before > opening lead and not at the table). > > spade lead and 9 tricks for Declarer. > your ruling? > First we find the missing diamonds, then apply the appropriate revoke penalties if needed... On a more serious note, we need to know what the actual agreements were. If transfers were being played, we need to know what 3C would have meant if W had correctly explained 2D. Assuming it confirms hearts (a superaccept, perhaps, as David Grabiner indicated), then 4H is a LA to 3H. The UI certainly suggests 3H over 4H , so we correct the call to 4H. W has nothing much to say over this, neither opponent has much of a penalty double, so that is the final contract, and we figure out just how much it goes down. 2 top hearts, a club ruff, a diamond and a spade for down 2 looks about right. But what if the explanation was correct? E has misbid, but what does he have to say over 3C? Even with UI, 3H is about the only alternative, and there is not much to say over 3N. With no MI given, that contract will stand as played. So, the ruling will depend on what the TD determines the actual agreements were. Hirsch __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 20 10:27:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA14566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 10:27:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.163]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA14561 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 10:27:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from pebs12a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.124.236] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12WSO5-0002fq-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 23:12:05 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Transfer?! Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:28:02 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf9203$26f4d540$ec7c93c3@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David J. Grabiner To: BLML Date: Sunday, March 19, 2000 11:43 PM Subject: Re: Transfer?! >At 9:50 PM +0000 3/19/00, Anne Jones wrote: > >>From: Sergei Litvak > >>>Local club (Matchponts. Level of players - above average). >>>Brd 2, E,NS >>> >>> AT8543 >>> 832 >>> A62 >>> 3 >>>KQ J97 >>>96 AJT54 >>>J54 Q >>>AKQT62 J975 >>> 62 >>> KQ7 >>> KT98 >>> 84 >>> >>>E S W N >>>p p 1NT 2c* >>>2d^ p 3c p >>>3h p 3NT all pass >>> >>>1NT - 16-18 balanced >>>* - alerted and explained as single-suitter (Capeletti) >>>^ - explained a s natural >>> >>>S called TD after final pass and eaplained to him the situation (before >>>opening lead and not at the table). >>> >>>spade lead and 9 tricks for Declarer. >>> your ruling? > >>Was 2d natural and forcing, or natural and non-forcing _in their system_? > >This is a good question to ask, although I haven't seen 2D as natural and >forcing. If it is forcing, the UI that it has been misunderstood is still >the same; either 3C is an impossible reply to a transfer (no UI) or it is a >possible reply (and 4H down to is a LA). > Yes. But if it is not forcing, West with a sub-minimal 1NT and with 3 card support might be seen as bidding to field a mis-bid. I would need to ask these questions. > >>Has East mis bid, or was their agreement transfers? > >This is relevant in the MI situation, although it would be hard to resolve >here; I assumed that there was MI. > >>Before taking 9 tricks West has to give South a heart trick. > >No, he doesn't. He can win the opening spade lead, cash six rounds of >clubs throwing hearts from dummy, and lead the SQ to set up his ninth >trick. Even if South never throws a diamond, declarer can block the >diamond suit by playing for North to have Axx, deciding that ATxxxx xxx xxx >x is not a vulnerable overcall. > >This is not a necessary line of play, but it is a reasonable one, and >therefore I don't think N-S committed an egregious error in letting the >contract make. > No. I haven't got that far down the line yet. I am not sure about the MI, if that's what it is, I don't think it has caused many problems in the bidding to N/S, and we do not know what was said at the table after South took the TD to the bar. Why was anything done away from the table I wonder. Let's know more. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 20 11:46:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA14719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:46:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA14714 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:46:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.180] (dhcp165-180.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.180]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA11520 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 20:46:22 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <01bf91ed$1cb40620$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 20:42:34 -0500 To: "BLML" From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Transfer?! Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 6:23 PM -0500 3/19/00, David J. Grabiner wrote: >At 9:50 PM +0000 3/19/00, Anne Jones wrote: > >>From: Sergei Litvak > >>>Local club (Matchponts. Level of players - above average). >>>Brd 2, E,NS >>> >>> AT8543 >>> 832 >>> A62 >>> 3 >>>KQ J97 >>>96 AJT54 >>>J54 Q >>>AKQT62 J975 >>> 62 >>> KQ7 >>> KT98 >>> 84 >>> >>>E S W N >>>p p 1NT 2c* >>>2d^ p 3c p >>>3h p 3NT all pass >>> >>>1NT - 16-18 balanced >>>* - alerted and explained as single-suitter (Capeletti) >>>^ - explained a s natural >>Before taking 9 tricks West has to give South a heart trick. > >No, he doesn't. He can win the opening spade lead, cash six rounds of >clubs throwing hearts from dummy, and lead the SQ to set up his ninth >trick. Even if South never throws a diamond, declarer can block the >diamond suit by playing for North to have Axx, deciding that ATxxxx xxx xxx >x is not a vulnerable overcall. >This is not a necessary line of play, but it is a reasonable one, and >therefore I don't think N-S committed an egregious error in letting the >contract make. As Hirsch Davis pointed out, South has committed an egregious error by bidding with only 11 cards. Giving South KT9873 of diamonds changes the situation. Now, had South been properly informed that 2D was a transfer, he would have doubled. West would pass (sitting for a penalty double of 2D), North would pass, and East would bid 2NT, invitational, showing a heart transfer with only five hearts. West will raise to 3NT, expecting East to have the diamond stop. ANd now North will lead a diamond, and it is reasonable for declarer to play the jack on the second diamond, expecting South to have the AK. N-S run six diamond tricks and the spade ace, and 3NT is down three. (The analysis above still applies on a spade lead; even if South's last six cards are KQ of hearts and KT98 of diamonds, declarer can block the diamonds.) Thus, assuming that 2D is ruled MI, the result is +150 for N/S, -150 for E-W. If 2D is not ruled MI (it is the E-W agreement), then we go back to the previous discussion, and I would rule 4H down two unless the 3C bid wakes East up. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 20 11:49:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA14729 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:49:23 +1000 (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 LAA14724 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:49:14 +1000 (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 12WrJD-0003ds-0X for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 01:48:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 01:32:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: dummy misplays, declarer revokes? References: <200003061736.RAA22315@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >>>I quoted law 45D, and ruled that the club lead from dummy could not be >>>withdrawn as both sides had played to the next trick. Therefore, >>>declarer had revoked on the trick as played and the two trick penalty >>>stood. >>> >>>The players were convinced but my colleagues were not! > >>Well done Robin, I missed that at the time, and agree. >> >> But >> >>44A the player who leads to a trick may play any card in his hand. >>45B declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card. >> >>Is not the heart played regardless of the card placed in the played >>position? I think both defenders revoked and dummy's trick is deficient >>(containing a club instead of a heart), once we play the next trick. > > No, that is the whole point of L45D. The "wrong" card must be >withdrawn up to a certain point in time - but once that point is reached >it can no longer be withdrawn so it stands as played. > Sure thing, but the card that was lead was a Heart, not the club that is actually in the trick. There is a wrong card in the trick and EW revoked. David Martin recently gave me a precedent for this one, when I mused over this particular thread with him. He says further that the trick actually stands as played and the heart can be played a second time, later on. 45D does not tell us what to do after both sides have played to the next trick, but Law 45B tells us a heart was lead. -- 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 Mar 20 12:50:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA14846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 12:50:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl ([62.108.1.203]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA14841 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 12:50:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=ww) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 12WsGw-0004FR-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 03:50:26 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000320034515.00ed0898@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 03:45:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Transfer?! In-Reply-To: <002a01bf91fc$4e250ba0$28d43ad0@hdavis> References: <003601bf91de$e0e90cc0$0200a8c0@vmv.sandy.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:38 PM 3/19/00 -0500, you wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Sergei Litvak" >To: >Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2000 3:07 PM >Subject: Transfer?! > > >> Local club (Matchponts. Level of players - above average). >> Brd 2, E,NS >> >> AT8543 >> 832 >> A62 >> 3 >> KQ J97 >> 96 AJT54 >> J54 Q >> AKQT62 J975 >> 62 >> KQ7 >> KT98 >> 84 >> >> E S W N >> p p 1NT 2c* >> 2d^ p 3c p >> 3h p 3NT all pass >> >> 1NT - 16-18 balanced >> * - alerted and explained as single-suitter (Capeletti) >> ^ - explained a s natural >> >> S called TD after final pass and eaplained to him the situation >(before >> opening lead and not at the table). >> >> spade lead and 9 tricks for Declarer. >> your ruling? >> > >First we find the missing diamonds, then apply the appropriate revoke >penalties if needed... > >On a more serious note, we need to know what the actual agreements were. >If transfers were being played, we need to know what 3C would have meant >if W had correctly explained 2D. Assuming it confirms hearts (a >superaccept, perhaps, as David Grabiner indicated), then 4H is a LA to >3H. The UI certainly suggests 3H over 4H , so we correct the call to >4H. W has nothing much to say over this, neither opponent has much of a >penalty double, so that is the final contract, and we figure out just >how much it goes down. 2 top hearts, a club ruff, a diamond and a spade >for down 2 looks about right. > >But what if the explanation was correct? E has misbid, but what does he >have to say over 3C? Even with UI, 3H is about the only alternative, well, with a spade lead, 5c is also cold :) perhaps 4c is an alternative? regards, anton >and there is not much to say over 3N. With no MI given, that contract >will stand as played. So, the ruling will depend on what the TD >determines the actual agreements were. > >Hirsch > > > > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. >http://im.yahoo.com > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 20 16:08:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA15233 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 16:08:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f284.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.63]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA15228 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 16:08:12 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 806 invoked by uid 0); 20 Mar 2000 06:07:33 -0000 Message-ID: <20000320060733.805.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 171.214.80.140 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 22:07:33 PST X-Originating-IP: [171.214.80.140] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Premature play by a defender Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 22:07:33 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >> I do not understand this. If you claim at T12 you are referring to > >>what will happen at TR12 and T13: T13 is not the one in progress so a > >>T12 claim is perfectly valid. > > > TrickS, plural, with an s. For the pedantic, claims can only occur >up > >to and including trick 11. This is not the case in practice. > > Hah! No, I don't think so, Todd. You should. >Few people would say "trick or tricks" in such a position. Pedants, lawyers, and mathematicians with no penchant for brevity. Saying "a trick" is sufficient. The law as interpreted should read, "A claim or concession consists of any statement or action that directly or indirectly expresses some result for the hand." In practice, any attempt to claim is considered a claim, whether it fulfills the definition described in law 68 or not. If at trick 3 you say "420," it's treated as a claim rather than a request for weed even though it doesn't refer to any tricks at all! This makes arguing the semantics of the law as written pointless. Personally, I don't really care. I agree with the law as interpreted and no one really raises a fuss about it. >I have just played snooker in a club. >There was a rule that we were not allowed to bring women into the club. >Do you really think I would have got away with a single woman? Do you really think that your analogy is pertinent? Logically there's a difference between inclusion and exclusion. You're also refering to a matter of colloquial interpretation > > I've stated before that I think this sort of claim should be > >discouraged. Logical alternatives or not, east is not incapable of a >memory > >lapse while west is capable of knowing better. > > I really don't think that this sounds like a deliberate claim as >against a piece of sheer stupidity. Still, as I said, a small reminder >to West would not go amiss. Why are you so hesitant to deliver that reminder in the form of a trick awarded to west's opponents? -Todd ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 20 22:47:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA16024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:47:24 +1000 (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 WAA16012 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:47:09 +1000 (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 12X1aE-000FFd-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 12:46:59 +0000 Message-ID: <$1nUZaCtYZ14Ewlm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 03:08:29 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: dummy misplays, declarer revokes? References: <200003061736.RAA22315@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article , David Stevenson > writes >> No, that is the whole point of L45D. The "wrong" card must be >>withdrawn up to a certain point in time - but once that point is reached >>it can no longer be withdrawn so it stands as played. >Sure thing, but the card that was lead was a Heart, not the club that is >actually in the trick. There is a wrong card in the trick and EW >revoked. David Martin recently gave me a precedent for this one, when I >mused over this particular thread with him. Precedent? >He says further that the trick actually stands as played and the heart >can be played a second time, later on. I do not accept this. >45D does not tell us what to do after both sides have played to the next >trick, but Law 45B tells us a heart was lead. Sorry, no. L45B says: "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table. In playing from dummy's hand declarer may, if necessary, pick up the desired card himself." Now, this is *not* what happened, so it does not define the heart as played. L45D gives you a time limit beyond which a card may not be "withdrawn". If it is not withdrawn then it stands as played. So, once the time limit is past, the club was played to the trick, not the heart. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 20 22:47:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA16019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:47:20 +1000 (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 WAA16013 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:47:11 +1000 (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 12X1aG-000FFo-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 12:47:03 +0000 Message-ID: <3VtWxUCHTZ14EwGR@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 03:02:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L70C3 & something similar References: <38ABCC14.90CDB6AF@village.uunet.be> <7+IuYHEI+u04Ewct@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.20000319174424.006df364@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000319174424.006df364@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 02:52 AM 3/18/00 +0000, David wrote: > >>Robert E. Harris wrote: >> >>>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. >> >> This is a matter of judgement. So you listen to all the available >>evidence, and then you make a judgement. >> >> The example that is usually quoted is where declarer says "Play >>anything" and dummy contains six losing small cards and an ace. It is >>not unreasonable to judge that his intention was to discard anything >>*except* the ace. > >I had what I thought was an easy example recently: Declarer (at notrump) >played a small diamond to AKQJx in dummy, called "ace", then "king of >diamonds" (showing out), then "another diamond", Before dummy had actually >pulled a card, an opponent put the D10 on the table. Dummy then pulled the >DQ, at which point the opponent called for a director. (Being firmly in >David's "self-serving statements can be evidence too" camp, I asked >declarer what he had intended, he said he meant to keep playing diamonds >from the top (of course); I asked him why he hadn't said so earlier, he >said it all happened very fast, and once the TD had been called he didn't >think he should say anything until I got there. I had no reason to >disbelieve either statement.) I ruled that declarer's intent to continue >cashing high diamonds was incontrovertable, and that the queen stood >played. (Not appealed.) It has been written [and I tend to agree] that while there may be doubt what declarer would lead from three cards if they are all winners, previous play gives an impression, and especially when declarer plays a suit from the top down, it is reasonable to assume he will continue to do so. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 21 00:50:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA16417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 00:50:10 +1000 (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 AAA16412 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 00:50:02 +1000 (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 JAA17026; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 09:49:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA187613783; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 09:49:43 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 09:49:34 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Subject matter for BLML (Was: What's the Contract?) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="BDY.RTF" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="BDY.RTF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id AAA16413 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The prime aim of this is to split the threads into simple question threads [Ruling: or Ruling please:], threads about possible/actual/intended/.. Law changes [Change:] and other threads. Ok, it will take a bit of effort, but I feel we need a bit of effort here. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ [Laval Dubreuil] I fully agree Laval Du Breuil ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 21 01:06:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA16471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 01:06:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA16466 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 01:06:33 +1000 (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 PAA09463 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:06:20 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA03507 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:06:19 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:06:18 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA01674 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:06:17 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id PAA23299 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:06:16 GMT Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:06:16 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200003201506.PAA23299@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: bum concession X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Declarer has Q10xxx,-,-,9; dummy has 9,xx,xx,8 Declarer faces his hand and says he concedes a club. Defenders have winning red cards, no spades (trumps), and no clubs higher than the seven ! Defenders called me to ascertain whether they could accept this concession. As declarer mentioned a club, must we only consider (for L72C) normal lines which include declarer/dummy leading a club? For what its worth: I ruled that crossing to S9 and playing a red card to lose C9 was "perverse" (not a word in the laws!) and cancelled the concession. 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 Mar 21 01:11:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA16518 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 01:11:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA16512 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 01:11:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12X3pn-000LwF-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:11:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 14:31:40 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: dummy misplays, declarer revokes? References: <200003061736.RAA22315@tempest.npl.co.uk> <$1nUZaCtYZ14Ewlm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <$1nUZaCtYZ14Ewlm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <$1nUZaCtYZ14Ewlm@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>In article , David Stevenson >> writes > >>> No, that is the whole point of L45D. The "wrong" card must be >>>withdrawn up to a certain point in time - but once that point is reached >>>it can no longer be withdrawn so it stands as played. > >>Sure thing, but the card that was lead was a Heart, not the club that is >>actually in the trick. There is a wrong card in the trick and EW >>revoked. David Martin recently gave me a precedent for this one, when I >>mused over this particular thread with him. > > Precedent? > >>He says further that the trick actually stands as played and the heart >>can be played a second time, later on. > > I do not accept this. > >>45D does not tell us what to do after both sides have played to the next >>trick, but Law 45B tells us a heart was lead. > > Sorry, no. > > L45B says: "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after >which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table. In playing from >dummy's hand declarer may, if necessary, pick up the desired card >himself." > > Now, this is *not* what happened, so it does not define the heart as >played. ok, I give up. Robin's ruling was correct then. > > L45D gives you a time limit beyond which a card may not be >"withdrawn". If it is not withdrawn then it stands as played. > > So, once the time limit is past, the club was played to the trick, not >the heart. > -- 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 Mar 21 02:20:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA16834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 02:20:25 +1000 (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 CAA16828 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 02:20:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA29707; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 08:20:21 -0800 Message-Id: <200003201620.IAA29707@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: L35A: inadmissible double condoned In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 18 Mar 2000 03:51:44 PST." <9$u$4yEQ1v04Ewt0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 08:20:21 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > > > >> P P Dbl P > >> > >> According to L35A, the double and subsequent pass are cancelled, and > >> the bidding proceeds as though there was no irregularity. The new > >> auction: > >> > >> P P 1C 2S > >> > >> Are the original double and pass authorised to their partner? For > >> example, the replacement 2S is a Strong Jump Overcall. May the partner > >> of the 1C opener infer partner does not have a long club suit? > > > >My opinion: > > > >I believe L16C applies: information from withdrawn calls is UI to the > >offending side, AI to the non-offending side. I don't think L16C > >describes a "penalty"; therefore, it is not superseded by the phrase > >in L35 that "there is no penalty for the inadmissible call". Usually, > >the Laws state explicitly which restrictions are considered penalties > >(see L36, for example). The side that made the legal double is an > >offending side; I don't think condoning the call is an "offense" that > >makes the other side an offending side (note that L35 refers to "the > >offender" as if there is still only one offender after an inadmissible > >call is condoned). Therefore, the double and pass are UI to the > >doubler's partner, but AI to the passer's partner. > > Oh, goody. Next time my RHO doubles inadmissibly, I shall make an > extra bid/pass before pointing it out, which means that *I* get two > calls for the price of one, but he does not! But by doing so, you give up the right to force your LHO to pass throughout the auction, and most likely the right to force LHO to lead any suit you want (or prohibit any suit you don't want) at his first turn to lead, if your side buys the contract. So it's hard for me to imagine that you would gain anything from this ploy, in 99% of cases. Anyway, I was just trying to apply the Law as written. Do you think I interpreted the Law incorrectly, or are you saying that a correct interpretation of the Law could lead to an unjust result and therefore suggesting a Law change? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 21 02:34:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA16878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 02:34:54 +1000 (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 CAA16873 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 02:34:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA29913; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 08:34:48 -0800 Message-Id: <200003201634.IAA29913@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Transfer?! In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 19 Mar 2000 16:29:51 PST." Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 08:34:48 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > At 11:07 PM +0300 3/19/00, Sergei Litvak wrote: > >Local club (Matchponts. Level of players - above average). > >Brd 2, E,NS > > > > AT8543 > > 832 > > A62 > > 3 > >KQ J97 > >96 AJT54 > >J54 Q > >AKQT62 J975 > > 62 > > KQ7 > > KT98 > > 84 > > > > E S W N > > p p 1NT 2c* > >2d^ p 3c p > >3h p 3NT all pass > > > >1NT - 16-18 balanced > >* - alerted and explained as single-suitter (Capeletti) > >^ - explained a s natural > > East has UI, and without the UI, East would assume that 3C was a > super-accept. Therefore, 4H by East is a LA, passed by West (as the bid is > impossible if 2D was natural). . . . Actually, I'd need to know more about their agreements, specifically about their agreements after 1NT without interference. Someone has already pointed out that E-W might not use superaccepts. But if they do, there's still a question about this auction: 1NT 2D 3C 3H Is this drop-dead or forcing? In my most frequent partnerships, if responder rebids 3D: 1NT 2D 3C 3D (for us, 3C = 4 trumps, maximum, doubleton club) 3D is a retransfer, opener is required to bid 3H, then responder may pass or take further action. Since 3D is available as a retransfer, it's not clear what 3H should mean. My instinct tells me it should be forcing, but it's not clear; in fact, I'd have no idea what this would mean in my partnerships, and perhaps it ought to be discussed. (However, if 3D is the superaccept [1NT-2D-3D-3H], 3H needs to be a drop-dead bid.) If, in this partnership, 3H would be forcing, the UI does not suggest 4H over 3H, so I'd allow the 3H. If 3H is drop-dead, then East's 3H bid is disallowed. If they don't know, or have never discussed it, I'd disallow 3H. So David will probably be right almost all the time, but the TD needs to do a bit more investigation first. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 21 02:36:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA16892 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 02:36:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp-out1.bellatlantic.net (smtp-out1.bellatlantic.net [199.45.39.156]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA16887 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 02:36:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from jayapfelbaum (adsl-151-201-240-105.bellatlantic.net [151.201.240.105]) by smtp-out1.bellatlantic.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA16064 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:36:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001d01bf928a$35570220$69f0c997@jayapfelbaum> From: "Jay Apfelbaum" To: "BLML Group" Subject: The way things should be Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:34:26 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I thought that, with the coming revisions to the Laws, it might be a good idea to discuss the way things should be. Towards this end, I suggest that this thread concentrate not on the way things are (e.g., the current set of laws), but rather on the way things should be in the next set of laws. As a starting point, I should like to point out that bridge in the world is increasing in popularity. North America is the exception. The reasons for these opposing trends are fairly well known. How the laws may be drawn to help reverse the North American trend and build on the worldwide trend is one area worthy of discussion. There is one area that may be another worthwhile starting point. That is the importance of the player's state of mind. Should it matter what the player was thinking when he or she played a card, made a bid or pulled out a bid card? If it should, why? If not, why not? My feeling is that, where possible, the player's action should be the primary consideration. Their thoughts ought to be unimportant. A chess equivalent is the principle of "touch move." If the player touches a piece, they are obliged to move that piece. Their reasons why they touched the piece are not important. In bridge, a person who forgets the meaning of the bid they just made will have the same impact on the table as one who knows the meaning and chooses to ignore it. Should the result be any different? I suggest it should not. Bridge committees and directors have to make determinations based on the thoughts of the players. The write-ups from recent committee decisions often state they disregarded the "self-serving" statements of the appellants or appellees. Why should we have to decide what the players were thinking? Why not, instead, make the decision dependent on what happened at the table and its effect on the table. I do not take the position that we should abolish a player's right to psych. Only that this right should be examined closely in light of the explosion of bidding conventions and other understandings. Thoughts anyone? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 21 02:43:00 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA16918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 02:43:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA16913 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 02:42:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12X5GI-0007kF-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 16:42:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 13:25:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Premature play by a defender References: <20000320060733.805.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000320060733.805.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: >> >> I do not understand this. If you claim at T12 you are referring to >> >>what will happen at TR12 and T13: T13 is not the one in progress so a >> >>T12 claim is perfectly valid. >> >> > TrickS, plural, with an s. For the pedantic, claims can only occur >>up >> >to and including trick 11. This is not the case in practice. >> >> Hah! No, I don't think so, Todd. > > You should. > >>Few people would say "trick or tricks" in such a position. > > Pedants, lawyers, and mathematicians with no penchant for brevity. >Saying "a trick" is sufficient. Well, my answer could have been better worded. My whole interpretation is not just based on that, but also on the fact that the alternative is that it refers solely to the trick in progress. There are two alternatives, and it is reasonable to assume that they cover the whole range of possibilities. One alternative is that something that solely refers to this trick is not a claim ["I am winning this trick whatever you play"], so the other alternative includes times when the claim refers to a subsequent trick or tricks. > The law as interpreted should read, "A claim or concession consists of >any statement or action that directly or indirectly expresses some result >for the hand." You see, that is not particularly *clear*: it may be more accurate, but it does not sound that way. I do think lawmakers have a difficult job. > In practice, any attempt to claim is considered a claim, >whether it fulfills the definition described in law 68 or not. No, it isn't! If it does not fulfil the definition then it is not a claim. > If at trick >3 you say "420," it's treated as a claim rather than a request for weed even >though it doesn't refer to any tricks at all! This makes arguing the >semantics of the law as written pointless. Well, you are the one worrying about the semantics. I am worrying about the interpretation. > Personally, I don't really care. I agree with the law as interpreted >and no one really raises a fuss about it. Very funny. >>I have just played snooker in a club. >>There was a rule that we were not allowed to bring women into the club. >>Do you really think I would have got away with a single woman? > > Do you really think that your analogy is pertinent? Logically there's >a difference between inclusion and exclusion. You're also refering to a >matter of colloquial interpretation If I did not think my analogy pertinent then I would probably not have used it as an analogy. In both cases we have a situation where the meaning of a rule is understood except by people who wish for super- pedantry. >> > I've stated before that I think this sort of claim should be >> >discouraged. Logical alternatives or not, east is not incapable of a >>memory >> >lapse while west is capable of knowing better. >> I really don't think that this sounds like a deliberate claim as >>against a piece of sheer stupidity. Still, as I said, a small reminder >>to West would not go amiss. > Why are you so hesitant to deliver that reminder in the form of a trick >awarded to west's opponents? Because that is not the way I rule - nor should anyone else. If you want to discourage to that sort of degree then issue a PP - that's the way to discourage. But rule the actual claim per the Laws. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 21 02:52:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA16970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 02:52:37 +1000 (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 CAA16965 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 02:52:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA30142; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 08:52:35 -0800 Message-Id: <200003201652.IAA30142@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: bum concession In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:06:16 PST." <200003201506.PAA23299@tempest.npl.co.uk> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 08:52:35 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: > Declarer has Q10xxx,-,-,9; dummy has 9,xx,xx,8 > > Declarer faces his hand and says he concedes a club. > > Defenders have winning red cards, no spades (trumps), > and no clubs higher than the seven ! > > Defenders called me to ascertain whether they could > accept this concession. > > As declarer mentioned a club, must we only consider > (for L72C) normal lines which include declarer/dummy > leading a club? > > For what its worth: I ruled that crossing to S9 and > playing a red card to lose C9 was "perverse" (not a > word in the laws!) and cancelled the concession. Well, it may or may not be perverse, but doing so would contravene declarer's concession statement, since then he'd be conceding a red-suit trick and not a club. Although the Laws don't explicitly say so, I believe we've generally agreed that, for claims, the only "normal" or "careless" lines that may be considered are those that are consistent with declarer's claim statement (unless the claim statement is impossible); I believe the same should be applied to concessions. So if declarer says he's conceding a club, we have to assume that at some point he will lead a club that he assumes will lose. So I think you ruled correctly. (P.S. As a defender, I wouldn't have even called the TD---I'd just tell declarer he's getting all the rest, and score it up that way.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 21 03:53:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA17226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 03:53:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA17221 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 03:53:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.180] (dhcp165-180.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.180]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA00825; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 12:53:29 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200003201506.PAA23299@tempest.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 12:43:22 -0500 To: Robin Barker , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: bum concession Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 3:06 PM +0000 3/20/00, Robin Barker wrote: >Declarer has Q10xxx,-,-,9; dummy has 9,xx,xx,8 > >Declarer faces his hand and says he concedes a club. > >Defenders have winning red cards, no spades (trumps), >and no clubs higher than the seven ! > >Defenders called me to ascertain whether they could >accept this concession. > >As declarer mentioned a club, must we only consider >(for L72C) normal lines which include declarer/dummy >leading a club? > >For what its worth: I ruled that crossing to S9 and >playing a red card to lose C9 was "perverse" (not a >word in the laws!) and cancelled the concession. That seems pretty clear. Declarer's incomplete statement was that he would lose a club, and he must follow that statement. At some time in the hand, he will lead a club, and when that doesn't lose, he must take the rest of the tricks. Even if the lead were in dummy at this point, the fact that declarer said ,"conceding a club," would require a club lead. If the lead were in dummy and declarer said, "conceding one trick," it could be argued that it is rational for declarer to lead a diamond from dummy and throw the losing club from hand. (Even here, I wouldn't rule against declarer automatically; declarer could well have intended to concede the last trick.) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 21 04:09:39 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA17304 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 04:09:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA17299 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 04:09:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from Panther1204.eiu.edu (Panther1204.eiu.edu [139.67.12.189]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA20813 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 12:13:40 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000320120755.007c7e30@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 12:07:55 -0600 To: From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: Bum claim In-Reply-To: <001701bf8fe6$34f53b40$669901d5@davidburn> References: <200003162148.NAA25847@mailhub.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:55 AM 3/17/2000 -0000, David Burn wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > >> I really do not think you need to tell players that safety plays >need >> to be mentioned - but obvious unblocking does not. i think the vast >> majority of good players would follow that automatically. > >But we do not need a set of laws that work for "the vast majority". We >need a set of laws that work for *everyone*, that can consistently be >applied to *every* situation without requiring subjective judgement on >the part of directors, committees or players. We will never have a I really think this is a fundamental part of our disagreement on this and other issues. _Why_ do we need a set of laws that can be applied exactly the same way every single time without any subjective judgement on anyone's part? Why is that better than a set of laws designed to achieve equity where reasonably possible? For example, suppose we have a revoke law that says "if you revoke, your side loses the revoke trick plus one other." Period. This law would most certainly be easy to apply. Of course, there will be times when this penalty is less than the profit the side had by revoking, and other times when this penalty will be wildly damaging to the revoking side for no real reason [for example, they revoked while randomly discarding losers while declarer cashed all his winning cards rather than claim because he was afraid of making a slip of the tongue on his claim statement that would cost him tricks somehow]. But it would be simple, and require no subjective judgement at all. Why would it be better? I certainly think it is desireable that all TDs everywhere have the proper training so that they understand the law--in that sense, I strongly favor 'universality'. But I see nothing wrong with the possibility that a player that claims at my table may not get the same ruling as a player that claims at someone else's table--so long as the other TD and I are both able to explain how our rulings were reasonable applications of the law and our own differing judgements. This is no doubt annoying on those occasions where a player gets a ruling that contradicts the ruling he got "in the same situation at that tournament in Hoboken last year", but the benefit we get is the possibility to give rulings that approximate equity, or to give rulings that cater to the interests and expectations of sometimes very different groups of bridge players in different places. In short, the 'subjective judgement' laws have two advantages: a) they are more easily varied to suit the needs of different people in different places, and b) they can be used to try to achieve equity. In the area where I usually play, virtually no time is ever spent on disputed claims. Occasionally someone will say "No, I get the K of diamonds", everyone nods, and we move on. No-one would ever think to dispute a claim where someone had J92 of trumps and didn't say he was cashing them top-down. OTOH, many players are very leery of claiming, and hardly ever do so. So in our area, a law or interpretation that required detailed claim statements would not save time, but would instead kill off claiming altogether, thereby costing both time and annoyance. But I'm sure that there are other places where a strict application of the claim laws would save time and lead to a better game. So if the law is written so that the TD may use his judgement, then it is easy for TDs in my area to rule one way and TDs in the other place to rule the other way. I do not regard this as a fault, but as a virtue. Regarding the second point, I do not think the game will be improved by abolishing the concept of doing equity. I do not think we should change the laws so that all ruling are equity rulings, but I don't think we should do away with the idea. I have won games before because an opponent revoked and gave me a trick it was impossible to get otherwise--I did not enjoy winning that way, and the other players sitting my direction certainly didn't enjoy losing points because of it, either. Having this sort of thing happen sometimes is the price paid for simplicity, but I think that very soon the marginal gain from increased simplicity will be less than the marginal loss from decreased equity. >complete set of such laws, for obvious reasons, but that does not mean >we should not amend the laws we do have so that they will work in this >way wherever possible. > >David Burn >London, England Respectfully, Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 21 04:20:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA17364 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 04:20:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA17359 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 04:20:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from Panther1204.eiu.edu (Panther1204.eiu.edu [139.67.12.189]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA24469 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 12:25:01 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000320121917.00798e40@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 12:19:17 -0600 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) In-Reply-To: References: <000d01bf6cf4$a1924140$178201d5@davidburn> <3896DA7F.4E239668@village.uunet.be> <03ff01bf6ce5$8c9eef40$16991e18@san.rr.com> <000d01bf6cf4$a1924140$178201d5@davidburn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:25 PM 3/17/2000 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: [snip of David B's comments, and most of Marvin's] >>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. > > I would be happy to look at what the field has done if we know that >they have used the same tools. But we don't, do we? > > Suppose that we have a situation where the bidding has gone > > 1D 3C x P > P P > > 3C is described as the majors, and duly makes when it is found to >contain C & H. MI is present, so what do we adjust to? > > If you look at the traveller you will find that the room with a couple >of exceptions has played in 3NT making. So, do you adjust to 3NT >making? Of course not, no. [Not on that basis, anyway.] > Let us say that this is a top tourney with a recorder at each table. >You check the records, and the auction at *every* table that played 3NT >is > > 1NT P 2NT P > 3NT P P P > > How does this affect your judgement? Well, it is obviously >irrelevant, and I cannot believe you would adjust to 3NT just because >everyone else has played there. I agree completely. > Now, how does this translate to the ordinary tourney? You can look at >the traveller, but you have *no idea* what the bidding was at the other >tables. It is not a fair method of making judgements. Non sequitur. I am surprised at this position of yours, because it seems to contradict your position elsewhere. _I_ would say, following alter-DWS, that the TD should gather evidence, and then make a ruling. The results from other tables are evidence. In your particular case, this evidence is of little or no value. In another case, it may be invaluable. For example: A defender in possession of UI that encourages a heart lead leads a heart. The heart lead is the only lead to defeat the contract. The player argues that the AI overwhelmingly favors a heart lead anyway. [I.e., he claims there's no LA.] Now if we discover that the hand was played in the same contract at 80 other tables, and only beaten 10 times, there is some pretty good evidence that the player is wrong. But if it is beaten 80 other times, that's pretty strong evidence he's right. In neither case would I look at the results _alone_ in making my decision, but in both cases I think it counts as evidence worth having. >-- >David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Respectfully, Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 21 04:30:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA17414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 04:30:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA17408 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 04:30:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from Panther1204.eiu.edu (Panther1204.eiu.edu [139.67.12.189]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA27076 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 12:34:17 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000320122833.007a93b0@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 12:28:33 -0600 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000210212551.007aa100@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.20000210143833.007c7100@eiu.edu> <200002110017.QAA20226@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.20000210212551.007aa100@eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:03 AM 3/18/2000 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >Herman wrote: > >> If we want to encourage >> claiming (and discourage 3 boards in 32 minutes) we want to ALWAYS allow >> this claim. > > This reminds me of ACBL Club Directors who [I have been told] do not >adjust because the players they adjust against will be pi^H^Hfed up. >What about their oppos? > > Of course a declarer who is told he is losing a trick in these sort of >circumstances may be unhappy. But if his oppo thinks he should get a >trick [and the TD will not be called otherwise] that oppo will be >unhappy if you rule otherwise. But this isn't Herman's point. He's not saying "declarer will be annoyed if we rule against him, so let's not annoy him". His point is that ruling against him discourages claims, discouraging claims is not something we should do, therefore we should not rule against declarer. > Let us try to get claims right, and not worry about ruling one way >just to keep one side happy. If the law is clear, so that there is no room for judgement, then I agree with what you say. But in this case Herman is arguing that allowing this claim is consistent with claim law, and that doing so would have an additional side benefit for the game. Some people disagree about both parts of that argument [whether it is consistent with claim law, and whether it provides advantages for the game], but it is a fair argument to make, and one that I happen to agree with. >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Respectfully, Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 21 04:31:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA17431 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 04:31:41 +1000 (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 EAA17426 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 04:31:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12X6UJ-0001mX-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 18:01:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 17:58:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: bum concession References: <200003201506.PAA23299@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200003201506.PAA23299@tempest.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: >Declarer has Q10xxx,-,-,9; dummy has 9,xx,xx,8 > >Declarer faces his hand and says he concedes a club. > >Defenders have winning red cards, no spades (trumps), >and no clubs higher than the seven ! > >Defenders called me to ascertain whether they could >accept this concession. > >As declarer mentioned a club, must we only consider >(for L72C) normal lines which include declarer/dummy >leading a club? > >For what its worth: I ruled that crossing to S9 and >playing a red card to lose C9 was "perverse" (not a >word in the laws!) and cancelled the concession. I would have ruled it as not what declarer said. He said he was losing a club, not losing a red card. So he plays a club [and if he is like my partner, we have to tell him he is still on lead]. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats 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 Mar 21 05:55:36 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA17645 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 05:55:36 +1000 (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 FAA17640 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 05:55:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA00567; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:55:34 -0800 Message-Id: <200003201955.LAA00567@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Bum claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 20 Mar 2000 12:07:55 PST." <3.0.6.32.20000320120755.007c7e30@eiu.edu> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:55:35 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > At 07:55 AM 3/17/2000 -0000, David Burn wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > > > >> I really do not think you need to tell players that safety plays > >need > >> to be mentioned - but obvious unblocking does not. i think the vast > >> majority of good players would follow that automatically. > > > >But we do not need a set of laws that work for "the vast majority". We > >need a set of laws that work for *everyone*, that can consistently be > >applied to *every* situation without requiring subjective judgement on > >the part of directors, committees or players. We will never have a > > I really think this is a fundamental part of our disagreement on > this and other issues. _Why_ do we need a set of laws that can be applied > exactly the same way every single time without any subjective judgement > on anyone's part? Why is that better than a set of laws designed to > achieve equity where reasonably possible? > For example, suppose we have a revoke law that says "if you revoke, > your side loses the revoke trick plus one other." Period. This law > would most certainly be easy to apply. Of course, there will be times > when this penalty is less than the profit the side had by revoking, and > other times when this penalty will be wildly damaging to the revoking > side for no real reason [for example, they revoked while randomly discarding > losers while declarer cashed all his winning cards rather than claim > because he was afraid of making a slip of the tongue on his claim statement > that would cost him tricks somehow]. But it would be simple, and require > no subjective judgement at all. Why would it be better? > I certainly think it is desireable that all TDs everywhere have the > proper training so that they understand the law--in that sense, I strongly > favor 'universality'. But I see nothing wrong with the possibility that > a player that claims at my table may not get the same ruling as a player that > claims at someone else's table--so long as the other TD and I are both > able to explain how our rulings were reasonable applications of the law > and our own differing judgements. . . . . If there are no objective standards for determining whether a certain line of play is irrational or not, the only way to make sure you don't get caught is to never claim, or only claim when you have all high trumps, or spell out exactly which cards you will be playing on every trick when you claim. If I claim with AQ4 opposite KJT32, someone could say that, since I didn't spell things out to the letter, that I could play my tricks in the order A-K-Q and block the suit. Everyone on this list agrees this line would be irrational and the ruling would therefore be wrong, but there's nothing in the Laws or any written policy that says so, so exactly what would prevent a TD from ruling this way? Nothing, really. That's why I think that for claims, there has to be *some* list, or description, of plays that we can assume we don't have to spell out in excruciating detail. As for plays that are more complicated (such as the safety play in question), I agree with you that it wouldn't be horrible for this to depend on subjective judgment---*if* there were some list of things we players knew we could count on as being allowed, so that we know that since the safety play isn't on the "approved" list, claiming without explicitly mentioning it is taking a chance on the TD/AC. But the way things appear to stand now, there's no clear-cut "approved" list, so the only sure way for players to protect ourselves from differences in subjective TD judgments is to spell everything out when claiming. Most of us seem to feel that it wouldn't be good for the game to require people to do this. The analogy with revoke laws breaks down, since the best way to make sure you don't get skewered by inconsistent TD judgment about equity is to FOLLOW SUIT FOR PETE'S SAKE. Nobody thinks it would be bad for the game if everyone did this. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 21 07:30:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA17992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 07:30:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from Tandem.com (suntan.tandem.com [192.216.221.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA17987 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 07:30:12 +1000 (EST) From: FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM Received: from gateway.tandem.com (dss1.mis.tandem.com [130.252.223.220]) by Tandem.com (8.9.3/2.0.1) with SMTP id NAA24346; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 13:30:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by gateway.tandem.com (4.20/4.11) id AA5945; 20 Mar 0 13:29:46 -0800 Date: 20 Mar 0 13:27:00 -0800 Message-Id: <200003201329.AA5945@gateway.tandem.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Bum claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > But the way things appear to stand now, there's no clear-cut > "approved" list, so the only sure way for players to protect ourselves > from differences in subjective TD judgments is to spell everything out > when claiming. Most of us seem to feel that it wouldn't be good for > the game to require people to do this. What I was trying to say (ineffectually, apparently) in an earlier message on this subject was that (IMHO) the 'approved list' would be those claims that were so clear-cut that they could have been made in a (semi-)novice game. The statement made can be altered to conform to both your perception of your opponents skill level and your perception of their perception of *your* skill level. This weekend I played in a Sectional and had a situation where I claimed, holding three trumps and two losing clubs in my hand, and a trump, a winning spade, and three losing red cards in dummy. I showed my hand and stated that I could ruff one club in dummy and throw the other on the good spade; I didn't state that I would ruff a red card to hand if they led the spade for me at the next trick. I thought that getting back to hand with a ruff was both obvious and necessitated by the claim statement -- if I led the last trump, I wouldn't have it in dummy to ruff the last losing club. Everyone put their cards away. Same game, different hand: opposing declarer was playing 4H after a transfer sequence. Reasonably late in the hand, I won a trick and put partner in; he led a club through Kx in dummy. Declarer went into a brown study, and I said "Does this make it any easier?" and showed him the AQ of clubs. He said "Yup" and we put our cards away (they were in a 5-5 fit and the two clubs were all we were going to get). Obviously -- because I did them -- these seemed to me to be reasonable things to do. Would anyone raise an objection to either one of these claims? My objection to the 'no line of play' claim -- when it isn't clear at the 'novice' level that the claim is good -- is that, in the end, it *wastes* time rather than saving it. Time wasted once -- when declarer is politely informed of how to make a good claim -- can be recovered by the time saved in future good claims. What I strongly object to is the theory that some players are so good that they should be allowed to waste other players' time by making 'no line of play' claims as a matter of their general practice. -- Regards, WWFiv Wally Farley Los Gatos, CA {ACBL District 21} From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 21 10:30:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA18519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 10:30:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA18509 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 10:29:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12XCXN-000OxO-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 00:28:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 20:10:56 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L35A: inadmissible double condoned References: <9$u$4yEQ1v04Ewt0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <200003201620.IAA29707@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200003201620.IAA29707@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> Adam Beneschan wrote: >> >David Stevenson wrote: >> > >> >> P P Dbl P >> >> >> >> According to L35A, the double and subsequent pass are cancelled, and >> >> the bidding proceeds as though there was no irregularity. The new >> >> auction: >> >> >> >> P P 1C 2S >> >> >> >> Are the original double and pass authorised to their partner? For >> >> example, the replacement 2S is a Strong Jump Overcall. May the partner >> >> of the 1C opener infer partner does not have a long club suit? >> > >> >My opinion: >> > >> >I believe L16C applies: information from withdrawn calls is UI to the >> >offending side, AI to the non-offending side. I don't think L16C >> >describes a "penalty"; therefore, it is not superseded by the phrase >> >in L35 that "there is no penalty for the inadmissible call". Usually, >> >the Laws state explicitly which restrictions are considered penalties >> >(see L36, for example). The side that made the legal double is an >> >offending side; I don't think condoning the call is an "offense" that >> >makes the other side an offending side (note that L35 refers to "the >> >offender" as if there is still only one offender after an inadmissible >> >call is condoned). Therefore, the double and pass are UI to the >> >doubler's partner, but AI to the passer's partner. >> >> Oh, goody. Next time my RHO doubles inadmissibly, I shall make an >> extra bid/pass before pointing it out, which means that *I* get two >> calls for the price of one, but he does not! > >But by doing so, you give up the right to force your LHO to pass >throughout the auction, and most likely the right to force LHO to lead >any suit you want (or prohibit any suit you don't want) at his first >turn to lead, if your side buys the contract. So it's hard for me to >imagine that you would gain anything from this ploy, in 99% of cases. Maybe, but let's think about the 1%: do you really think that when there are two illegal calls that one side should be allowed to gain from theirs and the other side not? It does not matter that is rare. >Anyway, I was just trying to apply the Law as written. Do you think I >interpreted the Law incorrectly, or are you saying that a correct >interpretation of the Law could lead to an unjust result and therefore >suggesting a Law change? I believe you misinterpreted the Law. I thought the question was whether the withdrawn calls were both UI to partner, or both AI: I was surprised that you could consider one UI and the other AI. I put the question because I am not sure in my own mind whether both are AI or both UI. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 21 10:29:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA18514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 10:29:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA18507 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 10:29:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12XCXE-000B1k-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 00:28:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 20:54:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: WBU CTD MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In early December, the WBU abolished the post of CTD. In March, they told me, with an apology for not telling me earlier. They allow that I should continue as Tournament Direction Co- ordinator, with a requirement that: "TDC is to have no involvement in the directing, or appointment of Directors, for Area or National events." I have resigned as TDC. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats 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 Mar 21 10:52:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA18619 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 10:52:28 +1000 (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 KAA18614 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 10:52:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from pa8s12a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.124.169] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt11-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Wqb6-0002Yo-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 01:03:08 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Laws62/70 Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 00:52:04 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf92cf$aca5dd20$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The scenario. Its MP pairs. South is Dec in 3NT. West leads 2c. Dummy is void so Dec pitches 2h. West follows with 10h. South wins with 10c from QJ10. South who can now count 13 top tricks faces his hand, East looks, and says "I have revoked" and shows Ac and Kc. The action TD is called and reads Law 62. A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established.(we are agreed it is not established aren't we?) TD reads Law 68D. Play has ceased so the revoke cannot be corrected. TD reads Law 70. This law tells him how to adjudicate, but it talks only of actions after the claim. East has realised he has revoked only after seeing Decs hand, but he might have realised if Dec had lead a card, as if East thought a heart had been led, he might have thought he was on lead himself. TD wants to rule that Dec makes 12 tricks, not 11 as if play had continued East would have had an exposed heart card which he would have to lead to trick 2. TD wants to penalise South for BLing.South knows that East has revoked or else West has led the 2c from AK98765432. Where's the Law that applies here? I think the comments about equity in the preamble to Law 70 appears to apply only to actions after the claim. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 21 11:56:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA18804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 11:56:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA18797 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 11:55:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id UAA15879 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 20:55:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id UAA20265 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 20:55:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 20:55:39 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200003210155.UAA20265@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 > >> 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. SW>1. It is not common where I play (Boston area). > From: David Stevenson > I don't think it needs to be common. Does it happen? I have never seen it around here, but that doesn't prove it never happens. SW>2. How declarers play when they play a hand out is not relevant for SW>judging irrational vs. normal lines. > Why not? We are judging "normal" play. Why should not declarer's > normal play be relevant to what is normal? We are judging lines of play to decide whether they are irrational. People play irrationally all the time; "normal" is no help. The contraposition -- if that's the correct term -- in the Laws is a false one, as has often been noted. I suppose we could judge normal instead of irrational, but that would be the equivalent of "any legal line of play." While that has merit, I don't think it is the intent of the present laws. SW>Is [judging claims] the sort of thing that should be addressed worldwide, SW>or should we leave it to NCBO's for now? It seems from BLML that SW>widespread practice in the UK is quite different from that in the SW>ACBL. Is this acceptable? > Yes. Bridge is not played the same way throughout the world, and > until it is [which will be a very sad day] there will be differences. > Some of those differences may affect the way Laws are applied. > > This is a general answer, not referring to the specific example. I was hoping for answers in the context of claim rules. Should an identical claim with an identical claim statement be judged the same way everywhere, or should the result depend on local customs? I can see good arguments for either. I agree that there are many other matters that should be universal and many that should be local. Which category is this one in? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 21 12:25:51 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA18893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 12:25:51 +1000 (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 MAA18888 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 12:25:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA08541; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 18:25:45 -0800 Message-Id: <200003210225.SAA08541@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: L35A: inadmissible double condoned In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 20 Mar 2000 20:10:56 PST." Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 18:25:45 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > >But by doing so, you give up the right to force your LHO to pass > >throughout the auction, and most likely the right to force LHO to lead > >any suit you want (or prohibit any suit you don't want) at his first > >turn to lead, if your side buys the contract. So it's hard for me to > >imagine that you would gain anything from this ploy, in 99% of cases. > > Maybe, but let's think about the 1%: do you really think that when > there are two illegal calls that one side should be allowed to gain from > theirs and the other side not? It does not matter that is rare. > > >Anyway, I was just trying to apply the Law as written. Do you think I > >interpreted the Law incorrectly, or are you saying that a correct > >interpretation of the Law could lead to an unjust result and therefore > >suggesting a Law change? > > I believe you misinterpreted the Law. I thought the question was > whether the withdrawn calls were both UI to partner, or both AI: I was > surprised that you could consider one UI and the other AI. I don't blame you for thinking this result to be odd, or unfair, or unjust. I actually did not consider this at all when I wrote my first response, since I thought I could simply interpret the Laws without considering whether I considered the result to be unfair to one side or the other. Clearly, though, the fairness or unfairness of the result should not be how we determine whether we've interpreted the Laws correctly, if the Laws are clear. If they're ambiguous, then I don't really have a problem with interpreting them in the way that I think is fairest. But if making things "fair" requires twisting the Laws to say something that they clearly don't, then we have to accept an unfair result and, perhaps, campaign to change the Laws. I always thought RTFLB meant "read the (fabulous) Law book", not "reinterpret the (fabulous) Law book"!!!!!! With that out of the way: I don't quite see where I've misinterpreted the Laws. In fact, you're saying there are two illegal calls, but I'm not sure about this. Is the pass over the illegal double itself an illegal call? If so, what Law is being broken? L9B1 says "The Director must be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity." But it doesn't say that taking action *before* attention has been drawn to the irregularity is illegal, or an infraction, or an offense. The Laws do make provisions for cases where the non-offending side does something before attention has been drawn to the irregularity (L25B1, L35), but they don't refer to such an action as an infraction or an offense or anything similar. So L16C1 should apply to the side that passed over the illegal double, and the pass is thus AI to the passer's side. The only other point of departure I see could be whether UI restrictions are considered a "penalty". I explained why I don't think it is. If it's not a penalty, then L16C2 applies, since the illegal doubler is clearly an offender no matter how you look at it. But if you consider UI restrictions to be a "penalty", then the UI restrictions are cancelled by L35. So my question is: Exactly which part of the Law did I misinterpret (or fail to notice) in my argument? Hopefully you have a specific answer to this; I can't imagine that you would argue something like "I don't know where, but you must have misinterpreted something because I don't like the result". -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 21 12:26:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA18910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 12:26:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA18897 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 12:26:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id VAA16284 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 21:25:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id VAA20413 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 21:25:42 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 21:25:42 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200003210225.VAA20413@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Mess caused by Kibitzer Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Schoderb@aol.com > Hey, an easy one. You got it exactly correct , sir, if you add that > attention was first draw to the problem at 08:30 AM th following day, far > beyond any Laws anticipated provisions to change the result. Isn't it the SO's job to establish the correction period? And wasn't at least part of the problem in this case that the correction period wasn't clear, being longer for "manifest errors" than for other kinds of corrections? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 21 14:10:47 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA19125 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 14:10:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from neodymium.btinternet.com (neodymium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.83]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA19119 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 14:10:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.6.99.1] (helo=davidburn) by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12XFzP-0002IA-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 04:09:55 +0000 Message-ID: <000001bf92eb$97c80060$0163063e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200003162148.NAA25847@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.20000320120755.007c7e30@eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Bum claim Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 03:51:18 -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 Grant wrote: > >But we do not need a set of laws that work for "the vast majority". We > >need a set of laws that work for *everyone*, that can consistently be > >applied to *every* situation without requiring subjective judgement on > >the part of directors, committees or players. > I really think this is a fundamental part of our disagreement on > this and other issues. I am not surprised. The Bridge World is attempting to resolve precisely this issue at the moment, but I do not think it can ever be "resolved" to the satisfaction of all concerned. There is much to be said for a "fixed-penalty" system of Laws; there is much to be said for an "equity-based" system of Laws; there is very little that one side can do to convince the other side. Such "debates" invariably come down to little more than people banging on the table and shouting. All that we can ultimately hope to do is to put our respective cases as strongly as we can - having done so, if what is in practice adopted is not "our" system, it is our duty as administrators to understand the chosen system and to apply it as best we may. >_Why_ do we need a set of laws that can be applied > exactly the same way every single time without any subjective judgement > on anyone's part? Because such a system would preclude the "ad hominem" arguments that plague our game from the lowest levels to the highest. Because such a system would allow people to join the world-wide fraternity of bridge players knowing that if rulings went against them, this would not be for personal but for technical reasons. Because such a system would allow the administrators of our game to rule consistently without fearing that the paying customers would not return. Because players of any game prefer to know that, unfair though the rules may occasionally be, the rules are the same for the superstars and the supernumaries. > Why is that better than a set of laws designed to > achieve equity where reasonably possible? Strange as it may seem, most of the "fixed-penalty" laws in place today began as attempts to preserve equity whilst meting out condign punishment. But they were as they were because the game itself was at that time only dimly understood. Now that we have a much better understanding of what bridge is and how to play it, we have come to realise that the original laws were at best crude and at worst useless in terms of preserving equity; however, as a legal framework, they were easy to understand and easy to administer. We have therefore attempted to patch them up only inasmuch as preserving equity is concerned, as a result of which we have rendered them very difficult to understand and impossible to administer. Moreover, the notion that no one ought to be punished for accidentally breaking the laws has become prevalent, in society as well as in bridge, so that we have in the Scope of the Laws that splendid passage about "redress for damage" which is the last and inevitable recourse of the equity merchants. What happened to the notion that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it? As I have said, people who believe in equity will never understand people who believe in fixed penalties and vice versa. I make no claim that either approach is intrinsically "better", but I would ask this. When you call for the tournament director, would you rather have approaching your table an individual who (a) knows what he is supposed to be doing and (b) is armed with a rule book, which you and he and your opponents understand, to which he can point as his justification for doing whatever it is he does; or an individual whose primary concern is not to upset anyone and whose instinctive reaction will be to delegate to some committee the task of sorting out whatever mess has happened and of pouring oil on troubled waters? > For example, suppose we have a revoke law that says "if you revoke, > your side loses the revoke trick plus one other." Period. We did. For some considerable time. The basis for this was simple. It is a requirement of the laws that you follow suit when you can - this requirement is "arbitrary" in that it would be entirely possible for it not to exist without moral repercussions (that is, it would be entirely possible to construct a game in which you could choose not to follow suit if you liked - but such a game would not be bridge as we know it and as our fathers attempted to establish it). Given this, why would anyone fail to follow suit when they could? Well, they might be asleep, or one of their cards might have stuck to the back of another, but the question which had to be addressed by the Pleistocene lawmakers was: why would anyone *deliberately* not follow suit when they could? The most likely explanation for this was that they would ruff a trick to which they would otherwise have to follow with a small card, changing the ownership of the trick and the fate of the contract. So: (a) that trick had to be restored to its rightful owner; (b) the offender had to suffer some deterrent, lest he continue to follow his nefarious path while hoping to esacpe undetected. The obvious deterrent was to penalise him another trick, so that he could never gain and sometimes lose by his sharp practice. Remember that in those days, nobody had much idea about the way in which bridge was actually played - it never occurred to our Neanderthal ancestors that you could occasionally gain more than two tricks by a revoke. > This law > would most certainly be easy to apply. Of course, there will be times > when this penalty is less than the profit the side had by revoking, and > other times when this penalty will be wildly damaging to the revoking > side for no real reason [for example, they revoked while randomly discarding > losers while declarer cashed all his winning cards rather than claim > because he was afraid of making a slip of the tongue on his claim statement > that would cost him tricks somehow]. But it would be simple, and require > no subjective judgement at all. Why would it be better? Again, I make no claim that it would intrinsically be "better". When the revoke law was first created, it was done on the basis that a revoke could only ever gain one trick for the revoking side. As we came to realise that revoking with Jxx when an opponent attempted to run AKQxxxx in an otherwise entry-less hand could gain more than one (or even two) tricks for the revoking side, there was a need to revise the law in order to achieve its original purpose, which was (in part) to restore to declarer those tricks which he would otherwise have taken. The sharpers were now one step ahead of the lawmakers, and the laws had to catch up. At this point, the rot set in. Instead of rendering unto Caesar that which was Caesar's *and* continuing to apply the "deterrent" aspect of the revoke penalty, a set of circumstances was created in which some revokes cost no tricks (with respect to those which the revoker would have taken anyway), while some cost two tricks. The heights of ridiculousness were scaled by the latest amendment to the revoke law, so that we now have a position where a revoke costs 0, 1 or 2 tricks depending on some wholly arbitrary feature of the deal on which the revoke takes place. What is more, the relevant law is so complicated that nobody actually knows how many tricks a revoke has in practice "cost" without the aid of a wet towel around the head and a place to lie down. This could have been foreseen, of course, when the provision that no one could revoke at trick 12 was created. If you have only two cards left in your hand, it is (ex def) far more culpable (in terms of not paying attention) to revoke at trick 12 than at any other trick, so this absurdity has even less justification than any of the other codicils to the original revoke law. It was done, of course, because when there were only two tricks left to be played the concentration of the average rabbit tended to wander, so that he was no longer penalised for his habit of tossing his two remaining cards onto the table in no particular order. Understandable, to be sure, but had it not been for the ruthless approach once adopted to the extermination of rabbits in various parts of the globe, the server that supports this list of ours would not exist. As readers of my contributions will know, I have advocated on many occasions that the (fixed) penalty for a revoke should be death. Not only would everyone understand this, it would swiftly lead to a position in which no revoke ruling would ever be required (let alone debated), since the game would in short order come to be played only by people who can follow suit. I, lest anyone should wonder, would long since have been pushing up the daisies under my own regime. The serious point I am trying to make, though, is that a revoke should always cost the revoker some tricks over and above those which he has to restore to the opponents for "equitable" reasons - the element of deterrence. If those tricks include ones which his side has already won prior to the revoke, so what? > I certainly think it is desirable that all TDs everywhere have the > proper training so that they understand the law--in that sense, I strongly > favor 'universality'. Look. You and I do not understand the law as presently constituted. Grattan Endicott, Bill Schoder, Ton Kooijman, David Stevenson and others of the many eminent contributors to this list do not understand the law as presently constituted (at least, they do not understand it well enough to be able to explain to the satisfaction of the rest of us what it says). If we - and they - did, this list would not exist, to the inestimable detriment of mankind. The reason for this is that the present law is a mish-mash of equity-based and fixed-penalty systems. The reason for *this* is that, as Oscar Wilde put it: But this I know: that every law That man has made for man, Since first man took his brother's life And the mad world began, But straws the wheat and saves the chaff With a most evil fan. Given that such gifted individuals as you and I have no real notion of what the laws require, how is it to be expected that the poor guy who responds to a cry of "Director!" by putting down his tricky defensive problem at table 3 and shambling towards us at table 11, rulebook in hand and hoping for the best that we'll have an easy problem for him (such as a contested claim, for Ton assures me that all claims are easy), will understand at once what the laws require? I would have said that the poor guy's best hope would be that we could sort it out among ourselves. But how can we do that, if the chap who has opened a spade out of turn at our table has to wait for someone to come and explain to him what his equity in the position now is? If, on the other hand, everybody knew that once he'd opened a spade out of turn (no matter whose turn it really was, and no matter what anyone else at the table chose to do), his side couldn't bid any more and our side could ban or require spade leads forever, we would have a good chance of being able to get on with the game. Is this fair? Not very. Is it practical? Oh, very. > But I see nothing wrong with the possibility that > a player that claims at my table may not get the same ruling as a player that > claims at someone else's table Whereas I see everything wrong with it - it is the quintessence of what I believe to be fundamentally wrong with the game as currently administered. That is why we won't understand each other. Not that there is harm in trying - your post was one of the most well-reasoned and important in terms of fundamental issues to hit this list in a long while. And, in truth, nothing will actually happen in terms of resolving the dichotomy between fixed-penalty and equity-based systems until long after you and I have both paid the ultimate revoke penalty. The mills of God grind slowly... > so long as the other TD and I are both > able to explain how our rulings were reasonable applications of the law > and our own differing judgements. Quite so. But how will you answer the question: "So, if you'd been called to the other table and he'd been called to ours, we'd have got different results on these two boards?" Or, more likely (in the AQ10xx facing K9xx case), "So, what you're saying is that he can spot an obvious safety play and I can't?" The trouble with the Laws is that it is possible within them for two TDs, acting in the best interests (as they perceive them) of all concerned to give two different rulings on what is essentially the same set of facts, because the two TDs have differing views on what constitutes "equity". Banging on the table as quickly and as loudly as I can, and shouting at the top of my voice, I tell you that *this simply must not be*. > This is no doubt annoying on those > occasions where a player gets a ruling that contradicts the ruling he got > "in the same situation at that tournament in Hoboken last year", but the > benefit we get is the possibility to give rulings that approximate equity, > or to give rulings that cater to the interests and expectations of sometimes > very different groups of bridge players in different places. Now there, you have a point. It has been made before, most eloquently (if memory serves) by Eric Landau. I should say that, happily for my peace of mind but unhappily in that it renders me incapable of feeling the appropriate degree of sympathy for owners of bridge clubs and peace-makers in general, my penchant for the "fixed-penalty" approach is wholly unconditioned by having to live at the sharp end. I have assumed throughout this and other discussions that the paying public would rather play under an arbitrary set of rules which they knew applied to everyone than a flexible, "caring" set of rules under which the result of any given deal was subordinate to the enjoyment of the game by all concerned. I may very well be wrong about this. > In short, the 'subjective judgement' laws have two advantages: > a) they are more easily varied to suit the needs of different people in > different places, and > b) they can be used to try to achieve equity. I think that the needs of people are the same everywhere. I think that the vast majority of people who play bridge try to do their best and are affronted only when told that they should have tried harder. They would more readily understand a rule saying "when your partner breaks tempo, you must pass at your next turn" than they would understand why they are being ruled against under the current L16 and/or L73. I think that as long as we try to codify "the needs of different people in different places", the game itself will remain too complex for the vast majority to understand or even approach. > In the area where I usually play, virtually no time is ever spent > on disputed claims. Occasionally someone will say "No, I get the K of > diamonds", everyone nods, and we move on. No-one would ever think to > dispute a claim where someone had J92 of trumps and didn't say he was > cashing them top-down. OTOH, many players are very leery of claiming, > and hardly ever do so. So in our area, a law or interpretation that > required detailed claim statements would not save time, but would instead > kill off claiming altogether, thereby costing both time and annoyance. But > I'm sure that there are other places where a strict application of the claim > laws would save time and lead to a better game. I am getting increasingly fed up with this. I have myself been guilty of using the pompous argument that not claiming is illegal; there is a Law (74B4) which almost says so, though it does not actually say so. There is another Law (L68D) which requires play to cease after a claim; this has often been used by the pompous to demand that the TD arrive at the table and determine what was in everyone's mind at a particular instant before the claim was made, then go away and produce a ruling based on a concept of "rationality" that absolutely nobody understands. What actually happens at, say, club level is that someone asks me to play on. I do so, to a point at which even my questioner can see that I have the rest. Should my membership of BLML be rescinded for this hideous crime? Ton Kooijman is quite right when he says that claims are easy. He has never had to deal with one. Bum claims *do not occur* at the highest levels of the game. Can any of you remember a report in any of the magazines in your country of a bum claim in your national tournaments? For myself, I have been at just about every European or World Championship, or Olympiad, since 1987. There have been no reported bum claims at any of those events. The problem is one that needs to be dealt with only at lower levels. The difficulty (as always) is that nobody understands the rules, because the rules require learned men (such as you and I) to construe the English words "careless", "inferior" and "irrational" to the satisfaction of no-one. The situation is further exacerbated by the assumption that if a player who claimed had to make a comprehensive (and comprehensible) statement accompanying his claim, the game would somehow become slower. There is no empirical evidence for this, since no one has any experience one way or the other. But, because the Laws on contested claims are complicated, they afford us sad sacks on BLML endless enjoyment while contributing nothing to the progress of the game. > So if the law is written so that the TD may use his judgement, then it is easy for TDs in my area to > rule one way and TDs in the other place to rule the other way. I do not > regard this as a fault, but as a virtue. As I have said before, we won't ever see eye to eye on this. That I can get a ruling in my favour in Milwaukee, while the same ruling on the same set of facts will go against me in Milton Keynes, will forever strike me as a pretty dismal state of affairs. For all that, the jury is still out, and I can see the force of your arguments. > Regarding the second point, I do not think the game will be improved > by abolishing the concept of doing equity. Oh, equity should be done where it can be done. And offenders should be punished regardless. That is the philosophy behind my view (in a different thread) that where there has been UI, or MI, or FBI, the non-offenders should get a score corresponding to their equity in the board (say, 60% of the matchpoints for making a 60% game and 40% of the matchpoints for going down in it). The offenders should get 100% of the matchpoints for having the game made against them. This view, which may be described as slightly to the left of Michael Rosenberg, is as worthy or as unworthy of support as any other. It has no justification on other than emotional grounds; it "feels right". > I do not think we should change > the laws so that all ruling are equity rulings, but I don't think we should > do away with the idea. I have won games before because an opponent revoked > and gave me a trick it was impossible to get otherwise--I did not enjoy > winning that way, and the other players sitting my direction certainly > didn't enjoy losing points because of it, either. Oh, well. In the recent Bermuda Bowl, Christian Mari of France produced a penalty card. Michael Kwicien of Poland could have made the contract now because of this penalty card - and he knew it - instead of which he cashed another superfluous winner to give Mari the chance to discard the penalty card, thus going down because "he did not want to win that way". His action was described in the Daily Bulletin as "great sportsmanship". There are those who would agree with him, Grant among them. There are those who would not, myself among them. We will *never* convince each other that our point of view is the "correct" one, for there is no such thing. There are "equity-based" people and there are "fixed-penalty" people. Which is where we came in. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 21 16:22:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA19415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 16:22:58 +1000 (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 QAA19410 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 16:22:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from eduhi.at (petrus2.konvent [192.168.1.116]) by michael.gym (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA17269 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 07:34:00 +0100 Message-ID: <38D71515.FE13BAA8@eduhi.at> Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 07:22:13 +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: Laws62/70 References: <01bf92cf$aca5dd20$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones schrieb: > > The scenario. > Its MP pairs. > South is Dec in 3NT. > West leads 2c. > Dummy is void so Dec pitches 2h. > West follows with 10h. > South wins with 10c from QJ10. > South who can now count 13 top tricks faces his hand, > East looks, and says "I have revoked" and shows Ac and Kc. > The action > TD is called and reads Law 62. A player must correct his > revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it > becomes established.(we are agreed it is not established aren't we?) > TD reads Law 68D. Play has ceased so the revoke cannot be > corrected. What about: "The Committee gave its attention to Law 63A3 and noted that if a defender revokes and Declarer then claims, whereupon a defender disputes the claim so there is no acquiescence, the revoke has not been established. The Director must allow correction of the revoke and then determine the claim as equitably as possible, adjudicating any margin of doubt against the revoker." (Meeting of 12th January, minute 3) Petrus From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 21 20:10:56 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA19932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 20:10:56 +1000 (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 UAA19914 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 20:10:40 +1000 (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 12XLcM-000BOu-0W for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 10:10:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 10:04:09 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Bum claim References: <200003162148.NAA25847@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.20000320120755.007c7e30@eiu.edu> <000001bf92eb$97c80060$0163063e@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <000001bf92eb$97c80060$0163063e@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <000001bf92eb$97c80060$0163063e@davidburn>, David Burn writes >Grant wrote: > >> >But we do not need a set of laws that work for "the vast majority". >We >> >need a set of laws that work for *everyone*, that can consistently >be >> >applied to *every* situation without requiring subjective judgement >on >> >the part of directors, committees or players. > >> I really think this is a fundamental part of our disagreement on >> this and other issues. > >I am not surprised. The Bridge World is attempting to resolve >precisely this issue at the moment, but I do not think it can ever be >"resolved" to the satisfaction of all concerned. There is much to be >said for a "fixed-penalty" system of Laws; there is much to be said >for an "equity-based" system of Laws; there is very little that one >side can do to convince the other side. snip > There are "equity-based" people and >there are "fixed-penalty" people. Which is where we came in. > >David Burn >London, England > As one of those who shambles around with a rule book in his hand, whilst being summoned simultaneously to table 3 downstairs and table 7 upstairs and to the telephone to give a telephone ruling I have strong views about which way I lean. A competent [let's not bother with snide comments in this excellent thread please] TD can run about 20-25 tables of pairs and keep a movement running to time, and give rulings with the Laws as they stand. Maybe up to 30 tables if they're playing 7-board Swiss teams. In the EBU the standard allocation is one "working" TD per 20 tables at National events. I exclude caddies, scorers and the CTD, so this all seems to hang together. The job of a TD is to supervise the orderly progress of the game. Within this he will where necessary educate players into better knowledge of the practical workings of the Laws. A ruling from my perspective is usually one of two kinds: 1) One where I can read the Laws out of the book, explain all the options and stand by to see that the penalty is paid. In the EBU we call these "book rulings". 