From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 1 00:04:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA01906 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 00:04:33 +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 AAA01901 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 00:04:26 +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 JAA14120 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:03:04 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000331090400.007008b0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:04:00 -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: <000701bf9ae4$d93ae5c0$308a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.de> References: <74.2624e08.261557c6@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:43 AM 3/31/00 +0200, Richard wrote: >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. As it certainly should and would be if we had different rules for expert games than for beginner games. But that is a key issue in the current debate: Do we believe (as I do) that it is possible (in theory, despite the obvious difficulties of doing so in practice) to specify what constitutes "irrational" play in the general case, or do we believe that "irrational" must be re-defined for each player individually? 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 Apr 1 00:17:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA01985 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 00:17:08 +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 AAA01979 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 00:17:01 +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 JAA14878 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:15:48 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000331091644.006f8ad0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:16:44 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: David B.'s proposal on claims In-Reply-To: <38E467ED.D8B23B01@omicron.comarch.pl> References: <3.0.1.32.20000330105332.006a72ac@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:55 AM 3/31/00 +0200, Konrad wrote: > "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. I absolutely would not rule that way, and apologize if my remarks were unclear. What I had intended to say is that I would support a change in the laws that permitted me to rule that way. > 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"). I agree with David as to the correct ruling under current laws, and understand that to rule as I might prefer would violate L70E. 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 Apr 1 01:27:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA02270 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 01:27:07 +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 BAA02265 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 01:26:52 +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 KAA20157 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:25:39 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000331102635.007001dc@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:26:35 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Having brought up the distinction between failing to spot a problem (careless) and failing to solve it once spotted (irrational), I'm prepared to offer some specific guidelines: When a claim is based on taking all of the tricks in a suit without further clarification, failure to do any of the following is to be considered as careless but not irrational: 1. Cashing high cards in a particular order required to subsequently reveal a proven finesse. This means that AQ10xx opposite K9xx does not run against Jxxx behind the AQ, or that AJxxxxx opposite Kxx does not run against Qxx onside. 2. Overtaking one high card with another where doing so could prevent the suit from running in some position. This means that someone who claims for five tricks with KQ opposite AJ1092 and no side entry to the long suit would be given the benefit of the overtake, but someone who claims with KQ opposite AJ1032 would not. 3. Discarding one or more cards in the suit prior to running it. This means that on a hand such as Axxxx/AKxx/AKQ/x opposite x/xx/J1098xx/AKQJ, declarer in NT, club led, a claim such as "I will win four clubs, six diamonds, two hearts and a spade", with no indication as to how the diamond blockage would be dealt with, would be disallowed. I'm not 100% certain that I'd actually favor the next one, but it's unambiguous, and should be a candidate for consideration. 4. Cashing all of the cards in the short hand prior to gaining entry in another suit in order to cash the remaining cards in the long hand. This means that the example claim in #3 would be disallowed on a non-club lead as well. These won't solve all our problems (or even all our one-suited problems) with faulty claims, but perhaps it's a modest start. 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 Apr 1 01:41:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA02313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 01:41:18 +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 BAA02308 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 01:41:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-33qtkkp.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.210.153]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA17207 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:41:01 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000331155258.00708b08@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, 31 Mar 2000 07:52:58 -0800 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Henry Sun Subject: Re: Ruling: break in tempo ?? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:52 PM 3/29/00 -0500, you 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. 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 i'm no tournament director, but this is how i'd rule. (1) looking at the south cards, it appears that south does have a problem: good hand, but no diamond stopper and the wrong shape for a takeout double. hence, in the presence of a dispute about whether a break in tempo occured, i'd rule that one did. (2) the break in tempo passes the UI that south wanted to bid but couldn't find anything descriptive, so it suggests balancing. since a pass is clearly a LA for north (in spite of his claim), i'd roll the contract back to 2d undoubled down 1 for the ns score. i don't see any rational alternative to down 1 since a defense which gives east the hq at the end seems clearly an irrational defense. (3) but west's 3c rescue strikes me as being bizarre. although my understanding of the laws is that west is allowed to make deductions from south's tempo, he must accept the good with the bad. that 3c call itself is so bizarre that i would judge that it forfeits the ew claim to an adjusted score. so i'd let the ew score stand, adjust the ns score to +50, and encourage either side to appeal if they are unhappy with the ruling. henrysun From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 1 02:02:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA02550 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 02:02:17 +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 CAA02544 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 02:02:09 +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 IAA05232; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:02:18 -0800 Message-Id: <200003311602.IAA05232@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: David B.'s proposal on claims In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 31 Mar 2000 02:27:01 PST." <2T42gxAl7$44EwOX@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:02:18 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > 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. I agree that such interpretations should be sufficient to solve the problem. Sometimes I've gotten a little sloppy in my wording, and used the word "laws" to refer to anything that's written down and binding, including SO regulations, official interpretations, etc. My apologies if this has confused anyone. If we did this, I'd still want to make one minor change to the Laws, and that would be to delete the words "inferior", "careless", and "irrational", and replace them with other terms. If we've promulgated interpretations that tell us what lines of play are considered "normal" or not, then that becomes the standard for what claims are acceptable, and it doesn't matter whether one player considers this or that line "rational" or "irrational" or whatever. IMHO, if we left the word "irrational" in the Laws, then even if we have written interpretations that say "For the purposes of this Law, 'irrational' is defined as blah-blah-blah-blah", the term "irrational" still carries too much emotional baggage, which could lead to people saying things like, "I'm a Grand Poobah Master with 2 billion master points, how you could possibly think it would be rational for me to miss a textbook safety play?" If we use a more neutral term ("nonconformant"?), the guy who claims with AQ10xx/K9xx would be guilty of breaking a rule, but the rules wouldn't imply anything at all about his mental capacity or playing ability, which should be less upsetting. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 1 02:16:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA02598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 02:08:35 +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 CAA02593 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 02:08:28 +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 IAA05373; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:08:37 -0800 Message-Id: <200003311608.IAA05373@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 "Fri, 31 Mar 2000 03:12:47 PST." Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:08:37 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > 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? No, just the opposite---I was trying to argue that 3C is *not* any of those things, and the NO's should not have to keep their score, neither in the ACBL nor anywhere else. Sorry if I wasn't clear. > It could easily be right, and I think the hand is not one where a > split score is suitable. Well, I've been trying to figure out if a split score of -90 NS/-50 EW is possible. (1/2 :-)) But certainly not +50/-800. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 1 02:26:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA02681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 02:26:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA02675 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 02:26:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from meteo.fr (rubis.meteo.fr [137.129.5.28]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA13641 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 16:25:20 GMT Message-ID: <38E4D179.90F37133@meteo.fr> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 18:25:29 +0200 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: break in tempo References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk NARDULLO Ennio a écrit : > > 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 ) Very strange, you first argued against redress for 3C's bidder because it was a double shot, and now you argue against redress because the player stupidly failed to take a double shot. JP Rocafort > 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 -- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 1 02:35:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA02722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 02:35:57 +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 CAA02717 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 02:35:49 +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 KAA14923 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:40:06 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000331103401.007e75b0@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:34:01 -0600 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: A Modest Proposal on Claims Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It seems to me that the juices have been simmered out of the debate, and all that's left is to start burning the meat. So I'll step aside. But I think there is definate merit in the modest proposal that has been brought forth [I can't find the note where it was first mentioned now--my apologies to its originator], namely: Change the word "should" in L68C to "shall". [The Preface will have to be re-written too, then, since this is the example it uses for "should". :)] Then announce clearly within your jurisdictions, on CoC's, etc., a fixed PP fine for any claim not accompanied with a statement. It probably doesn't even have to be a large fine. This will not eliminate every possible difficult claim. But it will: 1) Eliminate or greatly reduce the number of claims that are accompanied by no statement at all. Since these are the claims that seem to concern some on this list the most, that must be counted as a benefit. 2) Not overly penalize those people who do claim with a statement, but a statement that is not perfectly detailed or flawless. 3) Not overly disrupt the game or change the laws. Even hesitant claimers will not be significantly intimidated by these provisions. 4) Satisfy those who like fixed penalties. We won't have cases where the failure to issue a statement, alone, makes the difference between the loss of one overtrick in one case and down 8 in another, just because the sequence of legal plays gives varied results [or one TD is better at creating inventive sequences of misplays than another]. 5) Not overly penalize people that come from regions that are not informed of law changes. Since the fine would be small and publicized, they wouldn't be hit with a disasterous result from a law they never heard of. 6) Allow jurisdictions to tailor the size of the fine to their needs. I submit this to Grattan and Ton and the others for their consideration. -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 1 04:42:13 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA03167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 04:42:13 +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 EAA03162 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 04:42:03 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 98798 invoked by uid 0); 31 Mar 2000 18:41:22 -0000 Message-ID: <20000331184122.98797.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.21 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:41:22 PST X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.21] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal on Claims Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:41:22 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk While this is nice and addresses a large part of the debate going on here, I think that the debate has been led astray focusing on just the problem of a lack of a claim statement. There are asinine situations where claims are ruled good when the shouldn't even be permitted. Case 1: An defender claims tricks that rely on his partner's play. Case 2: Declarer claims when defenders (on lead) still have tricks to take. I've been told twice by different directors in case 1 that defenders would never have gotten it wrong. Both cases required that the defender who wasn't claiming had a full count of the hand as so far played. It would have been 'irrational' for defender to lose count. I was told that I never would have found the exit in case 2 (to be fair, partner signaled hi-low with 3 and we don't play that way). But as soon as declarer exposes his hand, I should be allowed to figure it out and be entitled to the trick. It would have been 'irrational' not to trust my partner's signal. I'm not convinced. That, yet again reiterated, is a far larger problem than what is getting focus. The vast majority of claims need no statement at all. Your proposal would just force people to open their mouths and say "mine." When the claim is contested we're right back where we started. People will claim without statements. They will claim when they are not on lead. They will even claim tricks for their partner! Stopping this will not happen as the TD will rarely know about it. There's often no problem with it. But TD's should stop being so vainly sympathetic to the OS in the name of equity. -Todd >From: Grant Sterling >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Subject: A Modest Proposal on Claims >Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:34:01 -0600 > > It seems to me that the juices have been simmered out of the >debate, and all that's left is to start burning the meat. So I'll >step aside. But I think there is definate merit in the modest >proposal that has been brought forth [I can't find the note where it >was first mentioned now--my apologies to its originator], namely: > > Change the word "should" in L68C to "shall". [The Preface will >have to be re-written too, then, since this is the example it uses for >"should". :)] Then announce clearly within your jurisdictions, on CoC's, >etc., a fixed PP fine for any claim not accompanied with a statement. It >probably doesn't even have to be a large fine. > > This will not eliminate every possible difficult claim. But it will: >1) Eliminate or greatly reduce the number of claims that are accompanied >by no statement at all. Since these are the claims that seem to concern >some on this list the most, that must be counted as a benefit. >2) Not overly penalize those people who do claim with a statement, >but a statement that is not perfectly detailed or flawless. >3) Not overly disrupt the game or change the laws. Even hesitant claimers >will not be significantly intimidated by these provisions. >4) Satisfy those who like fixed penalties. We won't have cases where the >failure to issue a statement, alone, makes the difference between the >loss of one overtrick in one case and down 8 in another, just because >the sequence of legal plays gives varied results [or one TD is better at >creating inventive sequences of misplays than another]. >5) Not overly penalize people that come from regions that are not informed >of law changes. Since the fine would be small and publicized, they >wouldn't >be hit with a disasterous result from a law they never heard of. >6) Allow jurisdictions to tailor the size of the fine to their needs. > > I submit this to Grattan and Ton and the others for their >consideration. > > -Grant Sterling > cfgcs@eiu.edu ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 1 06:18:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA03448 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 06:18:31 +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 GAA03443 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 06:18:16 +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 MAA10432; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 12:18:21 -0800 Message-Id: <200003312018.MAA10432@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Defender says he has A-Q (was: David Burn something-or-other) In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 30 Mar 2000 08:09:46 PST." <200003301609.IAA09775@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 12:18:22 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I scrawled: > 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 doesnt > > > > 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. I just realized that I've been carrying on this argument without having read the original story properly. I missed the part that says "The opp behind him now SHOWED HIS CARDS". I thought he just announced that he had the ace and queen, without showing his cards, and I was arguing on that assumption. As DWS pointed out, it's still not completely clear whether there was a claim. If the opponent faced his hand so everyone could see it, then yes, it's clearly a claim by L68A, "unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim". If the opponent showed his cards only to declarer, it's not so clear. I still maintain that if defender had merely announced he had the ace and queen, without showing anything, then that is not a claim, and the ace and queen become penalty cards. Apologies to everyone for any confusion I might have caused. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 1 06:29:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA03489 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 06:29:43 +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 GAA03484 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 06:29:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.241] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12b82a-000NnT-00; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 21:29:13 +0100 Message-ID: <004f01bf9b4f$cb655280$f15608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: References: Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 21:03:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 2:03 PM Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl > In a message dated 3/31/00 3:32:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, > Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk writes: > > > +=+ When stating the law it is useful to examine the whole law. > > In the above the writer has failed to get as far as the fifth word > > of the preamble to Law 69. He has also failed to read 69A > > through to the end. > > A claim may be made by an action unaccompanied by > > speech. The claimer "should" then accompany the claim with > > a statement (69C) but if he does not do so the claim has > > nevertheless been made. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > You meant Law 68 didn't you? Although 69A could also be applied. Kojak > +=+ 68 I meant. +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 1 06:29:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA03495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 06:29:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA03490 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 06:29:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.241] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12b82c-000NnT-00; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 21:29:14 +0100 Message-ID: <005001bf9b4f$cc37e4c0$f15608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Thomas Dehn" , References: <9d.39a3b51.2614a5b7@aol.com> <000e01bf9a65$c6f850c0$befc75c2@rabbit> Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_DB=B4s_proposal_on_claims_=28new_line_of_thinking=29?= Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 21:27:43 +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: Thursday, March 30, 2000 5:34 PM Subject: Re: DB´s proposal on claims (new line of thinking) -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: An: ; Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. März 2000 14:42 Betreff: Re: DB´s proposal on claims (new line of thinking) ----------- \x/ --------- 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. ________ \x/ ________ +=+ I believe maybe I am out of touch with Mr. Dehn's thinking. If defender was only claiming in respect of the current trick, even if his partner saw the A and Q, why would it be correct to rule them penalty cards? My law book has a footnote to Law 68 which reads: "If the statement or action refers only to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress, play proceeds regularly; cards exposed or revealed by a defender do not become penalty cards, but Law 16, Unauthorized Information, may apply, and see Law 57A, Premature Play." Has anyone else got this footnote in their law book? Even in Junior events the Directors are supposed to have law books. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 1 06:44:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA03561 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 06:44:49 +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 GAA03556 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 06:44:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.210] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12b8Gb-000OP6-00; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 21:43:41 +0100 Message-ID: <007001bf9b51$d0dc0680$f15608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Thomas Dehn" , References: <9d.39a3b51.2614a5b7@aol.com> <000e01bf9a65$c6f850c0$befc75c2@rabbit> Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_DB=B4s_proposal_on_claims_=28new_line_of_thinking=29?= Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 21:42:57 +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 -----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: >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), > +=+ In this statement the word *correctly* should be spelt *incorrectly*; this action constituted a claim at least in respect of the current trick if not beyond that. He was saying : "whatever you do I win this trick". That is a claim. If a Director thought otherwise he was out of touch with the game and its laws. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 1 07:13:52 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA03663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 07:13:52 +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 HAA03657 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 07:13:42 +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 NAA26710; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 13:13:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by gateway.tandem.com (4.20/4.11) id AA15673; 31 Mar 0 13:13:25 -0800 Date: 31 Mar 0 13:10:00 -0800 Message-Id: <200003311313.AA15673@gateway.tandem.com> To: cfgcs@eiu.edu Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: A Modest Proposal on Claims Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote a great deal of good sense, which (if adopted) would go a great way towards making claims easier to adjudicate. I do not know how to word a proposed addendum to his suggestions, but I would like to see the Laws deprecate claims that are framed in conditional terms. My problem with David Burn's 6NT claim was only with the way it started, "If all follow to the ace of spades..." and a pause to let the opponents indicate whether this is true or not. I expect that it is appropriate for the opponents to answer this (implied) question, and to answer it truthfully -- but *only* because I have seen such a situation described in TBW. I can find nothing in TFLB that requires (or permits) an opponent of claimer to volunteer the answer to such an implied question. And, as David Burn himself (discussing the safety play of AQ9xx opposite KTxx) said that no-one would make a "Burnished" claim in this situation; they would play the ace or queen to discover the situation and *then* make the appropriate claim. I think that cashing the ace from AKQxxx opposite xxx to see whether the suit will run for 6 tricks falls into the same category, and I'd rather see the Law state that this is the correct procedure. It is *difficult* to follow a chain of hypotheticals -- much more difficult than to phrase the chain correctly. If David had cashed a high spade, rather than explain what would happen if both followed or if one did not, then I'd have had no problems at all with his Burnished claim. It has been impressive to see a very useful (IMHO) proposal emerge from such an interesting and rough-and-tumble debate. -- Regards, WWFiv Wally Farley Los Gatos, CA {ACBL District 21} ------------ ORIGINAL ATTACHMENT -------- SENT 03-31-00 FROM SMTPGATE (cfgcs@eiu.edu) It seems to me that the juices have been simmered out of the debate, and all that's left is to start burning the meat. So I'll step aside. But I think there is definate merit in the modest proposal that has been brought forth [I can't find the note where it was first mentioned now--my apologies to its originator], namely: Change the word "should" in L68C to "shall". [The Preface will have to be re-written too, then, since this is the example it uses for "should". :)] Then announce clearly within your jurisdictions, on CoC's, etc., a fixed PP fine for any claim not accompanied with a statement. It probably doesn't even have to be a large fine. This will not eliminate every possible difficult claim. But it will: 1) Eliminate or greatly reduce the number of claims that are accompanied by no statement at all. Since these are the claims that seem to concern some on this list the most, that must be counted as a benefit. 2) Not overly penalize those people who do claim with a statement, but a statement that is not perfectly detailed or flawless. 3) Not overly disrupt the game or change the laws. Even hesitant claimers will not be significantly intimidated by these provisions. 4) Satisfy those who like fixed penalties. We won't have cases where the failure to issue a statement, alone, makes the difference between the loss of one overtrick in one case and down 8 in another, just because the sequence of legal plays gives varied results [or one TD is better at creating inventive sequences of misplays than another]. 5) Not overly penalize people that come from regions that are not informed of law changes. Since the fine would be small and publicized, they wouldn't be hit with a disasterous result from a law they never heard of. 6) Allow jurisdictions to tailor the size of the fine to their needs. I submit this to Grattan and Ton and the others for their consideration. -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 1 07:31:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA03723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 07:31:07 +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 HAA03718 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 07:30:58 +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 NAA11897; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 13:31:08 -0800 Message-Id: <200003312131.NAA11897@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Re: Defender says he has A-Q (was: David Burn something-or-other) In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 31 Mar 2000 21:27:43 PST." <005001bf9b4f$cc37e4c0$f15608c3@dodona> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 13:31:10 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > Grattan Endicott ===================================== > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Thomas Dehn > To: > Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 5:34 PM > Subject: Re: DB´s proposal on claims (new line of thinking) > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: > An: ; > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. März 2000 14:42 > Betreff: Re: DB´s proposal on claims (new line of thinking) > > ----------- \x/ --------- > 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. > ________ \x/ ________ > > +=+ I believe maybe I am out of touch with Mr. > Dehn's thinking. If defender was only claiming in > respect of the current trick, even if his partner saw > the A and Q, why would it be correct to rule them > penalty cards? My law book has a footnote to > Law 68 which reads: "If the statement or action > refers only to the winning or losing of an > uncompleted trick currently in progress, play > proceeds regularly; cards exposed or revealed > by a defender do not become penalty cards, but > Law 16, Unauthorized Information, may apply, > and see Law 57A, Premature Play." > Has anyone else got this footnote in their > law book? > Even in Junior events the Directors are > supposed to have law books. Yes, this footnote is in my copy of the Laws. However, this is how it seems to me: if a defender exposes or names a card that will win the trick, the footnote applies, but if the defender exposes or names two cards and makes a statement about the trick in progress, I don't see how the footnote can apply to more than one of the cards, since only one of the cards can be played to the uncompleted trick. Otherwise, a defender could show any card to his partner, even one he has no intention of playing to the current trick, and avoid having it become a penalty card (L49) simply by saying, "I'm going to win the current trick", or "I'm going to lose the current trick". -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 1 07:49:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA03765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 07:49:24 +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 HAA03760 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 07:49:16 +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 NAA12231; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 13:49:28 -0800 Message-Id: <200003312149.NAA12231@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Defender says he has A-Q (was: David Burn something-or-other) In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 31 Mar 2000 21:42:57 PST." <007001bf9b51$d0dc0680$f15608c3@dodona> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 13:49:29 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > > In a message dated 3/30/00 2:31:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, > > bley@uni-duesseldorf.de writes: > >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), > > > +=+ In this statement the word *correctly* should be > spelt *incorrectly*; this action constituted a claim at > least in respect of the current trick if not beyond that. > He was saying : "whatever you do I win this trick". > That is a claim. No, it isn't. Richard is right. Law 68 says that an action must refer to tricks other than the current one to constitute a claim. There's no concept in the Laws of "claiming the current trick". Maybe we could call it that colloquially, but this usage of the term "claim" is at variance with the Laws' usage of the term. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 1 08:38:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA03890 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 08:38:03 +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 IAA03885 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 08:37:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-57.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.57]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA03114; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 17:37:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00ac01bf9b62$3e34a100$3984d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: Subject: Re: Re: Defender says he has A-Q (was: David Burn something-or-other) Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 17:41:21 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Fortunately in this case if one card would win the trick and the other becomes a major penalty card it would have to be led right away winning the second trick :-) Quite possibly not legal but sounds pretty equitable. __ Craig -----Original Message----- From: Adam Beneschan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: adam@irvine.com Date: Friday, March 31, 2000 4:42 PM Subject: Re: Re: Defender says he has A-Q (was: David Burn something-or-other) > >Grattan wrote: > >> Grattan Endicott> ===================================== >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Thomas Dehn >> To: >> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 5:34 PM >> Subject: Re: DB´s proposal on claims (new line of thinking) >> >> >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: >> An: ; >> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. März 2000 14:42 >> Betreff: Re: DB´s proposal on claims (new line of thinking) >> >> ----------- \x/ --------- >> 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. >> ________ \x/ ________ >> >> +=+ I believe maybe I am out of touch with Mr. >> Dehn's thinking. If defender was only claiming in >> respect of the current trick, even if his partner saw >> the A and Q, why would it be correct to rule them >> penalty cards? My law book has a footnote to >> Law 68 which reads: "If the statement or action >> refers only to the winning or losing of an >> uncompleted trick currently in progress, play >> proceeds regularly; cards exposed or revealed >> by a defender do not become penalty cards, but >> Law 16, Unauthorized Information, may apply, >> and see Law 57A, Premature Play." >> Has anyone else got this footnote in their >> law book? >> Even in Junior events the Directors are >> supposed to have law books. > >Yes, this footnote is in my copy of the Laws. However, this is how it >seems to me: if a defender exposes or names a card that will win the >trick, the footnote applies, but if the defender exposes or names two >cards and makes a statement about the trick in progress, I don't see >how the footnote can apply to more than one of the cards, since only >one of the cards can be played to the uncompleted trick. Otherwise, a >defender could show any card to his partner, even one he has no >intention of playing to the current trick, and avoid having it become >a penalty card (L49) simply by saying, "I'm going to win the current >trick", or "I'm going to lose the current trick". > > -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 1 09:20:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA03956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 09:20:14 +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 JAA03946 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 09:20:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.156] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12bAho-0003vr-00; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 00:19:56 +0100 Message-ID: <000801bf9b67$a49aac00$9c5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Grant Sterling" References: <3.0.6.32.20000331103401.007e75b0@eiu.edu> Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal on Claims Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 21:56:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 5:34 PM Subject: A Modest Proposal on Claims > It seems to me that the juices have been simmered out of the > debate, and all that's left is to start burning the meat. So I'll > step aside. But I think there is definate merit in the modest > proposal that has been brought forth [I can't find the note where it > was first mentioned now--my apologies to its originator], namely: > > Change the word "should" in L68C to "shall". [The Preface will > have to be re-written too, then, since this is the example it uses for > "should". :)] Then announce clearly within your jurisdictions, on CoC's, > etc., a fixed PP fine for any claim not accompanied with a statement. It > probably doesn't even have to be a large fine. > ---------- \x/ -------- > I submit this to Grattan and Ton and the others for their > consideration. > +=+ I will 'stew' on it. My immediate thought is that in all modesty it is a h*** of a big change. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 1 09:20:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA03957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 09:20:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA03947 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 09:20:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.156] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12bAhp-0003vr-00; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 00:19:58 +0100 Message-ID: <000901bf9b67$a59f98e0$9c5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <200003292122.QAA00313@cfa183.harvard.edu><200003292122.QAA00313@cfa183.harvard.edu><3.0.1.32.20000330151717.006a8034@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.20000331082751.006f5244@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 22:10:18 +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: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 2:27 PM Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl > At 02:58 AM 3/31/00 +0100, David wrote: > >. 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. > -------- \x/ -------- > > 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 > +=+ Another way to look at it is that whether the standard of claiming improved or not - and I continue a sceptic on that - the Director would have a much simpler task in settling the question. There was someone, I think, who tended to hold simplicity a virtue? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 1 09:56:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA04040 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 09:56:21 +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 JAA04033 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 09:56:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.243] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12bBGg-0004og-00; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 00:55:58 +0100 Message-ID: <002e01bf9b6c$ad67d6a0$9c5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Craig Senior" , , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <00ac01bf9b62$3e34a100$3984d9ce@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: Re: Defender says he has A-Q (was: David Burn something-or-other) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 00:55:25 +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 >Yes, this footnote is in my copy of the Laws. However, this is how it >seems to me: if a defender exposes or names a card that will win the >trick, the footnote applies, but if the defender exposes or names two >cards and makes a statement about the trick in progress, I don't see >how the footnote can apply to more than one of the cards, since only >one of the cards can be played to the uncompleted trick. Otherwise, a >defender could show any card to his partner, even one he has no >intention of playing to the current trick, and avoid having it become >a penalty card (L49) simply by saying, "I'm going to win the current >trick", or "I'm going to lose the current trick". > > -- Adam +==+ The footnote says "cards" exposed. I repeat *"cards"*. Plural. Please do read the book carefully; so much tender loving care has gone into it, so when it is saying what it meant to say let's not overlook the words. The author did not overlook the common possibility of the player who shows that whatever declarer does the trick is his. It is true the action 'pertains only to the winning or losing of the current trick', but to say 'either way I win' is certainly a claim of that trick (although not, I agree, a claim for the purposes of Law 68). In this circumstance the showing of both A and Q still relates only to that trick and the Director is simply daft to suggest either card is a penalty card. As for "could show any card" - if this were credible his partner would be subject to Law 16 in respect of it. That again is what the footnote indicates.~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 1 10:29:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA04113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 10:29:35 +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 KAA04108 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 10:29:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from pd7s07a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.167.216] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt11-he.global.net.uk.noc.gxn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12amme-0008KP-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 22:47:20 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_DB=B4s_proposal_on_claims_=28new_line_of_thinking=29?= Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 01:29:42 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf9b71$5f849f40$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Grattan Endicott To: Thomas Dehn ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, March 31, 2000 9:54 PM Subject: Re: DB´s proposal on claims (new line of thinking) Grattan Endicott -----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: >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), > +=+ In this statement the word *correctly* should be spelt *incorrectly*; this action constituted a claim at least in respect of the current trick if not beyond that. He was saying : "whatever you do I win this trick". That is a claim. If a Director thought otherwise he was out of touch with the game and its laws. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ IMHO the spelling of "correctly" was correct. L68A states quite clearly that in order for a claim to be a claim it must to tricks other than the one currently in progress. The man with AQ has only said that he will win this trick. After a claim, play ceases.L68D. After the AQ action, according to the footnote to L68, play continues. No, I think it is not a claim. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 1 11:45:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA04248 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 11:45:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from oznet11.ozemail.com.au (oznet11.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.114]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA04243 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 11:45:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (1Cust61.tnt1.syd2.da.uu.net [63.12.0.61]) by oznet11.