2) One where some infraction has occurred where it is possible that I may need to adjust the score. In this case I will advise people of their rights and ask them to call me back should any player consider that his rights have been crossed. There are other situations but they don't occur very often. *** Class 1 type calls If I'm called about a lead out of turn, I make the speech I always make (which incidentally DWS thinks would lead to a fail at the club TD course) and I wait until the option is selected, and if there is a penalty card still visible until that penalty card is disposed of. If I'm called about a revoke then I resolve it, and if the call is during the play I advise the Offender of his rights and objectives, as well as assessing the penalty. If I'm called about an insufficient bid or call out of turn then I resolve it. etc. These calls probably represent about 75% of the calls I get. They are resolved in about a minute (slightly more for the OLOOT) *** Class 2 type calls There is MI, there is UI, there are "wires", misboards, and a few others. These calls require me to exercise my bridge judgement. I explain to the players how the Law is applied in these circumstances, and may be I'll be called back. (About half the time I am). Where UI or MI is concerned I now have to interview all four players at the table, and keep control of the potential 'angst' felt between the players. I need to be reasonably alert as I much prefer not to have to go back a few minutes later and ask subsidiary questions - for two reasons. i) players' memories will have faded to some extent and an element of rationalisation will have set in, so that later answers are less reliable than earlier ones; ii) it disrupts the orderly progress of the event. Having interviewed each player, and examined my own internal check-list of things I need to know and questions I have to ask (just think of the check-list for use of UI and you'll see what I mean) I will then tell the players to score the board as played (which is good for orderly progress) and I will advise them later of my ruling. This whole process takes a couple of minutes. In a difficult case I may consult with up to 5 people (eg I phoned DWS in the middle of an event on Saturday for advice) maybe even by phone. I will then return to the players, now sitting at different tables, wait for a break in the game and advise them of my ruling and their rights of appeal. If there is to be an appeal I will then find suitable players to sit on the appeal and advise them of when and where it will be held. This process can easily take half an hour of my "real" time spread over as much as 90 minutes. If players wish to turn "book rulings" into "equity-based rulings" then they will need to pay for one TD per 10 tables just to process the work- load. These TDs will have to be highly trained (which means they will be expensive) as the bridge judgement required will often be of a high standard. Now I have no fear at all of being found wanting in respect of training and experience, but it is difficult to find people like me, who enjoy being a TD, who are "competent", who try to do it well and who are willing to do a LOT of it (eg 7-8 sessions per week). Indeed it may not be possible to find enough such TDs. So ... If you want equity based ruling, expect to pay more for your bridge because you'll need more and better TDs. For me, I'm with DALB, players like to know *what the penalty is* AND NOT *what the equity based ruling might be*. Indeed the whole process of education is made an order of magnitude more difficult in the equity- based case because the answer will be "It depends". DALB prefers shooting, but I'm not in favour of this as overall a bridge club is more fun when it is full, and mistakes are being made and resolved. As for the bastinado, well I suppose I could let them sit N/S for a week. Me, I'm for penalty based rulings. It is in line with "orderly progress" 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 Mar 21 20:10:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA19919 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 20:10:48 +1000 (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 UAA19912 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 20:10:38 +1000 (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 12XLcI-000BOj-0W for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 10:10:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 10:08:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: WBU CTD References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > In early December, the WBU abolished the post of CTD. In March, they >told me, with an apology for not telling me earlier. > > They allow that I should continue as Tournament Direction Co- >ordinator, with a requirement that: > >"TDC is to have no involvement in the directing, or appointment of >Directors, for Area or National events." > > I have resigned as TDC. > > What a bloody shame. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 21 20:10:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA19930 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 20:10:54 +1000 (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 UAA19913 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 20:10:38 +1000 (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 12XLcI-000BOi-0W for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 10:10:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 10:07:34 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action References: <200003210155.UAA20265@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200003210155.UAA20265@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <200003210155.UAA20265@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes snip > >I was hoping for answers in the context of claim rules. Should an >identical claim with an identical claim statement be judged the same way >everywhere, or should the result depend on local customs? To an extent by local custom. DWS and I have been locked in mortal combat over this one for years. The YC for example just does not double a 1NT overcall with fewer than about 11 points. DWS expects the double to be made on about 8-9. > I can see >good arguments for either. I agree that there are many other matters >that should be universal and many that should be local. Which category >is this one in? -- 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 Mar 21 20:43:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA20061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 20:43:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt11-he.global.net.uk.noc.gxn.net (cobalt11-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.171]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA20056 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 20:42:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from pf8s01a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.161.249] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt11-he.global.net.uk.noc.gxn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Wx7V-0002qJ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 08:01:01 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Laws62/70 Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 10:13:24 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf931e$17e8d4e0$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: Petrus Schuster OSB To: BLML Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 6:36 AM Subject: Re: Laws62/70 > > >Anne Jones schrieb: >> >> The scenario. >> Its MP pairs. >> South is Dec in 3NT. >> West leads 2c. >> Dummy is void so Dec pitches 2h. >> West follows with 10h. >> South wins with 10c from QJ10. >> South who can now count 13 top tricks faces his hand, >> East looks, and says "I have revoked" and shows Ac and Kc. >> The action >> TD is called and reads Law 62. A player must correct his >> revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it >> becomes established.(we are agreed it is not established aren't we?) >> TD reads Law 68D. Play has ceased so the revoke cannot be >> corrected. > >What about: >"The Committee gave its attention to Law 63A3 and noted that if a >defender revokes and Declarer then claims, whereupon a defender disputes >the claim so there is no acquiescence, the revoke has not been >established. The Director must allow correction of the revoke and then >determine the claim as equitably as possible, adjudicating any margin of >doubt against the revoker." (Meeting of 12th January, minute 3) > I knew I'd seen it somewhere but couldn't remember where. It doesn't come much plainer, or with more authority. Thank you for that. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 21 20:46:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA20077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 20:46:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from hera.frw.uva.nl (HERA.frw.uva.nl [145.18.122.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA20072 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 20:46:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from jppals (DHCP-ivip-121.frw.uva.nl [145.18.125.121]) by hera.frw.uva.nl (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA13964 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 11:46:14 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200003211046.LAA13964@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 UvA To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 11:43:32 +0100 Subject: Re: WBU CTD Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 20 Mar 00, at 20:54, David Stevenson wrote: > > In early December, the WBU abolished the post of CTD. In March, they > told me, with an apology for not telling me earlier. > > They allow that I should continue as Tournament Direction Co- > ordinator, with a requirement that: > > "TDC is to have no involvement in the directing, or appointment of > Directors, for Area or National events." > > I have resigned as TDC. > Looks like a fishy political game is being played here. Or are they just plain stupid??? JP From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 21 21:14:01 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA20103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 20:56:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from tantalum.btinternet.com (tantalum.btinternet.com [194.73.73.80]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA20098 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 20:56:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.103.221] (helo=davidburn) by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12XMCv-0003kJ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 10:48:17 +0000 Message-ID: <001201bf9324$50965b40$dd6701d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "BLML" References: <01bf92cf$aca5dd20$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: Laws62/70 Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 10:57:55 -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 > The scenario. > Its MP pairs. > South is Dec in 3NT. > West leads 2c. > Dummy is void so Dec pitches 2h. > West follows with 10h. The tournament director will need at some point to determine (incorrectly, in keeping with established BLML practice) whether this was a fifth card played to the current trick or a lead out of turn to the next trick. East, who at the end of this trick will have too many cards, must at some point be taken from hence and hanged by the neck until he is dead. > South wins with 10c from QJ10. > South who can now count 13 top tricks faces his hand, > East looks, and says "I have revoked" and shows Ac and Kc. East, who has not played anything to the previous trick, has not revoked. Nobody knows what he has done, which is why we are going to hang him rather than attempt to find out (for the intent of a player is of no importance according to the best authorities). > The action > TD is called and reads Law 62. A player must correct his > revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it > becomes established.(we are agreed it is not established aren't we?) > TD reads Law 68D. Play has ceased so the revoke cannot be > corrected. > TD reads Law 70. This law tells him how to adjudicate, but it talks > only of actions after the claim. > East has realised he has revoked only after seeing Decs hand, but > he might have realised if Dec had lead a card, as if East thought a > heart had been led, he might have thought he was on lead himself. > TD wants to rule that Dec makes 12 tricks, not 11 as if play had > continued East would have had an exposed heart card which he > would have to lead to trick 2. > TD wants to penalise South for BLing.South knows that East has > revoked or else West has led the 2c from AK98765432. > Where's the Law that applies here? I think the comments about > equity in the preamble to Law 70 appears to apply only to actions > after the claim. Who cares? A player with the ace and king of the suit led ought to pay sufficient attention to play one of them, or some other card if feeling particularly lackadaisical. Anyone who plays nothing at all does not deserve to win any tricks, which is just as well for the Laws expressly prohibit his doing so. However, assuming that I have misread the above post slightly, for there surely cannot be anything wrong with the report of so punctilious a tournament director, it may be that it is after all East who has contributed a heart to the trick in question, though possessing not only clubs but clubs of sufficient importance to make one wonder on what his mind was dwelling. The revoke is not established, because no member of the offending side has played a card to a subsequent trick (with the possible exception of West, who for all I know may have played to the next three on his own, since he appears to have a callous disregard for the principle of clockwise rotation). I find nothing in L68D to say that an opponent's claim establishes a revoke for our side, not do I find anything to suggest that a revoke may not be corrected simply because play has ceased following a claim. The words of Law 64A3 appear to me to state expressly that it is only the *offending* side's claim or concession that establishes their revoke, not a claim or concession by the *non-offending* side. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 21 22:04:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA20315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 22:04:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA20305 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 22:03:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12XNNo-000MEB-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 12:03:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 03:45:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Laws62/70 References: <01bf92cf$aca5dd20$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf92cf$aca5dd20$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >The scenario. >Its MP pairs. >South is Dec in 3NT. >West leads 2c. >Dummy is void so Dec pitches 2h. >West follows with 10h. >South wins with 10c from QJ10. >South who can now count 13 top tricks faces his hand, >East looks, and says "I have revoked" and shows Ac and Kc. >The action >TD is called and reads Law 62. A player must correct his >revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it >becomes established.(we are agreed it is not established aren't we?) Yes, no acquiescence. >TD reads Law 68D. Play has ceased so the revoke cannot be >corrected. True. >TD reads Law 70. This law tells him how to adjudicate, but it talks >only of actions after the claim. >East has realised he has revoked only after seeing Decs hand, but >he might have realised if Dec had lead a card, as if East thought a >heart had been led, he might have thought he was on lead himself. >TD wants to rule that Dec makes 12 tricks, not 11 as if play had >continued East would have had an exposed heart card which he >would have to lead to trick 2. Fine. At Bermuda, the WBFLC decided that after a revoke and a claim, doubtful points should initially be decided against revoker. We have had several questions like this on BLML, and that is what we wanted. I cannot say for certain without looking at the hand, but TD should give benefit of doubt to claimer and see how many tricks claimer gets that way. >TD wants to penalise South for BLing.South knows that East has >revoked or else West has led the 2c from AK98765432. TD does not understand BLing. We do not want people to try and get back what they lost by doubtful ethical practices. That does not affect taking advantage of the opponents' breach of the Laws in a straightforward way. When a player revokes, it is not BLing to take advantage. BLing is asking for a ruling when you know you are in the wrong but it is worth it to see if the TD is stupid, or asking for a ruling and lying about your intentions. Straightforward taking advantage of a revoke [or LOOT, or insufficient bid, or whatever] is not BLing. >Where's the Law that applies here? I think the comments about >equity in the preamble to Law 70 appears to apply only to actions >after the claim. L70A refers to the adjudication by the Director: that is what the TD follows, but because of Bermuda, he gives the benefit of the doubt against the revoker. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats 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 Mar 21 22:04:02 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA20314 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 22:04:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA20304 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 22:03:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12XNNs-000MEU-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 12:03:41 +0000 Message-ID: <+$Z$I3AI3u14Ew0R@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 03:34:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L35A: inadmissible double condoned References: <200003210225.SAA08541@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200003210225.SAA08541@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> >But by doing so, you give up the right to force your LHO to pass >> >throughout the auction, and most likely the right to force LHO to lead >> >any suit you want (or prohibit any suit you don't want) at his first >> >turn to lead, if your side buys the contract. So it's hard for me to >> >imagine that you would gain anything from this ploy, in 99% of cases. >> Maybe, but let's think about the 1%: do you really think that when >> there are two illegal calls that one side should be allowed to gain from >> theirs and the other side not? It does not matter that is rare. >> >Anyway, I was just trying to apply the Law as written. Do you think I >> >interpreted the Law incorrectly, or are you saying that a correct >> >interpretation of the Law could lead to an unjust result and therefore >> >suggesting a Law change? >> I believe you misinterpreted the Law. I thought the question was >> whether the withdrawn calls were both UI to partner, or both AI: I was >> surprised that you could consider one UI and the other AI. >I don't blame you for thinking this result to be odd, or unfair, or >unjust. I actually did not consider this at all when I wrote my first >response, since I thought I could simply interpret the Laws without >considering whether I considered the result to be unfair to one side >or the other. > >Clearly, though, the fairness or unfairness of the result should not >be how we determine whether we've interpreted the Laws correctly, if >the Laws are clear. If they're ambiguous, then I don't really have a >problem with interpreting them in the way that I think is fairest. >But if making things "fair" requires twisting the Laws to say >something that they clearly don't, then we have to accept an unfair >result and, perhaps, campaign to change the Laws. I always thought >RTFLB meant "read the (fabulous) Law book", not "reinterpret the >(fabulous) Law book"!!!!!! > >With that out of the way: I don't quite see where I've misinterpreted >the Laws. In fact, you're saying there are two illegal calls, but I'm >not sure about this. Is the pass over the illegal double itself an >illegal call? If so, what Law is being broken? L9B1 says "The >Director must be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an >irregularity." But it doesn't say that taking action *before* >attention has been drawn to the irregularity is illegal, or an >infraction, or an offense. The Laws do make provisions for cases >where the non-offending side does something before attention has been >drawn to the irregularity (L25B1, L35), but they don't refer to such >an action as an infraction or an offense or anything similar. So >L16C1 should apply to the side that passed over the illegal double, >and the pass is thus AI to the passer's side. The Law certainly permits you to condone Insufficient Bids and Calls out of Turn. But it has no provision for *allowing* you to condone Inadmissible Calls. The fact that it tells the TD what to do with an Inadmissible Call that is condoned does not mean that it is legal to do so [see L72B2]. Furthermore, L35, which deals with Inadmissible Calls condoned, has a penalty aspect. I do not believe that a player has a right to condone an Inadmissible call, and thus a call after it is illegal. I believe that if it were legal to condone them deliberately it would say so [compare L27A, L29A]. >The only other point of departure I see could be whether UI >restrictions are considered a "penalty". I explained why I don't >think it is. If it's not a penalty, then L16C2 applies, since the >illegal doubler is clearly an offender no matter how you look at it. >But if you consider UI restrictions to be a "penalty", then the UI >restrictions are cancelled by L35. Aaaah, but that is the whole point of my original question! >So my question is: Exactly which part of the Law did I misinterpret >(or fail to notice) in my argument? Hopefully you have a specific >answer to this; I can't imagine that you would argue something like "I >don't know where, but you must have misinterpreted something because I >don't like the result". I believe there to be two offending sides. I do not like a result that gives one of them AI and the other UI for similar actions. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats 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 Mar 21 22:28:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA20221 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 21:31:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f20.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA20216 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 21:31:07 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 90215 invoked by uid 0); 21 Mar 2000 11:30:26 -0000 Message-ID: <20000321113026.90214.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.219 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 03:30:26 PST X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Bum claim Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 03:30:26 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote An awful lot of interesting stuff, all of which seemed fair and reasonable, but then we got to this bit... > >Me, I'm for penalty based rulings. It is in line with "orderly >progress" > Now perhaps I'm just being a bit paranoid, but this, to me, at least, smacked of running things for the benefit of the tournament Director, rather than for the players. By all means make things clearer for players, but not just to make life easy for the referees. I'm drifting towards the 'fixed penalty' school of thought, but is this because my own life (small club, me directing and playing at the same time) would be made easier because of this, and the devil take the players? And (refering to an earlier piece in this thread) who the hell was it said that claims are easy? Whoever it was, I invite you to our Tuesday night pairs. Hang around for an hour or so and wait until someone claims against Audrey Levin... ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 21 23:21:04 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA20238 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 21:34:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt11-he.global.net.uk.noc.gxn.net (cobalt11-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.171]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA20233 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 21:33:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from pd8s09a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.121.217] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt11-he.global.net.uk.noc.gxn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Wxuk-0005AF-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 08:51:54 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Laws62/70 Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 11:34:38 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf9329$7091aa80$d97993c3@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Burn To: BLML Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 11:24 AM Subject: Re: Laws62/70 >> The scenario. >> Its MP pairs. >> South is Dec in 3NT. >> West leads 2c. >> Dummy is void so Dec pitches 2h. >> West follows with 10h. > EAST follows with 10h. > >The tournament director will need at some point to determine >(incorrectly, in keeping with established BLML practice) whether this >was a fifth card played to the current trick or a lead out of turn to >the next trick. East, who at the end of this trick will have too many >cards, must at some point be taken from hence and hanged by the neck >until he is dead. > >> South wins with 10c from QJ10. >> South who can now count 13 top tricks faces his hand, >> East looks, and says "I have revoked" and shows Ac and Kc. > >East, who has not played anything to the previous trick, has not >revoked. Nobody knows what he has done, which is why we are going to >hang him rather than attempt to find out (for the intent of a player >is of no importance according to the best authorities). > >> The action >> TD is called and reads Law 62. A player must correct his >> revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it >> becomes established.(we are agreed it is not established aren't we?) >> TD reads Law 68D. Play has ceased so the revoke cannot be >> corrected. >> TD reads Law 70. This law tells him how to adjudicate, but it talks >> only of actions after the claim. >> East has realised he has revoked only after seeing Decs hand, but >> he might have realised if Dec had lead a card, as if East thought a >> heart had been led, he might have thought he was on lead himself. >> TD wants to rule that Dec makes 12 tricks, not 11 as if play had >> continued East would have had an exposed heart card which he >> would have to lead to trick 2. >> TD wants to penalise South for BLing.South knows that East has >> revoked or else West has led the 2c from AK98765432. >> Where's the Law that applies here? I think the comments about >> equity in the preamble to Law 70 appears to apply only to actions >> after the claim. > >Who cares? A player with the ace and king of the suit led ought to pay >sufficient attention to play one of them, or some other card if >feeling particularly lackadaisical. Anyone who plays nothing at all >does not deserve to win any tricks, which is just as well for the Laws >expressly prohibit his doing so. > >However, assuming that I have misread the above post slightly, for >there surely cannot be anything wrong with the report of so >punctilious a tournament director, it may be that it is after all East >who has contributed a heart to the trick in question, though >possessing not only clubs but clubs of sufficient importance to make >one wonder on what his mind was dwelling. The revoke is not >established, because no member of the offending side has played a card >to a subsequent trick (with the possible exception of West, who for >all I know may have played to the next three on his own, since he >appears to have a callous disregard for the principle of clockwise >rotation). I find nothing in L68D to say that an opponent's claim >establishes a revoke for our side, not do I find anything to suggest >that a revoke may not be corrected simply because play has ceased >following a claim. The words of Law 64A3 appear to me to state >expressly that it is only the *offending* side's claim or concession >that establishes their revoke, not a claim or concession by the >*non-offending* side. > It is kind of you to give so much time to my problem, but most unkind of you to chastise me for the confusion in my brain. Of course it was East who contributed the 10h, when he had clubs, thus it was East that revoked. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 21 23:50:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA20611 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 23:50:57 +1000 (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 XAA20606 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 23:50:49 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id i.2.1c7d191 (3934); Tue, 21 Mar 2000 08:49:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <2.1c7d191.2608d7ef@aol.com> Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 08:49:35 EST Subject: Re: Mess caused by Kibitzer 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 3/20/00 9:31:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, willner@cfa.harvard.edu writes: > Isn't it the SO's job to establish the correction period? And wasn't > at least part of the problem in this case that the correction period > wasn't clear, being longer for "manifest errors" than for other kinds > of corrections? > What you are referring to was a statement in the Conditions of Contest that had to do with the posting of scores that were either transposed, handed in wrong, posted in error, etc. -- in other words the mishandling of scores, results, and agreements during processing -- it would not allow the "Official Score" posted to be other than the teams agreed upon result. The committee was clear that the scoring errors of the kind that happened were fully covered by the Laws and the limitations upon correction thereby possible. As always, there was some recounting of actual events which served to blur the picture after the fact. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 22 01:14:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA20913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 01:14:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.169]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA20908 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 01:14:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from p6as02a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.114.107] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Wyfg-0002Ka-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 09:40:25 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Laws62/70 Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 15:14:27 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf9348$25fb0740$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: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 12:17 PM Subject: Re: Laws62/70 >Anne Jones wrote: >>The scenario. >>Its MP pairs. >>South is Dec in 3NT >>West leads 2c. >>Dummy is void so Dec pitches 2h. >>East follows with 10h. >>South wins with 10c from QJ10. >>South who can now count 13 top tricks faces his hand, >>East looks, and says "I have revoked" and shows Ac and Kc. >>The action >>TD is called and reads Law 62. A player must correct his >>revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it >>becomes established.(we are agreed it is not established aren't we?) > > Yes, no acquiescence. > >>TD reads Law 68D. Play has ceased so the revoke cannot be >>corrected. > > True. > >>TD reads Law 70. This law tells him how to adjudicate, but it talks >>only of actions after the claim. >>East has realised he has revoked only after seeing Decs hand, but >>he might have realised if Dec had lead a card, as if East thought a >>heart had been led, he might have thought he was on lead himself. >>TD wants to rule that Dec makes 12 tricks, not 11 as if play had >>continued East would have had an exposed heart card which he >>would have to lead to trick 2. > > Fine. At Bermuda, the WBFLC decided that after a revoke and a claim, >doubtful points should initially be decided against revoker. > > We have had several questions like this on BLML, and that is what we >wanted. I cannot say for certain without looking at the hand, but TD >should give benefit of doubt to claimer and see how many tricks claimer >gets that way. >>Where's the Law that applies here? I think the comments about >>equity in the preamble to Law 70 appears to apply only to actions >>after the claim. > > L70A refers to the adjudication by the Director: that is what the TD >follows, but because of Bermuda, he gives the benefit of the doubt >against the revoker. Bermuda says that the revoke is to be corrected before TD rules to give margin of doubt to claimer. So in this case revoker gets his trick, and I assume as the revoke was not established, we are not to treat it as though it was established. Hence there is no penalty and declarer makes 12 tricks, not the 13 he claimed. The hand. AKJ42 K862 AQ107 void 987 653 void 108543 98654 void 109432 AK765 Q10 AQJ9 KJ32 QJ10 Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 22 01:21:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA20943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 01:21:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA20938 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 01:21:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-23.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.23]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA14606; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 10:20:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002201bf9349$83c6c200$1784d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 10:24:11 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David J. Grabiner >The problem also depends on the nature of the ruling. These AQ9xx/KTxx >claims are an example; if a weak player is presumed not to know about the >safety play or to have miscounted the suit, while a stronger player is >presumed to have forgotten to say, "taking the safety play", this creates >the perception of unfairness. This is the reason for the apparent BLML >consensus that an expert who claims with AQ9xx/KTxx with no statement >should also lose a trick if possible. This certainly is NOT unanimous...there are a lot of us who disagree strongly with this BL favouring approach. It should not be necessary to state the obvious. > >As another case, suppose that E-W bid 4S for +420 after making a bid >suggested by UI, and the TD/AC rules that the contract should be adjusted >to 4H by South. 4H can be made on a criss-cross squeeze. Should the TD/AC >rule that it is "likely" that an expert would find the criss-cross and >award +620, but "not likely" that a weaker player would find it and award >-100? Sounds perfectly reasonable. Whyever not? This seems to restore equity admirably. -- Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 22 01:41:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA21008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 01:41:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA21003 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 01:41:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-23.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.23]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA20518 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 10:41:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002b01bf934c$5c7da940$1784d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Re: rant / answers please! Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 10:44:35 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst >In article , >James.Vickers@merck.de writes >>I still don't understand how you come to make your judgement, David. Maybe you >>are blessed with a special gift for sifting out truths from half-truths from >>downright lies, but what are the rest of us directors supposed to do? > >Sometimes I get really fed up with the constant sniping at DWS. >Occasionally I think he's a complete idiot, mostly I think he's >brilliant. ... but .... > >look, this guy *really knows* his stuff. He asks everyone everything he >can possibly think of because he doesn't know what *is* or *is not* >germane to his ruling. When he has all the _facts_ he can lay hands on >he sifts the evidence. So do I. > >Then he rules. So do I. > >Do you want him to miss out on an *important* piece of evidence because >it might be self serving or irrelevant, or do you want the most measured >ruling he can produce? He wants the best he can do. So do I. > >cheers john Perhaps, John, David is the victim of expert's disease. At times he comes on a little bit imperious and he can react in a thin skinned manner to unwarranted criticism. But as you point out he is the genuine article, and may I add is usually a most gracious correspondent, for all that he occasionally cannot suffer fools lightly. He is an enormous asset to this list, to the game of bridge, and to the ability and effectiveness of any director who will listen to what he is saying. I am delighted to know him if only through email. We all might show him a little more respect, not accepting anything he says as gospel but recognising that when he speaks of directing it is legitimately a bit like Einstein discussing relativity. And besides, there can't be too much wrong with someone who knows that cats rule. :-)) The same might apply to folks on list like Kojak, Grattan and Ton. Many times when they pontificate we tend to forget that they are among the designated lawmakers. We should be most pleased that they will listen to our suggestions and join our discussions. The same is true of the many who hold high positions in their national organisations. This list offers a wonderful learning opportunity for us "lesser lights" as well as a "bully pulpit" for the authorities...but it also offers a chance for all of us to be heard and if our ideas have merit to have them form part of the thinking of those who are in charge. Let's be careful to show courtesy and respect, and I would hope in many cases friendship...while not restraining ourselves in putting forth meritorious ideas and asking when we do not know. We can all (continue to) benefit. Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 22 02:15:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA21278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 02:15:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from neodymium.btinternet.com (neodymium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.83]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA21272 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 02:14:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.149.188] (helo=davidburn) by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12XRIZ-0005gt-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 16:14:27 +0000 Message-ID: <000d01bf9350$cd5f39e0$bc9501d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <01bf92cf$aca5dd20$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: Laws62/70 Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 16:16:22 -0000 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > >TD reads Law 68D. Play has ceased so the revoke cannot be > >corrected. > > True. I am surprised. I can find no mention in L68D or anywhere else of anything which supports this conclusion. No doubt I have overlooked something, and would be grateful for advice. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 22 02:16:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA21301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 02:16:37 +1000 (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 CAA21296 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 02:16:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA20869; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 08:16:35 -0800 Message-Id: <200003211616.IAA20869@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, 20 Mar 2000 20:55:39 PST." <200003210155.UAA20265@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 08:16:35 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > Why not? We are judging "normal" play. Why should not declarer's > > normal play be relevant to what is normal? > > We are judging lines of play to decide whether they are irrational. > People play irrationally all the time; "normal" is no help. I haven't finished reading the post, but I have to step in and disagree right now. One can say that people do play irrationally all the time---using a broad, colloquial definition of "irrational" that could mean "anything that didn't really make sense", or "something *I* would never have done", or "something they wouldn't have done if they had thought things through", or some such. By this definition, I made a bunch of irrational plays at the last regional I played at. And on some days, it appears to me that all of my partner's bids are irrational. (This isn't true, of course; in reality, only 96% of his bids are irrational. :-) ) Often, in ordinary English, we label someone else's thinking or action as "irrational" if we're mad at them, or are in the middle of an argument with them. But the definition of "irrational" in the Laws is much narrower. The wording of Footnote 20 makes it clear that "irrational" is to be distinguished from inferior or careless, and that many of the bids and plays that we call "irrational" are really just inferior or careless---poorly thought through is one kind of "careless". The usual examples of "irrational" involve things like trumping a winner for no reason, or, with AQ3 opposite KJ2, playing all four high cards on the first two rounds of the suit. When viewed this way, people do *not* play irrationally all the time; in fact, for players who are not rank beginners and who are actually trying to win (*), such irrational plays are very, very rare if they happen at all. (*) I had to include this because we used to have a player in our area---now deceased---whose main purpose in playing bridge was not to play well but rather to make life miserable for as many people as possible. He's the kind of person who would have deliberately held himself to two tricks with AQ3 opposite KJ2 and then yelled at his partner for overbidding. > The contraposition -- if that's the correct term -- in the Laws is a false > one, as has often been noted. It's a false one only if you assume "irrational" means what you think it means. However, I think the contraposition serves to give a more precise explanation of just what the Law writers meant when they used the term "irrational". Instead of assuming we know what is meant by "irrational" and judging whether the contraposition is false based on that, I think the correct view is that the Lawmakers were trying to explain that they meant "irrational" in a narrow way, and that the use of "inferior" and "careless" was part of this attempt to show what they meant. "Irrational" isn't a very precise word to use in this context, but I don't think using a different term would have solved the problem. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 22 02:28:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA21334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 02:28:49 +1000 (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 CAA21328 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 02:28:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA21052; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 08:28:35 -0800 Message-Id: <200003211628.IAA21052@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Bum claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 21 Mar 2000 03:30:26 PST." <20000321113026.90214.qmail@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 08:28:35 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Norman Scorbie wrote: > John Probst wrote > > >Me, I'm for penalty based rulings. It is in line with "orderly > >progress" > > > > Now perhaps I'm just being a bit paranoid, but this, to me, at least, > smacked of running things for the benefit of the tournament Director, rather > than for the players. > By all means make things clearer for players, but not just to make life easy > for the referees. I'm drifting towards the 'fixed penalty' school of > thought, but is this because my own life (small club, me directing and > playing at the same time) would be made easier because of this, and the > devil take the players? I don't direct, and I don't own a club. But I do play, and I'm also more sympathetic toward the fixed penalty idea. Revokes and insufficient bids and the like screw up the game and make it less enjoyable for me, plus there's the hassle of needing the TD to come and straighten things out for us. So anything that would deter players from committing these infractions would be beneficial to me and other players. From this standpoint, equity-based rulings, in which offenders don't get penalized if the offense doesn't affect the result, are a step in the wrong direction. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 22 02:56:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA21454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 02:56:15 +1000 (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 CAA21449 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 02:56:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA21577; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 08:56:05 -0800 Message-Id: <200003211656.IAA21577@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: L35A: inadmissible double condoned In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 21 Mar 2000 03:34:32 PST." <+$Z$I3AI3u14Ew0R@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 08:56:05 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > The Law certainly permits you to condone Insufficient Bids and Calls > out of Turn. But it has no provision for *allowing* you to condone > Inadmissible Calls. True; IMHO that's mostly because an auction with an inadmissible call becomes nonsense and cannot be allowed to stand. (What if the opening double were "condoned" with three following passes? Where would you play the hand, in 1 Pass Doubled?) > The fact that it tells the TD what to do with an > Inadmissible Call that is condoned does not mean that it is legal to do > so [see L72B2]. No, but that had nothing to do with my argument. My argument has been that, since the Law doesn't say it's an offense to take action after an irregularity has occurred but before attention has been drawn to it, it's therefore not an offense to do so. You mention L72B2, which says: "A player must not infringe a law intentionally". But you still haven't pointed out which law is being infringed when the person passes over the illegal double. How can L72B2 apply if there's no law being infringed? And if a law is being infringed, what is it? I haven't yet found one. > Furthermore, L35, which deals with Inadmissible Calls condoned, has a > penalty aspect. I do not believe that a player has a right to condone > an Inadmissible call, and thus a call after it is illegal. I believe > that if it were legal to condone them deliberately it would say so > [compare L27A, L29A]. No, there's an important difference, that I alluded to above. An auction with an insufficient bid can be allowed to continue sensibly. It would not be a tragedy for someone to say, "Let's continue bidding anyway", which is what condoning would do. An auction with an inadmissible call CANNOT continue. Therefore, we have to back up the auction to before the inadmissible call was made, and anything that happened after it has to be cancelled. But saying that the extra pass cannot be allowed to stand, and therefore must be cancelled, is *not* the same as saying that the extra pass is "illegal" and that the person who makes this pass is an offender and is infringing a law. A better analogy might be: I become declarer in a contract, and around trick 10 we find that LHO started with 14 cards and RHO with 12. The result must be cancelled, by Law 13C. This means, in effect, that all my calls and plays on the hand are cancelled. Does this make them illegal? And does this mean that I have broken a law, and that I am an offender? No, of course not. I think this demonstrates a principle: the fact that an action of mine has to be cancelled does *not* necessarily imply that I did something illegal, or that I am an offender; and I believe this applies to the pass over an inadmissible double also. Of course, you could say that the situations are different, because doubler's LHO *should* have noticed that something was amiss. However, there is simply no Law (that I know of) saying a player is required to notice an opponent's irregularity. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 22 03:27:28 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA21518 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 03:27:28 +1000 (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 DAA21513 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 03:27:17 +1000 (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 12XSQh-0001If-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 17:27:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 12:57:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Change: Bum claim References: <200003162148.NAA25847@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.20000320120755.007c7e30@eiu.edu> <000001bf92eb$97c80060$0163063e@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <000001bf92eb$97c80060$0163063e@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >Grant wrote: >> >But we do not need a set of laws that work for "the vast majority". >We >> >need a set of laws that work for *everyone*, that can consistently >be >> >applied to *every* situation without requiring subjective judgement >on >> >the part of directors, committees or players. > >> I really think this is a fundamental part of our disagreement on >> this and other issues. >I am not surprised. The Bridge World is attempting to resolve >precisely this issue at the moment, but I do not think it can ever be >"resolved" to the satisfaction of all concerned. There is much to be >said for a "fixed-penalty" system of Laws; there is much to be said >for an "equity-based" system of Laws; there is very little that one >side can do to convince the other side. Such "debates" invariably come >down to little more than people banging on the table and shouting. All >that we can ultimately hope to do is to put our respective cases as >strongly as we can - having done so, if what is in practice adopted is >not "our" system, it is our duty as administrators to understand the >chosen system and to apply it as best we may. Of course, people argue for a particular cause. It is usually up to the lawmakers to actually pursue a middle course. Myself, I think there is a case for a mixed system. I just think that the latest Laws have moved too far to an equity-based system. I find the arguments for Lead penalties being adequate and after that L16C allowing use of partner's withdrawn call convincing, because it is simple and playable. Fair? Maybe not, but I always prefer practicality to extreme fairness. [s] >At this point, the rot set in. Instead of rendering unto Caesar that >which was Caesar's *and* continuing to apply the "deterrent" aspect of >the revoke penalty, a set of circumstances was created in which some >revokes cost no tricks (with respect to those which the revoker would >have taken anyway), while some cost two tricks. The heights of >ridiculousness were scaled by the latest amendment to the revoke law, >so that we now have a position where a revoke costs 0, 1 or 2 tricks >depending on some wholly arbitrary feature of the deal on which the >revoke takes place. What is more, the relevant law is so complicated >that nobody actually knows how many tricks a revoke has in practice >"cost" without the aid of a wet towel around the head and a place to >lie down. This is not true. It is fairly easy to learn the revoke Law. Because it is common, all TD courses include the revoke Law. As a result the TDs know the revoke Laws - and they are the ones that matter. The current Law provides a reasonably adequate [though random] amount of punishment, sufficient to make it important to keep following suit. It is the great example of the penalty-based approach including equity elements. The majority of players seem to accept it. On the other hand, it is the great example of why equity-based Laws would not work. Suppose the Law was to restore equity, then fine the Os another trick. What then? What then is that Bridge clubs would either stop running Bridge games or they would fold up. You would not get Club Tournament Directors. Suddenly you have made his job incredibly more difficult. He has to work out equity. Why is it more difficult than [say] a hesitation problem? It isn't, much, it is more frequent. In a club of mediocre players, the TD probably gets one revoke ruling per night, one hesitation ruling per year. He can handle one judgement ruling per year, but not one per night. So it is not unreasonable to make hesitation rulings equity-based, but, please, not revoke rulings. [s] >> I certainly think it is desirable that all TDs everywhere have the >> proper training so that they understand the law--in that sense, I >strongly >> favor 'universality'. >Look. You and I do not understand the law as presently constituted. >Grattan Endicott, Bill Schoder, Ton Kooijman, David Stevenson and >others of the many eminent contributors to this list do not understand >the law as presently constituted (at least, they do not understand it >well enough to be able to explain to the satisfaction of the rest of >us what it says). If we - and they - did, this list would not exist, >to the inestimable detriment of mankind. But we understand it to some degree. Proper training will do good. OK, it will not get perfection, and perhaps it would be easier with a fixed-penalty basis, but there is no reason not to try to attain as good a condition as possible. [s] >> But I see nothing wrong with the possibility that >> a player that claims at my table may not get the same ruling as a >player that >> claims at someone else's table >Whereas I see everything wrong with it - it is the quintessence of >what I believe to be fundamentally wrong with the game as currently >administered. That is why we won't understand each other. Not that >there is harm in trying - your post was one of the most well-reasoned >and important in terms of fundamental issues to hit this list in a >long while. And, in truth, nothing will actually happen in terms of >resolving the dichotomy between fixed-penalty and equity-based systems >until long after you and I have both paid the ultimate revoke penalty. >The mills of God grind slowly... There is no reason to suppose the resolution will be one way or the other. Purists always want extremes: people like me want compromise. [s] >> This is no doubt annoying on those >> occasions where a player gets a ruling that contradicts the ruling >he got >> "in the same situation at that tournament in Hoboken last year", but >the >> benefit we get is the possibility to give rulings that approximate >equity, >> or to give rulings that cater to the interests and expectations of >sometimes >> very different groups of bridge players in different places. >Now there, you have a point. It has been made before, most eloquently >(if memory serves) by Eric Landau. I should say that, happily for my >peace of mind but unhappily in that it renders me incapable of feeling >the appropriate degree of sympathy for owners of bridge clubs and >peace-makers in general, my penchant for the "fixed-penalty" approach >is wholly unconditioned by having to live at the sharp end. I have >assumed throughout this and other discussions that the paying public >would rather play under an arbitrary set of rules which they knew >applied to everyone than a flexible, "caring" set of rules under which >the result of any given deal was subordinate to the enjoyment of the >game by all concerned. I may very well be wrong about this. Of course, you have to allow for the ignorance and forgetfulness of the paying public anyway. Whatever set of rules Joe Public plays under, he will *still* complain that *his* treatment was different. [s] >We will >*never* convince each other that our point of view is the "correct" >one, for there is no such thing. There are "equity-based" people and >there are "fixed-penalty" people. Which is where we came in. There are also people who want the middle road. Please do not forget us. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 22 03:51:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA21580 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 03:51:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA21574 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 03:51:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.185] (dhcp165-185.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.185]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA18105 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 12:50:54 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <002201bf9349$83c6c200$1784d9ce@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 12:48:35 -0500 To: From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Redress for N/S? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:24 AM -0500 3/21/00, Craig Senior wrote: >From: David J. Grabiner >>As another case, suppose that E-W bid 4S for +420 after making a bid >>suggested by UI, and the TD/AC rules that the contract should be adjusted >>to 4H by South. 4H can be made on a criss-cross squeeze. Should the TD/AC >>rule that it is "likely" that an expert would find the criss-cross and >>award +620, but "not likely" that a weaker player would find it and award >>-100? >Sounds perfectly reasonable. Whyever not? This seems to restore equity >admirably. The problem is that it will leave the weaker player with the impression of an unfair ruling, particularly if he does know about criss-cross squeezes. What would you do on the AC (appeal lodged by either side) if the would-be declarer said, "I can make 4H on this line of play," when that line of play is theoretically correct? And in the ACBL, the strength of a player tends to be estimated by masterpoints. There are good players who are eligible for Flight B or C because they haven't been playing very long. I don't think I have seen a ruling in which a low masterpoint total was used against a player; it is occasionally used in favor of a player (when an expert would have a stronger obligation to protect himself, for example). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 22 04:05:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA21639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 04:05:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA21634 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 04:05:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id NAA06712 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 13:05:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA21635 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 13:05:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 13:05:12 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200003211805.NAA21635@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Laws62/70 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Anne Jones" > Bermuda says that the revoke is to be corrected before TD rules to give > margin of doubt to claimer. To "non-revoker" might be easier to remember. > So in this case revoker gets his trick, and I > assume as the revoke was not established, we are not to treat it as > though it was established. Hence there is no penalty and declarer > makes 12 tricks, not the 13 he claimed. Right. I was going to suggest the TD consider whether East might have _ducked_ trick 1 in order to maintain communication. The question still seems reasonable, but I don't think ducking is "at all probable" on the given hand. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 22 05:27:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA21838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 05:27:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA21833 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 05:27:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id OAA10669 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 14:27:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA21779 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 14:27:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 14:27:19 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200003211927.OAA21779@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 > many of the bids and > plays that we call "irrational" are really just inferior or > careless---poorly thought through is one kind of "careless". The > usual examples of "irrational" involve things like trumping a winner > for no reason, or, with AQ3 opposite KJ2, playing all four high cards > on the first two rounds of the suit. Adam, I agree completely with your definition of 'irrational' and always have. > When viewed this way, people do > *not* play irrationally all the time; If your experience differs from mine, you are a lucky fellow. (Or perhaps I'm just unlucky.) I stand by the underlying message of my original statement, although "all the time" was an exaggeration. Change it to "quite often." From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 22 07:03:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA22006 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 07:03:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f116.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.116]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA22000 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 07:03:20 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 86240 invoked by uid 0); 21 Mar 2000 20:56:02 -0000 Message-ID: <20000321205602.86239.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.21 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 12:56:02 PST X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.21] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 12:56:02 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > From: Adam Beneschan > > many of the bids and > > plays that we call "irrational" are really just inferior or > > careless---poorly thought through is one kind of "careless". The > > usual examples of "irrational" involve things like trumping a winner > > for no reason, or, with AQ3 opposite KJ2, playing all four high cards > > on the first two rounds of the suit. > >Adam, I agree completely with your definition of 'irrational' and always >have. A broader definition of irrational might be any line of play which cannot succeed regardless of the opposing lay of the cards when an obvious play which might succeed exists. Careless or inferior plays might be plays which could succeed given a favorable lie of the opposing cards, but have an alternative with a higher chance for success. Careless or inferior for an expert might be 5-10% below optimal while careless or inferior for a beginner might be up to 50% below optimal. Just a different way to look at things. -Todd ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 22 07:41:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA22065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 07:41:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from tisch.mail.mindspring.net (tisch.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.157]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA22060 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 07:41:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-148.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.148]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA00377; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 16:40:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <005c01bf937e$98900180$9484d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Burn" , Subject: Re: Laws62/70 Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 16:44:10 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well it directive in question does say directly that no direct action should be taken until the director arrives. Then the director, armed with the Bermuda directive can direct that the revoke be corrected directly. For revoker to directly do so without the director's direction would be an apparent direct violation of the directions in 68D. -- Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: David Burn To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 11:31 AM Subject: Re: Laws62/70 >David Stevenson wrote: > >> >TD reads Law 68D. Play has ceased so the revoke cannot be >> >corrected. >> >> True. > >I am surprised. I can find no mention in L68D or anywhere else of >anything which supports this conclusion. No doubt I have overlooked >something, and would be grateful for advice. > >David Burn >London, England > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 22 09:17:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA22203 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 08:27:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from tst.dk (tst.tst.dk [147.29.107.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA22198 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 08:27:37 +1000 (EST) Received: by tst.tst.dk id <115201>; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 23:27:49 +0100 Message-Id: <00Mar21.232749cet.115201@tst.tst.dk> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Flemming=20B=F8gh-S=F8rensen?=" To: Subject: Re: Laws62/70 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 23:27:46 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id IAA22199 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think you should consider the possibility of E being able to figure out, that cAK was all there was for the defence. Thus the bidding matters, as probably the level of play in determining wether E being able to see this is a doubtful point. Playing in 3NT on a combined 33hcp with an easy 7H on on most layouts (though not this one) may be indicative of either a bidding misunderstanding - or perhaps the level of play. Should S by any chance have started the bidding with a 16-18 1NT leaving W with 0 hcp I probably would allow E to cash out. Flemming Bøgh-Sørensen Copenhagen - Denmark >>> "Anne Jones" 21-03-00 17:03 >>> -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 12:17 PM Subject: Re: Laws62/70 >Anne Jones wrote: >>The scenario. >>Its MP pairs. >>South is Dec in 3NT >>West leads 2c. >>Dummy is void so Dec pitches 2h. >>East follows with 10h. >>South wins with 10c from QJ10. >>South who can now count 13 top tricks faces his hand, >>East looks, and says "I have revoked" and shows Ac and Kc. >>The action >>TD is called and reads Law 62. A player must correct his >>revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it >>becomes established.(we are agreed it is not established aren't we?) > > Yes, no acquiescence. > >>TD reads Law 68D. Play has ceased so the revoke cannot be >>corrected. > > True. > >>TD reads Law 70. This law tells him how to adjudicate, but it talks >>only of actions after the claim. >>East has realised he has revoked only after seeing Decs hand, but >>he might have realised if Dec had lead a card, as if East thought a >>heart had been led, he might have thought he was on lead himself. >>TD wants to rule that Dec makes 12 tricks, not 11 as if play had >>continued East would have had an exposed heart card which he >>would have to lead to trick 2. > > Fine. At Bermuda, the WBFLC decided that after a revoke and a claim, >doubtful points should initially be decided against revoker. > > We have had several questions like this on BLML, and that is what we >wanted. I cannot say for certain without looking at the hand, but TD >should give benefit of doubt to claimer and see how many tricks claimer >gets that way. >>Where's the Law that applies here? I think the comments about >>equity in the preamble to Law 70 appears to apply only to actions >>after the claim. > > L70A refers to the adjudication by the Director: that is what the TD >follows, but because of Bermuda, he gives the benefit of the doubt >against the revoker. Bermuda says that the revoke is to be corrected before TD rules to give margin of doubt to claimer. So in this case revoker gets his trick, and I assume as the revoke was not established, we are not to treat it as though it was established. Hence there is no penalty and declarer makes 12 tricks, not the 13 he claimed. The hand. AKJ42 K862 AQ107 void 987 653 void 108543 98654 void 109432 AK765 Q10 AQJ9 KJ32 QJ10 Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 22 09:52:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA22412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 09:52:44 +1000 (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 JAA22407 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 09:52:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12XYRk-00056B-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 23:52:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 18:03:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Laws62/70 References: <01bf92cf$aca5dd20$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <000d01bf9350$cd5f39e0$bc9501d5@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <000d01bf9350$cd5f39e0$bc9501d5@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >TD reads Law 68D. Play has ceased so the revoke cannot be >> >corrected. >> True. >I am surprised. I can find no mention in L68D or anywhere else of >anything which supports this conclusion. No doubt I have overlooked >something, and would be grateful for advice. L68D starts: "After any claim or concession, play ceases. All play subsequent to a claim or concession shall be voided by the Director." L62B says: "To correct a revoke, the offender withdraws the card he played in revoking and follows suit with any card." Revokes are corrected by playing a different card, are they not? ---------- Anne Jones wrote: >Bermuda says that the revoke is to be corrected before TD rules to give >margin of doubt to claimer. Well, if that is true, then it appears Bermuda disagrees with me! I really must try to get up-to-date. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 22 11:00:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA22585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 11:00:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.165]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA22580 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 11:00:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from p0fs12a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.92.16] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12XIBt-00048P-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 06:30:58 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: WBU CTD Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 01:00:27 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf939a$02e87a60$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: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 12:53 AM Subject: WBU CTD > > In early December, the WBU abolished the post of CTD. In March, they >told me, with an apology for not telling me earlier. > > They allow that I should continue as Tournament Direction Co- >ordinator, with a requirement that: > >"TDC is to have no involvement in the directing, or appointment of >Directors, for Area or National events." > > I have resigned as TDC. > Wales will be the poorer, would you not reconsider? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 22 12:37:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA22891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 12:37:55 +1000 (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 MAA22886 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 12:37:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from appenzeller.anu.edu.au (appenzeller.anu.edu.au [150.203.35.97]) by rsc.anu.edu.au (8.10.0/8.10.0) with SMTP id e2M2bk809074 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 13:37:46 +1100 (EST) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 13:37:45 +1100 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@appenzeller.anu.edu.au To: BLML Subject: Re: WBU CTD In-Reply-To: <01bf939a$02e87a60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 22 Mar 2000, Anne Jones wrote: > > In early December, the WBU abolished the post of CTD. In March, they > >told me, with an apology for not telling me earlier. > > > > They allow that I should continue as Tournament Direction Co- > >ordinator, with a requirement that: > > > >"TDC is to have no involvement in the directing, or appointment of > >Directors, for Area or National events." > > > > I have resigned as TDC. > > > Wales will be the poorer, would you not reconsider? > > Anne But what does a TDC do if he can't direct or appoint directors? What is he coordinating? :-) Mark From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 22 19:31:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA23565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 19:31:18 +1000 (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 TAA23560 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 19:31:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from eduhi.at (petrus2.konvent [192.168.1.116]) by michael.gym (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA21790; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 10:42:43 +0100 Message-ID: <38D892AC.63417C95@eduhi.at> Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 10:30:20 +0100 From: Petrus Schuster OSB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [de] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Flemming =?iso-8859-1?Q?B=F8gh=2DS=F8rensen?= , BLML Subject: Re: Laws62/70 References: <00Mar21.232749cet.115201@tst.tst.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Flemming Bøgh-Sørensen schrieb: > > I think you should consider the possibility of E being able > to figure out, that cAK was all there was for the defence. > Thus the bidding matters, as probably the level of play in > determining wether E being able to see this is a doubtful > point. Playing in 3NT on a combined 33hcp with an easy > 7H on on most layouts (though not this one) may be > indicative of either a bidding misunderstanding - or > perhaps the level of play. > > Should S by any chance have started the bidding with a > 16-18 1NT leaving W with 0 hcp I probably would allow E > to cash out. > But remember that h10 is an MPC (L62B1), and the TD should IMO base his ruling on the claim on this fact. Petrus From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 22 23:25:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA23999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 23:25:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA23994 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 23:25:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Xl8k-000LoR-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 13:25:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 01:39:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: WBU CTD References: <01bf939a$02e87a60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf939a$02e87a60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > >-----Original Message----- >From: David Stevenson >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 12:53 AM >Subject: WBU CTD > > >> >> In early December, the WBU abolished the post of CTD. In March, they >>told me, with an apology for not telling me earlier. >> >> They allow that I should continue as Tournament Direction Co- >>ordinator, with a requirement that: >> >>"TDC is to have no involvement in the directing, or appointment of >>Directors, for Area or National events." >> >> I have resigned as TDC. >> >Wales will be the poorer, would you not reconsider? How can I afford to, if it means no involvement in the directing? I need the work. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 22 23:43:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA24043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 23:43:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA24038 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 23:43:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA28450 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 08:42:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000322084545.006ddfc8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 08:45:45 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action In-Reply-To: <20000321205602.86239.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:56 PM 3/21/00 PST, Todd wrote: > A broader definition of irrational might be any line of play which >cannot succeed regardless of the opposing lay of the cards when an obvious >play which might succeed exists. Careless or inferior plays might be plays >which could succeed given a favorable lie of the opposing cards, but have an >alternative with a higher chance for success. Careless or inferior for an >expert might be 5-10% below optimal while careless or inferior for a >beginner might be up to 50% below optimal. > Just a different way to look at things. I don't think this works. I can recall a hand not too long ago on which I was in a contract where my "only" legitimate chance (of course by "only" here I mean the only one I could work out) was an easy squeeze that required one opponent to hold all five or six of the missing key cards. I judged this so unlikely that I decided to play instead on a psuedo-squeeze line that "could not succeed", i.e. would make only on a clear defensive error. I do not believe that my choice was "irrational". (No dramatic ending to report; I went down, and the squeeze wouldn't have worked, both as expected.) 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 Mar 22 23:52:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA24066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 23:52:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA24061 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 23:52:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA29044 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 08:51:13 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000322085422.006e2014@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 08:54:22 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Laws62/70 In-Reply-To: <00Mar21.232749cet.115201@tst.tst.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:27 PM 3/21/00 +0100, Flemming wrote: >I think you should consider the possibility of E being able >to figure out, that cAK was all there was for the defence. >Thus the bidding matters, as probably the level of play in >determining wether E being able to see this is a doubtful >point. Playing in 3NT on a combined 33hcp with an easy >7H on on most layouts (though not this one) may be >indicative of either a bidding misunderstanding - or >perhaps the level of play. > >Should S by any chance have started the bidding with a >16-18 1NT leaving W with 0 hcp I probably would allow E >to cash out. There is no way the law permits us to rule that E may cash out. He has exposed the H10, which is a major penalty card, so if we permit him to win the club at trick 1, he must shift to the H10. The question on the table is only whether we allow him the one trick he might get at trick one or no tricks at all. Based on the discussion to this point, I would rule that he gets the one trick. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 23 00:24:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA24181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 00:24:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA24176 for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 00:24:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Xm38-0004FA-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 14:23:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 14:12:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Bum claim References: <20000321113026.90214.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000321113026.90214.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <20000321113026.90214.qmail@hotmail.com>, Norman Scorbie writes > > >John Probst wrote > >An awful lot of interesting stuff, all of which seemed fair and reasonable, >but then we got to this bit... >> > >>Me, I'm for penalty based rulings. It is in line with "orderly >>progress" >> > >Now perhaps I'm just being a bit paranoid, but this, to me, at least, >smacked of running things for the benefit of the tournament Director, rather >than for the players. I don't have a problem either way. But if you want equity based rulings add $2-00 to your table money. ... and club bridge with unpaid playing directors will disappear. I'm being practical. I'm always being accused of being *too* practical. I am practical. I write memos to people saying "This is impractical, do it if you must and when it goes belly up I'll sort you out". It does go belly up, I do sort it out and we go back to being practical. Frankly I'd love to be paid a bit more, as you'd have to raise the rates to get enough TD's into the game. OK, *I* will be better off if we have equity based rulings OK, It's impractical, do it if you must. OK, When it goes belly up I'll help you sort it out cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 23 00:30:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA24221 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 00:30:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA24216 for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 00:30:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Xm9L-0002dR-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 14:30:20 +0000 Message-ID: <4wfFYYAA$M24EwMJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 13:50:56 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: WBU CTD References: <01bf939a$02e87a60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mark Abraham wrote: >On Wed, 22 Mar 2000, Anne Jones wrote: >> > In early December, the WBU abolished the post of CTD. In March, they >> >told me, with an apology for not telling me earlier. >> > >> > They allow that I should continue as Tournament Direction Co- >> >ordinator, with a requirement that: >> > >> >"TDC is to have no involvement in the directing, or appointment of >> >Directors, for Area or National events." >> > >> > I have resigned as TDC. >> > >> Wales will be the poorer, would you not reconsider? >But what does a TDC do if he can't direct or appoint directors? What is >he coordinating? :-) Training [but *not* on-the-job-training] and certifying. I can see the next post now .... -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 23 04:16:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA25180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 04:16:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f123.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.123]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA25175 for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 04:16:36 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 58997 invoked by uid 0); 22 Mar 2000 18:15:58 -0000 Message-ID: <20000322181558.58996.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.21 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 10:15:58 PST X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.21] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Irrational, Careless, Inferior Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 10:15:58 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >At 12:56 PM 3/21/00 PST, Todd wrote: > > A broader definition of irrational might be any line of play which > >cannot succeed regardless of the opposing lay of the cards when an >obvious > >play which might succeed exists. Careless or inferior plays might be >plays > >which could succeed given a favorable lie of the opposing cards, but have >an > >alternative with a higher chance for success. Careless or inferior for >an > >expert might be 5-10% below optimal while careless or inferior for a > >beginner might be up to 50% below optimal. > > Just a different way to look at things. > >I don't think this works. I can recall a hand not too long ago on which I >was in a contract where my "only" legitimate chance (of course by "only" >here I mean the only one I could work out) was an easy squeeze that >required one opponent to hold all five or six of the missing key cards. I >judged this so unlikely that I decided to play instead on a psuedo-squeeze >line that "could not succeed", i.e. would make only on a clear defensive >error. I do not believe that my choice was "irrational". (No dramatic >ending to report; I went down, and the squeeze wouldn't have worked, both >as expected.) I think that it's a better basis to work from than the current idea of trying to define irrational, careless, and inferior by example. It's far too arbitrary. While you are right that your case doesn't fall neatly into this scheme, it's ultimately unimportant. Had you claimed, regardless of the director's decision about your line of play, you would have been down (presumably the same number of tricks in each case.) I admit that there's work to apply to these definitions. Even to me they are ideas that haven't reached maturity. The crux of your problem is that the odds of one player holding all 6 of some outstanding cards is roughly 2% (calculated making some bold assumptions.) If careless is 5-10% under that, it overlaps with my definition for irrational. Perhaps in the case of overlap, the definition for careless should take precedence. You may well decide that the odds an opponent will make a mistake are higher than 2% and go for that instead. But you can't be surprised when you claim that the director assumes the opponents employ perfect defense. -Todd ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 23 05:01:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA25315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 05:01:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from tantalum.btinternet.com (tantalum.btinternet.com [194.73.73.80]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA25310 for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 05:01:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.165.102] (helo=davidburn) by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12XqGB-0000A0-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 18:53:39 +0000 Message-ID: <002901bf9431$4a3419a0$66a501d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <01bf92cf$aca5dd20$LocalHost@vnmvhhid><000d01bf9350$cd5f39e0$bc9501d5@davidburn> Subject: Re: Laws62/70 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 19:03:19 -0000 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > David Burn wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > > >> >TD reads Law 68D. Play has ceased so the revoke cannot be > >> >corrected. > > >> True. > > >I am surprised. I can find no mention in L68D or anywhere else of > >anything which supports this conclusion. No doubt I have overlooked > >something, and would be grateful for advice. > > L68D starts: "After any claim or concession, play ceases. All play > subsequent to a claim or concession shall be voided by the Director." > > L62B says: "To correct a revoke, the offender withdraws the card he > played in revoking and follows suit with any card." > > Revokes are corrected by playing a different card, are they not? Usually. But there is a difference between a player's correcting a revoke and a revoke's being corrected. When the TD arrives at the table, I imagine he will give a ruling on the basis that the revoke is not established - that is, he will allow East to substitute one of his clubs for the ten of hearts. Absent the Bermuda directive, I would imagine that the heart becomes a major penalty card, which East would then need to lead (with whatever result for the defenders follows from that). The Bermuda directive makes no mention of specifics, but says only that the director adjudicates the claim as equitably as possible. However, that is a separate issue; the point appears to me to be that while the revoke cannot be corrected by the player, for there is no more play, it can be corrected by the tournament director (as if play had continued). David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 23 07:30:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA25659 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 07:30:15 +1000 (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 HAA25654 for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 07:30:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA17266; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 13:30:12 -0800 Message-Id: <200003222130.NAA17266@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 "Tue, 21 Mar 2000 14:27:19 PST." <200003211927.OAA21779@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 13:30:13 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Adam Beneschan > > many of the bids and > > plays that we call "irrational" are really just inferior or > > careless---poorly thought through is one kind of "careless". The > > usual examples of "irrational" involve things like trumping a winner > > for no reason, or, with AQ3 opposite KJ2, playing all four high cards > > on the first two rounds of the suit. > > Adam, I agree completely with your definition of 'irrational' and always > have. > > > When viewed this way, people do > > *not* play irrationally all the time; > > If your experience differs from mine, you are a lucky fellow. (Or > perhaps I'm just unlucky.) I stand by the underlying message of my > original statement, although "all the time" was an exaggeration. > Change it to "quite often." Well, that's interesting, because my reading of the motivation behind the claim Laws is to eliminate from consideration only those cases that "couldn't conceivably happen." Let me elaborate. The theory behind the claim Laws is (IMHO) that when someone makes a claim, we look at all the things that might have happened if the hand had been played out, and give the claimer the least favorable of all those possible results. To accomplish this, we look at all the possible ways the play could have gone after that, assuming the claimer will follow his own claim statement if possible (and realizing that the claimer may have to depart from his statement if something comes up that he forgot about, such as an outstanding trump). From those possible continuations, we eliminate those that involve somebody doing something irrational, because we don't count those in the "things that might have happened". But this theory assumes that an "irrational" action is one that would certainly not have happened. If irrational actions happen "quite often", as you say, this destroys the whole theory. If an action (such as compressing AQ3 into KJ2 into two tricks (*)) is something that might actually have happened, then, for the purposes of adjudicating a claim, it should be considered as something that *could* have happened unless it is precluded by the claim statement, at least according to the theory. (*) In light of the private e-mail discussion, I have to stipulate that I mean (1) declarer compresses this holding into two tricks, not the defense, and (2) cases where unblocking all the honors may be rational because declarer is anticipating a certain 6-card ending are not included in this discussion. :) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 23 07:59:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA25765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 07:59:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA25760 for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 07:58:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id QAA21715 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 16:58:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA22979 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 16:58:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 16:58:47 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200003222158.QAA22979@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 > The theory behind the claim Laws is (IMHO) that > when someone makes a claim, we look at all the things that might have > happened if the hand had been played out, and give the claimer the > least favorable of all those possible results. This is the position I have been arguing against. Adam is in good company, but I don't believe this is what the laws say. Quite often Adam's approach will give the same result as what I believe to be the correct one, but not always. > But this theory assumes that an "irrational" action is one that would > certainly not have happened. If irrational actions happen "quite > often", as you say, this destroys the whole theory. Yes. > If an action > (such as compressing AQ3 into KJ2 into two tricks (*)) is something > that might actually have happened, then, for the purposes of > adjudicating a claim, it should be considered as something that > *could* have happened unless it is precluded by the claim statement, > at least according to the theory. Yes. I am saying (among other things) that we *do not* consider such plays even if we judge some declarers -- or even the specific declarer before us -- are capable of them. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 23 08:29:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA25940 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 08:29:00 +1000 (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 IAA25935 for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 08:28:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from ivillage.earthlink.net (sdn-ar-001kslawrP295.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.33]) by harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA25036 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 14:28:36 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000322161741.00b84de0@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: baresch@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 16:28:25 -0600 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Brian Baresch Subject: Re: Law 70C3 in action In-Reply-To: <200003222158.QAA22979@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > If an action > > (such as compressing AQ3 into KJ2 into two tricks (*)) is something > > that might actually have happened, then, for the purposes of > > adjudicating a claim, it should be considered as something that > > *could* have happened unless it is precluded by the claim statement, > > at least according to the theory. > >Yes. I am saying (among other things) that we *do not* consider such >plays even if we judge some declarers -- or even the specific declarer >before us -- are capable of them. I'm with Steve here. Surely one reason players claim, beyond their legal obligation to do so and the time saved, is to avoid the possibility of a "brain cramp" somewhere down the line. Speaking for myself as a player, I'm certainly capable of irrational play, but when I make a (rational, if careless or inferior) claim that possibility should go out the window. Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 24 02:30:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA28508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 02:30:19 +1000 (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 CAA28503 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 02:30:06 +1000 (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 12YAUd-000AWi-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 16:29:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 13:54:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Laws62/70 References: <01bf92cf$aca5dd20$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <000d01bf9350$cd5f39e0$bc9501d5@davidburn> <002901bf9431$4a3419a0$66a501d5@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <002901bf9431$4a3419a0$66a501d5@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >DWS wrote: > >> David Burn wrote: >> >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> >TD reads Law 68D. Play has ceased so the revoke cannot be >> >> >corrected. >> >> >> True. >> >> >I am surprised. I can find no mention in L68D or anywhere else of >> >anything which supports this conclusion. No doubt I have overlooked >> >something, and would be grateful for advice. >> >> L68D starts: "After any claim or concession, play ceases. All play >> subsequent to a claim or concession shall be voided by the >Director." >> >> L62B says: "To correct a revoke, the offender withdraws the card >he >> played in revoking and follows suit with any card." >> >> Revokes are corrected by playing a different card, are they not? > >Usually. But there is a difference between a player's correcting a >revoke and a revoke's being corrected. When the TD arrives at the >table, I imagine he will give a ruling on the basis that the revoke is >not established - that is, he will allow East to substitute one of his >clubs for the ten of hearts. Absent the Bermuda directive, I would >imagine that the heart becomes a major penalty card, which East would >then need to lead (with whatever result for the defenders follows from >that). The Bermuda directive makes no mention of specifics, but says >only that the director adjudicates the claim as equitably as possible. > >However, that is a separate issue; the point appears to me to be that >while the revoke cannot be corrected by the player, for there is no >more play, it can be corrected by the tournament director (as if play >had continued). That is what I thought. But I think some have read Bermuda differently. Obviously, what I should have written originally is that the revoke cannot be corrected by the player: that is what I meant, and I was surprised that it was understood differently. No matter. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 24 20:04:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA00676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 20:04:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.169]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA00671 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 20:04:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from p65s01a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.97.102] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12XzGv-00058O-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 04:31:01 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: OLOOT or MPC? Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 10:05:22 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf9578$777a9680$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 South is Dec. in 3NT. There have been no alerts, no questions,no MI. West correctly leads a card face down on the table. East now leads H5 face up. Is the H5 an OLOOT or is it a MPC? I think the answer to this depends on whether the face down opening lead is a played card. Anyone like to interpret Laws 41A/45C1/47E2. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 24 21:08:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA00838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 21:08:46 +1000 (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 VAA00833 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 21:08:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from eduhi.at (petrus2.konvent [192.168.1.116]) by michael.gym (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA27164 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 12:09:03 +0100 Message-ID: <38DB4C8D.2E25571E@eduhi.at> Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 12:07:57 +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: OLOOT or MPC? References: <01bf9578$777a9680$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones schrieb: > > South is Dec. in 3NT. > There have been no alerts, no questions,no MI. > West correctly leads a card face down on the table. > East now leads H5 face up. > Is the H5 an OLOOT or is it a MPC? > I think the answer to this depends on whether the > face down opening lead is a played card. > Anyone like to interpret Laws 41A/45C1/47E2. > Anne IMO, the card lead face-down is played. You might wish to include L45A in the list of laws relevant to the question: I interpret it's footnote as establishing an exception to the body of the paragraph. Petrus From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 24 22:05:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA00981 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 22:05:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from uucp.nl.uu.net (uucp.nl.uu.net [193.79.237.