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA17322 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 11:45:25 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000401115543.0079a9e0@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 11:55:43 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Claim thread proves some use Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yesterday I was dummy in the following end positiion. Q A - - 6 - - 9 8 - - 7 - - J - 10 Partner playing a heart contract is in dummy and claims the rest are mine. East objects. I have no trouble in ruling down one, saying for *you*, playing the HA is merely careless. On the other hand for *me* it would be irrational :). Cheers, Tony From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 1 13:29:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA04463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 13:29:07 +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 NAA04447 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 13:28:54 +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 12bEaZ-000AyU-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 03:28:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 02:08:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal on Claims References: <3.0.6.32.20000331103401.007e75b0@eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000331103401.007e75b0@eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > It seems to me that the juices have been simmered out of the >debate, and all that's left is to start burning the meat. So I'll >step aside. But I think there is definate merit in the modest >proposal that has been brought forth [I can't find the note where it >was first mentioned now--my apologies to its originator], namely: > > Change the word "should" in L68C to "shall". [The Preface will >have to be re-written too, then, since this is the example it uses for >"should". :)] Then announce clearly within your jurisdictions, on CoC's, >etc., a fixed PP fine for any claim not accompanied with a statement. It >probably doesn't even have to be a large fine. > > This will not eliminate every possible difficult claim. But it will: >1) Eliminate or greatly reduce the number of claims that are accompanied >by no statement at all. Since these are the claims that seem to concern >some on this list the most, that must be counted as a benefit. I have tended to ignore this view before because I thought it irrelevant - and still do. So you would persuade people, who currently put their cards down now without saying something, to say "the rest" or "all mine". No, I do not think this change will do any good at all. >2) Not overly penalize those people who do claim with a statement, >but a statement that is not perfectly detailed or flawless. >3) Not overly disrupt the game or change the laws. Even hesitant claimers >will not be significantly intimidated by these provisions. >4) Satisfy those who like fixed penalties. We won't have cases where the >failure to issue a statement, alone, makes the difference between the >loss of one overtrick in one case and down 8 in another, just because >the sequence of legal plays gives varied results [or one TD is better at >creating inventive sequences of misplays than another]. >5) Not overly penalize people that come from regions that are not informed >of law changes. Since the fine would be small and publicized, they wouldn't >be hit with a disasterous result from a law they never heard of. Certainly not: the TD won't have heard of it either! >6) Allow jurisdictions to tailor the size of the fine to their needs. > I submit this to Grattan and Ton and the others for their >consideration. Sorry: I think you have missed the main problem. -- 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 Sat Apr 1 13:29:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA04459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 13:29:05 +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 NAA04448 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 13:28:55 +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 12bEaW-000AyX-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 03:28:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 02:00:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_DB=B4s_proposal_on_claims_(new_line_of_thinking)?= References: <9d.39a3b51.2614a5b7@aol.com> <000e01bf9a65$c6f850c0$befc75c2@rabbit> <007001bf9b51$d0dc0680$f15608c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <007001bf9b51$d0dc0680$f15608c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ In this statement the word *correctly* should be >spelt *incorrectly*; this action constituted a claim at >least in respect of the current trick if not beyond that. >He was saying : "whatever you do I win this trick". >That is a claim. If a Director thought otherwise he >was out of touch with the game and its laws. Oh well, count me in as one of those out of touch. L68: "For a statement or action to constitute a claim or concession of tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress." -- 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 Sat Apr 1 13:29:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA04457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 13:29:04 +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 NAA04446 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 13:28:53 +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 12bEaW-000AyY-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 03:28:41 +0000 Message-ID: <242GKyBZrU54Ew03@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 02:03:21 +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> <3.0.1.32.20000331090400.007008b0@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000331090400.007008b0@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 09:43 AM 3/31/00 +0200, Richard wrote: > >>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. > >As it certainly should and would be if we had different rules for expert >games than for beginner games. But that is a key issue in the current >debate: Do we believe (as I do) that it is possible (in theory, despite >the obvious difficulties of doing so in practice) to specify what >constitutes "irrational" play in the general case, or do we believe that >"irrational" must be re-defined for each player individually? Well, I could repeat my earlier answer: I would make certain interpretations, one of which is that it is careless not to do a safety play if it is not mentioned in any way. In my view, this is careless at any level: an expert knows to mention it in a claim, so there is some evidence he is careless enough to miss it when he does not mention it: a beginner is careless enough to miss it anyway: all levels in-between follow from one of these approaches. -- 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 Sat Apr 1 16:59:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA04934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 16:59:22 +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 QAA04929 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 16:59:13 +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 BAA12452 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 01:59:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id BAA03128 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 01:59:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 01:59:02 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200004010659.BAA03128@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal on Claims X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > proposal would just force people to open their mouths and say "mine." "Mine" hardly qualifies as a claim statement. TD's are expected to use judgment. > But TD's should stop being so vainly sympathetic to the OS > in the name of equity. There is no OS. A claim is not an infraction. Personally, I'd like to see a lot more claims, not fewer. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 1 17:11:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA04975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 17:11:13 +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 RAA04970 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 17:11:05 +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 CAA12706 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 02:10:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id CAA03154 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 02:10:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 02:10:56 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200004010710.CAA03154@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Defender says he has A-Q (was: David Burn something-or-other) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > I just realized that I've been carrying on this argument without > having read the original story properly. I missed the part that says > "The opp behind him now SHOWED HIS CARDS". I thought he just > announced that he had the ace and queen, without showing his cards, > and I was arguing on that assumption. Thanks, Adam. I missed it too. Yes, that changes things. It sure looks like a claim to me now. > As DWS pointed out, it's still not completely clear whether there was > a claim. If the opponent faced his hand so everyone could see it, > then yes, it's clearly a claim by L68A, "unless he demonstrably did > not intend to claim". If the opponent showed his cards only to > declarer, it's not so clear. I'd think not. Avoiding his partner's seeing the cards would seem to fall under "demonstrably did not intend." > I still maintain that if defender had merely announced he had the ace > and queen, without showing anything, then that is not a claim, Right. > ace and queen become penalty cards. No, I don't think so. L49 refers to the L68 footnote. There needs to be some interpretation of the player's meaning, but if it amounts to only "I'll win this trick no matter which card you play," then the condition of the footnote is satisfied. My apologies too for the wrong reading of the initial post and the resulting confusion. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 1 17:49:04 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA05046 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 17:49:04 +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 RAA05041 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 17:48:56 +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 CAA13470 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 02:48:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id CAA03178 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 02:48:48 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 02:48:48 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200004010748.CAA03178@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: David B.'s proposal on claims X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > 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. I agree with David. If 'irrational' (or alternatively 'normal') had a well-understood and unambiguous definition, we wouldn't have any problems. A definition can be supplied by interpretation without any law changes. > 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. > 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. What if we say any time there is an unstated line of play, the hand will be played as if Mrs. Guggenheim were the claimer? She has never heard of a safety play, or at least doesn't know any, and she won't see that a suit is blocked until it is painfully obvious, but she also won't crash her own honors (even if it's correct!) or discard her aces on an opponent's winners. And she will _always_ play her suits top-down. I think she knows enough to play KQx opposite AJTxx without entry problems. > From: Eric Landau > 1. Cashing high cards in a particular order required to subsequently reveal > a proven finesse. > > This means that AQ10xx opposite K9xx does not run against Jxxx behind the > AQ, or that AJxxxxx opposite Kxx does not run against Qxx onside. Yes, Mrs. G. might easily play the ace before the king. > 2. Overtaking one high card with another where doing so could prevent the > suit from running in some position. > > This means that someone who claims for five tricks with KQ opposite AJ1092 > and no side entry to the long suit would be given the benefit of the > overtake, but someone who claims with KQ opposite AJ1032 would not. If Mrs. G. can see the need to overtake in the first case, she can see it in the second. She probably doesn't realize the 3 might not be high after four rounds. So she gets her five tricks as long as the suit isn't 5-0 and as long as "no outside entry" is obvious. > 3. Discarding one or more cards in the suit prior to running it. > > This means that on a hand such as Axxxx/AKxx/AKQ/x opposite > x/xx/J1098xx/AKQJ, declarer in NT, club led, a claim such as "I will win > four clubs, six diamonds, two hearts and a spade", with no indication as to > how the diamond blockage would be dealt with, would be disallowed. Yes, Mrs. G. would never discard winners. > I'm not 100% certain that I'd actually favor the next one, but it's > unambiguous, and should be a candidate for consideration. > > 4. Cashing all of the cards in the short hand prior to gaining entry in > another suit in order to cash the remaining cards in the long hand. > > This means that the example claim in #3 would be disallowed on a non-club > lead as well. I think Mrs. G. probably gets this one right, but she might easily fail in a more complex position. Now mind you, I don't favor this approach, but at least it has the advantage of being fairly objective. We educate players that we expect much more comprehensive statements than are now common, and in case of an insufficient statement, we say "We know a declarer of your skill never would have gone wrong, but our official instructions are to rule the claim as if you were Mrs. Guggenheim. Next time, make a better statement." It would be even better to say "Your claim is exactly like number seven in the WBF's list of examples, and that claim is disallowed." From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 1 18:23:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA05123 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 18:23:35 +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 SAA05117 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 18:23:27 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id JAA06305 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 09:22:48 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 09:22 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl 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: <008401bf9ab4$a1cfbc80$c04301d5@davidburn> David Burn wrote: > 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. T'was I. The second part of my statement was relatively unimportant (indicating only that the number of players regularly claiming would be reduced by one - there may be many people who would react the same way, or few. Some research into opinions would be useful.) The first part is, IMO, vital to good claiming practice. I believe that much of the frustration felt by poorer players at claims stems from not being able to follow the play described. This can happen even when the claim statement is of DBquality because the player is unable to visualise the end position. Good players on the other hand are grateful to a declarer who doesn't make them sweat every discard when the position is obvious to them once declarer's hand is revealed. Trying to match the claims you make to the players at the table strikes me as common courtesy rather than patronising. If we want to improve the quality of claims statements then maybe PPs would be a better mechanism than draconian penalties. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 1 18:43:34 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA05190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 18:43:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from helium.singnet.com.sg (helium.singnet.com.sg [165.21.101.212]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA05180 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 18:43:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from derrrr (58zulu034.singnet.com.sg [165.21.144.44]) by helium.singnet.com.sg (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA18616 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 16:43:13 +0800 (SGT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000401163516.007e5be0@pop.singnet.com.sg> X-Sender: yanhoon@pop.singnet.com.sg X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 16:35:16 +0800 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Derrick Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal on Claims In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000331103401.007e75b0@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.20000331103401.007e75b0@eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:08 AM 1/4/00 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Grant Sterling wrote: >> Change the word "should" in L68C to "shall". [The Preface will >>have to be re-written too, then, since this is the example it uses for >>"should". :)] Then announce clearly within your jurisdictions, on CoC's, >>etc., a fixed PP fine for any claim not accompanied with a statement. It >>probably doesn't even have to be a large fine. >> >> This will not eliminate every possible difficult claim. But it will: >>1) Eliminate or greatly reduce the number of claims that are accompanied >>by no statement at all. Since these are the claims that seem to concern >>some on this list the most, that must be counted as a benefit. [DS] > I have tended to ignore this view before because I thought it >irrelevant - and still do. So you would persuade people, who currently >put their cards down now without saying something, to say "the rest" or >"all mine". > > No, I do not think this change will do any good at all. I think it will be helpful. A careful reading of L68C shows that "all mine" does not satisfy it as it does not indicate a line of play. Part of the problem is sheer laziness abetted by the indulgence of TD and the Laws with respect to not bothering to state a line of play. C. Clarification Required for Claim A claim should be accompanied at once by a statement of clarification as to the order in which cards will be played, the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed. Of course, we would still need to come up with "interpretations" of unstated lines of play. >>2) Not overly penalize those people who do claim with a statement, >>but a statement that is not perfectly detailed or flawless. >>3) Not overly disrupt the game or change the laws. Even hesitant claimers >>will not be significantly intimidated by these provisions. >>4) Satisfy those who like fixed penalties. We won't have cases where the >>failure to issue a statement, alone, makes the difference between the >>loss of one overtrick in one case and down 8 in another, just because >>the sequence of legal plays gives varied results [or one TD is better at >>creating inventive sequences of misplays than another]. >>5) Not overly penalize people that come from regions that are not informed >>of law changes. Since the fine would be small and publicized, they wouldn't >>be hit with a disasterous result from a law they never heard of. [DS} > Certainly not: the TD won't have heard of it either! This is a problem of dissemination during the implementation surely. >>6) Allow jurisdictions to tailor the size of the fine to their needs. > >> I submit this to Grattan and Ton and the others for their >>consideration. > > Sorry: I think you have missed the main problem. > >-- >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 regards Derrick From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 1 18:43:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA05191 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 18:43:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from helium.singnet.com.sg (helium.singnet.com.sg [165.21.101.212]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA05181 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 18:43:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from derrrr (58zulu034.singnet.com.sg [165.21.144.44]) by helium.singnet.com.sg (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA18625 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 16:43:17 +0800 (SGT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000401163437.007eeda0@pop.singnet.com.sg> X-Sender: yanhoon@pop.singnet.com.sg X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 16:34:37 +0800 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Derrick Subject: Guidelines for claims In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000331102635.007001dc@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a good start by Eric At 10:26 AM 31/3/00 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >Having brought up the distinction between failing to spot a problem >(careless) and failing to solve it once spotted (irrational), I'm prepared >to offer some specific guidelines: > >When a claim is based on taking all of the tricks in a suit without further >clarification, failure to do any of the following is to be considered as >careless but not irrational: > >1. Cashing high cards in a particular order required to subsequently reveal >a proven finesse. > >This means that AQ10xx opposite K9xx does not run against Jxxx behind the >AQ, or that AJxxxxx opposite Kxx does not run against Qxx onside. > >2. Overtaking one high card with another where doing so could prevent the >suit from running in some position. > >This means that someone who claims for five tricks with KQ opposite AJ1092 >and no side entry to the long suit would be given the benefit of the >overtake, but someone who claims with KQ opposite AJ1032 would not. > >3. Discarding one or more cards in the suit prior to running it. > >This means that on a hand such as Axxxx/AKxx/AKQ/x opposite >x/xx/J1098xx/AKQJ, declarer in NT, club led, a claim such as "I will win >four clubs, six diamonds, two hearts and a spade", with no indication as to >how the diamond blockage would be dealt with, would be disallowed. > >I'm not 100% certain that I'd actually favor the next one, but it's >unambiguous, and should be a candidate for consideration. > >4. Cashing all of the cards in the short hand prior to gaining entry in >another suit in order to cash the remaining cards in the long hand. > >This means that the example claim in #3 would be disallowed on a non-club >lead as well. > >These won't solve all our problems (or even all our one-suited problems) >with faulty claims, but perhaps it's a modest start. > > >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 > To add to that: In a finess or drop position, declarer is assumed to get it wrong. This means that AKQ10x opposite xx loses 1 trick if Jxx is ofside or Jxxx is onside. Suits are played in the order most disadvantageous to declarer is the order is unstated. regards Derrick From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 1 21:05:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA05567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 21:05:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f238.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.238]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA05562 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 21:05:16 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 38047 invoked by uid 0); 1 Apr 2000 11:04:34 -0000 Message-ID: <20000401110434.38046.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 152.206.184.163 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2000 03:04:34 PST X-Originating-IP: [152.206.184.163] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal on Claims Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 03:04:34 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > proposal would just force people to open their mouths and say "mine." > >"Mine" hardly qualifies as a claim statement. TD's are expected to use >judgment. So are we. Point is that this requirement will do little than to shift the focus of argument on contested claims. So, does claimer continue playing his cards as described when the ace of trump unexpectedly pops up or do we assume that he'd devise a new plan for the remaining tricks? And just what is a sufficient claim statement anyways? That would be a novel in and of itself. > > But TD's should stop being so vainly sympathetic to the OS > > in the name of equity. > >There is no OS. A claim is not an infraction. Personally, I'd like to see >a lot more >claims, not fewer. I outlined two cases so deftly snipped in your reply. Please explain why neither of those should be considered an offense. Case 1: Defender claims tricks for his partner. Do I have to catch a pro doing this with a client before anyone realizes that it's a potential for abuse? Not only that, it's insulting to the claimer's partner -- "You wouldn't get those tricks unless I told you they were yours." Case 2: Declarer claims while defenders still have tricks off the top. Why oh why oh why would anyone even consider giving declarer all the tricks let alone actually doing it? -Todd ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 1 21:17:01 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA05598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 21:17:01 +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 VAA05592 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 21:16:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.194.26] (helo=davidburn) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12bKEm-0002ar-00; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 10:30:36 +0100 Message-ID: <002501bf9bbd$04971e40$1ac201d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Farley, Wally" Cc: "Bridge Laws" References: <36E6F54C1C95D211BE1200805F57F1E66D500A@xcup-25005.mis.tandem.com> Subject: Re: About Conditional Claims Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 10:31:09 +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 This is part of a private correspondence, but it gives me a chance to indicate ways in which the ludicrousness of a DBclaim might be mitigated by guidelines, so I have copied it to the list. Wally wrote: > If a different declarer, in the same contract, played one top > spade and both defenders followed, would you (as an AC member, > assuming it got that far) rule against a claim statement of the > sort: "I have 5 more spades, three top diamonds, 4 top hearts > and the two tricks I've already taken, so I guess I make 8". > This is certainly not a Burnished claim statement, but I'd not > return the deposit of anyone who complained sufficiently (as > a defender) to take it to a committee. I think that if DBclaims actually became law, it would be easy enough to say that a declarer who claims x tricks is a suit is (in effect) announcing that: at his next x turns, he will play a card equivalent in rank to the highest card in the combined holding, following suit from the other hand with the lowest available card (except where it is required in order for him to continue the suit that he overtake a card); and if one hand has fewer cards in the suit than the other, then where cards equivalent to the highest are in both hands, he will play the highest card from the shorter holding and a low card from the longer. So, declarer could indeed cash the ace from AKQxxx facing xxx and DBclaim five more tricks in the suit without further embellishment (which is what most people would do anyway). He doesn't have to say "I will cash the king, following with the three, then the queen following with the four, then...". My original wording said only that cards had to be explicitly "covered" by his statement, not explicitly mentioned. By the same token, he is considered not to make discards on the winners he has claimed that would make it impossible for him to fulfil the rest of his statement. Similarly, a declarer who announces only that he will "draw trumps" is in effect announcing that: at his next x turns, where x is the number of trumps in the defenders' hands at the point of the claim, he will play a card equivalent in rank to the highest trump in the combined holding (subject to the provisions above). The effect of this might still be "horrific" in a case like this: AKQ10x xxxx AKQ xxx AKQJ10 xxx None xxx Declarer in seven spades ruffs the opening club lead and announces that he will "draw trumps". But North has SJxxx, so (under the above rule) declarer has to play four rounds of spades and go down lots, which would not happen at the moment. However, one could argue that a declarer who knew what he was about would not claim at trick two but at trick three, after all had followed to SA (again, this is what most declarers would do anyway). Now, the extent of the guidance as to what a declarer who has used a "generic" DBclaim statement has actually said in terms of playing specific cards will (or could) be considerable. But I don't think it would be an order of magnitude greater than the extent of the guidance that is necessary at the moment (but missing) in order to determine whether lines encompassed by a generic claim are normal, or careless, or inferior, or irrational. And at least it would be objective. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 1 21:46:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA05658 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 21:46:19 +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 VAA05653 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 21:46:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.194.26] (helo=davidburn) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12bKOX-00036V-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 10:40:42 +0100 Message-ID: <003301bf9bbe$816f26a0$1ac201d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200003311313.AA15673@gateway.tandem.com> Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal on Claims Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 10:41:49 +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 Wally wrote: > I think that cashing the ace from AKQxxx opposite xxx to see whether > the suit will run for 6 tricks falls into the same category, and I'd > rather see the Law state that this is the correct procedure. It is > *difficult* to follow a chain of hypotheticals -- much more difficult > than to phrase the chain correctly. If David had cashed a high spade, > rather than explain what would happen if both followed or if one did > not, then I'd have had no problems at all with his Burnished claim. I would in practice do this, as would almost anyone. I was merely trying to demonstrate, for completeness, what a trick 1 DBclaim would look like in cases where the play might follow different lines depending on the distribution. In real life, just about everyone plays cards to the point where they can make a single, unconditional statement (and a long way beyond that, at Grant's bridge club :)) This kind of "conditional" is more difficult: AKQJ xxx AKQ xxx AKQ xxxx KQJ xxx West, declarer in 6NT, wins the opening spade lead and (at present) claims, giving the opponents the ace of clubs. Everyone puts their cards away (though I suppose West might be forgiven for keeping his, in order to show his grandchildren). I would have to say something like: "I will play the king of clubs; if this loses I will win the next lead. If it wins, I will play the queen of clubs; if that loses I will win the next lead, but if it wins I will not play another club." Of course, by the time I had got as far as the first few words, everyone would have got on to the next board... David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 2 02:16:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA06151 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 01:26:57 +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 BAA06146 for ; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 01:26:43 +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 12bPnC-0003LI-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 16:26:31 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 14:20:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal on Claims References: <200004010659.BAA03128@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200004010659.BAA03128@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: "Todd Zimnoch" >> proposal would just force people to open their mouths and say "mine." > >"Mine" hardly qualifies as a claim statement. TD's are expected to use >judgment. > >> But TD's should stop being so vainly sympathetic to the OS >> in the name of equity. > >There is no OS. A claim is not an infraction. Personally, I'd like to see a >lot more >claims, not fewer. Remember that under the Laws of bridge, offenders need not have committed an infraction: it is a highly unfortunate term that is used. Suppose you hesitate, and partner makes a call: is his call an infraction? Well, yes or no, dependent on what UI you gave, whether there are LAs, what his choice was, and so on. But whether he has committed an infraction or not, *your* side is defined as the offenders, and the opponents are defined as the non-offenders. In the same way, the Laws effectively treat the claiming side as offenders as soon as someone challenges the claim. And I believe that certain authorities around the world show too little sympathy to the non-offending side - quoting the words "equity", "windfall" and so on. -- 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 Apr 2 03:16:31 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA06160 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 01:28:48 +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 BAA06153 for ; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 01:28:31 +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 12bPou-000Lsk-0X for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 16:28:17 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 16:26:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: ss finland - a dream MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Young Chelsea heat of ssf with sound effects 14 1/2 Tables, 12 Round 2-board Mitchell 2 rounds of arrow switch, 30 boards in play 15 NS phantom. EW Add 20 1) Dramatis personnae - "the usual suspects" 1 Grafton Edwards Sandra Sassow 2 Bev Beattie Jennie Stack 3 David Lake Glyn Nutting 4 Ruth Stanley David Hyams 5 Robin Klein Barry Lowe 6 Graham Pollock Lotti Masterson 7 Neil Treeby Michael Lee 8 Phil Barclay Danny Gritz 9 Hiyam Hajjar Mufida Farra 10 Pauline Munton Janet Bacastow 11 Mike Stanton Toby Naish 12 Tim Kitely Jeffrey Mervis 13 Elsa Nelson Ray Mooney 14 Samir El-Sukhun Patrick Soon 21 Mike Baynes Paula Alderson 22 Andi Wellman George Frankfurt 23 Mike Daniels Iris Daniels 24 Chris Webb Carmen Webb 25 Zhenya Winter Brian Jarman 26 Patience Thomas Bev Meyers 27 Carol Magner Mary Rutter 28 Steve Sansom Anne Brown 29 Olivia Staple Gilly Burrows 30 Alan Nicholl Bob Simmons 31 David Metcalfe Peter Blumer 32 Niklas Sandqvist Janet de Botton 33 Averil Zaniboni Harry Rimington Wilson 34 Tom McCarthy Carmel Wood 35 Dennis Dodd Naseem Shaikh Act 1, Scene 1, A smoky basement in Chelsea, London Enter A noisesome rabble preceded by Mahmoud, the Egyptian Mahmoud: "Take your places please, 2 board rounds" there is no reaction from the rabble Mahmoud: "TAKE YOUR PLACES NOW" still no action Mahmoud: "BUMS IN SEATS PLEASE" the players reluctantly sit down, the boards are distributed, the game starts five minutes late, the hubbub reaches a crescendo. Mahmoud: [purple with effort] "QUIET PLEASE" there is a mild diminution of the riot. Play starts Act 1, Scene 2, Board 1 2 Board 3 4 Board 5 6 1 21 5 -11 2 22 -5 -10 3 23 -45 -5 14 32 -40 -11 1 35 13 14 2 21 -45 -5 13 30 5 10 14 31 -10 14 1 34 -45 -10 12 28 10 15 13 29 -10 14 14 30 -42 11 11 26 5 10 12 27 15 62 13 28 5 17 10 24 5 0 11 25 13 17 12 26 -48 11 9 22 15 -11 10 23 13 -10 11 24 -48 -5 8 35 -42 5 9 21 13 -10 10 22 -45 11 7 33 5 -20 8 34 40 14 9 35 -45 11 31 6 10 5 32 7 18 14 33 8 -48 -10 29 5 -40 5 30 6 11 -10 31 7 45 50 Mahmoud: "Move please" complete catatonia Mahmoud: "MOVE PLEASE, EAST-WEST UP ONE, BOARDS DOWN ONE" sullen compliance, the noise is measured at the earthquake laboratory in Antwerpen, bending the needle on the machine Mahmoud: "TABLE 2, stop discussing the hand AND MOVE ... ... GO TO TABLE 3, NOT THE BAR. Put the Boards on Table 1, not the floor" Pair 22 shuffle to the next table complaining about terrorism. The curtain comes down and rises to reveal Act 1, Scene 3, a smoke churned atmosphere redolent of Beirut on a better day. [Actually Thursday is a no-smoking day, but I'm getting into this story] Board 7 8 Board 9 10 Board 11 12 4 24 14 10 5 25 9 63 6 26 -65 -46 3 22 -10 10 4 23 9 63 5 24 10 10 2 35 -10 5 3 21 -11 14 4 22 30 -43 1 33 12 -12 2 34 12 -10 3 35 -20 -43 14 29 -10 -11 1 32 -11 66 2 33 45 -14 13 27 62 -11 14 28 11 11 1 31 -65 -43 12 25 -10 5 13 26 28 66 14 27 -48 -43 11 23 -10 11 12 24 10 63 13 25 45 -46 10 21 -20 5 11 22 -11 66 12 23 -65 15 34 9 12 -14 35 10 -11 63 21 11 -65 -43 32 8 63 -14 33 9 -20 14 34 10 -45 -43 Mahmoud: [cowering in the Director's redoubt] "Move please" The noise increases Mahmoud: "We have a house rule that Boards dealt today are to be played today. [Veins standing out on head] MOVE PLEASE" mass exodus to bar Mahmoud: [Reasonably] "Please move and play" Players sit down for round 8 Chorus: "We've played these Boards" Mahmoud "SKIP A TABLE! Table 7 Put the hands away and SKIP" Chorus: "Terrorist". The machine in Antwerpen falls off its stand amputating the right hand of Eric the Viking. Wagner's 'Ride of the Valkerie' heard as background noise on the sub-space aether. Curtain falls: Pandemonium in the aisles. It rises to reveal Act 2, Scene 1. Mahmoud armed with a cattle-prod, strong smell of sulphur, Mephistopheles offering him a glowing tablet. Board 13 14 Board 15 16 Board 17 18 7 27 11 -11 8 28 66 13 9 29 5 -45 6 25 50 -5 7 26 -20 -11 8 27 10 -48 5 23 14 -8 6 24 66 80 7 25 15 -17 4 21 14 -14 5 22 63 30 6 23 10 -42 3 34 20 -8 4 35 66 20 5 21 5 -42 2 32 30 -14 3 33 66 20 4 34 -14 -48 1 30 -20 -11 2 31 -10 20 3 32 -14 -51 14 26 20 -17 1 29 66 43 2 30 5 -17 13 24 10 -11 14 25 -30 20 1 28 15 -42 22 12 10 -14 23 13 63 10 24 14 -20 -42 35 11 -20 20 21 12 50 10 22 13 5 -51 Mahmoud: "2 rounds to go, please arrow-switch" Chorus: "Terrorist" Mahmoud: [waving cattle prod] "MOVING PAIRS PLAY N/S" Aftershocks cause building damage in Antwerpen, HdW hit on head by collapsing tables at "The Squeeze". [Possibility of legal rulings in Belgium - watch this space]. Chorus of Niebelungen singing "We shall overcome" on sub-space aether. Mahmoud: "It's more interesting watching paint dry. MOVE!" ss Finland inundated by tidal wave, shock epicentre in West London. Mahmoud sprouting horns in forehead. The Acol Bridge Club reduced to rubble Act 2, Scene 2. A strange eerie silence Board 19 20 Board 21 22 Board 23 24 10 30 -5 11 11 31 71 10 12 32 15 10 9 28 20 11 10 29 -14 20 11 30 -10 -5 8 26 -5 9 9 27 -40 40 10 28 15 -5 7 24 42 -13 8 25 -42 80 9 26 12 5 6 22 14 9 7 23 60 -50 8 24 11 -10 5 35 10 18 6 21 13 -30 7 22 9 10 4 33 -5 -14 5 34 10 40 6 35 12 -10 3 31 42 -11 4 32 -17 -15 5 33 15 -10 2 29 -5 -10 3 30 -17 -30 4 31 18 -5 1 27 17 9 28 2 -30 110 3 29 18 -5 23 14 10 9 26 1 5 -5 27 2 12 -5 25 1 15 -15 Group of players sitting in sylvan glade under bright sunlight Stream splashing in background, pan-pipes heard chanting Mahmoud: [sporting full set of antlers] "Scores will be out in 5 minutes" Chorus: "Pint of warm flat sour beer please, Wendy" Board 25 26 Board 27 28 Board 29 30 13 33 15 65 14 34 42 ** 14 33 -65 80 ** unplayed 12 31 -5 68 13 32 46 -18 13 31 -65 -5 scores factored 11 29 40 63 12 30 40 11 12 29 -65 10 10 27 11 62 11 28 18 -10 11 27 -20 40 9 25 -5 62 10 26 46 -12 10 25 -62 15 8 23 40 66 9 24 46 -12 9 23 -62 -5 7 21 15 66 8 22 40 -15 8 21 -65 40 6 34 15 65 7 35 43 5 7 34 -62 18 5 32 40 63 6 33 40 10 6 32 -65 -15 4 30 -5 65 5 31 40 -12 30 5 -62 -5 28 3 -5 65 29 4 42 -12 28 4 -65 5 26 2 -5 65 27 3 17 5 The curtain falls at the end of Act 2. The bar is heaving. Gallons of warm flat sour beer being consumed. Mahmoud is breathing incantations over the 286 in the corner. A scrap of smoking parchment appears on the bar notice board. Handel's "Judas Maccabaeus" 'See how the conquering hero ...' Order is restored from chaos, just another night down at the YC. 1 Tim Kitely Jeffrey Mervis 344 65.25% 2 Niklas Sandqvist Janet de Botton 315 59.73% : 29 Steve Sansom Anne Brown 174 33.13% -- 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 Apr 2 03:27:16 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA06691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 03:27:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from io.islandia.is (io.islandia.is [194.144.156.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA06686 for ; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 03:27:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from bsi (nas506.islandia.is [193.4.143.166]) by io.islandia.is (8.9.3-MySQL-0.2.3c+Tal/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA07166; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 17:32:03 GMT (envelope-from svenni@islandia.is) Message-ID: <002001bf9bf7$4f528a20$a68f04c1@bsi> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sveinn_R=FAnar_Eir=EDksson?= To: Cc: , "Jakob Langflottasti Kristinsson" Subject: 14-13-13-13 Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 17:28:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001D_01BF9BFF.AF7C7C00" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001D_01BF9BFF.AF7C7C00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Tournament Directors I was asked to ask for your opinion about an incident that happened = recently on Iceland. West discovered after bidding that he holds 14 cards. While = Director is on his way to the table he finds out that he holds one card = from the previous board. This is in a Teams tournament and he and his = partner had bid to 4S on a 9-card fit. The 14th card is a small spade = (s2) and now they are in 4S in 4-4 fit with 17 points opposite 7. The = Director decided to remove the 14th card and let the play proceed. As = the play was the defense could have beaten the contract but it came home = for 620 EW. At the other table EW played 2H just making. The ruling = of the Director was appealed based on that the Director didnt use Law = 13, that is he didnt award and artificial adjusted score. The appeals = committee didnt change the score but handed back the insurance fee. Here is the board: J5 QT976 KQ JT62 K743 (2) Q986 KJ852 A4 862 AJT9 5 AQ8 AT2 3 7543 K9743 N led the J of clubs which was won by the A. Now declarer played A of = hearts and a small that South ruffed and now he tried the King of clubs. = It was easy for West to make 10 tricks now. First, do you agree with the ruling of the Director? do you agree with the decision of the Appeals Committee? Does Law 13 apply to cases like this? If West would have bid with the = hand from the previous board what rule applies then? Best wishes Sveinn R. Eiriksson ------=_NextPart_000_001D_01BF9BFF.AF7C7C00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Tournament Directors
 
I was asked to ask for your opinion about an = incident that=20 happened recently on Iceland.
 
    West discovered after bidding = that he=20 holds 14 cards.   While Director is on his way to the table he = finds=20 out that he holds one card from the previous board.   This is = in a=20 Teams tournament and he and his partner had bid to 4S on a 9-card=20 fit.   The 14th card is a small spade (s2) and now they are in = 4S in=20 4-4 fit with 17 points opposite 7.  The Director decided to remove = the 14th=20 card and let the play proceed.   As the play was the defense = could=20 have beaten the contract but it came home for 620 EW.   At the = other=20 table EW played 2H just making.   The ruling of the Director = was=20 appealed based on that the Director didnt use Law 13, that is he = didnt=20 award and artificial adjusted score.   The appeals committee = didnt=20 change the score but handed back the insurance fee.
 
Here is the board:
 
 
        =    =20             =    =20         J5
        =    =20             =    =20         QT976
        =    =20             =    =20         KQ
        =    =20             =    =20         JT62
        =    =20 K743 (2) =20             &= nbsp;       =20 Q986
        =    =20 KJ852           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;   A4
        =    =20 862            =    =20         =       =20 AJT9
   =20        =20 5            =             &= nbsp;         AQ8
        =    =20             =    =20         AT2
        =    =20             =    =20         3
        =    =20             =    =20         7543
        =    =20             =    =20         K9743
 
 
N led the J of clubs which was won by the = A.  Now=20 declarer played A of hearts and a small that South ruffed and now he = tried the=20 King of clubs.   It was easy for West to make 10 tricks=20 now.
 
First,  do you agree with the ruling of the = Director?
do you agree with the decision of the Appeals=20 Committee?
 
Does Law 13 apply to cases like = this?   If West=20 would have bid with the hand from the previous board what rule applies=20 then?
 
Best wishes
 
Sveinn R. Eiriksson
------=_NextPart_000_001D_01BF9BFF.AF7C7C00-- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 2 04:16:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA06647 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 03:17:29 +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 DAA06642 for ; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 03:17:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.181] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12bRW1-0003x1-00; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 18:17:00 +0100 Message-ID: <008e01bf9bfe$1850a500$b55408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Cc: References: Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 18:05:09 +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: Cc: Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 9:22 AM Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl >I believe that much of the > frustration felt by poorer players at claims stems from not being able to > follow the play described. This can happen even when the claim statement > is of DBquality because the player is unable to visualise the end > position. Good players on the other hand are grateful to a declarer who > doesn't make them sweat every discard when the position is obvious to them > once declarer's hand is revealed. Trying to match the claims you make to > the players at the table strikes me as common courtesy rather than > patronising. > +=+ Just occasionally amidst the prattle and the semantics we come across a grain of wisdom that deserves a second and a third reading. It is a courtesy to the unassuming players if any claim is deferred until they can understand it easily.~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 2 07:04:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA07367 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 07:04:50 +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 HAA07361 for ; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 07:04:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from p34s04a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.164.53] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt7-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12bN7q-0006Hz-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 13:35:39 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: 14-13-13-13 Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 22:05:08 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf9c1d$f61acf40$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Sveinn Rúnar Eiríksson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: RSchwa5767@aol.com ; Jakob Langflottasti Kristinsson Date: Saturday, April 01, 2000 6:40 PM Subject: 14-13-13-13 Dear Tournament Directors I was asked to ask for your opinion about an incident that happened recently on Iceland. West discovered after bidding that he holds 14 cards. While Director is on his way to the table he finds out that he holds one card from the previous board. This is in a Teams tournament and he and his partner had bid to 4S on a 9-card fit. The 14th card is a small spade (s2) and now they are in 4S in 4-4 fit with 17 points opposite 7. The Director decided to remove the 14th card and let the play proceed. As the play was the defense could have beaten the contract but it came home for 620 EW. At the other table EW played 2H just making. The ruling of the Director was appealed based on that the Director didnt use Law 13, that is he didnt award and artificial adjusted score. The appeals committee didnt change the score but handed back the insurance fee. Here is the board: J5 QT976 KQ JT62 K743 (2) Q986 KJ852 A4 862 AJT9 5 AQ8 AT2 3 7543 K9743 N led the J of clubs which was won by the A. Now declarer played A of hearts and a small that South ruffed and now he tried the King of clubs. It was easy for West to make 10 tricks now. First, do you agree with the ruling of the Director? do you agree with the decision of the Appeals Committee? Does Law 13 apply to cases like this? Yes Law 13 does apply, but how do we know that the TD did not apply it. The TD in applying Law 13, makes a note of the bidding. Removes the card and decided if the board can be played normally with no change of bidding. He now gives the players the option of playing the board. It looks to me as though all this was done. Now, having agreed to play the board I do not think N/S have any complaint. Only if the TD decides that the bidding would have been different, or if either side (the concurrence of all four players) decline to play the board, then the TD awards an ArtAS. If the TD just said it makes no difference, play on, then N/S have not been given the option to decline. AC should decide whether TD applied Law correctly. You did not tell us the auction. What Law did the TD say he had used? If West would have bid with the hand from the previous board what rule applies then? Law 17D Anne (nice to meet you Sveinn. Do you know Bjiorn Thoraksen, He's in Wales just now) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 2 08:51:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA07620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 08:51:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA07615 for ; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 08:51:02 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 95A2631024; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 17:49:34 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <002001bf9bf7$4f528a20$a68f04c1@bsi> References: <002001bf9bf7$4f528a20$a68f04c1@bsi> Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 17:51:07 -0500 To: Sveinn Rúnar Eiríksson From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: 14-13-13-13 Cc: , , "Jakob Langflottasti Kristinsson" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 5:28 PM +0100 4/1/00, Sveinn Rúnar Eiríksson wrote: >Dear Tournament Directors > >I was asked to ask for your opinion about an incident that happened >recently on Iceland. I'm not a director, but I like to think I can read as well as anyone. Here's the first part of the Law: LAW 13 - INCORRECT NUMBER OF CARDS When the Director determines that one or more pockets of the board contained an incorrect number of cards, and a player with an incorrect hand has made a call, then when the Director deems that the deal can be corrected and played normally with no change of call, the deal may be so played with the concurrence of all four players. Otherwise, the Director shall award an artificial adjusted score and may penalize an offender. (...) >West discovered after bidding that he holds 14 cards. While Director >is on his way to the table he finds out that he holds one card from >the previous board. This is in a Teams tournament and he and his >partner had bid to 4S on a 9-card fit. The 14th card is a small >spade (s2) and now they are in 4S in 4-4 fit with 17 points opposite >7. The Director decided to remove the 14th card and let the play >proceed. Did he require the concurrence of all four players? If not then it would seem that he did not follow Law 13. >As the play was the defense could have beaten the contract but it >came home for 620 EW. At the other table EW played 2H just making. >The ruling of the Director was appealed based on that the Director >didn't use Law 13, that is he didn't award and artificial adjusted >score. As Anne Jones points out, and as we can see from the text of the law, these are not the same thing. (I've omitted the hand - it does not seem relevant to the ruling.) >First, do you agree with the ruling of the Director? I disagree unless you've left out an important detail. >Do you agree with the decision of the Appeals Committee? If they determined that the director did not follow the Laws then they should have awarded the best of it to both sides. You say the event was teams. Was it a Swiss, a KO, or something else? >Does Law 13 apply to cases like this? There are grounds for supposing it does not apply. Look at the first phrase. The hand must have been wrong *in the pocket of the board*. If we take this literally then Law 13 would not seem to apply here, but no other law seems to apply either. >If West would have bid with the hand from the previous board what >rule applies then? I don't understand the question. AW From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 2 09:43:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA07709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 09:43:40 +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 JAA07703 for ; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 09:43:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.70.40] (helo=davidburn) by ruthenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12bU2u-0002LU-00; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 20:59:01 +0100 Message-ID: <000201bf9c14$8e047900$284601d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: Cc: References: <008e01bf9bfe$1850a500$b55408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 20:55:58 +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 Grattan wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Tim West-meads > To: > Cc: > Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 9:22 AM > Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl > > > >I believe that much of the > > frustration felt by poorer players at claims stems from not being able to > > follow the play described. This can happen even when the claim statement > > is of DBquality because the player is unable to visualise the end > > position. Good players on the other hand are grateful to a declarer who > > doesn't make them sweat every discard when the position is obvious to them > > once declarer's hand is revealed. Trying to match the claims you make to > > the players at the table strikes me as common courtesy rather than > > patronising. > > > +=+ Just occasionally amidst the prattle and the semantics we > come across a grain of wisdom that deserves a second and a > third reading. It is a courtesy to the unassuming players if any > claim is deferred until they can understand it easily.~ G ~ +=+ Quite so. Humble apolgies for previous intemperate language. Looking back on it, I can't now think what it was about this that irritated me in the first place. Very sorry, Tim. I'm a bit worried about this, though: Tim claims at trick seven, and his opponent angrily says: "Do you think I'm an idiot? I'd have understood if you'd claimed three tricks ago!" David Burn London, England > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 2 11:54:33 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA08098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 11:54:33 +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 LAA08093 for ; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 11:54:25 +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 12bZae-000KcN-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 02:54:13 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 01:16:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 14-13-13-13 References: <002001bf9bf7$4f528a20$a68f04c1@bsi> In-Reply-To: <002001bf9bf7$4f528a20$a68f04c1@bsi> 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 LAA08094 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sveinn Rúnar Eiríksson wrote: > Dear Tournament Directors >   > I was asked to ask for your opinion about an incident that happened > recently on Iceland. >   >     West discovered after bidding that he holds 14 cards.   While > Director is on his way to the table he finds out that he holds one > card from the previous board.   This is in a Teams tournament and > he and his partner had bid to 4S on a 9-card fit.   The 14th card > is a small spade (s2) and now they are in 4S in 4-4 fit with 17 > points opposite 7.  The Director decided to remove the 14th card > and let the play proceed.   As the play was the defense could have > beaten the contract but it came home for 620 EW.   At the other > table EW played 2H just making.   The ruling of the Director was > appealed based on that the Director didnt use Law 13, that is he > didnt award and artificial adjusted score.   The appeals committee > didnt change the score but handed back the insurance fee. >   > Here is the board: >   >   >                                     J5 >                                     QT976 >                                     KQ >                                     JT62 >             K743 (2)                       Q986 >             KJ852                           A4 >             862                               AJT9 >             5                                  AQ8 >                                     AT2 >                                     3 >                                     7543 >                                     K9743 >   >   > N led the J of clubs which was won by the A.  Now declarer played A > of hearts and a small that South ruffed and now he tried the King > of clubs.   It was easy for West to make 10 tricks now. >   > First,  do you agree with the ruling of the Director? > do you agree with the decision of the Appeals Committee? >   > Does Law 13 apply to cases like this?   If West would have bid with > the hand from the previous board what rule applies then? Law 13 does not apply, since the conditions were not met. It starts "When the Director determines that one or more pockets of the board contained an incorrect number of cards, ..." but in fact, when a card comes from the previous board, it does not come from the pocket of the current board. I expect the player left it on the table, and then picked it up with the current 13 cards. It is not a card that has anything to do with this board, and is basically treated the same as if it was a piece of chewing gum that got attached to the hand: you discard it and carry on. The TD's ruling was correct. Since it does not say why the AC let the score stay the same, I have no way of knowing whether the AC got it correct or not. -- 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 Apr 2 12:31:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA08199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 12:31:19 +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 MAA08194 for ; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 12:31:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from p14s01a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.97.21] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt11-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12bDrZ-0001fX-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 03:42:14 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: 14-13-13-13 Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 03:31:12 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf9c4b$8332fba0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sunday, April 02, 2000 3:02 AM Subject: Re: 14-13-13-13 Sveinn Rúnar Eiríksson wrote: > Dear Tournament Directors > > I was asked to ask for your opinion about an incident that happened > recently on Iceland. > > West discovered after bidding that he holds 14 cards. While > Director is on his way to the table he finds out that he holds one > card from the previous board. This is in a Teams tournament and > he and his partner had bid to 4S on a 9-card fit. The 14th card > is a small spade (s2) and now they are in 4S in 4-4 fit with 17 > points opposite 7. The Director decided to remove the 14th card > and let the play proceed. As the play was the defense could have > beaten the contract but it came home for 620 EW. At the other > table EW played 2H just making. The ruling of the Director was > appealed based on that the Director didnt use Law 13, that is he > didnt award and artificial adjusted score. The appeals committee > didnt change the score but handed back the insurance fee. > > Here is the board: > > > J5 > QT976 > KQ > JT62 > K743 (2) Q986 > KJ852 A4 > 862 AJT9 > 5 AQ8 > AT2 > 3 > 7543 > K9743 > > > N led the J of clubs which was won by the A. Now declarer played A > of hearts and a small that South ruffed and now he tried the King > of clubs. It was easy for West to make 10 tricks now. > > First, do you agree with the ruling of the Director? > do you agree with the decision of the Appeals Committee? > > Does Law 13 apply to cases like this? If West would have bid with > the hand from the previous board what rule applies then? Law 13 does not apply, since the conditions were not met. How do you know? It starts "When the Director determines that one or more pockets of the board contained an incorrect number of cards, ..." but in fact, when a card comes from the previous board, it does not come from the pocket of the current board. I expect the player left it on the table, and then picked it up with the current 13 cards. If it was the first of two or three, then maybe the card was put into the wrong pocket at a previous table. We are told that West got 14 cards. Not how! It is not a card that has anything to do with this board, and is basically treated the same as if it was a piece of chewing gum that got attached to the hand: you discard it and carry on. Maybe, but maybe not. The TD's ruling was correct. Since it does not say why the AC let the score stay the same, I have no way of knowing whether the AC got it correct or not. We surely have not been given the answers to all the questions we may have asked. This is not unusual. Anne Happy Birthday Nanki Poo! From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 2 16:53:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA08653 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 16:53:30 +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 QAA08646 for ; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 16:53:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-16-132.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.16.132]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA09772 for ; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 08:53:11 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38E5D199.5E6CEDE3@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 12:38:17 +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: <200004010748.CAA03178@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > What if we say any time there is an unstated line of play, the hand will be > played as if Mrs. Guggenheim were the claimer? She has never heard of a [snip] > much more comprehensive statements than are now common, and in case of > an insufficient statement, we say "We know a declarer of your skill > never would have gone wrong, but our official instructions are to rule > the claim as if you were Mrs. Guggenheim. Next time, make a better > statement." > Steve's suggestion seems to make sense, but it has one flaw. I would prefer it if it were amended to "as if HdW were declarer". I actually think that would suit some players better. The level is slightly higher, and less ridiculous. But then we are back where we started from. You cannot have "equitable" claims rulings if you are not going to include some element of "level of play". > It would be even better to say "Your claim is exactly like number seven > in the WBF's list of examples, and that claim is disallowed." Then we need such a list for World Championships, another for national tournament, another for clubs. Sorry, there is NO way out of this problem. Rather I don't think there IS a problem. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 2 18:00:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA08730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 18:00:26 +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 SAA08725 for ; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 18:00:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.72] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12bfIl-000Nnj-00; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 09:00:08 +0100 Message-ID: <001101bf9c79$7c0a7820$485608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <9d.39a3b51.2614a5b7@aol.com><000e01bf9a65$c6f850c0$befc75c2@rabbit><007001bf9b51$d0dc0680$f15608c3@dodona> Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_Re:_DB=B4s_proposal_on_claims_=28new_line_of_thinkin?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?g=29?= Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 08:56:41 +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: Saturday, April 01, 2000 2:00 AM Subject: Re: Re: DB´s proposal on claims (new line of thinking) > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >+=+ In this statement the word *correctly* should be > >spelt *incorrectly*; this action constituted a claim at > >least in respect of the current trick if not beyond that. > >He was saying : "whatever you do I win this trick". > >That is a claim. If a Director thought otherwise he > >was out of touch with the game and its laws. > > Oh well, count me in as one of those out of touch. > > L68: "For a statement or action to constitute a claim or concession of > tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one > currently in progress." > +=+ Oh well, David, if I find you failing to make the distinction in my use of 'claim' where only one trick is involved, in the sense not applying to "a claim or concession of tricks" (plural), then I am guilty of speaking over the heads of most of my audience. Let us see if I can confirm what I am saying without using the word in a way that confuses. The action of a player in disclosing his possession of both A and Q may be to expose these cards or it may reveal them without exposure. If the action intends to claim more than just the trick currently in progress then it is a claim in respect of which the Director must apply Law 68. If it is a statement for the expedition of the progress of the current trick only, an indication that the defender will win the trick whichever of J and K is played, then the footnote applies. In the latter case the "cards" exposed or revealed do not become penalty cards. [Someone was trying to make a distinction between showing the cards and merely indicating possession of them; the footnote does not make such a distinction except in making it plain that it covers both the action of exposing the cards and that of otherwise revealing them.] Of course, if the defender were to expose the cards and say "I claim this trick" he would still not be subject to the generality of 68, but only to the footnote, though he might confuse some distinguished Directors. And, of course, the ruling in the European Junior event, if amazingly it has been fully and accurately reported here, is a kindergarten episode and has nothing to do with the application of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1997 (nor with the 1987 Code)*. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 2 19:23:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA08833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 19:23:36 +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 TAA08826 for ; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 19:23:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.177] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12bgbH-000PpK-00; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 10:23:19 +0100 Message-ID: <004a01bf9c85$1b37fa20$485608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" , "Herman De Wael" References: <200004010748.CAA03178@cfa183.harvard.edu> <38E5D199.5E6CEDE3@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: David B.'s proposal on claims Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 10:19:55 +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: Bridge Laws Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 11:38 AM Subject: Re: David B.'s proposal on claims > Steve Willner wrote: > > > > > > What if we say any time there is an unstated line of play, the hand will be > > played as if Mrs. Guggenheim were the claimer? > > > > Steve's suggestion seems to make sense, but it has one flaw. > > I would prefer it if it were amended to "as if HdW were > declarer". > > I actually think that would suit some players better. The > level is slightly higher, and less ridiculous. > +=+ Perhaps I should put the :-))) first....... They tell me that H de W is a tournament director whose decisions are capable of wide variance from standard practice. I know him to be a highly capable contributor within the discipline of appeals committees. It is said that, as a player, he swings from the one level of competence to the other impetuously. If this is a justified judgement perhaps we could choose someone more boringly consistent? (I refrain from suggesting a name.) +=+ < -------- \x/ -------- > > You cannot have "equitable" claims rulings if you are not > going to include some element of "level of play". > > > It would be even better to say "Your claim is exactly like number seven > > in the WBF's list of examples, and that claim is disallowed." > > Then we need such a list for World Championships, another > for national tournament, another for clubs. > > Sorry, there is NO way out of this problem. > Rather I don't think there IS a problem. > > Herman DE WAEL > +=+ Now it seems to me that we have here a case for a WBF jurisprudence that extends to every discovered problem of the tournament director. This may take a little while (x centuries) to build up from our current meagre beginnings, but the task has begun. In the meanwhile, we should look to the accumulated experience of NCBOs that have developed sizeable quantities of TD seminar materials. Since we are set upon the task of bringing together as much of such material as we can to help our thinking in preparing documents for European Bridge League seminars, perhaps I could suggest that anyone having access to such materials might pass them to us; I am confident we will be glad to acknowledge our use of other people's work. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 2 19:23:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA08829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 19:23:32 +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 TAA08822 for ; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 19:23:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.177] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12bgbE-000PpK-00; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 10:23:16 +0100 Message-ID: <004801bf9c85$195a6080$485608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , Cc: References: <008e01bf9bfe$1850a500$b55408c3@dodona> <000201bf9c14$8e047900$284601d5@davidburn> Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 09:08:22 +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: Cc: Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 8:55 PM Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl > Grattan wrote: > > > > > +=+ Just occasionally amidst the prattle and the semantics we > > come across a grain of wisdom that deserves a second and a > > third reading. It is a courtesy to the unassuming players if any > > claim is deferred until they can understand it easily.~ G ~ +=+ > ------ \x/ ------ > I'm a bit worried about this, though: Tim claims at trick seven, and > his opponent angrily says: "Do you think I'm an idiot? I'd have > understood if you'd claimed three tricks ago!" > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ Don't you feel that Tim is sometimes a bit flamboyant? By the way, I think the courtesy extends also to the TDs who are called less often to sort out a claim +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 2 21:27:12 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA09022 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 21:27:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from europa.islandia.is (root@europa.islandia.is [194.144.136.162]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA09017 for ; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 21:27:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from bsi (nas622.islandia.is [194.144.158.161]) by europa.islandia.is (8.9.3-MySQL-0.2.3c+Tal/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA11051 for ; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 11:26:45 GMT (envelope-from svenni@islandia.is) Message-ID: <001b01bf9c8e$334aea60$a19e90c2@bsi> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sveinn_R=FAnar_Eir=EDksson?= To: References: <002001bf9bf7$4f528a20$a68f04c1@bsi> Subject: Re: 14-13-13-13 Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 11:28:33 +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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I guess I forgot to tell the exact facts. Yes, David you are right, he forgot the card from the previous board on the table and picked it up with the cards from the current board. The board was correct as it came to the table. If this is the case, doesnt Law 13 apply? Then I have another question: Lets say that you are playing Teams and after playing board 10 you forget to put your cards back and you use the same hand to bid board 11. Does Law 17 apply now, or do you just change hands? Best wishes Sveinn R. Eiriksson Yes Anne I know Bjorn Thorlaksson. We are good friends and I recently read a very nice article about bridge in Wales. ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2000 1:16 AM Subject: Re: 14-13-13-13 > Sveinn Rúnar Eiríksson wrote: > > Dear Tournament Directors > > > > I was asked to ask for your opinion about an incident that happened > > recently on Iceland. > > > > West discovered after bidding that he holds 14 cards. While > > Director is on his way to the table he finds out that he holds one > > card from the previous board. This is in a Teams tournament and > > he and his partner had bid to 4S on a 9-card fit. The 14th card > > is a small spade (s2) and now they are in 4S in 4-4 fit with 17 > > points opposite 7. The Director decided to remove the 14th card > > and let the play proceed. As the play was the defense could have > > beaten the contract but it came home for 620 EW. At the other > > table EW played 2H just making. The ruling of the Director was > > appealed based on that the Director didnt use Law 13, that is he > > didnt award and artificial adjusted score. The appeals committee > > didnt change the score but handed back the insurance fee. > > > > Here is the board: > > > > > > J5 > > QT976 > > KQ > > JT62 > > K743 (2) Q986 > > KJ852 A4 > > 862 AJT9 > > 5 AQ8 > > AT2 > > 3 > > 7543 > > K9743 > > > > > > N led the J of clubs which was won by the A. Now declarer played A > > of hearts and a small that South ruffed and now he tried the King > > of clubs. It was easy for West to make 10 tricks now. > > > > First, do you agree with the ruling of the Director? > > do you agree with the decision of the Appeals Committee? > > > > Does Law 13 apply to cases like this? If West would have bid with > > the hand from the previous board what rule applies then? > > Law 13 does not apply, since the conditions were not met. It starts > "When the Director determines that one or more pockets of the board > contained an incorrect number of cards, ..." but in fact, when a card > comes from the previous board, it does not come from the pocket of the > current board. I expect the player left it on the table, and then > picked it up with the current 13 cards. It is not a card that has > anything to do with this board, and is basically treated the same as if > it was a piece of chewing gum that got attached to the hand: you discard > it and carry on. > > The TD's ruling was correct. Since it does not say why the AC let the > score stay the same, I have no way of knowing whether the AC got it > correct or not. > > -- > 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 Apr 3 02:01:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA09790 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 02:01:52 +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 CAA09784 for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 02:01:42 +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 12bmoZ-000FLF-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 16:01:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 02:25:18 +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: <008e01bf9bfe$1850a500$b55408c3@dodona> <000201bf9c14$8e047900$284601d5@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <000201bf9c14$8e047900$284601d5@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <000201bf9c14$8e047900$284601d5@davidburn>, David Burn writes snip > Trying to match the claims you >make to >> > the players at the table strikes me as common courtesy rather than >> > patronising. >> > >> +=+ Just occasionally amidst the prattle and the semantics we >> come across a grain of wisdom that deserves a second and a >> third reading. It is a courtesy to the unassuming players if any >> claim is deferred until they can understand it easily.~ G ~ +=+ > >Quite so. Humble apolgies for previous intemperate language. Looking >back on it, I can't now think what it was about this that irritated me >in the first place. Very sorry, Tim. > >I'm a bit worried about this, though: Tim claims at trick seven, and >his opponent angrily says: "Do you think I'm an idiot? I'd have >understood if you'd claimed three tricks ago!" bastinado is more appropriate than firing squad. I'd certainly have a word with the player though. That sort of behavioUr is not acceptable. cheers john > >David Burn >London, England > >> > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 3 08:56:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA11057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 08:56:54 +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 IAA11052 for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 08:56:31 +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 SAA19273 for ; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 18:56:22 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 18:51:53 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: UI from insufficient bid by weak player Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Individual game, weak players sitting N-S, E dealer, N-S vulnerable. N-S are not playing negative doubles. South holds ATx x QT9xx KQxx. W N E S P 1D 2C 1S Director! (East does not accept the 1S bid.) 2S P P Director! (This is an ACBL game, so West cannot reserve his rights.) P Then dummy comes down. West alleges that South's pass was suggested by the UI that the 2S bid was likely to be under strength. 2S goes down one on two club ruffs, a top for N-S because other tables are in 3S. I think the ruling against a good player would be automatic, since 2S by an unpassed hand is forcing, and passing a forcing bid based on UI is a clear infraction. But what do you do when the offender is a weak player and doesn't understand that you can't have both a forcing 2S and a competitive 2S here? If North had simply bid 2S, South might have passed, and it would have been a legal fix. (And how would you rule under the old Laws, on which the 1S bid was AI to South? This type of hand seems to be the justification for making the 1S bid UI.) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 3 10:10:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA11274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 10:10:42 +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 KAA11267 for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 10:10:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from p8es06a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.166.143] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12bWnY-00051n-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 23:55:20 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Today I love the job! Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 01:11:18 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf9d01$228171e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I've just had a lovely day. 6 teams of eight.5 board rounds. 35 mins/round. 2 sessions with break.Time schedule fulfilled to the minute. One OPOOT,2 Law 25B rulings, and a contested claim. Not one scoring error, home by 8.30pm. If only it was all so much fun Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 3 10:10:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA11286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 10:10:53 +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 KAA11277 for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 10:10:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from p8es06a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.166.143] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12bWni-00052K-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 23:55:31 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: UI from insufficient bid by weak player Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 01:11:56 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf9d01$390f5ee0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David J. Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, April 03, 2000 12:08 AM Subject: UI from insufficient bid by weak player >Individual game, weak players sitting N-S, E dealer, N-S vulnerable. >N-S are not playing negative doubles. > >South holds ATx x QT9xx KQxx. > >W N E S > P 1D >2C 1S Director! (East does not accept the 1S bid.) > 2S P P Director! (This is an ACBL game, so West cannot > reserve his rights.) >P > >Then dummy comes down. West alleges that South's pass was suggested by the >UI that the 2S bid was likely to be under strength. 2S goes down one on >two club ruffs, a top for N-S because other tables are in 3S. > >I think the ruling against a good player would be automatic, since 2S by an >unpassed hand is forcing, and passing a forcing bid based on UI is a clear >infraction. > There are many who play this as a non forcing sequence. Not knowing the difference between F and NF South (who did not promise a rebid anyway :-) can pass in their system. (They have no agreement "she" takes her chance) > >But what do you do when the offender is a weak player and >doesn't understand that you can't have both a forcing 2S and a competitive >2S here? >If North had simply bid 2S, South might have passed, and it would have been >a legal fix. > I think it is still a legal fix. > >(And how would you rule under the old Laws, on which the 1S bid was AI to >South? This type of hand seems to be the justification for making the 1S >bid UI.) > It's all legal. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 3 11:08:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA11418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 11:08:34 +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 LAA11413 for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 11:08:27 +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 12bvLj-000PyX-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 02:08:17 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 23:35:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 14-13-13-13 References: <002001bf9bf7$4f528a20$a68f04c1@bsi> <001b01bf9c8e$334aea60$a19e90c2@bsi> In-Reply-To: <001b01bf9c8e$334aea60$a19e90c2@bsi> 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 LAA11414 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sveinn Rúnar Eiríksson wrote: >I guess I forgot to tell the exact facts. Yes, David you are right, he >forgot the card from the previous board on the table and picked it up with >the cards from the current board. The board was correct as it came to the >table. If this is the case, doesnt Law 13 apply? No, because the pockets of the board did not contain the wrong number of cards. > Then I have another >question: Lets say that you are playing Teams and after playing board 10 >you forget to put your cards back and you use the same hand to bid board 11. >Does Law 17 apply now, or do you just change hands? L17 applies now: you have the hand taken from the wrong board. -- 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 Apr 3 11:10:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA11436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 11:10:19 +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 LAA11431 for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 11:10:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([207.253.109.49]) by falla.videotron.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.12.14.10.29.p8) with SMTP id <0FSF00BPC1UWQR@falla.videotron.net> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 21:08:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 21:05:51 -0400 From: Christian Chantigny Subject: Re: Today I love the job! To: Anne Jones , BLML Message-id: <000601bf9d08$c291d6a0$316dfdcf@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 Dare to dream! LOL I'm sure you did a great job, otherwise it wouldn't have run so smoothly. Touché away! Christian ---Message d'origine----- De : Anne Jones À : BLML Date : 2 avril, 2000 20:35 Objet : Today I love the job! >I've just had a lovely day. >6 teams of eight.5 board rounds. 35 mins/round. >2 sessions with break.Time schedule fulfilled to >the minute. >One OPOOT,2 Law 25B rulings, and a contested >claim. >Not one scoring error, home by 8.30pm. >If only it was all so much fun >Anne > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 3 17:05:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA12007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 17:05:17 +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 RAA12001 for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 17:05:07 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id IAA26617 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 08:04:28 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 08:04 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: A contested claim from the Bermuda Bowl 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: <000201bf9c14$8e047900$284601d5@davidburn> David Burn wrote: > Very sorry, Tim. No Problem - I'm sure I've done similar things in the past. > > I'm a bit worried about this, though: Tim claims at trick seven, and > his opponent angrily says: "Do you think I'm an idiot? I'd have > understood if you'd claimed three tricks ago!" This has never really been a problem at cut-in rubber - most people will assume you are delaying claiming so that their less talented partner can understand:-) If it happens then a little white lie eg "I wasn't quite sure of the position." will usually assuage the seething ego. My most common error is to claim too soon against "Player X". Player X is not all that good but her real failing is that she has no wish to even try and follow a simple claim statement eg you say "..discarding my diamonds on dummy's hearts then making my trumps." and she contests the claim with "I have the AK of diamonds". It would be nice to educate this sort of player as well but that problem would probably prove intractable. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 3 18:33:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA12472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 18:33:17 +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 SAA12467 for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 18:33:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.84] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12c2I6-000DqO-00; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 09:32:59 +0100 Message-ID: <001f01bf9d47$3e13ff40$545908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" References: <01bf9d01$390f5ee0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: UI from insufficient bid by weak player Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 09:32:14 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: Monday, April 03, 2000 1:11 AM Subject: Re: UI from insufficient bid by weak player > > > It's all legal. > Anne > +=+ Well, you may be right. However, there are one or two questions. N-S have an implicit agreement, do they not, having this regular habit? Was this disclosed? The Director has to consider whether 27B1(b) applies. Having cleared these hurdles then there is left only the question of 72B1. Beyond these questions the fields are green and this is simply a rub of that colour. The Director has some judgements to make. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 3 22:05:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA13387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 22:05:53 +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 WAA13382 for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 22:05:46 +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 12c5bn-0008UY-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 13:05:33 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 03:01:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Today I love the job! References: <01bf9d01$228171e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf9d01$228171e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >I've just had a lovely day. >6 teams of eight.5 board rounds. 35 mins/round. >2 sessions with break.Time schedule fulfilled to >the minute. >One OPOOT,2 Law 25B rulings, and a contested >claim. >Not one scoring error, home by 8.30pm. >If only it was all so much fun *Two* L25B rulings? *Two*? Do you know how many L25B rulings I have had in the last eighteen months? One! That was in the Gold Coast Congress. How on earth do you get two in a single day? -- 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 Apr 4 00:18:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA14277 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 00:18:20 +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 AAA14272 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 00:18:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from p33s06a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.134.52] helo=pacific) by cobalt3-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12c7ex-0003w4-00; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 07:16:55 -0700 Message-ID: <000701bf9d77$702364a0$348693c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <01bf9d01$228171e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: Today I love the job! Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 14:42:23 +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: 03 April 2000 03:01 Subject: Re: Today I love the job! > > *Two* L25B rulings? *Two*? > > Do you know how many L25B rulings I have had in the last eighteen > months? One! That was in the Gold Coast Congress. > > How on earth do you get two in a single day? > +=+ Avid readers of trifles will have noted there were at least 6 in Bermuda. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 4 00:29:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA14330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 00:29:16 +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 AAA14325 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 00:29:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (pcciborowski.comarch.pl [195.116.125.138]) by omicron.comarch.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01EC65C02C for ; Mon, 03 Apr 2000 16:29:08 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38E618F9.736214DB@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 17:42:49 +0200 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: UI from insufficient bid by weak player References: <01bf9d01$390f5ee0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <001f01bf9d47$3e13ff40$545908c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Grattan Endicott ===================================== > "The arts babblative and scribblative". > - Robert Southey. > ===================================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Anne Jones > To: BLML > Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 1:11 AM > Subject: Re: UI from insufficient bid by weak player > > > > > > It's all legal. > > Anne > > > +=+ Well, you may be right. However, there are one or two > questions. N-S have an implicit agreement, do they not, > having this regular habit? Was this disclosed? According to David this was an individual tournament so I guess NS were not a regular partnership (David would have mentioned that otherwise I guess). That's why I tend to agree with Anne though of course the TD should ask the South player a few questions, "why did you pass after 2S" being among them. -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Apr 4 01:16:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA14425 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 01:03:20 +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 BAA14419 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 01:02:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from ex1unintd03.its.it ([151.92.249.147]) by ultra1.its.it (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA26583; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 17:01:29 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by EX1UNINTD03 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <2G4G5Y37>; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 16:55:22 +0200 Message-ID: From: NARDULLO Ennio To: Jean Pierre Rocafort Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: R: break in tempo Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 16:55:01 +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 BAA14421 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Je pense que vous n'avez pas comprendu ...mon anglais est tres mauvais(aussi mon francais ....) Je pense que la declaration de 3 trefle est tres dangereuse ... Si nous n'avons pas le break in tempo , apres le contre , nous pouvons dire ou ne dire pas 3trefle ....... Mais apres le break in tempo , pourquoi declarer 3trefle ? L'arbitre nous donnerat un bon resultat ( 2carrot pour une de chute .... ) Si nous disons 3trefle je pense che l'arbitre doit nous donner le resultat pour 3trefle ...... au revoir 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: Jean Pierre Rocafort [mailto:jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr] Inviato: venerdì 31 marzo 2000 18.25 A: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Oggetto: Re: break in tempo NARDULLO Ennio a écrit : > > 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 ) Very strange, you first argued against redress for 3C's bidder because it was a double shot, and now you argue against redress because the player stupidly failed to take a double shot. JP Rocafort > 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 -- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 4 01:56:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA14552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 01:56:50 +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 BAA14547 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 01:56:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-235.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.235]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA01862; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 11:56:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <005901bf9d85$40678300$eb84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , "Derrick" Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal on Claims Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 11:56:52 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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: Derrick (Grant Sterling)(snip) they wouldn't >>>be hit with a disasterous result from a law they never heard of. > >[DWS} > >> Certainly not: the TD won't have heard of it either! > >(Derrick) This is a problem of dissemination during the implementation surely. > Hardly. This is a problem of great magnitude at the club level in regions where ongoing training is negligible to nonexistent for directors, including but not limited to the ACBL. I know of one local club in which if one were to ask for a Law 25B adjustment not a director or player in the room would know what you were talking about or think you could do that. It may (I hope) be out of the lawbook before most people realize it is in. The common misunderstanding of Law 16 by the great majority of people who have never RTFLB (that you must make the bid you would always have made in the presence of UI) is generally upheld and taught by many such club directors. Our zonal opt out on 61 and 12C3 has saved us from very uneven implementation and vast customer dissatisfaction. I know we cannot write the lawbook solely to appease the kvetchers...but the law on claims aint broke...let's stop trying to fix it. It, like Christianity, in the words of C.S.Lewis I believe, has not been tried and failed but has been found difficult and left untried. The present law works quite well when you make the effort to use it properly. A body of agreed examples/defaults such as the ACBL trumps from the top down rule would provide useful help if adopted by NA's or imposed from the WBF level as a strong suggestion such as the new approach on appeals. == Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 4 02:14:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA14759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 02:14:50 +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 CAA14754 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 02:14:43 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id u.11.251c483 (3945); Mon, 3 Apr 2000 12:13:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <11.251c483.261a1d45@aol.com> Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 12:13:57 EDT Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal on Claims To: rts48u@ix.netcom.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, yanhoon@singnet.com.sg 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 4/3/00 11:58:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rts48u@ix.netcom.com writes: > I know we cannot write the lawbook solely to appease the kvetchers...but > the law on claims aint broke...let's stop trying to fix it. It, like > Christianity, in the words of C.S.Lewis I believe, has not been tried and > failed but has been found difficult and left untried. The present law works > quite well when you make the effort to use it properly. A body of agreed > examples/defaults such as the ACBL trumps from the top down rule would > provide useful help if adopted by NA's or imposed from the WBF level as a > strong suggestion such as the new approach on appeals. > > == > Craig Senior > It's nice to see that sanity reigns in some places. I agree that the Laws on Claims and Consessions benefit by examples and regulations by the Zones/NCBOs, and to quote you and others "they ain't broke.". What would help a great deal is if the various entities made wide circulation throughout the bridge world of their interpretations. They could then be condensed, modified, and would probably easily find international acceptance. i.e. Suits are deemed to be played from the top down in making claims when being "run." I understand that Grattan is working on a new Commentary on the Laws to do just that. We are making progress. It's also nice to find the application of common sense to the Laws. I still have a bone in my craw over how any TD would not only rule that the cards were penalty cards, but give the declarer the right to make the defender play the Queen under the King in that situation recently discussed. It ain't bridge, it's ridiculous and against everything that the whole game is about. Thanks for a bright light on this dismal day. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 4 02:45:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA14817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 02:45:13 +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 CAA14812 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 02:44:12 +1000 (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 MAA17367; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 12:43:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <38E618F9.736214DB@omicron.comarch.pl> References: <01bf9d01$390f5ee0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <001f01bf9d47$3e13ff40$545908c3@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 12:42:26 -0500 To: Konrad Ciborowski , BLML From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: UI from insufficient bid by weak player Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 5:42 PM +0200 4/1/00, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: [South held Axx x QT9xx KQxx, and passed on the auction W N E S P 1D 2C 1S/2S P P ] >> +=+ Well, you may be right. However, there are one or two >> questions. N-S have an implicit agreement, do they not, >> having this regular habit? Was this disclosed? > According to David this was an individual tournament >so I guess NS were not a regular partnership (David >would have mentioned that otherwise I guess). > That's why I tend to agree with Anne though of >course the TD should ask the South player a few questions, >"why did you pass after 2S" being among them. Her answer was, "I opened light, we were in the right spot, and it was a competitive auction." I don't think she understood that 2S is unlimited and supposed to be forcing. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 4 03:38:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA16431 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 03:38:57 +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 DAA16420 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 03:38:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from p8es01a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.161.143] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt5-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12cAmt-0005YM-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 10:37:19 -0700 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Today I love the job! Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 18:39:44 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf9d93$994ee0e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, April 03, 2000 1:16 PM Subject: Re: Today I love the job! >Anne Jones wrote: >>I've just had a lovely day. >>6 teams of eight.5 board rounds. 35 mins/round. >>2 sessions with break.Time schedule fulfilled to >>the minute. >>One OPOOT,2 Law 25B rulings, and a contested >>claim. >>Not one scoring error, home by 8.30pm. >>If only it was all so much fun > > *Two* L25B rulings? *Two*? > > Do you know how many L25B rulings I have had in the last eighteen >months? One! That was in the Gold Coast Congress. > > How on earth do you get two in a single day? > > MY players know that once a card is out of the box, they don't get to change their mind without me getting to know about it :-) > Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 4 03:57:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA16562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 03:57:14 +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 DAA16557 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 03:57:01 +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 NAA14160; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 13:56:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA195724602; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 13:56:42 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 13:56:26 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: A Modest Proposal on Claims Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, rts48u@ix.netcom.com, yanhoon@singnet.com.sg 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 DAA16558 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: >> Certainly not: the TD won't have heard of it either! > >(Derrick) This is a problem of dissemination during the implementation surely. > Hardly. This is a problem of great magnitude at the club level in regions where ongoing training is negligible to nonexistent for directors, including but not limited to the ACBL. [Laval Dubreuil] Fully agree. I can not understand why ACBL (and may be it is the same problem elsewhere...) makes so less efforts on club directors training. I think a small investment in that direction would be very profitable. Training teachers was necessary to recruit new bridge players, but the director's skill is a key factor to keep them playing in ACBL clubs and staying members... Players must be sure that laws protect them against some ...x%#xx... and that the director applies these laws the same manner to all. I think that applying laws strictly, gently and fairly is a key factor of our club success (near by 30 tables on regular session). Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 4 04:21:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA15859 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 03:26:31 +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 DAA15845 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 03:26:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from p56s09a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.89.87] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt5-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12cAan-0004z7-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 10:24:50 -0700 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: UI from insufficient bid by weak player Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 12:17:33 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf9d5e$355c6ec0$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: Anne Jones ; BLML Date: Monday, April 03, 2000 9:44 AM Subject: Re: UI from insufficient bid by weak player > >Grattan Endicott===================================== >"The arts babblative and scribblative". > - Robert Southey. >===================================== >----- Original Message ----- >From: Anne Jones >To: BLML >Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 1:11 AM >Subject: Re: UI from insufficient bid by weak player > > >> > >> It's all legal. >> Anne >> >+=+ Well, you may be right. However, there are one or two >questions. N-S have an implicit agreement, do they not, >having this regular habit? Was this disclosed? > It's an individual. I assumed, possibly incorrectly, that the N/S pair had no agreements about anything except that they were not playing -ve doubles. > > The Director has to consider whether 27B1(b) applies. >Having cleared these hurdles then there is left only the >question of 72B1. > Beyond these questions the fields are green and this is >simply a rub of that colour. The Director has some >judgements to make. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 4 06:01:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA16914 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 06:01:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA16909 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 06:01:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp181-146.worldonline.nl [195.241.181.146]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id ADF3836D5C; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 22:01:26 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001601bf9da7$47904640$92b5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: , , , Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal on Claims Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 20:09:15 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There is one advantage, you can skip some weeks here without missing anything useful, don't force me to start reading again Graig. ton -----Original Message----- From: Schoderb@aol.com To: rts48u@ix.netcom.com ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ; yanhoon@singnet.com.sg Date: Monday, April 03, 2000 6:51 PM Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal on Claims >In a message dated 4/3/00 11:58:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >rts48u@ix.netcom.com writes: > >> I know we cannot write the lawbook solely to appease the kvetchers...but >> the law on claims aint broke...let's stop trying to fix it. It, like >> Christianity, in the words of C.S.Lewis I believe, has not been tried and >> failed but has been found difficult and left untried. The present law works >> quite well when you make the effort to use it properly. A body of agreed >> examples/defaults such as the ACBL trumps from the top down rule would >> provide useful help if adopted by NA's or imposed from the WBF level as a >> strong suggestion such as the new approach on appeals. >> >> == >> Craig Senior >> >It's nice to see that sanity reigns in some places. I agree that the Laws >on Claims and Consessions benefit by examples and regulations by the >Zones/NCBOs, and to quote you and others "they ain't broke.". What would >help a great deal is if the various entities made wide circulation throughout >the bridge world of their interpretations. They could then be condensed, >modified, and would probably easily find international acceptance. i.e. Suits >are deemed to be played from the top down in making claims when being "run." >I understand that Grattan is working on a new Commentary on the Laws to do >just that. We are making progress. It's also nice to find the application of >common sense to the Laws. I still have a bone in my craw over how any TD >would not only rule that the cards were penalty cards, but give the declarer >the right to make the defender play the Queen under the King in that >situation recently discussed. It ain't bridge, it's ridiculous and against >everything that the whole game is about. > >Thanks for a bright light on this dismal day. Kojak > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 4 06:50:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA17075 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 06:50:30 +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 GAA17070 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 06:50:18 +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 QAA11261 for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 16:48:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000403165128.00700508@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 16:51:28 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: L16A: Player education Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk When one of the editors of one of the world's leading bridge magazines (Bridge Today, March-April 2000, "Between Sessions" by Pamela Granovetter, p.63) writes "...the current rules (where [one] simply always passes when partner hesitates)...", how can we expect mere players to comprehend this law correctly? 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 Apr 4 07:49:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA17286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 07:49:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f63.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.63]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA17280 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 07:49:36 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 38924 invoked by uid 0); 3 Apr 2000 21:48:57 -0000 Message-ID: <20000403214857.38923.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.23 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 03 Apr 2000 14:48:57 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.23] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L16A: Player education Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 14:48:57 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I don't think that understanding what the law tells them they should do and acting on that is in the (lesser) player's best interest. I received advice that I should do the correct thing first and worry about the consequences later. In the time that it takes me to figure out the situation, the demonstrably suggested action(s) from among the LAs, and choose one that shouldn't be considered an infraction, I've created a hesitation/UI problem for my partner. "Do what you would have done without the hesitation," (which is usually, though not always, passing) puts me in the best situation I'm capable of in hesitation scenarios. Worst comes to worst my score might be adjusted after the hand, but it's a better situation than volunteering for the other result from the get-go. -Todd >From: Eric Landau >To: Bridge Laws Discussion List >Subject: L16A: Player education >Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 16:51:28 -0400 > >When one of the editors of one of the world's leading bridge magazines >(Bridge Today, March-April 2000, "Between Sessions" by Pamela Granovetter, >p.63) writes "...the current rules (where [one] simply always passes when >partner hesitates)...", how can we expect mere players to comprehend this >law correctly? ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 4 08:22:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17487 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 08:22:05 +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 IAA17482 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 08:21:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivehtp.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.71.185]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA02812 for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 18:21:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000403181900.012bbef4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 18:19:00 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI from insufficient bid by weak player In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:51 PM 4/2/2000 -0500, David G wrote: >Individual game, weak players sitting N-S, E dealer, N-S vulnerable. >N-S are not playing negative doubles. > >South holds ATx x QT9xx KQxx. > >W N E S > P 1D >2C 1S Director! (East does not accept the 1S bid.) > 2S P P Director! (This is an ACBL game, so West cannot > reserve his rights.) >P > >Then dummy comes down. West alleges that South's pass was suggested by the >UI that the 2S bid was likely to be under strength. 2S goes down one on >two club ruffs, a top for N-S because other tables are in 3S. > >I think the ruling against a good player would be automatic, since 2S by an >unpassed hand is forcing, and passing a forcing bid based on UI is a clear >infraction. But what do you do when the offender is a weak player and >doesn't understand that you can't have both a forcing 2S and a competitive >2S here? Why should the fact of the insufficient 1S bid suggest passing the 2S bid? In standard methods, 1S is forcing (hence unlimited) over either a pass or an intervening 1-level bid (i.e., 1H), so I fail to see why partner's willingness to call "only" 1S, either mis-reading or not seeing the overcall, should make a pass demonstrably more likely to succeed. Indeed, since the pair do not use negative doubles, the insufficient 1S call makes it somewhat _more_ likely that N holds only four spades (2S would almost certainly promise 5+), and this argues, if anything, for acting rather than passing. Although I would never consider passing a LA and would not enforce such an action on South if it turned out that bidding worked out better. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 4 08:25:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 08:25:01 +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 IAA17500 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 08:24:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivehtp.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.71.185]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA32329 for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 18:24:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000403182157.012b9904@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 18:21:57 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: L16A: Player education In-Reply-To: <20000403214857.38923.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:48 PM 4/3/2000 PDT, Todd wrote: > I don't think that understanding what the law tells them they should do >and acting on that is in the (lesser) player's best interest. I received >advice that I should do the correct thing first and worry about the >consequences later. In the time that it takes me to figure out the >situation, the demonstrably suggested action(s) from among the LAs, and >choose one that shouldn't be considered an infraction, I've created a >hesitation/UI problem for my partner. > "Do what you would have done without the hesitation," (which is >usually, though not always, passing) puts me in the best situation I'm >capable of in hesitation scenarios. Worst comes to worst my score might be >adjusted after the hand, but it's a better situation than volunteering for >the other result from the get-go. Only problem with your approach is that it is illegal. As a regular contributor to this forum, you might be expected to know better. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 4 08:29:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 08:29:50 +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 IAA17537 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 08:29:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.65] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12cFLa-0008WQ-00; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 23:29:27 +0100 Message-ID: <005601bf9dbc$19047c00$415408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Craig Senior" , , "Derrick" References: <11.251c483.261a1d45@aol.com> Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal on Claims Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 22:47:30 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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, April 03, 2000 5:13 PM Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal on Claims > In a message dated 4/3/00 11:58:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > rts48u@ix.netcom.com writes: > > > It, like > > Christianity, in the words of C.S.Lewis I believe, has not been tried and > > failed but has been found difficult and left untried. The present law works > > quite well when you make the effort to use it properly. A body of agreed > > examples/defaults such as the ACBL trumps from the top down rule would > > provide useful help if adopted by NA's or imposed from the WBF level as a > > strong suggestion such as the new approach on appeals. > > > > == > > Craig Senior > > ----------- \x/ ------------ >> > I understand that Grattan is working on a new Commentary on the Laws to do > just that. We are making progress. +=+ In a manner of speaking. Impatiently waiting for the funding of publication to be agreed before we can make a formal start. +=+ >It's also nice to find the application of > common sense to the Laws. I still have a bone in my craw over how any TD > would not only rule that the cards were penalty cards, but give the declarer > the right to make the defender play the Queen under the King in that > situation recently discussed. It ain't bridge, it's ridiculous and against > everything that the whole game is about. > > Kojak > +=+ If we step back and look at this, one of four or five outstanding rulings of the decade, I think we must come to believe one of two things - either the Director simply found the English language used in Law 68 too difficult for him, or else the Director could not get his thinking around the fact that the two cards revealed were alternatives one to the other in relation to the one current trick and there was no intent going outside of the winning of that one trick. What is alarming is that he so little understood the game as not to contemplate the possibility that his ruling could be wrong and in an international tournament did not, as it would seem, have the wit to check with a Director better versed in the laws. Even at a later stage Law 82C was available. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 4 09:27:42 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17755 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 09:27:42 +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 JAA17750 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 09:27:32 +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 PAA09153 for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 15:27:16 -0800 Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 15:27:16 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: David B.'s proposal on claims In-Reply-To: <38E48306.621617C1@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, Herman De Wael wrote: > 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. Really? I had meant to post a question earlier this week as to how many tricks people would award on this question. I would have expected a reasonably unanimous down two, with declarer taking his 8 side top tricks before playing hearts, in the absence of a statement. > > 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. Well, sort of. I understand why he didn't notice. I don't think that justifies not paying attention to the rest of the hand or the making of a bad claim. > 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). I don't see any difference in the claims. The latter one deserve the same number (11 if you ask me) as the former. And in addition he deserves a lecture about his manners. Since when is "my partner is an idiot so I deserve to haved doubts resolved in my favour even though I claimed" a valid line of argument? > > > 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. Circumstances do matter, to some extent; but we resolve doubtful points against claimers. Period. I find it extremely hard to imagine circumstances under which I would not want to follow the general principle (in my mind -- though I would like it to be an official interpretation of the law) that if there is a problem that was not covered by the claimer's statement, the claim shall be adjudicated on the basis that claimer will not notice the problem in time. Perhaps the current litmus test for what to do about an outstanding trump can be extended. How about, as a starting point, we consider the effect of rewriting 70C with the words "potential winner" in place of "trump"? (This still leaves us with the question of careless vs. irrational.) GRB From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 4 10:13:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA18041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 10:13:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f76.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.76]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA18035 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 10:13:40 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 75630 invoked by uid 0); 4 Apr 2000 00:13:03 -0000 Message-ID: <20000404001303.75628.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.23 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 03 Apr 2000 17:13:02 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.23] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L16A: Player education Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 17:13:02 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >At 02:48 PM 4/3/2000 PDT, Todd wrote: > > I don't think that understanding what the law tells them they should >do > >and acting on that is in the (lesser) player's best interest. I received > >advice that I should do the correct thing first and worry about the > >consequences later. In the time that it takes me to figure out the > >situation, the demonstrably suggested action(s) from among the LAs, and > >choose one that shouldn't be considered an infraction, I've created a > >hesitation/UI problem for my partner. > > "Do what you would have done without the hesitation," (which is > >usually, though not always, passing) puts me in the best situation I'm > >capable of in hesitation scenarios. Worst comes to worst my score might >be > >adjusted after the hand, but it's a better situation than volunteering >for > >the other result from the get-go. > >Only problem with your approach is that it is illegal. As a regular >contributor to this forum, you might be expected to know better. Unlike an intentional revoke that gains 3 tricks in the balance, L16 infractions do not carry a fixed penalty that can be manipulated. I'm not particularly concerned about the ethics of this. And even this example of a revoke is well-provided for in the laws. Unfortunately, I cannot figure out what action(s) are demonstrably suggested in bidding tempo. Neither can the TD, judged by the amount of time it takes to deliver a L16 ruling. Rather than creating a new problem in a futile attempt to obey the law (I assure you that given only 10 seconds I will judge LAs and suggested actions incorrectly), I bid in tempo as if nothing had happened and let my opponents and the TD figure it out after the fact. Reasonable and safe, even if illegal, which I'm not completely convinced about. A better practice that lesser players can effectively employ is to realize that they made a hesitation and rejudge their bid accordingly. e.g. 1H - P - 2H - P - Long hesitation. If you bid 3H, you will almost certainly suffer the worst result of 3H+1 or 4H-1. It's too late. You have to pass or bid game on your own. Not an ideal solution either, but it gives the opponents less reason for complaint. Expecting that all levels of players can adequately obey L16 is unreasonable. Judging by the appeals books, players become less and less able to follow it as they get better. ;) -Todd (I know, the real reason is that they start caring more.) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 4 10:58:47 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA18131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 10:58:47 +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 KAA18126 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 10:58:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from pe2s11a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.139.227] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt9-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12bsum-0001Zx-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 23:32:16 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: L16A: Player education Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 01:58:38 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf9dd0$e96a9d20$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, April 04, 2000 1:22 AM Subject: Re: L16A: Player education >>At 02:48 PM 4/3/2000 PDT, Todd wrote: >> > I don't think that understanding what the law tells them they should >>do >> >and acting on that is in the (lesser) player's best interest. I received >> >advice that I should do the correct thing first and worry about the >> >consequences later. In the time that it takes me to figure out the >> >situation, the demonstrably suggested action(s) from among the LAs, and >> >choose one that shouldn't be considered an infraction, I've created a >> >hesitation/UI problem for my partner. >> > "Do what you would have done without the hesitation," (which is >> >usually, though not always, passing) puts me in the best situation I'm >> >capable of in hesitation scenarios. Worst comes to worst my score might >>be >> >adjusted after the hand, but it's a better situation than volunteering >>for >> >the other result from the get-go. >> >>Only problem with your approach is that it is illegal. As a regular >>contributor to this forum, you might be expected to know better. > > Unlike an intentional revoke that gains 3 tricks in the balance, L16 >infractions do not carry a fixed penalty that can be manipulated. I'm not >particularly concerned about the ethics of this. And even this example of a >revoke is well-provided for in the laws. > Unfortunately, I cannot figure out what action(s) are demonstrably >suggested in bidding tempo. Neither can the TD, judged by the amount of >time it takes to deliver a L16 ruling. Rather than creating a new problem >in a futile attempt to obey the law (I assure you that given only 10 seconds >I will judge LAs and suggested actions incorrectly), I bid in tempo as if >nothing had happened and let my opponents and the TD figure it out after the >fact. Reasonable and safe, even if illegal, which I'm not completely >convinced about. > A better practice that lesser players can effectively employ is to >realize that they made a hesitation and rejudge their bid accordingly. e.g. > 1H - P - 2H - P - Long hesitation. If you bid 3H, you will almost >certainly suffer the worst result of 3H+1 or 4H-1. It's too late. You have >to pass or bid game on your own. Not an ideal solution either, but it gives >the opponents less reason for complaint. > > Expecting that all levels of players can adequately obey L16 is >unreasonable. Judging by the appeals books, players become less and less >able to follow it as they get better. ;) > >-Todd >(I know, the real reason is that they start caring more.) > I recently made a Law16 ruling. I ruled that the call made was not allowed as a logical alternative was available, and the call chosen was IMO a call suggested by hesitation. This was a pair of married GMs who always play together. IMO it was a gross misuse. Offender pleaded that it was the bid he had decided to make long before the round of bidding involved. I am sure he was telling the truth. It was the bid I would have made on the first round, but he had planned on "walking the dog". I took 10 mins explaining Law 16 as though to someone who had never heard of the law. His response was "I understand, and I accept your ruling, but we are still going to appeal" I did not introduce this comment in the AC because I felt it was not relevant to the offence. However I believe that your comment, that "they" are caring more, is true, but only about the winning. Incidentally, their appeal was quickly denied, but their deposit was returned. When we get round this farcical type of situation, which happens here more than it should, there will be more TDs that love the game as much as they used to. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 4 11:00:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA18145 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:00:27 +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 LAA18140 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:00:18 +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 12cHhP-000Gel-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 02:00:08 +0100 Message-ID: <9uKkPtBknS64EwN5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 00:31:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L16A: Player education References: <20000403214857.38923.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000403214857.38923.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 don't think that understanding what the law tells them they should do >and acting on that is in the (lesser) player's best interest. I received >advice that I should do the correct thing first and worry about the >consequences later. In the time that it takes me to figure out the >situation, the demonstrably suggested action(s) from among the LAs, and >choose one that shouldn't be considered an infraction, I've created a >hesitation/UI problem for my partner. > "Do what you would have done without the hesitation," (which is >usually, though not always, passing) puts me in the best situation I'm >capable of in hesitation scenarios. Worst comes to worst my score might be >adjusted after the hand, but it's a better situation than volunteering for >the other result from the get-go. It would make me feel dirty to decide to deliberately ignore the Law just to make my life easier. What you suggest, Todd, is illegal, so it is not much of a suggestion for anyone who has an idea of what the Law says. Of course it would be easier. On the other hand, I do not believe there is any requirement to figure out lots of LAs, and I reckon to take into account UI from pd without spending more time than usual. In practical terms it is usually completely obvious how to avoid making use of UI so there is no excuse for people who always do what they have managed to convince themselves they would have done without the UI. It goes 1H 2C 3NT 4C 4H 5C X P ? 3NT was natural, double was slow: do you pass it or take it out? Do you really need to see the 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 Tue Apr 4 11:27:33 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA18210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:27:33 +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 LAA18205 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:27:25 +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 SAA14215; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 18:27:37 -0700 Message-Id: <200004040127.SAA14215@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: L16A: Player education In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 03 Apr 2000 17:13:02 PDT." <20000404001303.75628.qmail@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 18:27:39 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Todd wrote: > >At 02:48 PM 4/3/2000 PDT, Todd wrote: > > > I don't think that understanding what the law tells them they should > >do > > >and acting on that is in the (lesser) player's best interest. I received > > >advice that I should do the correct thing first and worry about the > > >consequences later. In the time that it takes me to figure out the > > >situation, the demonstrably suggested action(s) from among the LAs, and > > >choose one that shouldn't be considered an infraction, I've created a > > >hesitation/UI problem for my partner. > > > "Do what you would have done without the hesitation," (which is > > >usually, though not always, passing) puts me in the best situation I'm > > >capable of in hesitation scenarios. Worst comes to worst my score might > >be > > >adjusted after the hand, but it's a better situation than volunteering > >for > > >the other result from the get-go. > > > >Only problem with your approach is that it is illegal. As a regular > >contributor to this forum, you might be expected to know better. > > Unlike an intentional revoke that gains 3 tricks in the balance, L16 > infractions do not carry a fixed penalty that can be manipulated. I'm not > particularly concerned about the ethics of this. And even this example of a > revoke is well-provided for in the laws. > Unfortunately, I cannot figure out what action(s) are demonstrably > suggested in bidding tempo. Neither can the TD, judged by the amount of > time it takes to deliver a L16 ruling. Rather than creating a new problem > in a futile attempt to obey the law (I assure you that given only 10 seconds > I will judge LAs and suggested actions incorrectly), I bid in tempo as if > nothing had happened and let my opponents and the TD figure it out after the > fact. Reasonable and safe, even if illegal, which I'm not completely > convinced about. > A better practice that lesser players can effectively employ is to > realize that they made a hesitation and rejudge their bid accordingly. e.g. > 1H - P - 2H - P - Long hesitation. If you bid 3H, you will almost > certainly suffer the worst result of 3H+1 or 4H-1. It's too late. You have > to pass or bid game on your own. Not an ideal solution either, but it gives > the opponents less reason for complaint. > > Expecting that all levels of players can adequately obey L16 is > unreasonable. Judging by the appeals books, players become less and less > able to follow it as they get better. ;) I think Bridge World's readers got it right. In their recent "behavior poll" (the results of which were published in the April 2000 issue), they said that if you have a choice between two actions, and one is suggested by UI, then if you have a decision you consider clearcut, you should choose the clearcut action [93% of readers agreed with this]; with a decision you consider close, you should choose the one not suggested by UI [75% of readers agreed]. I don't think this formula is too hard to follow. It's still not committee-proof---a TD or AC may have a different idea of what is "clearcut" than you do. But I think that that encouraging players to think this way is a lot better than encouraging them to "bid as they would have done anyway" and let the TD sort things out. (Of course, some intellectual honesty is required; there will always be those who will manage to convince themselves that actions influenced by hesitations are "clearcut".) BW didn't really like either option in the case where the decision is close, but their discussion was marred by the mixing up of two very different UI situations: a tempo break by partner, and UI received by hearing a remark from another player. The two situations should be handled very differently, and the current Laws do handle them differently, but BW didn't do a good job of distinguishing the two. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 4 13:12:14 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA18410 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 13:12:14 +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 NAA18401 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 13:12:05 +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 12cJkv-000Le2-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 04:11:54 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 03:25:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: Re: Cats! References: <7AEOXgA13B34EwXz@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <7AEOXgA13B34EwXz@blakjak.demon.co.uk> 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 MOE, Tipsy MOE 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, Shehori, Albina Paul & Pat Harrington Dopi, Bridget, Depo RB Robert Harris Bobbsie RB, Caruso Damian Hassan * Bast, Katie, Tepsi, Baroo, Scrap, Kevin 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 RB, Mischief RB 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 Tommy Sandsmark * Lillepus, Bittepus, Snoppen Norman Scorbie * Starsky RB, 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 Helen Thompson * Bubba, Tabby, Tom 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. New this time is MOE, for moved on elsewhere. This is a move by agreement, to a new owner [feed machine, tin opener]. I do not like the term, and suggestions for a new term would be appreciated. Also new this time is the idea of putting a * for any entry which has changed in any way - or is new. 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 Tue Apr 4 13:12:15 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA18411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 13:12:15 +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 NAA18400 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 13:12:04 +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 12cJkv-000Le1-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 04:11:54 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 03:02:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L16A: Player education References: <20000404001303.75628.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000404001303.75628.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: >>At 02:48 PM 4/3/2000 PDT, Todd wrote: >> > I don't think that understanding what the law tells them they should >>do >> >and acting on that is in the (lesser) player's best interest. I received >> >advice that I should do the correct thing first and worry about the >> >consequences later. In the time that it takes me to figure out the >> >situation, the demonstrably suggested action(s) from among the LAs, and >> >choose one that shouldn't be considered an infraction, I've created a >> >hesitation/UI problem for my partner. >> > "Do what you would have done without the hesitation," (which is >> >usually, though not always, passing) puts me in the best situation I'm >> >capable of in hesitation scenarios. Worst comes to worst my score might >>be >> >adjusted after the hand, but it's a better situation than volunteering >>for >> >the other result from the get-go. >> >>Only problem with your approach is that it is illegal. As a regular >>contributor to this forum, you might be expected to know better. > > Unlike an intentional revoke that gains 3 tricks in the balance, L16 >infractions do not carry a fixed penalty that can be manipulated. I'm not >particularly concerned about the ethics of this. So why are you bothering to post here? If there is one thing I can say about BLML posters it is that they have the interests of the game at heart, and I would be very surprised to find them acting unethically - and that includes the two or three who post here that I believe are completely out of their tree. I suggest you review your approach to the game of bridge. > And even this example of a >revoke is well-provided for in the laws. > Unfortunately, I cannot figure out what action(s) are demonstrably >suggested in bidding tempo. Oh, yeah. Of course. Do I believe you? No! When partner makes UI available to you, you know what action is suggested and what the possibilities are in 90% of cases. > Neither can the TD, judged by the amount of >time it takes to deliver a L16 ruling. TDs are required to follow a certain routine when giving rulings. In about 65% [or perhaps higher] of UI cases, any halfway competent TD would get a UI ruling right if he just gave it immediately at the table - but he would not be doing his job correctly if he did. So the speed of giving rulings is irrelevant. > Rather than creating a new problem >in a futile attempt to obey the law (I assure you that given only 10 seconds >I will judge LAs and suggested actions incorrectly), I bid in tempo as if >nothing had happened and let my opponents and the TD figure it out after the >fact. Reasonable and safe, even if illegal, which I'm not completely >convinced about. This is close to cheating. Cheating is taking improper action in serious ethical matters deliberately, knowledgeably and with intent to gain. You are deliberately being unethical, and these are serious ethical matters. You would have to convince me that you are not trying to gain from this approach, or that you did not recognise it as unethical. From what you have written, you *might* do so, but you are getting very near the edge. > A better practice that lesser players can effectively employ is to >realize that they made a hesitation and rejudge their bid accordingly. e.g. > 1H - P - 2H - P - Long hesitation. If you bid 3H, you will almost >certainly suffer the worst result of 3H+1 or 4H-1. It's too late. You have >to pass or bid game on your own. Not an ideal solution either, but it gives >the opponents less reason for complaint. > > Expecting that all levels of players can adequately obey L16 is >unreasonable. As I *keep* saying, the only thing *I* ask is that people obey L73C. Your approach is not to do even that. Mind you, if people understand L16A, all I expect of that would be to try to follow what is required. It is not unreasonable to expect people to try to be ethical - I do not ask them to succeed on every occasion. > Judging by the appeals books, players become less and less >able to follow it as they get better. ;) Cr.. errr rubbish. People are following the dictates of the Laws in UI situations more and more. The Appeals books have few examples of people failing to do so in obvious situations: similar books from 30 years ago would be littered with them. -- 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 Apr 4 15:37:02 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA18764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 15:37:02 +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 PAA18759 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 15:36:54 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 67129 invoked by uid 0); 4 Apr 2000 05:36:16 -0000 Message-ID: <20000404053616.67128.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 152.172.208.103 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 03 Apr 2000 22:36:16 PDT X-Originating-IP: [152.172.208.103] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L16A: Player education Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 22:36:16 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Unlike an intentional revoke that gains 3 tricks in the balance, L16 > >infractions do not carry a fixed penalty that can be manipulated. I'm >not > >particularly concerned about the ethics of this. > > So why are you bothering to post here? If there is one thing I can >say about BLML posters it is that they have the interests of the game at >heart, and I would be very surprised to find them acting unethically - >and that includes the two or three who post here that I believe are >completely out of their tree. > > I suggest you review your approach to the game of bridge. I was trying to preempt the argument that the ethics of this are questionable to me. They aren't. Unethical is different from illegal. The only case it might be unethical to me is when opponents are not aware of their rights or the possible existance of an infraction. I make certain that they are informed. > > And even this example of a > >revoke is well-provided for in the laws. > > Unfortunately, I cannot figure out what action(s) are demonstrably > >suggested in bidding tempo. > > Oh, yeah. Of course. Do I believe you? No! When partner makes UI >available to you, you know what action is suggested and what the >possibilities are in 90% of cases. We only care about the cases where the action taken was demonstrably suggested and there are alternatives, which is not 90% of the time. In all other cases, L16A does not apply so it really shouldn't matter what I do. Assuming (and this might be a bad assumption) that those times we care about are the ones that make it into the appeals book, I've done miserably at reaching the same conclusion as the AC before reading their statement. > > Neither can the TD, judged by the amount of > >time it takes to deliver a L16 ruling. > > TDs are required to follow a certain routine when giving rulings. In >about 65% [or perhaps higher] of UI cases, any halfway competent TD >would get a UI ruling right if he just gave it immediately at the table >- but he would not be doing his job correctly if he did. So the speed >of giving rulings is irrelevant. Fair enough, but I'm not a competent TD nor do I have the time. If it's all the same to you, I'll spend the required time to think through the problem, try to remember the relevant appeals cases (rulings will be based on those, not the law per se), and then bid, but I think that would cause further, potentially worse problems than the one I'm trying to solve, like holding up the game and annoying opponents. > > Rather than creating a new problem > >in a futile attempt to obey the law (I assure you that given only 10 >seconds > >I will judge LAs and suggested actions incorrectly), I bid in tempo as if > >nothing had happened and let my opponents and the TD figure it out after >the > >fact. Reasonable and safe, even if illegal, which I'm not completely > >convinced about. > > This is close to cheating. Cheating is taking improper action in >serious ethical matters deliberately, knowledgeably and with intent to >gain. You are deliberately being unethical, and these are serious >ethical matters. You would have to convince me that you are not trying >to gain from this approach, or that you did not recognise it as >unethical. From what you have written, you *might* do so, but you are >getting very near the edge. I received this advice far before I was much aware of the law. It's more pervasive advice than you care to know. (obviously its existance is enough to boil your blood.) As far as gain... There are two options really: I take the suggested bid when there are alternatives or anything legal. Rather, I decide from these: take the bid I would have made or "something else". You cannot a priori argue that deciding to take the bid you would have made absent UI favors taking the suggested bid when there are alternatives. But yes, I do think that doing "something else" is more often the losing move. I'm also conscious to inform opponents that they may be entitled to an adjustment. > > Expecting that all levels of players can adequately obey L16 is > >unreasonable. > > As I *keep* saying, the only thing *I* ask is that people obey L73C. >Your approach is not to do even that. I firmly believe that I've done my best to ignore UI. It helps that my partners have never intentionally given UI. But holding KQJxx in clubs and partner asking opponents about their club bid, I am still leading the KC. It is my partner, not I, who has the ethical problem. > Mind you, if people understand L16A, all I expect of that would be to >try to follow what is required. It is not unreasonable to expect people >to try to be ethical - I do not ask them to succeed on every occasion. I don't see why it's noble to make a bad bid so that you can be espoused as having good sportsmanship. > > Judging by the appeals books, players become less and less > >able to follow it as they get better. ;) > > Cr.. errr rubbish. People are following the dictates of the Laws in >UI situations more and more. The Appeals books have few examples of >people failing to do so in obvious situations: similar books from 30 >years ago would be littered with them. Not rubbish. This is not a function of time, but player skill. I'd hesisate to say that the fewer examples in today's law books are because today's players are better than those 30 years ago. (More advanced due to changing bridge theory is another matter.) But direct a 99'ers section and tell me how long it takes before you have to make a L16A ruling let alone have it appealed. I'll also wager you a bottle of wine that not two of them have ever read an appeals book (allowing for one as an abberation). The rest are completely unaware. L16A infractions/rulings, unlike claims, are called for more often in the higher strata of playing. -Todd ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 4 16:40:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA18897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 16:40:22 +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 QAA18892 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 16:40:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from ex1unintd03.its.it ([151.92.249.147]) by ultra1.its.it (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA18940; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 08:39:08 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by EX1UNINTD03 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <2G4G6G1M>; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 08:33:50 +0200 Message-ID: From: NARDULLO Ennio To: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA Cc: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr, KRAllison@aol.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: R: Break in tempo? Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 08:33:35 +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 QAA18893 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Je pense : C'est vrai que la premiere enfraction c'est par le jouer qui a fait un contre de réouverture en utilisant manifestement l'hésitation de son partenaire. C'est correct que cette ligne ne gagne pas un advantage ... Mais , la ligne qui dit 3 trefle , n'est pas obligee' a fair ce declaration! Si le fait , je pense , ne peut pas gagner ....., le resultat de cette action suivante doit etre valid pour cette ligne! C'est pour ce motif que je trouve correct assigner un split-score. Je pense que permettre aux jouers de "tenere i piedi in 2 staffe" ( comment en francais?) c'est ne pas ce que l'arbitre doit fair! C'est ma opinion..... 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 -----Messaggio originale----- Da: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA [mailto:Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA] Inviato: lunedì 3 aprile 2000 19.34 A: ennio.nardullo@consulenti.fiat.com Cc: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Oggetto: Break in tempo? Bonjour Ennio, Et merci pour le message. Je crois que votre Anglais et assez bon pour que nous ayons compris votre position. Je me suis posé la même question lors de ce ruling concernant le 3Tr, mais après réflexion, je me range à la position de la majorité de ceux qui ont répondu à mon message. La première infraction est celle de Nord qui fait un contre de réouverture en utilisant manifestement l'hésitation de son partenaire. S'il n'y avait pas eu cette grave violation de la Loi 16 et les hésitations de son partenaire, l'enchère de 3Tr n'aurait sans doute jamais existé. Donc 2Ca -1 est raisonnable pour les deux côtés. Laval Du Breuil Bravo pour l'effort en français. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 4 18:27:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA19077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 18:27:22 +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 SAA19067 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 18:27:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.89] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12cOfw-000Jwt-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 09:27:05 +0100 Message-ID: <000201bf9e0f$9671c640$595608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <20000404001303.75628.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: L16A: Player education Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 08:51:00 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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, April 04, 2000 1:13 AM Subject: Re: L16A: Player education > > >I received > > >advice that I should do the correct thing first and worry about the > > >consequences later. > --------------\x/------------------ > Unfortunately, I cannot figure out what action(s) are demonstrably > suggested in bidding tempo. Neither can the TD, judged by the amount of > time it takes to deliver a L16 ruling > -Todd > +=+ 'The correct thing' to do is what the law requires, which may or may not be what the player considers he would have done without the UI. Some players may well have the difficulty which is reflected in these remarks, although we can all see that it can be merely an excuse for doing what the player wants to do when he knows what he ought to do. If a player decides that, for any reason, he will not make the effort to do as the law requires it would be a courtesy to opponents that he should draw the Director's attention to the situation (and the course of action he has adopted) rather than make them raise a protest. After all, he does know he has not followed the lawful path and that his choice of call/play may be unacceptable. The law uses very strong words in laying the duty on the player to consider logical alternatives; it reads: "the partner may not choose from amongst logical alternative actions one that could" - 'may not' is a stronger injunction than 'shall not'. The amount of time it takes to deliver a L16 ruling should be a reflection of the care in consulting that best practice demands. The Code of Practice has reinforced the standards of consultation and will probably increase the lapse of time before a ruling is given. Is this not in the interests of the game? In my view the comment debases the discussion. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 4 18:27:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA19078 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 18:27:24 +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 SAA19068 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 18:27:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.89] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12cOfy-000Jwt-00; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 09:27:06 +0100 Message-ID: <000301bf9e0f$9776b320$595608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Todd Zimnoch" , References: <20000404053616.67128.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: L16A: Player education Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 08:57:09 +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, April 04, 2000 6:36 AM Subject: Re: L16A: Player education > I was trying to preempt the argument that the ethics of this are > questionable to me. They aren't. Unethical is different from illegal. > +=+ Law 72B2 might suggest otherwise. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 4 18:32:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA19109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 18:32:35 +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 SAA19102 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 18:32:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (pcciborowski.comarch.pl [195.116.125.138]) by omicron.comarch.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E0905C032 for ; Tue, 04 Apr 2000 10:05:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38E9A2CB.47B4696F@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 10:07:39 +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: L16A: Player education References: <20000403214857.38923.qmail@hotmail.com> <9uKkPtBknS64EwN5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > I don't think that understanding what the law tells them they should do > >and acting on that is in the (lesser) player's best interest. I received > >advice that I should do the correct thing first and worry about the > >consequences later. In the time that it takes me to figure out the > >situation, the demonstrably suggested action(s) from among the LAs, and > >choose one that shouldn't be considered an infraction, I've created a > >hesitation/UI problem for my partner. > > "Do what you would have done without the hesitation," (which is > >usually, though not always, passing) puts me in the best situation I'm > >capable of in hesitation scenarios. Worst comes to worst my score might be > >adjusted after the hand, but it's a better situation than volunteering for > >the other result from the get-go. > > It would make me feel dirty to decide to deliberately ignore the Law > just to make my life easier. > > What you suggest, Todd, is illegal, so it is not much of a suggestion > for anyone who has an idea of what the Law says. Of course it would be > easier. > > On the other hand, I do not believe there is any requirement to figure > out lots of LAs, and I reckon to take into account UI from pd without > spending more time than usual. In practical terms it is usually > completely obvious how to avoid making use of UI so there is no excuse > for people who always do what they have managed to convince themselves > they would have done without the UI. > > It goes 1H 2C 3NT 4C > 4H 5C X P > ? > > 3NT was natural, double was slow: do you pass it or take it out? > > Do you really need to see the hand? Yes, Todd's approach is illegal. However IIRC you you are very much in favor of reading only the L73C to players and not the L16. I think that a lot of them might read or interpret L73C the way Todd does. If a player did something he _always_ would do (or at least he believes so) how can he be accused of taking advantage of UI? How is he supposed to know that he has to "lean over backwards"? IM(H)O L73C implies Todd's approach. Players must be informed that when in possession of UI their score may be adjusted under L16. Otherwise they can hardly be blamed for arrving at the same conclusions that Todd did. -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Apr 4 19:38:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA19264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 19:38:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from star-one.de ([195.143.49.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA19258 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 19:38:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from sofrant2.star-one.de ([172.16.1.3]) by gate.star-one.de with SMTP id <115202>; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:39:53 +0200 Received: from 127.0.0.1 by sofrant2.star-one.de (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Tue, 04 Apr 2000 11:37:33 +0200 (Westeuropäische Sommerzeit) Received: by SOFRANT2 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <2GFMLVD5>; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:37:33 +0200 Message-ID: From: "ACFarwig, Christian" To: "BLML (E-Mail)" Subject: AW: L16A: Player education MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:39:52 +0200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:48 PM 4/3/2000 PDT, Todd wrote: > "Do what you would have done without the hesitation," (which is >usually, though not always, passing) puts me in the best situation I'm >capable of in hesitation scenarios. Michael S. Dennis commented on that: >> Only problem with your approach is that it is illegal. As a regular contributor to this forum, you might be expected to know better.<< Michael, as a player, I try to maximize my results. If it is likely that a bid will lead to an adjusted score if succesful (and I am therefore in a lose-lose-position if I continue bidding), it would be downright stupid not to pass. Don't blame it on the players, blame it on the rules. Yours, Christian This mail was scanned by STAR-ONE AG Anti-Virus Defense System From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 4 19:51:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA19306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 19:51:12 +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 TAA19301 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 19:51:04 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id KAA26091 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 10:50:26 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 10:50 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: L16A: Player education 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: <9uKkPtBknS64EwN5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> DWS wrote: > > It goes 1H 2C 3NT 4C > 4H 5C X P > ? > > 3NT was natural, double was slow: do you pass it or take it out? > > Do you really need to see the hand? How do you bid with x,AKQJTxxx,T9xx,-? I will sometimes choose to open this sort of hand 1H. To me this is a clear pull* when partner might normally expect eg Kx,AKQxxx,Jxxx,x (although possibly borderline if NV vs V). So yes I do need to see the hand but 19/20 times I expect pass to be an obvious LA. * ie I would adjust to 5H if the player sat for a "voice of thunder" double. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 4 20:26:48 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA19442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 20:26:48 +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 UAA19436 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 20:26:40 +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 LAA04490 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:26:27 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA04701 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:26:26 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Tue, 04 Apr 2000 10:26:25 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 LAA06470 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:26:24 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id LAA25406 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:26:23 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:26:23 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200004041026.LAA25406@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI from insufficient bid by weak player X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mon Apr 3 23:44:35 2000 > X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com > Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 18:19:00 -0400 > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > Subject: Re: UI from insufficient bid by weak player > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Precedence: bulk > > At 06:51 PM 4/2/2000 -0500, David G wrote: > >Individual game, weak players sitting N-S, E dealer, N-S vulnerable. > >N-S are not playing negative doubles. > > > >South holds ATx x QT9xx KQxx. > > > >W N E S > > P 1D > >2C 1S Director! (East does not accept the 1S bid.) > > 2S P P Director! (This is an ACBL game, so West cannot > > reserve his rights.) > >P > > > >Then dummy comes down. West alleges that South's pass was suggested by the > >UI that the 2S bid was likely to be under strength. 2S goes down one on > >two club ruffs, a top for N-S because other tables are in 3S. > > > >I think the ruling against a good player would be automatic, since 2S by an > >unpassed hand is forcing, and passing a forcing bid based on UI is a clear > >infraction. But what do you do when the offender is a weak player and > >doesn't understand that you can't have both a forcing 2S and a competitive > >2S here? > > Why should the fact of the insufficient 1S bid suggest passing the 2S bid? > In standard methods, 1S is forcing (hence unlimited) over either a pass or > an intervening 1-level bid (i.e., 1H), so I fail to see why partner's > willingness to call "only" 1S, either mis-reading or not seeing the > overcall, should make a pass demonstrably more likely to succeed. > > Indeed, since the pair do not use negative doubles, the insufficient 1S > call makes it somewhat _more_ likely that N holds only four spades (2S > would almost certainly promise 5+), and this argues, if anything, for > acting rather than passing. Although I would never consider passing a LA > and would not enforce such an action on South if it turned out that bidding > worked out better. > > Mike Dennis Excuse my lack of tolerance here: RTFLB! The subject line of this thread is impossible: 1S is not UI, see L27B1a ("Law 16C2 does not apply"). If both the insufficient bid and the bid substituted are incontrovertibly not conventional and if the bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination, the auction proceeds as though the irregularity had not occurred (Law 16C2 does not apply to this situation, but see (b) following). Opener can legally pass 2S. We then apply L27B1b If the Director judges that the insufficient bid conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side, he shall assign an adjusted score. This usually boils down to "would OS conduct a normal auction to the contract (or one which scores the same)". If 1D-(2D)-2S is played a forcing by this pair and North has a 2S bid, then we should adjust to 3S-2. If 1D-(2D)-2S is played as non-forcing, and South would normally pass, then we do not adjust. But THERE IS NOT UI "if the bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination" under L27B1a, because the law says so. Robin -- Robin Barker | Eail: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, 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 Apr 4 22:33:10 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA20030 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 22:33:10 +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 WAA20025 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 22:33:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-10.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.10]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA22528 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 14:32:50 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38E9DBBD.2601958A@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 14:10:37 +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: David B.'s proposal on claims References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Gordon raises some very valid points. Gordon Bower wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > Really? I had meant to post a question earlier this week as to how many > tricks people would award on this question. I would have expected a > reasonably unanimous down two, with declarer taking his 8 side top tricks > before playing hearts, in the absence of a statement. I will admit that I overlooked giving two down. OK - but the same argument applies. > > > > 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. > > Well, sort of. I understand why he didn't notice. I don't think that > justifies not paying attention to the rest of the hand or the making of a > bad claim. It does not justify it. But it is another type of evidence if we consider the question "is it likely that declarer has miscounted the heart suit ?" When he claims in 7NT, and does not mention the suit, it seems likely that he has miscounted. When he claims in 3He, I find it less likely that he has miscounted. He has not counted, yet. I hope that you admit that the situations are sufficiently different to merit a different answer to the question "is it likely that declarer has miscounted hearts ?". Whether or not that question is an important one is a different matter still, but I believe it is. > > 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). > > I don't see any difference in the claims. The latter one deserve the same > number (11 if you ask me) as the former. Well, I beg to differ. > And in addition he deserves a > lecture about his manners. Since when is "my partner is an idiot so I > deserve to haved doubts resolved in my favour even though I claimed" a > valid line of argument? > That's a totally different question. I would very much agree with a ruling of : 13 tricks, and a PP of 10%. That's even less than awarding him 11 tricks, I should guess. > > > > > 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. > > Circumstances do matter, to some extent; but we resolve doubtful points > against claimers. Period. > But is there any doubt in your mind that the declarer who is in 3 Hearts would make 13 tricks ? > I find it extremely hard to imagine circumstances under which I would not > want to follow the general principle (in my mind -- though I would like > it to be an official interpretation of the law) that if there is a problem > that was not covered by the claimer's statement, the claim shall be > adjudicated on the basis that claimer will not notice the problem in time. > I fail to see why that is needed. We allow a claimer to change his line if it turns out to be irrational, such as when a defender suddenly ruffs a trick which he can overruff. > Perhaps the current litmus test for what to do about an outstanding trump > can be extended. How about, as a starting point, we consider the effect of > rewriting 70C with the words "potential winner" in place of "trump"? (This > still leaves us with the question of careless vs. irrational.) > My point exactly. And why you should agree with me. L70C2 : "if it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent's hand". You would not award any less than 13 tricks on the claim in 3He if declarer also has the Jack of hearts, would you ? So why not allow it in this case ? I would very much like to see Law 70C be expanded to cover some other situations. I quite like the trio - failure to mention - probably unaware - could lose a trick. If we apply the same trio to the 7NT case : - failure to mention : yes - probably unaware that hearts could be 4-0 : maybe - but that is the question I've been posing all along. - would lose a trick : never, if declarer is aware he has only 9 of them. > GRB -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 4 23:18:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA20288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 23:18:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from square.inter.net.il (square.inter.net.il [192.116.202.83]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA20282 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 23:17:51 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 18548 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2000 13:17:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.4.157) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 4 Apr 2000 13:17:24 -0000 Message-ID: <38E9DDC0.52C8E761@inter.net.il> Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 15:19:12 +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: Grattan Endicott CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 14-13-13-13 References: <002001bf9bf7$4f528a20$a68f04c1@bsi> <001b01bf9c8e$334aea60$a19e90c2@bsi> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk En fin..le response perfect(together with David's first answer). But my Very High Epicorsity !!! has a dumb question : law 14 - title=Missing card (and we know titles aren't part of the laws ) says that if 3 hands are ok ....then etc. etc. By the existing laws it applies to forth hand with "missing cards" , it means less than 13 cards..... Was there any clever idea of the laws' Patriarchs that they wanted to deal only with missing cards and consider a supplementary one (or "ones") as a piece of junk - as we must consider today - or they didn't know the told story or they really wanted to consider the "not belonging" cards as any piece of garbage...???? Dany David Stevenson wrote: > > Sveinn Rúnar Eiríksson wrote: > >I guess I forgot to tell the exact facts. Yes, David you are right, he > >forgot the card from the previous board on the table and picked it up with > >the cards from the current board. The board was correct as it came to the > >table. If this is the case, doesnt Law 13 apply? > > No, because the pockets of the board did not contain the wrong number > of cards. > > > Then I have another > >question: Lets say that you are playing Teams and after playing board 10 > >you forget to put your cards back and you use the same hand to bid board 11. > >Does Law 17 apply now, or do you just change hands? > > L17 applies now: you have the hand taken from the wrong board. > > -- > 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 Apr 5 01:55:00 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA20899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 01:55:00 +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 BAA20894 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 01:54:49 +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 LAA14743 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:54:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA05877 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:54:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:54:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200004041554.LAA05877@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal on Claims X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > I outlined two cases so deftly snipped in your reply. Please explain > why neither of those should be considered an offense. > > Case 1: Defender claims tricks for his partner. Do I have to catch a pro > doing this with a client before anyone realizes that it's a potential for > abuse? Not only that, it's insulting to the claimer's partner -- "You > wouldn't get those tricks unless I told you they were yours." Which law is violated? Even a mistaken claim is not an infraction. Of course this doesn't imply that the claim will be granted. In particular, any cards revealed by claimer will be UI to his partner, so it is generally a disadvantage for a defender to claim when his partner's play matters. > Case 2: Declarer claims while defenders still have tricks off the top. Why > oh why oh why would anyone even consider giving declarer all the tricks let > alone actually doing it? I still don't see any infraction here. It is quite common and proper to claim when defenders have tricks off the top. (David Burn gave a good example of a proper claim at trick one with a top loser: AKQ AKQJ AKQ KQJ.) If declarer neglects to concede unavoidable losers, of course the TD should rule that the defense takes their tricks. And we have had very long discussions of what to do when there are avoidable losers but declarer's statement isn't complete. We all agree that the TD is supposed to restore equity. Although we have different ideas of exactly what constitutes equity in specific cases, I dare say no one on BLML would deny the defense their automatic tricks. If you are receiving incompetent rulings, you have my sympathy, but I see no hint of any infraction in the cases you cite. > From: David Stevenson > Remember that under the Laws of bridge, offenders need not have > committed an infraction: it is a highly unfortunate term that is used. Sorry, David, but I don't follow you here. Which part of the laws did you have in mind? > Suppose you hesitate, and partner makes a call: is his call an > infraction? > > Well, yes or no, dependent on what UI you gave, whether there are LAs, > what his choice was, and so on. But whether he has committed an > infraction or not, *your* side is defined as the offenders, and the > opponents are defined as the non-offenders. Perhaps I'm overlooking where the laws say this. I agree we often speak casually this way and even write it on BLML, but I don't think it is strictly correct unless there was in fact an infraction. In a hesitation case, however, 'OS' seems a reasonable extension of the strict usage, given that hesitations are deprecated by the Laws, and it is clumsy to write 'putative OS' or 'alleged OS' or 'potential OS'. Still, it doesn't hurt to recognize that this usage _is_ an extension of what is strictly correct. > In the same way, the Laws effectively treat the claiming side as > offenders as soon as someone challenges the claim. This, on the other hand, I consider going much too far with loose language. Yes, doubtful points are to be decided against the claimer (L70A), so there is a certain parallel with an OS (e.g., L85D), but this does not make a claimer an offender. We should be careful to reserve 'offender' and 'OS' for situations where someone has at least potentially done something against the rules. Even mistaken claims are not infractions. Claims with an inadequate claim statement -- one that fails to meet all the requirements of L68C -- are infractions. I do not object to using 'offender' in such cases. And I dislike very much the idea of claiming by putting one's cards back in the board with no statement. That seems to violate L72A1 and L74A2 as well as L68C. 'Offender' is fully justified for that. But I don't like it at all for ordinary claims accompanied by a reasonable statement, even if the claim is defective. > And I believe that > certain authorities around the world show too little sympathy to the > non-offending side - quoting the words "equity", "windfall" and so on. No doubt. And as we have seen, there are a great variety of approaches to judging claims cases. More clarity and a bit more unity wouldn't be bad things, even if this results (contrary to my own wish) in harsher judging of claims. Still, the problem I see is too few claims, not too many, and calling claimers "offenders" is a big step in the wrong direction. I hope we can avoid it on BLML. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 5 02:06:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA21092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 02:06:00 +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 CAA21087 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 02:05:52 +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 JAA29540; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 09:06:04 -0700 Message-Id: <200004041606.JAA29540@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: "Ruling the Game" question Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 09:06:02 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I just saw the following interesting question in "Ruling the Game" in the latest ACBL Bulletin: Question (from Missouri): Declarer is playing 7NT, needing five tricks from the following diamond holding: A-Q-9-7-5 opposite K-10-8-6. He claims without stating how he intends to play the suit. How should I rule if the diamonds are breaking 4-0? All right, 'fess up. Which BLMLer sent this in? :) :) :) :) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 5 03:29:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA21315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 03:29:24 +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 DAA21310 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 03:29:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from pf5s12a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.92.246] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12c5S0-0005Ff-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 12:55:24 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Today I love the job! Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 18:29:17 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf9e5b$4dc916e0$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: eajewm@globalnet.co.uk Date: Monday, April 03, 2000 9:44 PM Subject: Re: Today I love the job! >> 2 Law 25B rulings, > >?????? misprint? > I have been persuaded as a result of private e-mail to post the cases, and let you all appreciate how simple it is to have multiple L25B situations. > Auction 1 1H -X -Pass (Director) I shouldn't have passed, You called the move and confused me. Can I bid 2H please? Auction 2. 1NT -- Pass card hesitantly removed. About to be replaced when 1NT opener said "That call is made"(Director) Still with the Pass card waving in the air, " I think I would prefer to double. Is that alright?" Just in case you are wondering, this was an area final of selected players competing in a competition to qualify for a National final, which I will also be directing. You might smile when I tell you that the first call was to Mr Doe on round 3, and the second was to Mrs Doe on round 5. (I think the novelty of the first ruling appealed to her) Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 5 03:56:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA21407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 03:56:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f150.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.150]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA21397 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 03:55:54 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 27592 invoked by uid 0); 4 Apr 2000 17:55:16 -0000 Message-ID: <20000404175516.27591.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.23 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 04 Apr 2000 10:55:16 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.23] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L16A: Player education Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 10:55:16 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Grattan Endicott" >----- Original Message ----- >From: Todd Zimnoch >To: >Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2000 6:36 AM >Subject: Re: L16A: Player education > > > > I was trying to preempt the argument that the ethics of this are > > questionable to me. They aren't. Unethical is different from illegal. > > >+=+ Law 72B2 might suggest otherwise. ~ G ~ +=+ No it doesn't. It says that (intentionally) breaking the law is illegal. This is no surprize and doesn't weigh in the matter of ethics. The idea of a revoke to gain 3 tricks (I mentioned it for a reason) is in clearer violation of L72B2. I think it's a great law that works well for delivering rulings. But if you want to bring proprieties into play, I believe that the text of L16A is in conflict with L72A6. > > Unfortunately, I cannot figure out what action(s) are demonstrably > > suggested in bidding tempo. Neither can the TD, judged by the amount of > > time it takes to deliver a L16 ruling > > -Todd > > >+=+ 'The correct thing' to do is what the law requires, which may >or may not be what the player considers he would have done >without the UI. Some players may well have the difficulty which >is reflected in these remarks, although we can all see that it can >be merely an excuse for doing what the player wants to do >when he knows what he ought to do. According to the appeals book, almost anything said by the OS during a L16A ruling is considered self-serving and dismissed unless the same statement existed in writing before the match (e.g., in partnership notes.) I could roll the dice to choose a bid after my partner makes some hesitation and still be subject to a L16A ruling. The motives, means, and (less so) methods I employ do not affect whether an action can be ruled under L16A nor what the result of that ruling will be. I believe that the law was designed this way. You'd know better than I. > The amount of time it takes to deliver a L16 ruling should >be a reflection of the care in consulting that best practice >demands. The Code of Practice has reinforced the standards >of consultation and will probably increase the lapse of time >before a ruling is given. Is this not in the interests of the game? >In my view the comment debases the discussion. L16A essentially asks players to enforce its provisions themselves. As a player I have to decide whether or not the hesitation was unmistakable and constitutes UI, then I have to decide which action is demonstrably suggested, then I have to decide if there are LA to the demonstrably suggested action. I have to reach the conclusion that L16A is applicable and then apply it to myself, preferably correctly. The meticulousness and care given by the director (and a great deal is given, in the interests of the game) is not a luxury most players can afford. What if it didn't apply and I just screwed myself? What if those bizarre bids would never be consider LAs by any competent player? What if I misinterpret the UI and in the course of trying to avoid it do what it said? These are burdens a player shouldn't have to deal with. -Todd ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 5 04:40:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA21544 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 04:40:04 +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 EAA21539 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 04:39:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-122.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.122]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA27684; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 14:39:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001201bf9e65$33efc3e0$7a84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: Cc: Subject: Re: "Ruling the Game" question Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 14:40:06 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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 Not I. But it is worth noting that the class of player involved DOES matter according to the ACBL Bulletin. I would quote but don't have it at hand...might be good for someone to do so for the benefit of those from other zones who won't otherwise see it. -- Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: Adam Beneschan > >I just saw the following interesting question in "Ruling the Game" in the latest ACBL Bulletin: > > Question (from Missouri): Declarer is playing 7NT, needing five tricks from the following diamond holding: A-Q-9-7-5 opposite K-10-8-6. He claims without stating how he intends to play the suit. How should I rule if the diamonds are breaking 4-0? > >All right, 'fess up. Which BLMLer sent this in? > >:) :) :) :) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 5 05:37:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA21710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 05:37:22 +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 FAA21705 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 05:37:11 +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 MAA00959; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 12:37:23 -0700 Message-Id: <200004041937.MAA00959@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: "Ruling the Game" question In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 04 Apr 2000 14:40:06 PDT." <001201bf9e65$33efc3e0$7a84d9ce@oemcomputer> Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 12:37:22 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig wrote: > Not I. But it is worth noting that the class of player involved DOES matter > according to the ACBL Bulletin. I would quote but don't have it at > hand...might be good for someone to do so for the benefit of those from > other zones who won't otherwise see it. Here's Mike Flader's response. (He's billed simply as "ACBL Tournament Director". I do not believe his response should be construed as an official ACBL viewpoint or interpretation.) If declarer did not say he was going to play the ace or queen first, he may have been unaware of the possibility of a bad break. If that is the case, the director should, normally, assume that declarer is playing the king first. If the diamonds are in front of the A-Q, declarer will still make the contract as left-hand opponent will show out on the first round. If the diamonds are behind the A-Q, this play will cause declarer to lose one trick. This play is normally classified as careless rather than irrational. However, the footnote in the law does read, "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71 (applicable claims laws), 'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational." Therefore, if a relative beginner makes such a claim, the director may judge playing the king first to be normal---careless. If an expert were to make such a claim, the director (or committee) may judge playing the king first to be irrational. Tournament directors usually rule careless unless they are convinced that for this class of player the correct bridge play has become automatic so that to play the king first is considered irrational. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 5 05:38:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA21725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 05:38:06 +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 FAA21719 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 05:37:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-001kslawrP106.dialsprint.net [158.252.181.66]) by gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA18987 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 12:37:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <200004041438410110.00DEC834@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <001201bf9e65$33efc3e0$7a84d9ce@oemcomputer> References: <001201bf9e65$33efc3e0$7a84d9ce@oemcomputer> X-Mailer: Calypso Evaluation Version 3.10.03.02 (3) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 14:38:41 -0500 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "Ruling the Game" question 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 FAA21720 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Not I. But it is worth noting that the class of player involved DOES matter >according to the ACBL Bulletin. I would quote but don't have it at >hand...might be good for someone to do so for the benefit of those from >other zones who won't otherwise see it. (on a claim in 7NT with a suit AQ975 KT86) It says in part, after quoting the careless vs. irrational footnote: "Therefore, if a relative beginner makes such a claim, the director may judge playing the king first to be normal -- careless. If an expert were to make such a claim, the director (or committee) may judge playing the king first to be irrational. "Tournament directors usually rule careless unless they are convinced that for this class of player the correct bridge play has become automatic so that to play the king first is considered irrational." Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 5 06:48:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA21918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 06:48:03 +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 GAA21911 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 06:47:55 +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 H5RF752L; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 15:47:43 -0500 X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200004041606.JAA29540@mailhub.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 15:51:10 -0500 To: From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: "Ruling the Game" question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >I just saw the following interesting question in "Ruling the Game" in >the latest ACBL Bulletin: > > Question (from Missouri): Declarer is playing 7NT, needing five > tricks from the following diamond holding: A-Q-9-7-5 opposite > K-10-8-6. He claims without stating how he intends to play the > suit. How should I rule if the diamonds are breaking 4-0? > >All right, 'fess up. Which BLMLer sent this in? > >:) :) :) :) -- Adam Not I! 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 Wed Apr 5 08:21:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA22175 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 08:21:11 +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 IAA22169 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 08:20:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.32] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12cbgh-000Gz2-00; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 23:20:43 +0100 Message-ID: <003801bf9e84$0c390b80$205408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200004041554.LAA05877@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal on Claims Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 23:19:56 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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, April 04, 2000 4:54 PM Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal on Claims ----------\x/---------- > > > From: David Stevenson > > Remember that under the Laws of bridge, offenders need not have > > committed an infraction: it is a highly unfortunate term that is used. > > Sorry, David, but I don't follow you here. Which part of the laws > did you have in mind? > > > Suppose you hesitate, and partner makes a call: is his call an > > infraction? > > > > Well, yes or no, dependent on what UI you gave, whether there are LAs, > > what his choice was, and so on. But whether he has committed an > > infraction or not, *your* side is defined as the offenders, and the > > opponents are defined as the non-offenders. > -------- \x/ --------- +=+ In the above dialogue it seems to me that the point that has escaped is that whilst it is not an offence to call, the infraction that may occur is the selection from amongst logical alternatives of one that is more suggested than another by any UI that there may be. So calling is not the infraction - the infraction is in the selection of the call. It is not clear to me where it is alleged the Laws describe as an offender someone who has called but has not yet been found guilty of an infraction? ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 5 11:49:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA22773 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 11:49:21 +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 LAA22768 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 11:49:14 +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 12cewH-00020p-0W for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 02:49:01 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 02:47:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: "Ruling the Game" question References: <200004041606.JAA29540@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200004041606.JAA29540@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <200004041606.JAA29540@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >I just saw the following interesting question in "Ruling the Game" in >the latest ACBL Bulletin: > > Question (from Missouri): Declarer is playing 7NT, needing five > tricks from the following diamond holding: A-Q-9-7-5 opposite > K-10-8-6. He claims without stating how he intends to play the > suit. How should I rule if the diamonds are breaking 4-0? > >All right, 'fess up. Which BLMLer sent this in? > >:) :) :) :) -- Adam > Missouri is very near Mile End, but it wasn't me :)) -- 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 Apr 5 12:10:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA22834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 12:10:30 +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 MAA22829 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 12:10:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from p10s02a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.82.17] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12cfGw-0000BN-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 03:10:23 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: "Ruling the Game" question Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 03:10:54 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf9ea4$2c78c280$115293c3@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, April 05, 2000 3:07 AM Subject: Re: "Ruling the Game" question >In article <200004041606.JAA29540@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan > writes >> >>I just saw the following interesting question in "Ruling the Game" in >>the latest ACBL Bulletin: >> >> Question (from Missouri): Declarer is playing 7NT, needing five >> tricks from the following diamond holding: A-Q-9-7-5 opposite >> K-10-8-6. He claims without stating how he intends to play the >> suit. How should I rule if the diamonds are breaking 4-0? >> >>All right, 'fess up. Which BLMLer sent this in? >> >>:) :) :) :) -- Adam >> >Missouri is very near Mile End, but it wasn't me :)) Well there Marvin, there's one for you. "It was not I?" Anne >-- >John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 >451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou >London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk >+44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 5 12:17:22 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA22861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 12:17:22 +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 MAA22856 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 12:17:13 +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 12cfNM-000CH1-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 02:17:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 15:34:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L16A: Player education References: <20000404053616.67128.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000404053616.67128.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 suggest you review your approach to the game of bridge. > I was trying to preempt the argument that the ethics of this are >questionable to me. They aren't. Unethical is different from illegal. The >only case it might be unethical to me is when opponents are not aware of >their rights or the possible existance of an infraction. I make certain >that they are informed. To make a call that you know is unethical is illegal. >> Oh, yeah. Of course. Do I believe you? No! When partner makes UI >>available to you, you know what action is suggested and what the >>possibilities are in 90% of cases. > We only care about the cases where the action taken was demonstrably >suggested and there are alternatives, which is not 90% of the time. In all >other cases, L16A does not apply so it really shouldn't matter what I do. >Assuming (and this might be a bad assumption) that those times we care about >are the ones that make it into the appeals book, I've done miserably at >reaching the same conclusion as the AC before reading their statement. You are still talking minority positions. Most times you have an ethical decision the situation is totally clear-cut. These are not the positions that make it into the Appeal books. >> TDs are required to follow a certain routine when giving rulings. In >>about 65% [or perhaps higher] of UI cases, any halfway competent TD >>would get a UI ruling right if he just gave it immediately at the table >>- but he would not be doing his job correctly if he did. So the speed >>of giving rulings is irrelevant. > Fair enough, but I'm not a competent TD nor do I have the time. If >it's all the same to you, I'll spend the required time to think through the >problem, try to remember the relevant appeals cases (rulings will be based >on those, not the law per se), and then bid, but I think that would cause >further, potentially worse problems than the one I'm trying to solve, like >holding up the game and annoying opponents. You do not need much time in most ethical situations. The moment you think of alternatives it usually is a very short time to work out which are no-nos. >> This is close to cheating. Cheating is taking improper action in >>serious ethical matters deliberately, knowledgeably and with intent to >>gain. You are deliberately being unethical, and these are serious >>ethical matters. You would have to convince me that you are not trying >>to gain from this approach, or that you did not recognise it as >>unethical. From what you have written, you *might* do so, but you are >>getting very near the edge. > I received this advice far before I was much aware of the law. So? The more aware of the Law you are, the less can you justify following wrong advice. I am not trying to crucify the ignorant - I am trying to educate them. > It's >more pervasive advice than you care to know. (obviously its existance is >enough to boil your blood.) As far as gain... There are two options >really: I take the suggested bid when there are alternatives or anything >legal. Rather, I decide from these: take the bid I would have made or >"something else". You cannot a priori argue that deciding to take the bid >you would have made absent UI favors taking the suggested bid when there are >alternatives. But yes, I do think that doing "something else" is more often >the losing move. I'm also conscious to inform opponents that they may be >entitled to an adjustment. I do not see the point of this argument. You are required to do something by Law: deliberately not to do so is not acceptable. >> As I *keep* saying, the only thing *I* ask is that people obey L73C. >>Your approach is not to do even that. > I firmly believe that I've done my best to ignore UI. Pity that that is illegal. > It helps that my >partners have never intentionally given UI. But holding KQJxx in clubs and >partner asking opponents about their club bid, I am still leading the KC. >It is my partner, not I, who has the ethical problem. So what? You presumably have no LA, so this is not a relevant case. But what do you lead against 3NT from Q9 J83 9843 9843 when partner asks about the clubs? If you ignore the UI you have a straight choice between the minors: the Laws require a diamond lead. Everyone else who posts here would lead a diamond [apart from john Probst and Herman De Wael, who probably lead a spade ]. >> Mind you, if people understand L16A, all I expect of that would be to >>try to follow what is required. It is not unreasonable to expect people >>to try to be ethical - I do not ask them to succeed on every occasion. > I don't see why it's noble to make a bad bid so that you can be >espoused as having good sportsmanship. We are talking about when a player has choices, so it is not a "bad bid". Anyway, I am only trying to impress one person with my sportsmanship - myself. You seem to suggest we should ignore the Laws: I do not believe it takes much sportsmanship to follow the Laws. >> Cr.. errr rubbish. People are following the dictates of the Laws in >>UI situations more and more. The Appeals books have few examples of >>people failing to do so in obvious situations: similar books from 30 >>years ago would be littered with them. > Not rubbish. This is not a function of time, but player skill. I'd >hesisate to say that the fewer examples in today's law books are because >today's players are better than those 30 years ago. (More advanced due to >changing bridge theory is another matter.) But direct a 99'ers section and >tell me how long it takes before you have to make a L16A ruling let alone >have it appealed. I'll also wager you a bottle of wine that not two of them >have ever read an appeals book (allowing for one as an abberation). The >rest are completely unaware. L16A infractions/rulings, unlike claims, are >called for more often in the higher strata of playing. I don't think reading an Appeals book is good for players. What is required is some basic tutoring in ethics, which players get in some environments and not others. -- 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 Apr 5 15:44:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA23693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 15:44:15 +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 PAA23688 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 15:44:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.222] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12cibV-00059C-00; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 06:43:49 +0100 Message-ID: <000a01bf9ec1$f2f54420$de5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Todd Zimnoch" Cc: References: <20000404175516.27591.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: L16A: Player education Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 00:57:15 +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, April 04, 2000 6:55 PM Subject: Re: L16A: Player education > >From: "Grattan Endicott" > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: Todd Zimnoch > >To: > >Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2000 6:36 AM > >Subject: Re: L16A: Player education > > > > > > > I was trying to preempt the argument that the ethics of this are > > > questionable to me. They aren't. Unethical is different from illegal. > > > > >+=+ Law 72B2 might suggest otherwise. ~ G ~ +=+ > > No it doesn't. It says that (intentionally) breaking the law is > illegal. This is no surprize and doesn't weigh in the matter of ethics. > The idea of a revoke to gain 3 tricks (I mentioned it for a reason) is in > clearer violation of L72B2. > I think it's a great law that works well for delivering rulings. But > if you want to bring proprieties into play, I believe that the text of L16A > is in conflict with L72A6. > +=+ I had thought we were discussing the player who decides he will not attempt to obey the law but will merely make whatever call he believes he would have made without the UI. That is an infraction, knowingly committed, and it is a breach of Law 72B2, one of the laws dealing with the Proprieties of the game.When the action is done in deliberate disregard of the player's awareness of the law, the ethics of it are not 'questionable' they are culpable. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 5 16:02:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA23829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 16:02:42 +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 QAA23823 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 16:02:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.102] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12citW-0005hO-00; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 07:02:26 +0100 Message-ID: <000401bf9ec4$8cc0fde0$665408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <20000404053616.67128.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: L16A: Player education Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 06:50:37 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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, April 04, 2000 3:34 PM Subject: Re: L16A: Player education > > So what? You presumably have no LA, so this is not a relevant case. > But what do you lead against 3NT from > > Q9 > J83 > 9843 > 9843 > > when partner asks about the clubs? If you ignore the UI you have a > straight choice between the minors: the Laws require a diamond lead. > Everyone else who posts here would lead a diamond [apart from john > Probst and Herman De Wael, who probably lead a spade ]. > +=+ Oh, well, as they say David, count me out. If this were not a laws discussion I would be debating with you the relative merits of the two majors (assuming we have no bidding to guide us). A Diamond would not attract me. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 5 16:02:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA23834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 16:02:46 +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 QAA23828 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 16:02:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.102] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12citX-0005hO-00; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 07:02:28 +0100 Message-ID: <000501bf9ec4$8da45900$665408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <20000404053616.67128.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: L16A: Player education Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 06:58:38 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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, April 04, 2000 3:34 PM Subject: Re: L16A: Player education > > > I received this advice far before I was much aware of the law. > > So? The more aware of the Law you are, the less can you justify > following wrong advice. I am not trying to crucify the ignorant - I am > trying to educate them. > +=+ As for me, I would prefer to think my object is to inform the uninformed. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 5 18:11:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA24233 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 18:11:37 +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 SAA24228 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 18:11:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.152.73] (helo=davidburn) by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12ckmC-0006Ex-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 09:03:01 +0100 Message-ID: <001c01bf9ed6$8a7cfc20$499801d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <20000404053616.67128.qmail@hotmail.com> <000401bf9ec4$8cc0fde0$665408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: L16A: Player education Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 09:11:25 +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 Grattan wrote: > > So what? You presumably have no LA, so this is not a relevant case. > > But what do you lead against 3NT from > > > > Q9 > > J83 > > 9843 > > 9843 > > > > when partner asks about the clubs? If you ignore the UI you have a > > straight choice between the minors: the Laws require a diamond lead. > > Everyone else who posts here would lead a diamond [apart from john > > Probst and Herman De Wael, who probably lead a spade ]. > > > +=+ Oh, well, as they say David, count me out. If this were not > a laws discussion I would be debating with you the relative merits > of the two majors (assuming we have no bidding to guide us). A > Diamond would not attract me. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Since partner has had a chance to ask about clubs, we may imagine an auction like this: S W N E 1NT P 2C P* 2S P 3NT P P P *after asking a question The jack of hearts might work, but it might not. Neither is the queen of spades worthy of much consideration. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 5 18:30:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA24268 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 18:30:39 +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 SAA24263 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 18:30:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from p61s13a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.125.98] helo=pacific) by cobalt1-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12clBA-0001zS-00; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 01:28:48 -0700 Message-ID: <001001bf9ed9$310d24a0$627d93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "BLML" Cc: "Nick Doe" Subject: EBU on-line bridge Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 09:24:48 +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; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 02:13:44 +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 JAA23816; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 09:13:57 -0700 Message-Id: <200004051613.JAA23816@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: L16A: Player education In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 05 Apr 2000 09:11:25 PDT." <001c01bf9ed6$8a7cfc20$499801d5@davidburn> Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 09:13:58 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > Grattan wrote: > > > > So what? You presumably have no LA, so this is not a relevant > case. > > > But what do you lead against 3NT from > > > > > > Q9 > > > J83 > > > 9843 > > > 9843 > > > > > > when partner asks about the clubs? If you ignore the UI you have > a > > > straight choice between the minors: the Laws require a diamond > lead. > > > Everyone else who posts here would lead a diamond [apart from john > > > Probst and Herman De Wael, who probably lead a spade ]. > > > > > +=+ Oh, well, as they say David, count me out. If this were not > > a laws discussion I would be debating with you the relative merits > > of the two majors (assuming we have no bidding to guide us). A > > Diamond would not attract me. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Since partner has had a chance to ask about clubs, we may imagine an > auction like this: > > S W N E > 1NT P 2C P* > 2S P 3NT P > P P > > *after asking a question Of course, if this is what happens, there is a further complication, the issue about whether asking a question immediately about an opponent's bid (especially one that is alerted---I believe 2C would be alerted in England, right?) conveys anything. If one makes a habit of asking immediately after every alert, then East's question would not provide any information to West about clubs, about his hand strength, or about anything else. Perhaps we should imagine something like this: S W N E 1NT P 2C P 2S P 3NT P* P P *after asking a question about the 2C bid Now there's a stronger inference that East has some club interest. > The jack of hearts might work, but it might not. Neither is the queen > of spades worthy of much consideration. Hmmm . . . I think I'd consider it, at least at IMPs, even with opener showing them. Partner is known to have 4 or 5 spades and as much as 12 HCP, so trying to set up partner's suit might be the best chance to beat this. I may just have to run a simulation to figure this one out. It's a pretty interesting problem. But, of course, it's off-topic for this mailing list. So let's get back to arguing about ethics. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 6 03:06:59 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA25761 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 03:06:59 +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 DAA25756 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 03:06:51 +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 MAA11549 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 12:11:11 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000406000549.007d6430@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 00:05:49 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: L16A: Player education In-Reply-To: <20000404175516.27591.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk While DWS and GE, et al, have objected to Todd's position, I don't think anyone has addressed his three main arguments for that position. At 10:55 AM 4/4/2000 PDT, Todd Zimnoch wrote: > No it doesn't. It says that (intentionally) breaking the law is >illegal. This is no surprize and doesn't weigh in the matter of ethics. >The idea of a revoke to gain 3 tricks (I mentioned it for a reason) is in >clearer violation of L72B2. > I think it's a great law that works well for delivering rulings. But >if you want to bring proprieties into play, I believe that the text of L16A >is in conflict with L72A6. Here is argument 1. L16, in Todd's view, requires the player to be his own judge and jury, implementing penalties upon himself. Since L72a6 forbids this, L16 contradicts L72a6. Or, to put it another way, a bid is only a LA if it has been determined to be one by a TD or AC. Therefore, as a player, I am not knowingly violating L16, since I can't know whether my bid had a LA or not, or whether the call I made was demonstrably suggested or not. Todd argues that he has a very bad record at guessing what TD's and AC's will say is an LA or is suggested, and so he cannot be expected to make that decision for himself at the table. So if I bid what I would have bid, I am not knowingly violating any law: Not L16, since I don't know that the hesitation is unmistakeable, the bid had LA's, or the one I chose was demonstrably suggested. Not L73c, since by making the very same bid I would have made anyway I am not taking advantage of UI. Not L72b2, since I do not know I am violating a law. I don't accept this argument, for several reasons. First, as DWS has pointed out, in the vast majority of cases you _do_ know what has been suggested. Second, you cannot ever be certain of the bid you would have made without the UI, especially since the effect is often not conscious. Finally, in those cases where one is not certain about the hesitation, suggested LA's, etc., there's no reason why one cannot do ones best. Suppose that while driving your car on an important trip, a snowstorm were to cover the speed limit signs beside the road. You have a legal obligation not to speed, but since you cannot read the signs you cannot be sure what the speed limit is at any given place on the road. Does this mean you should drive however fast you feel like driving? No--in most spots, the speed limit is pretty obvious. [Driving through a small town the limit is likely to be quite low, while driving on a major interstate miles from any town the limit is likely to be much higher--indeed, I'd bet you could correctly guess the limit within a narrow range 90% of the time.] In the spot where you aren't sure, you drive a little slower than you might like, just in case. It's still possible you might accidentally speed anyway, and possible that a judge might not accept "I couldn't see the signs" as an excuse. But that is incidental, to my mind--you weren't really at fault if you followed this proceedure. It's the same with UI, or whatever. In the 90% of cases where you know what's suggested and what your choices are, you take a non-suggested course. In the 10% of difficult cases, you bend over backwards a little. That might not get you to the next city at the maximum legal velocity, but that's the way it goes. [As for L72a6, the penalty is an adjusted score. So by not making the bid suggested by UI, I am not inflicting the penalty on myself, since I am not giving myself an adjusted score. So there's no contradiction.] > L16A essentially asks players to enforce its provisions themselves. As >a player I have to decide whether or not the hesitation was unmistakable and >constitutes UI, then I have to decide which action is demonstrably >suggested, then I have to decide if there are LA to the demonstrably >suggested action. I have to reach the conclusion that L16A is applicable >and then apply it to myself, preferably correctly. The meticulousness and >care given by the director (and a great deal is given, in the interests of >the game) is not a luxury most players can afford. > What if it didn't apply and I just screwed myself? What if those >bizarre bids would never be consider LAs by any competent player? What if I >misinterpret the UI and in the course of trying to avoid it do what it said? > These are burdens a player shouldn't have to deal with. This is a second argument. A player shouldn't have to make a bad bid because a TD/AC _might_ decide it was illegal, because this will mean that the player ends up making bad bids in cases where the TD/AC would not have found anything wrong with the better bid. I don't accept this argument, either. Too bad--that's the breaks. Once in a great while you'll end up with a bad result because you bent over backwards a bit too far trying to follow the law. So be it. In any case, even if I agreed thatv these were 'burdens a player shouldn't have to deal with', that would only prove that the law should be changed--it's no reason not to follow the one we have. >-Todd Todd's third argument, not stated in detail in this post, is that taking the time to consider all the L16 implications of a situation itself produces a hesitation that then affects partner's bidding. So I might end up producing an L16 adjustment for my partner on a hand while trying to avoid an L16 adjustment for myself, in a case where in fact there _wouldn't have been_ an L16 adjustment against me in the first place! Again, I don't accept this either. One cannot say "I am going to uphold L16/73 by violating it, because if I didn't violate it my partner _might have_ done so later." It is true that on rare occasions I might end up producing a ruling against my side by trying to avoid a ruling that wouldn't have been made--the ethical/legal equivalent of a phantom sac. But because some sac's are phantom, one cannot deduce that one should never sac. Because thinking about UI implications might _sometime_ cause more problems than it prevents, we cannot deduce that one should never think about UI implications. -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 6 03:45:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA25959 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 03:45:22 +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 DAA25953 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 03:45:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-90.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.90]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA07304 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 19:45:02 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38EB2257.68FF2C20@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 13:24:07 +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: L16A: Player education References: <20000404053616.67128.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > So what? You presumably have no LA, so this is not a relevant case. > But what do you lead against 3NT from > > Q9 > J83 > 9843 > 9843 > > when partner asks about the clubs? If you ignore the UI you have a > straight choice between the minors: the Laws require a diamond lead. > Everyone else who posts here would lead a diamond [apart from john > Probst and Herman De Wael, who probably lead a spade ]. > What so wrong about that - that must be partner's long suit, no ? Anyway, thanks for the compliment. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 6 04:09:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA26068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 04:09:29 +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 EAA26063 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 04:09:20 +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 LAA26118; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 11:09:32 -0700 Message-Id: <200004051809.LAA26118@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: L16A: Player education In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 05 Apr 2000 09:13:58 PDT." <200004051613.JAA23816@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 11:09:33 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wrote: > > > > But what do you lead against 3NT from > > > > > > > > Q9 > > > > J83 > > > > 9843 > > > > 9843 > > > > > > > > when partner asks about the clubs? > Perhaps we should imagine something like this: > > S W N E > 1NT P 2C P > 2S P 3NT P* > P P > > *after asking a question about the 2C bid > > Now there's a stronger inference that East has some club interest. > > > The jack of hearts might work, but it might not. Neither is the queen > > of spades worthy of much consideration. > > Hmmm . . . I think I'd consider it, at least at IMPs, even with opener > showing them. Partner is known to have 4 or 5 spades and as much as > 12 HCP, so trying to set up partner's suit might be the best chance to > beat this. I may just have to run a simulation to figure this one > out. It's a pretty interesting problem. > > But, of course, it's off-topic for this mailing list. So let's get > back to arguing about ethics. Actually, on second thought, it's not as off-topic as I first thought. Let's assume that, at the particular vulnerability and form of scoring, some number of players of your class would seriously consider the spade queen based on the logic (or pseudo-logic---take your pick) that I proposed; therefore, the spade queen is a LA. Now, partner's question suggests he has something in clubs, so you can't lead a club. But the spade queen lead may work well if partner has some strength in the suit (he's known to have some length). By asking a question that suggests he has strength in clubs, partner is also suggesting he *doesn't* have enough strength in spades to make the SQ lead work, since the total strength in his hand is limited by the opponent's bidding. Or, at least, he is less likely to have the needed spade strength. Thus, it could be argued that the UI suggests leading anything other than a spade (not just a club), since the spade queen lead will be right only if East has something in the suit. By contrast, a red suit lead may be right even if East has nothing in the suit led, because passive defense may be enough to break the contract. So based on all this (remember, we're assuming that the SQ lead is a LA): (1) As a player, would you think that the UI situation would ethically *require* you to lead a spade? (2) As a TD or committee member, would you consider awarding an adjusted score if West led a heart or diamond? I suspect the answers to both questions are "no", but I'm curious as to what others think. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 6 04:23:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA25698 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 02:41:07 +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 CAA25682 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 02:40:52 +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 12csr1-000DN4-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 16:40:33 +0000 Message-ID: <1MpJ2IDKT164Ew$s@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 15:59:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal on Claims References: <200004041554.LAA05877@cfa183.harvard.edu> <003801bf9e84$0c390b80$205408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <003801bf9e84$0c390b80$205408c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > >Grattan Endicott===================================== >"The arts babblative and scribblative". > - Robert Southey. >===================================== >----- Original Message ----- >From: Steve Willner >To: >Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2000 4:54 PM >Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal on Claims >----------\x/---------- > >> >> > From: David Stevenson >> > Remember that under the Laws of bridge, offenders need not have >> > committed an infraction: it is a highly unfortunate term that is used. >> >> Sorry, David, but I don't follow you here. Which part of the laws >> did you have in mind? >> >> > Suppose you hesitate, and partner makes a call: is his call an >> > infraction? >> > >> > Well, yes or no, dependent on what UI you gave, whether there are LAs, >> > what his choice was, and so on. But whether he has committed an >> > infraction or not, *your* side is defined as the offenders, and the >> > opponents are defined as the non-offenders. >> >-------- \x/ --------- >+=+ In the above dialogue it seems to me that the point that has escaped >is that whilst it is not an offence to call, the infraction that may occur >is the >selection from amongst logical alternatives of one that is more >suggested than another by any UI that there may be. So calling is not >the infraction - the infraction is in the selection of the call. It is not >clear >to me where it is alleged the Laws describe as an offender someone >who has called but has not yet been found guilty of an infraction? An offender is someone who offends. That is irrelevant to whether he has been proved as offending. -- 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 Apr 6 05:34:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA25855 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 03:17:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f236.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.236]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA25850 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 03:17:21 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 70750 invoked by uid 0); 5 Apr 2000 17:16:41 -0000 Message-ID: <20000405171641.70749.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.23 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 05 Apr 2000 10:16:41 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.23] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L16A: Player education Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 10:16:41 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Grattan Endicott" >----- Original Message ----- >From: Todd Zimnoch >To: >Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2000 6:55 PM >Subject: Re: L16A: Player education > > > > >From: "Grattan Endicott" > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >From: Todd Zimnoch > > >To: > > >Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2000 6:36 AM > > >Subject: Re: L16A: Player education > > > > > > > > > > I was trying to preempt the argument that the ethics of this >are > > > > questionable to me. They aren't. Unethical is different from >illegal. > > > > > > >+=+ Law 72B2 might suggest otherwise. ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > No it doesn't. It says that (intentionally) breaking the law is > > illegal. This is no surprize and doesn't weigh in the matter of ethics. > > The idea of a revoke to gain 3 tricks (I mentioned it for a reason) is >in > > clearer violation of L72B2. > > I think it's a great law that works well for delivering rulings. >But > > if you want to bring proprieties into play, I believe that the text of >L16A > > is in conflict with L72A6. > > >+=+ I had thought we were discussing the player who decides >he will not attempt to obey the law but will merely make >whatever call he believes he would have made without the UI. >That is an infraction, knowingly committed, and it is a breach of >Law 72B2, one of the laws dealing with the Proprieties of the >game.When the action is done in deliberate disregard of the >player's awareness of the law, the ethics of it are not >'questionable' they are culpable. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I reject the notion everywhere that ethics are governed by legislation. If a certain action is considered unethical with the law book, then it will remain so without the law book. You will have to make your argument outside the law book before I'm convinced. According to your current argument, if 16A1 and 73C were removed from the law book then there is no ethics problem. Opponents are entitled to an adjustment under 16A1. If I make an infraction, my score will be adjusted to or below what it would have been had I not made the infraction. I fail to see how opponents are harmed by this. I can think of plenty of ways that I'm harmed by the alternative of applying 16A1 (incompetently) to myself. -Todd ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 6 05:46:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA25696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 02:41:05 +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 CAA25681 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 02:40:50 +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 12csr1-000CKH-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 16:40:35 +0000 Message-ID: <9cvLSNDTa164Ewfl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 16:06:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L16A: Player education References: <20000404175516.27591.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000404175516.27591.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: "Grattan Endicott" >>+=+ 'The correct thing' to do is what the law requires, which may >>or may not be what the player considers he would have done >>without the UI. Some players may well have the difficulty which >>is reflected in these remarks, although we can all see that it can >>be merely an excuse for doing what the player wants to do >>when he knows what he ought to do. > According to the appeals book, almost anything said by the OS during a >L16A ruling is considered self-serving and dismissed unless the same >statement existed in writing before the match (e.g., in partnership notes.) This unfortunate position is not the majority one, even in ACBL appeals. It is clear from the case books that there is a move towards a more just approach in ACBL jurisprudence. Self-serving comments are treated with less weight - fair enough. But few ACs are stupid enough to dismiss them entirely. [s] > L16A essentially asks players to enforce its provisions themselves. As >a player I have to decide whether or not the hesitation was unmistakable and >constitutes UI, then I have to decide which action is demonstrably >suggested, then I have to decide if there are LA to the demonstrably >suggested action. I have to reach the conclusion that L16A is applicable >and then apply it to myself, preferably correctly. The meticulousness and >care given by the director (and a great deal is given, in the interests of >the game) is not a luxury most players can afford. > What if it didn't apply and I just screwed myself? What if those >bizarre bids would never be consider LAs by any competent player? What if I >misinterpret the UI and in the course of trying to avoid it do what it said? > These are burdens a player shouldn't have to deal with. The alternative is to allow people to use UI, and that way you are encouraging cheating. Not a good move. Despite everything you say, it is normally easy to follow the requirements in UI situations. People that do not bother are gaining an unfair advantage. difficult and complex situations can be left to the TD or AC. -- 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 Apr 6 06:17:22 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA25697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 02:41:06 +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 CAA25680 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 02:40:50 +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 12csr1-000DN3-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 16:40:34 +0000 Message-ID: <0M0JmHD+R164Ew$F@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 15:58:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal on Claims References: <200004041554.LAA05877@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200004041554.LAA05877@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 >> Remember that under the Laws of bridge, offenders need not have >> committed an infraction: it is a highly unfortunate term that is used. >Sorry, David, but I don't follow you here. Which part of the laws >did you have in mind? Maybe I am wrong, and it is merely usage and not Laws, but if someone hesitates, there is a principle of ruling for the NOs, is there not? Well, how can you rule for the NOs if there are no NOs? The people that create a position are referred to as offenders with or without an infraction. >> Suppose you hesitate, and partner makes a call: is his call an >> infraction? >> >> Well, yes or no, dependent on what UI you gave, whether there are LAs, >> what his choice was, and so on. But whether he has committed an >> infraction or not, *your* side is defined as the offenders, and the >> opponents are defined as the non-offenders. >Perhaps I'm overlooking where the laws say this. I agree we often >speak casually this way and even write it on BLML, but I don't think it >is strictly correct unless there was in fact an infraction. In a >hesitation case, however, 'OS' seems a reasonable extension of the >strict usage, given that hesitations are deprecated by the Laws, and it >is clumsy to write 'putative OS' or 'alleged OS' or 'potential OS'. >Still, it doesn't hurt to recognize that this usage _is_ an extension >of what is strictly correct. Ok, so I say that it is an unofrtunate term and you say it is a usage anfd not an exact term. Maybe you are right, but I still think it unfortunate, whichever it is technically. >> In the same way, the Laws effectively treat the claiming side as >> offenders as soon as someone challenges the claim. >This, on the other hand, I consider going much too far with loose >language. Yes, doubtful points are to be decided against the claimer >(L70A), so there is a certain parallel with an OS (e.g., L85D), but >this does not make a claimer an offender. We should be careful to >reserve 'offender' and 'OS' for situations where someone has at least >potentially done something against the rules. Even mistaken claims >are not infractions. Oh? What are they then? Anyway, you have extrapolated something I said into something I did not say. I am not suggesting the we call claimers offenders. I am saying that "the Laws effectively treat the claiming side as offenders as soon as someone challenges the claim". I am not saying more than this. >Claims with an inadequate claim statement -- one that fails to meet all >the requirements of L68C -- are infractions. I do not object to using >'offender' in such cases. And I dislike very much the idea of claiming >by putting one's cards back in the board with no statement. That seems >to violate L72A1 and L74A2 as well as L68C. 'Offender' is fully >justified for that. But I don't like it at all for ordinary claims >accompanied by a reasonable statement, even if the claim is defective. Nor do I, which is why I did not suggest it. >> And I believe that >> certain authorities around the world show too little sympathy to the >> non-offending side - quoting the words "equity", "windfall" and so on. >No doubt. And as we have seen, there are a great variety of approaches >to judging claims cases. More clarity and a bit more unity wouldn't be >bad things, even if this results (contrary to my own wish) in harsher >judging of claims. Still, the problem I see is too few claims, not too >many, and calling claimers "offenders" is a big step in the wrong >direction. I hope we can avoid it on BLML. No-one has suggested we should. -- 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 Apr 6 06:33:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA26448 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 06:33:26 +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 GAA26443 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 06:33:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12cwU3-0002Fr-0W; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 21:33:05 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 18:08:29 +0100 To: Adam Beneschan Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: "Ruling the Game" question References: <200004041606.JAA29540@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200004041606.JAA29540@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <200004041606.JAA29540@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >I just saw the following interesting question in "Ruling the Game" in >the latest ACBL Bulletin: > > Question (from Missouri): Declarer is playing 7NT, needing five > tricks from the following diamond holding: A-Q-9-7-5 opposite > K-10-8-6. He claims without stating how he intends to play the > suit. How should I rule if the diamonds are breaking 4-0? > >All right, 'fess up. Which BLMLer sent this in? > >:) :) :) :) -- Adam > Even under the Burn rules I guess he can only lose 1 diamond but we need the rest of the hand to tell how many spades, clubs and hearts are going away - about six or seven off I guess :)) -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 6 07:10:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA26539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 07:10:31 +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 HAA26534 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 07:10:23 +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 RAA02395; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 17:10:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000e01bf9f43$6a4b2cc0$9484d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Todd Zimnoch" , Subject: Re: L16A: Player education Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 17:10:45 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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 Failure to at least make your best efforts to obey the laws of the game is reprehensible. Wiggle and squirm as you might you will never convince the majority of ethical players that your ethics are intact if you persist in trying to evade the laws to your own benefit. At best this makes you a bridge lawyer...at worst a cheat. I trust this is not your intention, but I think your take on this issue is badly flawed, and does not place you in a good light. If I knew you were deliberately violating the law to obtain advantage, I would throw the book at you, with a disqualification from the event just the start; you could also expect to face a C&E hearing. If you succeed in hiding your intent, but it is still there to deliberately violate the law, you really should take up a different sport such as bear baiting, for you have shown that you are bereft of sportsmanship, and have less interest in winning honestly than in winning at all cost. Bad show! I have tried to stay out of this debate, but as your apologetics multiply since you initial statement that you did not care about the ethics (for which DWS roundly and rightly chastised you) you continue to think that it is alright to intentionally disobey the laws with your reputation intact. This is not possible. You are just one step short of saying that you will cheat given the opportunity, because if you played properly you might get some bad results. That you are willing to be ruled against in some cases does not excuse the deliberate infractions. -- Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: Todd Zimnoch > I reject the notion everywhere that ethics are governed by legislation. > If a certain action is considered unethical with the law book, then it >will remain so without the law book. You will have to make your argument >outside the law book before I'm convinced. According to your current >argument, if 16A1 and 73C were removed from the law book then there is no >ethics problem. > Opponents are entitled to an adjustment under 16A1. If I make an >infraction, my score will be adjusted to or below what it would have been >had I not made the infraction. I fail to see how opponents are harmed by >this. I can think of plenty of ways that I'm harmed by the alternative of >applying 16A1 (incompetently) to myself. > >-Todd From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 6 07:15:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA26567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 07:15:29 +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 HAA26562 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 07:15:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivehm1.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.70.193]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA10540 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 17:15:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000405171209.012c2720@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 17:12:09 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: L16A: Player education In-Reply-To: <20000405171641.70749.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:16 AM 4/5/2000 PDT, Todd wrote: > I reject the notion everywhere that ethics are governed by legislation. > If a certain action is considered unethical with the law book, then it >will remain so without the law book. You will have to make your argument >outside the law book before I'm convinced. According to your current >argument, if 16A1 and 73C were removed from the law book then there is no >ethics problem. I realize that you certainly do not regard your behavior in this respect to be anything less than honorable, but the problem is that your argument can be used equally well in defense of more egregious violations. For example, what is wrong with not merely "bidding what you would have anyway", but consciously and deliberately exploiting the advantage granted by UI? After all: > Opponents are entitled to an adjustment under 16A1. If I make an >infraction, my score will be adjusted to or below what it would have been >had I not made the infraction. I fail to see how opponents are harmed by >this. Should we as players press every advantage and bend every legal principle in an effort to maximize our scores, relying on the opponents to protect their interests with the support of game officials? It sounds like a rhetorical question, but I don't mean it that way, at least not entirely. In fact most serious competition takes place exactly this way. In high-level sporting events, players and coaches engage in a variety of questionable or even downright illegal tactics, which are regarded as appropriate tools of competition as long as you can get away with them. (For baseball fans, one of my favorites was Minnesota Twins first baseman Kent "Buy a Vowel" Hrbek pushing Ron Gant off first base and then successfully tagging him out during the 1991 World Series). The fact is, the Laws lay out a different standard of competitive behavior for bridge players, by placing the burden for obeying and enforcing the Laws directly on the players themselves in the first place. Partly this is because except for the highest level of the game, officials are spread too thin to directly observe the action as it occurs. So how are you opponents harmed by your deliberate (or merely lazy) infraction? Well, if they are unaware that a violation has occurred, or feel intimidated about calling the director, then their rights may not be protected. And even if they know their rights but don't care enough to enforce them, then your _actual_ opponents (i.e., others playing the hand the same way in your field) will be disadvantaged by your infraction, with no opportunity to protect their own interests. As bridge players, and especially as players with a comparatively sophisticated grasp of the Laws, we do have an affirmative obligation to play in accordance with those Laws, even if this same standard is not necessarily expected in other competitive venues. If you come away with nothing else from this discussion, I hope that this principle, at least, is firmly impressed upon you. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 6 07:39:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA26656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 07:39:52 +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 HAA26651 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 07:39:44 +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 OAA30369; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 14:39:55 -0700 Message-Id: <200004052139.OAA30369@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: L16A: Player education In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 05 Apr 2000 16:06:59 PDT." <9cvLSNDTa164Ewfl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 14:39:57 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I haven't been following this thread closely enough to make any detailed comments. However, the latest couple posts brought to mind something that happened to me a number of years ago. LHO opened 2C (strong), partner doubled, I alerted since we had agreed to play CRASH (double = red suits or black suits). However, partner's facial expression after I alerted made it clear that he had forgotten the convention. Eventually, I resolved the dilemma by taking a save in one of suits partner was obviously showing (but actually had a void in), and going for about -2300. In retrospect, I believe my action was not a logical alternative, and I should have let them play their 4S. However, I am also convinced that doing nothing would not have been an alternative, particularly since the opponents probably didn't know that partner made a face. I believe the right action (in this situation) would have been to pass, and then call the TD after the hand and let him judge whether my pass was illegal. (Against more experienced opponents, perhaps I could have explained what happened to them, and let them judge whether they thought it was necessary to call the TD.) But in any case, I much prefer having done what I did, and getting the big negative score, to doing nothing at all. If I had simply said to myself, "bidding is obviously illogical" and left it at that, the opponents may well have been harmed. If my pass turned out to be illegal, the opponents wouldn't have known to call the TD since they didn't know about the UI I had. But I would feel the same way in a case where partner's action (e.g. a hesitation) is as obvious to the opponents as it is to me. If I don't do what I reasonably can to make sure I'm obeying the Laws, I might harm the opponents, since (1) they might not have noticed the hesitation, (2) they might not know the Laws well enough to know that I could be breaking them, (3) they might not realize that I had a hand that didn't have a clearcut action, e.g. if they claim early and we acquiesce and no one gets to see my cards. I'm not saying I'd call the TD on myself in all cases; but I'd at least think about it a little harder to make sure I'm not taking advantage of the UI. Some games have an attitude that if you do something wrong and the opponents and/or referees don't catch it, that's tough luck for them. Bridge players decided long ago that bridge shouldn't be like that. I agree with that decision. Just my 2 cents, -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 6 09:25:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA26919 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 09:25:39 +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 JAA26914 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 09:25:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.131.162] (helo=davidburn) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12czAZ-0007NA-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 00:25:09 +0100 Message-ID: <001501bf9f56$60543b40$a28301d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200004041554.LAA05877@cfa183.harvard.edu> <0M0JmHD+R164Ew$F@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal on Claims Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 00:26:30 +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: > Maybe I am wrong, and it is merely usage and not Laws, but if someone > hesitates, there is a principle of ruling for the NOs, is there not? > Well, how can you rule for the NOs if there are no NOs? If you know that there are no NOs, to rule for the NOs would be a no-no. But if you don't know that there are no NOs, to rule against the NOs would at best be so-so. If you can't make up your mind whether there are NOs or no NOs, it's clearly no go. In that case, of course, you are a bozo with a mind like a yo-yo. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 6 09:34:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA26938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 09:34:09 +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 JAA26933 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 09:34:01 +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 QAA18106 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 16:33:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gateway.tandem.com (4.20/4.11) id AA20793; 5 Apr 0 16:33:48 -0700 Date: 5 Apr 0 16:30:00 -0700 Message-Id: <200004051633.AA20793@gateway.tandem.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L16A: Player education Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Todd, In case you play bridge for a reason *other* than to have a framework from which to discuss whether a violation of the Laws is merely illegal or also unethical (a premise I have come to doubt), allow me to quote Laws 72A1 and 72B2: 72 -- General Principles A. Observence of Laws 1. General Obligation on Contestants Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the laws. . . . . B. Infraction of Law . . . . 2. Intentional A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed penalty he is willing to play. WWFiv Wally Farley Los Gatos, CA From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 6 10:15:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA27003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 10:15:07 +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 KAA26998 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 10:14:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from p8bs01a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.81.140] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt9-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12cbBa-00035J-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 22:48:34 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Birds in their little nests should agree. Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 01:15:06 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf9f5d$29ac5d00$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 Brethren, I appreciate that heated discussion ensues from many of our deliberations, and that is healthy, good for the game, and sometimes productive. The continual sniping and flaming that is going on at the moment is none of these things. Tease if you must, but to denigrate in such a flamboyant way is neither gentlemanly nor is it likely to afford respect for your opinions on other matters. (\ /) ( \ _ / ) ( \( )/ ) ( / \ ) ( / \/ \ ) / \ ( ) Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 6 10:19:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA27021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 10:19:23 +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 KAA27016 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 10:19:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.131.162] (helo=davidburn) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12d00W-0005C2-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 01:18:49 +0100 Message-ID: <003301bf9f5d$e0950260$a28301d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <000e01bf9f43$6a4b2cc0$9484d9ce@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: L16A: Player education Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 01:20:11 +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 I have been staying out of this, for the views expressed have been sufficiently vigorous and comprehensive. I think, though, that one incident which remains in my mind seven years after it took place may give some notion of the extent of the problem. European Championships, 1993. Austria against Greece. East (Karlaftis) for Greece opened a strong no trump, passed out. South (name withheld to protect, for no particular reason, the guilty) led a heart from A108xx. Dummy had J7x, North Q6x, declarer K9. The position is well-known: when declarer plays low from dummy, North must avoid playing the queen (it is not likely that partner has led low from the AK against 1NT). Well, he did avoid playing the queen, but he took at least a minute to do so. Declarer won with the nine and played a card, won by South. At this point, if South placed declarer with HKQ9, he could plausibly have followed a defence that did not involve leading hearts again (which would have been fatal, for his remaining entry would be knocked out while the hearts were still blocked). Instead, at lightning speed, he cashed HA, led a heart to partner's queen, and in the fullness of time defeated the contract. Very slowly, Karlaftis (who knew perfectly well what had happened) returned his cards to the board. Finally, he shrugged and made no protest. He knew, as every seasoned international player knows, that this sort of thing happens all the time, and that it just was not worth getting involved in an appeal about 1NT. Bobby Wolff, visiting the Championships in his capacity as WBF President, was sitting beside me as I helped provide the Vugraph commentary. He left after this hand, remarking in a voice loud enough to be heard by the entire audience, "Sick game we play, isn't it?" It is a sick game we play. The standard of "ethics" displayed by the Austrians on this deal is by no means the worst that I have seen in thirteen years of attending just about every major international championship in one capacity or another. The "education" of players that has been advocated on this thread does not need to start with Todd Zimnoch, whose point is simply "If everyone else is going to cheat, why shouldn't I?" It needs to start at the very top of the game. Is anyone here an expert at belling cats? David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 6 10:29:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA27044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 10:29:11 +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 KAA27039 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 10:29:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.131.162] (helo=davidburn) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12d093-0002Q4-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 01:27:38 +0100 Message-ID: <004501bf9f5f$1b6cfc20$a28301d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200004051613.JAA23816@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: L16A: Player education Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 01:29:00 +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: > > > > But what do you lead against 3NT from > > > > > > > > Q9 > > > > J83 > > > > 9843 > > > > 9843 > > > > > > > > when partner asks about the clubs? > Of course, if this is what happens, there is a further complication, > the issue about whether asking a question immediately about an > opponent's bid (especially one that is alerted---I believe 2C would be > alerted in England, right?) conveys anything. 2C would certainly be alerted in England. A question about an alerted call is deemed to convey interest in the suit asked about - you are not supposed to ask questions on every occasion, but only when you are "interested" in the answers to them. For the "reasoning" behind this ludicrous regulation, you will have to apply to wiser heads than mine. > If one makes a habit of > asking immediately after every alert, then East's question would not > provide any information to West about clubs, about his hand strength, > or about anything else. Precisely so. Happily, we have on hand one of my fellow Laws Committee members, who will doubtless be able to convince you that making a habit of asking questions after every alert would mean the end of civilisation as we know it. Over to you, Mr Stevenson. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 6 11:03:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA27149 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 11:03:56 +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 LAA27144 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 11:03:48 +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 SAA01770; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 18:03:59 -0700 Message-Id: <200004060103.SAA01770@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal on Claims In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 06 Apr 2000 00:26:30 PDT." <001501bf9f56$60543b40$a28301d5@davidburn> Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 18:03:59 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > DWS wrote: > > > Maybe I am wrong, and it is merely usage and not Laws, but if > someone > > hesitates, there is a principle of ruling for the NOs, is there not? > > Well, how can you rule for the NOs if there are no NOs? > > If you know that there are no NOs, to rule for the NOs would be a > no-no. But if you don't know that there are no NOs, to rule against > the NOs would at best be so-so. If you can't make up your mind whether > there are NOs or no NOs, it's clearly no go. In that case, of course, > you are a bozo with a mind like a yo-yo. Yep, this explanation is right on the nose. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 6 16:18:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA27791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 16:18:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from red.impulsedata.net (root@red.impulsedata.net [209.63.64.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA27786 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 16:18:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from golddoc (153.phx-ts02.impulsedata.net [209.63.68.153]) by red.impulsedata.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA09053; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 23:16:11 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from bridgetoday@impulsedata.net) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20000405232135.0073355c@impulsedata.net> X-Sender: golddoc@impulsedata.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 23:21:35 -0700 To: "David Burn" From: Phil Guptill Subject: Re: L16A: Player education Cc: In-Reply-To: <004501bf9f5f$1b6cfc20$a28301d5@davidburn> References: <200004051613.JAA23816@mailhub.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all! At least in this post, you haven't provided us with an auction, and certainly with no reason to understand the following state- ment. >I believe 2C would be alerted in England, right?) conveys anything. In any event, the last suit I would lead in such a situation would be the club suit. At 01:29 AM 4/6/00 +0100, David Burn wrote: >Adam wrote: > >> > > > But what do you lead against 3NT from >> > > > >> > > > Q9 >> > > > J83 >> > > > 9843 >> > > > 9843 >> > > > >> > > > when partner asks about the clubs? > >> Of course, if this is what happens, there is a further complication, >> the issue about whether asking a question immediately about an >> opponent's bid (especially one that is alerted---I believe 2C would >be >> alerted in England, right?) conveys anything. > >2C would certainly be alerted in England. A question about an alerted >call is deemed to convey interest in the suit asked about - you are >not supposed to ask questions on every occasion, but only when you are >"interested" in the answers to them. For the "reasoning" behind this >ludicrous regulation, you will have to apply to wiser heads than mine. > >> If one makes a habit of >> asking immediately after every alert, then East's question would not >> provide any information to West about clubs, about his hand >strength, >> or about anything else. > >Precisely so. Happily, we have on hand one of my fellow Laws Committee >members, who will doubtless be able to convince you that making a >habit of asking questions after every alert would mean the end of >civilisation as we know it. Over to you, Mr Stevenson. > >David Burn >London, England > > > > Shalom...Phil Guptill Stamp Trader List Custodian APS#114183 PCSG#1044 bridgetoday@impulsedata.net "Ah, the insight of hindsight!" From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 6 17:50:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA27929 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 17:50:01 +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 RAA27919 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 17:49:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.72] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12d72q-000Ip0-00; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 08:49:41 +0100 Message-ID: <003201bf9f9c$b353ee80$485408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , References: <000e01bf9f43$6a4b2cc0$9484d9ce@oemcomputer> <003301bf9f5d$e0950260$a28301d5@davidburn> Subject: Re: L16A: Player education Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 08:49:21 +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: Thursday, April 06, 2000 1:20 AM Subject: Re: L16A: Player education > I have been staying out of this, for the views expressed have been > sufficiently vigorous and comprehensive. I think, though, that one > incident which remains in my mind seven years after it took place may > give some notion of the extent of the problem. > +=+ An older incident that I witnessed as a spectator in a British Grandmasters event has lingered long with me. The suit was Diamonds. Declarer was in 3NT, had to lose a trick to set up his contract and had a wide open suit. The opening lead was a smallish Diamond and before playing from K Q x in dummy, Declarer asked a question about lead style; receiving a reply he asked a supplementary question. He played King and it held, RHO contributing an indeterminate card of the suit. Declarer's holding was A.J.T.x.x. The defenders' names were known in Britain. Declarer's name would be recognized instantly, which may be why the incident left a scorch mark in my mind. It also prospered in me support for the 'need to know' argument. I may be just too idealistic about these things; there was no summons for the Director. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 6 17:50:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA27931 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 17:50:01 +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 RAA27920 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 17:49:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.72] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12d72p-000Ip0-00; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 08:49:39 +0100 Message-ID: <003101bf9f9c$b2582960$485408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" References: <01bf9f5d$29ac5d00$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: Birds in their little nests should agree. Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 08:47:37 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: Thursday, April 06, 2000 1:15 AM Subject: Birds in their little nests should agree. > Brethren, > I appreciate that heated discussion ensues > from many of our deliberations, and that is > healthy, good for the game, and sometimes > productive. > The continual sniping and flaming that is going > on at the moment is none of these things. > ( ) > Anne +=+ What have I missed? The only strong words that I am reading just now show a healthy and justified concern for the proprieties of the game. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 6 18:48:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA27999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 18:48:06 +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 SAA27994 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 18:47:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.196.129] (helo=davidburn) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12d7wv-0005Lp-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 09:47:37 +0100 Message-ID: <001501bf9fa4$f2ef86a0$81c401d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200004051613.JAA23816@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.3.32.20000405232135.0073355c@impulsedata.net> Subject: Re: L16A: Player education Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 09:48:57 +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 Phil wrote: > Hi all! > > At least in this post, you haven't provided us with an auction, > and certainly with no reason to understand the following state- > ment. > > >I believe 2C would be alerted in England, right?) conveys anything. > > In any event, the last suit I would lead in such a situation would > be the club suit. Apologies for having snipped the auction under discussion, which was: Q9 J83 9843 9843 West North East South 1NT Pass 2C Pass* 2H Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass *after asking a question about 2C and being told that it was Stayman. Adam then wrote: Of course, if this is what happens, there is a further complication, the issue about whether asking a question immediately about an opponent's bid (especially one that is alerted---I believe 2C would be alerted in England, right?) conveys anything. 2C would be alerted in England. East in England would be permitted to ask for an explanation only if his course of action would depend on the answer he received. The original point was that if East did ask a question and then pass, West would be constrained to lead a diamond (if he led a minor), the unauthorised information from East's question making a club lead an infraction. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 6 20:01:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA28101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 20:01:14 +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 UAA28096 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 20:01:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (pcciborowski.comarch.pl [195.116.125.138]) by omicron.comarch.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F9535C045 for ; Thu, 06 Apr 2000 12:01:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38EC608E.4B0DF970@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 12:01:50 +0200 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: L16A: Player education References: <000e01bf9f43$6a4b2cc0$9484d9ce@oemcomputer> <003301bf9f5d$e0950260$a28301d5@davidburn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > I have been staying out of this, for the views expressed have been > sufficiently vigorous and comprehensive. I think, though, that one > incident which remains in my mind seven years after it took place may > give some notion of the extent of the problem. > Is anyone here an expert at belling cats? > > David Burn > London, England A good question: who will bell the cat? The following incident was described a couple of years ago in one of the Polish bridge magazines: AK10x Qxx Janusz Polec was declarer as South. He cashed the Ace and his RHO played a third card from the right in his hand. Then South cashed the queen and his RHO played a second card from the right. Polec therefore played low to the Ace and his RHO, as you certainly have guessed already, played a first card from the right in his hand. To Polec's horror, however, it wasn't the jack he hoped for but a card of a different suit... The best is still to come: Polec called the TD and complained: "You cannot sort you cards so unnaturally"!!! Incredible? Yes. Unbelievable? Yes. But can anyone tell why this man is still alive? -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Thu Apr 6 23:56:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA28636 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 23:56:37 +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 XAA28628 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 23:56:18 +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 12dClG-0009LP-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 13:55:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 14:22:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L16A: Player education References: <200004051613.JAA23816@mailhub.irvine.com> <004501bf9f5f$1b6cfc20$a28301d5@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <004501bf9f5f$1b6cfc20$a28301d5@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >Adam wrote: > >> > > > But what do you lead against 3NT from >> > > > >> > > > Q9 >> > > > J83 >> > > > 9843 >> > > > 9843 >> > > > >> > > > when partner asks about the clubs? > >> Of course, if this is what happens, there is a further complication, >> the issue about whether asking a question immediately about an >> opponent's bid (especially one that is alerted---I believe 2C would >be >> alerted in England, right?) conveys anything. > >2C would certainly be alerted in England. A question about an alerted >call is deemed to convey interest in the suit asked about - you are >not supposed to ask questions on every occasion, but only when you are >"interested" in the answers to them. For the "reasoning" behind this >ludicrous regulation, you will have to apply to wiser heads than mine. > >> If one makes a habit of >> asking immediately after every alert, then East's question would not >> provide any information to West about clubs, about his hand >strength, >> or about anything else. > >Precisely so. Happily, we have on hand one of my fellow Laws Committee >members, who will doubtless be able to convince you that making a >habit of asking questions after every alert would mean the end of >civilisation as we know it. Over to you, Mr Stevenson. What a charming approach. Anyway, on to the question that he has set me: what happens if someone asks after every alert? I think that, if he does, he provides no UI to partner, and there is only one problem: time. Bridge is a timed sport, and if it is not acceptable to exceed the permitted time. People that always ask about alerted calls may exceed the permitted time. More importantly, people that ask after some calls only often provide UI by the choice of calls. Is this acceptable? -- 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 Apr 6 23:56:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA28641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 23:56:37 +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 XAA28630 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 23:56:25 +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 12dClV-0009LW-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 13:56:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 14:44:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L16A: Player education References: <20000405171641.70749.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000405171641.70749.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 reject the notion everywhere that ethics are governed by legislation. > If a certain action is considered unethical with the law book, then it >will remain so without the law book. You will have to make your argument >outside the law book before I'm convinced. According to your current >argument, if 16A1 and 73C were removed from the law book then there is no >ethics problem. "Using UI" is illegal. The Law book says so: logic says so. > Opponents are entitled to an adjustment under 16A1. If I make an >infraction, my score will be adjusted to or below what it would have been >had I not made the infraction. I fail to see how opponents are harmed by >this. I can think of plenty of ways that I'm harmed by the alternative of >applying 16A1 (incompetently) to myself. The Laws tell you to do something: refusing to do it because you may suffer is unacceptable. -- 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 Apr 6 23:52:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA28614 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 23:52:49 +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 XAA28609 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 23:52:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from Aspire.eiu.edu (eiuts58.eiu.edu [139.67.16.58]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA08021 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 08:56:41 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000406085834.007d1c40@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 08:58:34 -0500 To: From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: L16A: Player education In-Reply-To: <003301bf9f5d$e0950260$a28301d5@davidburn> References: <000e01bf9f43$6a4b2cc0$9484d9ce@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:20 AM 4/6/00 +0100, David Burn wrote: >championship in one capacity or another. The "education" of players >that has been advocated on this thread does not need to start with >Todd Zimnoch, whose point is simply "If everyone else is going to >cheat, why shouldn't I?" It needs to start at the very top of the >game. Is anyone here an expert at belling cats? Several dedicated readers of this list resent the implication that cats would cheat at bridge. >David Burn >London, England -Big Mac, for the Cat-BLML Anti-Defamation League From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 6 23:56:47 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA28646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 23:56:47 +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 XAA28634 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 23:56:28 +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 12dClH-0009LN-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 13:56:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 14:43:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L16A: Player education References: <20000404175516.27591.qmail@hotmail.com> <3.0.6.32.20000406000549.007d6430@eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000406000549.007d6430@eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > While DWS and GE, et al, have objected to Todd's position, I >don't think anyone has addressed his three main arguments for that position. > >At 10:55 AM 4/4/2000 PDT, Todd Zimnoch wrote: >> No it doesn't. It says that (intentionally) breaking the law is >>illegal. This is no surprize and doesn't weigh in the matter of ethics. >>The idea of a revoke to gain 3 tricks (I mentioned it for a reason) is in >>clearer violation of L72B2. >> I think it's a great law that works well for delivering rulings. But >>if you want to bring proprieties into play, I believe that the text of L16A >>is in conflict with L72A6. L73C tells a player what to do, and failure to follow it is not legal. You cannot, for example, revoke deliberately and claim L72A6 supports this. L16A tells the player what will happen if he does not follow L173C. > Here is argument 1. L16, in Todd's view, requires the player to >be his own judge and jury, implementing penalties upon himself. Since >L72a6 forbids this, L16 contradicts L72a6. Say it ain't so! Well, it is not. In the presence of UI, certain actions become illegal - and L72B2 says that a player may not take illegal actions deliberately. Before everyone jumps on me about the problems of knowing what is illegal, the main thing that *I* ask is that people should act as ethically as possible, not that they should always succeed. What I really *hate* are people who know that one action is illegal taking it in case they get a lucky break with oppos not calling the cops, or the TD/AC having an off-day. > Or, to put it another way, >a bid is only a LA if it has been determined to be one by a TD or AC. >Therefore, as a player, I am not knowingly violating L16, since I can't >know whether my bid had a LA or not, or whether the call I made was >demonstrably suggested or not. Todd argues that he has a very bad >record at guessing what TD's and AC's will say is an LA or is suggested, >and so he cannot be expected to make that decision for himself at the table. Todd can argue what he likes: in the majority of UI situations it is quite obvious what action not to take. Those are the ones that worry me. If there are situations where it is not clear, I m less unhappy. Still, what about L73C? > So if I bid what I would have bid, I am not knowingly violating any >law: > Not L16, since I don't know that the hesitation is unmistakeable, the >bid had LA's, or the one I chose was demonstrably suggested. > Not L73c, since by making the very same bid I would have made anyway >I am not taking advantage of UI. Oh, yes you are!!!!! If you make the bid you always would have made, knowing it to be illegal, then an ethical player in your shoes will not: you are gaining an illegal advantage over him and over your current opponents. OK, if you have a player who does not subscribe to BLML he may not understand the Laws. But what we must do is to work out what players should do, and educate them. > Not L72b2, since I do not know I am violating a law. > > I don't accept this argument, for several reasons. First, as DWS >has pointed out, in the vast majority of cases you _do_ know what has >been suggested. Second, you cannot ever be certain of the bid you would >have made without the UI, especially since the effect is often not conscious. >Finally, in those cases where one is not certain about the hesitation, >suggested LA's, etc., there's no reason why one cannot do ones best. One of the dangers of the bid what you always would approach is that people convince themselves that they always would have bid that. Take the sort of auction I cited earlier [and please ignore the pointless pointing out of freak hand that does not come to the same conclusion: of course there are exceptions, but I have no idea what they do for the argument]: 1H 1S 1NT 2S 3H 4S X NB ? Now people usually pass this sort of auction without much thought. But when the double was slow, they ponder for a time, and eventually convince themselves that this might be the time to remove the double. then they decide that they always would have thought this way - then they take it out. The ethical player thinks of L73C, notes that with his hand some people pass - and passes. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo got over *forty* emails on his birthday, April 5th. Quango got *twenty* emails on his birthday: he is **not** amused. Their pictures are at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 6 23:56:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA28629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 23:56:28 +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 XAA28621 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 23:56:12 +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 12dClG-000484-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 13:55:55 +0000 Message-ID: <$RIbhoGIBJ74Ew2a@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 14:25:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L16A: Player education References: <9cvLSNDTa164Ewfl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <200004052139.OAA30369@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200004052139.OAA30369@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > >I haven't been following this thread closely enough to make any >detailed comments. However, the latest couple posts brought to mind >something that happened to me a number of years ago. > >LHO opened 2C (strong), partner doubled, I alerted since we had agreed >to play CRASH (double = red suits or black suits). However, partner's >facial expression after I alerted made it clear that he had forgotten >the convention. Eventually, I resolved the dilemma by taking a save >in one of suits partner was obviously showing (but actually had a void >in), and going for about -2300. In retrospect, I believe my action >was not a logical alternative, and I should have let them play their >4S. However, I am also convinced that doing nothing would not have >been an alternative, particularly since the opponents probably didn't >know that partner made a face. So Adam decided to act as ethically as possible: I admire this. > I believe the right action (in this >situation) would have been to pass, and then call the TD after the >hand and let him judge whether my pass was illegal. (Against more >experienced opponents, perhaps I could have explained what happened to >them, and let them judge whether they thought it was necessary to call >the TD.) One of the problems of letting the oppos protect themselves is that they may not know the Laws. >But in any case, I much prefer having done what I did, and getting the >big negative score, to doing nothing at all. If I had simply said to >myself, "bidding is obviously illogical" and left it at that, the >opponents may well have been harmed. If my pass turned out to be >illegal, the opponents wouldn't have known to call the TD since they >didn't know about the UI I had. But I would feel the same way in a >case where partner's action (e.g. a hesitation) is as obvious to the >opponents as it is to me. If I don't do what I reasonably can to make >sure I'm obeying the Laws, I might harm the opponents, since (1) they >might not have noticed the hesitation, (2) they might not know the >Laws well enough to know that I could be breaking them, (3) they might >not realize that I had a hand that didn't have a clearcut action, e.g. >if they claim early and we acquiesce and no one gets to see my cards. >I'm not saying I'd call the TD on myself in all cases; but I'd at >least think about it a little harder to make sure I'm not taking >advantage of the UI. Some games have an attitude that if you do >something wrong and the opponents and/or referees don't catch it, >that's tough luck for them. Bridge players decided long ago that >bridge shouldn't be like that. I agree with that decision. If everyone followed Adam in their decision-making, bridge would be more just, more enjoyable, and more popular. -- 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 Apr 7 01:19:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA28853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 01:19:18 +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 BAA28848 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 01:18:43 +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 IAA16354; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 08:18:53 -0700 Message-Id: <200004061518.IAA16354@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: L16A: Player education In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 06 Apr 2000 01:29:00 PDT." <004501bf9f5f$1b6cfc20$a28301d5@davidburn> Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 08:18:53 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > Adam wrote: > > > > > > But what do you lead against 3NT from > > > > > > > > > > Q9 > > > > > J83 > > > > > 9843 > > > > > 9843 > > > > > > > > > > when partner asks about the clubs? > > > Of course, if this is what happens, there is a further complication, > > the issue about whether asking a question immediately about an > > opponent's bid (especially one that is alerted---I believe 2C would > be > > alerted in England, right?) conveys anything. > > 2C would certainly be alerted in England. A question about an alerted > call is deemed to convey interest in the suit asked about - you are > not supposed to ask questions on every occasion, but only when you are > "interested" in the answers to them. For the "reasoning" behind this > ludicrous regulation, you will have to apply to wiser heads than mine. Someday, over there, there will be an auction that neither opponent asks any questions about, and then declarer will complain that one opponent received UI that his partner had no interest in the hand, from his partner's failure to ask any questions, and that the opponent chose an alternative that could have been suggested by this UI about the lack of interest. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 7 01:30:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA28888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 01:30:18 +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 BAA28883 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 01:30:06 +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 IAA16545; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 08:30:21 -0700 Message-Id: <200004061530.IAA16545@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: L16A: Player education In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 06 Apr 2000 01:20:11 PDT." <003301bf9f5d$e0950260$a28301d5@davidburn> Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 08:30:21 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > European Championships, 1993. Austria against Greece. East (Karlaftis) > for Greece opened a strong no trump, passed out. South (name withheld > to protect, for no particular reason, the guilty) led a heart from > A108xx. Dummy had J7x, North Q6x, declarer K9. The position is > well-known: when declarer plays low from dummy, North must avoid > playing the queen (it is not likely that partner has led low from the > AK against 1NT). > > Well, he did avoid playing the queen, but he took at least a minute to > do so. Declarer won with the nine and played a card, won by South. At > this point, if South placed declarer with HKQ9, he could plausibly > have followed a defence that did not involve leading hearts again > (which would have been fatal, for his remaining entry would be knocked > out while the hearts were still blocked). Instead, at lightning speed, > he cashed HA, led a heart to partner's queen, and in the fullness of > time defeated the contract. To tell the truth, I would have paused for a long time as North before playing low; but then again, I also would have paused for a long time before playing low from 6xx---or even from a small singleton. The reason is that, after seeing dummy for the first time, I need some time to study the hand and figure out how I plan to defend. Or, more accurately, I only need a fraction of a second for my intuition to tell me what the best plan is, but I need extra time to study the hand logically and methodically, so that I can think myself out of the winning plan and into the defense that lets declarer make. :( But the fact that South quickly found partner's queen is an indication that South knew something more was going on here than just a pause to study the hand. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 7 02:13:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA29159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 02:13:06 +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 CAA29154 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 02:12:43 +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 RAA00038; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 17:12:18 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA11546; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 17:12:17 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Thu, 06 Apr 2000 16:12:17 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 RAA17172; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 17:12:16 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id RAA27860; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 17:12:15 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 17:12:15 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200004061612.RAA27860@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L16A: Player education Cc: adam@irvine.com X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > 2C would certainly be alerted in England. A question about an alerted > > call is deemed to convey interest in the suit asked about - you are > > not supposed to ask questions on every occasion, but only when you are > > "interested" in the answers to them. For the "reasoning" behind this > > ludicrous regulation, you will have to apply to wiser heads than mine. > > Someday, over there, there will be an auction that neither opponent > asks any questions about, and then declarer will complain that one > opponent received UI that his partner had no interest in the hand, > from his partner's failure to ask any questions, and that the opponent > chose an alternative that could have been suggested by this UI about > the lack of interest. > > -- Adam For instance: 1H (P) 4C* (P)** ... ** = no question, here double says lead clubs if 4C is Swiss, but says lead diamonds if 4C is a splinter. So the opening lead is a spade. Robin -- Robin Barker | Eail: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, 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 Apr 7 03:11:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA29313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 03:11:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA29308 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 03:10:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from meteo.fr (rubis.meteo.fr [137.129.5.28]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA01549 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 17:10:10 GMT Message-ID: <38ECC514.157C45FA@meteo.fr> Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 19:10:44 +0200 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L16A: Player education References: <20000405171641.70749.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson a écrit : > > Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > > I reject the notion everywhere that ethics are governed by legislation. > > If a certain action is considered unethical with the law book, then it > >will remain so without the law book. You will have to make your argument > >outside the law book before I'm convinced. According to your current > >argument, if 16A1 and 73C were removed from the law book then there is no > >ethics problem. > > "Using UI" is illegal. The Law book says so: logic says so. Anyway there is a problem with UI; we have a very long thread about it, and the discussion comes back from time to time. 99% of ethical bridge players are not aware of their obligations about UI and can't only believe you when you try to explain or to read them the book. As i see it, the difficulty lies in a contradiction between L16A and L73C. Roughly speaking, 73C tells: "don't use UI", and 16A says "use UI". I agree you must use UI in some particular way so as to do the contrary to what UI tends to incline you to do, but you must take UI into account in your thinking process. And, even more perverse, by using UI as told by 16A, you will get a better score than the one you should have been given if you had not used UI: in a binary situation, you have 2 LA (A and B), A being suggested by UI and we will suppose you think you would have chosen A absent UI. If you follow 16A, you bid B and you will get the score of B. If you naively bid A (the bid you think you would always have bid, maybe you only know 73C and not 16A) you will score the worse score of A and B, after TD's intervention. Try an experiment: ask some bridge players not very interested in the subtleties of Laws (not very difficult to find) to read 16A and 73C and to tell you what they understand. JP Rocafort > > > Opponents are entitled to an adjustment under 16A1. If I make an > >infraction, my score will be adjusted to or below what it would have been > >had I not made the infraction. I fail to see how opponents are harmed by > >this. I can think of plenty of ways that I'm harmed by the alternative of > >applying 16A1 (incompetently) to myself. > > The Laws tell you to do something: refusing to do it because you may > suffer is unacceptable. > > -- > 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 -- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 7 04:17:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA29320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 03:11:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from poseidon.tcp.net.uk (poseidon.tcp.net.uk [195.80.0.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA29315 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 03:11:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (vt1-116.du.tcp.co.uk [195.80.1.116]) by poseidon.tcp.net.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id SAA16000 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 18:11:30 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000406180819.007a9cf0@popmail.tcp.co.uk> X-Sender: spock@popmail.tcp.co.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 18:08:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: M Smith Subject: Re: L16A: Player education Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Adam wrote: > > > > > > But what do you lead against 3NT from > > > > > > > > > > Q9 > > > > > J83 > > > > > 9843 > > > > > 9843 > > > > > > > > > > when partner asks about the clubs? Of course, there are players who are sufficiently devious to realize that when they do not want a club lead they can ask about 2C with the result that their ethical partner will lead a non-club. It should, presumably, also be possible to rule against them too, but it seems a much more difficult case to prove... Marc From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 7 04:26:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA29566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 04:26:35 +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 EAA29561 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 04:26:27 +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 LAA19868; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 11:26:41 -0700 Message-Id: <200004061826.LAA19868@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: L16A: Player education In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 06 Apr 2000 19:10:44 PDT." <38ECC514.157C45FA@meteo.fr> Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 11:26:43 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk JP Rocafort wrote: > Anyway there is a problem with UI; we have a very long thread about it, > and the discussion comes back from time to time. 99% of ethical bridge > players are not aware of their obligations about UI and can't only > believe you when you try to explain or to read them the book. > As i see it, the difficulty lies in a contradiction between L16A and > L73C. Roughly speaking, 73C tells: "don't use UI", and 16A says "use > UI". There's no contradiction, because 73C actually says, roughly, "don't use UI to your advantage". This doesn't contradict 16A at all, of course. While some of the Laws are written in such a way that an average player, reading cursorily, might misinterpret the Law to mean something it doesn't, I can't see how that could happen with 73C. I've looked it over, and in my opinion, the only two ways someone could interpret this Law are either, "Don't use UI to your advantage", or "I can't figure out what this means. Was this written by some ivory-tower academic snot who likes throwing around big words like 'accrue' and 'cursorily' to impress people?" But I don't see how someone reading this could think it just means "Don't use UI". Of course, my comments apply to the English version of the Laws. Perhaps the French wording lends itself to misinterpretation more easily. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 7 04:44:05 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA29641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 04:44:05 +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 EAA29636 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 04:43:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from calum (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA29392 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 14:43:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200004061843.OAA29392@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L16A: Player education Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <20000405171641.70749.qmail@hotmail.com> References: <20000405171641.70749.qmail@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 14:43:19 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 5 April 2000 at 10:16, "Todd Zimnoch" wrote: > If a certain action is considered unethical with the law book, then it >will remain so without the law book. You will have to make your argument >outside the law book before I'm convinced. According to your current >argument, if 16A1 and 73C were removed from the law book then there is no >ethics problem. I guess it's time for a little history. The Proprieties have always been a part of the FLB (? at least as far back as 1950 or so, the earliest bridge book I have that has a "synopsis" of "Bridge laws you need to know". BTW, I see that many of the "classic" bridge books do this: Schienwold's "5 Weeks", Schenken's "Better bidding in 15 minutes" are the two that come to mind immediately. Why isn't there anything in our current teaching books?) This was because the game of Bridge is a gentleman's game, and ethics was an unstated rule of Society (at least, that's how it was supposed to go). In 1975 (again, IIRC), it was deemed that many players, at all levels, thought that simply because they were Proprieties, and not Laws, that they "should" be followed, but "needn't" if it would harm their chances of winning. I suspect that this was especially true in the US, where "unethical" doesn't have the same ostracizing quality it does elsewhere, and is often renamed "hard-line", "aggressive", or "competitive". Therefore, the Proprieties were made part of the Laws to underline their importance. So now, yes, ethics are defined by the Law Book, and if it isn't there, it isn't [un]ethical. In fact, L72B2 makes it illegal to be unethical, but doing something illegal is not necessarily unethical. If the world suddenly decided that looking at defender's hand to determine where cards are coming from was ok, and the next edition of the FLB didn't have that restriction, then yes, it would suddenly become ethical. Is this a problem? I don't think so - Bridge has its own standard of ethics, and because they are unusual in sports, they have to enumerate and legislate them, or the players and officials would not know what is expected. Note also that Bridge is also not the only sport that has done this: the most famous change done for "ethical" reasons (as opposed to "game interest" reasons) is the Bodyline rule in Cricket (for NA non-cricketers, imagine if there was no penalty for hitting the batter with a pitch. Now imagine one team in the world series whose pitching staff consisted of 5 fastballers that aimed for the head.) Many other sports have considered certain tactics "undesired", and legislated them out of existence - the NBA and zone defence, the NHL and goalie interference, curling and the 3 (or 4)- rock rule... However, note the words "knowingly" and "intentionally". A player that doesn't know his responsibilities under the Laws may get penalized for doing something illegal, but will only be caught against the "ethics laws" if he knows that it is illegal, and deliberately did it anyway. "But why should I put myself under a handicap that others don't have?" Because a) that's what the Laws tell you you must do, and b) it is now in your best interest to promote universal knowledge of the appropriate "ethical" laws - after that, you won't be under that handicap. "But what happens if I do something and it wasn't needed?" Then you have neither a win tarnished by your knowledge of seedy play nor a reputation that encourages Director calls at the slightest hint of concern. In any "gentlemanly society", your reputation is the single most valuable currency you have - it is up to you to decide what that currency will be worth. In final: Illegal - violating one of the laws. Unethical - doing something that Bridge considers "not right". Note that because the proprieties are part of the Laws, unethical acts are illegal, but not all illegal acts are unethical. Cheating - *intentionally* doing something *known to be* illegal, *in order to profit therefrom*. Note that according to L72B2, this is both illegal and unethical, but not all illegal or unethical acts are cheating. > Opponents are entitled to an adjustment under 16A1. If I make an >infraction, my score will be adjusted to or below what it would have been >had I not made the infraction. I fail to see how opponents are harmed by >this. I can think of plenty of ways that I'm harmed by the alternative of >applying 16A1 (incompetently) to myself. > "Being harmed" is not the point (though others have argued quite well why this argument is not quite accurate). If you do not follow L73C, and "do what you would have done without the UI" is considered, rightly IMO, to not be following L73C, you are doing something illegal. If you do it, deliberately, and with knowledge that what you are doing is illegal, in order to not be "harmed", then you are cheating. It's that simple. If you don't think that's how the game should go, come up with another suggestion that will solve the current problem while still allowing you your wish, and that doesn't inordinately impact others (requiring 50% more TD's, for instance); and send it in. There's a few people whose opinions bear weight on the next edition of the FLB that read this list :-). Michael. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 7 05:24:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA29328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 03:13:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f89.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.89]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA29323 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 03:12:55 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 23003 invoked by uid 0); 6 Apr 2000 17:12:07 -0000 Message-ID: <20000406171207.23002.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.22 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 06 Apr 2000 10:12:07 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.22] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L16A: Player education Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 10:12:07 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "David Burn" >Phil wrote: >Apologies for having snipped the auction under discussion, which was: > >Q9 >J83 >9843 >9843 > >West North East South > 1NT >Pass 2C Pass* 2H >Pass 3NT Pass Pass >Pass > >*after asking a question about 2C and being told that it was Stayman. > >Adam then wrote: > >Of course, if this is what happens, there is a further complication, >the issue about whether asking a question immediately about an >opponent's bid (especially one that is alerted---I believe 2C would >be alerted in England, right?) conveys anything. > >2C would be alerted in England. East in England would be permitted to >ask for an explanation only if his course of action would depend on >the answer he received. The original point was that if East did ask a >question and then pass, West would be constrained to lead a diamond >(if he led a minor), the unauthorised information from East's question >making a club lead an infraction. > >David Burn >London, England And I know this is a problem with my understanding of the game, but... I would think the question and subsequent pass shows something other than clubs. Or maybe it's a particular agreement that I use that doubles of stayman or transfers are lead directing. -Todd ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 7 10:31:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA00561 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 10:31:44 +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 KAA00553 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 10:31:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.182.110] (helo=davidburn) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12dMgB-00071i-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 01:31:19 +0100 Message-ID: <002f01bfa028$c0f6d0c0$6eb601d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200004061518.IAA16354@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: L16A: Player education Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 01:32:26 +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: > Someday, over there, there will be an auction that neither opponent > asks any questions about, and then declarer will complain that one > opponent received UI that his partner had no interest in the hand, > from his partner's failure to ask any questions, and that the opponent > chose an alternative that could have been suggested by this UI about > the lack of interest. It may happen over there also. Your lawyers are more ingenious than ours. I mentioned in some other context that one day, this auction might occur in perfect tempo: 1S - 3S (limit) - 4S, and the man who had bid 4S on an average opening bid would be found guilty of using the UI that his partner had a normal, and not a minimum, limit raise (with which he might have hesitated). It is precisely to prevent this sort of thing that the WBF Code of Practice recommends random tempo when transferring the tray under the screen. It is worth noting that this solution actually works perfectly, as would any purely mechanical solution (such as "all alerts should be followed by a question", or "all cards not covered by a claim statement should be deemed to be played misere"). The solutions which do not work are those which rely on any or all of: the integrity of players (who do not have very much); the judgement of Tournament Directors and Appeals Committees (vanishingly small); the "intent of the Law" (since following Edgar Kaplan's death, God only knows what this was, and even He might have to consult); or an appeal to the "spirit of the game" (it being extremely dubious whether or not this exists, but even if it does, it is wholly impossible to codify within the Laws). And yet, the belief persists that it is perfectly OK to have a set of Laws which the players of the game do not understand. Most situations, according to certain eminent authorities, are not problematic, and those that are can be left in the safe hands of TDs or ACs. This ruinous complacency must somehow be disturbed; it is entirely shameful that we should consider it necessary to "educate players" when we ourselves have made the Laws so opaque that no one can be expected to comprehend them. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 7 11:11:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA00660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 11:11:51 +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 LAA00655 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 11:11:44 +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 12dNJ7-000GJn-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 02:11:34 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 01:27:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L16A: Player education References: <3.0.6.32.20000406180819.007a9cf0@popmail.tcp.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000406180819.007a9cf0@popmail.tcp.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk M Smith wrote: > >> Adam wrote: >> >> > > > > But what do you lead against 3NT from >> > > > > >> > > > > Q9 >> > > > > J83 >> > > > > 9843 >> > > > > 9843 >> > > > > >> > > > > when partner asks about the clubs? > >Of course, there are players who are sufficiently devious to realize that >when they do not want a club lead they can ask about 2C with the result >that their ethical partner will lead a non-club. > >It should, presumably, also be possible to rule against them too, but it >seems a much more difficult case to prove... We don't work on proof: we just rule on our judgement. Furthermore, we have long memories. This type of thing would last a time, yes, but the players would find it does not work in the long run. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo got over *forty* emails on his birthday, April 5th. Quango got *twenty* emails on his birthday: he is **not** amused. Their pictures are at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 7 12:21:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA00777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 12:21:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from poseidon.tcp.net.uk (poseidon.tcp.net.uk [195.80.0.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA00772 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 12:21:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (vt1-93.du.tcp.co.uk [195.80.1.93]) by poseidon.tcp.net.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id DAA20021 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 03:21:07 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000407032418.007ec3f0@popmail.tcp.co.uk> X-Sender: spock@popmail.tcp.co.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 03:24:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: M Smith Subject: Re: L16A: Player education Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk M Smith wrote: > >> Adam wrote: >> >> > > > > But what do you lead against 3NT from >> > > > > >> > > > > Q9 >> > > > > J83 >> > > > > 9843 >> > > > > 9843 >> > > > > >> > > > > when partner asks about the clubs? > >Of course, there are players who are sufficiently devious to realize that >when they do not want a club lead they can ask about 2C with the result >that their ethical partner will lead a non-club. > >It should, presumably, also be possible to rule against them too, but it >seems a much more difficult case to prove... We don't work on proof: we just rule on our judgement. Furthermore, we have long memories. This type of thing would last a time, yes, but the players would find it does not work in the long run. One wonders if anyone would even think to call a director, though... After all, what is the complaint to be? LHO didn't lead the suit indicated by his partner's question? Marc From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 7 13:40:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA00907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 13:40:32 +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 NAA00902 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 13:40:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.89.18] (helo=davidburn) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12dPcn-0006yW-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 04:40:02 +0100 Message-ID: <000f01bfa043$2356b040$125901d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000406180819.007a9cf0@popmail.tcp.co.uk> Subject: Re: L16A: Player education Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 04:41:19 +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: > M Smith wrote: > > > >> Adam wrote: > >> > >> > > > > But what do you lead against 3NT from > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Q9 > >> > > > > J83 > >> > > > > 9843 > >> > > > > 9843 > >> > > > > > >> > > > > when partner asks about the clubs? > > > >Of course, there are players who are sufficiently devious to realize that > >when they do not want a club lead they can ask about 2C with the result > >that their ethical partner will lead a non-club. > > > >It should, presumably, also be possible to rule against them too, but it > >seems a much more difficult case to prove... > > We don't work on proof: we just rule on our judgement. A more concise and damning indictment of everything that is wrong with the present system would be hard to find. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 7 20:49:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA01734 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 20:49:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail3.svr.pol.co.uk (mail3.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.19]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA01729 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 20:48:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem4294967214.firearms.dialup.pol.co.uk ([195.92.2.210] helo=biggy) by mail3.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 12dWJc-0002sw-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 07 Apr 2000 11:48:40 +0100 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000407113859.0137e810@pop.swinternet.net> X-Sender: brighton-bridge.swinternet.co.uk@pop.swinternet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 11:49:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Dave Armstrong Subject: Re: L16A: Player education In-Reply-To: <002f01bfa028$c0f6d0c0$6eb601d5@davidburn> References: <200004061518.IAA16354@mailhub.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:32 07/04/2000 , you wrote: >David Burn wrote - > >And yet, the belief persists that it is perfectly OK to have a set of >Laws which the players of the game do not understand. Most situations, >according to certain eminent authorities, are not problematic, and >those that are can be left in the safe hands of TDs or ACs. This >ruinous complacency must somehow be disturbed; it is entirely shameful >that we should consider it necessary to "educate players" when we >ourselves have made the Laws so opaque that no one can be expected to >comprehend them. > >David Burn >London, England > David is certainly correct about the laws being opaque. I have just spent a long 60 minutes trying to explain to some students about the purpose of the stop card. I even used the example of a slow 1NT opening. ALL the students got it right and said it showed a hand that was either not the correct strength or shape. they then said, "but the opponents know that too, so that's all right isn't it?" As I have stated in other places, the difficulty arises not with the laws but the fact that we must report on infractions ourselves. It is calling the director that is seen to be aggressive and not the infraction. Games that have an "on the spot" referee do not have this problem ours always will. So the teachers must start getting players into good habits at square one and not say that we need not cover laws or, more importantly, ethics until they get to the club. The Chimp Dave A From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 7 21:30:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA01818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 21:30:36 +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 VAA01813 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 21:30:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from p0es05a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.85.15] helo=pacific) by cobalt1-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12dWwM-0002xb-00; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 04:28:42 -0700 Message-ID: <000b01bfa084$a690d4e0$0f5593c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <20000405171641.70749.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: L16A: Player education Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 12:29:23 +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: 06 April 2000 14:44 Subject: Re: L16A: Player education > Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > > I reject the notion everywhere that ethics are governed by legislation. > > If a certain action is considered unethical with the law book, then it > >will remain so without the law book. You will have to make your argument > >outside the law book before I'm convinced. According to your current > >argument, if 16A1 and 73C were removed from the law book then there is no > >ethics problem. > > "Using UI" is illegal. The Law book says so: logic says so. > +=+ The position I have stated is that a player who does 'x' in the knowledge that the laws require him not to do 'x' is in breach of Law 72B2. This Law is in the chapter of the laws headed 'Proprieties' so that a breach of it in full awareness of what it says is a deliberate and flagrant impropriety. What outrages me is not the breach of law for which redress is available, but the attitude of mind that considers it has a right to ignore a law in full awareness of the duty imposed by it. The ethics of the game of bridge are, in part, governed by the laws of the game. That is a condition under which we play the game. They are also governed by the social mores of the bridge community, as has been demonstrated to some extent in this thread; I think this may be the greater deterrent. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 8 01:32:29 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA02550 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 01:32:29 +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 BAA02544 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 01:32:21 +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 KAA15588 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 10:36:34 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000407223108.007d88e0@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 22:31:08 -0500 To: From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: L16A: Player education In-Reply-To: <002f01bfa028$c0f6d0c0$6eb601d5@davidburn> References: <200004061518.IAA16354@mailhub.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:32 AM 4/7/2000 +0100, David Burn wrote: >It is precisely to prevent this sort of thing that the WBF Code of >Practice recommends random tempo when transferring the tray under the >screen. It is worth noting that this solution actually works >perfectly, as would any purely mechanical solution (such as "all >alerts should be followed by a question", or "all cards not covered by >a claim statement should be deemed to be played misere"). The >solutions which do not work are those which rely on any or all of: the Part of the problem, I think, is that this argument seems to many of us to beg the question. By what criterion do we differentiate those solutions that "work" from those that do not? If you say that the relevant criteria are [only] 'ease of understanding the rule' and 'effectiveness at eliminating the problem', then of course things are pretty much as you say. The problem is when you add criteria that involve things like 'keeping the game going at a reasonable tempo', 'not unduly penalizing or offending less experienced players', 'according as closely as possible with natural justice', 'encouraging a pleasant atmosphere for the game', etc., then it is no longer obvious that these solutions "work" at all. Now, of course, you may not think some of these are desireable ends. You may think that some of the solutions you mentioned do not infringe on these aims. You may think that some of these aims are not even coherent. But, at any rate, the case for mechanical solutions becomes rather less obvious. Consider screens themselves. Do screens help us to reduce UI problems, among other things? Yes, they certainly do. Do I want to use screens at my local club, or even in the smaller tournaments? No, I do not. Screens have a cost in atmosphere and time that outweigh their benefits in law-enforcement, at that level. Should we have them in international competition? Of course--at that level, the other criteria become central. Should we have strict rules requiring pairs to have clear agreements about the meanings of their bids? At the Bermuda Bowl, perhaps yes. At the game in the back room of the local bowling alley? No. The job facing legislators making the laws and officials drafting Coc's and regulations is to weigh these things. At what point does a non-automatic law have costs that outweigh its values? Has abuse of the law become so prevalent that it is affecting the value and enjoyment of the game? Are we spending more time in committee than we are saving by having a more flexible law? Etc. This is not a matter where we can say 'mechanical laws are always best' or 'mechanical laws are never best'--I think we must consider each individual law, and [to whatever extent laws may be varied] each individual region and event. Asking about every alert, or requiring detailed claim statements, would not improve matters in bridge games in my area--either rule would consume time and cause great annoyance, with no noticeable gain in anything. But that's in Illinois--I can't speak for London, or Bermuda. >integrity of players (who do not have very much); the judgement of The vast majority of players have a fair level of integrity. I think we spend too much time worrying about those who do not. I lost a few masterpoints at a recent tournament because an opponent reached into her bidding box to the bid-card section, paused, and then moved down and pulled a 'pass' card. Sure enough, her partner found a marginal bid. I am not sure whether her partner saw the move or not. I could have called the director, and maybe I would have gotten an adjustment. I didn't. Maybe her partner saw the move and consciously exploited it for gain--but probably she didn't. I didn't worry about it, went on with my game, said 'nice playing with you', and moved on to compare our [losing] scores. I certainly made this pair's tournament a more pleasant experience, and all I had to pay for that was a handful of masterpoints that everyone says are meaningless anyway. Seems a small price. >Tournament Directors and Appeals Committees (vanishingly small); the You would know better than I--I've still never been to an appeal. I think, again, the TD's and AC's, like officials in most sports, are usually noticed only when they get something wrong, and forgotten when they get it right. >"intent of the Law" (since following Edgar Kaplan's death, God only >knows what this was, and even He might have to consult); or an appeal >to the "spirit of the game" (it being extremely dubious whether or not >this exists, but even if it does, it is wholly impossible to codify >within the Laws). Of course it is impossible to codify it. But, again, that matters only to the degree you put a high price on codifiability. >And yet, the belief persists that it is perfectly OK to have a set of >Laws which the players of the game do not understand. Most situations, >according to certain eminent authorities, are not problematic, and >those that are can be left in the safe hands of TDs or ACs. This >ruinous complacency must somehow be disturbed; it is entirely shameful >that we should consider it necessary to "educate players" when we >ourselves have made the Laws so opaque that no one can be expected to >comprehend them. Now here we are in complete agreement. There is no reason to make the laws so complex they cannot be understood. Perhaps we should sit down and write a book explaining the laws _to the players_. Not to the lawmakers, not to the TD's or AC's, but to the players themselves. The current laws are not so hard to understand to the degree necessary to play the game, but have been written somewhat legalistically. Let us translate them, and then see what happens. We both agree that this is a consummation devoutly to be wished, I take it. >David Burn >London, England Respectfully, -Grant Sterling From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 8 01:47:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA02604 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 01:47:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA02598 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 01:46:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from meteo.fr (rubis.meteo.fr [137.129.5.28]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA19838 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 15:33:48 GMT Message-ID: <38EE0001.3EF0DE9@meteo.fr> Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 17:34:25 +0200 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L16A: Player education References: <200004061826.LAA19868@mailhub.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan a écrit : > > JP Rocafort wrote: > > > Anyway there is a problem with UI; we have a very long thread about it, > > and the discussion comes back from time to time. 99% of ethical bridge > > players are not aware of their obligations about UI and can't only > > believe you when you try to explain or to read them the book. > > As i see it, the difficulty lies in a contradiction between L16A and > > L73C. Roughly speaking, 73C tells: "don't use UI", and 16A says "use > > UI". > > There's no contradiction, because 73C actually says, roughly, "don't > use UI to your advantage". This doesn't contradict 16A at all, of > course. > > While some of the Laws are written in such a way that an average > player, reading cursorily, might misinterpret the Law to mean > something it doesn't, I can't see how that could happen with 73C. > I've looked it over, and in my opinion, the only two ways someone > could interpret this Law are either, "Don't use UI to your advantage", > or "I can't figure out what this means. Was this written by some > ivory-tower academic snot who likes throwing around big words like > 'accrue' and 'cursorily' to impress people?" But I don't see how > someone reading this could think it just means "Don't use UI". OK, after second reading, a cute student will hopefully interpret 16A as "use UI to your disadvantage" and 73C: "don't use UI to your advantage" and it's still far from being equivalent. Firstly "don't use UI to your advantage" is a weaker injunction than "don't use UI", as for motorway traffic, "don't excess speed limit" would be a stronger obligation than "don't excess speed limit for your convenience". When somebody has not used something, how could he be deemed to have used it to his advantage? Reciprocally somebody who has not used something to his advantage, may or may not have used it at all. You can try the experiment, but for what I know, a simple soul who has just read 73C, and who will try to conform to it by avoiding to use UI, will believe to have done even better than to comply with his obligations. Anyway, why, if there is a real need to have 2 laws to say the same thing, in 2 different parts of the book, not to make one refer to the other one? > > Of course, my comments apply to the English version of the Laws. > Perhaps the French wording lends itself to misinterpretation more > easily. no, i don't think it's very different. For those interested, french version of laws and FFB regulations can be read at: http://web.aurecvideo.fr/haffner/arbitre/index.htm JP Rocafort > > -- Adam -- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 8 04:13:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA03184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 04:13:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f278.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.56]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA03179 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 04:13:10 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 79763 invoked by uid 0); 7 Apr 2000 18:12:32 -0000 Message-ID: <20000407181232.79762.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.22 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 07 Apr 2000 11:12:32 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.22] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: L16A judgements Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 11:12:32 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk First, I'd like to thank Grant Sterling, Michael S. Dennis, and Michael Farebrother for their posts. I assure you that your words are not falling on deaf ears. So, here are some difficulties I have with L16A. I guarantee full compliance with the law for all situations of which I am aware or can deduce from other situations. Problem 1: Partner had a (safe) bid available that carries the same meaning as the UI might suggest. Best example is when opponents have made an artificial forcing bid and doubles are lead directing. ex1: P - 1H - P - 4C(splinter) Huddle, Questions about clubs, etc. These are the actions I believe the bid suggests: -If partner doubles I might lead a club. With a different conventional agreement I will lead a diamond. -If partner passes I'll lead something else (most likely a spade). -If partner bids a new suit I'll probably be dummy in a doomed contract, but I'll lead that suit. ex2: 1NT - P - 2H(transfer) - Huddle, questions, etc. These are the actions I believe the bid suggests: -If partner doubles I will lead a heart. -If partner passes I'll lead a minor. -If partner bids a new suit I will lead that suit. What, if anything, is wrong with the above? Problem 2: When am I allowed to keep the auction live when partner hesitates in the direct seat? ex1: P - 1S - Noticeable break in tempo then passes - P - ? I'm the sort of person who expects that P - 1S - P - P shows that either 1S was under bid or partner had a trap pass. Without hesitation from partner I might balance with as little as: xx Jxxx Qxxx Kxx and would certainly balance with 9 or more points. Because of my partner's hesitation, I know with near certainty that it's a trap pass. When and why am I allowed to keep the auction live? Does it matter if my partner and I have an agreement never to allow opponents to play a 1 level suit contract? ex2: 1H - P - 2NT(jacoby) - 3S 4H - 4S - long hesitation followed by a non-forcing pass - P ? The hesitation suggests that partner doesn't know whether to double or bid 5H. Can I double with 4531 distribution (partner rates to have 2 spades since he didn't splinter)? Can I bid on with 1552? Or must I always pass? -Todd ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 8 09:04:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA04112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 09:04:47 +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 JAA04107 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 09:04:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.153] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12dhnh-000Dhv-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 00:04:29 +0100 Message-ID: <001201bfa0e5$ab213b60$995608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200004061518.IAA16354@mailhub.irvine.com> <002f01bfa028$c0f6d0c0$6eb601d5@davidburn> Subject: Re: L16A: Player education Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 00:03:30 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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, April 07, 2000 1:32 AM Subject: Re: L16A: Player education > > And yet, the belief persists that it is perfectly OK to have a set of > Laws which the players of the game do not understand. Most situations, > according to certain eminent authorities, are not problematic, and > those that are can be left in the safe hands of TDs or ACs. This > ruinous complacency must somehow be disturbed; it is entirely shameful > that we should consider it necessary to "educate players" when we > ourselves have made the Laws so opaque that no one can be expected to > comprehend them. > +=+ The laws are only "not problematic" in the sense that (a) the statement, thinly disguised in the book, has long been that 'the laws are not written for players who cheat'; (b) much is left to the Director and the Appeal Committee because much is a matter of judgement (?instinct). This has been the approach in the Kaplan vein; like Solon he believed in opacity, so that there was work for the judges - and power for EK as the 'interpreter'. The current committee has made it clear that it will have no more of 'interpreters' and will only subscribe to what it says as a corporate body; this is fine, but it should be a corollary that the committee will get on with the job of reducing the obscurities and in this the committee is slow. We have to be patient. David does not sound patient. There is, however, one shimmer of light - the determination of the WBF President that we will support the Code of Practice with an archive of 'jurisprudence' which will shape the application of law by drawing upon the records of appeals decisions. Even this is taking longer than one might have hoped because 'certain eminent authorities' are slow to do their bit. But we press on, I have now been referred to Richard Colker for some ACBL contributions and should perhaps have them within a couple of months for the approval of the 'Lausanne Group'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 8 13:18:31 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA04597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 13:18:31 +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 NAA04592 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 13:18:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2iveih9.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.74.41]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA28458 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 23:18:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000407231414.012942c8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 23:14:14 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: L16A judgements In-Reply-To: <20000407181232.79762.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:12 AM 4/7/2000 PDT, Todd wrote: > First, I'd like to thank Grant Sterling, Michael S. Dennis, and Michael >Farebrother for their posts. I assure you that your words are not falling >on deaf ears. > >So, here are some difficulties I have with L16A. I guarantee full >compliance with the law for all situations of which I am aware or can deduce >from other situations. > >Problem 1: Partner had a (safe) bid available that carries the same meaning >as the UI might suggest. Best example is when opponents have made an >artificial forcing bid and doubles are lead directing. > >ex1: >P - 1H - P - 4C(splinter) >Huddle, Questions about clubs, etc. > >These are the actions I believe the bid suggests: >-If partner doubles I might lead a club. With a different conventional >agreement I will lead a diamond. >-If partner passes I'll lead something else (most likely a spade). >-If partner bids a new suit I'll probably be dummy in a doomed contract, but >I'll lead that suit. > >ex2: >1NT - P - 2H(transfer) - Huddle, questions, etc. > >These are the actions I believe the bid suggests: >-If partner doubles I will lead a heart. >-If partner passes I'll lead a minor. >-If partner bids a new suit I will lead that suit. > >What, if anything, is wrong with the above? I would have to see a hand, of course, to offer any definitive opinion, but in general, I would say you need a very good reason to avoid leading a suit which partner has requested, so that other leads in most situations would not be LA's when partner has made a lead-directing double. >Problem 2: When am I allowed to keep the auction live when partner hesitates >in the direct seat? > >ex1: >P - 1S - Noticeable break in tempo then passes - P - ? > >I'm the sort of person who expects that P - 1S - P - P shows that either 1S >was under bid or partner had a trap pass. Without hesitation from partner I >might balance with as little as: xx Jxxx Qxxx Kxx and would certainly >balance with 9 or more points. Because of my partner's hesitation, I know >with near certainty that it's a trap pass. When and why am I allowed to >keep the auction live? Does it matter if my partner and I have an agreement >never to allow opponents to play a 1 level suit contract? As for the latter, certainly if this agreement really is part of your methods, then passing is not a LA. I would recommend documenting this agreement, however. On the main issue, this is actually a complex problem. It is not clear to me that the inference that partner has a trap pass makes doubling more attractive. Indeed, the opposite might well be true. When partner holds a trap, there is an excellent chance that double will allow the opponents to escape to a makeable alternative when you were set for a plus score, and this is more likely as your values decrease. Is passing a LA for a player holding a 9-count with short spades? In general, probably not. Is it for a player holding a 4-6 count? Probably so, although the suggested-by's are not so clear. >ex2: >1H - P - 2NT(jacoby) - 3S >4H - 4S - long hesitation followed by a non-forcing pass - P >? > > The hesitation suggests that partner doesn't know whether to double or >bid 5H. Can I double with 4531 distribution (partner rates to have 2 spades >since he didn't splinter)? Can I bid on with 1552? Or must I always pass? Contrary to popular misconception, you are not obligated to pass whenever partner hesitates in a competitive auction. Again, specific hands would be helpful, but I cannot imagine passing this 4S bid with 4531 shape opposite a balanced game force, and would expect this judgement to be nearly unanimous. Yes, almost certainly, doubling is legal here. The 1552 hand is more difficult. Certainly vulnerability and scoring might figure into a determination of whether Pass is a logical alternative or not, but it is easy to conceive of a hand where it is not (x-AKJxx-KQJTx-xx seems like a clear-cut 5D call in most cases). The point is not that you have to fall on your sword whenever you have UI, but that you should attempt to make an honest, objective assessment of how others would view your alternatives and what the UI really suggests, and avoid choosing suggested actions in favor of LA's. I agree that it is not always a trivial problem, which is why this category of problem is the single most common source of legal wrangling in this forum. But in most instances the issues really are pretty straightforward. The trap to avoid is the "I _always_ would have bid such and such anyway" rationalization. If your find yourself making that assertion mentally, then it seems pretty likely that the subtext is something along the lines of "even though I know that many less clear-headed folks might see it differently". In that case, your legal obligation is to choose that less clear-headed alternative. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 8 14:55:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA04741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 14:55:44 +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 OAA04736 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 14:55:37 +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 AAA08695 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 00:55:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id AAA00984 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 00:55:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 00:55:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200004080455.AAA00984@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L16A judgements X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > ex2: > 1H - P - 2NT(jacoby) - 3S > 4H - 4S - long hesitation followed by a non-forcing pass - P > ? Would anybody really play pass as non-forcing here? After partner's 2NT response, we expect to make game. How can we let the opponents play undoubled? If pass is forcing, as I expect it is in reality, if not by agreement, then this is the classic "Do whatever you want" situation. The UI suggests no action over another. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 8 15:21:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA04799 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 15:21:46 +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 PAA04794 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 15:21:39 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 0EFBB15531; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 01:21:31 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <004501bf9f5f$1b6cfc20$a28301d5@davidburn> References: <200004051613.JAA23816@mailhub.irvine.com> <004501bf9f5f$1b6cfc20$a28301d5@davidburn> Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 01:01:38 -0400 To: "David Burn" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Ludicrous regulation? Cc: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 1:29 AM +0100 4/6/00, David Burn wrote: >A question about an alerted call is deemed to convey interest in the >suit asked about - you are not supposed to ask questions on every >occasion, but only when you are "interested" in the answers to them. >For the "reasoning" behind this ludicrous regulation, you will have >to apply to wiser heads than mine. I recently (in the thread "Redress for N/S?") asked for a reference to this regulation and received no reply. If no one on the BLML can provide the text for such a regulation I have no reason to believe that it exists, nor can I see why anyone would act as if it does. AW From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 8 15:56:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA04851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 15:56:39 +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 PAA04846 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 15:56:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (ppp-1-132.cvx4.telinco.net [212.1.148.132]) by ms1.freezone.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA31061 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 06:55:09 +0100 Message-ID: <000d01bfa11f$2f256060$849401d4@default> From: "magda thain" To: References: <200004061612.RAA27860@tempest.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: L16A: Player education Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 19:47:43 +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 Is our education now complete? Or does this go on for ever? mt; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 16:16:54 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 66951 invoked by uid 0); 8 Apr 2000 06:16:17 -0000 Message-ID: <20000408061617.66950.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 152.169.208.225 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 07 Apr 2000 23:16:17 PDT X-Originating-IP: [152.169.208.225] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L16A judgements Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 23:16:17 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Steve Willner > > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > ex2: > > 1H - P - 2NT(jacoby) - 3S > > 4H - 4S - long hesitation followed by a non-forcing pass - P > > ? > >Would anybody really play pass as non-forcing here? After partner's >2NT response, we expect to make game. How can we let the opponents >play undoubled? > >If pass is forcing, as I expect it is in reality, if not by agreement, >then this is the classic "Do whatever you want" situation. The UI >suggests no action over another. Sorry, bad example. Replace 2NT with 3H or 2H or something else until the auction is weak enough that the pass is non-forcing. -Todd ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 8 17:16:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA05003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 17:16:15 +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 RAA04998 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 17:16:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from eduhi.at (petrus2.konvent [192.168.1.116]) by michael.gym (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA13265 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 09:17:13 +0100 Message-ID: <38EEDC8F.73F35C34@eduhi.at> Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 09:15:27 +0200 From: Petrus Schuster OSB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [de] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Is Old Age "general bridge knowledge"? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In our regional championships, the following auction happened: Board 10, E, both N E S W P P 1NT X P 2D* P *alerted: transfer to H 2H P 3D P P P N holds AJ76 AJT A95 T82 S is a lady in her eighties. EW called me after the 3D bid and claimed that S had pulled a face after the explanation of 2D.(not unlikely: she was 3352) 3D went down one for a shared bottom. When I asked N after the hand why she had not removed to 3H, she told me that she thought it more probable that S had forgotten their convention than that she actually held a two-suiter. This seems to be a straightforward L16A case, yet I preferred not to adjust the score to 3H down something for a clear bottom, because I felt the gain for EW would be marginal, and NS would never understand what wrong they had done. I think I would have ruled differently had 3D-1 been a fair score to NS, or if the player concerned had been one of the younger generation. What I would like to hear your opinions on, is: - Absent the UI, is it fair knowledge that elderly people tend to forget rare conventions, so that North's reasoning would be acceptable (and not a field)? - IS UI of this sort "available" when an opponent/kibitzer/whosoever has noticed it, or only when it is fair to assume that offender's partner had noticed it (she would have to watch her partner's face, and there may be evidence against that)? It is not quite the same as a hesitation which is immediately noticed by everybody. Regards, Petrus From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 8 17:45:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA05063 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 17:45:04 +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 RAA05052 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 17:44:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.243] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12dpv9-000N4E-00; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 08:44:44 +0100 Message-ID: <001b01bfa12e$5882d500$f35908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , "Adam Wildavsky" Cc: References: <200004051613.JAA23816@mailhub.irvine.com><004501bf9f5f$1b6cfc20$a28301d5@davidburn> Subject: Re: Ludicrous regulation? Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 07:23:10 +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: David Burn Cc: Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2000 6:01 AM Subject: Re: Ludicrous regulation? > At 1:29 AM +0100 4/6/00, David Burn wrote: > >A question about an alerted call is deemed to convey interest in the > >suit asked about - you are not supposed to ask questions on every > >occasion, but only when you are "interested" in the answers to them. > >For the "reasoning" behind this ludicrous regulation, you will have > >to apply to wiser heads than mine. > > I recently (in the thread "Redress for N/S?") asked for a reference > to this regulation and received no reply. If no one on the BLML can > provide the text for such a regulation I have no reason to believe > that it exists, nor can I see why anyone would act as if it does. > > AW > +=+ EBU Orange Book: Section 3.1: "The right to ask questions is not a licence to do so without consequence: if you ask about an unalerted call and then pass you have shown an interest which may influence your partner.Asking about an alerted call and then bidding reduces this possibility , but in either case if your partner acts in a way that suggests he has taken advantage of your question then unauthorised information may be deemed to have been given. ..... omissis...... [Note: If, at your turn to call, you do not need to have a call explained, it is in your interest to defer all questions until either you are about to make the opening lead or your partner's lead is face-down on the table.] " From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 8 17:45:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA05062 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 17:45:04 +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 RAA05053 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 17:44:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.243] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12dpvB-000N4E-00; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 08:44:45 +0100 Message-ID: <001c01bfa12e$597e9a20$f35908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "magda thain" Cc: References: <200004061612.RAA27860@tempest.npl.co.uk> <000d01bfa11f$2f256060$849401d4@default> Subject: "... what the nurse began" Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 07:35:13 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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, April 06, 2000 7:47 PM Subject: Re: L16A: Player education > Is our education now complete? Or does this go on for ever? > mt ----- Original Message ----- > Subject: Re: L16A: Player education > +=+ A change of title is due. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 8 18:08:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA05127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 18:08:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from oznet14.ozemail.com.au (oznet14.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.115]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA05122 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 18:08:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (1Cust233.tnt3.syd2.da.uu.net [63.12.2.233]) by oznet14.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA23105 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 18:08:22 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000408181912.00814660@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 18:19:12 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Fielded psych Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Psychic bidding is not exactly de rigeur in the clubs where I direct. However this happened today E S W N 1C x 1S 1NT 2C all pass East held West held Q x x x ---- x x x x x x K J x x x A K Q J x x x x x x x x 2C was not a great success since 5C made at most tables. I was called by South, who felt that East may have raised to 4S. East is an "operator" who is know to enjoy the odd psych, but he claimed that his partner had never done so. He claimed that everyone at the table knew that his partner's bid was a psych following opponents double, and North's 1NT. We do not have access to an "Orange Book" in Australia. I believe that the ruling in UK would possibly be a "red" psych and at most 40% on the board. Is this correct? How could I have made a ruling on this case (had the psych worked) without calling East a cheat? Cheers Tony From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 9 03:14:56 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA06612 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 03:14:56 +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 DAA06606 for ; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 03:14:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.197.75] (helo=davidburn) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12dyoW-00008N-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 18:14:29 +0100 Message-ID: <000f01bfa17e$11cc0dc0$4bc501d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200004061518.IAA16354@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.20000407223108.007d88e0@eiu.edu> Subject: Re: L16A: Player education Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 18:15:41 +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: > At 01:32 AM 4/7/2000 +0100, David Burn wrote: > >It is precisely to prevent this sort of thing that the WBF Code of > >Practice recommends random tempo when transferring the tray under the > >screen. It is worth noting that this solution actually works > >perfectly, as would any purely mechanical solution (such as "all > >alerts should be followed by a question", or "all cards not covered by > >a claim statement should be deemed to be played misere"). The > >solutions which do not work are those which rely on any or all of: the > > Part of the problem, I think, is that this argument seems to many > of us to beg the question. By what criterion do we differentiate > those solutions that "work" from those that do not? If you say that > the relevant criteria are [only] 'ease of understanding the rule' and > 'effectiveness at eliminating the problem', then of course things are > pretty much as you say. What I would really like to do is to start from a position in which the Laws are as far as possible "mechanical", then give to Sponsoring Organisations the right to make such allowances as they wish for the standard of the event, the awareness of players, and the desire to have "bridge results". This would mean that each individual SO would have to make careful decisions about the degree of leeway it wanted to give, and the regulations it would have to make in order to allow that amount of leeway. > The problem is when you add criteria that involve things like > 'keeping the game going at a reasonable tempo', 'not unduly penalizing > or offending less experienced players', 'according as closely as possible > with natural justice', 'encouraging a pleasant atmosphere for the game', > etc., then it is no longer obvious that these solutions "work" at all. I am aware that there is a conflict between mechanical rules and the above eminently desirable objectives. However, I think that most players - even, or particularly, the less experienced ones - would far more readily tolerate a situation in which they appear to be "unjustly" penalised but in which everyone can understand what is happening, than they would tolerate the present situation in which: they do not know how to act for the best in the presence of UI; some score adjustments give only redress for damage while others carry a punitive element also; nobody knows the score until some considerable time after the event is over and a committee has met to decide what it is; players who have performed ineptly at the table can have the hand replayed rather better by the referee at a later stage - and so on, and so forth. > Now, of course, you may not think some of these are desirable ends. You > may think that some of the solutions you mentioned do not infringe on > these aims. You may think that some of these aims are not even coherent. > But, at any rate, the case for mechanical solutions becomes rather less > obvious. I think that all the ends you mention are desirable ones. I do not think that the solutions I have proposed would infringe on them to anywhere near the extent that people who oppose my suggestions believe, but I accept that there may well be a price to pay. I know that measures designed to make the game easier to administer and more comprehensible to its players will also make the game appear less tolerant of "human weakness". But I am strongly of the opinion that we have strayed far too far in the direction of being nice to people. If someone inadvertently passes his partner out in a cue bid, so what? > Consider screens themselves. Do screens help us to reduce UI > problems, among other things? Yes, they certainly do. Do I want > to use screens at my local club, or even in the smaller tournaments? > No, I do not. Screens have a cost in atmosphere and time that outweigh > their benefits in law-enforcement, at that level. Should we have them in > international competition? Of course--at that level, the other criteria > become central. Should we have strict rules requiring pairs to have > clear agreements about the meanings of their bids? At the Bermuda Bowl, > perhaps yes. At the game in the back room of the local bowling alley? No. > The job facing legislators making the laws and officials drafting > Coc's and regulations is to weigh these things. At what point does a > non-automatic law have costs that outweigh its values? Has abuse of the > law become so prevalent that it is affecting the value and enjoyment of the > game? Are we spending more time in committee than we are saving by having > a more flexible law? Etc. This is not a matter where we can say 'mechanical > laws are always best' or 'mechanical laws are never best'--I think we must > consider each individual law, and [to whatever extent laws may be varied] > each individual region and event. This is exactly right, and accords exactly with what I have said above. David Stevenson's idea that different levels of game require different law books seems to me to have the same motivation, and I would not have a particular problem with that. I know that it is far too late to rewrite the Laws as they ought to have been (and as most of them were) in the beginning. Law 25: A call once made may not be changed. Law 45: A card deliberately removed from the hand of a player or called by declarer from dummy is played and may not be retracted. Law 68: A claim must be accompanied by a statement of the order in which the claimer intends to play his cards. But we don't have Laws like that because, as Jeff Rubens puts it "Those who deal with them have developed a mindset that the Laws need to be interpreted". However, I think that the prevalent view - "the Laws work all right most of the time, and when they don't, the TDs can always sort out the resulting shambles" - is ruinously struthious. > The vast majority of players have a fair level of integrity. I > think we spend too much time worrying about those who do not. Yes, but at the moment we have a situation in which even players of the highest level of integrity can attempt to act according to their best lights and then be told that they've broken the Law anyway. It is all very well to blether on about "player education" and "committing an infraction is not cheating", but the majority of players do not see it like that and never will. There is no point in having a fair level of integrity if you can't use it, and that is why more and more players are adopting the stance that Todd Zimnoch, with admirable courage and remarkable persistence, has continued to describe on this list. The rules of every game except bridge are written from the point of view not that the game is played only by gentlemen, but that the game is also going to be played by villains of the deepest dye, and the only way to stop them from profiting by their villainy is by acknowledging that it exists and imposing penalties that make it not worth the villains' while. The rules of every game work far better (in your terms as well as mine) than the rules of bridge. Go, as I believe they say in Illinois, figure. > >Tournament Directors and Appeals Committees (vanishingly small); the > > You would know better than I--I've still never been to an appeal. > I think, again, the TD's and AC's, like officials in most sports, are > usually noticed only when they get something wrong, and forgotten when > they get it right. The difficulty is that in our sport, the appeals committee never gets it right - at least, not as far as 50% of the players are concerned. We have reached the stage where the officials are regarded as more important than the players. This is not healthy. > >"intent of the Law" (since following Edgar Kaplan's death, God only > >knows what this was, and even He might have to consult); or an appeal > >to the "spirit of the game" (it being extremely dubious whether or not > >this exists, but even if it does, it is wholly impossible to codify > >within the Laws). > > Of course it is impossible to codify it. But, again, that matters > only to the degree you put a high price on codifiability. Having suffered from the lack of it for so long, I think that the time may have come to attempt to increase it to the point where it at least approaches that found in all other Olympic sports, the status of which we are hoping soon to achieve for our own. > >And yet, the belief persists that it is perfectly OK to have a set of > >Laws which the players of the game do not understand. Most situations, > >according to certain eminent authorities, are not problematic, and > >those that are can be left in the safe hands of TDs or ACs. This > >ruinous complacency must somehow be disturbed; it is entirely shameful > >that we should consider it necessary to "educate players" when we > >ourselves have made the Laws so opaque that no one can be expected to > >comprehend them. > > Now here we are in complete agreement. There is no reason to make > the laws so complex they cannot be understood. Perhaps we should sit > down and write a book explaining the laws _to the players_. Not to the > lawmakers, not to the TD's or AC's, but to the players themselves. The > current laws are not so hard to understand to the degree necessary to > play the game, but have been written somewhat legalistically. Let us > translate them, and then see what happens. We both agree that this > is a consummation devoutly to be wished, I take it. We have tried explaining the Laws to the players. But we are not really in a position to attempt that when, as the existence of this list painfully demonstrates, we are almost wholly unable to explain them even to ourselves. The other day, someone on r.g.b. asked the perfectly reasonable question why Law 16 on the one hand, and Laws 73C and 73F on the other, are both deemed necessary. He has not been answered. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 9 03:37:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA06670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 03:37:22 +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 DAA06665 for ; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 03:37:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivehp8.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.71.40]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA10371 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 13:37:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000408133425.012d0cd4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 13:34:25 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Is Old Age "general bridge knowledge"? In-Reply-To: <38EEDC8F.73F35C34@eduhi.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:15 AM 4/8/2000 +0200, Petrus wrote: >This seems to be a straightforward L16A case, yet I preferred not to >adjust the score to 3H down something for a clear bottom, because I felt >the gain for EW would be marginal, and NS would never understand what >wrong they had done. I think I would have ruled differently had 3D-1 >been a fair score to NS, or if the player concerned had been one of the >younger generation. The logic of this escapes me. If we agree that NS have benefitted (and EW suffered) as a result of an illegal call, then we should adjust the score. Whether that makes a little difference or a lot should not affect our willingness to do so. >What I would like to hear your opinions on, is: >- Absent the UI, is it fair knowledge that elderly people tend to forget >rare conventions, so that North's reasoning would be acceptable (and not >a field)? Absent the UI, there is no restriction on North's actions. She may bid what she likes, taking into account whatever (legal) factors seem relevant. Although we are, by hypothesis, out of the realm of UI, we may well be in the realm of MI if South has a habit of forgetting this particular agreement (or agreements in general). NS should either caution their opponents about this tendency prior to play or avoid troublesome conventions. >- IS UI of this sort "available" when an opponent/kibitzer/whosoever has >noticed it, or only when it is fair to assume that offender's partner >had noticed it (she would have to watch her partner's face, and there >may be evidence against that)? It is not quite the same as a hesitation >which is immediately noticed by everybody. If there is evidence that the offender's partner could not have been aware of the UI, then it seems reasonable to say that UI was _not_ "available", and hence imposes no restrictions. (e.g., partner is blind, and so could not have seen a facial expression). But in general, the L16 considerations come into play when we determine that UI was _available_, without regard to a determination that the action was or was not observed by the offender's partner. This avoids having to evaluate such claims as "but I never even noticed the hesitation!" which are pretty frequent (and sometimes valid). Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 9 04:17:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA06634 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 03:21:29 +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 DAA06629 for ; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 03:21:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivehp8.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.71.40]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA13027 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 13:21:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000408131825.012ce018@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 13:18:25 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Fielded psych In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000408181912.00814660@ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:19 PM 4/8/2000 +1000, Tony wrote: >How could I have made a ruling on this case (had the psych worked) without >calling East a cheat? Well, you certainly _could_ rule to let the result stand, as it is not at all clear that any law has been violated. A ruling against E/W does not necessarily imply that East is a cheat, although it does call his honesty into question. But you appear to know these players fairly well. Is East likely to be telling the truth about the relevant partnership tendencies, based on your own experiences with these players? Has West psyched in related situations, when playing with East? It does seem to me that the given sequence points toward a psych, especially when East is looking at 4 spades himself, so I would probably tend to accept the claim of a legitimately fielded psych, unless East/West have a notable pattern of shady behavior. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 9 05:40:44 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA06994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 05:40:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.143]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA06989 for ; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 05:40:35 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (LHEA9504/950407.s1) id PAA18593 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 15:39:57 -0400 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200004081939.PAA18593@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: Is Old Age "general bridge knowledge"? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 15:39:57 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000408133425.012d0cd4@pop.mindspring.com> from "Michael S. Dennis" at Apr 08, 2000 01:34:25 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 > Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 13:34:25 -0400 > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > > At 09:15 AM 4/8/2000 +0200, Petrus wrote: > >This