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA00976 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 22:05:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 13:05:04 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id MAA01588 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 12:26:44 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'BLML'" Subject: RE: OLOOT or MPC? Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 12:26:25 +0100 Message-ID: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C005004546901031085@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101AF46@xion.spase.nl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >South is Dec. in 3NT. >There have been no alerts, no questions,no MI. >West correctly leads a card face down on the table. >East now leads H5 face up. >Is the H5 an OLOOT or is it a MPC? >I think the answer to this depends on whether the >face down opening lead is a played card. >Anyone like to interpret Laws 41A/45C1/47E2. >Anne I don't need to interpret one of these laws. L54 states: When an opening lead is faced out of turn, and offender's partner leads face down, the Director requires the face down lead to be retracted, and the following sections apply ... (regulations about OLOOT) So it's an OLOOT, explicitly by law. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 24 22:28:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA01062 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 22:28:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe54.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.47]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA01057 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 22:28:10 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 78658 invoked by uid 65534); 24 Mar 2000 12:27:32 -0000 Message-ID: <20000324122732.78657.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.13.203] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <01bf9578$777a9680$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 06:28:10 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I would not think that Anne would profer such a question if it were so clear- My instinct was that if the OLOOT is accepted, the unexposed face down card is returned to the hand without penalty. If it is not accepted and if declarer does not enforce a lead penalty at the time then it must be led, and if a lead penalty is enforced, the card is returned to the hand first. But, RTFLB and find itis not so. The face down card is retracted whether or not the faced card is accepted: LAW 54 - FACED OPENING LEAD OUT OF TURN When an opening lead is faced out of turn, and offender's partner leads face down, the director requires the face down lead to be retracted, and the following sections apply. LAW 56 - DEFENDER'S LEAD OUT OF TURN When declarer requires a defender to retract his faced lead out of turn, the card illegally led becomes a major penalty card, and Law 50D applies. The Law 41A reference does not seem to make much sense for the case where dummy has not been faced. As L54 would frequently apply, it would seem appropriate to include all such references or none. Of course, discarding the E2 from L47E2 should supply all of the references. LAW 41 - COMMENCEMENT OF PLAY A. Face-down Opening Lead After a bid, double or redouble has been followed by three passes in rotation, the defender on presumed declarer's left makes the opening lead face down . The face-down lead may be withdrawn only upon instruction of the Director after an irregularity (see Law 47E2); the withdrawn card must be returned to the defender's hand. LAW 47 - RETRACTION OF CARD PLAYED E. Change of Play Based on Misinformation 2. Retraction of Play (a) No One Has Subsequently Played A player may retract the card he has played because of a mistaken explanation of an opponent's call or play and before a corrected explanation, but only if no card was subsequently played to that trick. An opening lead may not be retracted after dummy has faced any card. (b) One or More Subsequent Plays Made When it is too late to correct a play, under (a) preceding, Law 40C applies. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: Anne Jones To: BLML Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 4:05 AM Subject: OLOOT or MPC? > South is Dec. in 3NT. > There have been no alerts, no questions,no MI. > West correctly leads a card face down on the table. > East now leads H5 face up. > Is the H5 an OLOOT or is it a MPC? > I think the answer to this depends on whether the > face down opening lead is a played card. > Anyone like to interpret Laws 41A/45C1/47E2. > Anne I don't think that L41A precludes applying L54. I notice that the opening lead face down is not referred to as a play, so until it is faced it is not a play. And L45A defines a play as detaching a card from the hand and facing it. L41C says that the faced down lead is to be faced, presumably after questions and answers. It seems that the unfaced lead must be faced if there has not been an irregularity. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 24 23:40:39 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA01302 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 23:40:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.163]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA01292 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 23:40:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from pa0s06a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.134.161] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Y6fz-000837-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 12:25:23 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 13:41:08 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf9596$9bd31c00$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Roger Pewick To: blml Date: Friday, March 24, 2000 12:42 PM Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? >I would not think that Anne would profer such a question if it were so >clear- Thanks:-) > >My instinct was that if the OLOOT is accepted, the unexposed face down card >is returned to the hand without penalty. If it is not accepted and if >declarer does not enforce a lead penalty at the time then it must be led, >and if a lead penalty is enforced, the card is returned to the hand first. > >But, RTFLB and find itis not so. > >The face down card is retracted whether or not the faced card is accepted: > > >LAW 54 - FACED OPENING LEAD OUT OF TURN >When an opening lead is faced out of turn, and offender's partner leads face >down, the director requires the face down lead to be retracted, and the >following sections apply. > It happened the other way round, the actions were not simulataneous. > >LAW 56 - DEFENDER'S LEAD OUT OF TURN >When declarer requires a defender to retract his faced lead out of turn, the >card illegally led becomes a major penalty card, and Law 50D applies. > > >The Law 41A reference does not seem to make much sense for the case where >dummy has not been faced. > I think this Law only applies when dummy has not been faced. > > As L54 would frequently apply, it would seem >appropriate to include all such references or none. Of course, discarding >the E2 from L47E2 should supply all of the references. > There has been no MI. > >LAW 41 - COMMENCEMENT OF PLAY >A. Face-down Opening Lead >After a bid, double or redouble has been followed by three passes in >rotation, the defender on presumed declarer's left makes the opening lead >face down . The face-down lead may be withdrawn only upon instruction of the >Director after an irregularity (see Law 47E2); the withdrawn card must be >returned to the defender's hand. > >LAW 47 - RETRACTION OF CARD PLAYED >E. Change of Play Based on Misinformation >2. Retraction of Play >(a) No One Has Subsequently Played > A player may retract the card he has played because of a mistaken >explanation of an opponent's call or play and before a corrected >explanation, but only if no card was subsequently played to that trick. An >opening lead may not be retracted after dummy has faced any card. >(b) One or More Subsequent Plays Made > When it is too late to correct a play, under (a) preceding, Law 40C >applies. > >Roger Pewick >Houston, Texas > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Anne Jones >To: BLML >Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 4:05 AM >Subject: OLOOT or MPC? > > >> South is Dec. in 3NT. >> There have been no alerts, no questions,no MI. >> West correctly leads a card face down on the table. >> East now leads H5 face up. >> Is the H5 an OLOOT or is it a MPC? >> I think the answer to this depends on whether the >> face down opening lead is a played card. >> Anyone like to interpret Laws 41A/45C1/47E2. >> Anne > Roger Pewick wrote >I don't think that L41A precludes applying L54. > >I notice that the opening lead face down is not referred to as a play, so >until it is faced it is not a play. And L45A defines a play as detaching a >card from the hand and facing it. L41C says that the faced down lead is to >be faced, presumably after questions and answers. It seems that the unfaced >lead must be faced if there has not been an irregularity. > But do you think that the facing of H5 is an irregularity to which this law applies? > So is H5 a OLOOT? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 24 23:40:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA01301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 23:40:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.163]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA01291 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 23:40:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from pa0s06a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.134.161] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Y6fx-000837-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 12:25:22 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 13:26:47 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf9594$9b041e20$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: Martin Sinot To: 'BLML' Date: Friday, March 24, 2000 12:19 PM Subject: RE: OLOOT or MPC? >Anne Jones wrote: > >>South is Dec. in 3NT. >>There have been no alerts, no questions,no MI. >>West correctly leads a card face down on the table. >>East now leads H5 face up. >>Is the H5 an OLOOT or is it a MPC? >>I think the answer to this depends on whether the >>face down opening lead is a played card. >>Anyone like to interpret Laws 41A/45C1/47E2. >>Anne > >I don't need to interpret one of these laws. L54 states: >When an opening lead is faced out of turn, and offender's partner >leads face down, the Director requires the face down lead to be >retracted, and the following sections apply ... >(regulations about OLOOT) > >So it's an OLOOT, explicitly by law. > It would be if the order of things were that it had been placed face up on the table _before_ the correct opening lead was made face down. I am not convinced that it is when it happens the other way round. If the face down opening lead, made by the correct player preceeds the action of a face up OLOOT, we have to decide whether, in order to give declarer 5 options we can instruct the retraction of the face down lead which was in turn. Remember dummy has not been faced. OTOH, is this H5 a card prematurely played to trick 1. The face down card turned out to be AD. H5 is a revoke which must be corrected. There will now be lead penalties of Law 50.2 to trick 2. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 25 00:05:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA01354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 00:05:54 +1000 (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 AAA01349 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 00:05:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12YUiS-0001JB-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 14:05:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 14:04:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? References: <01bf9578$777a9680$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf9578$777a9680$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01bf9578$777a9680$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes >South is Dec. in 3NT. >There have been no alerts, no questions,no MI. >West correctly leads a card face down on the table. >East now leads H5 face up. >Is the H5 an OLOOT or is it a MPC? >I think the answer to this depends on whether the >face down opening lead is a played card. >Anyone like to interpret Laws 41A/45C1/47E2. >Anne > Law 17E suggests that until the opening lead is faced we are still in the auction period 45A says a card is played when it is faced IMO a face-down card is not yet played and therefore it follows that the H5 is indeed an olot mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 25 00:55:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA01489 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 00:55:03 +1000 (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 AAA01484 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 00:54:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12YVU4-0005nx-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 14:54:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 14:19:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? References: <01bf9578$777a9680$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf9578$777a9680$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >South is Dec. in 3NT. >There have been no alerts, no questions,no MI. >West correctly leads a card face down on the table. Right. So that is the opening lead. >East now leads H5 face up. That is not a lead since it is not the first card played to the trick. >Is the H5 an OLOOT or is it a MPC? >I think the answer to this depends on whether the >face down opening lead is a played card. >Anyone like to interpret Laws 41A/45C1/47E2. The Definitions make it clearer: a "Lead" is the first card *played* to a trick. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 25 00:54:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA01481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 00:54:24 +1000 (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 AAA01476 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 00:54:17 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id 1.d8.240d898 (4214); Fri, 24 Mar 2000 09:53:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 09:53:31 EST Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? To: laws@mamos.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 101 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 3/24/00 9:08:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, laws@mamos.demon.co.uk writes: > Law 17E suggests that until the opening lead is faced we are still in > the auction period > > 45A says a card is played when it is faced > > IMO a face-down card is not yet played > > and therefore it follows that the H5 is indeed an olot > mike > -- > michael amos Amen. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 25 01:09:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA01562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 01:09:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe9.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.113]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA01556 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 01:09:24 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 55059 invoked by uid 65534); 24 Mar 2000 15:08:45 -0000 Message-ID: <20000324150845.55058.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.13.206] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" , "Anne Jones" References: <01bf9596$9bd31c00$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 09:09:26 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Anne Jones To: BLML Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 7:41 AM Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? -s- > >LAW 54 - FACED OPENING LEAD OUT OF TURN > >When an opening lead is faced out of turn, and offender's partner leads > > face down, the director requires the face down lead to be retracted, and the > >following sections apply. > > > It happened the other way round, the actions were not simulataneous. > But do you think that the facing of H5 is an irregularity to which this law > applies? > So is H5 a OLOOT? > Anne > yes. I would say something different if L54 had the words 'and then offender's...' L54 points to two conditions, face down by proper player, face up by partner. Both conditions are met whether face down was first or last, and therefore speaks that declarer's LHO has lost control of the opening lead; yet, to that end and subject to L16, he may be able to change without penalty from the face down card to a different lead depending what option declarer asserts. As to the thought that the face down card returned to the hand is a PC, was it returned to the hand without penalty? If yes, it is not a PC. The law requires it to be returned to the hand without penalty if it was not faced. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 25 01:27:05 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA01669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 01:27:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp2.a2000.nl (duck.a2000.nl [62.108.1.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA01663 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 01:26:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=ww) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 12YVz5-0001OF-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 16:26:48 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000324162125.00edb738@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 16:21:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? In-Reply-To: <20000324122732.78657.qmail@hotmail.com> References: <01bf9578$777a9680$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:28 AM 3/24/00 -0600, you wrote: >I would not think that Anne would profer such a question if it were so >clear- > >My instinct was that if the OLOOT is accepted, the unexposed face down card >is returned to the hand without penalty. If it is not accepted and if >declarer does not enforce a lead penalty at the time then it must be led, >and if a lead penalty is enforced, the card is returned to the hand first. > >But, RTFLB and find itis not so. > >The face down card is retracted whether or not the faced card is accepted: > sure, but that doesnt say it doenst have to be played if declare wants a lead from proper hand without penalty. Read the WBF minutes, perhaps that will convince you. As far as i know the following is the proper procedure. 1) TD remembers what the retracted faced down card was. If a lead from proper side is summonded by declarer, he has to lead that card, unless the card was f.i. sA and the penalty card was sK. (see minutes) regards, anton > >LAW 54 - FACED OPENING LEAD OUT OF TURN >When an opening lead is faced out of turn, and offender's partner leads face >down, the director requires the face down lead to be retracted, and the >following sections apply. > >LAW 56 - DEFENDER'S LEAD OUT OF TURN >When declarer requires a defender to retract his faced lead out of turn, the >card illegally led becomes a major penalty card, and Law 50D applies. > > >The Law 41A reference does not seem to make much sense for the case where >dummy has not been faced. As L54 would frequently apply, it would seem >appropriate to include all such references or none. Of course, discarding >the E2 from L47E2 should supply all of the references. > >LAW 41 - COMMENCEMENT OF PLAY >A. Face-down Opening Lead >After a bid, double or redouble has been followed by three passes in >rotation, the defender on presumed declarer's left makes the opening lead >face down . The face-down lead may be withdrawn only upon instruction of the >Director after an irregularity (see Law 47E2); the withdrawn card must be >returned to the defender's hand. > >LAW 47 - RETRACTION OF CARD PLAYED >E. Change of Play Based on Misinformation >2. Retraction of Play >(a) No One Has Subsequently Played > A player may retract the card he has played because of a mistaken >explanation of an opponent's call or play and before a corrected >explanation, but only if no card was subsequently played to that trick. An >opening lead may not be retracted after dummy has faced any card. >(b) One or More Subsequent Plays Made > When it is too late to correct a play, under (a) preceding, Law 40C >applies. > >Roger Pewick >Houston, Texas > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Anne Jones >To: BLML >Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 4:05 AM >Subject: OLOOT or MPC? > > >> South is Dec. in 3NT. >> There have been no alerts, no questions,no MI. >> West correctly leads a card face down on the table. >> East now leads H5 face up. >> Is the H5 an OLOOT or is it a MPC? >> I think the answer to this depends on whether the >> face down opening lead is a played card. >> Anyone like to interpret Laws 41A/45C1/47E2. >> Anne > >I don't think that L41A precludes applying L54. > >I notice that the opening lead face down is not referred to as a play, so >until it is faced it is not a play. And L45A defines a play as detaching a >card from the hand and facing it. L41C says that the faced down lead is to >be faced, presumably after questions and answers. It seems that the unfaced >lead must be faced if there has not been an irregularity. > > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 25 02:45:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA02539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 02:45:46 +1000 (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 CAA02532 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 02:45:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA27795; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 08:45:40 -0800 Message-Id: <200003241645.IAA27795@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Martin Sinot" cc: "'BLML'" , adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 24 Mar 2000 12:26:25 PST." <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C005004546901031085@xion.spase.nl> Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 08:45:40 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot wrote: > Anne Jones wrote: > > >South is Dec. in 3NT. > >There have been no alerts, no questions,no MI. > >West correctly leads a card face down on the table. > >East now leads H5 face up. > >Is the H5 an OLOOT or is it a MPC? > >I think the answer to this depends on whether the > >face down opening lead is a played card. > >Anyone like to interpret Laws 41A/45C1/47E2. > >Anne > > I don't need to interpret one of these laws. L54 states: > When an opening lead is faced out of turn, and offender's partner > leads face down, the Director requires the face down lead to be > retracted, and the following sections apply ... > (regulations about OLOOT) > > So it's an OLOOT, explicitly by law. Ummm . . . this argument appears to be circular. This part of L54 applies only to opening leads; thus, before we can apply L54, we have to decide whether the faced card is an opening lead. If it's a card played out of turn, but not an opening lead, then L54 doesn't apply. You can't use L54 to *prove* that it's an opening lead, as you seem to be attempting to do. ======================================== Roger Pewick wrote: > > I notice that the opening lead face down is not referred to as a play, so > until it is faced it is not a play. L41A does not refer to the face down opening lead as a play. But L41C doesn't refer to the opening lead that has now been faced as a play either. The absence of the word "play" doesn't signify anything. > And L45A defines a play as detaching a > card from the hand and facing it. But L45A also contains a reference to Footnote 14, which seems to provide an exception to the principle that a card must be "faced" to be "played". ======================================== Michael Amos wrote: > Law 17E suggests that until the opening lead is faced we are still in > the auction period Right. There is an auction period and a play period. This affects Laws 9, 14, 15, 20, and 21, which deal with dummy's right to call attention to an irregularity, the rules about requesting reviews and explanations of calls, the right to change one's call based on misinformation, what happens when a hand is discovered to contain the wrong number of cards, and what happens when the players are discovered to be playing the wrong board. None of those are relevant to the case. The section title above Law 24 is "EXPOSED CARD, AUCTION PERIOD", but L24 does not itself refer to the "auction period"; it applies if a card is faced "during the auction", and the card must be left on the table until the "auction closes". I'm not sure if all those terms are intended to mean the same thing. In any case, it seems that you're bringing this up to suggest that, since we're still in the auction period, the face-down opening lead is not a play. I'm not convinced, but if you're right, it seems to me that the H5 isn't a play either, since we're still in the auction period; and we should apply not L54, but rather L24B, which deals with prematurely led cards during the auction. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 25 02:59:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA02672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 02:59:06 +1000 (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 CAA02664 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 02:58:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from eduhi.at (petrus2.konvent [192.168.1.116]) by michael.gym (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA27805 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 17:59:43 +0100 Message-ID: <38DB9EB4.D20DED0B@eduhi.at> Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 17:58:28 +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: OLOOT or MPC? References: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C005004546901031085@xion.spase.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot schrieb: > > Anne Jones wrote: > > >South is Dec. in 3NT. > >There have been no alerts, no questions,no MI. > >West correctly leads a card face down on the table. > >East now leads H5 face up. > >Is the H5 an OLOOT or is it a MPC? > >I think the answer to this depends on whether the > >face down opening lead is a played card. > >Anyone like to interpret Laws 41A/45C1/47E2. > >Anne > > I don't need to interpret one of these laws. L54 states: > When an opening lead is faced out of turn, and offender's partner ^^^ > leads face down, the Director requires the face down lead to be > retracted, and the following sections apply ... > (regulations about OLOOT) > > So it's an OLOOT, explicitly by law. Yet this "and" might be read to refer to a face-down lead *subsequent* to the LOOT, whereas in Anne's scenario the face-down lead came first. --- Petrus From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 25 03:32:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA03027 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 03:32:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA03022 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 03:32:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.141.63] (helo=davidburn) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12YXwv-0002oY-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 17:32:41 +0000 Message-ID: <002b01bf95b7$2d1ea4c0$3f8d01d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <01bf9578$777a9680$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 17:34:14 -0000 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > Anne Jones wrote: > >South is Dec. in 3NT. > >There have been no alerts, no questions,no MI. > >West correctly leads a card face down on the table. > > Right. So that is the opening lead. Is it? If a lead is the first card played to a trick, then West's card becomes the opening lead only when it is played. A card is played when it is faced (according to L45A). But there is a footnote in that Law to the effect that the opening lead is first made face down. What is not clear to me is whether that footnote implies that the opening lead is a played card even while it is still face down. I find nothing in the language to resolve this question (but Mike Amos and Bill Schoder incline to the view that no card is played until it is faced, which seems reasonable to me). The question has arisen: does L54 cover this case? The words say: When an opening lead is faced out of turn, and offender's partner leads face down, the director requires the face down lead to be retracted and... Now, if West's face down card is the opening lead, then East's face up card isn't, so it might be argued that L54 does not apply. However, common sense would suggest that the opening lead is, de facto, the first card faced by a defender (whether in turn or out of it). It has also been argued that the words of L54 imply a temporal sequence: "when an opening lead is faced out of turn... and *then* offender's partner leads face down...". I find nothing in the language to support this notion, but I would have no difficulty with it as an interpretation. Given that East has played a card for all to see, while West has not (even if he has played a card at all, which is doubtful), the simplest interpretation of possibly conflicting Laws would suggest that East's card should be treated as a faced opening lead out of turn, and West's card should simply be ignored. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 25 04:14:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA02904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 03:16:21 +1000 (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 DAA02898 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 03:16:10 +1000 (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 12YXge-000IPz-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 17:16:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 17:14:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? References: <01bf9578$777a9680$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >Anne Jones wrote: >>South is Dec. in 3NT. >>There have been no alerts, no questions,no MI. >>West correctly leads a card face down on the table. > > Right. So that is the opening lead. > >>East now leads H5 face up. > > That is not a lead since it is not the first card played to the trick. > >>Is the H5 an OLOOT or is it a MPC? >>I think the answer to this depends on whether the >>face down opening lead is a played card. >>Anyone like to interpret Laws 41A/45C1/47E2. > > The Definitions make it clearer: a "Lead" is the first card *played* >to a trick. Despite this, as others have pointed out, there seems a problem because of the wording of L54, which uses the term for both "Leads". I think this problem can be read either way. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 25 06:18:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA03573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 06:18:27 +1000 (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 GAA03568 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 06:18:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from es.co.nz (p22-max9.dun.ihug.co.nz [216.132.34.150]) by smtp4.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id IAA27606 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 08:18:15 +1200 Message-ID: <38DBCDD3.2CF2A117@es.co.nz> Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 08:19:31 +1200 From: Albert/Mercer Family X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Contestant's rights Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Scene: Between halves of a team match at the local club. At the other table in our match, director has made a ruling concerning the use of UI resulting in a score adjustment in favour of the opposition. My teammates are fit to be tied, so much so that I find it impossible to determine from them what the actual adjustment was. I'd like to find out, for the following reasons: a) So that we know the state of the match for the second half. b) So that I know whether my priorities are to: i) Calm down teammates and tell them to let it go. ii) Calm down teammates and suggest that we might appeal. As I'm getting no sense out of my teammates I approach the director to ask what the ruling was. A member of the other team sees us talking and comes flying over claiming that it's quite improper for me to be talking about the hand/ruling with the director. Well is it? (I can find no support in law for that position.) Would it matter whether or not I was captain of the team? You may take it as read that the club has no codified conditions of contest for this competition, beyond those provided by remembered precedents in 77 years of running it. :) PS (for anyone who cares) Teammates appealed and lost (a close call IMO, but quite defensible) and we still won the match 21-9, so my interest is, as always, academic. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 25 06:36:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA03638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 06:36:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt3-he.global.net.uk (cobalt3-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.163]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA03633 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 06:36:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from pfcs05a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.165.253] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt3-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Yanv-0000T1-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 12:35:35 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 20:37:27 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf95d0$c4937ec0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Burn To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, March 24, 2000 5:43 PM Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? >DWS wrote: > >> Anne Jones wrote: >> >South is Dec. in 3NT. >> >There have been no alerts, no questions,no MI. >> >West correctly leads a card face down on the table. >> >> Right. So that is the opening lead. > >Is it? If a lead is the first card played to a trick, then West's card >becomes the opening lead only when it is played. A card is played when >it is faced (according to L45A). But there is a footnote in that Law >to the effect that the opening lead is first made face down. What is >not clear to me is whether that footnote implies that the opening lead >is a played card even while it is still face down. I find nothing in >the language to resolve this question (but Mike Amos and Bill Schoder >incline to the view that no card is played until it is faced, which >seems reasonable to me). > "The opening lead is first _made_ face down." I would interpret this to mean. Here is the opening lead. I have _made_ the opening lead. I am nervous now however that those so great do not see it this way. > >The question has arisen: does L54 cover this case? The words say: > >When an opening lead is faced out of turn, and offender's partner >leads face down, the director requires the face down lead to be >retracted and... > The more I read this, the more I think it might apply. The FLB uses the word "subsequent" 49 times. It uses the word "then" 19 times. why does it not use either of them in this law? > Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 25 07:06:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA03694 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 07:06:41 +1000 (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 HAA03689 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 07:06:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from p1as06a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.134.27] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt1-ps.global.net.uk.noc.gxn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12YbGr-0006cb-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 13:05:30 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 21:07:31 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf95d4$f80efb40$1b8693c3@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: Anton Witzen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, March 24, 2000 3:39 PM Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? >At 06:28 AM 3/24/00 -0600, you wrote: >>I would not think that Anne would profer such a question if it were so >>clear- >> >>My instinct was that if the OLOOT is accepted, the unexposed face down card >>is returned to the hand without penalty. If it is not accepted and if >>declarer does not enforce a lead penalty at the time then it must be led, >>and if a lead penalty is enforced, the card is returned to the hand first. >> >>But, RTFLB and find itis not so. >> >>The face down card is retracted whether or not the faced card is accepted: >> >sure, but that doesnt say it doenst have to be played if declare wants a >lead from proper hand without penalty. Read the WBF minutes, perhaps that >will convince you. > I only have excerpts that do not apply to this particular. Do you have an address for the bit you refer to. > >As far as i know the following is the proper procedure. >1) TD remembers what the retracted faced down card was. If a lead from >proper side is summonded by declarer, he has to lead that card, unless the >card was f.i. sA and the penalty card was sK. >(see minutes) > Does it make any difference which card, faced or unfaced hits the table first? Is the fact that in ruling (sA need not be played if sK is penalty) the TD is now the source of UI? Cheers Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 25 07:28:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA03772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 07:28:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.emr.ca [132.156.47.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA03767 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 07:28:12 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA05042 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 16:27:36 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200003242127.QAA05042@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: Contestant's rights To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 16:27:35 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <38DBCDD3.2CF2A117@es.co.nz> from "Albert/Mercer Family" at Mar 25, 2000 08:19:31 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 Albert/Mercer Family writes: This is a fascinating situation and I'm looking forward to working director's comments. Still, I'm thinking of various directors I have known. I'd pay to watch Stan Tench's reaction to being told by a contestant that something is highly improper. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 25 09:04:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA03902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 09:04:15 +1000 (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 JAA03897 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 09:04:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA02210; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 15:04:12 -0800 Message-Id: <200003242304.PAA02210@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Contestant's rights In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 25 Mar 2000 08:19:31 PST." <38DBCDD3.2CF2A117@es.co.nz> Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 15:04:13 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Albert/Mercer Family wrote: > Scene: Between halves of a team match at the local club. > > At the other table in our match, director has made a ruling concerning > the use of UI resulting in a score adjustment in favour of the > opposition. My teammates are fit to be tied, so much so that I find it > impossible to determine from them what the actual adjustment was. I'd > like to find out, for the following reasons: > > a) So that we know the state of the match for the second half. > b) So that I know whether my priorities are to: > i) Calm down teammates and tell them to let it go. > ii) Calm down teammates and suggest that we might appeal. > > As I'm getting no sense out of my teammates I approach the director to > ask what the ruling was. > > A member of the other team sees us talking and comes flying over > claiming that it's quite improper for me to be talking about the > hand/ruling with the director. > > Well is it? (I can find no support in law for that position.) Whether the law says so or not, I'd consider it improper to talk to the director to try to convince him to change a ruling (or, if he hasn't yet ruled on a situation, to make a ruling favorable to your side), if no one from the other team is present to give their side of the story. (I think this is called an _ex parte_ communication in law, based on the huge amount of legal knowledge I've gained from watching _Law and Order_.) Perhaps that's what the opponent feared you were doing. I don't see anything improper about your actual discussion, though. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 25 09:28:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA03935 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 09:28:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt7-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt7-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.167]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA03930 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 09:28:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from p0ds02a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.98.14] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt7-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12YCvQ-00024F-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 19:05:45 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Contestant's rights Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 23:28:58 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf95e8$bab15b80$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: Albert/Mercer Family To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, March 24, 2000 8:39 PM Subject: Contestant's rights >Scene: Between halves of a team match at the local club. > >At the other table in our match, director has made a ruling concerning >the use of UI resulting in a score adjustment in favour of the >opposition. My teammates are fit to be tied, so much so that I find it >impossible to determine from them what the actual adjustment was. I'd >like to find out, for the following reasons: > >a) So that we know the state of the match for the second half. >b) So that I know whether my priorities are to: > i) Calm down teammates and tell them to let it go. > ii) Calm down teammates and suggest that we might appeal. > >As I'm getting no sense out of my teammates I approach the director to >ask what the ruling was. > >A member of the other team sees us talking and comes flying over >claiming that it's quite improper for me to be talking about the >hand/ruling with the director. > >Well is it? (I can find no support in law for that position.) > Whether it is or not, it is for the the TD to decide what is proper. I think your team captain might complain that the TD is interfereing with his authority, but I doubt if the other team have anything to say, other than to revel in the fact that your lot are in disaray. > >Would it matter whether or not I was captain of the team? > Certainly it matters whether you were the captain of the team or not. As captain you have a right to know what has happened.The captain, must concur in any appeal. If you were the captain, and your team treated you in this way, you would be justified in issuing an ultimatum as to their behaviour. However if you are not the captain, the captain might decide that it is better for team morale that you go into the next round not knowing the position. Unusual, but I feel it is his right. > >You may take it as read that the club has no codified conditions of >contest for this competition, beyond those provided by remembered >precedents in 77 years of running it. :) > >PS (for anyone who cares) Teammates appealed and lost (a close call IMO, >but quite defensible) and we still won the match 21-9, so my interest >is, as always, academic. > Looks like the captain was one of the other pair. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 25 09:30:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA03950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 09:30:23 +1000 (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 JAA03945 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 09:30:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12YdWk-000Egf-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 23:30:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 18:34:29 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? References: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C005004546901031085@xion.spase.nl> <200003241645.IAA27795@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200003241645.IAA27795@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >In any case, it seems that you're bringing this up to suggest that, >since we're still in the auction period, the face-down opening lead is >not a play. I'm not convinced, but if you're right, it seems to me >that the H5 isn't a play either, since we're still in the auction >period; and we should apply not L54, but rather L24B, which deals with >prematurely led cards during the auction. However, leads are defined as plays. I do not think we are going to work this one out logically, since the arguments both ways are pretty good, and since the Laws seem inconsistent. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 25 09:48:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA04004 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 09:48:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA03999 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 09:48:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.2]) by swarm.mosquitonet.com (8.9.1/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA02298 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 14:48:17 -0900 Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 14:48:17 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? In-Reply-To: <20000324150845.55058.qmail@hotmail.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Anne Jones > To: BLML > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 7:41 AM > Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? I subscribe to the view that the face-down card isn't played until it is faced, so the H5 is a OLOOT. I think this is implied by 41 and 45 even without L54; I also happen to think that the "and" in L54 suggests that L54 applies regardless which of the two things happen first. (Nothing new from me on this part of the discussion, in other words.) Now... what happens after the face-down card goes back into West's hand, without any explicit penalty? I think the answer is L45C4a:"A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he propsed to play." Placing it face down on table (and being unable to withdraw it of one's own accord, per L41A) seems to quite clearly "otherwise designate" it as the card West proposes to play. On this basis, I feel that if the lead of the H5 is refused, West must lead the card he originally intended unless he is prevented from doing so by a lead penalty. If the H5 is accepted it is trickier. The letter of the law still seems to require West to play the card he originally intended to if he can, but this will lead to some bizarre plays, and also to a big UI problem by allowed East to deduce something about what his partner wanted the opening lead to be based on what West follows to trick one with. From a practical standpoint, it makes sense to let West play anything he wishes if the H5 is accepted. I am having a hard time finding words in the laws to back up my "practical" ruling, though. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 25 10:34:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA04093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 10:34:49 +1000 (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 KAA04088 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 10:34:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout2.nyroc.rr.com ([24.92.226.165]) by mailhop1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 19:31:29 -0500 Received: from [24.95.201.62] by mailout2.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 19:23:34 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <002b01bf95b7$2d1ea4c0$3f8d01d5@davidburn> References: <01bf9578$777a9680$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <002b01bf95b7$2d1ea4c0$3f8d01d5@davidburn> Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 19:25:22 -0500 To: From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 David Burn wrote: >What is not clear to me is whether that footnote implies >that the opening lead is a played card even while it is still >face down. I find nothing in the language to resolve this >question (but Mike Amos and Bill Schoder incline to the view >that no card is played until it is faced, which seems reasonable to me). In the normal course of events (when the face down opening lead is made and there are no irregularities) opening leading cannot normally retract that lead and substitute another, can he? So it seems to me the card is "played", as absent some irregularity, it cannot be changed. 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/AwUBONwJkL2UW3au93vOEQKN/wCcDLoBEEp8pnR7ZLyCz92sYBgtHh4AoOPg EIOax8gcOU4FHRf0vTILQdGa =xAmd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 25 10:38:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA04107 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 10:38:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA04102 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 10:38:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Yeab-000Ghy-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 00:38:06 +0000 Message-ID: <7OAuUFAi+$24Ewfj@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 23:52:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Contestant's rights References: <38DBCDD3.2CF2A117@es.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <38DBCDD3.2CF2A117@es.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Albert/Mercer Family wrote: >Scene: Between halves of a team match at the local club. > >At the other table in our match, director has made a ruling concerning >the use of UI resulting in a score adjustment in favour of the >opposition. My teammates are fit to be tied, so much so that I find it >impossible to determine from them what the actual adjustment was. I'd >like to find out, for the following reasons: > >a) So that we know the state of the match for the second half. >b) So that I know whether my priorities are to: > i) Calm down teammates and tell them to let it go. > ii) Calm down teammates and suggest that we might appeal. > >As I'm getting no sense out of my teammates I approach the director to >ask what the ruling was. > >A member of the other team sees us talking and comes flying over >claiming that it's quite improper for me to be talking about the >hand/ruling with the director. > >Well is it? (I can find no support in law for that position.) No, of course it is not. Certain things that you might say would be better said with the opposition's presence, but not everything needs it, and the TD can make a decision quite easily as to whether what you are saying is suitable. >Would it matter whether or not I was captain of the team? Only insofar as the response of the TD is concerned. It does not stop you talking to him: the only difference is you have a right to some information that the TD might not give you otherwise. Isn't it sad that people have so little faith in each other? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 25 11:26:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA04204 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 11:26:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from tantalum.btinternet.com (tantalum.btinternet.com [194.73.73.80]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA04199 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 11:26:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.108.26] (helo=davidburn) by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12YfDa-0002SD-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 01:18:22 +0000 Message-ID: <001b01bf95f9$5afa1f40$1a6c01d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 01:27:58 -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 Gordon Bower wrote: > Now... what happens after the face-down card goes back into West's hand, > without any explicit penalty? I think the answer is L45C4a:"A card must > be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he > propsed to play." Placing it face down on table (and being unable to > withdraw it of one's own accord, per L41A) seems to quite clearly > "otherwise designate" it as the card West proposes to play. I'm not sure about this. Suppose that in the middle of the hand, with East on lead, West were to detach a card from his hand, place it face down on the table, and say: "This is the card I would lead if it were my turn to lead - but it isn't, so I won't." Provided that no one else (especially East) could see the card (and leaving aside UI questions), I don't see any reason why the card so detached by West should have to be played at any particular point. I think, in other words, that for a player to "designate" a card as the card he proposes to play, he must at least have identified the card in such a way that its identity becomes known to other players beside himself. > From a practical > standpoint, it makes sense to let West play anything he wishes if the H5 > is accepted. I am having a hard time finding words in the laws to back up > my "practical" ruling, though. I think that once you cease to read L45C4 as meaning that a player can "designate" a card whose identity no one knows but himself, your life may become easier :) David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 25 12:26:12 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA04376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 12:26:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA04371 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 12:26:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12YgGs-000Kzo-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 02:25:50 +0000 Message-ID: <2ASN3lAt7B34EwWJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 02:05:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: Cats! MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk List of cats Mark Abraham Kittini Michael Albert Bob, Icky Picky RB Karen Allison Stella, Blanche, Stanley Dave Armstrong Cookie Louis Arnon Dorus, Edna, Frits, Gussy Brian Baresch Lao, Gaea Adam Beneschan Mango MIA David Blizzard Herbie, Mittens Mike Bolster Jess Vitold Brushtunov Chia Everett Boyer Amber Pur Byantara Begung Wayne Burrows Fritzi, Ely, Nico Konrad Ciborowski Kocurzak Miauczurny Mary Crenshaw Dickens Claude Dadoun Moustique Hirsch Davis Shadow, Smokey RB, Loki, Snaggs, Rufus Mike Dennis Casino Laval Du Breuil Picatou Simon Edler Incy Michael Farebrother Shadow, Tipsy Wally Farley Andrew RB, Templeton, Scratcher, Joy, Panda RB, Shaure, Edmund Eric Favager Poppy, Daisy, Smiffie, Ollie, Monty, Fluffy Marv French Mozart Dany Haimovici Shobo, Rosario, Shemaya, Hershey, Spotty, Shuri, Dossie, Kippy, Pushsh Paul & Pat Harrington Dopi, Bridget, Depo RB Robert Harris Bobbsie RB, Caruso Damian Hassan Bast, Katie, Tepsi, Baroo, Scrap Craig Hemphill Spook, Snuffy, Snuggles, Squeak, Cub Scout Richard Hull Endora, Putty Tat, Bill Bailey Sergey Kapustin Liza Laurie Kelso Bugs, Sheba MIA Jack Kryst Bentley, Ava John Kuchenbrod Rah-Rey, Leo Irv Kostal Albert, Cleo, Sabrina, Bill RB Eric Landau Glorianna, Wesley, Shadow, Query Paul Lippens Rakker, Tijger, Sloeber Albert Lochli Killer Demeter Manning Nikolai, Zonker Rui Marques Bibi, Kenji, Satann John McIlrath Garfield, Mischief Brian Meadows Katy Bruce Moore Sabrena Tony Musgrove Mitzi, Muffin Sue O'Donnell Yazzer-Cat, Casey RB Rand Pinsky Vino, Axel Rose, Talia, Keiko John Probst Gnipper, Figaro Ed Reppert Ayesha, Gracie, The Sarge, Buzz Norman Scorbie Starsky, Hutch Craig Senior Streak, Shaney, Rascal, Stubby, Precious, Smoke, Scamp, Bandit, Shadow, Smokey Flemming B-Soerensen Rose Grant Sterling Big Mac David Stevenson Quango, Nanki Poo, Ting RB, Pish RB, Tush RB, Tao MIA, Suk RB Les West T.C., Trudy Anton Witzen Ritske, Beer, Miepje plus, of course Selassie RB is a cat waiting at Rainbow Bridge, and MIA is a cat missing in action. Anyone who wishes to see the story of Rainbow Bridge can ask David for a copy, or look at the article on his Catpage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/rbridge.htm The story and a picture of Selassie is at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/slssie.htm Additions and amendments to this list should be sent to Nanki Poo at . Miiiiiiiaaaaaoouuuuwwwwww !!!!!!!!! Mrow *QU* -- Quango /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Pictures on Catpage at ( | | ) =( + )= http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/cat_menu.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 25 14:02:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA04634 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 14:02:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA04623 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 14:02:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12YhmK-000PP4-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 04:02:25 +0000 Message-ID: <0pmUIKB4nD34Ew1E@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 04:00:56 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Contestant's rights References: <38DBCDD3.2CF2A117@es.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <38DBCDD3.2CF2A117@es.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <38DBCDD3.2CF2A117@es.co.nz>, Albert/Mercer Family writes >Scene: Between halves of a team match at the local club. > >At the other table in our match, director has made a ruling concerning >the use of UI resulting in a score adjustment in favour of the >opposition. My teammates are fit to be tied, so much so that I find it >impossible to determine from them what the actual adjustment was. I'd >like to find out, for the following reasons: > >a) So that we know the state of the match for the second half. >b) So that I know whether my priorities are to: > i) Calm down teammates and tell them to let it go. > ii) Calm down teammates and suggest that we might appeal. > >As I'm getting no sense out of my teammates I approach the director to >ask what the ruling was. > >A member of the other team sees us talking and comes flying over >claiming that it's quite improper for me to be talking about the >hand/ruling with the director. "Sir/Madam, are you suggesting that I would engage in an improper conversation with a player whilst I'm TD?". Pause. "Did I tell you the one about the .... - well it's very improper" I see no reason why a contestant with an interest in a ruling that has been given should not have it explained. He may well want to understand the basis of the ruling in order to lodge an appeal (or ask his captain to do so). I would consider issuing a PP if anyone tried to influence my ruling without both sides present however. 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 Mar 25 14:02:47 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA04629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 14:02:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA04624 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 14:02:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12YhmP-000PP6-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 04:02:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 03:49:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? References: <01bf9578$777a9680$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <002b01bf95b7$2d1ea4c0$3f8d01d5@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <002b01bf95b7$2d1ea4c0$3f8d01d5@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <002b01bf95b7$2d1ea4c0$3f8d01d5@davidburn>, David Burn writes >DWS wrote: > >> Anne Jones wrote: >> >South is Dec. in 3NT. >> >There have been no alerts, no questions,no MI. >> >West correctly leads a card face down on the table. >> >> Right. So that is the opening lead. > >Is it? If a lead is the first card played to a trick, then West's card >becomes the opening lead only when it is played. A card is played when >it is faced (according to L45A). But there is a footnote in that Law >to the effect that the opening lead is first made face down. What is >not clear to me is whether that footnote implies that the opening lead >is a played card even while it is still face down. I find nothing in >the language to resolve this question (but Mike Amos and Bill Schoder >incline to the view that no card is played until it is faced, which >seems reasonable to me). I am inclined to believe that a defender's card is not played until it has been held in a position such that his partner could have seen its face. A face down card is therefore not played, and indeed there are situations where it may be picked up without penalty. It is probably true that the card has been lead, but that does not mean it has been played. Hence when partner faces his card, this card *has* been lead and played. I'm now firmly of the opinion we have an OLOOT. Of the five options we have no problem if the OLOOT is accepted. If we insist on the lead of the suit I think we should allow the original leader to change his card even in the suit because some of the time he will have to change it anyway. (Maybe I'm on dangerous ground here, but it reduces UI). Similarly If we ban the lead of the suit partner will perforce have to change his card some of the time, and IMO should be allowed to change it all of the time. Should we keep the penalty card I think original leader will have to make his original lead, as the penalty card is (erroneously in my view) covered by L16C2 > >The question has arisen: does L54 cover this case? The words say: > >When an opening lead is faced out of turn, and offender's partner >leads face down, the director requires the face down lead to be >retracted and... > >Now, if West's face down card is the opening lead, then East's face up >card isn't, so it might be argued that L54 does not apply. However, >common sense would suggest that the opening lead is, de facto, the >first card faced by a defender (whether in turn or out of it). It has >also been argued that the words of L54 imply a temporal sequence: >"when an opening lead is faced out of turn... and *then* offender's >partner leads face down...". I find nothing in the language to support >this notion, but I would have no difficulty with it as an >interpretation. > >Given that East has played a card for all to see, while West has not >(even if he has played a card at all, which is doubtful), the simplest >interpretation of possibly conflicting Laws would suggest that East's >card should be treated as a faced opening lead out of turn, and West's >card should simply be ignored. > >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 Mar 25 14:24:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA04723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 14:24:52 +1000 (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 OAA04718 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 14:24:44 +1000 (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 12Yi7n-000GPn-0Y for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 04:24:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 04:23:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? References: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C005004546901031085@xion.spase.nl> <200003241645.IAA27795@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >Adam Beneschan wrote: > >>In any case, it seems that you're bringing this up to suggest that, >>since we're still in the auction period, the face-down opening lead is >>not a play. I'm not convinced, but if you're right, it seems to me >>that the H5 isn't a play either, since we're still in the auction >>period; and we should apply not L54, but rather L24B, which deals with >>prematurely led cards during the auction. > > However, leads are defined as plays. per the definitions, yes; but the laws don't always seem to make the one imply the other "A lead (noun) is the first card played to a trick "To lead (verb) is not necessarily _to play_ ?? > > I do not think we are going to work this one out logically, since the >arguments both ways are pretty good, and since the Laws seem >inconsistent. > I'm going to stick with the OLOOT as it seems more in accord with the concept that the face down opening lead is still in the auction period (as it can be retracted in certain circumstances) but the faced lead gets us to the play period. -- 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 Mar 25 15:10:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA04775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 15:10:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA04770 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 15:10:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.6.97.157] (helo=davidburn) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12Yipe-0006HP-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 05:09:55 +0000 Message-ID: <005501bf9618$987be0a0$1a6c01d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <01bf9578$777a9680$LocalHost@vnmvhhid><002b01bf95b7$2d1ea4c0$3f8d01d5@davidburn> Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 05:11:35 -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: > In the normal course of events (when the face down opening lead is > made and there are no irregularities) opening leading cannot normally > retract that lead and substitute another, can he? So it seems to me > the card is "played", as absent some irregularity, it cannot be > changed. I don't know. I have sometimes led fifth highest (face down), then realised that with this particular partner I play fourth highest. So, I have put my face down card back in my hand and extracted a different card which I also table face down. Now, I know that an astute partner could draw an inference from this performance that my lead is from five cards rather than four, but apart from the UI restrictions that may thereby arise, I have not been conscious of committing an infraction. Perhaps I am wrong. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 25 17:33:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA04970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 17:33:23 +1000 (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 RAA04965 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 17:33:15 +1000 (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 ; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 02:30:02 -0500 Received: from [24.95.201.62] by mailout2.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 02:22:12 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <005501bf9618$987be0a0$1a6c01d5@davidburn> References: <01bf9578$777a9680$LocalHost@vnmvhhid><002b01bf95b7$2d1ea4c0$3f8d01d5@davidburn> <005501bf9618$987be0a0$1a6c01d5@davidburn> Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 02:30:48 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >I don't know. I have sometimes led fifth highest (face down), then >realised that with this particular partner I play fourth highest. So, >I have put my face down card back in my hand and extracted a different >card which I also table face down. Now, I know that an astute partner >could draw an inference from this performance that my lead is from >five cards rather than four, but apart from the UI restrictions that >may thereby arise, I have not been conscious of committing an >infraction. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps. Or Perhaps not. I dunno either. "I am only an egg." :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBONxrtL2UW3au93vOEQLlEgCgtgFHjwDqQlOENAf3v6ifFglke/YAnji0 v9v+uBMCoeSBob9Q8fKcQb6x =0s8V -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 26 02:26:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA05978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 02:26:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp.mail.yahoo.com (smtp.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA05973 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 02:26:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-58-212-253.s507.tnt1.lnhdc.md.dialup.rcn.com (HELO hdavis) (208.58.212.253) by smtp.mail.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Mar 2000 08:26:02 -0800 X-Apparently-From: Message-ID: <005201bf9676$d735d540$fdd43ad0@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <01bf9578$777a9680$LocalHost@vnmvhhid><002b01bf95b7$2d1ea4c0$3f8d01d5@davidburn> <005501bf9618$987be0a0$1a6c01d5@davidburn> Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 11:26:04 -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 Burn" To: Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2000 12:11 AM Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? > > I don't know. I have sometimes led fifth highest (face down), then > realised that with this particular partner I play fourth highest. So, > I have put my face down card back in my hand and extracted a different > card which I also table face down. Now, I know that an astute partner > could draw an inference from this performance that my lead is from > five cards rather than four, but apart from the UI restrictions that > may thereby arise, I have not been conscious of committing an > infraction. Perhaps I am wrong. > > David Burn > London, England > > Yes, that is an infraction under L41A. You cannot change the face down lead unless allowed to do so by the TD. The reason for the face down lead is to allow the partner of the opening leader and declarer the question period described in L41B. If an infraction is revealed during this period (MI, as described in L47E2), then you would be permitted to pick up your card and change your lead. Otherwise, you can't change your mind, and must play the face-down card at the end of the question period (unless partner leads out of turn...) The play period does not begin until the lead is faced, but I believe that is to allow the TD to apply L21B1 if the question period reveals MI. Hirsch __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 26 02:44:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA06065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 02:44:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA06060 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 02:44:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.2] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12Ytfl-0002Vu-00; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 16:44:26 +0000 Message-ID: <000b01bf9679$b9eba2a0$025608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , References: <01bf9578$777a9680$LocalHost@vnmvhhid><002b01bf95b7$2d1ea4c0$3f8d01d5@davidburn> <005501bf9618$987be0a0$1a6c01d5@davidburn> Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 08:28:12 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2000 5:11 AM Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? > Ed wrote: > > > In the normal course of events (when the face down opening lead is > > made and there are no irregularities) opening leading cannot > normally > > retract that lead and substitute another, can he? So it seems to me > > the card is "played", as absent some irregularity, it cannot be > > changed. > > I don't know. I have sometimes led fifth highest (face down), then > realised that with this particular partner I play fourth highest. So, > I have put my face down card back in my hand and extracted a different > card which I also table face down. > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ There is, I recall, an EBL LC reminder that once face down a lead may only be recalled with the consent of the Director. During the exchanges on the point Jean Besse wrote a piece on the status of the face down lead which I would describe as 'erudite'. I could perhaps find it in the box containing papers relating to my Chairmanship of that committee. I must check to see if it got into the EBL Commentary on the 1987 laws. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 26 04:55:32 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA07210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 04:55:32 +1000 (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 EAA07203 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 04:55:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (pc80.krakow.ppp.tpnet.pl [212.160.4.80]) by omicron.comarch.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4750D5C028 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 19:55:40 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38DD0B4E.541B74FC@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 19:54:06 +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: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk We have a long discussion about claims, rationality and carelessness going on and we are still far from any conclusions being reached. Analyzing last Bermuda Bowl matches I found classical irrational vs. careless problem. Just look: --------------------------------------------------------- POLAND vs. SWEDEN Open Room Deal 13: dealer North, Game All KQJ872 --- J10875 85 65 93 AK98 Q5432 AK9 42 AK76 QJ102 A104 J1076 Q63 943 Fredin Tuszynski Lindkvist Jassem W N E S --- 3S pass 4S double pass 5H pass 6H pas pass pass ---------------------------------------------------------- Here is what we can read about this deal in the Daily Bulletin: "The bidding left Fredin no way to ask about spade control so he took reasonable chance that Lindkvist was short is spades. Beside the two spade losers, Lindkvist also lost a trump trick for minus 200 and 9 IMPs to Poland, now leading 15-9." But in the latest issue of Polish "Bridge" Magazine the npc of the Polish team Wojciech Siwiec analyzes in details the performance of the Polish team and this is what he says about this deal: "(...) Fortunately in the Open Room the Swedes not only bid up to the five level (Lindkvist) but even higher (Fredin). The Poles cash two top spades. Lindkvist, frustrated, tables his hand without saying a word. Therefore, according to Law, he must lose one more trick (though an "elementary" play of the hQ would have neutralized Jassem's heart holding. Even playing a third spade cannot save the defenders)." So we have a contested claim here. The Polish captain doesn't say whether the Director was called. Perhaps the players sorted it out among themselves (illegal according to the FLB). IM(H)O there are several interesting issues here: 1) Resolving claim disputes without the TD. We had a thread about this. _If_ this was the case than this is a strong argument to modify slightly the claim Law. If all the four players agree as to the number of tricks that should be scored then there is no reason to call the TD. The Law on claims, however, requires them to do so _every_ time, even in very simple cases. I suspect failing to call the TD in obvious cases happens quite frequently even in international events. Maybe this is why Tom Kooijman claims (nomen omen) that claims are easy :)) 2) AK98 - Q5432. This is for those of you who argue that the world class players play the queen first even in their sleep. If the TD was not called then it means that Lindkvist himself jugded this play to be merely careless. Now suppose that the Swedish captain decides to appeal and the AC rules that playing the A first is irrational and gives Lindkvist back all the heart tricks. How would you explain this to the other side? Any ideas? David Burn proposed recently that the claim Law should say: "A claimer should state what tricks he expects to win, and in what order he intends to play his remaining cards. Any cards not covered explicitly by this statement of claim should be deemed to be played in the legal order most disadvantageous to the claimer." Under this version the above case is straightforward. Under the persent Law... well, you know. If we make a poll than I suppose we'll have 50% of us wanting to give East-West all the trump tricks and 50% vehemently objecting to it. "Consistency is all I ask". I don't know if we have any Swedish BLMLers. Maybe there is a description of this deal in Swedish bridge press that would bring in some new facts; mainly wheather the Director was called to the table or not. Perhaps Grattan or others who directed in Bermuda could clarify this. Comments welcome. ************************************************************************************** - 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 Sun Mar 26 06:58:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA07850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 06:58:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt5-he.global.net.uk (cobalt5-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.165]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA07845 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 06:58:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from pf2s04a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.116.243] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt5-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Yxbt-0001dn-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 12:56:42 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 20:59:00 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf969c$f1be2c20$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Grattan Endicott To: David Burn ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Saturday, March 25, 2000 4:58 PM Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? > >Grattan Endicott===================================== >"Of all the causes which conspire to blind >Man's erring judgement, and misguide the mind, >What the weak head with strongest bias rules >Is Pride, the never-failing vice of fools." > (Pope) >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: David Burn >To: >Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2000 5:11 AM >Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? > > >> Ed wrote: >> >> > In the normal course of events (when the face down opening lead is >> > made and there are no irregularities) opening leading cannot >> normally >> > retract that lead and substitute another, can he? So it seems to me >> > the card is "played", as absent some irregularity, it cannot be >> > changed. >> >> I don't know. I have sometimes led fifth highest (face down), then >> realised that with this particular partner I play fourth highest. So, >> I have put my face down card back in my hand and extracted a different >> card which I also table face down. > >> David Burn >> London, England >> >+=+ There is, I recall, an EBL LC reminder that once face down >a lead may only be recalled with the consent of the Director. >During the exchanges on the point Jean Besse wrote a >piece on the status of the face down lead which I would >describe as 'erudite'. I could perhaps find it in the box >containing papers relating to my Chairmanship of that >committee. I must check to see if it got into the > EBL Commentary on the 1987 laws. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Thanks Grattan. Quote from the EBL Commentary on the 1987 Laws. 41.3.iii "At its meeting on July 9th 1989, the Committee ruled that an opening lead made face-down is not as yet a played card. The card is not played until it is faced" and 41.4 "The lead connot be withdrawn in the event that there is no evidence of an irregularity. > So well done those of you that said H5 was a OLOOT. > Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 26 08:10:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA07985 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 08:10:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from lisa.inter.net.il (lisa.inter.net.il [192.116.202.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA07980 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 08:10:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (Ramat-Gan-4-136.access.net.il [213.8.4.136] (may be forged)) by lisa.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA03041 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 00:11:10 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <38E3C2FF.2D7AC17D@inter.net.il> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 00:11:27 +0300 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 - March 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 19th 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 Mar 26 08:43:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA08054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 08:43:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from lisa.inter.net.il (lisa.inter.net.il [192.116.202.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA08049 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 08:42:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (Ramat-Gan-4-136.access.net.il [213.8.4.136] (may be forged)) by lisa.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA07297 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 00:43:46 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <38E3CAA3.C9D6B45B@inter.net.il> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 00:44:03 +0300 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: [Fwd: OLOOT or MPC?] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------54660F34FF34B0707C6EB6D9" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------54660F34FF34B0707C6EB6D9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------54660F34FF34B0707C6EB6D9 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Message-ID: <38E3C2C3.CED73BDA@inter.net.il> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 00:10:27 +0300 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 Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? References: <01bf9578$777a9680$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well David.... I think you got it not accurate enough ! The first Law to apply is Law 54 : clear cut it is OLOOT The interesting case will be when the Original Dummy spread his hand too......... ALL the "contestants" on BLML invited to tell us the rulling then. Dany David Stevenson wrote: > > Anne Jones wrote: > >South is Dec. in 3NT. > >There have been no alerts, no questions,no MI. > >West correctly leads a card face down on the table. > > Right. So that is the opening lead. > > >East now leads H5 face up. > > That is not a lead since it is not the first card played to the trick. > > >Is the H5 an OLOOT or is it a MPC? > >I think the answer to this depends on whether the > >face down opening lead is a played card. > >Anyone like to interpret Laws 41A/45C1/47E2. > > The Definitions make it clearer: a "Lead" is the first card *played* > to a trick. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ --------------54660F34FF34B0707C6EB6D9-- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 26 09:11:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA08118 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 09:11:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.rdc2.occa.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc2.occa.home.com [24.2.8.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA08113 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 09:10:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc68559a ([24.5.183.132]) by mail.rdc2.occa.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <20000325231045.CJGO13627.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 15:10:45 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: D-BLML list - the clever friends - March 2000 Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 15:11:26 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-user-defined" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <38E3C2FF.2D7AC17D@inter.net.il> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am sad to report that Panda has departed for the Rainbow Bridge in a most unfortunate way. While Brian and I were at the Spring NABC, and our yard workers were here, she got past them un-noticed into our swimming pool area. They locked all the gates and left. That evening, our house and dog sitters found her body in the pool - we don't know if she drowned, or if the cold water did her in. We will miss her a lot. :-( Linda > Dear all H-BLML (human....) and D-BLML member > > Here is the 19th 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 Mar 26 09:31:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA08144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 09:31:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.emr.ca [132.156.47.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA08139 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 09:30:56 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA00775 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 18:30:12 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200003252330.SAA00775@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 18:30:11 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <38DD0B4E.541B74FC@omicron.comarch.pl> from "Konrad Ciborowski" at Mar 25, 2000 07:54:06 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 Konrad Ciborowski writes: > > 2) AK98 - Q5432. This is for those of you who argue > that the world class players play the queen first > even in their sleep. If the TD was not called then > it means that Lindkvist himself jugded this play > to be merely careless. Now suppose that the Swedish > captain decides to appeal and the AC rules that > playing the A first is irrational and gives Lindkvist > back all the heart tricks. How would you explain this > to the other side? Any ideas? I've been meaning to bring up a very similar hand from late in a major US KO. (Apologies for being vague, but I can't locate it in my collection of Bridge Worlds. I seem to recall that it was Boyd who got it wrong and Ross who got it right) Similar issue though no mention of a faulty claim. The expert in question made the zero percent play of cashing the wrong honor first. And there's the hand from the finals of the Stockholm Bermuda Bowl where both Becker and the Italian declarer (either Belladonna or Garozzo) went down in what Kaplan (correctly IMO) called a trick two claim. The point being that the line between careless and irrational can be tough to define. And the answer should not vary from committee to committee. Which is why I'd be happiest with David Burn's proposal as law. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 26 09:41:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA08185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 09:41:03 +1000 (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 JAA08180 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 09:40:55 +1000 (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 12Z0Ae-0009zy-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 23:40:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 11:42:06 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? References: <01bf9578$777a9680$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <002b01bf95b7$2d1ea4c0$3f8d01d5@davidburn> <005501bf9618$987be0a0$1a6c01d5@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <005501bf9618$987be0a0$1a6c01d5@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >Ed wrote: > >> In the normal course of events (when the face down opening lead is >> made and there are no irregularities) opening leading cannot >normally >> retract that lead and substitute another, can he? So it seems to me >> the card is "played", as absent some irregularity, it cannot be >> changed. > >I don't know. I have sometimes led fifth highest (face down), then >realised that with this particular partner I play fourth highest. So, >I have put my face down card back in my hand and extracted a different >card which I also table face down. Now, I know that an astute partner >could draw an inference from this performance that my lead is from >five cards rather than four, but apart from the UI restrictions that >may thereby arise, I have not been conscious of committing an >infraction. Perhaps I am wrong. You have certainly committed an infraction. L41A says: After a bid, double or redouble has been followed by three passes in rotation, the defender on presumed declarer's left makes the opening lead face down. The face-down lead may be withdrawn only upon instruction of the Director after an irregularity (see Law 47E2); the withdrawn card must be returned to the defender's hand. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo will be 7 on April 5th. Quango got *twenty* emails on his birthday: please send one to Nanki Poo His picture: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat3 From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 26 10:56:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA08395 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 10:56:58 +1000 (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 KAA08390 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 10:56:50 +1000 (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 12Z1M5-000K9d-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 00:56:38 +0000 Message-ID: <3pmWO6Ag4V34Ew1E@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 00:47:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: D-BLML list - the clever friends - March 2000 References: <38E3C2FF.2D7AC17D@inter.net.il> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Linda Trent wrote: >I am sad to report that Panda has departed for the Rainbow Bridge in a most >unfortunate way. While Brian and I were at the Spring NABC, and our yard >workers were here, she got past them un-noticed into our swimming pool area. >They locked all the gates and left. That evening, our house and dog sitters >found her body in the pool - we don't know if she drowned, or if the cold >water did her in. We will miss her a lot. :-( I am sorry to hear this. :(( -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo will be 7 on April 5th. Quango got *twenty* emails on his birthday: please send one to Nanki Poo His picture: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat3 From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 26 12:44:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA08625 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 12:44:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA08620 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 12:44:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from xtra.co.nz ([210.55.39.164]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with ESMTP id <20000326024410.CADB2589319.mta2-rme@xtra.co.nz> for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 14:44:10 +1200 Message-ID: <38DD7A9E.484211A2@xtra.co.nz> Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 14:49:03 +1200 From: Bruce Small X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? References: <01bf9578$777a9680$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > South is Dec. in 3NT. > There have been no alerts, no questions,no MI. > West correctly leads a card face down on the table. > East now leads H5 face up. > Is the H5 an OLOOT or is it a MPC? > I think the answer to this depends on whether the > face down opening lead is a played card. > Anyone like to interpret Laws 41A/45C1/47E2. > Anne Following correct procedure the faced down card is the opening lead (unless sponsoring organization specifies otherwise) Law 41 A and footnote. This is the correct procedure for opening lead therefore the facedown card is the opening lead. L17E the auction period is not finished. It is now question time L41B. The opening lead face down cannot be retracted except for irregularity (L41A) of misinformation L47E2. This has not occured. This is not a simultaneous lead. Technically the H5 is a card exposed during auction L24 and becomes a penalty card L50B of the major variety. While the offender may have felt he was leading he is incorrect and the opening lead has already been made. I would rule that the opening lead remains and H% is major penalty card with usual consequences. Bruce. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 26 14:47:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA08856 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 14:47:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA08851 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 14:47:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.145] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12Z4w7-000Mel-00; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 05:46:03 +0100 Message-ID: <003301bf96de$89426840$915908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Konrad Ciborowski" , References: <38DD0B4E.541B74FC@omicron.comarch.pl> Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 05:46:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2000 7:54 PM Subject: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl > David Burn proposed recently that the claim Law should > say: > > "A claimer should state what tricks he expects to win, and in what > order he intends to play his remaining cards. Any cards not covered > explicitly by this statement of claim should be deemed to be played in > the legal order most disadvantageous to the claimer." > +=+ I would be in favour of this +=+ > > I don't know if we have any Swedish BLMLers. Maybe there > is a description of this deal in Swedish bridge press > that would bring in some new facts; mainly wheather the > Director was called to the table or not. Perhaps Grattan > or others who directed in Bermuda could clarify this. > Comments welcome. > +=+ I did not direct; I co-ordinated the appeals arrangements. Sadly the case does not come to mind. I can say that the suit was discussed in Bellaria* where the Director ruled a trick lost and this was apparently generally accepted at the table. Afterwards there was some discussion with Herman deW. as to whether it would be 'irrational' in the case of Hamman. We agreed he would never have claimed without first leading to the single honour! (The player in Bellaria was not of leading rank). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [* European Mixed Champs. just concluded] From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 26 20:15:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA09515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 20:04:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA09492 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 20:04:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-133.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.133]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA18219 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 12:04:07 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38DCE027.D5EFDFCD@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 16:49:59 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: St. Patrick's Day References: <000301bf9035$f7386d40$ca307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> <4EgHjXAs8u04EweI@probst.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Can you believe that we actually found a pub in Bellaria (rather closed-up like any sea resort in winter) that served Irish beer. We had a st Patrick's celebration one day later. It seemed to last all week. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 26 20:45:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA09633 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 20:45:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA09628 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 20:45:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-251.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.251]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA24934 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 12:45:34 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38DDEA1E.4472B1FB@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 12:44:46 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl References: <38DD0B4E.541B74FC@omicron.comarch.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > [snip] > > KQJ872 > --- > J10875 > 85 > 65 93 > AK98 Q5432 > AK9 42 > AK76 QJ102 > > A104 > J1076 > Q63 > 943 > > 2) AK98 - Q5432. This is for those of you who argue > that the world class players play the queen first > even in their sleep. There is one point I keep repeating over and over again. This (world-class) player would not claim carelessly if he were in five. Since he is in six, he can be forgiven for claiming carelessly. But is that proof that he would play the hand carelessly as well. No, he would never do that, if he were thinking at all. I do not believe that any player, at any level, when asked to play this hand, would ever get it wrong. Therefore I see no reason not to give him 11 tricks. Yes, people sometimes play carelessly. And when they do, they sometimes play a card which can only be described as irrational. People also sometimes revoke. But after a claim, there can be no revokes. Nor should there be irrational plays. > If the TD was not called then > it means that Lindkvist himself jugded this play > to be merely careless. Or maybe the Polish themselves judged any other play than the queen to be irrational ! Do we know what score they wrote ? Do you really believe that in actual play, this declarer would ever fail to get 11 tricks ? I agree that any doubt should go against claimer, but how can you have any doubt here ? Keeping in mind the reasons for the (careless) claim (statement) in the first place. > Now suppose that the Swedish > captain decides to appeal and the AC rules that > playing the A first is irrational and gives Lindkvist > back all the heart tricks. How would you explain this > to the other side? Any ideas? > David Burn proposed recently that the claim Law should > say: > > "A claimer should state what tricks he expects to win, and in what > order he intends to play his remaining cards. Any cards not covered > explicitly by this statement of claim should be deemed to be played in > the legal order most disadvantageous to the claimer." > You know what I think of this. I believe DB thinks that the Laws actually say this. I don't believe they do. Or that they should. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 26 21:15:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA09514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 20:04:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA09490 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 20:04:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-133.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.133]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA18211 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 12:04:05 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38DCDEF0.AB3DCDC6@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 16:44:48 +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: L13 References: <002001bf8293$39c553e0$0100a8c0@ihug.co.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > If one side has 14-13 and the other 12-13, both sides are partly at > fault and A/A is suitable. > What, David ? Do you really believe this is the meaning of "partly at fault" ? Only one player is at fault ? That's new to me - is it anybody else's interpretation ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 26 21:18:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA09510 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 20:04:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA09483 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 20:04:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-133.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.133]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA18162 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 12:03:56 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38DCD94C.DFF44700@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 16:20:44 +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: European Mixed, my first intervention Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As I told you in another thread, I had to fill in for some directors who left early from Bellaria. My first intervention had us laughing for an hour. The round has just started, and the tables in the lower part of the Swiss teams had just dealt their boards. I pass the table of Tommy Sandsmark, and if you don't know Tommy, you've missed something. Just suffice it to say that he's on this list and has more experience than all but a very few. While smiling to me, he drops a card on the floor. Now Tommy is not the most gymnastic of players, so I bend down to pick the card up. Not being all that flexible myself, I put the card on the table before coming upright again. At which time I notice that I have put the card face-up on the table. So I tell Tommy he can reshuffle the board if he wants to. Which he doesn't, because it is .. the Two of Clubs. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 26 22:07:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA09484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 20:04:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA09475 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 20:04:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-133.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.133]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA18148 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 12:03:54 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38DCD1AC.49E2F397@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 15:48:12 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Bad claim from Bellaria References: <005a01bf8eb8$3e650e00$0a84d9ce@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "David J. Grabiner" wrote: (in redress for NS) > [snip] > This is the reason for the apparent BLML > consensus that an expert who claims with AQ9xx/KTxx with no statement > should also lose a trick if possible. > Apparent consensus on blml, maybe, but not of directors. Just back from Bellaria, European mixed Championships, where I had the quietest week possible on an Appeals Committee - just nine prior to the last day. Then I was added to the Directorial staff and guess who got appeal 10 ? I don't even know what happened to it as I had to leave before the appeal could be heard. Anyway, on to claims. The bad claim contained AQ8xx opposite K9xx. I agreed with the Directors' final decision that it should not stand, since playing the King just because you can only pick up J10xx on one side (where they of course were) was considered normal, but not doing so merely careless. OK, so there is agreement, but the important point is that the decision took 10 minutes to reach. Many a director agreed that they would not rule the same if declarer also has the 10. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 26 22:15:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA09512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 20:04:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA09485 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 20:04:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-133.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.133]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA18197 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 12:04:01 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38DCDA8B.BBDF226C@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 16:26:03 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) References: <3896DA7F.4E239668@village.uunet.be> <03ff01bf6ce5$8c9eef40$16991e18@san.rr.com> <000d01bf6cf4$a1924140$178201d5@davidburn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > I would be happy to look at what the field has done if we know that > they have used the same tools. But we don't, do we? > > Suppose that we have a situation where the bidding has gone > > 1D 3C x P > P P > > 3C is described as the majors, and duly makes when it is found to > contain C & H. MI is present, so what do we adjust to? > > If you look at the traveller you will find that the room with a couple > of exceptions has played in 3NT making. So, do you adjust to 3NT > making? > > Let us say that this is a top tourney with a recorder at each table. > You check the records, and the auction at *every* table that played 3NT > is > > 1NT P 2NT P > 3NT P P P > > How does this affect your judgement? Well, it is obviously > irrelevant, and I cannot believe you would adjust to 3NT just because > everyone else has played there. > > Now, how does this translate to the ordinary tourney? You can look at > the traveller, but you have *no idea* what the bidding was at the other > tables. It is not a fair method of making judgements. > David is quite right, of course, but don't you believe that AC's and even TD's are capable of seeing that the 3C bid is out of the ordinary or not ? Surely you must keep these things in the back of your mind, but after you've done that, what's so wrong with using the evidence that we have ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 26 22:20:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA09796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 22:20:50 +1000 (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 WAA09791 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 22:20:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([212.55.173.170]) by fep04-svc.mail.telepac.pt (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000326122258.ESOU16776.fep04-svc.mail.telepac.pt@default> for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 13:22:58 +0100 Reply-To: From: "Rui L.Marques" To: Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bellaria=B4s_Strangest?= Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 13:20:04 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Probably is... At least, it is one of the strangest things I have come across in my TD´s life! This player makes an opening lead, properly, and then... spreads his other twelve cards as if he was dummy. Screens should save this one... NO! Immediately after, he opens the screen! Director... From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 26 22:22:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA09513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 20:04:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA09486 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 20:04:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-133.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.133]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA18207 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 12:04:03 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38DCDC1C.546C93A5@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 16:32:44 +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: L12C2 interpretation (and more) References: <3896DA7F.4E239668@village.uunet.be> <03ff01bf6ce5$8c9eef40$16991e18@san.rr.com> <000d01bf6cf4$a1924140$178201d5@davidburn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > I had thought that we tended to lean towards the NOs, giving them some > benefit of the doubt. > > Consider the 50% of people bidding slam problem. > > L12C2 gives the NOs 980 > and the Os -980. That one is clear, but of course incorrect, since we are obliged by Law, practice and now the CoP, to apply L12C3 in stead. > Grattan gives the NOs 50% of 980, 50% of 480 > and the Os 50% of -980, 50% of -480, and a PP. Having had many a conversation with Grattan over the past week, I don't believe that he would, but I'll let him answer this one. > David B gives the NOs 50% of 980, 50% of 480 > and the Os -980. Some others feel like David (among them one TK, who I shall also let answer for themselves), but for various reasons I do not like this approach. I have written a two-pages document on this one and it will have distribution in due time. > I give the NOs 60% of 980, 40% of 480 > and the Os 40% of -980, 60% of -480. DWS has gotten the concept of the benefit of the doubt wrong for Os. He has now given more than 100% score ! I don't believe he has thought this one through ! > Herman give the NOs 60% of 980, 40% of 480 > and the Os 30% of -980, 70% of -480. > Nopes, I give both sides the same score. (you have now had me giving 130% on this deal) Herman give the NOs 70% of 980, 30% of 480 and the Os 70% of -980, 30% of -480. > Interesting!! > Considering that you were not even able to formulate your own point correctly, very interesting. > -- > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > > I am going through old BLML threads that I have not yet read. So some > of these replies are to articles up to ten weeks old. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 26 22:44:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA09837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 22:44:21 +1000 (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 WAA09831 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 22:44:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from eduhi.at (petrus2.konvent [192.168.1.116]) by michael.gym (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA00773 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 14:45:52 +0200 Message-ID: <38DE05F9.40448DAA@eduhi.at> Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 14:43:37 +0200 From: Petrus Schuster OSB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [de] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: L13 References: <002001bf8293$39c553e0$0100a8c0@ihug.co.nz> <38DCDEF0.AB3DCDC6@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael schrieb: > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > > If one side has 14-13 and the other 12-13, both sides are partly at > > fault and A/A is suitable. > > > > What, David ? Do you really believe this is the meaning of > "partly at fault" ? Only one player is at fault ? > > That's new to me - is it anybody else's interpretation ? > Not mine - for me, both sides are at fault, so it's A-/A-. --- Petrus From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 26 23:22:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA09904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 23:22:33 +1000 (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 XAA09899 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 23:22:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from p07s09a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.89.8] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Yogr-0008MP-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 11:25:13 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 14:22:15 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf9726$4d730c00$085993c3@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Small To: BLML Date: Sunday, March 26, 2000 3:55 AM Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? > > >Anne Jones wrote: > >> South is Dec. in 3NT. >> There have been no alerts, no questions,no MI. >> West correctly leads a card face down on the table. >> East now leads H5 face up. >> Is the H5 an OLOOT or is it a MPC? >> I think the answer to this depends on whether the >> face down opening lead is a played card. >> Anyone like to interpret Laws 41A/45C1/47E2. >> Anne > >Following correct procedure the faced down card is the opening lead >(unless sponsoring organization specifies otherwise) Law 41 A and >footnote. This is the correct procedure for opening lead therefore the >facedown card is the opening lead. L17E the auction period is not >finished. It is now question time L41B. The opening lead face down >cannot be retracted except for irregularity (L41A) of misinformation >L47E2. This has not occured. This is not a simultaneous lead. >Technically the H5 is a card exposed during auction L24 and becomes a >penalty card L50B of the major variety. While the offender may have felt >he was leading he is incorrect and the opening lead has already been >made. I would rule that the opening lead remains and H% is major penalty >card with usual consequences. > >Bruce. > That was how I ruled on the day, and for the reasons you give. However I am now pretty well convinced that I was wrong. Others have argued, discussed and debated. Nothing really convinced me until Grattan guided me to the minutes of the WBFLC of July 1989. What did surprise me was that although the Committee considered there was sufficient problem with the wording of the Law, the drafting committee did not see fit to make it clearer in the 1997 code. Anne > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 27 00:01:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA10018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 00:01:30 +1000 (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 AAA10012 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 00:01:23 +1000 (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 12ZDbM-0006lB-0U; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 15:01:13 +0100 Message-ID: <7zzaSHA$4f34EwVt@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 13:10:39 +0100 To: Herman De Wael Cc: Bridge Laws From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: L13 References: <002001bf8293$39c553e0$0100a8c0@ihug.co.nz> <38DCDEF0.AB3DCDC6@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <38DCDEF0.AB3DCDC6@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 S Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <38DCDEF0.AB3DCDC6@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> If one side has 14-13 and the other 12-13, both sides are partly at >> fault and A/A is suitable. >> > >What, David ? Do you really believe this is the meaning of >"partly at fault" ? Only one player is at fault ? > >That's new to me - is it anybody else's interpretation ? > 14-12 N/S is 40/60 fine NS at previous table 14-12 N/E is 50/50 fine both sides at previous table subject of course to failure to count cards cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 27 04:22:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA10926 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 04:22:07 +1000 (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 EAA10915 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 04:21:57 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id 5.63.365b02f (7543); Sun, 26 Mar 2000 13:20:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <63.365b02f.260faefb@aol.com> Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 13:20:43 EST Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl To: hermandw@village.uunet.be, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 101 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 3/26/00 5:47:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > Yes, people sometimes play carelessly. And when they do, > they sometimes play a card which can only be described as > irrational Dear Herman, For your own good, and for injecting some clarity into your thinking, please find out the difference between "careless" and "irrational." You continue to use these words interchangeably whenever it suits your purpose, which greatly detracts from what you are trying to say. The words are NOT synonymous. Cheers, Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 27 04:21:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA10913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 04:21:42 +1000 (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 EAA10907 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 04:21:31 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id y.b3.1dd9332 (7543); Sun, 26 Mar 2000 13:20:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 13:20:44 EST Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:=20Bellaria=B4s=20Strangest?= To: np93je@mail.telepac.pt, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 101 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id EAA10909 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 3/26/00 7:21:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, np93je@mail.telepac.pt writes: > Probably is... At least, it is one of the strangest things I have come > across in my TD´s life! > > This player makes an opening lead, properly, and then... spreads his other > twelve cards as if he was dummy. Screens should save this one... NO! > Immediately after, he opens the screen! Director... > > Only 12 penalty cards? Gee! Did you get the name of the brand he was drinking? Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 27 04:22:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA10925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 04:22:07 +1000 (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 EAA10914 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 04:21:57 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id 5.cb.37cce35 (7543); Sun, 26 Mar 2000 13:20:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 13:20:44 EST Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) To: hermandw@village.uunet.be, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 101 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 3/26/00 7:21:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > Surely you must keep these > things in the back of your mind, but after you've done that, > what's so wrong with using the evidence that we have ? > Evidence of WHAT??? Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 27 06:20:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA11255 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 06:20:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt11-he.global.net.uk.noc.gxn.net (cobalt11-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.171]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA11249 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 06:20:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from p99s07a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.167.154] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt11-he.global.net.uk.noc.gxn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12YuVx-0005JA-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 17:38:22 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: L13 Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 21:19:50 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf9760$a37a0240$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: Herman De Wael Cc: Bridge Laws Date: Sunday, March 26, 2000 3:16 PM Subject: Re: L13 >In message <38DCDEF0.AB3DCDC6@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael > writes >>David Stevenson wrote: >>> >>> >>> If one side has 14-13 and the other 12-13, both sides are partly at >>> fault and A/A is suitable. >>> >> >>What, David ? Do you really believe this is the meaning of >>"partly at fault" ? Only one player is at fault ? >> >>That's new to me - is it anybody else's interpretation ? >> >14-12 N/S is 40/60 fine NS at previous table >14-12 N/E is 50/50 fine both sides at previous table > and then you find that it was Jim that took the board to make a ruling. Do you fine him after youv'e apologised to the players at the previous table? Or maybe it was one of those Duplimate boards with the thin cards that keep falling out. A passer by could have picked up the card and kindly slipped it in the board. It looked like it fell out of the North slot! I think it's most unfair to fine the previous table lest you observed an infraction of law there, (say 7B2 or 7C)and you know that it was that infraction that caused the problem. Cheers Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 27 08:15:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA11505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 08:15:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA11499 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 08:15:16 +1000 (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 RAA19292 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 17:15:06 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <38DCD94C.DFF44700@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 17:11:43 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: European Mixed, my first intervention Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 4:20 PM +0100 3/25/00, Herman De Wael wrote: >While smiling to me, he drops a card on the floor. Now Tommy >is not the most gymnastic of players, so I bend down to pick >the card up. Not being all that flexible myself, I put the >card on the table before coming upright again. At which time >I notice that I have put the card face-up on the table. I believe the appropriate penalty for this infraction is that director is required to buy a beer for the offended player at the first legal opportunity (and for his partner if the exposed card was the D7 and he may have deprived the player of a chance to earn a beer.) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 27 09:03:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA11596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 09:03:33 +1000 (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 JAA11590 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 09:03:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-58-214-124.s124.tnt2.lnhdc.md.dialup.rcn.com (HELO hdavis) (208.58.214.124) by smtp.mail.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Mar 2000 15:03:17 -0800 X-Apparently-From: Message-ID: <003201bf9777$80457040$7cd63ad0@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML" References: <01bf9578$777a9680$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <38DD7A9E.484211A2@xtra.co.nz> Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 18:03:28 -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: "Bruce Small" To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2000 9:49 PM Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? > > > Anne Jones wrote: > > > South is Dec. in 3NT. > > There have been no alerts, no questions,no MI. > > West correctly leads a card face down on the table. > > East now leads H5 face up. > > Is the H5 an OLOOT or is it a MPC? > > I think the answer to this depends on whether the > > face down opening lead is a played card. > > Anyone like to interpret Laws 41A/45C1/47E2. > > Anne > > Following correct procedure the faced down card is the opening lead > (unless sponsoring organization specifies otherwise) Law 41 A and > footnote. This is the correct procedure for opening lead therefore the > facedown card is the opening lead. L17E the auction period is not > finished. It is now question time L41B. The opening lead face down > cannot be retracted except for irregularity (L41A) of misinformation > L47E2. This has not occured. This is not a simultaneous lead. > Technically the H5 is a card exposed during auction L24 and becomes a > penalty card L50B of the major variety. While the offender may have felt > he was leading he is incorrect and the opening lead has already been > made. I would rule that the opening lead remains and H% is major penalty > card with usual consequences. > > Bruce. > The preface to L54 reads: "When an opening lead is faced out of turn, and offender's partner leads face down, the director requires the face down lead to be retracted, and the following sections apply." How do you reconcile this with your analysis? If we follow your reasoning to its conclusion, we can remove L54 from the books, since any face up card by the wrong defender prior to the correct opening lead is an exposed card during the auction, and there is no such thing as an OLOOT. Since there is indeed a L54, a deliberate face-up card by the wrong defender after three passes seems the correct place for it to apply. Perhaps having L41A refer to L54 as well as L47E2 would clear this up? Also, a minor point of sematics (I hope). An exact reading of the preamble to L54 would indicate that two conditions must be met before L54 applies: 1) a opening lead is faced out of turn, and 2) offender's partner leads face down. Since the word "and" is used, it could mean that L54 does not apply if there has been no face down lead by offender's partner, since one of the conditions in the preamble has not been met. Common sense tells me that an OLOOT is an OLOOT whether or not there has been a face down lead by the correct defender, but if I'm wrong, I've made a *lot* of bad rulings over the years... Hirsch __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 27 09:08:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA11624 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 09:08:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from lisa.inter.net.il (lisa.inter.net.il [192.116.202.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA11619 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 09:07:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (Ramat-Gan-16-170.inter.net.il [213.8.16.170]) by lisa.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA17907; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 01:08:46 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <38E52201.5E29FFCE@inter.net.il> Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 01:09:05 +0300 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: ltrent@home.com CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: D-BLML list - the clever friends - March 2000 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My condolences..... Try to find another lovely one Dany Linda Trent wrote: > > I am sad to report that Panda has departed for the Rainbow Bridge in a most > unfortunate way. While Brian and I were at the Spring NABC, and our yard > workers were here, she got past them un-noticed into our swimming pool area. > They locked all the gates and left. That evening, our house and dog sitters > found her body in the pool - we don't know if she drowned, or if the cold > water did her in. We will miss her a lot. :-( > > Linda > > > Dear all H-BLML (human....) and D-BLML member > > > > Here is the 19th 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 Mon Mar 27 10:43:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA11823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 10:43:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.70]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA11818 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 10:42:54 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id f.92.2d87100 (3940); Sun, 26 Mar 2000 19:42:14 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <92.2d87100.26100865@aol.com> Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 19:42:13 EST Subject: Re: L13 To: eajewm@globalnet.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 101 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 3/26/00 3:24:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, eajewm@globalnet.co.uk writes: > I think it's most unfair to fine the previous table lest you observed an > infraction of law there, (say 7B2 or 7C)and you know that it was that > infraction that caused the problem. > Cheers > Anne Well put, and also the reason why we are so careful to look for the last person/entity that could have prevented the irregularity. There is a requirement to count your cards for a reason -- if the last table was responsible for getting them back into the board wrong, that might be a penalty for them, but for this table all things could have been OK had they counted them face down, as the Law requires. Keep pitching, some of it may rub off on the doubters and lawyers eventually. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 27 12:24:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA12084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 12:24:29 +1000 (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 MAA12073 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 12:24:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12ZPCH-0000BM-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 03:24:06 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 22:32:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) References: <3896DA7F.4E239668@village.uunet.be> <03ff01bf6ce5$8c9eef40$16991e18@san.rr.com> <000d01bf6cf4$a1924140$178201d5@davidburn> <38DCDC1C.546C93A5@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <38DCDC1C.546C93A5@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> I had thought that we tended to lean towards the NOs, giving them some >> benefit of the doubt. >> >> Consider the 50% of people bidding slam problem. >> >> L12C2 gives the NOs 980 >> and the Os -980. > >That one is clear, but of course incorrect, since we are >obliged by Law, practice and now the CoP, to apply L12C3 in >stead. > >> Grattan gives the NOs 50% of 980, 50% of 480 >> and the Os 50% of -980, 50% of -480, and a PP. > >Having had many a conversation with Grattan over the past >week, I don't believe that he would, but I'll let him answer >this one. > >> David B gives the NOs 50% of 980, 50% of 480 >> and the Os -980. > >Some others feel like David (among them one TK, who I shall >also let answer for themselves), but for various reasons I >do not like this approach. >I have written a two-pages document on this one and it will >have distribution in due time. > >> I give the NOs 60% of 980, 40% of 480 >> and the Os 40% of -980, 60% of -480. > >DWS has gotten the concept of the benefit of the doubt wrong >for Os. He has now given more than 100% score ! >I don't believe he has thought this one through ! I meant >> I give the NOs 60% of 980, 40% of 480 >> and the Os 60% of -980, 40% of -480. and >> Herman give the NOs 60% of 980, 40% of 480 >> and the Os 70% of -980, 30% of -480. >Nopes, I give both sides the same score. >(you have now had me giving 130% on this deal) Sorry. I was merely quoting [alright, misquoting] you when you said you would *not* give them the same score. > Herman give the NOs 70% of 980, 30% of 480 > and the Os 70% of -980, 30% of -480. > >> Interesting!! >> > >Considering that you were not even able to formulate your >own point correctly, very interesting. I am very sorry for having made a mistake. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo will be 7 on April 5th. Quango got *twenty* emails on his birthday: please send one to Nanki Poo His picture: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat3 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 27 12:24:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA12083 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 12:24:28 +1000 (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 MAA12074 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 12:24:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12ZPCH-0000BN-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 03:24:06 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 22:34:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L13 References: <002001bf8293$39c553e0$0100a8c0@ihug.co.nz> <38DCDEF0.AB3DCDC6@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <38DCDEF0.AB3DCDC6@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> If one side has 14-13 and the other 12-13, both sides are partly at >> fault and A/A is suitable. >> > >What, David ? Do you really believe this is the meaning of >"partly at fault" ? Only one player is at fault ? > >That's new to me - is it anybody else's interpretation ? Well, it certainly isn't mine. If you wish to argue something I have not said, feel free - but do not ascribe it to me. If either side had counted the cards correctly they could have stopped the board in time to make it playable, so both are partly at fault. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo will be 7 on April 5th. Quango got *twenty* emails on his birthday: please send one to Nanki Poo His picture: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat3 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 27 17:39:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA12789 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 17:39:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA12784 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 17:39:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from xtra.co.nz ([210.55.37.144]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with ESMTP id <20000327073857.MXHL2589319.mta2-rme@xtra.co.nz> for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:38:57 +1200 Message-ID: <38DF1136.FBBC57F2@xtra.co.nz> Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:43:51 +1200 From: Bruce Small X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? References: <01bf9726$4d730c00$085993c3@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > That was how I ruled on the day, and for the reasons you give. However I am > now pretty well convinced that I was wrong. Others have argued, discussed > and debated. Nothing really convinced me until Grattan guided me to the > minutes of the WBFLC of July 1989. What did surprise me was that although > the Committee considered there was sufficient problem with the wording of > the Law, the drafting committee did not see fit to make it clearer in the > 1997 code. > Anne Have just caught up with other postings as you indicate I'm wrong (not an unusual experience :-)). Tends to make the wording of 41A a little confusing as it is entitled "correct procedure" and I agree with others that there possibly should be reference to 54 (which does not specify if there is a simultaneous or subsequent situation involved)and perhaps even combination of these two laws to make it clearer Regards Bruce From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 27 17:39:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA12783 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 17:39:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA12778 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 17:39:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from xtra.co.nz ([210.55.37.144]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with ESMTP id <20000327073844.MXGL2589319.mta2-rme@xtra.co.nz> for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:38:44 +1200 Message-ID: <38DF1128.823497D7@xtra.co.nz> Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:43:36 +1200 From: Bruce Small X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? References: <01bf9578$777a9680$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <38DD7A9E.484211A2@xtra.co.nz> <003201bf9777$80457040$7cd63ad0@hdavis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > The preface to L54 reads: "When an opening lead is faced out of turn, > and offender's partner leads face down, the director requires the face > down lead to be retracted, and the following sections apply." How do > you reconcile this with your analysis? Correct but the situation Anne gives is that the opening lead was placed faced down then offender played the H5 i.e. it is subsequent to the opening lead. > If we follow your reasoning to > its conclusion, we can remove L54 from the books, since any face up card > by the wrong defender prior to the correct opening lead is an exposed > card during the auction, and there is no such thing as an OLOOT. Since > there is indeed a L54, a deliberate face-up card by the wrong defender > after three passes seems the correct place for it to apply. Yes if there hasn't been a prior play > > > Perhaps having L41A refer to L54 as well as L47E2 would clear this up? > > Also, a minor point of sematics (I hope). An exact reading of the > preamble to L54 would indicate that two conditions must be met before > L54 applies: 1) a opening lead is faced out of turn, and 2) offender's > partner leads face down. Since the word "and" is used, it could mean > that L54 does not apply if there has been no face down lead by > offender's partner, since one of the conditions in the preamble has not > been met. Common sense tells me that an OLOOT is an OLOOT whether or > not there has been a face down lead by the correct defender, depending on the sequence of plays > but if I'm > wrong, I've made a *lot* of bad rulings over the years... > > Hirsch Regards Bruce From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 27 17:53:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA12838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 17:53:59 +1000 (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 RAA12833 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 17:53:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (pcciborowski.comarch.pl [195.116.125.138]) by omicron.comarch.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8E8F5C03F for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 09:54:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38DF1321.B64F70CB@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 09:52:01 +0200 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: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bellaria=B4s?= Strangest References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Rui L.Marques" pressed the following keys: > > Probably is... At least, it is one of the strangest things I have come > across in my TD´s life! > > This player makes an opening lead, properly, and then... spreads his other > twelve cards as if he was dummy. Screens should save this one... NO! > Immediately after, he opens the screen! Director... I have seen something similar several years ago. A league match, no screens. At the table next to the one I was playing at an opening lead was made and then both dummy and declarer's RHO spread their hands. And the contract was... 6NT!! Konrad Ciborowski -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Mar 27 19:12:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA13053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:12:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail49.fg.online.no (mail49-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.49]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA13048 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:12:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from siri (ti34a62-0373.dialup.online.no [130.67.73.117]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA12683 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 11:11:35 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Tommy Sandsmark" To: Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE:_Bellaria=B4s_Strangest?= Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 10:42:08 +0200 Message-ID: <000401bf97c8$566869c0$01646464@siri> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <38DF1321.B64F70CB@omicron.comarch.pl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have done something similar once. Also that happened in a European Mix Championship, in Bordeaux, to be precise. The contract was 3 NT by our opponents. I led D5 face up, dummy spread her hand and knocked on the screen. When it opened, my wife Siri had led H5 face up and another dummy was exposed. We called the director, and when he came, do not believe for a moment that he ruled, because he didn't! In fact, he called all the other directors on the floor, as they had all been my students at the international tournement directors course in Amsterdam. For nearly 4-5 minutes they all stood there giggling and I was more then just a little bit embarassed. Finally one of them ruled, and to my great surprise he did it correctly! Now, what do you think he should rule? Tommy Sandsmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 27 20:22:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA13261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 20:22:53 +1000 (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 UAA13256 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 20:22:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12ZWfJ-0006w5-0X; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 11:22:33 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 11:06:32 +0100 To: Tommy Sandsmark Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: =?iso-8859-1?q?RE:_Bellaria=B4s_Strangest?= References: <38DF1321.B64F70CB@omicron.comarch.pl> <000401bf97c8$566869c0$01646464@siri> In-Reply-To: <000401bf97c8$566869c0$01646464@siri> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <000401bf97c8$566869c0$01646464@siri>, Tommy Sandsmark writes >I have done something similar once. Also that happened in a European Mix >Championship, in Bordeaux, to be precise. > >The contract was 3 NT by our opponents. I led D5 face up, dummy spread her >hand and knocked on the screen. When it opened, my wife Siri had led H5 face >up and another dummy was exposed. > >We called the director, and when he came, do not believe for a moment that >he ruled, because he didn't! In fact, he called all the other directors on >the floor, as they had all been my students at the international tournement >directors course in Amsterdam. For nearly 4-5 minutes they all stood there >giggling and I was more then just a little bit embarassed. > >Finally one of them ruled, and to my great surprise he did it correctly! > >Now, what do you think he should rule? > >Tommy Sandsmark > Thank you Tommy it has taken me five minutes to wipe the tears from my eyes Who cares what the right ruling is :)) You've made one TD giggle for most of the rest of the day :))) mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 27 20:37:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA13306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 20:37:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA13301 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 20:37:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id MAA32104 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 12:37:08 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Mar 27 12:37:07 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JNJ2FRYO6G005HH5@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 13:35:27 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 12:35:47 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 12:36:35 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE=3A_Bellaria=B4s_Strangest?= To: "'Tommy Sandsmark'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B597@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 have done something similar once. Also that happened in a > European Mix > Championship, in Bordeaux, to be precise. > > The contract was 3 NT by our opponents. I led D5 face up, > dummy spread her > hand and knocked on the screen. When it opened, my wife Siri > had led H5 face > up and another dummy was exposed. > > We called the director, and when he came, do not believe for > a moment that > he ruled, because he didn't! In fact, he called all the other > directors on > the floor, as they had all been my students at the > international tournement > directors course in Amsterdam. So you decided to join the activists in this group! But don't exagerate this, sir. Some where my students and some where teachers as you. Mine certainly didn't giggle as yours did. And the one who solved the problem accurately must have been one of mine. Let us try again, but keep in mind that regulations using screens have changed during the years, may be we had a different approach then, I don't remember. Siri has a penalty card and declarer picks up all cards (48A), play starts. ton For nearly 4-5 minutes they > all stood there > giggling and I was more then just a little bit embarassed. > > Finally one of them ruled, and to my great surprise he did it > correctly! > > Now, what do you think he should rule? > > Tommy Sandsmark > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 27 20:53:07 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA13364 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 20:53:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f65.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA13358 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 20:52:59 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 87802 invoked by uid 0); 27 Mar 2000 10:52:18 -0000 Message-ID: <20000327105218.87801.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.219 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 02:52:18 PST X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Cats! Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 02:52:18 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Quango >Reply-To: Nanki Poo >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Subject: Cats! >Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 02:05:33 +0000 > > List of cats > >Mark Abraham Kittini >Michael Albert Bob, Icky Picky RB >Karen Allison Stella, Blanche, Stanley >Dave Armstrong Cookie >Louis Arnon Dorus, Edna, Frits, Gussy >Brian Baresch Lao, Gaea >Adam Beneschan Mango MIA >David Blizzard Herbie, Mittens >Mike Bolster Jess >Vitold Brushtunov Chia >Everett Boyer Amber >Pur Byantara Begung >Wayne Burrows Fritzi, Ely, Nico >Konrad Ciborowski Kocurzak Miauczurny >Mary Crenshaw Dickens >Claude Dadoun Moustique >Hirsch Davis Shadow, Smokey RB, Loki, Snaggs, Rufus >Mike Dennis Casino >Laval Du Breuil Picatou >Simon Edler Incy >Michael Farebrother Shadow, Tipsy >Wally Farley Andrew RB, Templeton, Scratcher, Joy, Panda RB, > Shaure, Edmund >Eric Favager Poppy, Daisy, Smiffie, Ollie, Monty, Fluffy >Marv French Mozart >Dany Haimovici Shobo, Rosario, Shemaya, Hershey, Spotty, Shuri, > Dossie, Kippy, Pushsh >Paul & Pat Harrington Dopi, Bridget, Depo RB >Robert Harris Bobbsie RB, Caruso >Damian Hassan Bast, Katie, Tepsi, Baroo, Scrap >Craig Hemphill Spook, Snuffy, Snuggles, Squeak, Cub Scout >Richard Hull Endora, Putty Tat, Bill Bailey >Sergey Kapustin Liza >Laurie Kelso Bugs, Sheba MIA >Jack Kryst Bentley, Ava >John Kuchenbrod Rah-Rey, Leo >Irv Kostal Albert, Cleo, Sabrina, Bill RB >Eric Landau Glorianna, Wesley, Shadow, Query >Paul Lippens Rakker, Tijger, Sloeber >Albert Lochli Killer >Demeter Manning Nikolai, Zonker >Rui Marques Bibi, Kenji, Satann >John McIlrath Garfield, Mischief >Brian Meadows Katy >Bruce Moore Sabrena >Tony Musgrove Mitzi, Muffin >Sue O'Donnell Yazzer-Cat, Casey RB >Rand Pinsky Vino, Axel Rose, Talia, Keiko >John Probst Gnipper, Figaro >Ed Reppert Ayesha, Gracie, The Sarge, Buzz >Norman Scorbie Starsky, Hutch >Craig Senior Streak, Shaney, Rascal, Stubby, Precious, Smoke, > Scamp, Bandit, Shadow, Smokey >Flemming B-Soerensen Rose >Grant Sterling Big Mac >David Stevenson Quango, Nanki Poo, Ting RB, Pish RB, Tush RB, > Tao MIA, Suk RB >Les West T.C., Trudy >Anton Witzen Ritske, Beer, Miepje > > plus, of course Selassie > > > > RB is a cat waiting at Rainbow Bridge, and MIA is a cat missing in >action. Anyone who wishes to see the story of Rainbow Bridge can ask >David for a copy, or look at the article on his Catpage at > > http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/rbridge.htm > > The story and a picture of Selassie is at > > http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/slssie.htm > > Additions and amendments to this list should be sent to Nanki Poo at >. > > > Miiiiiiiaaaaaoouuuuwwwwww !!!!!!!!! > > > >Mrow >*QU* > I regret to say that Starsky is no longer with us. Like his television counterpart he decided to roll over a car. Sadly, unlike his television counterpart, he didn't survive the experience. Mrs. Scorbie was unconsolable for days, but we have decided not to replace. Hutch hobbles on alone. When he goes, we'll consider a new pair, but it seems a bit mean to impose one or two kittens on an aged complacent cat. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 27 20:53:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA13369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 20:53:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f123.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.123]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA13353 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 20:49:51 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 74487 invoked by uid 0); 27 Mar 2000 10:47:45 -0000 Message-ID: <20000327104745.74486.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.219 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 02:47:45 PST X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 02:47:45 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "David Burn" >To: >Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? >Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 05:11:35 -0000 > >Ed wrote: > > > In the normal course of events (when the face down opening lead is > > made and there are no irregularities) opening leading cannot >normally > > retract that lead and substitute another, can he? So it seems to me > > the card is "played", as absent some irregularity, it cannot be > > changed. > >I don't know. I have sometimes led fifth highest (face down), then >realised that with this particular partner I play fourth highest. So, >I have put my face down card back in my hand and extracted a different >card which I also table face down. Now, I know that an astute partner >could draw an inference from this performance that my lead is from >five cards rather than four, but apart from the UI restrictions that >may thereby arise, I have not been conscious of committing an >infraction. Perhaps I am wrong. > >David Burn >London, England > More unauthorised information, eh? I'd have thought that picking the card up saying "Sorry, not that one" or something similar, together with some sort of unconvincing pantomime would be acceptable. I would also hope that partner wouldn't devote one iota of his powers of thought to wondering what the retracted card might have been. If I thought he was, I'd be more annoyed than my opponents. He should be concentrating on trying to beat the contract, not trying to guess what mistake I'd made and drawing inferences from it. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 27 21:42:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA13531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 21:42:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA13512 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 21:42:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-16-215.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.16.215]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA17378 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 13:42:32 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38DF39FC.3E21AA8F@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 12:37:48 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: European Mixed, my first intervention References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "David J. Grabiner" wrote: > > At 4:20 PM +0100 3/25/00, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >While smiling to me, he drops a card on the floor. Now Tommy > >is not the most gymnastic of players, so I bend down to pick > >the card up. Not being all that flexible myself, I put the > >card on the table before coming upright again. At which time > >I notice that I have put the card face-up on the table. > > I believe the appropriate penalty for this infraction is that director is > required to buy a beer for the offended player at the first legal > opportunity Which in Bellaria was : never. Alcohol was banned from the playing area. But I agree to the penalty and owe Tommy a beer when we next meet. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 27 21:42:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA13528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 21:42:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA13508 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 21:42:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-16-215.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.16.215]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA17343; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 13:42:25 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38DF3592.B652037B@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 12:18:58 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Schoderb@aol.com, Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation (and more) 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 3/26/00 7:21:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, > hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > > > Surely you must keep these > > things in the back of your mind, but after you've done that, > > what's so wrong with using the evidence that we have ? > > > > Evidence of WHAT??? Kojak Evidence of the frequency of the happenings in the field. What I meant was that if you have frequencies of a deal, you must realize that you cannot know whether the bidding went completely the same at other tables, but that does not mean we should throw away the data completely. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 27 21:42:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA13530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 21:42:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA13510 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 21:42:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-16-215.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.16.215]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA17367; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 13:42:29 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38DF398B.1D45A795@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 12:35:55 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Schoderb@aol.com, Bridge Laws Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl References: <63.365b02f.260faefb@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 3/26/00 5:47:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, > hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > > > Yes, people sometimes play carelessly. And when they do, > > they sometimes play a card which can only be described as > > irrational > > Dear Herman, > For your own good, and for injecting some clarity into your thinking, please > find out the difference between "careless" and "irrational." You continue to > use these words interchangeably whenever it suits your purpose, which greatly > detracts from what you are trying to say. The words are NOT synonymous. > > Cheers, Kojak I know they are not. But please read the footnote again. "Play that is careless or inferior, but not irrational". It is the play itself that is being described, not the action of the player. We all agree that dropping a king under an ace is irrational play, and will not be used in a claim. Yet players sometimes do this. Does that make their actions "irrational"? No, it means that when being careless, players sometimes make irrational plays. It does not make the irrational play careless. The swedish declarer was being careless in claiming without a statement. I tend to believe that his not playing the (was it the queen ?) first is still irrational. But of course, I would accept the decision of a majority. But that would be in a particular case. We are trying to set standards here, and I believe the standards that are being discussed are far higher than they should be. I will continue arguing my point of view just in order for lurkers to see that this is not a settled issue, and that TD's and AC's all over the world must continue to use their judgment to find out if a particular line is careless or irrational. And I will keep on stressing the point that the act of claiming carelessly does in no way form evidence that the player would also play the hand carelessly, or that irrational (or vastly inferior) play suddenly becomes merely careless. Look at the hand. Form an opinion of what the player knows of the hand. Judge if some play would ever be done by that player, when actually playing the hand, even a little carelessly. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 27 21:42:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA13529 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 21:42:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA13509 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 21:42:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-16-215.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.16.215]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA17349 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 13:42:27 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38DF36B3.45C9CF61@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 12:23:47 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L13 References: <002001bf8293$39c553e0$0100a8c0@ihug.co.nz> <38DCDEF0.AB3DCDC6@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > >> > > > >What, David ? Do you really believe this is the meaning of > >"partly at fault" ? Only one player is at fault ? > > > >That's new to me - is it anybody else's interpretation ? > > Well, it certainly isn't mine. > > If you wish to argue something I have not said, feel free - but do not > ascribe it to me. > Sorry, it is what I thought you meant when giving A/A. > If either side had counted the cards correctly they could have stopped > the board in time to make it playable, so both are partly at fault. > This means that you give a player more points just because his opponent at the table made the same mistake he did ? I am quite certain this is an English interpretation only. It certainly is not the normal ruling in Belgium and Holland, and as we see from the response here, Germany. I believe this view is correct as by the Laws: L12C1 says - average to A contestant partly at fault. and not average to contestants partly to blame. yes ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 27 23:16:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA14060 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 23:16:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from bart.inter.net.il (bart.inter.net.il [192.116.202.15]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA14055 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 23:15:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (Ramat-Gan-5-99.access.net.il [213.8.5.99] (may be forged)) by bart.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA01296 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 15:14:05 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <38E5E855.E49795DE@inter.net.il> Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 15:15:17 +0300 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: POPE's BENEDICTION Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk All our friends here - Receive the POPE's BENEDICTION & BLESSINGSS . He doesn't know exactly what the bridge game is , but he was very kind to bless all of you , as a part of his great will for mankind friendship , peace and understanding. P.S. He is an outstanding personality and had i the great honour and pleasure to meet him privately 4 times during the last week. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 27 23:21:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA13849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 22:38:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA13844 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 22:38:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id OAA27627 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 14:38:10 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Mar 27 15:37:00 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JNJ6NU6TO2005K36@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 15:36:30 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 14:36:48 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 14:36:16 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE=3A_Bellaria=B4s_Strangest?= To: "'Tommy Sandsmark'" , "Kooijman, A." , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B598@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 > > You've got it, Ton! > > True enough, some were also your students, and the one who > ruled the right > thing must have been yours for sure. Somehow I have the > feeling, though, > that we sort of shared all the students, so that nobody could > really say > that he or she was "mine". You are right, but you claimed them all! Careless so you had to loose some again. ton From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 27 23:25:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA14108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 23:25:18 +1000 (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 XAA14102 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 23:25:10 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id 5.e0.2b0abc9 (3315); Mon, 27 Mar 2000 08:23:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 08:23:58 EST Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl To: hermandw@village.uunet.be, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 101 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 3/27/00 6:44:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > But please read the footnote again. > > "Play that is careless or inferior, but not irrational". > > It is the play itself that is being described, not the > action of the player. > We all agree that dropping a king under an ace is irrational > play, and will not be used in a claim. Since the proper quote from the book is "...includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational." does this mean that you would not allow Meckstroth to drop a King under an Ace as an obvious -- to him -- unblock of the suit? Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 28 00:21:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA13636 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 22:01:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail49.fg.online.no (mail49-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.49]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA13630 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 22:01:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from siri (ti34a65-0235.dialup.online.no [130.67.116.235]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA26424; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 14:00:35 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Tommy Sandsmark" To: "Kooijman, A." , Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE:_Bellaria=B4s_Strangest?= Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 13:30:30 +0200 Message-ID: <003101bf97df$dbc53960$01646464@siri> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B597@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You've got it, Ton! True enough, some were also your students, and the one who ruled the right thing must have been yours for sure. Somehow I have the feeling, though, that we sort of shared all the students, so that nobody could really say that he or she was "mine". Korrect ruling should be: Assuming that one of the leads is the correct one, TD should decide that declarer is no longer in any position to choose. The right lead must be led, and the right dummy stays on the table. The wrong lead is a penalty card and declarer picks up all cards (48A), whereupon play starts. Tommy > -----Original Message----- > From: Kooijman, A. [mailto:A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl] > Sent: 27. mars 2000 12:37 > To: 'Tommy Sandsmark'; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: RE: Bellaria´s Strangest > > > > > > > I have done something similar once. Also that happened in a > > European Mix > > Championship, in Bordeaux, to be precise. > > > > The contract was 3 NT by our opponents. I led D5 face up, > > dummy spread her > > hand and knocked on the screen. When it opened, my wife Siri > > had led H5 face > > up and another dummy was exposed. > > > > We called the director, and when he came, do not believe for > > a moment that > > he ruled, because he didn't! In fact, he called all the other > > directors on > > the floor, as they had all been my students at the > > international tournement > > directors course in Amsterdam. > > So you decided to join the activists in this group! > But don't exagerate this, sir. Some where my students and some where > teachers as you. Mine certainly didn't giggle as yours did. And > the one who > solved the problem accurately must have been one of mine. Let us > try again, > but keep in mind that regulations using screens have changed during the > years, may be we had a different approach then, I don't remember. > Siri has a > penalty card and declarer picks up all cards (48A), play starts. > > ton > > > For nearly 4-5 minutes they > > all stood there > > giggling and I was more then just a little bit embarassed. > > > > Finally one of them ruled, and to my great surprise he did it > > correctly! > > > > Now, what do you think he should rule? > > > > Tommy Sandsmark > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 28 01:27:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA14539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 01:27:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.emr.ca [132.156.47.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA14534 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 01:27:23 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA14078 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 10:26:32 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200003271526.KAA14078@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 10:26:31 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Schoderb@aol.com" at Mar 27, 2000 08:23:58 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 Schoderb@aol.com writes: > > In a message dated 3/27/00 6:44:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, > hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > > > But please read the footnote again. > > > > "Play that is careless or inferior, but not irrational". > > > > It is the play itself that is being described, not the > > action of the player. > > We all agree that dropping a king under an ace is irrational > > play, and will not be used in a claim. > Since the proper quote from the book is "...includes play that would be > careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational." > does this mean that you would not allow Meckstroth to drop a King under an > Ace as an obvious -- to him -- unblock of the suit? Kojak > OK, not quite the same level of player, but I can provide an example from Bermuda Bowl play (1969 versus US - Round Robin) when one of the "Little Romans" went down in a game by blocking a suit. How good do you have to be before you get the never screws it up label? D'Alelio and Pabbis-Ticci both had a teeny bit of success - if you know what I mean. If you limit this to players better than them, why bother creating the distinction? And do you let people know before a hearing arises? What if different committees have a different impression of a player's ability? The longer this thread continues, the more I'm impressed by the pragmatism of David Burn's proposal. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 28 02:30:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA15001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 02:30:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo-d05.mx.aol.com (imo-d05.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA14996 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 02:30:45 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id f.15.23b2033 (4241); Mon, 27 Mar 2000 11:29:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <15.23b2033.2610e667@aol.com> Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 11:29:27 EST Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl To: Ron.Johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 101 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 3/27/00 10:30:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, Ron.Johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca writes: > The longer this thread continues, the more I'm impressed by > the pragmatism of David Burn's proposal. > -- > RNJ Ditto. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 28 02:41:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA15037 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 02:41:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt3-he.global.net.uk (cobalt3-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.163]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA15029 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 02:39:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from pf7s04a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.116.248] helo=pacific) by cobalt3-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12ZcX9-0006PG-00; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 08:38:32 -0800 Message-ID: <000d01bf980b$13897160$f87493c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ron Johnson" , References: <200003271526.KAA14078@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 17:37:59 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: 27 March 2000 16:26 Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl > Schoderb@aol.com writes: > > > > In a message dated 3/27/00 6:44:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, > > hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > > > > > > > > It is the play itself that is being described, not the > > > action of the player. > a hearing arises? What if different committees have a different > impression of a player's ability? > > The longer this thread continues, the more I'm impressed by > the pragmatism of David Burn's proposal. > -- +=+ I am more than ever convinced David and you, Ron, are talking sense. It is going into my file of things to remember when we meet. But no hope of movement for years yet, sadly, oh so sadly. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 28 03:40:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA15231 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 03:40:18 +1000 (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 DAA15225 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 03:40:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from calum (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA25147; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 12:39:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200003271739.MAA25147@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: Nanki Poo , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Cats! Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <2ASN3lAt7B34EwWJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <2ASN3lAt7B34EwWJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 12:39:37 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 25 March 2000 at 2:05, Quango wrote: > > List of cats > >Michael Farebrother Shadow, Tipsy > > Additions and amendments to this list should be sent to Nanki Poo at >. > > Miiiiiiiaaaaaoouuuuwwwwww !!!!!!!!! > It is my duty to report that both Shadow and Tipsy will also be leaving this list. They are both alive and well (though I expect there will be at least one very battered cat-carrier in a couple of days, and Tipsy will probably sulk for a month); it is simply that their feed-slaves have relocated to Montreal (an 8-hour drive, which explains the cat-carrier), and they have deigned to accept the transition in return for continued service. They shall be missed - especially Shadow, my resource for L16 rulings. My condolences to those suffering from more permanent relocations; they will be waiting for you at RB (unlike S&T - they will, when it is their turn, wait for another). Michael Farebrother (by request of the Black Brethren). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 28 04:18:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA15352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 04:18:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f281.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.59]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA15347 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 04:18:34 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 28019 invoked by uid 0); 27 Mar 2000 18:17:56 -0000 Message-ID: <20000327181756.28018.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.21 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 10:17:56 PST X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.21] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 10:17:56 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael: >And I will keep on stressing the point that the act of >claiming carelessly does in no way form evidence that the >player would also play the hand carelessly, or that >irrational (or vastly inferior) play suddenly becomes merely >careless. I think that they should be treated equilavently. The moment of carelessness when claiming would have been a moment of carelessness when playing, had the hand been played out. As far as the pragmatism of David Burn's proposal, I think his proposal is too severe. It effectively removes the ability to claim some number of tricks when you still have some others to lose. You cannot reasonably outline a line of play which depends on an opponent's exit. The set of all plays to discuss becomes too large. I think that it's sufficient to have definitions for careless, inferior, and irrational. I despair that no one has been able to offer their own except by example. -Todd ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 28 04:50:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA15472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 04:50:53 +1000 (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 EAA15461 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 04:50:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Zear-0000TT-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:50:31 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 14:36:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L13 References: <002001bf8293$39c553e0$0100a8c0@ihug.co.nz> <38DCDEF0.AB3DCDC6@village.uunet.be> <38DF36B3.45C9CF61@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <38DF36B3.45C9CF61@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >I believe this view is correct as by the Laws: >L12C1 says - average to A contestant partly at fault. >and not >average to contestants partly to blame. > >yes ? Yes. If I am partly to blame I am partly at fault. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo will be 7 on April 5th. Quango got *twenty* emails on his birthday: please send one to Nanki Poo His picture: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat3 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 28 04:50:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA15473 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 04:50:53 +1000 (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 EAA15462 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 04:50:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Zear-0000TU-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:50:32 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 14:39:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: =?iso-8859-1?q?RE:_Bellaria=B4s_Strangest?= References: <38DF1321.B64F70CB@omicron.comarch.pl> <000401bf97c8$566869c0$01646464@siri> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk michael amos wrote: >In article <000401bf97c8$566869c0$01646464@siri>, Tommy Sandsmark > writes >>I have done something similar once. Also that happened in a European Mix >>Championship, in Bordeaux, to be precise. >> >>The contract was 3 NT by our opponents. I led D5 face up, dummy spread her >>hand and knocked on the screen. When it opened, my wife Siri had led H5 face >>up and another dummy was exposed. >> >>We called the director, and when he came, do not believe for a moment that >>he ruled, because he didn't! In fact, he called all the other directors on >>the floor, as they had all been my students at the international tournement >>directors course in Amsterdam. For nearly 4-5 minutes they all stood there >>giggling and I was more then just a little bit embarassed. >> >>Finally one of them ruled, and to my great surprise he did it correctly! >> >>Now, what do you think he should rule? >> >>Tommy Sandsmark >> >Thank you Tommy >it has taken me five minutes to wipe the tears from my eyes >Who cares what the right ruling is :)) >You've made one TD giggle for most of the rest of the day :))) Yes, I agree! Hi, Tommy, nice to see a posting! Tommy has been lurking here far a very long time! The ruling - errr - I shall leave it to others in case I might make a mistake! -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo will be 7 on April 5th. Quango got *twenty* emails on his birthday: please send one to Nanki Poo His picture: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat3 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 28 04:51:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA15480 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 04:51:07 +1000 (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 EAA15474 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 04:50:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Zeaq-0000TS-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:50:30 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 14:33:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? References: <20000327104745.74486.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000327104745.74486.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Norman Scorbie wrote: > > >>From: "David Burn" >>To: >>Subject: Re: OLOOT or MPC? >>Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 05:11:35 -0000 >> >>Ed wrote: >> >> > In the normal course of events (when the face down opening lead is >> > made and there are no irregularities) opening leading cannot >>normally >> > retract that lead and substitute another, can he? So it seems to me >> > the card is "played", as absent some irregularity, it cannot be >> > changed. >> >>I don't know. I have sometimes led fifth highest (face down), then >>realised that with this particular partner I play fourth highest. So, >>I have put my face down card back in my hand and extracted a different >>card which I also table face down. Now, I know that an astute partner >>could draw an inference from this performance that my lead is from >>five cards rather than four, but apart from the UI restrictions that >>may thereby arise, I have not been conscious of committing an >>infraction. Perhaps I am wrong. >More unauthorised information, eh? I'd have thought that picking the card up >saying "Sorry, not that one" or something similar, together with some sort >of unconvincing pantomime would be acceptable. I am sorry, blatant disregard of the rules is unacceptable, however much you whistle a merry tune. OK, David did not know it was against the Laws, but he does now, so he will not do it again. The Laws do not permit you to change a face-down lead without [a] a relevant infraction and [b] a Director. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo will be 7 on April 5th. Quango got *twenty* emails on his birthday: please send one to Nanki Poo His picture: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat3 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 28 05:16:34 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA15532 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 05:01:25 +1000 (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 FAA15524 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 05:01:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA01401; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 11:01:15 -0800 Message-Id: <200003271901.LAA01401@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Konrad Ciborowski cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 25 Mar 2000 19:54:06 PST." <38DD0B4E.541B74FC@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 11:01:20 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > We have a long discussion about claims, rationality > and carelessness going on and we are still far from any conclusions > being reached. Analyzing last Bermuda Bowl matches I found > classical irrational vs. careless problem. Just look: > > --------------------------------------------------------- > POLAND vs. SWEDEN > > Open Room > Deal 13: dealer North, Game All > > KQJ872 > --- > J10875 > 85 > 65 93 > AK98 Q5432 > AK9 42 > AK76 QJ102 > > A104 > J1076 > Q63 > 943 > > Fredin Tuszynski Lindkvist Jassem > W N E S > --- 3S pass 4S > double pass 5H pass > 6H pas pass pass > ---------------------------------------------------------- etc. > David Burn proposed recently that the claim Law should > say: > > "A claimer should state what tricks he expects to win, and in what > order he intends to play his remaining cards. Any cards not covered > explicitly by this statement of claim should be deemed to be played in > the legal order most disadvantageous to the claimer." > > Under this version the above case is straightforward. > Under the persent Law... well, you know. If we make a poll > than I suppose we'll have 50% of us wanting to give East-West all > the trump tricks and 50% vehemently objecting to it. > "Consistency is all I ask". Under David's proposed claim Law, the result would be down 10---i.e. E-W get just two tricks. As I read the proposal, since Lindkvist did not make any claim statement, *all* legal sequences of plays are to be considered, and the one most disadvantageous to the claimer is deemed to be the order played. So here's how the play would go: The Poles take the first two spades. Then North continues with two more spades, East pitching two high clubs, West pitching two high diamonds. South pitching the diamond queen. North plays a fifth spade, ruffed low by East, overruffed by South; West pitches a high club. South now leads a diamond to North, and North plays the sixth spade, ruffed and overruffed, West pitching the other high club. South leads another diamond to North (West pitching a club), and North continues diamonds. East ruffs, South overruffs with the 10, West plays the heart 8. Now South cashes the jack of hearts, West and East both playing low; and South cashes the club 9 (East of course playing low). That's 11 tricks for N-S, but since West is now stuck with the A-K of trumps, the TD can't figure out a way to give N-S another trick. This would be an interesting and unexpected consequence of the proposed claim law: requiring the TD to work on fairy problems like this. Perhaps TD's would find this an amusing diversion from dealing with the other mundane stuff they usually have to deal with. But to me, this seems like a flaw. It would be much easier on TD's to assume "reasonable" or "normal" play by the claimer, but then we're right back where we started. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 28 05:29:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA15660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 05:29:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.emr.ca [132.156.47.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA15655 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 05:29:38 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA24814 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 14:28:47 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200003271928.OAA24814@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 14:28:46 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20000327181756.28018.qmail@hotmail.com> from "Todd Zimnoch" at Mar 27, 2000 10:17:56 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 Todd Zimnoch writes: > > I think that they should be treated equilavently. The moment of > carelessness when claiming would have been a moment of carelessness when > playing, had the hand been played out. > > As far as the pragmatism of David Burn's proposal, I think his proposal > is too severe. It effectively removes the ability to claim some number of > tricks when you still have some others to lose. You cannot reasonably > outline a line of play which depends on an opponent's exit. The set of all > plays to discuss becomes too large. I don't disagree. Nor do I have a truly good answer. Just think aloud here. In addition to claims perhaps declarer could be allowed to make statement. IE "I have the Ace too." (which is a de-facto procedure in high level matches. At least I've seen it done a few times.) OK I can see the problems. But how about with an Alcatraz Coup rider? The idea being to speed things up when the claim is complex and the defenders are going to be thinking while the declarer has nothing to think about. I think though it's simpler to just delay the claim. > > I think that it's sufficient to have definitions for careless, > inferior, and irrational. I despair that no one has been able to offer > their own except by example. > My problem is that the words are pretty subjective. Meaning that no matter how tight you try to nail things down, there's no way of telling what any given AC will do. I think this perceived unpredictability is at the heart of the vague discontent ( or worse ) that I'm starting to read about with increasing frequency. And almost anything you can call irrational, I'm pretty sure I can find an example of a world class declarer getting it wrong in high level play. Does a single example lift something from the irrational class? That's my understanding of the word. Still I can accept a different interpretation. Provided it's consistent. Which mean official case books, discussing exactly what the intent is where the wording is if not precisely ambiguous, at least arguable in good faith. Despite what may come across from time to time, I want to minimize rules lawyering. Years of experience in other fields have convinced me that this is only possible with language that is as precise as is possible combined with case books which have an official interpretation. I don't want situations where Patrick Huang and Michael Rosenberg can come to *totally* different views based on the same information. And one or the other picked as the model on an unpredictable basis. What I'm trying to say is that the intent of the Law matters and there are ample opportunities for the framers to not only law down the wording but the intent. Case books could have an authoritative single answer. And where they're not happy, there's nothing wrong with saying in effect: "As the Laws stand cureently (ruling), this should be changed (or might be re-thought)." -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 28 06:08:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA15807 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 06:08:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt9-he.global.net.uk (cobalt9-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.169]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA15802 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 06:08:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from p05s11a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.139.6] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt9-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12ZH3I-0002Zz-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 18:42:16 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: POPE's BENEDICTION Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 21:08:34 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf9828$3ad1b940$068b93c3@vnmvhhid> 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 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thank you Dany. What a privilege to meet His Holiness. I am not one of his flock, but am sure that if I met him, and spoke to him I would be most honoured. As a Bridge player to receive his blessing. Gosh, not many Pope's would have done that. You are alone amongst us. Singled out and select. I'll bet there's no-one else on this list who has spoken privately with the Pope. (Not even you know who :-)) Anne -----Original Message----- From: Dany Haimovici To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, March 27, 2000 2:27 PM Subject: POPE's BENEDICTION >All our friends here - > >Receive the POPE's BENEDICTION & BLESSINGSS . > >He doesn't know exactly what the bridge game is , but he >was very kind to bless all of you , as a part of his >great will for mankind friendship , peace and understanding. > > >P.S. He is an outstanding personality and had i the great >honour and pleasure to meet him privately 4 times during >the last week. > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 28 06:29:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA15884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 06:29:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt9-he.global.net.uk (cobalt9-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.169]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA15878 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 06:29:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from pd8s08a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.136.217] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt9-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12ZHNQ-0003VV-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 19:03:05 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: L13 Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 21:17:22 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf9829$75c21d00$068b93c3@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Date: Monday, March 27, 2000 12:53 PM Subject: Re: L13 >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >What, David ? Do you really believe this is the meaning of >> >"partly at fault" ? Only one player is at fault ? >> > >> >That's new to me - is it anybody else's interpretation ? >> >> Well, it certainly isn't mine. >> >> If you wish to argue something I have not said, feel free - but do not >> ascribe it to me. >> > >Sorry, it is what I thought you meant when giving A/A. > >> If either side had counted the cards correctly they could have stopped >> the board in time to make it playable, so both are partly at fault. >> > >This means that you give a player more points just because >his opponent at the table made the same mistake he did ? > >I am quite certain this is an English interpretation only. >It certainly is not the normal ruling in Belgium and >Holland, and as we see from the response here, Germany. > >I believe this view is correct as by the Laws: >L12C1 says - average to A contestant partly at fault. >and not >average to contestants partly to blame. > >yes ? > No. A contestant is a pair in a pairs event. In a pairs event no player stands alone. There are two contestants at the table, only in an individual event are there four contestants at the table. When L12C1 says average to a contestant partly at fault, it refers to the action of a partnership. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 28 06:47:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA15956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 06:47:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA15951 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 06:47:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id PAA23417 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 15:47:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA28073 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 15:47:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 15:47:15 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200003272047.PAA28073@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > TD's and AC's all over the world must continue to use their > judgment to find out if a particular line is careless or > irrational. Perhaps it would be better to phrase the last as "irrational or otherwise." 'Otherwise' includes normal as well as inferior and careless, and those lines will be considered in judging the claim. 'Irrational' lines -- whatever they may be -- will not be considered, even though players will in fact produce them at the table from time to time. > And I will keep on stressing the point that the act of > claiming carelessly does in no way form evidence that the > player would also play the hand carelessly, or that > irrational (or vastly inferior) play suddenly becomes merely > careless. The more interesting question is whether the player's state of mind (or skill level) should matter. Many will say 'yes', trying to extrapolate how the play would have gone with no claim. I am saying 'no', saying that 'irrational' is judged on its own merits, regardless of the player at the table. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 28 08:16:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA16359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 08:16:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from praseodumium.btinternet.com (praseodumium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA16354 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 08:16:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.174.79] (helo=davidburn) by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12Zhna-0006NR-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 23:15:50 +0100 Message-ID: <001c01bf983a$34b893a0$4fae01d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200003271901.LAA01401@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 23:17:10 +0100 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam wrote: [snip] > > David Burn proposed recently that the claim Law should > > say: > > > > "A claimer should state what tricks he expects to win, and in what > > order he intends to play his remaining cards. Any cards not covered > > explicitly by this statement of claim should be deemed to be played in > > the legal order most disadvantageous to the claimer." > > > > Under this version the above case is straightforward. > > Under the persent Law... well, you know. If we make a poll > > than I suppose we'll have 50% of us wanting to give East-West all > > the trump tricks and 50% vehemently objecting to it. > > "Consistency is all I ask". > > Under David's proposed claim Law, the result would be down 10---i.e. > E-W get just two tricks. And quite right too. That will teach people not to waste the valuable time of tournament directors and bridge lawyers by not playing a heart to the queen. If hearts were not 4-0 onside, Lindqvist could then table his cards and announce "I will draw trumps with the ace and king, then cash the ace-king of clubs, the ace-king of diamonds, the queen-jack of clubs and the rest of my trumps". I have just said this out loud in normal tempo, and it took eight seconds. With the actual heart position, it would be quicker for him to play a heart, finessing, then (if need be) cross to a club, take another heart finesse and make an explicit claim statement. This might take - oh, anything up to a full minute. How long does it take to hear an appeal on a contested claim at the moment? And how much time and effort is then wasted in debtaing the merits or otherwise of a dubious ruling on a contested claim? But we can't have a Law that might slow the game down, now can we? David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 28 08:17:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA16371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 08:17:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA16365 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 08:17:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id RAA26985 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 17:17:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA28232 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 17:17:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 17:17:04 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200003272217.RAA28232@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry, I should have added the following to my previous message. > From: Schoderb@aol.com > Since the proper quote from the book is "...includes play that would be > careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational." > does this mean that you would not allow Meckstroth to drop a King under an > Ace as an obvious -- to him -- unblock of the suit? Kojak Herman obviously meant the ordinary cases, where crashing honors would be irrational, giving up a trick for no reason. If someone claims with A3 opposite K2, most of us don't make him state that the honors are to be played on separate tricks. If unblocking is the correct play, it can hardly be irrational. The question in that case is whether _failing_ to unblock is irrational. Absent guidelines from the SO, it seems to me a judgment call on each particular hand, but I don't believe the ruling should be different for Meckstroth than for the Ms. Kumquat someone mentioned earlier. The phrase 'for the class of player involved' does not modify the word 'irrational'. > From: Ron Johnson > And almost anything you can call irrational, I'm pretty sure I can find > an example of a world class declarer getting it wrong in high > level play. As noted, I don't think actual play has anything to do with defining 'irrational'. Even world-class declarers produce irrational plays from time to time. > In a message dated 3/27/00 10:30:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, > Ron.Johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca writes: > > The longer this thread continues, the more I'm impressed by > > the pragmatism of David Burn's proposal. > Ditto. Kojak It would certainly make rulings easier. I'm not sure requiring that players spell out their claims in full detail would make for happier players. As a practical matter, I expect most opponents would concede obvious claims even if not spelled out, but some wouldn't. That would make a technical issue into one of ethics or sportsmanship, inevitably leading to hard feelings. I would much rather see some guidelines, international or otherwise, on how much needs to be spelled out and some case law showing how to rule in typical cases. But maybe I'm wrong. At the very least, we will need a program to advise players of the change. > From: Adam Beneschan > This would be an interesting and unexpected consequence of the > proposed claim law: requiring the TD to work on fairy problems like > this. Yes, we shall need some new training for TD's, too. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 28 09:15:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA16410 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 08:19:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA16402 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 08:19:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.174.79] (helo=davidburn) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12Zhql-0005eK-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 23:19:07 +0100 Message-ID: <002001bf983a$96f00260$4fae01d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <002001bf8293$39c553e0$0100a8c0@ihug.co.nz> <38DCDEF0.AB3DCDC6@village.uunet.be> <38DF36B3.45C9CF61@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: L13 Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 23:19:58 +0100 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > If I am partly to blame I am partly at fault. >From a man who has been married so long, I find this a surprising statement. On the basis of the past eight months for which I myself have been married, I have found that even when I am not remotely at fault, I am wholly to blame. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 28 09:39:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA16639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 09:39:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA16634 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 09:39:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Zj6g-000JkZ-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 23:39:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 21:30:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl References: <15.23b2033.2610e667@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <15.23b2033.2610e667@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kojak wrote: >In a message dated 3/27/00 10:30:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, >Ron.Johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca writes: > >> The longer this thread continues, the more I'm impressed by >> the pragmatism of David Burn's proposal. >> -- >> RNJ > >Ditto. Kojak So how do you all think this will suggestion will affect players and Directors at the lower levels? *I* think that if this and other similar suggestions made here are correct at the top level perhaps the time has come for different Law books at different levels. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo will be 7 on April 5th. Quango got *twenty* emails on his birthday: please send one to Nanki Poo His picture: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat3 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 28 10:30:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA16768 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 10:30:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA16758 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 10:30:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.30] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12Zjtn-000Epg-00; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 01:30:24 +0100 Message-ID: <016f01bf984c$d0177d40$415408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Anne Jones" , References: <92.2d87100.26100865@aol.com> Subject: Re: L13 Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 00:01:51 +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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: ; Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 1:42 AM Subject: Re: L13 > In a message dated 3/26/00 3:24:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, > eajewm@globalnet.co.uk writes: > > > I think it's most unfair to fine the previous table lest you observed an > > infraction of law there, (say 7B2 or 7C)and you know that it was that > > infraction that caused the problem. > > Cheers > > Anne > > Well put, and also the reason why we are so careful to look for the last > person/entity that could have prevented the irregularity. There is a > requirement to count your cards for a reason -- if the last table was > responsible for getting them back into the board wrong, that might be a > penalty for them, but for this table all things could have been OK had they > counted them face down, as the Law requires. > > Keep pitching, some of it may rub off on the doubters and lawyers eventually. > Kojak > +=+ It is always a pleasant surprise when any one of us expresses doubt as to the law. But I digress; I was staying away from this thread but I am not sure where it is heading now. As to "the previous table" 7C is expressed in terms indicating that a failure will not normally be punished. More, it is not a fault that "requires" (90A) an adjusted score at another table; such an adjusted score ensues from the failure to count cards (7B1) at the ensuing table. If the Director does, exceptionally, penalise rather than admonish, he needs to have carefully established that the previous table was assuredly at fault - not assume it. As to "partially at fault" etc., first a contestant is at fault if any one or more of its members is at fault; second, here both contestants are at fault and each, independently of the other, could perhaps have rescued the situation - it is not, in my view, a situation where the two sides have joined in a single breach of procedure but one where each side has committed its own separate breach. So my opinion is that 40/40 is right. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 28 10:30:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA16769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 10:30:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA16759 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 10:30:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.30] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12Zjtp-000Epg-00; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 01:30:26 +0100 Message-ID: <017001bf984c$d15665e0$415408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Todd Zimnoch" , References: <20000327181756.28018.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 00:48:52 +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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 7:17 PM Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl > Herman De Wael: > >And I will keep on stressing the point that the act of > >claiming carelessly does in no way form evidence that the > >player would also play the hand carelessly, or that > >irrational (or vastly inferior) play suddenly becomes merely > >careless. > +=+ It is perhaps worth noting that what the footnote appears to say is that you must consider anything that, for the class of player involved, would be deemed normal, or even careless or inferior. What is ruled out of consideration is any action that, in isolation from any thought as to the class of player, is an irrational action - something, that is to say, that no sane person would be found to do. +=+ > > I think that it's sufficient to have definitions for careless, > inferior, and irrational. I despair that no one has been able to offer > their own except by example. > +=+ But are the dictionaries not filled with definitions of such words? When there is no special definition in the law book the requirement is to refer to the authority of a good dictionary of the English language. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 28 11:31:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA17004 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 11:31:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA16998 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 11:31:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12ZkqX-000Kdz-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 01:31:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 02:24:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: L13 References: <92.2d87100.26100865@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <92.2d87100.26100865@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <92.2d87100.26100865@aol.com>, Schoderb@aol.com writes >In a message dated 3/26/00 3:24:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, >eajewm@globalnet.co.uk writes: > >> I think it's most unfair to fine the previous table lest you observed an >> infraction of law there, (say 7B2 or 7C)and you know that it was that >> infraction that caused the problem. >> Cheers >> Anne > >Well put, and also the reason why we are so careful to look for the last >person/entity that could have prevented the irregularity. There is a >requirement to count your cards for a reason -- if the last table was >responsible for getting them back into the board wrong, that might be a >penalty for them, but for this table all things could have been OK had they >counted them face down, as the Law requires. I dislike awarding 40-40 in a club game, and strain to award 100%. The player with 12 cards, if they've counted can say "I only have 12". If they've looked they are partially at fault although the board doesn't become unplayable until the 14 looks. Hence I award 50-50 when it's 14-12 with N/E, if both players have looked. I'm inclined to 60-40 if the 14 looks and the opponents still have their cards in the slot. In other words you can't do better than 50% once you've looked and have either 14 or 12. > >Keep pitching, some of it may rub off on the doubters and lawyers eventually. > Kojak My observation is that almost all 14-12's are caused by dummy being in the bar. Dummy's last card is picked up by declarer when she plays the last trick in the centre of the table. Sometimes a defender picks up dummy's last card. I've seen people do it from across the room. By the time I get there I'll fine them if they've restored their hands to the board. Saves time getting the traveller out at the next table to annotate it there :)) How else can you get a 14-12, other than there having been an infraction at the previous table? L7B3 is the authority for the PP. -- 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 Mar 28 11:50:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA17088 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 11:50:34 +1000 (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 LAA17082 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 11:50:26 +1000 (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 12Zl96-000Oc0-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 02:50:16 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 02:39:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl References: <20000327181756.28018.qmail@hotmail.com> <017001bf984c$d15665e0$415408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <017001bf984c$d15665e0$415408c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <017001bf984c$d15665e0$415408c3@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes snip > > >> Herman De Wael: >> >And I will keep on stressing the point that the act of >> >claiming carelessly does in no way form evidence that the >> >player would also play the hand carelessly, or that >> >irrational (or vastly inferior) play suddenly becomes merely >> >careless. >> I think the very act of the careless claim is sufficient to deem that the player could get it wrong. I don't really mind *how strong* the player is, I award a trick to the other side if a safety play has not been mentioned. My friend's "serves you right" regarding AK9xx QTxx said it all. I knew, and they knew I knew they'd get it right at the table - it was the fact the claim was careless which was sufficient. >+=+ It is perhaps worth noting that what the footnote >appears to say is that you must consider anything that, >for the class of player involved, would be deemed >normal, or even careless or inferior. What is ruled out >of consideration is any action that, in isolation from >any thought as to the class of player, is an irrational >action - something, that is to say, that no sane person >would be found to do. +=+ like claiming without a statement. That *is* irrational. 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 Mar 28 11:52:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA17109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 11:52:32 +1000 (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 LAA17103 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 11:52:25 +1000 (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 12ZlB3-000OfM-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 02:52:17 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 02:50:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: L13 References: <92.2d87100.26100865@aol.com> <016f01bf984c$d0177d40$415408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <016f01bf984c$d0177d40$415408c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <016f01bf984c$d0177d40$415408c3@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes snip > >As to "the previous table" 7C is expressed in terms >indicating that a failure will not normally be >punished. More, it is not a fault that "requires" (90A) >an adjusted score at another table; such an >adjusted score ensues from the failure to count >cards (7B1) at the ensuing table. If the Director >does, exceptionally, penalise rather than admonish, >he needs to have carefully established that the >previous table was assuredly at fault - not assume >it. L7C ... *shall* restore, ... (not .. restores ...) from the scope ... *shall* do something(...), a violation will be penalised more often than not. I beg to disagree, and shall go on fining. (The incidence of misboards at the YC is fewer than one per 50 tables by session, having dropped by about 80% over the last seven years.) I've overheard "Count your cards, we don't want a fine" from people putting their cards back into the slots. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 28 13:29:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA17481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:29:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA17474 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:29:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.184] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12Zmgd-000HBN-00; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 04:29:00 +0100 Message-ID: <003201bf9865$c3672960$b85608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , References: <20000327181756.28018.qmail@hotmail.com><017001bf984c$d15665e0$415408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 04:24:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott >> an irrational action - something, that is to say, that >>no sane person would be found to do. > > like claiming without a statement. That *is* irrational. > > cheers john > -- +=+ Let us now enumerate the number of the insane of our acquaintance. +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 28 13:30:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA17504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:30:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA17498 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:30:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.184] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12Zmgc-000HBN-00; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 04:28:58 +0100 Message-ID: <003101bf9865$c283ce40$b85608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , References: <92.2d87100.26100865@aol.com> Subject: Re: L13 Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 04:18:17 +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 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, March 28, 2000 2:24 AM Subject: Re: L13 > > How else can you get a 14-12, other than there having been an infraction > at the previous table? > +=+ "The seeming truth which cunning times put on To entrap the wisest." * +=+ > > L7B3 is the authority for the PP. > +=+ But this is no authority at all :-)) +=+ [*Merchant of Venice] From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 28 13:35:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA17538 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:35:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA17533 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:35:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.170] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12ZmmN-000HFK-00; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 04:34:55 +0100 Message-ID: <003d01bf9866$97491ae0$b85608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , References: <92.2d87100.26100865@aol.com><016f01bf984c$d0177d40$415408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: L13 Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 04:33:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 2:50 AM Subject: Re: L13 > In article <016f01bf984c$d0177d40$415408c3@dodona>, Grattan Endicott > writes > > > L7C ... *shall* restore, ... (not .. restores ...) > > from the scope ... > > *shall* do something(...), a violation will be penalised more often than > not. > +=+ True. Misremembered after having read through 7 and put it down. But I still say that it is incorrect to make the assumption without corroboration of some kind. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 28 18:52:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA18309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 18:52:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f272.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA18304 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 18:52:51 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 27816 invoked by uid 0); 28 Mar 2000 08:52:13 -0000 Message-ID: <20000328085213.27815.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 152.170.220.7 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 00:52:13 PST X-Originating-IP: [152.170.220.7] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 00:52:13 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > I think that it's sufficient to have definitions for careless, > > inferior, and irrational. I despair that no one has been able to offer > > their own except by example. > > >+=+ But are the dictionaries not filled with >definitions of such words? When there is >no special definition in the law book the >requirement is to refer to the authority of >a good dictionary of the English language. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Oh yes. Let's do away with Chapter 1 of the Laws while we're on that point. :) Most of the words there will be found in the dictionary. I could probably map any reasonable proposal into definitions for those words while using the frame work of the claim Laws as written. I'd merely add definitions. For example, David Burn's proposal can be expressed by defining irrational plays as nothing (which is different than not defining it, aka, the empty set) and defining careless or inferior plays as any legal play. There is a lot of power behind the idea of laying out a definition. I think that proposal is too severe and would prefer to define irrational plays as those that have no chance for success and careless or inferior as plays with some chance for success. This is based on the assumption that claimer is making the claim because he believes there's a line of play guarantees success. We might as well start here. After all, there's an awful lot of argument about what plays are irrational vs. careless despite the number of dictionaries available. -Todd ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 28 19:37:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA18429 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 19:37:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA18424 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 19:37:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id LAA08033 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 11:37:31 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Mar 28 11:36:21 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JNKCKBPCCG005PX4@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 11:36:15 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 11:36:33 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 11:36:03 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl To: "'Schoderb@aol.com'" , Ron.Johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B59A@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 > In a message dated 3/27/00 10:30:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, > Ron.Johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca writes: > > > The longer this thread continues, the more I'm impressed by > > the pragmatism of David Burn's proposal. > > -- > > RNJ > > Ditto. Kojak I am not. Or may be I am, impressed by the pragmatism. But not as a solution for the problems we have to deal with. Without saying that players should be encouraged to claim, my feeling is that they should not be disencouraged to claim. We need claims to play bridge within the prescribed timeperiods. And players are careless in claiming, the more so while they often are in a hurry when claiming. These circumstances are my pragmatism. Players should not be penalized for clumsy claims. But on the other hand they should not profet either. And being in a hurry it is possible (within the range of being considered normal) to play the wrong honour and it is possible not to unblock a suit. That is where we should focus on, what do we deem acceptable for a player to do right automatically. ton From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 28 21:49:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA18830 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 21:49:09 +1000 (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 VAA18825 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 21:48:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (pc170.krakow.ppp.tpnet.pl [212.160.4.170]) by omicron.comarch.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1B825C063 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:49:00 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38E09BD3.819F2339@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:47:31 +0200 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl References: <20000328085213.27815.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch proposed a definition: > I think that proposal is too severe and would prefer to define > irrational plays as those that have no chance for success and careless or > inferior as plays with some chance for success. I disagree. Or perhaps I miss something. Let's say we have to find a D king: J10 AQx RHO opens 3D. Playing the J from dummy to the _ace_ is not irrational, according to the proposed definition, as it does have some chance of success. On the other hand suppose a player claims in a position where he can play for a finesse or he can play for a three-suited repeated squeeze without the count. Careful inspection of the hand reveals that the finesse is a 0% play and the squeeze 100%. Do we let declarer execute the squeeze who failed to mention a line of play in his claim statement as it is a 100% play and, therefore, the _only_ rational play? This is even a step backwards comparing to the present version of Laws. -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Tue Mar 28 23:15:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA19038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:48:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA19025 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:47:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-16-63.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.16.63]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA13720 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:47:39 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38E09E00.12ACB1B3@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:56:48 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L13 References: <92.2d87100.26100865@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > I dislike awarding 40-40 in a club game, and strain to award 100%. I find this a particularly bad argument. Whyever should scores complement ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 28 23:17:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA19166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 23:17:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA19160 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 23:17:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA09975 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 08:15:55 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000328081653.006f2924@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 08:16:53 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl In-Reply-To: References: <15.23b2033.2610e667@aol.com> <15.23b2033.2610e667@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:30 PM 3/27/00 +0100, David wrote: >Kojak wrote: >>In a message dated 3/27/00 10:30:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, >>Ron.Johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca writes: >> >>> The longer this thread continues, the more I'm impressed by >>> the pragmatism of David Burn's proposal. >> >>Ditto. Kojak > > So how do you all think this will suggestion will affect players and >Directors at the lower levels? As a lower-level director, I think that it would make my life rather easier, as after I have given one or two rulings against claimers under David B.'s proposal I will never again have to rule on a claim, as nobody at the club will ever again attempt to claim. > *I* think that if this and other similar suggestions made here are >correct at the top level perhaps the time has come for different Law >books at different levels. I don't accept the premise, but agree strongly that the conclusion follows from it. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 28 23:39:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA19275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 23:39:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA19269 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 23:39:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA11353 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 08:37:51 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000328083849.006eccf4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 08:38:49 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: David B.'s proposal on claims Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Declarer is playing 6S holding AKQxxx/AKxx/AKQ/- opposite xxx/QJxx/xxx/xxx. LHO leads a club, and declarer spreads his hand, saying "I have the rest." LHO calls the TD and informs him that he holds J109x of trumps. Today that's an easy ruling -- making 6. Under David B.'s proposal, it's an easy ruling too -- down 9. Somehow the former sounds a lot more reasonable. So much so that not only can I be nearly certain that the pair that scored -900 will never return to the club, but I will be wondering if I'll ever see the folks who got +900 again either. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 00:15:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA19044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:48:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA19028 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:47:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-16-63.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.16.63]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA13741 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:47:41 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38E0A028.D6F5EAC8@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:06:00 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L13 References: <01bf9829$75c21d00$068b93c3@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > > > > >I believe this view is correct as by the Laws: > >L12C1 says - average to A contestant partly at fault. > >and not > >average to contestants partly to blame. > > > >yes ? > > > No. > A contestant is a pair in a pairs event. In a pairs event no > player stands alone. There are two contestants at the table, only > in an individual event are there four contestants at the table. > When L12C1 says average to a contestant partly at fault, it refers > to the action of a partnership. > Anne Yes Anne, but you suffer from the same problem about the "partly". It is not part of the contestant that is at fault (ie one player), it is the contestant (either player) who is "partly at fault" And really this discussion leads nowhere. The law does not say "partly at fault". RTFLB : "a contestant partially at fault" as opposed to "directly at fault" and "in no way at fault". I am convinced the English have misinterpreted. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 00:21:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA19428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 00:21:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.165]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA19422 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 00:21:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from pb1s11a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.91.178] helo=pacific) by cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12ZfYs-000452-00; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 20:52:30 +0100 Message-ID: <001001bf98c0$f494d2c0$b25b93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , , "Ron Johnson" , References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B59A@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 15:20:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: ; ; Sent: 28 March 2000 10:36 Subject: RE: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl > > > In a message dated 3/27/00 10:30:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, > > Ron.Johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca writes: > > > > > The longer this thread continues, the more I'm impressed by > > > the pragmatism of David Burn's proposal. > > > -- > > > RNJ > > > > Ditto. Kojak > > I am not. Or may be I am, impressed by the pragmatism. But not as a solution > for the problems we have to deal with. Without saying that players should be > encouraged to claim, my feeling is that they should not be disencouraged to > claim. We need claims to play bridge within the prescribed time periods. > > ton > +=+ My strong belief is that it is grossly inferior, even negligent of one's duty to one's side, to make a claim before play has passed the point at which no matter of dispute can reasonably arise. I do not hear tournament directors expressing concerns about the ability of players to complete boards at the standard rate, even when no claims whatsoever are made. I think that argument is a red herring; on each round there will be players who make no claim, and in any normal tournament it is unlikely there will no players who go through a whole session without a claim or concession. The David Burn proposition is so uncomplicated for both Director and player that I think it is wholly an improvement. Once it is understood and experienced for a time players will know exactly where they stand - and the quality of claims could only get better. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 00:36:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA19510 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 00:36:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA19500 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 00:36:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12Zx6D-000LaO-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:36:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:06:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L13 References: <92.2d87100.26100865@aol.com> <016f01bf984c$d0177d40$415408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article <016f01bf984c$d0177d40$415408c3@dodona>, Grattan Endicott > writes > >snip > >> >>As to "the previous table" 7C is expressed in terms >>indicating that a failure will not normally be >>punished. More, it is not a fault that "requires" (90A) >>an adjusted score at another table; such an >>adjusted score ensues from the failure to count >>cards (7B1) at the ensuing table. If the Director >>does, exceptionally, penalise rather than admonish, >>he needs to have carefully established that the >>previous table was assuredly at fault - not assume >>it. > >L7C ... *shall* restore, ... (not .. restores ...) > >from the scope ... > >*shall* do something(...), a violation will be penalised more often than >not. > >I beg to disagree, and shall go on fining. > >(The incidence of misboards at the YC is fewer than one per 50 tables by >session, having dropped by about 80% over the last seven years.) I've >overheard "Count your cards, we don't want a fine" from people putting >their cards back into the slots. Well, I hope that you adopt a different approach at EBU level. It is not considered correct to fine the previous table in the EBU, and that has been discussed and agreed at Panel Directors' weekends. So, if you think we should be fining, then please bring it up at such a weekend. Personally, I don't see it. We have a method by which the recipients are required to make sure there is no such problem. I see no reason to go against this interpretation and fine someone else. ----------------- John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >How else can you get a 14-12, other than there having been an infraction >at the previous table? L7B3 is the authority for the PP. I do not doubt the authority for the PP, just the methodology. The English approach is not to fine except for two laid down specific things. We have been told that there was a definite attempt by the law- makers to shift the onus to the recipients. So we [with an exception ] never fine the previous table except for repeat offences. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo will be 7 on April 5th. Quango got *twenty* emails on his birthday: please send one to Nanki Poo His picture: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat3 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 00:36:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA19509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 00:36:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA19499 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 00:36:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12Zx6F-000LaR-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:36:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 15:32:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: Re: Cats! References: <20000327105218.87801.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000327105218.87801.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <20000327105218.87801.qmail@hotmail.com>, Norman Scorbie writes >I regret to say that Starsky is no longer with us. Like his television >counterpart he decided to roll over a car. Sadly, unlike his television >counterpart, he didn't survive the experience. Mrs. Scorbie was unconsolable >for days, but we have decided not to replace. Hutch hobbles on alone. When >he goes, we'll consider a new pair, but it seems a bit mean to impose one or >two kittens on an aged complacent cat. Very sorry to hear this. If Hutch does not seem lonely then it seems reasonable to let him run the house alone. *QU* *NP* --------- In article <200003271739.MAA25147@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>, Michael Farebrother writes >It is my duty to report that both Shadow and Tipsy will also be leaving >this list. They are both alive and well (though I expect there will be >at least one very battered cat-carrier in a couple of days, and Tipsy >will probably sulk for a month); it is simply that their feed-slaves >have relocated to Montreal (an 8-hour drive, which explains the >cat-carrier), and they have deigned to accept the transition in return >for continued service. > >They shall be missed - especially Shadow, my resource for L16 rulings. >My condolences to those suffering from more permanent relocations; they >will be waiting for you at RB (unlike S&T - they will, when it is their >turn, wait for another). Meaouw! This is not clear! Do you mean that their humans do not include you? Assuming you do, I shall instruct Nanki Poo to remove them from the list - or continue to show them as "living away" [the Law I have heard of, no doubt] if you prefer. *QU* --------- Please accept my apologies for Nanki Poo posting the same message twice. Sometimes he seems not much better than a human! *QU* Ssssnnnnnaaarrrllllll! *NP* -- Quango /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Pictures on Catpage at ( | | ) =( + )= http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/cat_menu.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 01:16:29 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA19692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 01:16:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA19686 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 01:16:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-46.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.46]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA15169; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 10:16:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001c01bf98c9$0902f360$2e84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Burn" , Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 10:19:37 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Actually very little, since obvious claims are rarely challanged. We need to silence the BL's who insult everyone's intelligence by not accepting a claim that is clearly bad...not punish the player who makes the game more enjoyable by claiming and saving time for hands where it is needed. In practice I suspect your idea would all but eliminate claims at less-than-expert level making the game most tedious and causing serious late play problems. The life master pairs should not become a Howell...let's ashcan this proposal, Craig Senior (additional comments interspresed) -----Original Message----- From: David Burn >Adam wrote: > >[snip] > >> > David Burn proposed recently that the claim Law should >> > say: >> > >> > "A claimer should state what tricks he expects to win, and in what >> > order he intends to play his remaining cards. Any cards not >covered >> > explicitly by this statement of claim should be deemed to be >played in >> > the legal order most disadvantageous to the claimer." >> > >> > Under this version the above case is straightforward. >> > Under the persent Law... well, you know. If we make a poll >> > than I suppose we'll have 50% of us wanting to give East-West all >> > the trump tricks and 50% vehemently objecting to it. >> > "Consistency is all I ask". >> > >> Under David's proposed claim Law, the result would be down 10---i.e. >> E-W get just two tricks. > >And quite right too. You consider this absurdity quite right? I consider it something that will drive many people away from the game. >That will teach people not to waste the valuable >time of tournament directors and bridge lawyers by not playing a heart >to the queen. If your tongue is not in cheek here I must note the punative "gotcha" of this approach...is that really what we want to do to honest players trying to speed the game? > If hearts were not 4-0 onside, Lindqvist could then >table his cards and announce "I will draw trumps with the ace and >king, then cash the ace-king of clubs, the ace-king of diamonds, the >queen-jack of clubs and the rest of my trumps". I have just said this >out loud in normal tempo, and it took eight seconds. With the actual >heart position, it would be quicker for him to play a heart, >finessing, then (if need be) cross to a club, take another heart >finesse and make an explicit claim statement. This might take - oh, >anything up to a full minute. How long does it take to hear an appeal >on a contested claim at the moment? And how much time and effort is >then wasted in debtaing the merits or otherwise of a dubious ruling on >a contested claim? But we can't have a Law that might slow the game >down, now can we? So we lose a minute on each of 200 deals but gain back the 10 minutes we had to spend on a contested claim. Yes, that should really speed things up and make bridge more fun for all. The law as written isn't broken; there is no need to fix it. Giving some clear guidelines for interpretation would be commendable, such as the ACBL rules on playing suits top down unless otherwise stated, and the well known cases of allowing only a proven finesse and assuming outstanding trump has been forgotten unless mentioned. But really, down 10 on this deal is an abomination that only the slimiest of BL's could love. Are you attempting to apply a reductio ad absurdum to your own argument? > >David Burn >London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 01:21:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA19618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 01:01:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from uucp.nl.uu.net (uucp.nl.uu.net [193.79.237.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA19612 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 01:01:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 17:01:15 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id QAA28054; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 16:34:41 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'Herman De Wael'" , "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: L13 Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 16:30:42 +0200 Message-ID: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C005004546901031087@xion.spase.nl> 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: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101AFB3@xion.spase.nl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >> >> >> I dislike awarding 40-40 in a club game, and strain to award 100%. > >I find this a particularly bad argument. Whyever should >scores complement ? Because matchpoint calculation is easier if the scores complement, without a computer :-) Anyway, if somebody forgets to count his cards, he is fully at fault, per L7B1 (obligation to count cards face down before viewing them), and it makes him no less at fault if someone else too forgets to count cards. Question: if in an individual match for example North and East have a 14-12-split and forgot to count, would you give N-E 40% and S-W 60%? After all, South and West are not at fault here. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 01:28:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA19047 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:48:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA19034 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:47:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-16-63.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.16.63]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA13752 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:47:43 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38E0A327.F2F8696F@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:18:47 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl References: <20000327181756.28018.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > Herman De Wael: > >And I will keep on stressing the point that the act of > >claiming carelessly does in no way form evidence that the > >player would also play the hand carelessly, or that > >irrational (or vastly inferior) play suddenly becomes merely > >careless. > > I think that they should be treated equilavently. The moment of > carelessness when claiming would have been a moment of carelessness when > playing, had the hand been played out. > I find that very hard to believe. Claiming does not take a lot of time. One look at the hand, and a player "knows" everything is high. It is careless not to look further, but the laws do not say (as DB wants) that one should look at legal plays, only at normal ones. When playing any card, a player will always consider some more things. Thus the carelessness is of some very much higher level. A "moment of carelessness" is now something like dropping a king under an ace. That is however, in most opinions, an irrational play. > As far as the pragmatism of David Burn's proposal, I think his proposal > is too severe. It effectively removes the ability to claim some number of > tricks when you still have some others to lose. You cannot reasonably > outline a line of play which depends on an opponent's exit. The set of all > plays to discuss becomes too large. > Indeed one more point against DB. > I think that it's sufficient to have definitions for careless, > inferior, and irrational. I despair that no one has been able to offer > their own except by example. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 01:34:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA19779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 01:34:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA19774 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 01:34:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id KAA13886 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 10:34:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA28876 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 10:34:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 10:34:26 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200003281534.KAA28876@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: L13 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Martin Sinot" > Question: if in an individual match for example North and East have > a 14-12-split and forgot to count, would you give N-E 40% and S-W 60%? > After all, South and West are not at fault here. L89 covers it. If indeed South and West are not at fault -- which seems reasonable to me -- then yes, they get 60%. I suppose one could argue that South and West should have prevented their partners' infractions, but that doesn't seem plausible to me. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 02:15:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA19032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:48:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA19019 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:47:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-16-63.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.16.63]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA13669 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:47:31 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38E099A1.B68BE527@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:38:09 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L13 References: <002001bf8293$39c553e0$0100a8c0@ihug.co.nz> <38DCDEF0.AB3DCDC6@village.uunet.be> <38DF36B3.45C9CF61@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >I believe this view is correct as by the Laws: > >L12C1 says - average to A contestant partly at fault. > >and not > >average to contestants partly to blame. > > > >yes ? > > Yes. > > If I am partly to blame I am partly at fault. > Far from me to wish to teach you the nuances of the English languages, but I believe the word partly has two possible meanings here. 1) not completely 2) not alone I believe I am using the first meaning (just a bit at fault, not completely), while you are using the second (the opponents are also at fault). I feel strengthened in my opinion by reading the dutch translation (surely Ton Kooijman would have checked this to the LC interpretation as he saw it) which opposes "onmiskenbaar in overtreding" (unmistakenly if there is such a word) to "tot op zekere hoogte" (in some degree). Also in french "entierement fautif" (completely) opposed to "partiellement fautif" (partially). If a player fails to count his cards, and he has 14 of them, the board becomes unplayable. He is at fault, and we consider this to be enough to award him A-. It should not matter whether or not the 12 cards are in partner's hand or opponents. Surely, the player who looks into a hand with 12 cards has done nothing to render the board unplayable per se, but I believe he should suffer the same price for the same offence : failure to count. Maybe we should be giving only 30% to a pair where both partners make the same mistake - but we hardly ever do that, do we ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 02:35:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA19057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:48:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA19048 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:48:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-16-63.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.16.63]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA13816 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:47:48 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38E0A66B.4E289865@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:32:43 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl References: <200003272047.PAA28073@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 > > TD's and AC's all over the world must continue to use their > > judgment to find out if a particular line is careless or > > irrational. > > Perhaps it would be better to phrase the last as "irrational or > otherwise." 'Otherwise' includes normal as well as inferior and > careless, and those lines will be considered in judging the claim. > 'Irrational' lines -- whatever they may be -- will not be considered, > even though players will in fact produce them at the table from time to > time. > > > And I will keep on stressing the point that the act of > > claiming carelessly does in no way form evidence that the > > player would also play the hand carelessly, or that > > irrational (or vastly inferior) play suddenly becomes merely > > careless. > > The more interesting question is whether the player's state of mind (or > skill level) should matter. Many will say 'yes', trying to extrapolate > how the play would have gone with no claim. I am saying 'no', saying > that 'irrational' is judged on its own merits, regardless of the player > at the table. The state of mind does matter - quite a lot, in fact. The TD should determine what the player knows of the hand. Consider this lay-out. AQTx - Jxx K9xxx (I know that's only 12) Does declarer get all tricks ? Well, if he can convince me that he has just seen East discard the six of that suit, he gets all tricks. But if he has failed to notice this, I will rule that he notices West showing out, and reluctantly give a way a trick he now "must lose". State of mind of the player at the time of claiming is VERY important. The claim statement, or the absence of it (and the reason for the absence) are very important clues in determining this state of mind. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 02:39:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA19056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:48:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA19045 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:48:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-16-63.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.16.63]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA13772 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:47:44 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38E0A43C.39BA5DE5@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:23:24 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl References: <20000327181756.28018.qmail@hotmail.com> <017001bf984c$d15665e0$415408c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > > >> Herman De Wael: > >> >And I will keep on stressing the point that the act of > >> >claiming carelessly does in no way form evidence that the > >> >player would also play the hand carelessly, or that > >> >irrational (or vastly inferior) play suddenly becomes merely > >> >careless. > >> > > I think the very act of the careless claim is sufficient to deem that > the player could get it wrong. I don't really mind *how strong* the > player is, I award a trick to the other side if a safety play has not > been mentioned. > You and I play in different circles. In your surroundings, the bad claim statement is proof that the safety play was overlooked. In my surroundings, the lacking claim statement is proof that the player was too tired to make a full statement. > My friend's "serves you right" regarding AK9xx QTxx said it all. I knew, > and they knew I knew they'd get it right at the table - it was the fact > the claim was careless which was sufficient. > Well, if they know the TD is going to rule against them, better make good statements, don't they ? That does not make the ruling correct in the real world ! > >+=+ It is perhaps worth noting that what the footnote > >appears to say is that you must consider anything that, > >for the class of player involved, would be deemed > >normal, or even careless or inferior. What is ruled out > >of consideration is any action that, in isolation from > >any thought as to the class of player, is an irrational > >action - something, that is to say, that no sane person > >would be found to do. +=+ > > like claiming without a statement. That *is* irrational. > I have not issued a statement with 8 of my last 10 claims. They were not contested. (they did not involve safety plays either, but that is not the point) No John, don't answer "QED". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 02:50:57 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA20244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 02:50:57 +1000 (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 CAA20238 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 02:50:48 +1000 (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 12ZzCP-0006G8-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 17:50:38 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 16:17:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B59A@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <001001bf98c0$f494d2c0$b25b93c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <001001bf98c0$f494d2c0$b25b93c3@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >From: Kooijman, A. >> > Ron.Johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca writes: >> > > The longer this thread continues, the more I'm impressed by >> > > the pragmatism of David Burn's proposal. >> > Ditto. Kojak >> I am not. Or may be I am, impressed by the pragmatism. But not as a solution >> for the problems we have to deal with. Without saying that players should be >> encouraged to claim, my feeling is that they should not be disencouraged to >> claim. We need claims to play bridge within the prescribed time periods. >+=+ My strong belief is that it is grossly inferior, >even negligent of one's duty to one's side, to make >a claim before play has passed the point at which >no matter of dispute can reasonably arise. > I do not hear tournament directors expressing >concerns about the ability of players to complete >boards at the standard rate, even when no claims >whatsoever are made. I think that argument is a red >herring; on each round there will be players who >make no claim, and in any normal tournament it is >unlikely there will no players who go through a >whole session without a claim or concession. Well, you have never asked *me* that question. TDs have difficulty with slow players, and we stand over them and see what happens. It is common to see that such players never claim. I believe that not only do claims speed the game up overall, but that some of the slow players should be encouraged to claim. That does not mean that players that already do claim a fair amount should claim earlier: that would probably be counter-productive. I was trying to speed up the final of the pairs during one session at the Gold Coast Congress, and finding it nearly impossible. There were two pairs especially, one Australian, one British, where I was praying that one person and not his partner would play hands. In the case of the Australian pair, Sean Mullamphy had explained that one player was just bloody-minded, and there was little we could really do. In the case of the British pair, the client was playing very slowly because he was finding it difficult: when his pro finally played a hand he played four tricks quickly, claimed, and there we were. if the pro had felt he could not claim easily it would have been so much more difficult. > The David Burn proposition is so uncomplicated >for both Director and player that I think it is wholly an >improvement. Once it is understood and experienced >for a time players will know exactly where they stand >- and the quality of claims could only get better. Unfortunately, those are not the only important matters. I believe the number of claims will get markedly fewer - and it will be far more difficult to run games to time. At the moment, once a table is late, TDs hope that specific players will play the hands - because they claim more, and some players claim more when they realise they are late [I do myself]. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo will be 7 on April 5th. Quango got *twenty* emails on his birthday: please send one to Nanki Poo His picture: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat3 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 03:11:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA20319 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 03:11:44 +1000 (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 DAA20314 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 03:11:37 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id q.49.22a128a (4265); Tue, 28 Mar 2000 12:10:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <49.22a128a.26124197@aol.com> Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 12:10:47 EST Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl 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 101 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 3/28/00 11:53:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: > >> > > The longer this thread continues, the more I'm impressed by > >> > > the pragmatism of David Burn's proposal. > > >> > Ditto. Kojak > The longer I remain away from the good wine, and the more I think about it, the more I feel the need to remove my "ditto." I admit that I was focusing on what is so cavalierly called "The Expert Game" at cost to the real game. What I think on this bright morning is that the subject is not so badly handled in the Laws. What is handled poorly at times is the education of the players into the reason, manner, requirements, and need for claims. While trying to modify DBs proposal, I found myself coming up with almost what we now have. I know it causes TDs to make judgements about forgetting versus "of course I remembered" trumps, and doesn't easily solve the problem of no statement of play at the moment of claim. I have never found it too much imposition on my time or insulting to my opponents' to make a quick statement - even when it should be as obvious to the table as it seems to me. Putting the spotlight on educating players to realize that what they see clearly is not always so clear to equally intelligent and sapient opponents could go a long way toward resolving the arguments. Here is a good case where inputs of all sorts from the BLMLers might come up with better wording for future Laws without appreciable change to the substance thereof. cheers, Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 03:35:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA20387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 03:35:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp.callnet0800.com (smtp.callnet0800.com [212.67.128.145]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA20382 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 03:34:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from da136d143.dialup.callnetuk.com [212.67.136.143] by smtp.callnet0800.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id AD2B33200A0; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 18:34:35 +0100 From: Pam Hadfield To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 18:33:05 +0100 Reply-To: pam@hadpaddock.com Message-ID: References: <15.23b2033.2610e667@aol.com> <15.23b2033.2610e667@aol.com> <3.0.1.32.20000328081653.006f2924@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000328081653.006f2924@pop.cais.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 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 DAA20383 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 08:16:53 -0500, Eric wrote: > >As a lower-level director, I think that it would make my life rather >easier, as after I have given one or two rulings against claimers under >David B.'s proposal I will never again have to rule on a claim, as nobody >at the club will ever again attempt to claim. I have seen this written and said time after time. I think it is completely insulting to all the ordinary club bridge players. There is absolutely no reason why the worst players at the worst club could not understand a fair claim rule that applies to all. Claims may well be made a trick or two later but is that really such a problem? There is no reason why all players could not be taught to make proper claims in the same way that players are taught to follow suit - apart of course from the fact that the "experts" seem to think that it is unnecessary for them to have to do so. > >> *I* think that if this and other similar suggestions made here are >>correct at the top level perhaps the time has come for different Law >>books at different levels. > >I don't accept the premise, but agree strongly that the conclusion follows >from it. I accept neither the premise NOR the conclusion. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 03:44:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA20436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 03:44:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.85]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA20430 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 03:44:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from ivillage.earthlink.net (sdn-ar-002kslawrP336.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.114]) by gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA06445 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 09:44:05 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000328114050.00a9cbb0@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: baresch@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 11:43:12 -0600 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Brian Baresch Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl In-Reply-To: <38E0A43C.39BA5DE5@village.uunet.be> References: <20000327181756.28018.qmail@hotmail.com> <017001bf984c$d15665e0$415408c3@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > I think the very act of the careless claim is sufficient to deem that > > the player could get it wrong. I don't really mind *how strong* the > > player is, I award a trick to the other side if a safety play has not > > been mentioned. > > > >You and I play in different circles. In your surroundings, >the bad claim statement is proof that the safety play was >overlooked. >In my surroundings, the lacking claim statement is proof >that the player was too tired to make a full statement. OK, I'll bite. One player makes an incomplete claim, having overlooked the safety play (or not been aware of its existence). Another player makes an incomplete claim because he's tired, and he assumes that the oppos will know he knows about the safety play. How can this director tell them apart? Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 03:58:32 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA20483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 03:58:32 +1000 (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 DAA20478 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 03:58:23 +1000 (EST) From: david.burn@bt.com Received: from cbibipnt01.hc.bt.com by marvin (local) with ESMTP; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 17:35:37 +0100 Received: by cbibipnt01.hc.bt.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.88) id ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 17:35:21 +0100 Message-ID: To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 17:35:23 +0100 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 Craig wrote: Adam wrote: [AB] David Burn proposed recently that the claim Law should say: "A claimer should state what tricks he expects to win, and in what order he intends to play his remaining cards. Any cards not covered explicitly by this statement of claim should be deemed to be played in the legal order most disadvantageous to the claimer." Under David's proposed claim Law, the result would be down 10---i.e. E-W get just two tricks. [DB] And quite right too. [CS] You consider this absurdity quite right? I consider it something that will drive many people away from the game. I am getting a bit fed up with what seem to me wholly unjustified assertions to the effect that this or that would "drive people away from the game" or "slow the game down" or "not be understood by lesser players". How do you know? How does anyone know? The best suggestion I can make would be to try, next time you play bridge, making claims only in accordance with what I have proposed. See if the round takes any longer at your table. See if your opponents object to what is going on. See, in short, if it has any detrimental effect on the game at all. If your experience is like mine - for this is what I have been doing for some while, in the interests of experiment - it will make no difference to the time you spend in play or to the enjoyment of your opponents. And you won't ever make another bum claim. As has been amply demonstrated by the material that appears on this list, lesser players do not know what they are supposed to do anyway. They are not capable of understanding words like "normal", "careless", "inferior", "irrational". How could they be, when we don't understand them ourselves? But they are capable of understanding this: if you don't say how you're going to win a trick, you don't win it. They are also capable of understanding that if Hamman doesn't say how he's going to win a trick, he doesn't win it either - what they have great difficulty with is the notion that the rules are different for him. [DB] That will teach people not to waste the valuable time of tournament directors and bridge lawyers by not playing a heart to the queen. [CS] If your tongue is not in cheek here I must note the punitive "gotcha" of this approach...is that really what we want to do to honest players trying to speed the game? Honest players will not claim having forgotten a safety play (if they had remembered it, they would have included it in the claim statement) and then assert that since for a player of their calibre it would be irrational not to have taken the safety play, they should be credited with having been about to take it. But under the present scheme, such claims will be (randomly) admitted by half the world's TDs and rejected by the other half. Is *that* really what we want to do to convince people that this game is worth playing at all? Players genuinely trying to speed the game will play cards until they are able to make a claim statement of the kind I have suggested, then make it, whereupon it will be accepted. If this encourages them to think through the statement they are going to make, in order to see whether or not it really does cover all eventualities, it may even teach them to play better. If it teaches them not to claim tricks they cannot "see", better still. If it means that Ms Kumquat plays every hand out to trick 13 - so what? She will do that anyway, and the defenders can always concede if they get bored. [CS] So we lose a minute on each of 200 deals but gain back the 10 minutes we had to spend on a contested claim. Yes, that should really speed things up and make bridge more fun for all. We don't lose a minute on each of 200 deals. In the case of the great majority of claims, it takes next to no time to explain what tricks you are actually going to win and how - instead of just spreading your hand with a triumphant flourish, a piece of gamesmanship which my proposal would have the incidental benefit of eliminating, thus making bridge "more fun for all". It may be that in order to be in a position to make a clear statement, you have to play a trick or two more than you would have had to play under the current regime. But unless you are a catatonically slow player anyway, the amount of time allowed for a round or a match will easily accommodate these very minor additions to the time you spend in play. Again - why don't you try it and see, instead of condemning it out of hand? [CS] The law as written isn't broken; there is no need to fix it. Of course it's not. That's why we have megabytes of messages relating to the law on claims, with some saying one thing and some saying the opposite. The implication of this is that in the real world, where claims occur, some directors will rule one way and some the other on identical sets of facts. If that's not a broken Law, it will do until a broken Law comes along. [CS] Giving some clear guidelines for interpretation would be commendable, such as the ACBL rules on playing suits top down unless otherwise stated, and the well known cases of allowing only a proven finesse and assuming outstanding trump has been forgotten unless mentioned. Yes, Craig. Many very clever people well versed in the laws of bridge have been attempting to do just that for a very long time. Their efforts have produced absolutely no consensus at all, nor are they ever likely to produce one. *If* it were possible to produce a definition of the terms in the current Law that could be understood and accepted by everyone here - and could be translated without ambiguity or loss of meaning into all the languages in which the Laws need to be rendered - then I would have no hesitation in accepting such a definition. But it isn't - or at least, up until now it hasn't been. That is why I feel a different approach is required. [CS] But really, down 10 on this deal is an abomination that only the slimiest of BL's could love. Are you attempting to apply a reductio ad absurdum to your own argument? No. What seems to me to have been missed by yourself and Eric Landau in his (not dissimilar) post is that if my proposal were in effect, declarer would not have claimed without making a statement (for he would know that to do so could indeed result in down 10). It is not remotely valid to apply my proposed law to a situation in which declarer has claimed under the current Laws, since if my proposed law were in existence, no one would claim as at present. To deal with Eric's point here: declarer with AKQxxx/AKxx/AKQ/- opposite xxx/QJxx/xxx/xxx. plays in 6S and, on winning trick 1, says "I have the rest". This covers no cards explicitly, and a declarer who claimed on that basis would indeed be required to play misere - but of course, if the law was as I have proposed, no declarer would do that (unless his cards were indeed all unruffable winners). "I will cash the ace-king-queen of spades, the ace-king-queen-jack of hearts, and the ace-king-queen of diamonds; I will ruff if a club is led at any point" takes about ten seconds to say (not a minute, Craig), and would lead to making 6 on 4-0 trumps and 7 on other breaks. You may wonder why declarer would bother to add those last few words, since he might not believe that a club will be led at any point - but a declarer who knew that trumps might be 4-0 would add them in order to ensure that he did not go down in six. And a declarer who did not think that the trumps could be 4-0 because he wasn't missing four of them would, after getting ruled against once, either not miscount trumps in future or not omit to say what he was going to do if it turned out that he had miscounted. But he would not be driven from the game, any more than someone who finds out that their tiny little revoke that didn't make any difference costs them a slam is thereby driven from the game. All I can say is: try it and see. You can conduct the experiment on your own to a certain extent, by making careful claims every time you play, and you may be able to get others involved as well. If you introduce it in the right spirit, you may even find that the people at your local club treat it as a bit of fun - "we're going to play this way tonight because some crazed Limey has come up with the idea that..." The word "Pom" may be substituted for "Limey" where appropriate. I am not a bigoted man. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 04:08:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA20531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 04:08:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA20526 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 04:08:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-46.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.46]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA09305 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:08:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <004401bf98e1$200f4b40$2e84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:12:04 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Grattan Endicott > I do not hear tournament directors expressing >concerns about the ability of players to complete >boards at the standard rate, even when no claims >whatsoever are made. I think that argument is a red >herring; May I respectfully suggest that you are involved solely in a very high level of bridge, where many obvious claims are taken and the TD need rarely be involved. Most bridge is at a much lower level and the players, though less able to do so, seem to need more time to think. Do attend a few sectionals (or their equivalent in your venue) and see how many tables are consistently behind. Take away claims and we have 3 boards in 32 minutes. Expect seven boards of Swiss to take 55 minutes to an hour. This is real; it is no red herring for the largest number of players in the game. -- Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 04:15:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA20585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 04:15:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.emr.ca [132.156.47.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA20580 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 04:15:42 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA26318 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:14:17 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200003281814.NAA26318@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:14:17 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20000328085213.27815.qmail@hotmail.com> from "Todd Zimnoch" at Mar 28, 2000 12:52:13 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 Todd Zimnoch writes: > > Oh yes. Let's do away with Chapter 1 of the Laws while we're on that > point. :) Most of the words there will be found in the dictionary. > I could probably map any reasonable proposal into definitions for those > words while using the frame work of the claim Laws as written. I'd merely > add definitions. For example, David Burn's proposal can be expressed by > defining irrational plays as nothing (which is different than not defining > it, aka, the empty set) and defining careless or inferior plays as any legal > play. There is a lot of power behind the idea of laying out a definition. > I think that proposal is too severe and would prefer to define > irrational plays as those that have no chance for success and careless or > inferior as plays with some chance for success. This is based on the > assumption that claimer is making the claim because he believes there's a > line of play guarantees success. > We might as well start here. After all, there's an awful lot of > argument about what plays are irrational vs. careless despite the number of > dictionaries available. > OK, I still like David Burn's proposal but I'm not blind to the fact that habits of a lifetime are hard to change and that the potential for something horrendous happening in the early day is quite high. This strikes me as the alternative that accomplishes what I feel is important. It lays the ground for consistent rulings. As things stand right now people can in good faith argue what the law truly means. I honestly have no preference for which school of thought prevails in the discussion between Steve and Herman (at least I think it's they who are discussing this - please excuse if I have the name wrong), merely that it's clear (and I have a strong preference for official examples) what the framers intend. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 04:19:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA20609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 04:19:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.emr.ca [132.156.47.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA20604 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 04:19:20 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA26458 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:18:23 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200003281818.NAA26458@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:18:22 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20000328114050.00a9cbb0@mail.earthlink.net> from "Brian Baresch" at Mar 28, 2000 11:43:12 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 Brian Baresch writes: > > > > > I think the very act of the careless claim is sufficient to deem that > > > the player could get it wrong. I don't really mind *how strong* the > > > player is, I award a trick to the other side if a safety play has not > > > been mentioned. > > > > > > >You and I play in different circles. In your surroundings, > >the bad claim statement is proof that the safety play was > >overlooked. > >In my surroundings, the lacking claim statement is proof > >that the player was too tired to make a full statement. > > OK, I'll bite. One player makes an incomplete claim, having overlooked the > safety play (or not been aware of its existence). Another player makes an > incomplete claim because he's tired, and he assumes that the oppos will > know he knows about the safety play. How can this director tell them apart? Only telepaths can direct? Or players carry cards detailing the safety plays they know and have executed in actual play. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 05:15:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA20729 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 04:48:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f42.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA20724 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 04:48:08 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 72854 invoked by uid 0); 28 Mar 2000 18:47:29 -0000 Message-ID: <20000328184729.72853.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.21 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 10:47:28 PST X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.21] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 10:47:28 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Schoderb@aol.com >Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl > >The longer I remain away from the good wine, and the more I think about it, >the more I feel the need to remove my "ditto." I admit that I was focusing >on what is so cavalierly called "The Expert Game" at cost to the real game. I thought that we were long-ago decided that the problems with claims exist mainly at the lower levels of play. And while the problem that directors want addressed is getting more less-than-expert players to claim more often, the problem that us less-than-expert players want addressed is the inconsistancy of rulings on contested claims. Perhaps we need to take a step back and clearly define the problem again. -Todd ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 06:26:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA20683 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 04:34:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f94.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA20678 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 04:33:59 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 79162 invoked by uid 0); 28 Mar 2000 18:33:21 -0000 Message-ID: <20000328183321.79161.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.21 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 10:33:21 PST X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.21] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 10:33:21 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Todd Zimnoch proposed a definition: > > > I think that proposal is too severe and would prefer to define > > irrational plays as those that have no chance for success and careless >or > > inferior as plays with some chance for success. > > I disagree. Or perhaps I miss something. Let's say we have >to find a D king: > > >J10 > > >AQx > > > RHO opens 3D. Playing the J from dummy to the _ace_ >is not irrational, according to the proposed definition, >as it does have some chance of success. > > > On the other hand suppose a player claims in a position >where he can play for a finesse or he can play for >a three-suited repeated squeeze without the count. >Careful inspection of the hand reveals that the finesse >is a 0% play and the squeeze 100%. Do we let declarer >execute the squeeze who failed to mention a line of play >in his claim statement as it is a 100% play and, therefore, >the _only_ rational play? This is even a step backwards >comparing to the present version of Laws. If you're dealing with a 3-suited squeeze, you have 3 suits with possible finesses. Even if the diamond finesse were a 0% play, you have 2 other suits with finesses to consider. The squeeze will not be the only non-zero line of play. The odds that 3D was a psyche is not 0%; the finesse should not be ruled a 0% play. Declarer does not get the benefit of seeing all the hands retroactively. And if it was RHO who bid 3D (I think you meant left), the finesse through RHO has a very high chance for success. He rates to hold 6 or 7 to the K rather than the 9. Regardless, I've been fishing to get other people on the list to define in clear terms (rather than by example, which has been the trend) the meanings of irrational and careless. I understand their hesitation -- it's a daunting task. But the alternatives are to do away with those words in the laws or live with the ambiguity. -Todd ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 06:26:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA21078 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 06:26:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from Tandem.com (suntan.tandem.com [192.216.221.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA21073 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 06:25:59 +1000 (EST) From: FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM Received: from gateway.tandem.com (dss1.mis.tandem.com [130.252.223.220]) by Tandem.com (8.9.3/2.0.1) with SMTP id MAA08485; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 12:25:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by gateway.tandem.com (4.20/4.11) id AA17721; 28 Mar 0 12:25:10 -0800 Date: 28 Mar 0 12:23:00 -0800 Message-Id: <200003281225.AA17721@gateway.tandem.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I used to get tremendously upset when I lost a good contract -- nay, a *fine* contract -- because I didn't know the necessary safety play in the trump suit. It bothered me so much that I learned safety plays. I expect that if I get tremendously upset becuase I lose a good claim -- nay, a *fine* claim, with only a bit of 'obvious' unblocking here and there -- because I don't mention how the play will go *that I will learn how to frame a claim statement*. But if people keep on giving me my claims because 'anyone can see how the play should go', why should I bother to spend my time learning how to say what I am going to do? I'll just spread my hand. xxx AKQ432 xx Kx AKQx JT98 AKxx A If I claim 7NT after the opening spade lead on this hand *with no statement*, I expect to be given 11 tricks *at most*. And I'd expect it no matter who the director was, and no matter who the opponents were. And if it were done against me, I'd feel hard-done-by *no matter who the declarer was* if the claim was upheld by a director or a committee. -- Regards, WWFiv Wally Farley Los Gatos, CA {ACBL District 21} From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 06:34:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA21143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 06:34:45 +1000 (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 GAA21138 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 06:34:37 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id i.67.293307f (4562); Tue, 28 Mar 2000 15:33:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <67.293307f.26127124@aol.com> Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 15:33:40 EST Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl To: kneebee@hotmail.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 101 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 3/28/00 2:23:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, kneebee@hotmail.com writes: > I thought that we were long-ago decided that the problems with claims > exist mainly at the lower levels of play. And while the problem that > directors want addressed is getting more less-than-expert players to claim > more often, the problem that us less-than-expert players want addressed is > the inconsistancy of rulings on contested claims. Perhaps we need to take a > > step back and clearly define the problem again. My apologies if I missed that. Two points come to mind. We had a messy claim situation in Bermuda at the expert level, and I also hope that we can stay with one set of Laws for all levels of the game. So my focus was in the wrong direction. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 07:26:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA21277 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 07:26:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f95.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.95]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA21272 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 07:25:58 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 19091 invoked by uid 0); 28 Mar 2000 21:25:19 -0000 Message-ID: <20000328212519.19090.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.22 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:25:19 PST X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.22] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:25:19 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > xxx > AKQ432 > xx > Kx > > AKQx > JT98 > AKxx > A > >If I claim 7NT after the opening spade lead on this hand *with no >statement*, I expect to be given 11 tricks *at most*. And I'd expect >it no matter who the director was, and no matter who the opponents >were. And if it were done against me, I'd feel hard-done-by *no >matter who the declarer was* if the claim was upheld by a director or >a committee. I like 12 tricks if spades are anything but 3-3. Unblocking hearts is fairly trivial, but you need to play the AC before the 4th heart. Failure to unblock hearts guarantees failure (irrational), while you can still take the contract if you fail to unblock clubs when spades break 3-3 (careless). -Todd ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 07:31:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA21308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 07:31:49 +1000 (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 HAA21301 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 07:31:40 +1000 (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 12a3aE-0003RO-0X for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:31:31 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:30:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B59A@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B59A@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B59A@fdwag002s.fd.agro.n l>, Kooijman, A. writes > >> In a message dated 3/27/00 10:30:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, >> Ron.Johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca writes: >> >> > The longer this thread continues, the more I'm impressed by >> > the pragmatism of David Burn's proposal. >> > -- >> > RNJ >> >> Ditto. Kojak > >I am not. Or may be I am, impressed by the pragmatism. But not as a solution >for the problems we have to deal with. Without saying that players should be >encouraged to claim, my feeling is that they should not be disencouraged to >claim. We need claims to play bridge within the prescribed timeperiods. And >players are careless in claiming, the more so while they often are in a >hurry when claiming. These circumstances are my pragmatism. Players should >not be penalized for clumsy claims. But on the other hand they should not >profet either. And being in a hurry it is possible (within the range of >being considered normal) to play the wrong honour and it is possible not to >unblock a suit. That is where we should focus on, what do we deem acceptable >for a player to do right automatically. > I assume players will unblock. If, as the laws state, there is a trump missing ... etc this gives us a good idea what the lawmakers had in mind. This specifically states that if a player has counted a suit (trump) incorrectly he should be deemed to lose by it. Thus any play which will fail by playing from the top in a likely (but not such a way as to create a blockage) way should be deemed to be careless and not irrational. which brings me back to AQTxx K9xx. It is careless to play the King first because it demonstrates that you have failed to count the cards in the suit. And the Law implies that with its discussion of missing trumps. I'd rule one trick away to Zia if he didn't state "ace" or "I know the combination" or some such. I really don't see this as a problem. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 07:48:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA21360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 07:48:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from Tandem.com (suntan.tandem.com [192.216.221.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA21355 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 07:48:28 +1000 (EST) From: FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM Received: from gateway.tandem.com (dss1.mis.tandem.com [130.252.223.220]) by Tandem.com (8.9.3/2.0.1) with SMTP id NAA11946; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:48:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by gateway.tandem.com (4.20/4.11) id AA12089; 28 Mar 0 13:47:46 -0800 Date: 28 Mar 0 13:45:00 -0800 Message-Id: <200003281347.AA12089@gateway.tandem.com> To: kneebee@hotmail.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yes, my stupidity in making the spades be AKQx opposite xxx, instead of making Diamonds be AKxx opposite xxx, and Spades AKQx opposite xx. I *do not* think failing to unblock hearts is irrational. Obviously, it is 'irrational' *if you notice it before you have led the third heart*. If you still have the club Ace in your hand then, you are dead. I repeat, if you give this claim to *anybody* if all they do is show their hand and make a Walrus-like statement "They're all mine", I would be *extremely* upset. Show me -- by saying so -- that you see and can execute the unblock in hearts and my cards are back in the board. But *please* don't just show your hand. If a director gave *me* this claim, I'd take it to a committee myself. -- Regards, WWFiv ------------ ORIGINAL ATTACHMENT -------- SENT 03-28-00 FROM SMTPGATE (kneebee@hotmail.com) > xxx > AKQ432 > xx > Kx > > AKQx > JT98 > AKxx > A > >If I claim 7NT after the opening spade lead on this hand *with no >statement*, I expect to be given 11 tricks *at most*. And I'd expect >it no matter who the director was, and no matter who the opponents >were. And if it were done against me, I'd feel hard-done-by *no >matter who the declarer was* if the claim was upheld by a director or >a committee. I like 12 tricks if spades are anything but 3-3. Unblocking hearts is fairly trivial, but you need to play the AC before the 4th heart. Failure to unblock hearts guarantees failure (irrational), while you can still take the contract if you fail to unblock clubs when spades break 3-3 (careless). -Todd ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 07:55:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA21387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 07:55:39 +1000 (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 HAA21381 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 07:55:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA30040; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:55:43 -0800 Message-Id: <200003282155.NAA30040@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl In-reply-to: Your message of "28 Mar 0 12:23:00 -0800 ." <200003281225.AA17721@gateway.tandem.com> Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:55:44 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Wally Farley wrote: > xxx > AKQ432 > xx > Kx > > AKQx > JT98 > AKxx > A > > If I claim 7NT after the opening spade lead on this hand *with no > statement*, I expect to be given 11 tricks *at most*. Just one trick, if David Burn has his way. :) > And I'd expect it no matter who the director was, and no matter who > the opponents were. And if it were done against me, I'd feel > hard-done-by *no matter who the declarer was* if the claim was > upheld by a director or a committee. On the other hand, I would (1) never challenge this claim if an opponent made it, (2) would not be upset if the claim were upheld by the TD or committee (assuming my partner wanted to challenge the claim, since I wouldn't), (3) against most good opponents, would most likely see if I could claim without a statement other than "3 spades, 6 hearts, etc.", but be prepared to explain further if the opponents start looking doubtful or confused, and (4) feel really screwed if I claimed and got ruled against. This shows why it would be very helpful to have something in writing that would say whether a claim like this is legal or not. When there are differences of opinion as to what constitutes a good claim, and no written rules to resolve the question, the result can only be hard feelings, one way or the other, when two players with different opinions sit down against each other. On the other hand, if things were clearly spelled out, there would be no cause for Wally or me or anyone else to have hard feelings. Either the rules were followed, or they weren't. This post just helps convince me that the current state of affairs is unacceptable. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 08:39:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA21509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 08:39:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA21502 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 08:39:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2iveh7o.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.68.248]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA14078 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 17:38:52 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000328173412.0128f258@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 17:34:12 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: David B.'s proposal on claims In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000328083849.006eccf4@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:38 AM 3/28/2000 -0500, Eric wrote: >Declarer is playing 6S holding AKQxxx/AKxx/AKQ/- opposite xxx/QJxx/xxx/xxx. > LHO leads a club, and declarer spreads his hand, saying "I have the rest." > LHO calls the TD and informs him that he holds J109x of trumps. Today >that's an easy ruling -- making 6. Under David B.'s proposal, it's an easy >ruling too -- down 9. Somehow the former sounds a lot more reasonable. As scary as this is, it is not the worst of it. Even if trumps are _not_ 4-0, the "incompleteness" of this claim can be used under the Burn model to award some ridiculous number of tricks to the defenders, perhaps as many as 10, in fact. Small trump lost as cheaply as possible, opponents "cashing" the J and 10 (declarer naturally following low) then top diamonds and hearts pitched successively on clubs. What we have here is the death penalty for a petty infraction. Undoubtedly the rule would have the salutary effect of reducing appeals based on the distinction between careless and irrational lines of play. But this would occur primarily because players would quickly come to understand that the draconian cost of a minor mis-statement in the form of the claim makes claiming into a fool's quest. If you wish to outlaw claims, as this law would do in practice, then do so directly. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 08:40:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA21531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 08:40:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA21525 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 08:40:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.2]) by swarm.mosquitonet.com (8.9.1/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA14483 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:40:41 -0900 Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:40:41 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 27 Mar 2000, David Stevenson wrote: > Kojak wrote: > >In a message dated 3/27/00 10:30:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, > >Ron.Johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca writes: > > > >> The longer this thread continues, the more I'm impressed by > >> the pragmatism of David Burn's proposal. > >> -- > >> RNJ > > > >Ditto. Kojak > > So how do you all think this will suggestion will affect players and > Directors at the lower levels? As one who does most of his playing and all of his directing at lower levels -- I think this is a truly wonderful idea. Players like rules they can understand, and they are accustomed to the idea that if you break a rule you pay the price for doing so. Learning that claims should be accompanied by statements is no harder than learning any of the other rules of the game. There really is no excuse for a completely statementless claim. And if I face my hand and just say "cashing winners" or suchlike - most of these "down 10" examples are l\no longer ridiculous at all, but become clear down 1s, as I (most of us?) want them to be presently, instead of getting into nonsense of the "but if I had played it out I surely would have made it becasue I'd see the bad break and deal with it etc etc" arguments to make contracts after inadequate claims. > *I* think that if this and other similar suggestions made here are > correct at the top level perhaps the time has come for different Law > books at different levels. Did I miss something about the suggestion? Where was it aimed at top level players? An easily understandable and followable rule for claims and their adjudication, even if it is harsh, _is what the masses want and need._ I see the *existing* claim law working at top levels and causing trouble at lower levels. GRB From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 08:56:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA21567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 08:56:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA21562 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 08:55:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2iveh7o.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.68.248]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA23340 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 17:55:46 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000328175206.012b8430@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 17:52:06 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl In-Reply-To: <001001bf98c0$f494d2c0$b25b93c3@pacific> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B59A@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:20 PM 3/28/2000 +0100, Grattan wrote: > The David Burn proposition is so uncomplicated >for both Director and player that I think it is wholly an >improvement. Once it is understood and experienced >for a time players will know exactly where they stand >- and the quality of claims could only get better. Indeed, I would expect a rapid trend toward zero defective claims, but only because anybody with half a wit would realize the stupidity of attempting to claim at all under those conditions. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 09:43:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 09:43:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt9-he.global.net.uk (cobalt9-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.169]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA21753 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 09:43:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from p11s02a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.114.18] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt9-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12Zgsb-0000P2-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 22:16:58 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 00:43:23 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf990f$67a21d60$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: Todd Zimnoch To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 10:55 PM Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl >> xxx >> AKQ432 >> xx >> Kx >> >> AKQx >> JT98 >> AKxx >> A >> >>If I claim 7NT after the opening spade lead on this hand *with no >>statement*, I expect to be given 11 tricks *at most*. And I'd expect >>it no matter who the director was, and no matter who the opponents >>were. And if it were done against me, I'd feel hard-done-by *no >>matter who the declarer was* if the claim was upheld by a director or >>a committee. > > I like 12 tricks if spades are anything but 3-3. Unblocking hearts is >fairly trivial, but you need to play the AC before the 4th heart. Failure >to unblock hearts guarantees failure (irrational), while you can still take >the contract if you fail to unblock clubs when spades break 3-3 (careless). > You must be joking. There are 13 tricks as long a declarer cashes AC at trick 2. If I can get a 2 Clubs, 6 Hearts,2 Dias, 3 Spades statement (In any order that allows for dec to have noticed the AC block) under duress, I allow the claim for 13 tks, even to Miss Qumquat. A declarer who has not counted however may fall into the trap. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 09:54:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21822 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 09:54:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA21816 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 09:54:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id SAA07757 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 18:54:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA29505 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 18:54:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 18:54:06 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200003282354.SAA29505@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: FARLEY_WALLY@tandem.com > But if people keep on > giving me my claims because 'anyone can see how the play should go', > why should I bother to spend my time learning how to say what I am > going to do? I'll just spread my hand. I don't think that would be wise. Most of the time, there won't be a single best line, and then you will get the worst of it no matter how lenient the TD is about claims. Now if you know there is a safety play but you happen to have forgotten it for the moment, it probably is worthwhile trying the effect of "Taking the safety play." :-) On the other hand, if you remember that there is one, it probably won't take you long to work out what it is. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 09:57:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21841 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 09:57:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.emr.ca [132.156.47.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA21836 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 09:57:09 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA08385 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 18:56:08 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200003282356.SAA08385@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 18:56:08 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000328175206.012b8430@pop.mindspring.com> from "Michael S. Dennis" at Mar 28, 2000 05:52:06 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 Michael S. Dennis writes: > > At 03:20 PM 3/28/2000 +0100, Grattan wrote: > > The David Burn proposition is so uncomplicated > >for both Director and player that I think it is wholly an > >improvement. Once it is understood and experienced > >for a time players will know exactly where they stand > >- and the quality of claims could only get better. > > Indeed, I would expect a rapid trend toward zero defective claims, but only > because anybody with half a wit would realize the stupidity of attempting > to claim at all under those conditions. > Why? When I first started to play I thought that any time you claimed, the other side could play your cards in anything not covered by the claim. In fact I'd bet that's what most novices think. I was claiming long before I learned that absolute precision in a claim is not required. And over time my habits in claiming have become ... well not sloppy. But they wouldn't fly under David's proposal. At least not always. David's proposal wouldn't affect the frequency of my claims. Am I one of those players David S. fears who slow down the game by never claiming? Hardly. I know lots of better players but I know of few who are consistently faster. Maybe you lack the confidence in yourself and think you can't string a eight second sentence together without screwing it up. I don't. At the same time, I know perfectly well that somebody's going to make a lame claim in a major event and there will be howls. My big concern would be the early days. And maybe the short term pain is too much for the long term gain. Maybe all that's required is a tightening up of the wording of the current laws (though as David Burn points out, we've been trying for a long time and we have reasonable people arguing vastly different points of view in good faith.) I see an enormous gain in the clarity of claims. As such I see David's proposal as better than the status quo. At the same time, I'd sort of like to have a player who is good enough (against opposition good enough) to be able to claim on a squeeze, but specifying the distribution (and relevant honors) he's playing for. These are the real time savers. This is the biggest problem I can see (after the transition period that is) and it won't come up all that often I don't think. I could be wrong. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 10:17:34 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA21890 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 10:17:34 +1000 (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 KAA21884 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 10:17:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA00110; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 16:17:34 -0800 Message-Id: <200003290017.QAA00110@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Rules for good claims In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:55:44 PST." <200003282155.NAA30040@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 16:17:36 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I've been saying repeatedly that I believe that there should be written rules to distinguish acceptable claims from unacceptable ones, or (equivalently, I think) distinguish irrational lines of play from the other kind. However, I haven't included any examples of what such rule might be. Based on my feelings about Wally's latest example, and a different example I've used in previous posts, here's a possible rule, that I think codifies what most of us (except maybe Wally) feel intuitively should be considered irrational. I think it's necessary to make it unambiguous as possible, so I felt I had to sacrifice some simplicity, and make it look like an algebra text, which undoubtedly will scare off some mathophobes. Anyway, here's my first offering: =========================================================================== CLAIM RULE 1. When declarer has N cards in a given non-trump suit in one hand, and M cards in the same suit in the other hand, where N > M and M > 0, and he (explicitly or implicitly) claims N tricks in the suit, and if there are at least M winners in the suit in the combined hands, the "standard" order of taking tricks in the suit is that the Mth round of the suit is won in the long hand. If such an order exists, then any order in which the Mth round of the suit is won in the short hand is deemed an "irrational" line of play, unless no "standard" order of play would win N tricks if one opponent held all the remaining cards in the suit, or unless a "non-standard" order is necessary in order to execute some other aspect of declarer's claim statement. For the purposes of this rule, a "winner" is a card that, at the time the claim is made, is higher than any card the opponents hold in the same suit. =========================================================================== So, with this holding: AQ2 opposite KJT43 I've previously complained that, with no explicit criteria in the Laws or elsewhere, someone *could* rule that playing the suit in the order A-K-Q is careless, not irrational (even though we all know otherwise). The above rule would make such an order irrational. (I realize that this rule does not make it irrational to dump the king under the ace, and the jack under the queen, and win the third round with the 10. I'm assuming that the principle of not gratuitously dumping winners is important enough to merit a separate rule.) More examples: JT98 opposite AKQ432 (Wally's example) The rule would make it irrational to play the A-K-Q first, since it requires that one of the top three honors remain in dummy after the first three rounds. (However, it does not address the need to unblock clubs. I still think a claim on Wally's hand should be accepted, but more rules would be necessary to cover the other aspects of the hand.) KQ2 opposite A6543 You shouldn't claim five tricks in this suit, of course. But if you do, the rule assumes that any order besides K-Q-A (or Q-K-A) is irrational, so if the suit happens to break 3-2, the claim is still accepted. If the suit doesn't break, the fact that this is the only rational order doesn't help you. AQT2 opposite K9643 The rule doesn't apply at all to this combination, since it would only apply if there are 4 winners (by the above definition of "winner"), and there are only 3. So it says nothing about whether cashing the king first would be irrational. Further rules would have to clarify (or the lack of further rules would imply that cashing the king first would be considered careless.) AQ532 opposite K984 You cash the king first, and both follow; then you claim four more tricks in the suit. The rule still doesn't apply, since there are three cards left in the suit and only two "winners". My intuition is that failure to unblock the 9-8 should be considered "careless" (except maybe for Hamman?) . . . KQJ opposite AT943 It would be considered irrational to win the ace on the first or second round of the suit, or for the king, queen, or jack to win the third round. KQJ opposite AT543 This one is different. The "standard" order defined by the above rule (overtaking with the ace on the third round) would fail to take five tricks if the suit breaks 5-0. Therefore, the rule doesn't apply. I realize that if you cash the king, and both opponents follow, it will now be obvious to overtake on the third round, and it should still be considered irrational not to do so (i.e. I'd accept the claim any time the suit doesn't break 5-0). The rule would have to be refined to cover this possibility. Also, if the suit does break 5-0, you could still take 5 tricks if you have an outside entry, but this would require additional rules; the above rule is intended to deal with one suit only. K543 opposite AQ9872 Here, it's pretty obvious that any line that blocks the suit should be considered "irrational", but my above rule doesn't apply to it, because there aren't four "winners" by its definition. This is a flaw in the rule, and I'd need to think a little harder about how to fix the bug. KQ opposite AJT932 The rule would consider not overtaking with the ace on the second round to be irrational. However, if the KQ is in hand, and if declarer's claim statement involves taking two proven finesses through declarer's LHO, with the KQ being the only plausible entries, it would *not* be considered irrational to let the K and Q win the first two rounds of the suit. = = = = = = Anyway, despite the flaws that would need to be addressed, I believe that rules similar to the above are needed in order to remove the ambiguities in the current claim Laws. So what do you all think? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 10:27:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA21946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 10:27:18 +1000 (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 KAA21941 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 10:27:10 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id 1.ac.2fd1ac4 (4380); Tue, 28 Mar 2000 19:25:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 19:25:58 EST Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl To: FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM, kneebee@hotmail.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 101 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 3/28/00 4:50:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM writes: > If a director gave *me* this claim, I'd take it to a committee myself. Bravo!!! Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 10:34:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA21989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 10:34:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from Tandem.com (suntan.tandem.com [192.216.221.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA21984 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 10:34:33 +1000 (EST) From: FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM Received: from gateway.tandem.com (dss1.mis.tandem.com [130.252.223.220]) by Tandem.com (8.9.3/2.0.1) with SMTP id QAA19360 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 16:34:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by gateway.tandem.com (4.20/4.11) id AA14649; 28 Mar 0 16:33:46 -0800 Date: 28 Mar 0 16:30:00 -0800 Message-Id: <200003281633.AA14649@gateway.tandem.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Rules for good claims Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk AARGH!! I've just realized what I did. I *meant* for the suit to be set up so that you *had to cash the Ace of Clubs and then ditch the last heart on the King of Clubs*, and this layout doesn't do that *at all!!* No wonder everybody is giving the claim. So would I! I'll see if I can create the sort of hand on which the 'non-obvious' unblock is required. My apologies to BLML for the several flaws in this example. It *was not* what I meant it to be. Regards, WWFiv Wally Farley Los Gatos, CA {ACBL District 21} From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 10:40:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA22019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 10:40:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from praseodumium.btinternet.com (praseodumium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA22013 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 10:39:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.201.189] (helo=davidburn) by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12a6Vm-0007WJ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 01:39:06 +0100 Message-ID: <004501bf9917$7737b3e0$bdc901d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B59A@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3.0.1.32.20000328175206.012b8430@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 01:41:03 +0100 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael wrote: > At 03:20 PM 3/28/2000 +0100, Grattan wrote: > > The David Burn proposition is so uncomplicated > >for both Director and player that I think it is wholly an > >improvement. Once it is understood and experienced > >for a time players will know exactly where they stand > >- and the quality of claims could only get better. > > Indeed, I would expect a rapid trend toward zero defective claims, but only > because anybody with half a wit would realize the stupidity of attempting > to claim at all under those conditions. > Why would it be stupid, Michael? Show me a position, and I'll show you the claim statement that should accompany it. Then we might be able to arrive at some idea of how much longer it would actually take to get the hand played under my proposal. My own experience suggests that the answer is always "no more than a few seconds" - indeed, much time and much bad feeling is often saved thereby. For example (Wally Farley's hand, modified in accordance with his later post): xx AKQ432 xxx Kx AKQx JT98 AKxx A Declarer in 7NT receives a spade lead. He tables his cards and says: "I will cash the ace-king-queen of spades throwing a diamond, the ace-king of diamonds, the ace of clubs, the jack of hearts, and the ace-king-queen of hearts". Does this take so much longer than "I have three spades, six hearts, two diamonds and two clubs"? Not really. Does it eliminate any doubt as to when, if ever, declarer would notice the heart blockage? Certainly it does. On the other hand, would not a "lesser player" have some difficulty in making the statement I have given? Yes, he would, for he might not be capable of organising his thoughts sufficiently well even though he "knows" in some way that he has all the tricks. But in that case, he might equally not be up to the task of organising the play sufficiently well if he were forced to play the hand out - if so, it is not really equitable that he should be able just to throw his cards on the table and hope that the opponents or the Director can see their way more clearly than he can. At least we would remove the dichotomy, that is at present causing so much difficulty, between a careless claimer and a careless player. Would that not be a good idea? David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 11:53:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA22249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 11:53:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from Tandem.com (suntan.tandem.com [192.216.221.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA22244 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 11:53:47 +1000 (EST) From: FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM Received: from gateway.tandem.com (dss1.mis.tandem.com [130.252.223.220]) by Tandem.com (8.9.3/2.0.1) with SMTP id RAA22715 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 17:53:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by gateway.tandem.com (4.20/4.11) id AA28473; 28 Mar 0 17:53:06 -0800 Date: 28 Mar 0 17:51:00 -0800 Message-Id: <200003281753.AA28473@gateway.tandem.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk With serious quantities of egg already on my face, let me try this hand again: xx AKQ432 xxx Kx AKQx 8765 AKxx A LHO leads the JH, declarer plays the Ace from dummy, RHO shows out. *Now* with hearts blocked and no chance to win an early round in hand and then simply overtake, I think that granting a statement-less claim would not be reasonable. If this declarer wants to ditch his last heart on the King of Clubs, he should make some noise about it. My poor proof-reading on the first couple of postings of this merely verified that the line I was thinking of worked -- and ignored such 'advanced' lines as winning one round of hearts in hand. Sorry about the silly posts. -- Regards, WWFiv Wally Farley Los Gatos, CA {ACBL District 21} ------------ ORIGINAL ATTACHMENT -------- SENT 03-28-00 FROM SMTPGATE (FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM) Yes, my stupidity in making the spades be AKQx opposite xxx, instead of making Diamonds be AKxx opposite xxx, and Spades AKQx opposite xx. I *do not* think failing to unblock hearts is irrational. Obviously, it is 'irrational' *if you notice it before you have led the third heart*. If you still have the club Ace in your hand then, you are dead. I repeat, if you give this claim to *anybody* if all they do is show their hand and make a Walrus-like statement "They're all mine", I would be *extremely* upset. Show me -- by saying so -- that you see and can execute the unblock in hearts and my cards are back in the board. But *please* don't just show your hand. If a director gave *me* this claim, I'd take it to a committee myself. -- Regards, WWFiv ------------ ORIGINAL ATTACHMENT -------- SENT 03-28-00 FROM SMTPGATE (kneebee@hotmail.com) > xxx > AKQ432 > xx > Kx > > AKQx > JT98 > AKxx > A > >If I claim 7NT after the opening spade lead on this hand *with no >statement*, I expect to be given 11 tricks *at most*. And I'd expect >it no matter who the director was, and no matter who the opponents >were. And if it were done against me, I'd feel hard-done-by *no >matter who the declarer was* if the claim was upheld by a director or >a committee. I like 12 tricks if spades are anything but 3-3. Unblocking hearts is fairly trivial, but you need to play the AC before the 4th heart. Failure to unblock hearts guarantees failure (irrational), while you can still take the contract if you fail to unblock clubs when spades break 3-3 (careless). -Todd ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 12:58:06 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA22419 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 12:58:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA22414 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 12:57:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivei7q.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.72.250]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA12932 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 21:57:31 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000328215334.012b7c00@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 21:53:34 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl In-Reply-To: <200003282356.SAA08385@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> References: <3.0.1.32.20000328175206.012b8430@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:56 PM 3/28/2000 -0500, Ron wrote: >Why? When I first started to play I thought that any time you >claimed, the other side could play your cards in anything not >covered by the claim. In fact I'd bet that's what most novices >think. > >I was claiming long before I learned that absolute precision >in a claim is not required. And over time my habits in claiming >have become ... well not sloppy. But they wouldn't fly under >David's proposal. At least not always. > >David's proposal wouldn't affect the frequency of my claims. Have you considered Eric's example hand? Or in fact the universe of hands in which the play truly is elementary, lacking in any respect the need for unblocking, planning, or anything else other than just playing the high cards in the suits before playing the low cards? Under David's rule, an "incomplete" claim, on the order of "drawing trumps" or "all mine", or "forcing out the club Ace" would legally entitle the defense to an absurd number of tricks in these situations. I guarantee that for most players, the first time some bridge lawyer successfully claims his unearned windfall against them for not specifying the precise order of all thirteen tricks will be the last time they claim. Whether it will be their last foray into competitive bridge is another question, but not an unreasonable one. The claim law as written, like other laws, seeks to attain a level of equity while preserving reasonable protection for the NOS against damage from a declarer's sloppy claim (and the possibility that a challenge to such a claim has alerted said declarer). It is not perfect, and like other adjudicatory matters requiring bridge judgements, different TD's and AC's may arrive at different conclusions. But a rule which imposes a wholly inequitable penalty (and a huge unearned bonus for the NOS) over what may be at most an inconsequential technical imperfection is completely at odds with the spirit of the Laws. Mike Dennis >Am I one of those players David S. fears who slow down the >game by never claiming? Hardly. I know lots of better players >but I know of few who are consistently faster. > >Maybe you lack the confidence in yourself and think you can't >string a eight second sentence together without screwing it up. >I don't. > >At the same time, I know perfectly well that somebody's going to >make a lame claim in a major event and there will be howls. > >My big concern would be the early days. And maybe the short >term pain is too much for the long term gain. Maybe all that's >required is a tightening up of the wording of the current laws >(though as David Burn points out, we've been trying for a long >time and we have reasonable people arguing vastly different >points of view in good faith.) > >I see an enormous gain in the clarity of claims. As such I >see David's proposal as better than the status quo. > >At the same time, I'd sort of like to have a player who is good enough >(against opposition good enough) to be able to claim on a squeeze, >but specifying the distribution (and relevant honors) he's playing >for. These are the real time savers. > >This is the biggest problem I can see (after the transition >period that is) and it won't come up all that often I don't >think. I could be wrong. >-- >RNJ > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 13:42:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA22526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:42:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA22521 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:42:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivegop.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.67.25]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA07104 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:42:24 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000328223719.012b8ac4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:37:19 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl In-Reply-To: <004501bf9917$7737b3e0$bdc901d5@davidburn> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B59A@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3.0.1.32.20000328175206.012b8430@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:41 AM 3/29/2000 +0100, David B wrote: >Michael wrote: > >> At 03:20 PM 3/28/2000 +0100, Grattan wrote: >> > The David Burn proposition is so uncomplicated >> >for both Director and player that I think it is wholly an >> >improvement. Once it is understood and experienced >> >for a time players will know exactly where they stand >> >- and the quality of claims could only get better. >> >> Indeed, I would expect a rapid trend toward zero defective claims, >but only >> because anybody with half a wit would realize the stupidity of >attempting >> to claim at all under those conditions. >> > >Why would it be stupid, Michael? The reason it would be stupid is because of the substantial and unwarranted risk run by the claimer that some substantively inconsequential omission in the claim could form the basis for a silly score adjustment. To wit: QTxxx AKJx x KQx AKJxx xx Axxx Ax At a 6S contract, declarer receives a trump lead, on which all follow. He claims: "Drawing trumps, and ruffing the diamond losers in the dummy." Now I happen to think that this is a pretty reasonable statement of a claim, and to tell the truth, it is probably more than I would say unless I happened to be playing against rank novices. But notice how much has been left out. There is no statement of the precise order I plan to play the tricks in, nor how I intend to return to my hand to lead all those diamonds to ruff. There is no explicit mention of _how_ I plan to draw trumps, nor how I might choose to handle those tricky round suit combinations. In fact, under the most disadvantageous scenario, I _could_ lose as many as 8 tricks on this hand. Now here is a claim that satisfies the Burn test: "AK of trumps from the closed hand, followed by diamond A and a diamond ruff, then dummy's low club to the A and another diamond ruff in dummy. Then KQ of clubs from dummy, pitching my last diamond, and the top two hearts in dummy, leaving me with only trumps." A good claim, certainly, and you are right that its entire statement takes not much more time than the lazy one I offered above. But it is quite a bit more complex to formulate, and to make sure that I have dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's, and by the time I've run it all through legal, I won't have saved much time at all. If I slip up, and forget to stipulate (for example) that I plan to play specifically the AK of hearts, only claiming vaguely to have 2 top winners in the suit, then I stand to lose those tricks. Why would anyone take that chance? You save very little time in the end, and a careless but substantially meaningless omission costs you an easy and obvious 13 tricks and a horrible result. To do so would be irrational, in view of the risk of a careless mistake. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 14:26:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA22610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:26:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.rdc1.sfba.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.0.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA22605 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:26:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from home.com ([24.14.151.35]) by mail.rdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with ESMTP id <20000329042625.TXIH5721.mail.rdc1.sfba.home.com@home.com>; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 20:26:25 -0800 Message-ID: <38E18655.D9EFDF9B@home.com> Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 20:28:05 -0800 From: Wally Farley X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en]C-AtHome0407 (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: adam@irvine.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: By George, I knowed I'd seen that hand before!! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Still nonplussed with my Adventures in (non)ProofreadingLand, I came home and discovered the missing referent. In TBW's _Appeals Committee, Volume 2_ in the section "Claims: Work to do" is this little number: AKQT3 T987 654 K 76 J952 J54 --- QJT7 K93 J852 QT9764 84 AKQ632 A82 A3 There were 3 cases. Case 1: Declarer at 7H wins the QD lead, lays down his cards and says "pulling trumps". Even though it is hard to *avoid* setting up the fifth spade (and what else could be the thirteenth trick?), they say not to allow the claim. First declarer must *see* that he needs the last spade; the timing makes it likely that he thought he had thirteen top tricks. Case 2: Same contract, same lead: declarer draws trumps in three rounds, plays to the king of spades, cashes the spade ace, and *now* claims with no statement. {This is similar to many claims experts have made against me -- they have done the (pardon the pun) spade work, and shown that thirteen tricks are there). Give him the contract, says TBW; his *plays* make it obvious that he knows what is happening, and it is clear he just didn't know how to frame the claim statement. {To this I would add: let him know what is expected in a claim statement. But don't deny this one just to make sure he knows what to do next time (_pace_ DALB)). Case 3 -- my example: South, declarer in 6NT, wins the diamond lead and faces his cards, saying "I have six heart tricks, three spades, two clubs and one diamond -- if the spade jack falls I have 13, otherwise 12." TBW continues "Well, he does have 12 tricks, although the 3-0 heart split and blocking spots in dummy mean that it is not so easy to get them. Declarer could cash the ace of hearts, see the split, lead to the club king, take the king-queen of hearts, cash ace of clubs to pitch dummy's fourth heart, and finally cash his remaining heart and spade winners. Oh, well played, sir! "Only, if south wants to play so prettily he must do it at the table, not in the post-mortem. If declarer does not spot the heart block and the solution to it early enough, he goes down. Here, declarer was oblivious to the problem when he claimed; he must not be allowed to solve it later on." On the revised hand that I posted, with AKQ432 opposite 8765, I would be especially leery of any claim stating 'six hearts' that did not contain "a comprehensive statement" about how the internal blockage was going to be overcome (I am intentionally using the Rueful Rabbit's/Secretary Bird's phrasing rather than the one in the current Laws). Once again, i apologise for the silly posts. I *hope* that these last two are not contained in that number. -- Regards, WWFiv Wally Farley Los Gatos, CA {ACBL District 21} From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 15:25:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA22695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 15:25:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.emr.ca [132.156.47.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA22690 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 15:25:43 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA11709 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 00:24:41 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200003290524.AAA11709@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 00:24:40 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <200003282354.SAA29505@cfa183.harvard.edu> from "Steve Willner" at Mar 28, 2000 06:54:06 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 Steve Willner writes: > > > From: FARLEY_WALLY@tandem.com > > But if people keep on > > giving me my claims because 'anyone can see how the play should go', > > why should I bother to spend my time learning how to say what I am > > going to do? I'll just spread my hand. > > I don't think that would be wise. Most of the time, there won't be a > single best line, and then you will get the worst of it no matter how > lenient the TD is about claims. > > Now if you know there is a safety play but you happen to have forgotten > it for the moment, it probably is worthwhile trying the effect of > "Taking the safety play." :-) On the other hand, if you remember that > there is one, it probably won't take you long to work out what it is. > Why worry about safety plays? Always claim with the statement "Taking the safety play." If it matters, you're covered. If it's met with a strange look, smile and say you're kidding. That the safety play is taking your top tricks. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 17:41:51 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA22869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 17:41:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from tantalum.btinternet.com (tantalum.btinternet.com [194.73.73.80]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA22864 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 17:41:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.148.160] (helo=davidburn) by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12aCyj-00078w-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 08:33:25 +0100 Message-ID: <002501bf9952$61dffb20$a09401d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <3.0.1.32.20000328175206.012b8430@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20000328215334.012b7c00@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 08:42:48 +0100 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael wrote: > Under David's rule, an "incomplete" claim, on the order of "drawing trumps" > or "all mine", or "forcing out the club Ace" would legally entitle the > defense to an absurd number of tricks in these situations. I guarantee that > for most players, the first time some bridge lawyer successfully claims his > unearned windfall against them for not specifying the precise order of all > thirteen tricks will be the last time they claim. Very few claims involve all 13 tricks. For those that do, proper statements would be easy enough to formulate. And once again, there is an assertion to the effect that "for most players" such-and-such would happen - but there is no evidence to support this notion. How on Earth can anyone presume to know what these players will do, or think? The opponents sometimes get an "absurd" and "unearned" number of tricks when people revoke - but does every novice quit the game after his first failure to follow suit? > Whether it will be their last foray into competitive bridge is another > question, but not an unreasonable one. The claim law as written, like other > laws, seeks to attain a level of equity while preserving reasonable > protection for the NOS against damage from a declarer's sloppy claim (and > the possibility that a challenge to such a claim has alerted said > declarer). It is not perfect, and like other adjudicatory matters requiring > bridge judgements, different TD's and AC's may arrive at different > conclusions. But a rule which imposes a wholly inequitable penalty (and a > huge unearned bonus for the NOS) over what may be at most an > inconsequential technical imperfection is completely at odds with the > spirit of the Laws. I think that there is still some confusion here - you (and Craig, and Eric) are attempting to apply my proposed rule to claims made under the present Laws. Since no one would claim without making a statement if my proposal were adopted, this could not happen. It is worth noting that no one is supposed to claim without making a statement under the present Laws; at least what I propose would have the effect of enforcing what is presently correct procedure. It seems to me that some of the reactions to what I have proposed stem entirely from fear of change. This is understandable, even justifiable - when a Law was introduced to the effect that defenders weren't allowed to ask "No hearts, partner?", a rider had to be added that Americans could go on asking each other because it was not fair to expect people to break the habits of a lifetime. If what I propose had been on the statute books since 1926, it seems to me that the game would be a fairer and more pleasant one for all concerned. I think it may be about time that the Laws stopped trying to deal "equitably" with the sloppy habits that players have acquired, since to do so leads in many cases to a far higher level of injustice than should be tolerated. If this upsets some of the present generation of players, the price may not be too high in terms of improvement for future generations. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 18:35:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA22955 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 18:35:16 +1000 (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 SAA22950 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 18:34:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (pcciborowski.comarch.pl [195.116.125.138]) by omicron.comarch.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71C925C04C for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 10:33:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38E1C025.6403039E@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 10:34:45 +0200 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: BL calling the Director Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Suppose you are a TD and you are called to this little thing: Axx xxx AKx Qxx AJxx KQxx xxx Axx West, Konrad Ciborowski, a vicious BL, is in 3NT after a spade lead. At trick one he claims: - I have nine tricks from the top. Would you give this claim to him under the current Laws? "Oh, come on, how can you waste our time with such childish questions!". But North-South, Mr. and Mrs. Guggenheim who can't count object. They don't know very much about the Laws and simply say "Play it out". A BL Ciborowski looks at them, grumbles something unpleasant about the opponents' mental abilities and finally, being in a fairly good mood, he decides that he won't teach Laws these two. Probably it is going to take a lot less time to play the hand out. He starts cashing his tricks but, to his horror, he drops the queen of hearts under the ace at trick two! He twists and turns to save something from the wreck but no mercy: he goes one down and the Guggenheims triumphantly score +50. Now a BL Ciborowski calls the TD and says: - Some time ago there was a debate on BLML on claims. We agreed unanimously that if a player makes a claim, the claim is contested, and the players play the hand out, then the play following the claim is voided, non-existent, it doesn't matter. It shouldn't affect the TDs ruling. So it means you have to rule that 3NT was made. Yes, Ciborowski is a damn BL. Yes, you give him sixty seven PPs. Yes, you are going to hang him on the nearest tree in a couple of days. _But still you have to make a ruling_. Remember: the Law should treat everyone (and "everyone" includes BLs) equally. So what is your ruling going to be? I can't wait... PS. Perhaps the consensus that the play after the contested claim should be irrelevant for the ruling wasn't unanimous. I just have that impression. If it wasn't then I would mainly ask those who supported this point of view to rule on this one. -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Mar 29 21:21:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA23290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 21:21:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA23274 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 21:21:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-5-78.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.5.78]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA06372 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:21:03 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38E1E439.90551114@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:08:41 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: BL calling the Director References: <38E1C025.6403039E@omicron.comarch.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > > Suppose you are a TD and you are called to this > little thing: > > Axx xxx > AKx Qxx > AJxx KQxx > xxx Axx > > West, Konrad Ciborowski, a vicious BL, is in 3NT > after a spade lead. At trick one he claims: > > - I have nine tricks from the top. > That claim is valid, correct, and should be scored as such. > Would you give this claim to him under the current > Laws? "Oh, come on, how can you waste our time with such > childish questions!". > I would give this claim. > But North-South, Mr. and Mrs. Guggenheim who can't > count object. They don't know very much about the Laws > and simply say "Play it out". A BL Ciborowski looks at > them, grumbles something unpleasant about the opponents' > mental abilities and finally, being in a fairly good mood, > he decides that he won't teach Laws these two. Probably > it is going to take a lot less time to play the hand out. I don't hold it against him. I would do the same. I would not wait for them to play to every trick, but they will insist I do not start the next one before they have played, and I won't. > He starts cashing his tricks but, to his horror, he drops > the queen of hearts under the ace at trick two! Or he revokes, or something ! > He twists and turns to save something from the wreck > but no mercy: he goes one down and the Guggenheims triumphantly > score +50. They should not, because : > Now a BL Ciborowski calls the TD and says: > > - Some time ago there was a debate on BLML on claims. > We agreed unanimously that if a player makes a claim, the > claim is contested, and the players play the hand out, then > the play following the claim is voided, non-existent, it > doesn't matter. It shouldn't affect the TDs ruling. So it > means you have to rule that 3NT was made. > That is indeed the Law as I see it. If the Guggenheims had allowed a faulty claim to make nevertheless, I would also rule the claim in their favour. So why not poor Mr Ciborowski ? After all, it was not he who wanted to break the laws ? > Yes, Ciborowski is a damn BL. Yes, you give him sixty > seven PPs. Why ? > Yes, you are going to hang him on the nearest tree > in a couple of days. Why ? > _But still you have to make a ruling_. Remember: > the Law should treat everyone (and "everyone" includes BLs) equally. > So what is your ruling going to be? I can't wait... > > PS. Perhaps the consensus that the play after the contested > claim should be irrelevant for the ruling wasn't unanimous. > I just have that impression. > If it wasn't then I would mainly ask those who supported > this point of view to rule on this one. > 9 tricks to Mr Ciborowski. I Brugge we once had a revoke after a claim - no penalty ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 21:21:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA23265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 21:21:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA23258 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 21:21:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-5-78.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.5.78]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA06347 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:20:55 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38E1D597.D3FE30FE@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 12:06:15 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl References: <20000327181756.28018.qmail@hotmail.com> <017001bf984c$d15665e0$415408c3@dodona> <4.3.1.2.20000328114050.00a9cbb0@mail.earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Brian Baresch wrote: > > > OK, I'll bite. One player makes an incomplete claim, having overlooked the > safety play (or not been aware of its existence). Another player makes an > incomplete claim because he's tired, and he assumes that the oppos will > know he knows about the safety play. How can this director tell them apart? > By looking at all the evidence, and ruling against claimer if there remains any doubt. But some of you seem to be saying that one should rule against claimer, even if no doubt remains that he would have seen the safety play had he looked a second time at his hand. That is manifestly wrong. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 21:21:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA23272 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 21:21:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA23264 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 21:21:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-5-78.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.5.78]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA06361 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:20:59 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38E1D87D.83EC2860@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 12:18:37 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B59A@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3.0.1.32.20000328175206.012b8430@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: > > At 03:20 PM 3/28/2000 +0100, Grattan wrote: > > The David Burn proposition is so uncomplicated > >for both Director and player that I think it is wholly an > >improvement. Once it is understood and experienced > >for a time players will know exactly where they stand > >- and the quality of claims could only get better. > > Indeed, I would expect a rapid trend toward zero defective claims, but only > because anybody with half a wit would realize the stupidity of attempting > to claim at all under those conditions. > > Mike Dennis I agree. If we change the law in the way DB wants, we would see : - first, nothing - then, a trickle of bridge lawyers who have learnt that they can gain by contesting claims that previously would have posed no problem - then, a steadier flow of such cases - then, contesting by players who have previously been contested against, and harsh animosity all around - later, a move towards "better" claiming, and a lessening of the problem - later still, bridge lawyers still wanting to extract penalties through long discussions "did he really state that or didn't he" - over some perfectly obvious play - finally, no claims whatsoever - even later, people calling their opponents for slow play because they are deciding what to discard, when actually the hand of declarer is high but he refuses to claim because he has been ruled against all too often I predict mayhem all around. Compound this problem with this evolution going at different speeds in different countries. At the end David Burn will have succeeded in ruining the games for millions while attempting to solve a problem that only exists in blml, not even at the table. Meanwhile, probably, David himself will be playing for England against Top World teams and claim the way he always has. No David, not one of your better suggestions. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 21:21:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA23287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 21:21:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA23269 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 21:21:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-5-78.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.5.78]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA06368 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:21:01 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38E1E18B.7FA6088@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 12:57:15 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl References: <200003281753.AA28473@gateway.tandem.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello Wally, did you know your posts come through as if written in 1970 ? FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM wrote: > > With serious quantities of egg already on my face, let me try this > hand again: > > xx > AKQ432 > xxx > Kx > > AKQx > 8765 > AKxx > A > > LHO leads the JH, declarer plays the Ace from dummy, RHO shows > out. *Now* with hearts blocked and no chance to win an early round in > hand and then simply overtake, I think that granting a statement-less > claim would not be reasonable. If this declarer wants to ditch his > last heart on the King of Clubs, he should make some noise about it. > > My poor proof-reading on the first couple of postings of this merely > verified that the line I was thinking of worked -- and ignored such > 'advanced' lines as winning one round of hearts in hand. Sorry about > the silly posts. > Yes Wally, By continuously making your claim harder and harder, I do believe you may now have crossed into territory where the claim is no longer valid without some statement concerning throwing a heart on the clubs. I would rule that in this new case, it would be irrational not to come to hand and unblock the club ace, then go to the table. I would rule it possible, although careless, to play the club ace next and not yet notice the heart blockage (an throw a diamond or spade). I would now allow player to start on hearts and notice the blockage, before even playing a single one. If he can still recover, he gets it, but you have cleverly enough constructed the hands for him not to be able to do that. OK, now we again have to decide what happens. I rule he will reluctantly play his three top hearts, and win another heart and AKQAK in hand, conceding the two remaining losers (one gone on the club king). No need for Draconian Burn-like laws. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 21:48:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA23380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 21:48:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA23375 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 21:48:18 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id MAA23171 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 12:47:39 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 12:47 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: David B.'s proposal on claims To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000328083849.006eccf4@pop.cais.com> Eric wrote: > Declarer is playing 6S holding AKQxxx/AKxx/AKQ/- opposite > xxx/QJxx/xxx/xxx. > LHO leads a club, and declarer spreads his hand, saying "I have the > rest." > LHO calls the TD and informs him that he holds J109x of trumps. To be honest I'd be amazed that this would happen. I firmly believe that without the TD being called the players would agree on making six, score up and move on. OK maybe they technically shouldn't but no harm no foul. I would like to see the laws permit this arrangement providing emphasis is placed on calling the TD if anyone has even the slightest doubt in their own mind. BTW, as someone who tries to claim as soon as I think my opponents will understand I can state fairly categorically that I would very seldom claim under the DB proposition. However I would not be uncomfortable with guidance along the lines of: "In positions where careful unblocking/entry management, safety plays or the like are required for the claim it will be deemed careless (rather than irrational) not to make such plays unless the claimer indicates that he is aware of the possible difficulties when making his statement." Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 29 23:51:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA23711 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 23:51:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA23706 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 23:51:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2iveh3u.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.68.126]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA13932 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 08:51:30 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000329084636.01281ce8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 08:46:36 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: BL calling the Director In-Reply-To: <38E1C025.6403039E@omicron.comarch.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:34 AM 3/29/2000 +0200, you wrote: > > Suppose you are a TD and you are called to this >little thing: > >Axx xxx >AKx Qxx >AJxx KQxx >xxx Axx > > West, Konrad Ciborowski, a vicious BL, is in 3NT >after a spade lead. At trick one he claims: > > - I have nine tricks from the top. > > Would you give this claim to him under the current >Laws? "Oh, come on, how can you waste our time with such >childish questions!". Of course I would allow the claim, and would expect the ruling to be unanimous. If the Guggenheim's seemed unsettled, I would request BLC to state a more specific line of play. > But North-South, Mr. and Mrs. Guggenheim who can't >count object. They don't know very much about the Laws >and simply say "Play it out". A BL Ciborowski looks at >them, grumbles something unpleasant about the opponents' >mental abilities and finally, being in a fairly good mood, >he decides that he won't teach Laws these two. Probably >it is going to take a lot less time to play the hand out. >He starts cashing his tricks but, to his horror, he drops >the queen of hearts under the ace at trick two! > He twists and turns to save something from the wreck >but no mercy: he goes one down and the Guggenheims triumphantly >score +50. > Yes, Ciborowski is a damn BL. Yes, you give him sixty >seven PPs. Yes, you are going to hang him on the nearest tree >in a couple of days. _But still you have to make a ruling_. Remember: >the Law should treat everyone (and "everyone" includes BLs) equally. >So what is your ruling going to be? I can't wait... As a matter of law, this never happened. PLAY CEASES. Case closed. Now such a fine BL as Ciborowski ought to know better than to continue play after a contested claim, and might well have earned PP #68, but the claim stands. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 30 00:03:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA23782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 00:03:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA23776 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 00:02:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA15460 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 09:01:46 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000329090252.006f2844@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 09:02:52 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: David B.'s proposal on claims In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:47 PM 3/29/00 +0100, twm wrote: >Eric wrote: >> Declarer is playing 6S holding AKQxxx/AKxx/AKQ/- opposite >> xxx/QJxx/xxx/xxx. >> LHO leads a club, and declarer spreads his hand, saying "I have the >> rest." >> LHO calls the TD and informs him that he holds J109x of trumps. > >To be honest I'd be amazed that this would happen. I firmly believe that >without the TD being called the players would agree on making six, score >up and move on. OK maybe they technically shouldn't but no harm no foul. That's what would happen in the vast majority of cases. Because the vast majority of bridge players are reasonable people. But there are still a fair number of a--holes out there. Imagine this board being played dozens of times in a large duplicate. The hand gets claimed as described at four tables. At three of them, the players will (IMO quite reasonably) agree to 12 tricks, as Tim suggests, and declarer will score +1430. But the fourth declarer, who had the misfortune to claim against some bridge lawyer who would just as soon fashion victory out of the law book as at the table, will score -900. I do not relish the prospect of explaining to that fourth declarer why he shouldn't feel aggrieved. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 30 01:36:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA24119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 01:36:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA24114 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 01:36:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivegmo.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.216]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA29441 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 10:35:49 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000329103037.012abb08@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 10:30:37 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: David B.'s proposal on claims In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000329090252.006f2844@pop.cais.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:02 AM 3/29/2000 -0500, Eric wrote: >At 12:47 PM 3/29/00 +0100, twm wrote: > >>Eric wrote: >>> Declarer is playing 6S holding AKQxxx/AKxx/AKQ/- opposite >>> xxx/QJxx/xxx/xxx. >>> LHO leads a club, and declarer spreads his hand, saying "I have the >>> rest." >>> LHO calls the TD and informs him that he holds J109x of trumps. >> >>To be honest I'd be amazed that this would happen. I firmly believe that >>without the TD being called the players would agree on making six, score >>up and move on. OK maybe they technically shouldn't but no harm no foul. > >That's what would happen in the vast majority of cases. Because the vast >majority of bridge players are reasonable people. But there are still a >fair number of a--holes out there. I'm not sure that's a fair characterization. If the Laws (under the Burn proposal) entitle me to a certain number of tricks subsequent to declarer's infraction, then why shouldn't I claim them? When the opponents revoke or lead out of turn, many (most?) players will exercise their legal options in the way which seems most advantageous to them, and this seems to fall in the same category. I agree that this feels extremely distasteful, but that seems more a failing of an ill-considered and overly harsh penalty for a minor procedural infraction than of the players who might choose to exploit an advantage granted them under the Laws. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 30 01:44:12 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA24158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 01:44:12 +1000 (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 BAA24153 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 01:44:03 +1000 (EST) From: david.burn@bt.com Received: from ctnss9nt01.nor.bt.com by marvin (local) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 15:18:53 +0100 Received: by ctnss9nt01.nor.bt.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.88) id ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:25:56 +0100 Message-ID: To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:25:55 +0100 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: [HdW] I agree. I suppose I can be proud of one thing, at any rate. For Herman to begin a post on claims with those words is surely a first. [HdW] If we change the law in the way DB wants, we would see : - first, nothing I agree. So far, as the man said when he fell off the top of the Empire State Building and went past the 90th floor window, so good. [HdW] - then, a trickle of bridge lawyers who have learnt that they can gain by contesting claims that previously would have posed no problem There will not be any more "claims that previously would have posed no problem", since there will not be any more claims of the kind that happen at the moment. More specifically, there will not be any more of the claims that currently *do* pose problems. Brian Callaghan, my regular partner, has been claiming in accordance with my proposal all his life, because he believes (foolish man!) that this is the safest thing to do under the present Laws. In his own words: "It's absurd to claim without saying precisely what you're going to do, because under the Laws at the moment, you never know how many tricks some idiots are going to decide you end up with." I have been claiming in this fashion since it became clear to me that my proposal was receiving serious consideration. We have yet to be fined for slow play. Nobody has told us that we're being pedantic, or slowing the game down. One opponent, whom I would certainly describe as a "lesser player", has even said to me: "I wish everyone did that - mostly, they just put their hand on the table and look around to see if anyone's going to object. You feel such a fool if you can't see it, and I'm sure I've given away lots of tricks I shouldn't have done when people have claimed. Is it actually in the rules that you have to say what you're going to do?" If we educate the lawyers before we educate the players (or the lawyers educate themselves), then what you fear may possibly come to pass for a short while and in a limited number of circumstances. But since I have determined to set in motion what is known as "Project Butcher" (see Shakespeare's Henry VI part 2, iv.2.78 for the scope of the project), this will soon cease to be a problem. [HdW] - then, a steadier flow of such cases If such cases arose, they could easily be quashed (or the proposal abandoned). But I fail to see why you think that people would learn to legislate more quickly than they would learn to claim properly. Is the first thing that you would do with a new rule to see how you could exploit it for your own benefit to the detriment of other players? If so, we should change absolutely nothing from now until Armageddon. (Would it be careless or irrational of Gabriel, I wonder, to forget to sound the last trump?) Why are you so fearful that a new proposal with obvious benefits (well, obvious to a lot of people on this list, at any rate) will be seized upon by bridge lawyers in the interests of ruining the game? - then, contesting by players who have previously been contested against, and harsh animosity all around Again, why? On what do you base this prediction? It is not difficult (pace Michael Dennis) for a player to put his cards down and, instead of saying nothing or saying something which is semantically null ("they're all mine"), to say instead: "I will play this card, then this card, then these cards, and then I will have all high trumps left in this hand." But you seem to think that no one should be expected to have to do this because "lesser players" are in some way incapable of it. Of course there would be a period of adjustment while people got used to the notion that they had to make more careful claims. But why do you suppose that it would turn brother against brother? [HdW] - later, a move towards "better" claiming, and a lessening of the problem Oh, well. At least it might stand a chance of working if people hadn't all killed each other first. But I do not share your belief in these Doomsday scenarios. I think that they are an insult to the intelligence and the good nature of bridge players. And I repeat: why don't we try it and see? I am sure that if I wanted to, I could turn the Young Chelsea Friday night duplicate into a pilot for the new claiming law (or any other new proposal) for a few weeks, or months, or whatever time period was necessary. I wonder if other clubs might not be prepared to act in a similar fashion? Why, instead of guessing what our fellow players will think of a new proposal, don't we set up some scheme whereby we could find out at first hand? [HdW] - later still, bridge lawyers still wanting to extract penalties through long discussions "did he really state that or didn't he" - over some perfectly obvious play There are today situations in which at the end of the hand no one can remember the auction, in particular whether the final contract was doubled or not. They are few, but they are incapable of satisfactory resolution. I do not deny that if a dispute arises over the actual words used in the claim statement, this will be equally incapable of resolution. But this is as much a problem with the current state of affairs as with potential future states. [HdW] - finally, no claims whatsoever This is even more ridiculous and incapable of substantiation than your previous suggestions, since it is not even a logical consequence of them. If the position got worse, then got better (as is likely), of course there would be claims. There just wouldn't be claims that gave Tournament Directors a chance to do something stupid, a valuable freedom which I am well aware that it is treason even to think of restricting. [HdW] - even later, people calling their opponents for slow play because they are deciding what to discard, when actually the hand of declarer is high but he refuses to claim because he has been ruled against all too often I predict mayhem all around. Good for you. Would you also like to give me (a) the date on which you estimate the world will end; (b) your tip for the Grand National. [HdW] Meanwhile, probably, David himself will be playing for England against Top World teams and claim the way he always has. It's possible, but miracles tend not to happen more than once. [HdW] No David, not one of your better suggestions. And not one of your better rebuttals. You, and others, have predicted all sorts of gloom and doom. But you have *absolutely no shred of evidence or experience on which to base your predictions*. I, on the other hand, have been doing what objective research I can (in a limited context, bien entendu). The reactions have so far been neutral or favourable. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 30 03:00:07 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA24474 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 03:00:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA24469 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 02:59:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from Panther1204.eiu.edu (Panther1204.eiu.edu [139.67.12.189]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA28290 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 11:04:13 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000329105810.007ade40@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 10:58:10 -0600 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:25 PM 3/29/2000 +0100, david.burn@bt.com wrote: >And not one of your better rebuttals. You, and others, have predicted all >sorts of gloom and doom. But you have *absolutely no shred of evidence or >experience on which to base your predictions*. I, on the other hand, have >been doing what objective research I can (in a limited context, bien >entendu). The reactions have so far been neutral or favourable. No, you haven't. You have been researching what happens when people make very good claim statements, and have discovered that the results are indeed very good. This does not surprise me--my own research has discovered exactly the same thing. I am the best claimer at my club, and it does indeed make things go smoother. [Although even I do not execute perfect DB claim statements.] But from "things go better if you make good claim statements" one cannot in any way deduce "things go better if you impose draconian penalties on those who claim without making good claim statements". I know a large number of otherwise decent players who are very hesitant to claim. I cannot tell you how many times I have gnashed my teeth figuring out which cards to discard, assuming that it made a difference, only to discover that they had all the rest of the tricks except one high trump in my partner's hand, but refused to claim and have done with it. You may say all you like that I have no evidence, but I can assure you with something that approaches absolute certainty that it will only take one single time of telling them "I know you claimed 10 tricks but you're actually getting only 2, because your claim statement did not explicitly say that you would trump the opponent's lead, and we have just imagined a possible sequence of discards and underuffing that will yield only those 2"--and they will never, ever, claim again. In my area we have no trouble with contested claims, because hardly anyone claims until 2 or 3 tricks after they already had all the tricks guaranteed. We do not lose time on contested claims, we do not have players crying out for clearer claim laws--this problem does not exist. The problem that exists in my area is the exact opposite--we need to encourage people to claim more often. You ask why we would think that people would want to use this law to destroy bridge. Indeed, the vast majority of players would not. And this is part of the problem. The majority of players will not call the director when you make an incomplete claim statement--they'll let it go. The majority of ACBL* club directors will not learn about the new claim law until 3 or 4 years after it has been approved, and many will not apply it even then. But there is a small group of people, the hardiests BL's, who will use this as a tremendously powerful new weapon. This will not convince players that we have a more equitable and consistent law--exactly the opposite. They will claim against me and say "I'll run the trumps and then the diamonds for 12 tricks" and I'll fold my cards and mark the score, and then they'll claim at BL's table with exactly the same words and he'll tell the director "He didn't say that he was running the trumps _from the top_, so I'll win the first trick with my 4 of trumps and run all my winning tricks, on which he'll discard all his winning diamonds. Down 8." The TD will either have to not apply the law [a distinct possibility, unfortunately], or apply it. Neither result will convince this player that we have acheived greater consistency and justice than under the old laws. I am an outstanding claimer. But, a couple of weeks ago, I miscounted trumps. It cost me a trick. I deserved that. If it had cost me 8 tricks, even I would think twice about claiming. Because even the best claim statement breaks down when there's a single forgotten trump or something, and the result could now be horrific. *= I cannot speak for people under other jurisdictions. I know that in the ACBL education of local club directors is virtually non-existent. This means that rulings will be made one way at clubs, and totally differently at higher level tournaments. I don't like this result, either. This emphasizes, again, Kojak's point. If we had better education of directors at all levels, that would produce more good for the game than changing the claim laws or anything else. >David Burn >London, England -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 30 03:13:28 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA24549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 03:13:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from babelbrox.axion.bt.co.uk (babelbrox.axion.bt.co.uk [132.146.16.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA24544 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 03:13:20 +1000 (EST) From: david.burn@bt.com Received: from cryndent01.mww.bt.com by babelbrox.axion.bt.co.uk (local) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 18:11:24 +0100 Received: by cryndent01.mww.bt.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.88) id ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 17:53:05 +0100 Message-ID: To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: David B.'s proposal on claims Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 17:52:59 +0100 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 Eric wrote: >twm wrote [EL] Declarer is playing 6S holding AKQxxx/AKxx/AKQ/- opposite xxx/QJxx/xxx/xxx. LHO leads a club, and declarer spreads his hand, saying "I have the rest." LHO calls the TD and informs him that he holds J109x of trumps. [TWM] To be honest I'd be amazed that this would happen. I firmly believe that without the TD being called the players would agree on making six, score up and move on. OK maybe they technically shouldn't but no harm no foul. [EL] That's what would happen in the vast majority of cases. Because the vast majority of bridge players are reasonable people. But there are still a fair number of a--holes out there. Imagine this board being played dozens of times in a large duplicate. The hand gets claimed as described at four tables. At three of them, the players will (IMO quite reasonably) agree to 12 tricks, as Tim suggests, and declarer will score +1430. But the fourth declarer, who had the misfortune to claim against some bridge lawyer who would just as soon fashion victory out of the law book as at the table, will score -900. I do not relish the prospect of explaining to that fourth declarer why he shouldn't feel aggrieved. Let us modify this hand slightly. Declarer is playing 6NT holding AKQxxx AKx AKQ A opposite xxx QJxxx xxxx x. He wins the opening club lead and spreads his hand, saying "I have the rest". LHO informs declarer that he has J109x of spades. What would the players do then? Well, some of Eric's "reasonable bridge players" will agree among themselves that declarer would of course notice when someone showed out on the first spade. Then, he would cash his hearts (unblocking, to be sure!) and diamonds before playing SKQ and conceding the rest. Making six. Would this happen in "the vast majority of cases?" Suppose hearts were 5-0 - would declarer be supposed by ERP (Eric's Reasonable Players) to notice this as well and go down only one? Or would he have to play the fifth heart before any diamonds or any more spades? Or would he, for all around are reasonable men, be supposed to guard against a 5-0 heart split as well by cashing his diamonds before the third round of hearts, in case diamonds were 3-3? Should anybody in the world have to answer these questions? Does anybody in the world know the answers to them? But I suspect that a handful even of ERP might call the Director. Over comes Herman de Wael, and rules making six. Though it was careless of declarer not to notice that spades might be 4-0 before he claimed, he'd notice once he started playing, so give the man his contract. Unless, of course, hearts are 5-0 as well, in which case... but according to Herman, declarer has just become Mr Careful, so he'd notice someone show out on HA and he'd cash three diamonds before any more hearts, making six if diamonds were 3-3. After less that three but more than two hours, Herman has worked out this ruling and the game, having not been slowed down at all as it would have been under my proposal, can proceed... Or, over comes Wally Farley and rules down eight, for he thinks declarer should play the fourth spade before any of the red winners and, as it happens, LHO has found a diabolical club lead from two small (maybe RHO bid them), so the defence gets a spade and eight clubs. Now, I don't know with which of these rulings Eric would agree. But I do know that there are people on this list who would agree with one of them, and people who would agree with the other. I also know that because of this, the generality of rulings on claims is no less and probably more arbitrary that it would be under my proposal. Would you like to explain, Eric, to your declarer how he'd gone down eight? Or would you like to explain to his opponents how, despite not being able to count to thirteen, he'd actually made his contract? More important, would you like to explain to anyone at all how yesterday when this happened he was down eight, but Wally couldn't be in today so Herman's in charge, as a result of which today he's made the contract? Moreover, as I have said before and will plaintively say once more, it is not fair to consider the effect of my proposal on claims made under today's Laws. If my proposal had been in force since the dawn of time, no one would ever spread his hand and claim the rest (unless he had 13 trumps or the equivalent). If my proposal gains favour and is brought into force, no one will ever again spread his hand and make no statement. My proposal cannot be judged by applying it to a claim that no one would make if it were in force. Yet this is what its opponents have consistently done. Just for drill, let's see what would happen if I were declarer. Since I think I've got the rest, I've miscounted spades, so I might announce that I will play "ace-king-queen of spades, three more spades discarding..." but at that point I am down eight. Suppose I win CA, cash SA and see someone show out. Now, thinking that the hearts are good, I might say: "I will play the queen of spades, the ace-king of hearts, the queen-jack of hearts discarding a spade, the fifth heart discarding..." but at that point I am down only four. If, on the other hand, I said; "I will play the queen of spades, the ace-king-queen of diamonds, the ace-king of hearts, the queen-jack of hearts discarding a spade, then the fifth heart discarding..." I am now down just one. But the point is this: everybody *knows* how many tricks I'm going to be credited with, everybody knows why, and everybody knows that if they come back to the club tomorrow and the same thing happens, even that nasty Wally can't take away from me the tricks I always knew I'd win. Suppose I win CA, cash SA and see someone show out, then cash HA and see someone show out. Now, as anyone would, I will play the hand out - I'll cash the diamonds. If they're not 3-3, I'll see if someone might be squeezed (or have been squeezed) by something. I won't claim. But nor would anybody. If I wanted to make a complete claim statement that ensured I would be given as many tricks as I was entitled to, it would go like this: "I will play the ace of spades. If no one shows out, I will play the king-queen of spades, three more spades, the ace-king-queen of diamonds, and the ace-king-queen of hearts. If someone shows out on the ace of spades, I will play the king-queen of spades, the ace-king-queen of diamonds, and the king-queen-jack of hearts. Dummy will then have two small red cards; if all followed to the ace of hearts, I will play dummy's heart, otherwise I will play dummy's diamond." [Note that if hearts are not 5-0 and diamonds are 3-3, I will get 13 tricks automatically, without having to say anything about the thirteenth diamond.] Now, that statement takes quite a while. But I would pause after the sentence beginning "If no one shows out..", and I would be given the contract unless spades were 4-0. Total elapsed time: twenty seconds for me to formulate my statement, and eight seconds to make the first part of it. If spades are 4-0, the second part of my statement will take a further ten seconds. Understanding it might take the defenders a bit longer, but if hearts aren't 5-0 they'll give me 12 tricks quickly enough. The 3-3 diamonds bit will take them a while. But bear in mind that this was a trick one claim (extremely rare), and it wont' take very long unless spades are 4-0 and hearts 5-0 (less than a 1% chance). I am getting a bit weary of this. I don't wish I'd never thought of the idea in the first place, for I still think it's not a bad idea, and I'm pleased that at least it's engendered some constructive debate. It's certainly stimulated the people who don't agree with it to come up with some very good thinking about the present Law, on the presumed basis that they'd better fix it otherwise my lunatic proposal will be adopted by default. It's produced the first Law of bridge to be written in algebra that I've ever seen, it's produced a pretty good piece of guidance as to what "careless " means that ought to be adopted forthwith (whatever we do with my proposal), and it's persuaded Herman to agree with someone else about claims. Even though all they could agree on was that I am an idiot, I am pleased to have done my bit for detente. But I think we might try to move on from the "Susie Kumquat won't like it" stuff. I have understood the point. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 30 04:12:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 04:12:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA24839 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 04:12:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from Panther1204.eiu.edu (Panther1204.eiu.edu [139.67.12.189]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA23703 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 12:17:03 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000329121101.007ae500@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 12:11:01 -0600 To: BLML From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: BL calling the Director In-Reply-To: <38E1C025.6403039E@omicron.comarch.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:34 AM 3/29/2000 +0200, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > Suppose you are a TD and you are called to this >little thing: > >Axx xxx >AKx Qxx >AJxx KQxx >xxx Axx > > West, Konrad Ciborowski, a vicious BL, is in 3NT >after a spade lead. At trick one he claims: > > - I have nine tricks from the top. > > Would you give this claim to him under the current >Laws? "Oh, come on, how can you waste our time with such >childish questions!". Of course, yes. > But North-South, Mr. and Mrs. Guggenheim who can't >count object. They don't know very much about the Laws >and simply say "Play it out". A BL Ciborowski looks at >them, grumbles something unpleasant about the opponents' >mental abilities and finally, being in a fairly good mood, >he decides that he won't teach Laws these two. Probably >it is going to take a lot less time to play the hand out. >He starts cashing his tricks but, to his horror, he drops >the queen of hearts under the ace at trick two! > He twists and turns to save something from the wreck >but no mercy: he goes one down and the Guggenheims triumphantly >score +50. > Now a BL Ciborowski calls the TD and says: > > - Some time ago there was a debate on BLML on claims. >We agreed unanimously that if a player makes a claim, the >claim is contested, and the players play the hand out, then >the play following the claim is voided, non-existent, it >doesn't matter. It shouldn't affect the TDs ruling. So it >means you have to rule that 3NT was made. > > Yes, Ciborowski is a damn BL. Yes, you give him sixty And you can tell him that if you see him. :) >seven PPs. Yes, you are going to hang him on the nearest tree Probably no PP at all. >in a couple of days. _But still you have to make a ruling_. Remember: >the Law should treat everyone (and "everyone" includes BLs) equally. >So what is your ruling going to be? I can't wait... 9 tricks. If I play a hand out in violation of the laws, and drop a trick, I'll just live with it. But, legally, play ceases, and so I award the BL version of you 9 tricks. BL's wouldn't be BL's if it didn't give them an extra trick now and again. So be it. > Konrad Ciborowski > Krakow, Poland -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 30 04:15:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 04:15:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from tisch.mail.mindspring.net (tisch.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.157]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA24888 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 04:15:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-84.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.84]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA03631; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:14:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001401bf99ab$2f8a18a0$5484d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:18:26 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I can't imagine even contesting such an obvious claim. It is irrational for anyone with more skill than the rankest novice not to unblock and take 13 top tricks. Why insult the opponents' intelligence with any convoluted explanation? This is an obvious claim at trick one and should never even be disputed. -- Craig Senior Wally Farley wrote: xxx > AKQ432 > xx > Kx > > AKQx > JT98 > AKxx > A > >If I claim 7NT after the opening spade lead on this hand *with no >statement*, I expect to be given 11 tricks *at most*. And I'd expect >it no matter who the director was, and no matter who the opponents >were. And if it were done against me, I'd feel hard-done-by *no >matter who the declarer was* if the claim was upheld by a director or >a committee. > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 30 04:25:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 04:25:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA24918 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 04:25:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from Panther1204.eiu.edu (Panther1204.eiu.edu [139.67.12.189]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA27125 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 12:29:43 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000329122341.007b3100@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 12:23:41 -0600 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: David B.'s proposal on claims In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:52 PM 3/29/2000 +0100, david.burn@bt.com wrote: >Moreover, as I have said before and will plaintively say once more, it is >not fair to consider the effect of my proposal on claims made under today's >Laws. If my proposal had been in force since the dawn of time, no one would >ever spread his hand and claim the rest (unless he had 13 trumps or the >equivalent). If my proposal gains favour and is brought into force, no one >will ever again spread his hand and make no statement. My proposal cannot be >judged by applying it to a claim that no one would make if it were in force. >Yet this is what its opponents have consistently done. Again, you are making a false inference. It is true that if this had been the law from the dawn of time, everywhere, the results would be as you say. But it simply does not follow from this that if we make it the rule _now_, this will have the same effect. Getting us to the spot _now_ where no-one ever claims without a complete and articulate statement would take a great educational effort, reaching down to the lowest level rural clubs and out beyond that into the non-duplicate world. If we're going to do something like that, I have other causes that I would prefer to spend the educational time and effort on. >David Burn >London, England -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 30 05:15:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA25037 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 05:01:01 +1000 (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 FAA25015 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 05:00:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12aNhY-000JZm-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 20:00:26 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 15:17:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl References: <20000327181756.28018.qmail@hotmail.com> <017001bf984c$d15665e0$415408c3@dodona> <38E0A43C.39BA5DE5@village.uunet.be> <4.3.1.2.20000328114050.00a9cbb0@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20000328114050.00a9cbb0@mail.earthlink.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Brian Baresch wrote: >>You and I play in different circles. In your surroundings, >>the bad claim statement is proof that the safety play was >>overlooked. >>In my surroundings, the lacking claim statement is proof >>that the player was too tired to make a full statement. >OK, I'll bite. One player makes an incomplete claim, having overlooked the >safety play (or not been aware of its existence). Another player makes an >incomplete claim because he's tired, and he assumes that the oppos will >know he knows about the safety play. How can this director tell them apart? He rules in favour of the one who snores? :) -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo will be 7 on April 5th. Quango got *twenty* emails on his birthday: please send one to Nanki Poo His picture: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat3 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 30 05:51:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA25115 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 05:51:23 +1000 (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 FAA25110 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 05:51:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from eduhi.at (petrus2.konvent [192.168.1.116]) by michael.gym (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA01513 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 21:50:19 +0200 Message-ID: <38E25E89.CB3EBC26@eduhi.at> Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 21:50:33 +0200 From: Petrus Schuster OSB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [de] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: David B.'s proposal on claims References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk david.burn@bt.com schrieb: > I am getting a bit weary of this. I don't wish I'd never thought of the idea > in the first place, for I still think it's not a bad idea, and I'm pleased > that at least it's engendered some constructive debate. It's certainly > stimulated the people who don't agree with it to come up with some very good > thinking about the present Law, on the presumed basis that they'd better fix > it otherwise my lunatic proposal will be adopted by default. It's produced > the first Law of bridge to be written in algebra that I've ever seen, it's > produced a pretty good piece of guidance as to what "careless " means that > ought to be adopted forthwith (whatever we do with my proposal), and it's > persuaded Herman to agree with someone else about claims. Even though all > they could agree on was that I am an idiot, I am pleased to have done my bit > for detente. But I think we might try to move on from the "Susie Kumquat > won't like it" stuff. I have understood the point. I still like the proposal, because 1. In my part of the bridge world, it is extemely rare for a weaker player to claim; but then, it's not so terribly necessary as most players manage to finish two boards in 17 minutes (or 3 in 23). So the "Susie K. will leave bridge" argument doesn't scare me. 2. It is a law easily understood; we have had a lengthy discussion on the relative merits of judgemental vs. fixed-penalty laws, and the agreed advantage of the latter was that it is easier to "sell" to the players. DB's proposal has that same advantage: you know what you will get, and that everyone will get it every day everywhere. 3. Few claims involve more than - say - five or six tricks, so that few statements will be as elaborate as some of the offerings in this thread. 4. It IS possible to educate players. I seem to remember that prior to 1975, after a claim opponents could call the plays (but unfortunately I have mislaid my copy of the 1963 Laws); and there have been the changes to the revoke laws - and yet there has been no mass exodus from the game on account of these. But considering the learned opposition, I am afraid it will just remain a wise proposal... Petrus From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 30 05:52:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA25132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 05:52:47 +1000 (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 FAA25127 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 05:52:37 +1000 (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 OAA16423 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:52:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA138459529; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:52:09 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:52:01 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: Ruling: break in tempo ?? Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="BDY.RTF" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="BDY.RTF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id FAA25128 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all, Your opinion would be welcome on a kind of ruling most TDs enjoy..... North (non vul) J 10 x x K 10 x Q x x Dealer Q x x West Est (vul) x x x Q x x x x x Q x x x A K J 10 x x K x x x x J x South A K x x A J x x x x A 10 x W N E S __________________________ P P 1D P* 1H P 2D P* P X P P 3C P P X (all P) W called TD at the end of the auction saying S broke tempo on his first P and slightly less on his second P. S said he bid in tempo, taking just the normal time to think as he always do. TD lets the hand play: -3 vul = 800. S called back the TD and asked for a score adjustment, allowing N first X was based on S's hesitation. N-S then both say there was no break in tempo at all, but E-W continued to pretend there was a clear hesitation on the first P. N said he will always bid in this sequence, knowing S has some values. W added that he bid 3C because the "hesitation" can suggest a good hand with Ds.... No agreement at all on "break in tempo" fact (Law 85...). Most tables bid 2S in N-S making 3.... Four good players (LM or near..). Please your decision. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 30 06:12:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA25036 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 05:01:02 +1000 (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 FAA25021 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 05:00:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12aNhY-000JZn-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 20:00:25 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 15:32:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl References: <20000328183321.79161.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000328183321.79161.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: > Regardless, I've been fishing to get other people on the list to define >in clear terms (rather than by example, which has been the trend) the >meanings of irrational and careless. I understand their hesitation -- it's >a daunting task. But the alternatives are to do away with those words in >the laws or live with the ambiguity. Yes, but living with the ambiguity may not be too bad. We train TDs, and we often do so by example, so that TDs will get a feel for what is considered careless or irrational by their SO, and rule that way. Careless is a play that a player of that standard is reasonably likely to find if his mind is on other things at the moment of playing the card. Irrational is a play that a player of that standard is extremely unlikely to find because it is so clearly wrong. My view is that the definition of irrational does depend on the level of player: that is my interpretation fo the footnote. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo will be 7 on April 5th. Quango got *twenty* emails on his birthday: please send one to Nanki Poo His picture: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat3 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 30 06:16:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA25248 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 06:16:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA25243 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 06:16:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uniduesseldorf.de (actually Isis280.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de) by neptun with SMTP (local, PP); Wed, 29 Mar 2000 22:15:42 +0200 From: Richard Bley To: BLML Subject: RE: David B.'s proposal on claims Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 22:16:30 +0200 Message-ID: <000001bf99bb$ab81ae40$1a0a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.de> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <38E25E89.CB3EBC26@eduhi.at> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > david.burn@bt.com schrieb: > > > I am getting a bit weary of this. I don't wish I'd never > thought of the idea > > in the first place, for I still think it's not a bad > idea, and I'm pleased > > that at least it's engendered some constructive debate. > It's certainly > > stimulated the people who don't agree with it to come up > with some very good > > thinking about the present Law, on the presumed basis > that they'd better fix > > it otherwise my lunatic proposal will be adopted by > default. It's produced > > the first Law of bridge to be written in algebra that > I've ever seen, it's > > produced a pretty good piece of guidance as to what > "careless " means that > > ought to be adopted forthwith (whatever we do with my > proposal), and it's > > persuaded Herman to agree with someone else about claims. > Even though all > > they could agree on was that I am an idiot, I am pleased > to have done my bit > > for detente. But I think we might try to move on from the > "Susie Kumquat > > won't like it" stuff. I have understood the point. > > I still like the proposal, because > 1. In my part of the bridge world, it is extemely rare for a weaker > player to claim; but then, it's not so terribly necessary as most > players manage to finish two boards in 17 minutes (or 3 in > 23). So the > "Susie K. will leave bridge" argument doesn't scare me. > 2. It is a law easily understood; we have had a lengthy > discussion on > the relative merits of judgemental vs. fixed-penalty laws, and the > agreed advantage of the latter was that it is easier to > "sell" to the > players. DB's proposal has that same advantage: you know > what you will > get, and that everyone will get it every day everywhere. Oh . Why not give everyone -13 tricks when the claim is not really clear stated? You wil never get lwas where all TD will make the same ruling in the same case. Many judgment situations are such, that this will never happen. "reasonable" is usually the best you can get. > 3. Few claims involve more than - say - five or six tricks, > so that few > statements will be as elaborate as some of the offerings in > this thread. Nobody will claim anyway if this will be the next ruling. > 4. It IS possible to educate players. I seem to remember > that prior to > 1975, after a claim opponents could call the plays (but > unfortunately I > have mislaid my copy of the 1963 Laws); and there have been > the changes > to the revoke laws - and yet there has been no mass exodus > from the game > on account of these. > I cannot believe that this will be the future of bridge. I´m really horrified. > But considering the learned opposition, I am afraid it will > just remain > a wise proposal... It depends... Cheers Richard From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 30 06:17:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA25022 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 05:00:50 +1000 (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 FAA25014 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 05:00:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12aNhY-000JZo-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 20:00:25 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 15:42:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: BL calling the Director References: <38E1C025.6403039E@omicron.comarch.pl> In-Reply-To: <38E1C025.6403039E@omicron.comarch.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > Suppose you are a TD and you are called to this >little thing: > >Axx xxx >AKx Qxx >AJxx KQxx >xxx Axx > > West, Konrad Ciborowski, a vicious BL, is in 3NT >after a spade lead. At trick one he claims: > > - I have nine tricks from the top. > > Would you give this claim to him under the current >Laws? "Oh, come on, how can you waste our time with such >childish questions!". > > But North-South, Mr. and Mrs. Guggenheim who can't >count object. They don't know very much about the Laws >and simply say "Play it out". A BL Ciborowski looks at >them, grumbles something unpleasant about the opponents' >mental abilities and finally, being in a fairly good mood, >he decides that he won't teach Laws these two. Probably >it is going to take a lot less time to play the hand out. >He starts cashing his tricks but, to his horror, he drops >the queen of hearts under the ace at trick two! > He twists and turns to save something from the wreck >but no mercy: he goes one down and the Guggenheims triumphantly >score +50. > Now a BL Ciborowski calls the TD and says: > > - Some time ago there was a debate on BLML on claims. >We agreed unanimously that if a player makes a claim, the >claim is contested, and the players play the hand out, then >the play following the claim is voided, non-existent, it >doesn't matter. It shouldn't affect the TDs ruling. So it >means you have to rule that 3NT was made. > > Yes, Ciborowski is a damn BL. Yes, you give him sixty >seven PPs. Yes, you are going to hang him on the nearest tree >in a couple of days. _But still you have to make a ruling_. Remember: >the Law should treat everyone (and "everyone" includes BLs) equally. >So what is your ruling going to be? I can't wait... > >PS. Perhaps the consensus that the play after the contested >claim should be irrelevant for the ruling wasn't unanimous. >I just have that impression. >If it wasn't then I would mainly ask those who supported >this point of view to rule on this one. Nine tricks. But I would fine the BL. After all, he has made it *very* difficult for me to explain this one to his oppos. In fact, I might fine him the difference in score between eight and nine tricks. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo will be 7 on April 5th. Quango got *twenty* emails on his birthday: please send one to Nanki Poo His picture: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat3 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 30 07:22:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA25435 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 07:22:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA25430 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 07:22:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id QAA06611 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 16:22:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA00313 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 16:22:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 16:22:31 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200003292122.QAA00313@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Ron Johnson > Why worry about safety plays? Always claim with the statement > "Taking the safety play." > > If it matters, you're covered. If it's met with a strange look, > smile and say you're kidding. That the safety play is taking > your top tricks. Sure, that's fine if the issue on the hand is a simple safety play. On most hands that have a problem, it will be something else entirely, and down you go if you don't spot it. Much better to analyze the hand and spot the problem! From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 30 07:22:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA25035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 05:01:00 +1000 (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 FAA25020 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 05:00:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12aNhe-000JZl-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 20:00:33 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 15:15:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote: >On Mon, 27 Mar 2000, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Kojak wrote: >> >In a message dated 3/27/00 10:30:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, >> >Ron.Johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca writes: >> > >> >> The longer this thread continues, the more I'm impressed by >> >> the pragmatism of David Burn's proposal. >> >> -- >> >> RNJ >> > >> >Ditto. Kojak >> >> So how do you all think this will suggestion will affect players and >> Directors at the lower levels? > >As one who does most of his playing and all of his directing at lower >levels -- I think this is a truly wonderful idea. Players like rules they >can understand, and they are accustomed to the idea that if you break a >rule you pay the price for doing so. Not in the clubs I have played in. I am quite surprised at this statement. How many players in ACBL tournaments have a CC correctly filled in and on the table? What do they say if you point it out? I think one of the biggest problems with bridge is the opposite: players do *not* expect to follow rules, nor do they expect punishment if they don't. > Learning that claims should be >accompanied by statements is no harder than learning any of the other >rules of the game. > >There really is no excuse for a completely statementless claim. And if I >face my hand and just say "cashing winners" or suchlike - most of these >"down 10" examples are l\no longer ridiculous at all, but become clear >down 1s, as I (most of us?) want them to be presently, instead of getting >into nonsense of the "but if I had played it out I surely would have made >it becasue I'd see the bad break and deal with it etc etc" arguments to >make contracts after inadequate claims. > >> *I* think that if this and other similar suggestions made here are >> correct at the top level perhaps the time has come for different Law >> books at different levels. > >Did I miss something about the suggestion? Where was it aimed at top level >players? An easily understandable and followable rule for claims and their >adjudication, even if it is harsh, _is what the masses want and need._ I >see the *existing* claim law working at top levels and causing trouble at >lower levels. Well, I don't see it causing much trouble at all. But if we take up David's suggestion, with the inherent punishment [as people will see it] then we shall get rid of all claims at lower levels, and I think that undesirable. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo will be 7 on April 5th. Quango got *twenty* emails on his birthday: please send one to Nanki Poo His picture: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat3 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 30 07:24:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA25455 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 07:24:09 +1000 (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 HAA25450 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 07:24:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA23214; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:24:14 -0800 Message-Id: <200003292124.NAA23214@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Ruling: break in tempo ?? In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:52:01 PST." Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:24:15 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laval Du Breuil wrote: > Hi all, > > Your opinion would be welcome on a kind of ruling most TDs > enjoy..... > > North (non vul) > J 10 x x > K 10 x > Q x x > Dealer Q x x > West Est (vul) > x x x Q x > x x x x Q x x > x A K J 10 x x > K x x x x J x > South > A K x x > A J x > x x x > A 10 x > > W N E S > __________________________ > P P 1D P* > 1H P 2D P* > P X P P > 3C P P X (all P) > > W called TD at the end of the auction saying S broke tempo > on his first P and slightly less on his second P. S said he > bid in tempo, taking just the normal time to think as he > always do. > > TD lets the hand play: -3 vul = 800. S called back the TD and > asked for a score adjustment, allowing N first X was based on > S's hesitation. N-S then both say there was no break in tempo at > all, but E-W continued to pretend there was a clear hesitation > on the first P. N said he will always bid in this sequence, knowing S > has some values. N is just wrong. Pass is clearly a logical alternative with this square hand, where E-W could be on a misfit. In fact, I don't think I would ever do anything other than pass. TD has to determine whether there was actually a break in tempo (which I can't help with, since I wasn't there), but if there was, the contract is rolled back to 2D undoubled, either down 1 or making 2 (depending on what you think would happen after East gets to dummy with a club, takes the diamond finesse, and plays all his diamonds). -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 30 07:52:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA25527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 07:52:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f36.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA25522 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 07:52:52 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 57724 invoked by uid 0); 29 Mar 2000 21:52:13 -0000 Message-ID: <20000329215213.57723.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.21 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:52:13 PST X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.21] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:52:13 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > Regardless, I've been fishing to get other people on the list to >define > >in clear terms (rather than by example, which has been the trend) the > >meanings of irrational and careless. I understand their hesitation -- >it's > >a daunting task. But the alternatives are to do away with those words in > >the laws or live with the ambiguity. > > Yes, but living with the ambiguity may not be too bad. We train TDs, >and we often do so by example, so that TDs will get a feel for what is >considered careless or irrational by their SO, and rule that way. With mixed success to begin with. It's worse when there's little or no agreement on some of the examples given. > Careless is a play that a player of that standard is reasonably likely >to find if his mind is on other things at the moment of playing the >card. > > Irrational is a play that a player of that standard is extremely >unlikely to find because it is so clearly wrong. > > My view is that the definition of irrational does depend on the level >of player: that is my interpretation fo the footnote. And that footnote is an evil thing. It defines normal plays as all plays that aren't irrational. For additional clarity, it fails to define irrational. Brilliant! This is a necessary intellectual exercise. -Todd ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 30 08:17:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA25580 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 08:17:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt7-he.global.net.uk (cobalt7-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.167]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA25574 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 08:17:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from pe2s07a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.87.227] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt7-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12aIpU-0000sm-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:48:17 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Ruling: break in tempo ?? Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 23:17:05 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf99cc$83fae7e0$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: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 9:07 PM Subject: Ruling: break in tempo ?? >Hi all, > >Your opinion would be welcome on a kind of ruling most TDs >enjoy..... > > North (non vul) > J 10 x x > K 10 x > Q x x >Dealer Q x x >West Est (vul) >x x x Q x >x x x x Q x x >x A K J 10 x x >K x x x x J x > South > A K x x > A J x > x x x > A 10 x > >W N E S >__________________________ >P P 1D P* >1H P 2D P* >P X P P >3C P P X (all P) > >W called TD at the end of the auction saying S broke tempo >on his first P and slightly less on his second P. S said he >bid in tempo, taking just the normal time to think as he >always do. > >TD lets the hand play: -3 vul = 800. S called back the TD and >asked for a score adjustment, allowing N first X was based on >S's hesitation. N-S then both say there was no break in tempo at >all, but E-W continued to pretend there was a clear hesitation >on the first P. N said he will always bid in this sequence, knowing S >has some values. W added that he bid 3C because the "hesitation" >can suggest a good hand with Ds.... > >No agreement at all on "break in tempo" fact (Law 85...). A silly man who does not think at least, about bidding on this hand. (Perhaps he didn't hesitate, he was just counting all his points and that takes time you know:-).) >Most tables bid 2S in N-S making 3.... Irrelevant. Most Souths probably bid 1NT or doubled. >Four good players (LM or near..). It's always the good ones that cause the problems. > I find from the evidence that there was probably some hesitation. The re-opening double with the N hand is certainly a call that many would make. The constraints of Law 16 however insist that if Pass is a call that a percentage if Ns peers would make, then the double is not allowed. I remover the double, and allow the score of 2D-1. 100N/S -100E/W. If the system card has any protective style announcements, I would rethink. e.g We do not defend 1M or 2m. Pass out seat must balance with 8 or more points. Would it make any difference if it said "may balance", should balance" "must balance"? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 30 08:22:50 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA25604 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 08:22:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from falla.videotron.net (falla.videotron.net [205.151.222.106]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA25599 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 08:22:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([207.253.211.58]) by falla.videotron.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.12.14.10.29.p8) with SMTP id <0FS700LUFEUUJV@falla.videotron.net> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 17:08:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 17:05:06 -0500 From: Christian Chantigny Subject: Re: Ruling: break in tempo ?? To: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <000b01bf99ca$d9578ba0$3ad3fdcf@default> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 X-Priority: 3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I will always be grateful to my friend Jade Barrett, a bridge pro from Vancouver, Washington, who told me years ago, when I was starting out as a TD, how he, when called upon to act as a committe member, handled disputed huddle situations. Simple, he said, just look at the hand! So, starting from an all things being equal premise, i.e. break in tempo/no break in tempo, is there something in South's hand that could have caused him to huddle? In my opinion, yes, and I think it is easy to see what. South who was all prepared to open 1NT heard from East the one bid that could give him a problem. With a less than suitable hand for a take-out double and a 1NT overcall snatched away, South must have been pretty annoyed to decide what he would do with his 16 HCPs. So, using these facts, I would have to rule that UI has been disclosed, although certainly unintentionally. Now, under Law 16, would the UI have caused North to take an action over another that could have been suggested by the UI? North's hand is not that perfect for a reopening double with wasted values in diamonds, and they could land into serious trouble if South doesn't have Spades. So, I would have to rule that it is possible that a majority of players of North's level would pass holding this hand. In a tournament, the final ruling would most likely be 2D -1= 100 N/S, with the burden of convincing an appeal committee lying with the OS. Touché away! Christian Chantigny -----Message d'origine----- De : Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA À : bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date : 29 mars, 2000 15:19 Objet : Ruling: break in tempo ?? >Hi all, > >Your opinion would be welcome on a kind of ruling most TDs >enjoy..... > > North (non vul) > J 10 x x > K 10 x > Q x x >Dealer Q x x >West Est (vul) >x x x Q x >x x x x Q x x >x A K J 10 x x >K x x x x J x > South > A K x x > A J x > x x x > A 10 x > >W N E S >__________________________ >P P 1D P* >1H P 2D P* >P X P P >3C P P X (all P) > >W called TD at the end of the auction saying S broke tempo >on his first P and slightly less on his second P. S said he >bid in tempo, taking just the normal time to think as he >always do. > >TD lets the hand play: -3 vul = 800. S called back the TD and >asked for a score adjustment, allowing N first X was based on >S's hesitation. N-S then both say there was no break in tempo at >all, but E-W continued to pretend there was a clear hesitation >on the first P. N said he will always bid in this sequence, knowing S >has some values. W added that he bid 3C because the "hesitation" >can suggest a good hand with Ds.... > >No agreement at all on "break in tempo" fact (Law 85...). >Most tables bid 2S in N-S making 3.... >Four good players (LM or near..). > >Please your decision. > >Laval Du Breuil >Quebec City > > > > > > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 30 09:03:53 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA25699 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 09:03:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp2.a2000.nl (duck.a2000.nl [62.108.1.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA25694 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 09:03:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=ww) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 12aRUu-0007nX-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 01:03:36 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000330005758.00efc09c@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 00:57:58 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Ruling: break in tempo ?? In-Reply-To: <000b01bf99ca$d9578ba0$3ad3fdcf@default> 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 JAA25695 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:05 PM 3/29/00 -0500, you wrote: >I will always be grateful to my friend Jade Barrett, a bridge pro from >Vancouver, Washington, who told me years ago, when I was starting out as a >TD, how he, when called upon to act as a committe member, handled disputed >huddle situations. Simple, he said, just look at the hand! > >So, starting from an all things being equal premise, i.e. break in tempo/no >break in tempo, is there something in South's hand that could have caused >him to huddle? In my opinion, yes, and I think it is easy to see what. >South who was all prepared to open 1NT heard from East the one bid that >could give him a problem. With a less than suitable hand for a take-out >double and a 1NT overcall snatched away, South must have been pretty annoyed >to decide what he would do with his 16 HCPs. > agreed, it looks indeed that south hesitated. >So, using these facts, I would have to rule that UI has been disclosed, >although certainly unintentionally. Now, under Law 16, would the UI have >caused North to take an action over another that could have been suggested >by the UI? North's hand is not that perfect for a reopening double with >wasted values in diamonds, and they could land into serious trouble if South >doesn't have Spades. So, I would have to rule that it is possible that a >majority of players of North's level would pass holding this hand. > >In a tournament, the final ruling would most likely be 2D -1= 100 N/S, with >the burden of convincing an appeal committee lying with the OS. but what about the 3C bid. I think that is a rather strange bid. Is this still an acceptable bid? I have problems with it. If The pause was established in time (after it in fact happened what ashould be done was...did you see that your partner paused for a while....No? TD...) then EW had handled this affair in the proper way. Now it looks a bit like a double shot from west. So perhaps i am inclined to give a split score. +50 NS (all non vuln.) -800 EW. regards, anton > >Touché away! > >Christian Chantigny > >-----Message d'origine----- >De : Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA >À : bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date : 29 mars, 2000 15:19 >Objet : Ruling: break in tempo ?? > > >>Hi all, >> >>Your opinion would be welcome on a kind of ruling most TDs >>enjoy..... >> >> North (non vul) >> J 10 x x >> K 10 x >> Q x x >>Dealer Q x x >>West Est (vul) >>x x x Q x >>x x x x Q x x >>x A K J 10 x x >>K x x x x J x >> South >> A K x x >> A J x >> x x x >> A 10 x >> >>W N E S >>__________________________ >>P P 1D P* >>1H P 2D P* >>P X P P >>3C P P X (all P) >> >>W called TD at the end of the auction saying S broke tempo >>on his first P and slightly less on his second P. S said he >>bid in tempo, taking just the normal time to think as he >>always do. >> >>TD lets the hand play: -3 vul = 800. S called back the TD and >>asked for a score adjustment, allowing N first X was based on >>S's hesitation. N-S then both say there was no break in tempo at >>all, but E-W continued to pretend there was a clear hesitation >>on the first P. N said he will always bid in this sequence, knowing S >>has some values. W added that he bid 3C because the "hesitation" >>can suggest a good hand with Ds.... >> >>No agreement at all on "break in tempo" fact (Law 85...). >>Most tables bid 2S in N-S making 3.... >>Four good players (LM or near..). >> >>Please your decision. >> >>Laval Du Breuil >>Quebec City >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 30 16:53:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA26555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:53:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp.callnet0800.com (smtp.callnet0800.com [212.67.128.145]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA26550 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:52:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from da134d236.dialup.callnetuk.com [212.67.134.236] by smtp.callnet0800.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id A998112E00A0; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 07:52:08 +0100 From: Pam Hadfield To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 07:50:28 +0100 Reply-To: pam@hadpaddock.com Message-ID: References: <200003292122.QAA00313@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200003292122.QAA00313@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 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 QAA26551 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 16:22:31 -0500 (EST), Steve Wilner wrote: >> From: Ron Johnson >> Why worry about safety plays? Always claim with the statement >> "Taking the safety play." >> >> If it matters, you're covered. If it's met with a strange look, >> smile and say you're kidding. That the safety play is taking >> your top tricks. > >Sure, that's fine if the issue on the hand is a simple safety play. On >most hands that have a problem, it will be something else entirely, and >down you go if you don't spot it. > >Much better to analyze the hand and spot the problem! No, it isn't. The way things are according to Herman (and David Stevenson if I understand him correctly), it is in every players best interest to claim without bothering to look for problems as long as you think you can convince the director that you were capable of spotting them. The better player you are (or at least, the better player the director THINKS you are), the earlier you should claim. Much safer - you can no longer make silly mistakes, revoke or miss a simple unblock through inattention, carelessness or tiredness. No longer do you have to plan how to play the hand after a nasty break in a suit, if the contract still makes with the bad split the director will allow your claim and if it doesn't you have the extra change that the ops won't notice. Sadly the directors at the YC know I can be careless, irrational, tired or even a little tipsy while playing bridge so I doubt it would work for me. I will stick to claiming only when I can actually vocalise "drawing trumps and cashing winners" or "taking the proven finesse" or after I have checked whether the trumps split badly or well. Most of the readership of BLML, however, don't have to worry about it. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 30 17:28:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA26642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 17:28:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA26637 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 17:28:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uniduesseldorf.de (actually Isis87.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de) by neptun with SMTP (local, PP); Thu, 30 Mar 2000 09:27:00 +0200 From: Richard Bley To: BLML Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE:_DB=B4s_proposal_on_claims_=28new_line_of_thinking=29?= Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 09:27:48 +0200 Message-ID: <000201bf9a19$72f238c0$578a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.de> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <000001bf99bb$ab81ae40$1a0a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.de> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry for the mess. Seems that I was a bit tired when writing this... > You wil never get lwas where all TD will make the same ruling in the > same case. Many judgment situations are such, that this will never > happen. "reasonable" is usually the best you can get. What I meant was: You will never get laws... (...) reasonable but different results are usually the best you can get. Anyone here seemed to agree that players claim because of the saving time. I don´t believe that this is true. I think (at least expert-)players claim because they wanted to tell the opps: Hey guys the hand is virtually over. Let´s play the next one. This hand is not interesting anymore and we all would make the same number of tricks from this point. No real expert would claim against really lousy opps. At first they wont understand it and second maybe they will make a mistake anyway. There is no reason to believe that the hand is now over. So claiming is what we call in german "Vertrauensbeweis" (translation is maybe sth like: proof of confidence in opps ability). In all IMHO this is a real essential part of the game. If we make rules like DB, this will certainly vanish. This reminds me of a situation in a European Championship: During middle of play the declarer played up to his KJx and started thinking about it (playing the J or the K; rest of the hand was clear anyway). The opp behind him now showed his cards saying: It doesn´t matter I have Q and Ace in this suit (say trumps to make it easy). Now the TD was called. He decided (unavoidable?) that all defenders cards were penalty cards and declarer can choose the cards now. He played the K from hand and insisted in playing the queen from opps hand. I don´t like this. And I don´t like the idea that this sort of situation can apply more often (what will surely happen, if DB will get his law). Cheers Richard From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 30 17:49:19 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA26706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 17:49:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from ruthenium.btinternet.com ([194.73.73.138]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA26701 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 17:48:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.137.89] (helo=davidburn) by ruthenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12aZjO-0000gg-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 08:51:07 +0100 Message-ID: <001501bf9a1c$8cca6760$598901d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000329105810.007ade40@eiu.edu> Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 08:49:58 +0100 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant wrote a great deal of sense: > No, you haven't. You have been researching what happens when > people make very good claim statements, and have discovered that the > results are indeed very good. This does not surprise me--my own > research has discovered exactly the same thing. I am the best claimer > at my club, and it does indeed make things go smoother. [Although even > I do not execute perfect DB claim statements.] I don't actually think they'd have to be perfect. What I do think is that the claims which lead to difficulties are those made without any statement at att (contrary to existing Law, never mind my proposed law). I have been arguing as if the wording I proposed were to be adopted wholesale; I actually believe that there are ways in which it could be modified so that the desired objective - comprehensive statements - could be achieved without the consequence of "draconian penalties". This would require (as the present Law requires) guidance as to acceptable terminology when making statements. But there is not a great deal to be gained at this stage by considering modifications that would make life easier; the principle is what is being debated at the moment, and in that context it is simpler to stick with the basic proposal. > But from "things go better if you make good claim statements" > one cannot in any way deduce "things go better if you impose draconian > penalties on those who claim without making good claim statements". I don't think that's a deduction as such. Rather, the imposition of draconian penalties seems to me to be the easiest (and perhaps the only effective) way to ensure that people will make good claim statements. > I know a large number of otherwise decent players who are very > hesitant to claim. I'm not surprised. Some of them are probably aware that if they make a false claim, the ruling they will get is likely to be an arbitrary one. Since they don't want that, they won't claim. It is certainly possible that, under my proposal, they won't claim either because they're afraid that the ruling they get will be a fierce one - but at least they may understand the reason why they're not being awarded nearly as many tricks as they would have had if they'd played on. But I suspect that the reason some of them don't claim is because nobody else does. There is a tendency for practices to become accepted whether they're good practices or not - "we don't claim around here because Old Scrogie doesn't like it." > I cannot tell you how many times I have gnashed my > teeth figuring out which cards to discard, assuming that it made a > difference, only to discover that they had all the rest of the tricks > except one high trump in my partner's hand, but refused to claim and > have done with it. You may say all you like that I have no evidence, > but I can assure you with something that approaches absolute certainty > that it will only take one single time of telling them "I know you claimed > 10 tricks but you're actually getting only 2, because your claim statement > did not explicitly say that you would trump the opponent's lead, and > we have just imagined a possible sequence of discards and underuffing that > will yield only those 2"--and they will never, ever, claim again. This is certainly possible. I have been arguing as if my proposal were suddenly to become Law overnight, with no advance warning to directors or players. As you rightly say, this would (probably) have undesirable effects. But I see no reason why this should actually happen. Part of the difficulty with the introduction of new Law is that there seems to me no sensible "change management" process; the new code is adopted on date X without anyone's knowing what it means until date X plus months, or years (and sometimes not even then). If we are indeed to direct our efforts to more worthy causes (and I agree that we should - I am conscious that there ar far more serious issues to be addressed than the management of claims), the devising of a more sensible transition process between old and new Laws seems to me a worthwhile place to start. However, I think that you are creating objections that don't exist even at the moment. Ignoring the people who (contrary to present Law) just spread their hands at trick one and look around triumphantly, no one would omit either to ruff the first trick and then claim, or announce that they will "ruff, draw trumps and run the diamonds". Would it really require a great educational effort to get such people to say instead: "I will ruff with the two, draw trumps in three rounds, then..."? (To give some idea of the modifications I spoke of above that might make life easier, one could imagine a universally acceptable definition of the term "running a suit" that would enable "perfect DB claim statements" to be expressed in shorthand.) > In my > area we have no trouble with contested claims, because hardly anyone claims > until 2 or 3 tricks after they already had all the tricks guaranteed. Why not? My proposal would, of course, not address this problem - but it is obviously not a consequence of my proposal but of the existing difficulties people have with claims. > We > do not lose time on contested claims, we do not have players crying out > for clearer claim laws--this problem does not exist. Of course it doesn't. If people claim as you say, then it seems highly unlikely that any claim will ever be contested. > The problem that > exists in my area is the exact opposite--we need to encourage people to > claim more often. If they won't do this under the existing Laws, they won't do it under what I propose either. But this is not in itself an objection to the introduction of a new law. > You ask why we would think that people would want to use this law > to destroy bridge. Indeed, the vast majority of players would not. And this > is part of the problem. The majority of players will not call the director > when you make an incomplete claim statement--they'll let it go. This seems to me dangerous. I mentioned the case of an opponent who told me that she was sure she'd lost a lot of tricks over the years by not contesting incomplete claims. People are genuinely afraid to do this, and I suspect that a number of inequitable results have been achieved over the years as a consequence. Some of those results have probably been obtained by the kind of unscrupulous, intimidatory tactics that are part and parcel of the current claims procedure. Whether this is more or less desirable than the kind of bridge-lawyer tactics that might be adopted in the initial stages of a new law's introduction, I do not know. > The majority > of ACBL* club directors will not learn about the new claim law until 3 or 4 > years after it has been approved, and many will not apply it even then. I would think that the introduction of something as drastic as this new law would cause even the ACBL directors to wake up. Certainly, it would not be an easy change to ignore! > But > there is a small group of people, the hardiests BL's, who will use this as a > tremendously powerful new weapon. This will not convince players that we > have a more equitable and consistent law--exactly the opposite. They will > claim against me and say "I'll run the trumps and then the diamonds for > 12 tricks" and I'll fold my cards and mark the score, and then they'll > claim at BL's table with exactly the same words and he'll tell the director > "He didn't say that he was running the trumps _from the top_, so I'll > win the first trick with my 4 of trumps and run all my winning tricks, > on which he'll discard all his winning diamonds. Down 8." I think, as I have said, that modifications could be introduced that would allow people to use the terms they use nowadays when claiming without fear that their claims would be contested as a result. All I am really trying to do is to find some way in which claims are made accompanied in all cases by statements that allow unambiguous adjudication if the claim is contested. This would also happen if, under the present Laws, a universal interpretation could be found for the terminology used in those Laws. But, as I have said, very many people have tried for a long time to do this, and have failed, which is perhaps an indication that a new approach may have a greater chance of success. However, stirred into action by the thought that a lot of contract might start going ten down if my proposal is actually adopted, contributors to this list have made great progress towards bolstering the present Laws. If their efforts are successful, we will have achieved something worthwhile, and my straw man can be taken out and burned without ceremony. > I am an outstanding claimer. But, a couple of weeks ago, I > miscounted trumps. It cost me a trick. I deserved that. If it had > cost me 8 tricks, even I would think twice about claiming. Because even > the best claim statement breaks down when there's a single forgotten > trump or something, and the result could now be horrific. Well, perhaps. There is often in practice not much difference between down one in a cold contract and down eight (matchpoint scoring and the IMP scale being what they are). However, I don't deny that some of the consequences of my proposal as it stands could indeed be "horrific". On the other hand, it's just possible that they might instead encourage people to count better. I should say that I am in truth a little surprised that my original proposal has been treated with such a degree of seriousness. I have been arguing its merits, and dismissing the genuine concerns people have expressed about its effects on the lower reaches of the game, more vigorously than is perhaps warranted - but even the Devil is entitled to an advocate (at least, under our legal system). I have some difficulty, both in this forum and on the Laws Committee of which I am a member in my country, with the argument - invariably adduced with no evidence and scant justification - that "the lower classes won't put up with it" (whatever "it" is). I think that we lawyers tend to underestimate both the intelligence and the adaptability of the average player, and I often regret that we are unwilling to implement a process of consultation with the said average player. The best way to assess the effects of this or any other proposed change would be to try it, in a controlled environment, and see whether or not it works. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 30 20:04:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA27028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 20:04:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from uucp.nl.uu.net (uucp.nl.uu.net [193.79.237.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA27022 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 20:04:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 12:03:57 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id LAA08372 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 11:46:28 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: Ruling: break in tempo ?? Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 11:46:24 +0200 Message-ID: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C005004546901031088@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101AFFC@xion.spase.nl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen wrote: >>In a tournament, the final ruling would most likely be 2D -1= 100 N/S, with >>the burden of convincing an appeal committee lying with the OS. > >but what about the 3C bid. I think that is a rather strange bid. Is this >still an acceptable bid? I have problems with it. If The pause was >established in time (after it in fact happened what ashould be done >was...did you see that your partner paused for a while....No? TD...) then >EW had handled this affair in the proper way. Now it looks a bit like a >double shot from west. So perhaps i am inclined to give a split score. +50 >NS (all non vuln.) -800 EW. Agreed. West argues that South with his hesitation can have a good hand with diamonds. But, although this information may be used by West, it is also at his own risk (L73D1). Unless South hesitated with the purpose of misleading the opponents, but of that I see no evidence. South hesitated, no doubt, but because he had a problem, not to mislead the opponents. In short, North has a reasonable alternative (pass), and the alternative he chose (double) could be influenced by South's hesitation, hence cannot be allowed. West, however, admitted that he based his 3C on South's hesitation. That is at his own risk, therefore he should keep his score. That gives NS +100 for EW 2D-1 (EW are vulnerable, Anton!) and EW -800 for 3C!-3. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 30 21:35:00 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA27256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 21:35:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA27250 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 21:34:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-17-39.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.17.39]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA19914 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 13:34:38 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38E332D8.67F2E433@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 12:56:24 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk david.burn@bt.com wrote: > > Herman wrote: > > [HdW] > I agree. > > I suppose I can be proud of one thing, at any rate. For Herman to begin a > post on claims with those words is surely a first. > well, it only means that for once, I am in a position to agree with someone - I am not alone in my corner this time. I'll snip the rest of the post. It concerned my predicitions and they are no longer important. David predicts otherwise, and such is his right. But don't forget that we play in different countries, David. Allow me to predict what will happen in Belgium. It has no bearing on what will happen at the YC. OK, let's attack David's proposal from another angle. There are about 1,000,000 bridge affiliated players in the world. These play 50 tournaments of 30 board per year, that's 375,000,000 hands. Let's assume that 10% of the world's bridge population can be considered "serious" (I count myself among those). All these players claim every hand (only a minority of hands ever gets played until trick 13). That makes 30,000,000 claims per year. I get called about a contested claim around once every 5 sessions, but perhaps this number is a little low. Let's say one call per 2 sessions of 30 boards at 25 tables, that's one TD call per 1,500 boards, also one TD call per 1,500 claims, since I'm only considering "serious" tournaments, I have never ever been called about a claim in a non-serious tournament. That makes 20,000 TD calls on claims per year. I will even make the figure a bit higher, and say that 10 times as many claims are contested, but the TD is not called. The players work it out for themselves, either concluding that it takes an irrational play to score one less trick, or concluding that the claim was indeed wrong and conceding an extra trick. That makes for 200,000 contested claims per year. Of these, the TD will probably be able to rule 90% easily, by using the Lawbook, and with an easy decision as to whether or not there is some extra trick that might be lost in normal play. That leaves 2,000 close calls. In these, the TD has to decide whether or not some play is irrational or merely careless. Some of these will also go to an AC. A minority of these cases are interesting enough to appear on blml (about 5 per annum). And once every 5 years we receive a "strange claim" from Nizhny Novgorod. Now let's assume that the WBFLC decides to adopt DB's suggestion. Those 30,000,000 claims will still happen. About half of these are of the type "this hand is high", and there is no need for a statement. But 14,800,000 claims will now have to have an altered claim statement. How high do you think the number will be of people who forget to tell something absolutely obvious, and will receive some less tricks than are perfectly normal. DB may find this a price he's willing to pay, I doubt if the majority of players, most of whom can't remember whether or not to alert some straightforward piece of bidding, will agree to this. And all that in order to make a mere 2,000 TD calls easier ? When these 2,000 calls are currently being handled without much of a fuss. Really David, if you would like to diminish the TD's work, it would be far more productive to introduce guidelines about LA's or "demonstrably suggested actions" than this ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 30 23:07:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA27592 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 23:07:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe7.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.111]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA27587 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 23:07:28 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 70324 invoked by uid 65534); 30 Mar 2000 13:06:50 -0000 Message-ID: <20000330130650.70323.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.12.150] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <38E332D8.67F2E433@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 07:07:26 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 4:56 AM Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl > david.burn@bt.com wrote: > > > > Herman wrote: > > > > [HdW] > > I agree. > Really David, if you would like to diminish the TD's work, > it would be far more productive to introduce guidelines > about LA's or "demonstrably suggested actions" than this ! > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html I think that David argues that there is a certain amount of work in the playing to 13 tricks. That playing out 13 tricks resolves the hand with 100% certainty as to who won which tricks. That players who do the work to take tricks have earned the tricks. That it is important to impress upon players that the role of the claim is one of certainty of outcome. That it also shifts the amount of time and brain strain available for future hands is desirable. That a claim should provide 100% certainty of its outcome, and if it does not, then fewer tricks than claimed may in all likelihood have been earned. Ok, I will be blunt. Get players to earn their tricks whether all 13 are played or some of them are claimed. There is a certain satisfaction in putting in a hard day's work and knowing it was good work, and that is an attraction to the game. The issue is about the earning of tricks; other issues being secondary if they are that. cheers Roger Pewick Houston, Texas From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 30 23:16:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA27496 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 22:43:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo-d05.mx.aol.com (imo-d05.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA27491 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 22:43:21 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id 4.9d.39a3b51 (3947); Thu, 30 Mar 2000 07:42:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <9d.39a3b51.2614a5b7@aol.com> Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 07:42:31 EST Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:=20DB=B4s=20proposal=20on=20claims=20(new=20li?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ne=20of=20thinking)?= To: bley@uni-duesseldorf.de, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 101 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id WAA27492 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 3/30/00 2:31:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, bley@uni-duesseldorf.de writes: > This reminds me of a situation in a European Championship: > > During middle of play the declarer played up to his KJx and started > thinking about it (playing the J or the K; rest of the hand was clear > anyway). The opp behind him now showed his cards saying: It doesn´t > matter I have Q and Ace in this suit (say trumps to make it easy). > Now the TD was called. He decided (unavoidable?) that all defenders > cards were penalty cards and declarer can choose the cards now. He > played the K from hand and insisted in playing the queen from opps > hand. This is ridiculous. Did the TD ever hear of a Claim? Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 00:16:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA27620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 23:14:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA27615 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 23:13:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uniduesseldorf.de (actually Isis190.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de) by neptun with SMTP (local, PP); Thu, 30 Mar 2000 15:11:30 +0200 From: Richard Bley To: Schoderb , bridge-laws Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE:_DB=B4s_proposal_on_claims_=28new_line_of_thinking=29?= Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 15:12:14 +0200 Message-ID: <000101bf9a49$91118d80$be8a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.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: <9d.39a3b51.2614a5b7@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > In a message dated 3/30/00 2:31:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, > bley@uni-duesseldorf.de writes: > > > This reminds me of a situation in a European Championship: > > > > During middle of play the declarer played up to his KJx > and started > > thinking about it (playing the J or the K; rest of the > hand was clear > > anyway). The opp behind him now showed his cards saying: > It doesn´t > > matter I have Q and Ace in this suit (say trumps to make > it easy). > > Now the TD was called. He decided (unavoidable?) that > all defenders > > cards were penalty cards and declarer can choose the > cards now. He > > played the K from hand and insisted in playing the queen > from opps > > hand. > This is ridiculous. Did the TD ever hear of a Claim? Kojak Well this was a 3rd hand story, but: Is this situation not possible? eg: Player shows only two from his say 8 cards. The "offending" player still has a trick somewhere (at least when he doesnt play this suit). Or would you try to subsum all this situations under a claim? with all follow ups: play ceases, etc. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 01:09:53 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA28003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 01:09:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from ultra1.its.it (ultra1.its.it [151.92.2.43]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA27998 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 01:09:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from ex1unintd03.its.it ([151.92.249.147]) by ultra1.its.it (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA22202 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 17:08:55 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by EX1UNINTD03 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 17:03:38 +0200 Message-ID: From: NARDULLO Ennio To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: R: Ruling: break in tempo ?? Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 17:03:28 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) 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 BAA27999 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is the first time that i write at this newsgroup. I am agree with SINOT and WITZEN Split score! Ing. ENNIO NARDULLO FIAT AUTO IT Information Tecnology di Settore G.C.S.M.P. via Caraglio 84 Tel. ufficio 0116853198 Tel cellulare 0335214898 mailto:ennio.nardullo@consulenti.fiat.com -----Messaggio originale----- Da: Anton Witzen [mailto:a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl] Inviato: giovedì 30 marzo 2000 0.58 A: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Oggetto: Re: Ruling: break in tempo ?? At 05:05 PM 3/29/00 -0500, you wrote: >I will always be grateful to my friend Jade Barrett, a bridge pro from >Vancouver, Washington, who told me years ago, when I was starting out as a >TD, how he, when called upon to act as a committe member, handled disputed >huddle situations. Simple, he said, just look at the hand! > >So, starting from an all things being equal premise, i.e. break in tempo/no >break in tempo, is there something in South's hand that could have caused >him to huddle? In my opinion, yes, and I think it is easy to see what. >South who was all prepared to open 1NT heard from East the one bid that >could give him a problem. With a less than suitable hand for a take-out >double and a 1NT overcall snatched away, South must have been pretty annoyed >to decide what he would do with his 16 HCPs. > agreed, it looks indeed that south hesitated. >So, using these facts, I would have to rule that UI has been disclosed, >although certainly unintentionally. Now, under Law 16, would the UI have >caused North to take an action over another that could have been suggested >by the UI? North's hand is not that perfect for a reopening double with >wasted values in diamonds, and they could land into serious trouble if South >doesn't have Spades. So, I would have to rule that it is possible that a >majority of players of North's level would pass holding this hand. > >In a tournament, the final ruling would most likely be 2D -1= 100 N/S, with >the burden of convincing an appeal committee lying with the OS. but what about the 3C bid. I think that is a rather strange bid. Is this still an acceptable bid? I have problems with it. If The pause was established in time (after it in fact happened what ashould be done was...did you see that your partner paused for a while....No? TD...) then EW had handled this affair in the proper way. Now it looks a bit like a double shot from west. So perhaps i am inclined to give a split score. +50 NS (all non vuln.) -800 EW. regards, anton > >Touché away! > >Christian Chantigny > >-----Message d'origine----- >De : Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA >À : bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date : 29 mars, 2000 15:19 >Objet : Ruling: break in tempo ?? > > >>Hi all, >> >>Your opinion would be welcome on a kind of ruling most TDs >>enjoy..... >> >> North (non vul) >> J 10 x x >> K 10 x >> Q x x >>Dealer Q x x >>West Est (vul) >>x x x Q x >>x x x x Q x x >>x A K J 10 x x >>K x x x x J x >> South >> A K x x >> A J x >> x x x >> A 10 x >> >>W N E S >>__________________________ >>P P 1D P* >>1H P 2D P* >>P X P P >>3C P P X (all P) >> >>W called TD at the end of the auction saying S broke tempo >>on his first P and slightly less on his second P. S said he >>bid in tempo, taking just the normal time to think as he >>always do. >> >>TD lets the hand play: -3 vul = 800. S called back the TD and >>asked for a score adjustment, allowing N first X was based on >>S's hesitation. N-S then both say there was no break in tempo at >>all, but E-W continued to pretend there was a clear hesitation >>on the first P. N said he will always bid in this sequence, knowing S >>has some values. W added that he bid 3C because the "hesitation" >>can suggest a good hand with Ds.... >> >>No agreement at all on "break in tempo" fact (Law 85...). >>Most tables bid 2S in N-S making 3.... >>Four good players (LM or near..). >> >>Please your decision. >> >>Laval Du Breuil >>Quebec City >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 01:21:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA27760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 23:57:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [205.252.14.63]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA27755 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 23:57:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA16198 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 08:56:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000330085727.0068b450@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 08:57:27 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:25 PM 3/29/00 +0100, david.burn wrote: >Again, why? On what do you base this prediction? It is not difficult (pace >Michael Dennis) for a player to put his cards down and, instead of saying >nothing or saying something which is semantically null ("they're all mine"), >to say instead: "I will play this card, then this card, then these cards, >and then I will have all high trumps left in this hand." But you seem to >think that no one should be expected to have to do this because "lesser >players" are in some way incapable of it. Of course there would be a period >of adjustment while people got used to the notion that they had to make more >careful claims. But why do you suppose that it would turn brother against >brother? This is a good, careful and appropriate claim *under the current laws*, so it proves nothing that David has seen no objections *under the current laws* to his manner of claiming. But if the exact specification of play his proposal calls for were required by law, I doubt that even all of his carefully "correct" claims would hold up. Brother will turn against brother when the above claim is greeted by some BL with "Aha! You just think you have high trumps left because you have AKQJ102 and there's only one trump out, but the law says you must now play the 2 and lose a trick to my 3." 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 Mar 31 01:29:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA28064 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 01:29:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from ultra1.its.it (ultra1.its.it [151.92.2.43]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA28059 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 01:28:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from ex1unintd03.its.it ([151.92.249.147]) by ultra1.its.it (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA29268 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 17:28:23 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by EX1UNINTD03 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 17:23:08 +0200 Message-ID: From: NARDULLO Ennio To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: break in tempo Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 17:22:57 +0200 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 First time for me inside this newsgroup...... I am agree with WITZEN and SINOT! Split score must be accorded. Bye Ing. ENNIO NARDULLO FIAT AUTO IT Information Tecnology di Settore G.C.S.M.P. via Caraglio 84 Tel. ufficio 0116853198 Tel cellulare 0335214898 mailto:ennio.nardullo@consulenti.fiat.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 01:54:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA28111 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 01:54:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [205.252.14.63]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA28106 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 01:54:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA25555 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 10:52:45 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000330105332.006a72ac@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 10:53:32 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: David B.'s proposal on claims Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David has given us a number of examples where the application of the current claim law can lead to huge inconsistencies in rulings on claims made without accompanying statements. I am sympathetic to his concerns, and do believe that players who claim without making statements should be treated rather harshly. Recall that I was firmly on the side of those who would have ruled down 1 in the "bum claim" thread (AQ10xx opposite K9xx). My concern isn't with claimers who don't make statements. It's with claimers who make perfectly reasonable statements that fall somewhat short of being card-for-card exact and cover every possible contingency. Consider 7NT on AKQ/AQ10xx/AKQ/AK opposite xxx/K9xx/xxx/xxx. Declarer wins the opening lead and says "I have 13 tricks". IMO, that's a bad claim. If LHO has HJxxx, he goes down. No problem. In fact, I'd favor a guideline that says that, since the heart suit will not necessarily play for five tricks, declarer's failure to give any indication of how he would play the suit is presumed to mean that he thinks it will run from the top. That means he goes down if either opponent has HJxxx. Harsher than current practice, but not entirely unfair. I wouldn't favor, but could live with, something even harsher. Perhaps we might rule that since there are a variety of ways he might play hearts for five tricks, he should be deemed to take the decidedly inferior (but perhaps not totally irrational) first-round finesse, losing, and go down regardless of the heart position. But it he says "I will play the HA in case someone shows out, and take 13 tricks", he should get them. I couldn't live with being forced to rule in favor of the BL who would say "Wait a minute; he never said that he wouldn't play the HK under the A then lead small from hand, and that's a perfectly legal sequence of plays, so..." And it seems to me that that's precisely what David's proposed new law would require TDs/ACs to do. 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 Mar 31 01:58:30 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA28146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 01:58:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from loki.cee.hw.ac.uk (exim@loki.cee.hw.ac.uk [137.195.52.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA28140 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 01:58:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from idc by loki.cee.hw.ac.uk with local (Exim 3.12 #3) id 12ahKj-0006HW-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:58:10 +0100 From: Ian D Crorie Subject: RE: Ruling: break in tempo ?? To: In-Reply-To: Martin Sinot's message of Thu, 30 Mar 2000 11:46:24 +0200 Organisation: Dept of Computing & Electrical Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland X-Mailer: Exim/Ream v4.15a (The Choice of the Old Generation too) Message-Id: Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:58:10 +0100 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well, David Burn has been playing the part of Devil's Advocate by himself for long enough now, so I'll choose a different thread for the same role. We're talking about the West hand of: Vul v not xxx xxxx x Kxxxx after the sequence: p p 1D p* 1H p 2D p* p Dbl p p ? where * is some hesitation (in our opinion). [Anton Witzen] > > > >but what about the 3C bid. I think that is a rather strange bid. Is this > >still an acceptable bid? I have problems with it. If The pause was > >established in time (after it in fact happened what ashould be done > >was...did you see that your partner paused for a while....No? TD...) then > >EW had handled this affair in the proper way. Now it looks a bit like a > >double shot from west. So perhaps i am inclined to give a split score. +50 > >NS (all non vuln.) -800 EW. [Martin Sinot] > Agreed. West argues that South with his hesitation can have a good hand > with diamonds. But, although this information may be used by West, it is > also at his own risk (L73D1). Unless South hesitated with the purpose > of misleading the opponents, but of that I see no evidence. South hesitated, > no doubt, but because he had a problem, not to mislead the opponents. > > In short, North has a reasonable alternative (pass), and the alternative he > chose (double) could be influenced by South's hesitation, hence cannot be > allowed. > West, however, admitted that he based his 3C on South's hesitation. That > is at his own risk, therefore he should keep his score. > That gives NS +100 for EW 2D-1 (EW are vulnerable, Anton!) and EW -800 for > 3C!-3. Now the bid of 3C, as chosen at the table, is at first glance a mad one. But what about the form of scoring (not given in the initial problem)? What would you estimate your expected MP score to be in 2D doubled, at Match Points, on this auction? Very occasionally you will lose only 200 when a number of opponents are making a non-vul game, occasionally someone will be losing the same or more, but I'd still expect to score zero MP 90% of the time and only a point or two most of the other 10%. Remember that your 1H response wasn't exactly automatic and that other RHOs may well have bid, so this situation is unlikely to arise at other tables. You may disagree with the exact figures (if violently, then you can mentally change the hand to xxx xxxx - Kxxxxx if you like). So what might an imaginative MP player do with the hand? A bottom is only a bottom whether it's 200, 500 or 1700. There's a case for trying something and hoping the opposition bid instead of double (I *might* start with 2H for example). Now I'll grant you that that's unlikely but it doesn't have to work very often to beat our expected MP average in 2D double vulnerable. Let's say partner turns up with xx xx KJxxxx AQJ, North has a normal, cast-iron reopening double, and the opps bid their stiff 4S instead of doubling 3C. We get an average. What happens when our intrepid rescuer compares scores in the bar afterwards? By one of those strange twists of fate that occur regularly in hypothetical postings though rarely in real life, he finds someone who faced the same problem, with the same hesitations but who knew how BLML felt about a 3C bid on hands like this. That poor soul lost 1100 in 2D but he couldn't rescue because he knew after the hesitations that his best chance lay in sitting for 2D and hoping to win a UI ruling. Somehow *that* feels like bridge lawyering to me, not trying to maximise one's side's MP score by rescuing. --- "In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love; they had five hundred years of democracy and peace and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. -- Orson Welles to Joseph Cotton in The Third Man From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 02:09:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA28343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 02:09:41 +1000 (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 CAA28338 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 02:09:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA09775; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 08:09:45 -0800 Message-Id: <200003301609.IAA09775@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: DB' proposal on claims (new line of thinking) In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 30 Mar 2000 15:12:14 PST." <000101bf9a49$91118d80$be8a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.de> Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 08:09:46 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Bley wrote: > > In a message dated 3/30/00 2:31:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, > > bley@uni-duesseldorf.de writes: > > > > > This reminds me of a situation in a European Championship: > > > > > > During middle of play the declarer played up to his KJx > > and started > > > thinking about it (playing the J or the K; rest of the > > hand was clear > > > anyway). The opp behind him now showed his cards saying: > > It doesn´t > > > matter I have Q and Ace in this suit (say trumps to make > > it easy). > > > Now the TD was called. He decided (unavoidable?) that > > all defenders > > > cards were penalty cards and declarer can choose the > > cards now. He > > > played the K from hand and insisted in playing the queen > > from opps > > > hand. > > This is ridiculous. Did the TD ever hear of a Claim? Kojak > > Well this was a 3rd hand story, but: > Is this situation not possible? eg: > Player shows only two from his say 8 cards. The "offending" player > still has a trick somewhere (at least when he doesnt play this suit). > > Or would you try to subsum all this situations under a claim? with all > follow ups: > play ceases, etc. I agree. The TD has to determine whether a claim took place; but the way Richard told the story, it sounds like it didn't. Assuming that there was no claim, Law 49 makes it clear that the named cards are penalty cards, and Law 51A makes it clear that declarer may designate the card to be played. Sorry, I know what the defender was trying to do, but the Laws are clear. A number of times, when I've been in the same situation with KJ in dummy, my RHO has moved the AQ to the left of his hand, then bent those two cards around so that only I could see them. Since partner couldn't see the face of the cards, there were no penalty cards. (The act of doing this could create UI for the other defender, but this has happened to me only when the hand was basically over anyway.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 02:16:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA27968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 01:03:14 +1000 (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 BAA27962 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 01:02:51 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id 4.64.15d1b58 (9677); Thu, 30 Mar 2000 10:01:52 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <64.15d1b58.2614c65f@aol.com> Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 10:01:51 EST Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:=20DB=B4s=20proposal=20on=20claims=20(new=20li?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ne=20of=20thinking)?= To: bley@uni-duesseldorf.de, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 101 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id BAA27963 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 3/30/00 9:18:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, bley@uni-duesseldorf.de writes: > > In a message dated 3/30/00 2:31:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, > > bley@uni-duesseldorf.de writes: > > > > > This reminds me of a situation in a European Championship: > > > > > > During middle of play the declarer played up to his KJx > > and started > > > thinking about it (playing the J or the K; rest of the > > hand was clear > > > anyway). The opp behind him now showed his cards saying: > > It doesn´t > > > matter I have Q and Ace in this suit (say trumps to make > > it easy). > > > Now the TD was called. He decided (unavoidable?) that > > all defenders > > > cards were penalty cards and declarer can choose the > > cards now. He > > > played the K from hand and insisted in playing the queen > > from opps > > > hand. > > This is ridiculous. Did the TD ever hear of a Claim? Kojak > > Well this was a 3rd hand story, but: > Is this situation not possible? eg: > Player shows only two from his say 8 cards. The "offending" player > still has a trick somewhere (at least when he doesnt play this suit). > > Or would you try to subsum all this situations under a claim? with all > follow ups: > play ceases, etc. > > > Richard > Please read Law 68 A and the footnote. Isn't this clearly a case where the defender is claiming that he is going to get both tricks? Hals und beinbruch. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 02:26:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA27709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 23:43:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [205.252.14.63]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA27697 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 23:43:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA15405 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 08:42:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000330084337.006f6c38@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 08:43:37 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: David B.'s proposal on claims In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000329103037.012abb08@pop.mindspring.com> References: <3.0.1.32.20000329090252.006f2844@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:30 AM 3/29/00 -0500, Michael wrote: >At 09:02 AM 3/29/2000 -0500, Eric wrote: > >>That's what would happen in the vast majority of cases. Because the vast >>majority of bridge players are reasonable people. But there are still a >>fair number of a--holes out there. > >I'm not sure that's a fair characterization. If the Laws (under the Burn >proposal) entitle me to a certain number of tricks subsequent to declarer's >infraction, then why shouldn't I claim them? When the opponents revoke or >lead out of turn, many (most?) players will exercise their legal options in >the way which seems most advantageous to them, and this seems to fall in >the same category. > >I agree that this feels extremely distasteful, but that seems more a >failing of an ill-considered and overly harsh penalty for a minor >procedural infraction than of the players who might choose to exploit an >advantage granted them under the Laws. But as has been repeatedly pointed out by others, 99%+ of claims are settled without the TD or the FLB. They are offered, and accepted, in the spirit of "It's obvious what the result is going to be, so let's just score it up and get on to the next hand." L70, which governs how claims are to be adjudicated, applies only to contested claims, and it's up to the claimer's opponents to make the decision whether to contest the claim. Non-BLs only contest when they do not agree with the claimer that the outcome of the hand is obvious. A--holes, AKA BLs, will contest even though the outcome is obvious, when they see an opportunity to get a better result than they could possibly have gotten had the hand been played out by applying L70 to bring about a non-obvious adjudicated result. Under today's rules, if the TD/AC agree that the result that would have been achieved absent the claim is indeed truly obvious, the BLs do not gain; they are ruled against, and perhaps lose their deposit. Under David B.'s draconian proposal, they would have incentive to contest every claim, and will wind up gaining most of the 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 Mar 31 02:34:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA28422 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 02:34:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA28417 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 02:33:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uniduesseldorf.de (actually Isis13.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de) by neptun with SMTP (local, PP); Thu, 30 Mar 2000 18:29:58 +0200 From: Richard Bley To: Schoderb , bridge-laws Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE:_DB=B4s_proposal_on_claims_=28new_line_of_thinking=29?= Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 18:30:34 +0200 Message-ID: <000001bf9a65$460b8e00$0d8a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.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: <64.15d1b58.2614c65f@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thanks for this hint (L 68A); I didnt know this footnote and glad to see it when I´m not directing... But this case was years (it was told to me 1988) ago and my Lawbook from 1979 has no such footnote. Richard > -----Original Message----- > From: Schoderb@aol.com [mailto:Schoderb@aol.com] > Sent: Donnerstag, 30. März 2000 17:02 > To: bley@uni-duesseldorf.de; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: DB´s proposal on claims (new line of thinking) > > > In a message dated 3/30/00 9:18:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, > bley@uni-duesseldorf.de writes: > > > > In a message dated 3/30/00 2:31:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, > > > bley@uni-duesseldorf.de writes: > > > > > > > This reminds me of a situation in a European Championship: > > > > > > > > During middle of play the declarer played up to his KJx > > > and started > > > > thinking about it (playing the J or the K; rest of the > > > hand was clear > > > > anyway). The opp behind him now showed his cards saying: > > > It doesn´t > > > > matter I have Q and Ace in this suit (say trumps to make > > > it easy). > > > > Now the TD was called. He decided (unavoidable?) that > > > all defenders > > > > cards were penalty cards and declarer can choose the > > > cards now. He > > > > played the K from hand and insisted in playing the queen > > > from opps > > > > hand. > > > This is ridiculous. Did the TD ever hear of a Claim? Kojak > > > > Well this was a 3rd hand story, but: > > Is this situation not possible? eg: > > Player shows only two from his say 8 cards. The > "offending" player > > still has a trick somewhere (at least when he doesnt > play this suit). > > > > Or would you try to subsum all this situations under a > claim? with all > > follow ups: > > play ceases, etc. > > > > > > Richard > > > > Please read Law 68 A and the footnote. Isn't this clearly > a case where the > defender is claiming that he is going to get both tricks? > Hals und beinbruch. > Kojak > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 03:08:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA28357 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 02:10:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA28352 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 02:10:43 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id RAA06062 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 17:10:00 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 17:10 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: David B.'s proposal on claims 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@bt.com wrote: > > Let us modify this hand slightly. Declarer is playing 6NT holding > AKQxxx AKx > AKQ A opposite xxx QJxxx xxxx x. He wins the opening club lead and > spreads > his hand, saying "I have the rest". LHO informs declarer that he has > J109x > of spades. What would the players do then? "Say I'll win the fourth spade, cash our clubs and you can have the rest (allowing for the fact that partner must throw a club on the first spade to give a black on black discard)." If there is further dispute (I don't expect any amongst ERPs) call the TD. I would hope the TD had more case guidance available than he has now but even if not that he would rule "It is careless regardless of the class of player, rather than irrational, not to notice a black on black discard" down x. > Well, some of Eric's "reasonable bridge players" will agree among > themselves that declarer would of course notice when someone showed out > on the first spade. If some of ERPs truly believe this then they can accede to the claim (or agree 11/12 tricks) and all at the table will feel justice to have been done. Other tables don't matter - it is not their concern. However if declarer claims with "the rest are mine if spades split" then as an ERP, or TD I would wish to allow him to further describe his line for coping with a foreseen problem. Note: If this approach is permitted then information received from the objection should be UI for declarer until the AI on the least favourable line clarifies the position. Even those, like me, who are broadly in favour of current claims law do not consider it to be perfect. Sure some TDs may be too lenient but moving to your extreme solution feels like a step too far. Of course players would eventually learn to cope and very few would be driven from the game but some bitterness would arise and perhaps a fairly large number of players would play slightly fewer sessions for a while. My understanding is that many clubs are run on marginal finances/turnouts so perhaps some would opt for a playing rather than paid TD, or fewer sessions per week or whatever. A controlled experiment would be an excellent start into understanding possible grass roots repercussions before making such a major change. Tim West-Meads apologies to DB for the double-post this was not intended as private. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 03:34:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA28525 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 03:34:28 +1000 (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 DAA28520 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 03:34:18 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id r.c6.33ce748 (4199); Thu, 30 Mar 2000 12:33:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 12:33:24 EST Subject: Re: DB' proposal on claims (new line of thinking) 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 101 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 3/30/00 11:11:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, adam@irvine.com writes: > I agree. The TD has to determine whether a claim took place; but the > way Richard told the story, it sounds like it didn't. Assuming that > there was no claim, Law 49 makes it clear that the named cards are > penalty cards, and Law 51A makes it clear that declarer may designate > the card to be played. Sorry, I know what the defender was trying to > do, but the Laws are clear. > Come on Adam, what do YOU think the defender was doing? If showing the Ace and Qeen in this situation isn't a claim, I don't know what you would call it. But, I'll listen if you can give me any rational explanation for the defender's action. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 04:03:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA28597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 04:03:15 +1000 (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 EAA28592 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 04:03:07 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 17421 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2000 16:29:37 -0000 Received: from dialin-190.muenchen.okay.net (HELO rabbit) (194.117.252.190) by mail.okay.net with SMTP; 30 Mar 2000 16:29:37 -0000 Message-ID: <000e01bf9a65$c6f850c0$befc75c2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <9d.39a3b51.2614a5b7@aol.com> Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_DB=B4s_proposal_on_claims_=28new_line_of_thinking=29?= Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 18:34:07 +0200 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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: An: ; Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. März 2000 14:42 Betreff: Re: DB´s proposal on claims (new line of thinking) > In a message dated 3/30/00 2:31:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, > bley@uni-duesseldorf.de writes: > > > This reminds me of a situation in a European Championship: > > > > During middle of play the declarer played up to his KJx and started > > thinking about it (playing the J or the K; rest of the hand was clear > > anyway). The opp behind him now showed his cards saying: It doesn´t > > matter I have Q and Ace in this suit (say trumps to make it easy). > > Now the TD was called. He decided (unavoidable?) that all defenders > > cards were penalty cards and declarer can choose the cards now. He > > played the K from hand and insisted in playing the queen from opps > > hand. > This is ridiculous. Did the TD ever hear of a Claim? Kojak European Juniors Championship, Salsamaggiore, I think the match was Germany vs. Italy. The director *correctly* ruled that no claim had been made (defender had just shown his AQ to declarer), but that defender's partner could have seen the AQ so that both those cards now were penalty cards. AFAIK, the player who called the director now thinks that he should not have called the TD. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 04:16:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA28384 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 02:21:54 +1000 (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 CAA28379 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 02:21:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA10002; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 08:21:55 -0800 Message-Id: <200003301621.IAA10002@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Ruling: break in tempo ?? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 30 Mar 2000 00:57:58 PST." <3.0.2.32.20000330005758.00efc09c@mail.a2000.nl> Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 08:21:55 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen wrote: > but what about the 3C bid. I think that is a rather strange bid. Is this > still an acceptable bid? I have problems with it. If The pause was > established in time (after it in fact happened what ashould be done > was...did you see that your partner paused for a while....No? TD...) then > EW had handled this affair in the proper way. Now it looks a bit like a > double shot from west. So perhaps i am inclined to give a split score. +50 > NS (all non vuln.) -800 EW. I don't think I could bring myself to rule this way. It's not uncommon for players in this position to fear they are about to get murdered for -800 or -1100, and run to a different spot hoping things might be better and won't get any worse. Doing so may not be well-judged, especially on this hand, but I don't think I could rule it a double shot unless I had very good evidence that it was. (In the ACBL, I don't think I'd rule it an egregious error either---just an error.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 04:54:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA28785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 04:54:25 +1000 (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 EAA28780 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 04:54:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA12793; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 10:54:30 -0800 Message-Id: <200003301854.KAA12793@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: DB' proposal on claims (new line of thinking) In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 30 Mar 2000 12:33:24 PST." Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 10:54:31 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kojak wrote: > In a message dated 3/30/00 11:11:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, adam@irvine.com > writes: > > > I agree. The TD has to determine whether a claim took place; but the > > way Richard told the story, it sounds like it didn't. Assuming that > > there was no claim, Law 49 makes it clear that the named cards are > > penalty cards, and Law 51A makes it clear that declarer may designate > > the card to be played. Sorry, I know what the defender was trying to > > do, but the Laws are clear. > > > Come on Adam, what do YOU think the defender was doing? If showing the Ace > and Qeen in this situation isn't a claim, I don't know what you would call > it. I call it simply trying to speed up the game by telling declarer that he doesn't need to spend time thinking about which honor to play. But a claim is, essentially, a statement that the hand is over, let's score it up and move on. I'll admit that I missed a parenthesized clause in Richard's story: "(... rest of the hand was clear anyway)", which is a very important part of the story. This could influence whether the TD judges that the defender was making a claim. Still, it's not open-and-shut; the TD needs to question the defender to find out whether the defender knew the rest of the hand was "clear", and was intending to concede the remaining tricks besides the ace-queen. If it appears that the defender wasn't aware that the hand was over, then it's not a claim, since it doesn't fit any of the definitions in Law 68A. (My interpretation of the sentence, "Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks", is that it applies when the claimer is saying he will win a specific number of tricks over the remainder of the entire hand---not when the claimer says merely that he'll win N tricks in one suit and says nothing about how many other tricks he'll win.) Anwyay, if a defender did this in a situation where the rest of the hand was not clear, it would clearly not be a claim. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 05:19:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA28449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 02:48:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA28444 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 02:47:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uniduesseldorf.de (actually Isis13.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de) by neptun with SMTP (local, PP); Thu, 30 Mar 2000 18:47:15 +0200 From: Richard Bley To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: RE: David B.'s proposal on claims Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 18:48:04 +0200 Message-ID: <000201bf9a67$b7c65280$0d8a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.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: <3.0.1.32.20000330084337.006f6c38@pop.cais.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Cannot anything say anything except: Yes. This is exactly my view nut in a more readable way. Thanks Richard At 10:30 AM 3/29/00 -0500, Michael wrote: > > >At 09:02 AM 3/29/2000 -0500, Eric wrote: > > > >>That's what would happen in the vast majority of cases. > Because the vast > >>majority of bridge players are reasonable people. But > there are still a > >>fair number of a--holes out there. > > > >I'm not sure that's a fair characterization. If the Laws > (under the Burn > >proposal) entitle me to a certain number of tricks > subsequent to declarer's > >infraction, then why shouldn't I claim them? When the > opponents revoke or > >lead out of turn, many (most?) players will exercise their > legal options in > >the way which seems most advantageous to them, and this > seems to fall in > >the same category. > > > >I agree that this feels extremely distasteful, but that > seems more a > >failing of an ill-considered and overly harsh penalty for a minor > >procedural infraction than of the players who might choose > to exploit an > >advantage granted them under the Laws. > > But as has been repeatedly pointed out by others, 99%+ of claims are > settled without the TD or the FLB. They are offered, and > accepted, in the > spirit of "It's obvious what the result is going to be, so > let's just score > it up and get on to the next hand." L70, which governs how > claims are to > be adjudicated, applies only to contested claims, and it's up to the > claimer's opponents to make the decision whether to contest > the claim. > Non-BLs only contest when they do not agree with the > claimer that the > outcome of the hand is obvious. A--holes, AKA BLs, will > contest even > though the outcome is obvious, when they see an opportunity > to get a better > result than they could possibly have gotten had the hand > been played out by > applying L70 to bring about a non-obvious adjudicated result. > > Under today's rules, if the TD/AC agree that the result > that would have > been achieved absent the claim is indeed truly obvious, the > BLs do not > gain; they are ruled against, and perhaps lose their > deposit. Under David > B.'s draconian proposal, they would have incentive to > contest every claim, > and will wind up gaining most of the time. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 05:34:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA28922 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 05:34:09 +1000 (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 FAA28917 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 05:34:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA13643; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 11:34:12 -0800 Message-Id: <200003301934.LAA13643@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: David B.'s proposal on claims In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 30 Mar 2000 10:53:32 PST." <3.0.1.32.20000330105332.006a72ac@pop.cais.com> Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 11:34:13 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > My concern isn't with claimers who don't make statements. It's with > claimers who make perfectly reasonable statements that fall somewhat short > of being card-for-card exact and cover every possible contingency. > > Consider 7NT on AKQ/AQ10xx/AKQ/AK opposite xxx/K9xx/xxx/xxx. > > Declarer wins the opening lead and says "I have 13 tricks". IMO, that's a > bad claim. If LHO has HJxxx, he goes down. No problem. > > In fact, I'd favor a guideline that says that, since the heart suit will > not necessarily play for five tricks, declarer's failure to give any > indication of how he would play the suit is presumed to mean that he thinks > it will run from the top. That means he goes down if either opponent has > HJxxx. Harsher than current practice, but not entirely unfair. Yesterday, I wrote a list of some suit layouts and what I felt should be the "right" result if declarer claims all the tricks in the suit. I wasn't sure if I should post it, because it appeared that interest in that sort of issue was dwindling here, but maybe I should go ahead anyway. I had difficulty deciding what I thought was fair in this sort of situation. In the end, though, I felt that if declarer claims on this layout, he would more likely to have forgotten to plan for a bad break than he would have forgotten the jack was still out, or that the suit would run from the top. But it depended on how many cards were out, and how high the missing honor was. Essentially, with 4 cards outstanding, I could see declarer forgetting about the possibility of a 4-0 break, but *not* about a 3-1 break. With 5 cards out, I can imagine forgetting to plan for a 4-1 break, but not (obviously) a 3-2 break. It's a bit arbitrary, but it's what my intuition told me was fair. Still, I don't find Eric's idea to be grossly unfair. I still think it would be irrational for some players not to play this suit correctly, but I would strongly prefer redoing the Laws not to depend on a subjective concept such as "irrational"; and whatever new Laws we come up with will almost certainly deem the above claim to be a "bad" one. With AQ10xx opposite K9xx, if declarer claims all the tricks and the suit actually breaks 2-2 or 3-1, I'd still favor giving declarer all the tricks. However, with something like AJTxx opposite K9xx, if declarer is foolish enough to claim five tricks, I'd want the opponents to get a trick even if they broke 2-2 (but probably not if they broke 2-1, where a defender had pitched one earlier). At some tables, declarer might finesse and lose to a doubleton queen, and a claim rule that lets declarer drop the queen in a really-bad-claim case like this would take equity away from the non-offenders. Clearly, it's a big challenge to write objective claim laws that codify what we think should be "fair" (even if we could all agree on what that is). -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 05:56:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA28982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 05:56:18 +1000 (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 FAA28977 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 05:56:08 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id r.30.3175678 (4235); Thu, 30 Mar 2000 14:55:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <30.3175678.26150b26@aol.com> Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 14:55:18 EST Subject: Re: DB' proposal on claims (new line of thinking) 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 101 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 3/30/00 1:56:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, adam@irvine.com writes: > (My > interpretation of the sentence, "Any statement to the effect that a > contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those > tricks", is that it applies when the claimer is saying he will win a > specific number of tricks over the remainder of the entire hand---not > when the claimer says merely that he'll win N tricks in one suit and > says nothing about how many other tricks he'll win.) > > Anwyay, if a defender did this in a situation where the rest of the > hand was not clear, it would clearly not be a claim. > You've got me! I can't find any logic for your "...my interpretation of the sentence....etc Where do you conjure up the idea that every claim must include all the rest of the tricks? To me it's called sophistry which isn't a highly recommended way to use the Laws. Why not read the rest of Law 68 The first Sentence, and then the rest of A along with the one sentence you picked out to base your thinking on? Oh yes, and don't forget the footnote. Read all the "ands", and "ors" Then when you've done all of that, tell me that you seriously contend that this was not a claim of those pertinent tricks. And yes, don't forget that "D" is there and Law 70 is pretty comprehensive on continuing to play bridge rather than look for gotchas. You say "it was clearly not a claim." Yep, only if you don't wish to apply the Law correctly. OR, does the "anyway" in your last sentence really mean "I know I'm wrong about this, but I'll be da..ed if I'll admit it? Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 05:56:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA28988 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 05:56:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo-d04.mx.aol.com (imo-d04.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA28983 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 05:56:33 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id 8.9a.2dd083e (4235); Thu, 30 Mar 2000 14:55:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <9a.2dd083e.26150b2b@aol.com> Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 14:55:23 EST Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:=20DB=B4s=20proposal=20on=20claims=20(new=20li?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ne=20of=20thinking)?= To: thomas.dehn@okay.net, 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 101 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 3/30/00 1:06:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, thomas.dehn@okay.net writes: > pean Juniors Championship, Salsamaggiore, > I think the match was Germany vs. Italy. > The director *correctly* ruled that no claim had been made > (defender had just shown his AQ to declarer), > but that defender's partner could have seen the AQ so that > both those cards now were penalty cards. > > AFAIK, the player who called the director now thinks that > he should not have called the TD. > And the TD should hang his head in shame. I sure would like to know who it was. KOJAK From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 06:26:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA29065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 06:26:55 +1000 (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 GAA29060 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 06:26:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA14823; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 12:26:54 -0800 Message-Id: <200003302026.MAA14823@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: DB' proposal on claims (new line of thinking) In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 30 Mar 2000 14:55:18 PST." <30.3175678.26150b26@aol.com> Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 12:26:55 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kojak wrote: > In a message dated 3/30/00 1:56:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, adam@irvine.com > writes: > > > (My > > interpretation of the sentence, "Any statement to the effect that a > > contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those > > tricks", is that it applies when the claimer is saying he will win a > > specific number of tricks over the remainder of the entire hand---not > > when the claimer says merely that he'll win N tricks in one suit and > > says nothing about how many other tricks he'll win.) > > > > Anwyay, if a defender did this in a situation where the rest of the > > hand was not clear, it would clearly not be a claim. > > > You've got me! I can't find any logic for your "...my interpretation of the > sentence....etc Where do you conjure up the idea that every claim must > include all the rest of the tricks? I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding me, or I'm misunderstanding you. I definitely did *not* mean to say that a claimer must claim the rest of the tricks. What I did mean was that a claim *does* include the number of tricks that the claimer proposes to take out of the remaining tricks. Thus, "I'm taking two heart tricks and you get the rest" is a claim. But a claim such as "I'm taking two heart tricks and I have no idea how many tricks in the other suits I'm getting" is unheard of. After all, play ceases after a claim, and for someone to suggest that play stop when they don't have any idea what's going to happen with the hand, given that all doubtful points will be resolved against the claimer, is unthinkable. That's why I do not believe the first sentence of L68A is not intended to apply to simple statements such as "I'm taking two heart tricks" (unless "You're getting all the other tricks" is demonstrably implied). After all, what's supposed to happen when you claim in one suit but say or imply nothing about the other suits? Play ceases in just that one suit, but gets to continue for the other three? No, to satisfy this sentence, a claim must state how many tricks the claimer is going to win from that point on in the whole hand. I think it's clear that that's what's meant by the Law, even if they could have worded it better; we're all aware that there are a few Laws, for example 1 through 93, that could be worded better than they are. . . . > OR, does the "anyway" in your last sentence really mean "I know I'm wrong > about this, but I'll be da..ed if I'll admit it? No. It means I might have been wrong about the specific case Richard told of (which I already admitted), but I'm still right about other situations. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 06:54:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA29111 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 06:54:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [205.252.14.63]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA29106 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 06:54:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA19165 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 15:53:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000330155417.006f72d0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 15:54:17 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE:_DB=B4s_proposal_on_claims_(new_line_of_?= thinking) In-Reply-To: <000201bf9a19$72f238c0$578a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.de> References: <000001bf99bb$ab81ae40$1a0a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.de> 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 GAA29107 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:27 AM 3/30/00 +0200, Richard wrote: > >This reminds me of a situation in a European Championship: > >During middle of play the declarer played up to his KJx and started >thinking about it (playing the J or the K; rest of the hand was clear >anyway). The opp behind him now showed his cards saying: It doesn´t >matter I have Q and Ace in this suit (say trumps to make it easy). >Now the TD was called. He decided (unavoidable?) that all defenders >cards were penalty cards and declarer can choose the cards now. He >played the K from hand and insisted in playing the queen from opps >hand. This seems ridiculous. The opponent has claimed by facing his cards (L68A), and has indicated that he will win two tricks with his AQ. Play ceases (L68D). There can be no penalty cards, as the play of the hand is over. It would be obviously irrational to attempt to take two tricks by putting the Q under the K, so he gets his two tricks (L70 footnote). What's the problem? >I don´t like this. And I don´t like the idea that this sort of >situation can apply more often (what will surely happen, if DB will >get his law). Which is why I don't like DB's proposal. It should be sufficient for the opponent to claim two tricks by showing his AQ. There is no imaginable reason to require him to explicitly state that he will play the A if declarer calls for the K, otherwise he will play the Q. A BL who attempts to gain an obviously undeserved trick in this position should be tied to a pole and lashed, but under DB's proposal he would get the trick. For a TD to have awarded him that trick under current law, in the European Championships, no less, is not merely careless or inferior for the class of TD involved, but irrational. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 07:00:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA29140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 07:00:09 +1000 (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 GAA29133 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 06:59:36 +1000 (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 PAA23237; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 15:58:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA105359926; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 15:58:46 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 15:58:36 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Ruling: break in tempo ?? Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA 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 HAA29136 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk North (non vul) J 10 x x K 10 x Q x x Dealer Q x x West Est (vul) x x x Q x x x x x Q x x x A K J 10 x x K x x x x J x South A K x x A J x x x x A 10 x W N E S __________________________ P P 1D P* 1H P 2D P* P X P P 3C P P X (all P) W called TD at the end of the auction saying S broke tempo on his first P and slightly less on his second P. S said he bid in tempo, taking just the normal time to think. [Laval Dubreuil] Thx all for your answers, At table, I ruled that N gave some UI (intentionnally or not) and scored 2D undoubled -1 (100N/S and -100E-W). Afterward, I got embarassed by the silly 3C bid and by the fact that W waited the end of auction before calling TD (double shot?.. split scores: 100 N/S and -800 E-W ?). A call after the first break in tempo could have avoid some problems...but I know I have to rule from the present case. Laval Du Breuil From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 07:06:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA29170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 07:06:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA29165 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 07:06:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id QAA13912 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:06:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA01514 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:06:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:06:06 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200003302106.QAA01514@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:=20DB=B4s=20proposal=20on=20claims=20(new=20li?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ne=20of=20thinking)?= X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Schoderb@aol.com > Please read Law 68 A and the footnote. Isn't this clearly a case where the > defender is claiming that he is going to get both tricks? In particular, start at L49, which refers you to the footnote in L68. I don't think it's a claim, but it's also not a penalty card situation. The defender can always _make_ it a claim, though, if he wishes. If the defender thinks declarer might be a BL, he can achieve the desired effect by showing the key cards to declarer but not to his partner (and not naming them). Of course the gesture is UI (and partner won't have any trouble figuring out what it means!), but as far as I can tell, this avoids the whole penalty card nonsense. (I usually say to declarer, "Would you like a hint?") I believe Richard is correct that this procedure only became strictly legal in 1987. And it would be silly to do it if time penalties against the opponents are possible. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 07:12:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA29209 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 07:12:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA29204 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 07:12:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id QAA14121 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:12:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA01524 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:12:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:12:32 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200003302112.QAA01524@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Ruling: break in tempo ?? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Martin Sinot" > West, however, admitted that he based his 3C on South's hesitation. That > is at his own risk, therefore he should keep his score. This is correct only if West's action is "irrational, wild, or gambling." If it is just a normal bridge mistake, then East-West should benefit from the adjustment. The infraction has placed them in a position they never should have been in. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 07:16:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA29033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 06:17:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [205.252.14.63]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA29027 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 06:17:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA16183 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 15:16:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000330151717.006a8034@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 15:17:17 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl In-Reply-To: References: <200003292122.QAA00313@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200003292122.QAA00313@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:50 AM 3/30/00 +0100, pam wrote: >On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 16:22:31 -0500 (EST), Steve Wilner wrote: > >>Much better to analyze the hand and spot the problem! > >No, it isn't. > >The way things are according to Herman (and David Stevenson if I >understand him correctly), it is in every players best interest to claim >without bothering to look for problems as long as you think you can >convince the director that you were capable of spotting them. I fail to sympathise with those who see a problem here. Perhaps all that is needed is to explicitly state a guideline, which, IMHO, should be obvious without needing to be stated: Failing to spot a problem in a suit is careless but not irrational. If a player claims without any indication that he is aware of a problem a suit, he is deemed not to have noticed it. But it is irrational for a player who has indicated that there is a problem in a suit and that he knows how to deal with it not to do so. So in "bum claim", "five heart tricks" is a bad claim statement, losing a trick to Jxxx behind the AQ (see footnote). "HA in case someone shows out, five heart tricks" is a good claim statement, taking five heart tricks on any lie. But the claim statement that David B.'s proposal would require -- "HA playing H2, then, if LHO shows out, 3 to the K, 4 to the 10, then Q, then 5, or if RHO shows out, 3 to the 9, K playing the 2, 4 to the Q, then 5, or if neither opponent shows out, 3 to the K, 4 to the Q, then 10, then 5" -- is ludicrous. IOW, HK first is not irrational, because even if you know how to handle this combination in your sleep, it is merely careless to fail to notice that you must take care to do so on this hand. But, once having recognized the combination and indicated that you will handle it appropriately, it is irrational to then fail to do so; there is no sensible reason, and there should be no legal requirement, to spell it out card by card. footnote: My earlier remark that perhaps this claimer should lose a trick to Jxxx behind the K as well was in the context of how the law might be. As it is now, he does not lose this trick, as L70E explicitly permits the claimer to take a finesse which becomes proven subsequent to the claim even though not covered in the claim statement. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 07:28:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA29284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 07:28:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [205.252.14.63]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA29279 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 07:28:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA21707 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:27:33 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000330162759.006fa6c0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:27:59 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl In-Reply-To: <001501bf9a1c$8cca6760$598901d5@davidburn> References: <3.0.6.32.20000329105810.007ade40@eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:49 AM 3/30/00 +0100, David wrote: >Grant wrote a great deal of sense: > >> You ask why we would think that people would want to use this law >> to destroy bridge. Indeed, the vast majority of players would not. >And this >> is part of the problem. The majority of players will not call the >director >> when you make an incomplete claim statement--they'll let it go. > >This seems to me dangerous. I mentioned the case of an opponent who >told me that she was sure she'd lost a lot of tricks over the years by >not contesting incomplete claims. People are genuinely afraid to do >this, and I suspect that a number of inequitable results have been >achieved over the years as a consequence. Some of those results have >probably been obtained by the kind of unscrupulous, intimidatory >tactics that are part and parcel of the current claims procedure. >Whether this is more or less desirable than the kind of bridge-lawyer >tactics that might be adopted in the initial stages of a new law's >introduction, I do not know. This is a real and serious problem, and one that should be addressed by teaching players right from the start that there is no shame in calling the TD when it's not clear to them how a hand on which their opponent has claimed might have been played out. But it has nothing to do with the current debate. If a claim is made and accepted, what would have happened had it been contested and adjudicated is totally irrelevant to the actual outcome. The only difference DB's proposal would have made to the lady in the anecdote is that the number of tricks she would have lost over the years by failing to contest such claims would have been a lot higher. Unscrupulous, intimiditory tactics that go unchallenged do produce inequitable results. But the way to deal with this is not to create a situation in which unscrupulous, intimidatory tactics that do get challenged also produce inequitable results. 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 Mar 31 08:16:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA29342 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 07:53:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA29336 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 07:53:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id QAA15642 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:52:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA01618 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:52:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:52:54 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200003302152.QAA01618@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: DB' proposal on claims (new line of thinking) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Schoderb@aol.com > If showing the Ace > and Qeen in this situation isn't a claim, I don't know what you would call > it. Sorry, but I don't think it's a claim under the current laws, and I'm surprised such an eminent authority would think it is. As far as I can tell, by showing two cards, the defender is saying to declarer "whichever card you play, I'll win _this_ trick" but nothing about the further play as far as I can tell. That seems not to be a claim because it "pertains only to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress" (L68 footnote)? Of course the defender can make it a claim by saying "and these are all we get" or something similar. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 08:34:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA29428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:34:47 +1000 (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 IAA29423 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:34:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA17736; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 14:34:52 -0800 Message-Id: <200003302234.OAA17736@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 30 Mar 2000 15:17:17 PST." <3.0.1.32.20000330151717.006a8034@pop.cais.com> Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 14:34:53 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > Perhaps all that > is needed is to explicitly state a guideline, which, IMHO, should be > obvious without needing to be stated: Failing to spot a problem in a suit > is careless but not irrational. Who gets to define "problem"? For my wife (a rank beginner), KQx opposite AJTxx is a problem: it might not occur to her that she can't lead low to the ace on the first round of the suit. I like the idea that we can define "irrational" vis-a-vis "careless" in terms of spotting a problem in the suit. But to me, it's not a solution unless we have an objective definition of what constitutes a "problem". -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 09:08:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA29483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:08:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA29478 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:08:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id SAA18069 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 18:08:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA01776 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 18:08:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 18:08:38 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200003302308.SAA01776@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > What I do think is > that the claims which lead to difficulties are those made without any > statement at all (contrary to existing Law, never mind my proposed > law). I have been arguing as if the wording I proposed were to be > adopted wholesale; I actually believe that there are ways in which it > could be modified so that the desired objective - comprehensive > statements - could be achieved without the consequence of "draconian > penalties". This would require (as the present Law requires) guidance > as to acceptable terminology when making statements. > From: Eric Landau > David has given us a number of examples where the application of the > current claim law can lead to huge inconsistencies in rulings on claims > made without accompanying statements. I am sympathetic to his concerns, > and do believe that players who claim without making statements should be > treated rather harshly. > My concern isn't with claimers who don't make statements. It's with > claimers who make perfectly reasonable statements that fall somewhat short > of being card-for-card exact and cover every possible contingency. Perhaps we see the glint of a compromise in the two statements above? We might end up not so far from what appears to be current procedure at the YC. Claimer isn't forced to play misere, throwing winners under other winners or leading losers instead of winners or discarding winners instead of ruffing, but claimer is expected to give a clear statement when the order of cashing tricks matters or if there is any contingency (i.e. finesse if somebody shows out). I personally think I'd like this rule less than the present rather looser one, but I can certainly see David B.'s point that having clear rules is important. In fact, I agree with him in the case of _infractions_, but claiming is not only not an infraction, it's something we want to encourage. If the authorities were to decide to move in this direction, I don't think it would require any law changes. A high-level statement a la the "Code of Practice" plus a few (or many) example decisions would most likely suffice. And of course there would have to be an effort to educate players. Maybe this could best be done in the context of a Law change -- people _expect_ procedures to change when a new lawbook comes out -- but it wouldn't have to wait for that if any SO wants to go faster. Some experimentation might be a good thing. I can imagine arguments like "but I clearly _said_ I was going to..." "No, you didn't say anything!" etc., but we'll never know without trying. If there is to be a Law change, it might almost be enough to change 'should' in L68C to 'shall'. Personally, I think better enforcement of the requirement for _some_ statement would be a good idea, and I think the idea that the ruling should depend on declarer's perceived skill is horrendous, but I'd hate to go so far as to punish claiming. But maybe I'm unusual in not minding opponents' bad claims. They are pretty rare in my experience, and when they happen, I usually wind up with more tricks than I would likely have gotten if the hand had been played out. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 09:53:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA29584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:53:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA29579 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:53:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.67.192] (helo=davidburn) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12aokj-00014h-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 00:53:29 +0100 Message-ID: <006c01bf9aa3$3fc84720$c04301d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <9d.39a3b51.2614a5b7@aol.com> Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_DB=B4s_proposal_on_claims_=28new_line_of_thinking=29?= Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 00:53:43 +0100 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kojak wrote: > This reminds me of a situation in a European Championship: > > During middle of play the declarer played up to his KJx and started > thinking about it (playing the J or the K; rest of the hand was clear > anyway). The opp behind him now showed his cards saying: It doesn´t > matter I have Q and Ace in this suit (say trumps to make it easy). > Now the TD was called. He decided (unavoidable?) that all defenders > cards were penalty cards and declarer can choose the cards now. He > played the K from hand and insisted in playing the queen from opps > hand. This is ridiculous. Did the TD ever hear of a Claim? Kojak He, like many subscribers to this list in recent times, will begin to wish that no one had ever heard of a claim. I am becoming a little confused: the thread currently entitled "DB´s proposal on claims (new line of thinking)" appears at present to be concerned only with the player who wished to speed up declarer's prolonged KJ guess by showing him (and perhaps his partner) the AQ. I have no fresh insight on this topic, but I am not sure to what extent it may be relevant to my proposal on claims, and would respectfully suggest that the next person who does have a fresh insight call (subjunctive, Marvin) the thread something else. Of course, if the notion is that the penalty imposed on the hapless defender was almost as draconian as the penalties I would inflict on people who claim without telling anyone what they're going to do, then I suppose I must accept the opprobrium of having a shocking piece of bridge lawyering forever associated with my name. It matters not how strait* the gate... David Burn London, England *not a typo. Wally Farley and Grattan Endicott will know what I mean. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 09:55:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA29603 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:55:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA29598 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:55:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12aom7-0005bq-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 23:54:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 17:43:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Ruling: break in tempo ?? References: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101AFFC@xion.spase.nl> <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C005004546901031088@xion.spase.nl> In-Reply-To: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C005004546901031088@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot wrote: >Anton Witzen wrote: > >>>In a tournament, the final ruling would most likely be 2D -1= 100 N/S, >with >>>the burden of convincing an appeal committee lying with the OS. >> >>but what about the 3C bid. I think that is a rather strange bid. Is this >>still an acceptable bid? I have problems with it. If The pause was >>established in time (after it in fact happened what ashould be done >>was...did you see that your partner paused for a while....No? TD...) then >>EW had handled this affair in the proper way. Now it looks a bit like a >>double shot from west. So perhaps i am inclined to give a split score. +50 >>NS (all non vuln.) -800 EW. > >Agreed. West argues that South with his hesitation can have a good hand >with diamonds. But, although this information may be used by West, it is >also at his own risk (L73D1). Unless South hesitated with the purpose >of misleading the opponents, but of that I see no evidence. South hesitated, >no doubt, but because he had a problem, not to mislead the opponents. > >In short, North has a reasonable alternative (pass), and the alternative he >chose (double) could be influenced by South's hesitation, hence cannot be >allowed. >West, however, admitted that he based his 3C on South's hesitation. That >is at his own risk, therefore he should keep his score. Why? >That gives NS +100 for EW 2D-1 (EW are vulnerable, Anton!) and EW -800 for >3C!-3. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo will be 7 on April 5th. Quango got *twenty* emails on his birthday: please send one to Nanki Poo His picture: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat3 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 11:12:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA29767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 11:12:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt3-he.global.net.uk (cobalt3-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.163]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA29762 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 11:11:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from pd6s09a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.121.215] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt3-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12apxE-0002jk-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 17:10:29 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 02:00:50 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf9aac$8ec21640$085593c3@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----Original Message----- From: Steve Willner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, March 31, 2000 12:28 AM Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl > >If there is to be a Law change, it might almost be enough to change >'should' in L68C to 'shall'. > L68A. A claim is defined as "any statement". It seems that as long as declarer shows his hand in a manner which indicates that he wishes to curtail the play, then even if he makes no statement, he has claimed. This is not so. TD should not accept as a claim, any mannerism which is not accompanied by a "statement". > >Personally, I think better enforcement of the requirement for _some_ >statement would be a good idea, and I think the idea that the ruling >should depend on declarer's perceived skill is horrendous, but I'd hate >to go so far as to punish claiming. But maybe I'm unusual in not >minding opponents' bad claims. They are pretty rare in my experience, >and when they happen, I usually wind up with more tricks than I would >likely have gotten if the hand had been played out. > While I do not like the "any legal play" concept, I like the "standard of player involved" less. We must accept that some players are cleverer than others. Some players are cleverer than some TDs.Some TDs are cleverer than some players. Judgements of capability should not be a part of the implementation of Law. One of the significant questions asked of prospective magistrates in some area of UK is, "do you think that the same financial crime committed by a poor man, is a lesser offence than the same offence committed by a rich man? Bridge Law is the Law. Mitigating circumstances may include the ability of the claimer to make an articulate statement, but should not include the opinion of the TD as to the ability of the claimer to play the cards well. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 11:23:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA29809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 11:23:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA29804 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 11:23:27 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_dev1.2.) id d.74.2624e08 (3702); Thu, 30 Mar 2000 20:22:14 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <74.2624e08.261557c6@aol.com> Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 20:22:14 EST Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:=20DB=B4s=20proposal=20on=20claims=20(new=20li?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ne=20of=20=20=20thinking)?= To: elandau@cais.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 101 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 3/30/00 3:56:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, elandau@cais.com writes: > For a TD to have awarded him that trick under current law, in the European > Championships, no less, is not merely careless or inferior for the class of > TD involved, but irrational. Bravo!!! Bravissimo!! Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 11:25:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA29832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 11:25:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA29821 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 11:25:14 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id i.29.31ba0ad (3702); Thu, 30 Mar 2000 20:23:46 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <29.31ba0ad.26155822@aol.com> Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 20:23:46 EST Subject: Re: DB' proposal on claims (new line of thinking) 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 101 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 3/30/00 5:18:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, willner@cfa.harvard.edu writes: > Sorry, but I don't think it's a claim under the current laws, and I'm > surprised such an eminent authority would think it is. As far as I can > tell, by showing two cards, the defender is saying to declarer > "whichever card you play, I'll win _this_ trick" but nothing about the > further play as far as I can tell. And NOT BOTH TRICKS IN THIS SUIT??? COME ON!!! > > That seems not to be a claim because it "pertains only to the winning > or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress" (L68 > footnote)? > > Of course the defender can make it a claim by saying "and these are > all we get" or something similar. > I sure wish that you always do the obvious thing (such as expalining your actions) even when there can be no doubt about your intentions.. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 11:25:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA29835 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 11:25:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo-d05.mx.aol.com (imo-d05.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA29820 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 11:25:14 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id 3.af.20a6d04 (3702); Thu, 30 Mar 2000 20:24:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 20:24:27 EST Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:=20DB=B4s=20proposal=20on=20claims=20(new=20li?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ne=20of=20thinking)?= To: Dburn@btinternet.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 101 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry David, I confused the issue for you. I was only responding to the idiotic ruling that showing declarer that you have both tricks was not subject to the Laws on claims, and was a peanlty card situation. I'm still mostly along with you on the overall problem of solving inadequate claims, but this one stuck in my craw. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 11:25:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA29837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 11:25:29 +1000 (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 LAA29830 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 11:25:20 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id r.a1.37ed53a (3702); Thu, 30 Mar 2000 20:24:34 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 20:24:33 EST Subject: Re: DB' proposal on claims (new line of thinking) 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 101 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 3/30/00 3:30:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, adam@irvine.com writes: > is unthinkable. Probably only to you. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 11:31:26 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA29874 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 11:31:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA29869 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 11:31:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.67.192] (helo=davidburn) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12aqH1-0001r8-00; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 02:30:55 +0100 Message-ID: <007e01bf9ab0$f66ca4a0$c04301d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <3.0.6.32.20000329105810.007ade40@eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.20000330162759.006fa6c0@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 02:32:21 +0100 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric wrote: [DB] > >This seems to me dangerous. I mentioned the case of an opponent who > >told me that she was sure she'd lost a lot of tricks over the years by > >not contesting incomplete claims. People are genuinely afraid to do > >this, and I suspect that a number of inequitable results have been > >achieved over the years as a consequence. Some of those results have > >probably been obtained by the kind of unscrupulous, intimidatory > >tactics that are part and parcel of the current claims procedure. > >Whether this is more or less desirable than the kind of bridge-lawyer > >tactics that might be adopted in the initial stages of a new law's > >introduction, I do not know. [EL] > This is a real and serious problem, and one that should be addressed by > teaching players right from the start that there is no shame in calling the > TD when it's not clear to them how a hand on which their opponent has > claimed might have been played out. This is, in my submission, even harder to do than adopting my proposal lock, stock and barrel would be. You tell me - and you may very well be right - that a player who went down ten as a result of a flawed "Burn claim" would never claim again. By the same token, I tell you that someone who contests a claim that she can't see, and is told by the Tournament Director that the claim is valid, and has to suffer the jeers of her opponent as a result (for those jeers inevitably ensue), will *never* contest a claim again. Whether or not there is, a priori, shame in her calling the Director in the first instance, she *will* be ashamed - and that shame will remain an albatross around her neck until she suffers the ultimate Burn revoke penalty. > But it has nothing to do with the current debate. If a claim is made and > accepted, what would have happened had it been contested and adjudicated is > totally irrelevant to the actual outcome. The only difference DB's > proposal would have made to the lady in the anecdote is that the number of > tricks she would have lost over the years by failing to contest such claims > would have been a lot higher. I still think that you are considering the effect of my proposal on claims that happen under the current Laws, and I do not believe that it is valid to do this. It may help to use the shorthand "DBclaim" for claims that would be made if my proposal were adopted, reserving the word "claim" for the kind that is prevalent nowadays, or as a generic term encompassing both current claims and DBclaims. Now, if all the claims made against the lady in the anecdote had been DBclaims, she would have contested only those that were flawed DBclaims. She could not, for this is a condition of a DBclaim, have lost a trick to which she was entitled, for everyone would be able to calculate the tricks to which a DBclaimer and his opponents are entitled. She might have won some tricks to which she was not entitled had the hand been played out, but the effect of a well-formed DBclaim is that everyone gets the tricks to which they are entitled. One of the consequences of DBclaims is that no one has to decide whether a man who claims carelessly would or would not have played equally carelessly (this being a foolish requirement of what I will arbitrarily refer to as HdWclaims). To put this another way: after a DBclaim, play really does cease. It seems to me that one of the main arguments used by the opponents of my proposal is this: we're never going to be able to change the way in which Old Scrogie claims, but because we're now going to rule that he goes down ten whenever he makes one of the claims he's been making all his life, he may leave the club and never come back. I have every sympathy with those who do not want to lose Old Scrogie as a member of their club. I am aware that, false modesty aside, the atmosphere in which I play bridge is somewhat more rarefied than the average for members of this list, and as I have already acknowledged, it may be that I seriously underestimate the real difficulties that the sudden introduction of my proposal would cause. But I would say this. Grant Sterling, who among others is a staunch opponent of what I propose and who has among others argued with great good sense against it, has conceded that if my proposal had been in force since the days of Harold S Vanderbilt, the game would be the better thereby. I don't know if anyone would actually dispute this, but it seems a reasonable enough view to me (it would, wouldn't it?). Unless we consider that we are the last generation of human beings who will ever play the game of bridge, it appears to me that a degree of disruption in the present state of affairs may be worthwhile in terms of improving the situation for our descendants. The argument that "it would have been fine if such-and-such had been Law from the beginning, but it's too late to change now" has never struck me as worthy of much consideration. Then again, I don't run a bridge club. David Burn London, England > > Unscrupulous, intimiditory tactics that go unchallenged do produce > inequitable results. But the way to deal with this is not to create a > situation in which unscrupulous, intimidatory tactics that do get > challenged also produce inequitable results. > > > 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 Mar 31 11:57:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA29910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 11:57:04 +1000 (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 LAA29905 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 11:56:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA22583; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 17:57:07 -0800 Message-Id: <200003310157.RAA22583@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "BLML" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 31 Mar 2000 02:00:50 PST." <01bf9aac$8ec21640$085593c3@vnmvhhid> Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 17:57:09 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > L68A. A claim is defined as "any statement". It seems that as long as > declarer shows his hand in a manner which indicates that he wishes to > curtail the play, then even if he makes no statement, he has claimed. > This is not so. Yes it is---the second sentence of L68A says it is. L68A describes three different ways a contestant may claim, and facing one's hand is one of those, even if there's no accompanying statement. (If L68C is revised to change "should" to "shall", this part of L68A would have to be changed also to avoid contradictions.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 11:57:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA29917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 11:57:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA29912 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 11:57:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.67.192] (helo=davidburn) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12aqgR-00038W-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 02:57:11 +0100 Message-ID: <008401bf9ab4$a1cfbc80$c04301d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <200003292122.QAA00313@cfa183.harvard.edu><200003292122.QAA00313@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.20000330151717.006a8034@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 02:58:37 +0100 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric wrote: > So in "bum claim", "five heart tricks" is a bad claim statement, losing a > trick to Jxxx behind the AQ (see footnote). "HA in case someone shows out, > five heart tricks" is a good claim statement, taking five heart tricks on > any lie. But the claim statement that David B.'s proposal would require -- > "HA playing H2, then, if LHO shows out, 3 to the K, 4 to the 10, then Q, > then 5, or if RHO shows out, 3 to the 9, K playing the 2, 4 to the Q, then > 5, or if neither opponent shows out, 3 to the K, 4 to the Q, then 10, then > 5" -- is ludicrous. Of course it is. That is why, if my proposal were in force, no one (not even Hamman) would claim before they'd cashed the ace of hearts. People would get used to this sort of thing - they really would, just as they get used to the idea that when partner does something that is nowadays well-known to be conventional, they have to Announe and not Alert. I do not deny that my proposal would result in people claiming only when certain of what they were doing. But why would this be a bad idea? Under my proposal, claims would sometimes occur later in the play than they do at present - or, if they did not, the situation would be obvious enough for a Grant Sterling to work out that it was faster to claim than to play. Somebody wrote patronising nonsense to the effect that he "only claims when he thinks his opponents will understand, but even he would not claim under the Burn proposal", as if that mattered. What I am sure all of us would like to see happen is that players claim only when they themselves understand completely what they are going to do, and can demonstrate that understanding. It is surely possible that a player good enough to handle AQ10xx facing K9xx is also good enough to realise that cashing the ace (which takes next to no time) will simplify the statement he might then have to make, to sub-ludicrous levels. What is intolerable is for such a player to claim (with no statement) on the basis that he has five heart tricks, and for an opponent with HJxxx to be given sympathy (and a trick) by Eric and the bum's rush by Herman. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 13:19:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA00104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 12:21:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA29989 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 12:21:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12ar3e-00017l-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 02:21:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 02:43:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: DB' proposal on claims (new line of thinking) References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk wrote: >In a message dated 3/30/00 11:11:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, adam@irvine.com >writes: > >> I agree. The TD has to determine whether a claim took place; but the >> way Richard told the story, it sounds like it didn't. Assuming that >> there was no claim, Law 49 makes it clear that the named cards are >> penalty cards, and Law 51A makes it clear that declarer may designate >> the card to be played. Sorry, I know what the defender was trying to >> do, but the Laws are clear. >> >Come on Adam, what do YOU think the defender was doing? If showing the Ace >and Qeen in this situation isn't a claim, I don't know what you would call >it. But, I'll listen if you can give me any rational explanation for the >defender's action. There have always been some situations where a defender feels that giving information to declarer would speed things up, and both sides could concentrate on the essentials of the hand. Such information does not necessarily constitute a claim. Of course, if he shows his cards, the TD may judge it to be a claim, but the basic idea of giving info to declarer does not always make it a claim. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo will be 7 on April 5th. Quango got *twenty* emails on his birthday: please send one to Nanki Poo His picture: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat3 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 14:16:48 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA00103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 12:21:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA29988 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 12:21:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12ar3e-00017m-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 02:21:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 03:12:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Ruling: break in tempo ?? References: <3.0.2.32.20000330005758.00efc09c@mail.a2000.nl> <200003301621.IAA10002@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200003301621.IAA10002@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >Anton Witzen wrote: >> but what about the 3C bid. I think that is a rather strange bid. Is this >> still an acceptable bid? I have problems with it. If The pause was >> established in time (after it in fact happened what ashould be done >> was...did you see that your partner paused for a while....No? TD...) then >> EW had handled this affair in the proper way. Now it looks a bit like a >> double shot from west. So perhaps i am inclined to give a split score. +50 >> NS (all non vuln.) -800 EW. >I don't think I could bring myself to rule this way. It's not >uncommon for players in this position to fear they are about to get >murdered for -800 or -1100, and run to a different spot hoping things >might be better and won't get any worse. Doing so may not be >well-judged, especially on this hand, but I don't think I could rule >it a double shot unless I had very good evidence that it was. (In the >ACBL, I don't think I'd rule it an egregious error either---just an >error.) Suppose it is not the ACBL: are you saying that 3C is irrational, wild or gambling action? It could easily be right, and I think the hand is not one where a split score is suitable. -------- NARDULLO Ennio wrote: >This is the first time that i write at this newsgroup. >I am agree >with SINOT and WITZEN >Split score! Hi Ennio: nice to see you. Unfortunately I do not agree with the split score. -------- Let us try to approach this hand correctly. Take it as a bidding problem. You hold x x x x x x x x K x x x x and partner opens 1D, vul v nv, pairs. You respond 1H, bravely, and pd rebids 2D [typical!]. So you pass around to LHO, who doubles, and this comes back to you. What do you do? First of all, what score do you think you are getting in 2D*? -800? Be honest, do you really think you are getting any matchpoints now? Is there any chance of improving it? Well, if pd happened to have a little club fit, perhaps you could bid 3C. What is the worst that can happen to 3C? well, it could go for 1100, and alter your 2% board into a 0% board. Big deal. On the other hand, *if* it is your lucky day, perhaps 3C will go for only 500, which could easily be a 10% board: you might even do better. So 3C is a reasonable gamble at pairs. You bid 3C. Now, several people on this list have said that they might rule against you because of the 3C bid. Why? One reason given is because it is a double shot. It isn't: it is the obvious bid. Anyway, what difference does it make if it is a double shot? Do we say the double shot is illegal? No, what we say is that if the call is irrational, wild or gambling then we do not provide redress. Do you really think that 3C is irrational, wild or gambling? I think there is a growing idea in the ACBL to punish non-offenders. There seems to be an idea that they gain too much from rulings in their favour. People say they should not get "windfalls". Why not? This is a good example of people looking at the four hands and coming to an unfortunate view about how good a bid is based on its success. The 3C bid was a fairly obvious bid to make under the circumstances, and there is no reason not to give West the redress that he deserves. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo will be 7 on April 5th. Quango got *twenty* emails on his birthday: please send one to Nanki Poo His picture: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat3 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 14:16:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA29995 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 12:21:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA29987 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 12:21:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12ar3e-00017k-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 02:21:12 +0000 Message-ID: <2T42gxAl7$44EwOX@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 02:27:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: David B.'s proposal on claims References: <3.0.1.32.20000330105332.006a72ac@pop.cais.com> <200003301934.LAA13643@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200003301934.LAA13643@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >With AQ10xx opposite K9xx, if declarer claims all the tricks and the >suit actually breaks 2-2 or 3-1, I'd still favor giving declarer all >the tricks. However, with something like AJTxx opposite K9xx, if >declarer is foolish enough to claim five tricks, I'd want the >opponents to get a trick even if they broke 2-2 (but probably not if >they broke 2-1, where a defender had pitched one earlier). At some >tables, declarer might finesse and lose to a doubleton queen, and a >claim rule that lets declarer drop the queen in a really-bad-claim >case like this would take equity away from the non-offenders. >Clearly, it's a big challenge to write objective claim laws that >codify what we think should be "fair" (even if we could all agree on >what that is). I wonder whether we need any change in the Laws to cover this type of situation. We have a Law which would work if we make a few interpretations: so let us make them, promulgate them, and there you are. One thing that occurs to me is that if there is a safety play in a suit we treat it as careless to miss it - and tell the players so. While I do not agree with David's suggested Law change we could tighten this one up. We already have another decision: suits are to be played from the top down. If we think of another couple of common problems, and produce simple rules, there we are. No need for a Law change, but a need to promulgate the interpretations. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo will be 7 on April 5th. Quango got *twenty* emails on his birthday: please send one to Nanki Poo His picture: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat3 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 14:38:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA00351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 14:38:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA00346 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 14:38:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivei6i.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.72.210]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA08934 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 23:38:19 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000330233549.012b151c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 23:35:49 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl In-Reply-To: <007e01bf9ab0$f66ca4a0$c04301d5@davidburn> References: <3.0.6.32.20000329105810.007ade40@eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.20000330162759.006fa6c0@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:32 AM 3/31/2000 +0100, David B wrote (in response to Eric): >I still think that you are considering the effect of my proposal on >claims that happen under the current Laws, and I do not believe that >it is valid to do this. It may help to use the shorthand "DBclaim" for >claims that would be made if my proposal were adopted, reserving the >word "claim" for the kind that is prevalent nowadays, or as a generic >term encompassing both current claims and DBclaims. > >Now, if all the claims made against the lady in the anecdote had been >DBclaims, she would have contested only those that were flawed >DBclaims. She could not, for this is a condition of a DBclaim, have >lost a trick to which she was entitled, for everyone would be able to >calculate the tricks to which a DBclaimer and his opponents are >entitled. She might have won some tricks to which she was not entitled >had the hand been played out, but the effect of a well-formed DBclaim >is that everyone gets the tricks to which they are entitled. One of >the consequences of DBclaims is that no one has to decide whether a >man who claims carelessly would or would not have played equally >carelessly (this being a foolish requirement of what I will >arbitrarily refer to as HdWclaims). To put this another way: after a >DBclaim, play really does cease. You have missed Eric's point here, I think. Many (perhaps most) of the players who are intimidated by today's breezy claims would be just as intimidated, if not more so, by a DBClaim. They _really_ don't like claims, period. Their style is deliberate, and they do not appreciate being asked to follow or accept an oral presentation of the future course of play. No matter how detailed and specific you make the explanation, they will have the unpleasant choice of accepting your word for it (they couldn't possibly follow all that) and leaving with a suspicion they've been hoodwinked, or calling the director and risk being laughed at. Their plight is not ameliorated _to any degree_ by the DBClaim. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 15:21:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA00426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 15:21:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from tantalum.btinternet.com (tantalum.btinternet.com [194.73.73.80]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA00421 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 15:20:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.6.96.25] (helo=davidburn) by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12atjY-0006oE-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 06:12:37 +0100 Message-ID: <014f01bf9ad1$0c211400$c04301d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: DB' proposal on claims (new line of thinking) Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 06:22:01 +0100 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > >> I agree. The TD has to determine whether a claim took place; but the > >> way Richard told the story, it sounds like it didn't. Assuming that > >> there was no claim, Law 49 makes it clear that the named cards are > >> penalty cards, and Law 51A makes it clear that declarer may designate > >> the card to be played. Sorry, I know what the defender was trying to > >> do, but the Laws are clear. > >> > >Come on Adam, what do YOU think the defender was doing? If showing the Ace > >and Qeen in this situation isn't a claim, I don't know what you would call > >it. But, I'll listen if you can give me any rational explanation for the > >defender's action. > > There have always been some situations where a defender feels that > giving information to declarer would speed things up, and both sides > could concentrate on the essentials of the hand. Such information does > not necessarily constitute a claim. Then what does it constitute? Or is the idea that there are some actions that are extra-legal, in the sense that they are permitted in some circumstances but not subject to the Laws of the game? If a player does something with the cards in his hand, it seems to me that whatever he does ought to be interpreted according to some Law, Otherwise, complete anarchy may result. > Of course, if he shows his cards, the TD may judge it to be a claim, > but the basic idea of giving info to declarer does not always make it a > claim. Then what is it? A player has done something with the cards in his hand that will materially affect (a) the result of the deal; (b) the amount of information available to his partner. Are there some actions of this kind that should not be subject to any of the current Laws? Of course, these questions could all be answered if there were a Law 0: players should just get on with it, regardless of what the rest of these Laws say. But I can see even more difficulty with this than I can in the case of a ridiculous proposal to change the Laws relating to claims... David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 17:09:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA00563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 17:09:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA00558 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 17:09:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.86] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12avY3-0009dg-00; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:08:52 +0100 Message-ID: <001001bf9adf$fbfb5400$565908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , References: <9d.39a3b51.2614a5b7@aol.com> <006c01bf9aa3$3fc84720$c04301d5@davidburn> Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_DB=B4s_proposal_on_claims_=28new_line_of_thinking=29?= Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:08:14 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 12:53 AM Subject: Re: DB´s proposal on claims (new line of thinking) Kojak wrote: ---------- \x/ ------------ This is ridiculous. Did the TD ever hear of a Claim? Kojak He, like many subscribers to this list in recent times, will begin to wish that no one had ever heard of a claim. I am becoming a little confused: the thread currently entitled "DB´s proposal on claims (new line of thinking)" appears at present to be concerned only with the player who wished to speed up declarer's prolonged KJ guess by showing him (and perhaps his partner) the AQ. I have no fresh insight on this topic, but I am not sure to what extent it may be relevant to my proposal on claims, and would respectfully suggest that the next person who does have a fresh insight call (subjunctive, Marvin) the thread something else +=+ I had almost given up reading any of it.+=+ > Of course, if the notion is that the penalty imposed on the hapless defender was almost as draconian as the penalties I would inflict on people who claim without telling anyone what they're going to do, then I suppose I must accept the opprobrium of having a shocking piece of bridge lawyering forever associated with my name. It matters not how strait* the gate... +=+ The trouble with the discussion is that our loquacious friends do not allow that your basic idea, if adopted, would then receive the combined wisdom of the WBF Drafting Committee-to-be to convert it into law; this would undoubtedly 'improve' it, perhaps beyond recognition. The process of implementation is designed to deal with all those doubts and potential problems, sometimes by falling into other traps. So do not despair, David, it may yet be worse than you think. +=+ David Burn London, England *not a typo. Wally Farley and Grattan Endicott will know what I mean. +=+ For the 'camel' to go through the eye of a needle ? +=+ ~ G ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 17:43:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA00680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 17:43:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA00675 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 17:43:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.36] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12aw53-000AdM-00; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:42:58 +0100 Message-ID: <001601bf9ae4$bf8a5c00$245608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Eric Landau" , References: <74.2624e08.261557c6@aol.com> Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_DB=B4s_proposal_on_claims_=28new_line_of___thinking=29?= Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:42:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: ; Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 2:22 AM Subject: Re: DB´s proposal on claims (new line of thinking) > In a message dated 3/30/00 3:56:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, elandau@cais.com > writes: > > > For a TD to have awarded him that trick under current law, in the European > > Championships, no less, is not merely careless or inferior for the class of > > TD involved, but irrational. > Bravo!!! Bravissimo!! Kojak > +=+ The quality of the Tournament Direction in EBL tournaments compares with that in any international competition. As anywhere an idiocy may have occurred*, but I would want chapter and verse before I passed judgement on the allegation. At the moment it seems we have an unsupported assertion, scant of any background and without input from Claude Dadoun/ Max Bavin/ Antonio Riccardi as to their knowledge of the ruling and the complete facts, so that I think it appropriate to alter "is not merely" to "would be not merely". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [* on some of the less financially endowed occasions use of other than our top flight directors has produced rare comic decisions when they have failed to consult; I can attest to this!! - but the CTD puts matters right if he hears of them] From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 17:44:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA00694 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 17:44:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA00689 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 17:44:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uniduesseldorf.de (actually Isis48.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de) by neptun with SMTP (local, PP); Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:42:57 +0200 From: Richard Bley To: "Bridge-Laws@Octavia.Anu.Edu.Au" , Schoderb Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE:_DB=B4s_proposal_on_claims_=28new_line_of___thinking=29?= Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:43:47 +0200 Message-ID: <000701bf9ae4$d93ae5c0$308a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.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 V5.00.2919.6600 In-reply-to: <74.2624e08.261557c6@aol.com> Importance: Normal MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > In a message dated 3/30/00 3:56:52 PM Eastern Standard > Time, elandau@cais.com > writes: > > > For a TD to have awarded him that trick under current > law, in the European > > Championships, no less, is not merely careless or > inferior for the class of > > TD involved, but irrational. > Bravo!!! Bravissimo!! Kojak Anybody who RsTFLB must come to this conclusion (Footnotw L68 is REALLY CLEAR here). Anyway it was a case from old laws (1979). Perhaps the footnote was a result of this case. (At least one of the members of the involved team (not the player!) was later in WBF laws comittee, so this conjunction is not improbable). But doesnt matter anyway. BUT: The case IS interesting for the actual debate about claiming-rules. The atitude of mind shown here by the lawsmaker is stronly contradictional to the DB proposal on claims. And I´m happy that it is. BTW: AQ10xx vs. Kxxx is IMHO a 5-trick claim in an expert game (without saying anything). Anything else is again IMHO insulting them of being an idiot. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 18:29:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA00793 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 18:29:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA00788 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 18:28:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.24] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12awnM-000Cgc-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:28:45 +0100 Message-ID: <000901bf9aeb$24f82ee0$185608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "BLML" References: <01bf9aac$8ec21640$085593c3@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:27:39 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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, March 31, 2000 2:00 AM Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl > ----Original Message----- > From: Steve Willner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Date: Friday, March 31, 2000 12:28 AM > Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl > > > >If there is to be a Law change, it might almost be enough to change > >'should' in L68C to 'shall'. > > > L68A. A claim is defined as "any statement". It seems that as long as > declarer shows his hand in a manner which indicates that he wishes to > curtail the play, then even if he makes no statement, he has claimed. > This is not so. > TD should not accept as a claim, any mannerism which is not > accompanied by a "statement". > +=+ When stating the law it is useful to examine the whole law. In the above the writer has failed to get as far as the fifth word of the preamble to Law 69. He has also failed to read 69A through to the end. A claim may be made by an action unaccompanied by speech. The claimer "should" then accompany the claim with a statement (69C) but if he does not do so the claim has nevertheless been made. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 18:55:51 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA00873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 18:55:51 +1000 (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 SAA00866 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 18:55:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (pcciborowski.comarch.pl [195.116.125.138]) by omicron.comarch.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 857145C038 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:55:36 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38E467ED.D8B23B01@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:55:09 +0200 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: David B.'s proposal on claims References: <3.0.1.32.20000330105332.006a72ac@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau pressed the following keys: > > David has given us a number of examples where the application of the > current claim law can lead to huge inconsistencies in rulings on claims > made without accompanying statements. I am sympathetic to his concerns, > and do believe that players who claim without making statements should be > treated rather harshly. Recall that I was firmly on the side of those who > would have ruled down 1 in the "bum claim" thread (AQ10xx opposite K9xx). > > My concern isn't with claimers who don't make statements. It's with > claimers who make perfectly reasonable statements that fall somewhat short > of being card-for-card exact and cover every possible contingency. > > Consider 7NT on AKQ/AQ10xx/AKQ/AK opposite xxx/K9xx/xxx/xxx. > > Declarer wins the opening lead and says "I have 13 tricks". IMO, that's a > bad claim. If LHO has HJxxx, he goes down. No problem. > > In fact, I'd favor a guideline that says that, since the heart suit will > not necessarily play for five tricks, declarer's failure to give any > indication of how he would play the suit is presumed to mean that he thinks > it will run from the top. That means he goes down if either opponent has > HJxxx. Harsher than current practice, but not entirely unfair. "And that's where the dog is buried" as we say in Poland (the saying means "and that's the point", I have no idea what its origin is). You, Eric Landau, a very good TD, well versed in Laws, rule one down under the current Laws if either opponent holds Jxxx. Herman de Wael, another good TD, a member of ACs in many international events, would rule 7NT= regardless of the heart position. ("I can't imagine any sane player cashing the King first"). David Stevenson, another splendid Director, would rule one down if Jxxx is over AQ10xx but would rule 7NT made if Jxxx is over Kxxx ("It would be merely careless to cash the K first but then North will show out and declarer will take the marked finesse"). Remember a claim Schapiro made at the Macallan tournament? There is a Polish web site where two Polish best tournament directors (Latala and Romanski, I guess they both are contributors to this list) comment on Laws, rulings and answer the questions sent by internauts. They agree with each other in 95% of cases. And of course they had different opinions on this one! One of them let Schapiro make his 5D, the other one ruled one down. Under the current Laws different rulings based on the same set of facts are made not by Directors who barely know that there is printing inside the Law Book. It is not the fault of the Laws that a TD awards a trick for a revoke made at trick 12 because he didn't read what he is supposed to. But it is the _fundamental, major flaw_ of the current regulations that people who know almost everything about the Laws cannot reach a consensus in something what strikes me as a _straightforward, typical case_. Like the one given by Eric. AKQ AQ10xx AKQ AK xxx K9xx xxx xxx. Player fails to see that a suit might break 4-0. This is bread and butter, everyday situation. A simple one. And still there are three different approaches. Those of us who object to DB's proposal argue that no change is needed because all that has to be done is to "promulgate interpretations". On the other hand, no one has yet come up with an interpretation with the exception of Adam Beneschan who made a valuable effort of codifying "rational plays". The way I see things is that either we should switch to what DB proposes or follow the path Adam tries to go. But the fact the no other eminent contributor to this list has even tried to do this so far proves how hard a task it is. That's why I, A-Fixed-Penalty-Shoot-Down-The-Law25-Guy, vote for consistency à la Burn. Otherwise John Probst will send another "an easy one" and we'll have an occupation for another half a year... -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Mar 31 19:00:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA00901 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 19:00:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f148.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.148]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA00896 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 19:00:45 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 96031 invoked by uid 0); 31 Mar 2000 09:00:06 -0000 Message-ID: <20000331090006.96030.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 152.172.63.219 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 01:00:05 PST X-Originating-IP: [152.172.63.219] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bley@uni-duesseldorf.de, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: DB´s proposal on claims (new line of thinking) Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 01:00:05 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >BTW: > >AQ10xx vs. Kxxx > >is IMHO a 5-trick claim in an expert game (without saying anything). >Anything else is again IMHO insulting them of being an idiot. J9xx outstanding left of the AQTxx and you take all 5? Please explain. -Todd ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 19:17:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA00944 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 19:17:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA00939 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 19:17:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uniduesseldorf.de (actually Isis92.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de) by neptun with SMTP (local, PP); Fri, 31 Mar 2000 11:12:12 +0200 From: Richard Bley To: Todd Zimnoch , bridge-laws Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE:_DB=B4s_proposal_on_claims_=28new_line_of_thinking=29?= Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 11:13:02 +0200 Message-ID: <000001bf9af1$50b50660$5c8a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.de> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20000331090006.96030.qmail@hotmail.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >BTW: > > > >AQ10xx vs. Kxxx > > > >is IMHO a 5-trick claim in an expert game (without saying > anything). > >Anything else is again IMHO insulting them of being an idiot. > > J9xx outstanding left of the AQTxx and you take all 5? > Please explain. Sorry meant: K9xx AQ10xx Richard From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 19:24:37 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA00971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 19:24:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA00966 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 19:24:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uniduesseldorf.de (actually Isis92.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de) by neptun with SMTP (local, PP); Fri, 31 Mar 2000 11:16:42 +0200 From: Richard Bley To: Konrad Ciborowski , BLML Subject: RE: David B.'s proposal on claims Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 11:17:31 +0200 Message-ID: <000101bf9af1$f1315080$5c8a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.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: <38E467ED.D8B23B01@omicron.comarch.pl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Eric Landau pressed the following keys: > > > > David has given us a number of examples where the > application of the > > current claim law can lead to huge inconsistencies in > rulings on claims > > made without accompanying statements. I am sympathetic > to his concerns, > > and do believe that players who claim without making > statements should be > > treated rather harshly. Recall that I was firmly on the > side of those who > > would have ruled down 1 in the "bum claim" thread (AQ10xx > opposite K9xx). > > > > My concern isn't with claimers who don't make statements. > It's with > > claimers who make perfectly reasonable statements that > fall somewhat short > > of being card-for-card exact and cover every possible contingency. > > > > Consider 7NT on AKQ/AQ10xx/AKQ/AK opposite xxx/K9xx/xxx/xxx. > > > > Declarer wins the opening lead and says "I have 13 > tricks". IMO, that's a > > bad claim. If LHO has HJxxx, he goes down. No problem. > > > > In fact, I'd favor a guideline that says that, since the > heart suit will > > not necessarily play for five tricks, declarer's failure > to give any > > indication of how he would play the suit is presumed to > mean that he thinks > > it will run from the top. That means he goes down if > either opponent has > > HJxxx. Harsher than current practice, but not entirely unfair. > > "And that's where the dog is buried" as we say in Poland In german we say "wo der hund begraben liegt" > (the saying means "and that's the point", I have no idea what > its origin is). You, Eric Landau, a very good TD, well > versed in Laws, > rule one down under the current Laws if either opponent holds Jxxx. > Herman de Wael, another good TD, a member of ACs in many > international events, would rule 7NT= regardless of the heart > position. > ("I can't imagine any sane player cashing the King first"). > David Stevenson, another splendid Director, would rule one > down if Jxxx is over AQ10xx but would rule 7NT made if > Jxxx is over Kxxx ("It would be merely careless to cash the > K first but then North will show out and declarer will take > the marked finesse"). > Remember a claim Schapiro made at the Macallan tournament? > There is a Polish web site where two Polish best tournament > directors (Latala and Romanski, I guess they both are > contributors to this list) comment on Laws, rulings and answer the > questions > sent by internauts. They agree with each other in 95% of cases. > And of course they had different opinions on this one! One of > them let Schapiro make his 5D, the other one ruled one down. > Under the current Laws different rulings based on the same > set of facts are made not by Directors who barely know that > there is printing inside the Law Book. It is not the fault > of the Laws that a TD awards a trick for a revoke made at trick > 12 because he didn't read what he is supposed to. But it > is the _fundamental, major flaw_ of the current regulations > that people who know almost everything about the Laws cannot > reach a consensus in something what strikes me as a > _straightforward, > typical case_. Like the one given by Eric. > > AKQ > AQ10xx > AKQ > AK > > xxx > K9xx > xxx > xxx. > > > Player fails to see that a suit might break 4-0. This is > bread and butter, everyday situation. A simple one. And still > there are three different approaches. I cannot believe this. I cannot imagine an expert who fails to see that the suit might break 4-0. This thing might be different in a small club tournament. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 19:45:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA01054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 19:45:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt1-he.global.net.uk (cobalt1-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.161]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA01044 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 19:45:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from p6bs05a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.117.108] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt1-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12axyO-0005oz-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 01:44:13 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:36:00 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf9af4$8650c040$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: BLML Cc: adam@irvine.com Date: Friday, March 31, 2000 3:13 AM Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl > >Anne Jones wrote: > >> L68A. A claim is defined as "any statement". It seems that as long as >> declarer shows his hand in a manner which indicates that he wishes to >> curtail the play, then even if he makes no statement, he has claimed. >> This is not so. > >Yes it is---the second sentence of L68A says it is. L68A describes >three different ways a contestant may claim, and facing one's hand is >one of those, even if there's no accompanying statement. > >(If L68C is revised to change "should" to "shall", this part of L68A >would have to be changed also to avoid contradictions.) > Oooops! You are of course correct. I think maybe this is the change we should be looking for. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 19:46:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA01055 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 19:46:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt1-he.global.net.uk (cobalt1-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.161]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA01045 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 19:45:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from p6bs05a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.117.108] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt1-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12axyR-0005oz-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 01:44:16 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:38:45 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf9af4$e8c22ac0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Grattan Endicott To: BLML Date: Friday, March 31, 2000 9:40 AM Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl > >Grattan Endicott===================================== >"Now, who shall arbitrate? Ten men love what I hate, >Shun what I follow, Slight what I receive; >Ten who in ears and eyes Match me: we all surmise >They this thing, and I that: whom shall my soul believe? > ['Rabbi ben Ezra'] >----- Original Message ----- >From: Anne Jones >To: BLML >Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 2:00 AM >Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl > > >> ----Original Message----- >> From: Steve Willner >> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >> Date: Friday, March 31, 2000 12:28 AM >> Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl >> > >> >If there is to be a Law change, it might almost be enough to change >> >'should' in L68C to 'shall'. >> > >> L68A. A claim is defined as "any statement". It seems that as long as >> declarer shows his hand in a manner which indicates that he wishes to >> curtail the play, then even if he makes no statement, he has claimed. >> This is not so. >> TD should not accept as a claim, any mannerism which is not >> accompanied by a "statement". >> >+=+ When stating the law it is useful to examine the whole law. >In the above the writer has failed to get as far as the fifth word >of the preamble to Law 69. He has also failed to read 69A >through to the end. > A claim may be made by an action unaccompanied by >speech. The claimer "should" then accompany the claim with > a statement (69C) but if he does not do so the claim has >nevertheless been made. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Yup! Well deserved flack as anticipated.I saw what I wanted to see. Anne > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 20:53:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA01216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 20:53:56 +1000 (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 UAA01206 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 20:53:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12az3Y-000EyO-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 11:53:37 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 03:30:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl References: <3.0.6.32.20000329105810.007ade40@eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.20000330162759.006fa6c0@pop.cais.com> <007e01bf9ab0$f66ca4a0$c04301d5@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <007e01bf9ab0$f66ca4a0$c04301d5@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >Eric wrote: >[EL] >> This is a real and serious problem, and one that should be addressed >by >> teaching players right from the start that there is no shame in >calling the >> TD when it's not clear to them how a hand on which their opponent >has >> claimed might have been played out. >This is, in my submission, even harder to do than adopting my proposal >lock, stock and barrel would be. You tell me - and you may very well >be right - that a player who went down ten as a result of a flawed >"Burn claim" would never claim again. By the same token, I tell you >that someone who contests a claim that she can't see, and is told by >the Tournament Director that the claim is valid, and has to suffer the >jeers of her opponent as a result (for those jeers inevitably ensue), >will *never* contest a claim again. Whether or not there is, a priori, >shame in her calling the Director in the first instance, she *will* be >ashamed - and that shame will remain an albatross around her neck >until she suffers the ultimate Burn revoke penalty. It is possible that the TD can do something about this. Such players, when they contest claims, do so in a fairly diffident manner, and the TD can often recognise the type of contesting. It is his job to reassure the player, and to do as much as he can to avoid any comments from the other side. After all, jeers are subject to disciplinary penalty. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo will be 7 on April 5th. Quango got *twenty* emails on his birthday: please send one to Nanki Poo His picture: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat3 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 20:53:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA01211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 20:53:53 +1000 (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 UAA01205 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 20:53:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12az3S-000EyA-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 11:53:30 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 03:34:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl References: <01bf9aac$8ec21640$085593c3@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf9aac$8ec21640$085593c3@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >L68A. A claim is defined as "any statement". It seems that as long as >declarer shows his hand in a manner which indicates that he wishes to >curtail the play, then even if he makes no statement, he has claimed. >This is not so. It is possible that you may wish it not to be so, but it certainly is so at the moment. If you read L68A, it is clear that an action does not need to be accompanied by a statement to make it a claim. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo will be 7 on April 5th. Quango got *twenty* emails on his birthday: please send one to Nanki Poo His picture: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat3 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 20:58:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA01249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 20:58:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from ultra1.its.it (ultra1.its.it [151.92.2.43]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA01244 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 20:58:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from ex1unintd03.its.it ([151.92.249.147]) by ultra1.its.it (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA24713 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 12:57:45 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by EX1UNINTD03 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 12:52:30 +0200 Message-ID: From: NARDULLO Ennio To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: break in tempo Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 12:52:17 +0200 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 think it is not possible have an advantage and playing 2 results in the same time! Without break in tempo , it's possible to save ... the partner bidding 3C. I don't do that ... i can pay 1100-1400 and to have a worts result ..... But after the break in tempo , easily the director gives me a good result , for example 2D -1 . Why i must to risk ? No..... too easy ...... I always try that players don't find that ( 2 results in the same time ) Bye Ing. ENNIO NARDULLO FIAT AUTO IT Information Tecnology di Settore G.C.S.M.P. via Caraglio 84 Tel. ufficio 0116853198 Tel cellulare 0335214898 mailto:ennio.nardullo@consulenti.fiat.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 21:14:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA01353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 21:14:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA01347 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 21:13:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-12-186.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.12.186]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA14354 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 13:13:47 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38E48306.621617C1@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 12:50:46 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: David B.'s proposal on claims References: <3.0.1.32.20000330105332.006a72ac@pop.cais.com> <38E467ED.D8B23B01@omicron.comarch.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > > "And that's where the dog is buried" as we say in Poland > Herman de Wael, [compliments snipped] would rule 7NT= regardless > of the heart position. > I don't think I would, if the position were as clear as this one : > AKQ > AQ10xx > AKQ > AK > > xxx > K9xx > xxx > xxx. > When in 7NT, I'd expect this player to count his tricks before claiming. It seems very unlikely to me that the player would not notice the "problem" before claiming. Then, if he does claim, and does not mention the hearts (not even immediately after the claim is contested), I ask him why he did not mention it. I don't believe this case will ever happen in real life, but if it does, I don't believe the declarer can convince me he has noticed the problem. I would rule careless play and one down. What does happen in real life, on the cards above, are things like this: partner has just passed a forcing 3He and declarer is furious when dummy comes down. +4 he shouts, while throwing his hand down and strangling partner. Now he has an excuse why he did not notice that trumps might be 4-0. I would rule it irrational for him not to notice the position in actual play, and depending on his ability, irrational for him not to pick up the suit for 0 losers. I would give that declarer 13 tricks (not that he'd be mad at getting only 12, I suspect). > Player fails to see that a suit might break 4-0. This is > bread and butter, everyday situation. A simple one. And still > there are three different approaches. > Well, the circumstances may matter. The actual case will never come up, without some exterior factor that matters in the decision. We are trying (too hard IMO) to define rationality in the light of irrational claims. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 21:14:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA01357 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 21:14:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA01346 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 21:13:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-12-186.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.12.186]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA14337 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 13:13:44 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38E47F2D.458F41FC@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 12:34:21 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl References: <200003292122.QAA00313@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200003292122.QAA00313@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.20000330151717.006a8034@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > > > >The way things are according to Herman (and David Stevenson if I > >understand him correctly), it is in every players best interest to claim > >without bothering to look for problems as long as you think you can > >convince the director that you were capable of spotting them. > > I fail to sympathise with those who see a problem here. Perhaps all that > is needed is to explicitly state a guideline, which, IMHO, should be > obvious without needing to be stated: Failing to spot a problem in a suit > is careless but not irrational. If a player claims without any indication > that he is aware of a problem a suit, he is deemed not to have noticed it. > But it is irrational for a player who has indicated that there is a problem > in a suit and that he knows how to deal with it not to do so. > I agree with Eric. See David, it's not so uncommon. > So in "bum claim", "five heart tricks" is a bad claim statement, losing a > trick to Jxxx behind the AQ (see footnote). "HA in case someone shows out, > five heart tricks" is a good claim statement, taking five heart tricks on > any lie. I agree. > But the claim statement that David B.'s proposal would require -- > "HA playing H2, then, if LHO shows out, 3 to the K, 4 to the 10, then Q, > then 5, or if RHO shows out, 3 to the 9, K playing the 2, 4 to the Q, then > 5, or if neither opponent shows out, 3 to the K, 4 to the Q, then 10, then > 5" -- is ludicrous. I AGREE ! > > IOW, HK first is not irrational, because even if you know how to handle > this combination in your sleep, it is merely careless to fail to notice > that you must take care to do so on this hand. But, once having recognized > the combination and indicated that you will handle it appropriately, it is > irrational to then fail to do so; there is no sensible reason, and there > should be no legal requirement, to spell it out card by card. > To the proposed guideline : "failing to spot a problem is careless - failing to correctly execute a spotted problem is irrational" I would personally add just the one thing. "While it may be careless to fail to spot a particular problem at the time of claiming, certain circumstances at the time of claiming may make it possible that it is ruled that it would be irrational for the player not to spot the problem when in actual play. However, it may be that merely careless play results in the player noticing the problem only when it becomes too late to cope with it". I realise that many would not agree with this statement and eagerly await good examples of such cases. I still believe the "strange claim" is a good example. The player did not notice any of the problems at the moment of claiming (careless), but would have spotted the problem before the play of one extra card. Thus, the winning line did become irrational, but several losing ones became normal. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 23:28:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA01783 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 23:28:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [205.252.14.63]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA01778 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 23:28:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA12217 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:26:57 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000331082751.006f5244@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:27:51 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl In-Reply-To: <008401bf9ab4$a1cfbc80$c04301d5@davidburn> References: <200003292122.QAA00313@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200003292122.QAA00313@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.20000330151717.006a8034@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:58 AM 3/31/00 +0100, David wrote: >Under my proposal, claims would sometimes occur later in the play than >they do at present - or, if they did not, the situation would be >obvious enough for a Grant Sterling to work out that it was faster to >claim than to play. Somebody wrote patronising nonsense to the effect >that he "only claims when he thinks his opponents will understand, but >even he would not claim under the Burn proposal", as if that mattered. >What I am sure all of us would like to see happen is that players >claim only when they themselves understand completely what they are >going to do, and can demonstrate that understanding. It is surely >possible that a player good enough to handle AQ10xx facing K9xx is >also good enough to realise that cashing the ace (which takes next to >no time) will simplify the statement he might then have to make, to >sub-ludicrous levels. What is intolerable is for such a player to >claim (with no statement) on the basis that he has five heart tricks, >and for an opponent with HJxxx to be given sympathy (and a trick) by >Eric and the bum's rush by Herman. This is a very convincing statement. I'm strongly inclined to agree with the last sentence, although I expect Herman might argue that it isn't intolerable at all, it is merely a reflection of the difference between local attitudes and practices in the U.S. and Belgium. It's not an easy problem to solve, which is why we're in this long and complex discussion on the subject. But while DB's proposal would cure the problem, I fear the cure would be worse than the disease. Under a DB regime, when a player claimed with no statement on the basis that he has five heart tricks (even after having cashed the HA), neither Herman nor I would have the least bit of sympathy for an opponent with HJx, but would be nonetheless forced to award him a trick. DB's rebuttal is that once his proposal had become well-established law, nobody would ever claim without making a proper statement, and the problem would go away. But no matter how well-established the law, it would apply to relatively new players -- and everyone was a relatively new player once -- who would inevitably get it just a bit wrong once, with such dire consequences following from such a relatively minor technical infraction that they would conclude that it was safer and easier just never to claim; nobody would every claim, period, and the problem would go away. Of course, DB is right, nobody would ever claim without making a statement. But as I've said before, my concern isn't with claimers who don't make statements, it is with claimers who make perfectly reasonable statements that fail to cover every possible contingency in a way that is exactly card-for-card correct. 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 Mar 31 23:29:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA01800 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 23:29:08 +1000 (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 XAA01787 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 23:28:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12b1Ti-000DUV-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 14:28:47 +0100 Message-ID: <8kbEddAt6I54EwVK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 12:40:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: RE: =?iso-8859-1?q?DB=B4s_proposal_on_claims_(new_line_of_thinking)?= References: <74.2624e08.261557c6@aol.com> <000701bf9ae4$d93ae5c0$308a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.de> In-Reply-To: <000701bf9ae4$d93ae5c0$308a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Bley wrote: >BTW: > >AQ10xx vs. Kxxx I assume AQTxx K9xx >is IMHO a 5-trick claim in an expert game (without saying anything). >Anything else is again IMHO insulting them of being an idiot. Well, he is an idiot, isn't he? So why not say he is? In an expert game the players know that their opponents will not expect them to block suits, but will expect them to mention safety plays to show they have not missed them. I think we should generally move towards more sympathy for NOs and less for Os - we have moved too far from the line. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo will be 7 on April 5th. Quango got *twenty* emails on his birthday: please send one to Nanki Poo His picture: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat3 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 31 23:29:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA01799 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 23:29:07 +1000 (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 XAA01786 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 23:28:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12b1Ti-000DUT-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 14:28:47 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 12:36:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: DB' proposal on claims (new line of thinking) References: <014f01bf9ad1$0c211400$c04301d5@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <014f01bf9ad1$0c211400$c04301d5@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >DWS wrote: >> Of course, if he shows his cards, the TD may judge it to be a claim, >> but the basic idea of giving info to declarer does not always make >it a >> claim. >Then what is it? A player has done something with the cards in his >hand that will materially affect (a) the result of the deal; (b) the >amount of information available to his partner. Are there some actions >of this kind that should not be subject to any of the current Laws? Whether they should or should not be is not the point: that does not make a non-claim a claim. When a player gives information to declarer, that is AI to declarer and UI to partner: but it is not a claim solely because you cannot find another Law to cover it. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo will be 7 on April 5th. Quango got *twenty* emails on his birthday: please send one to Nanki Poo His picture: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat3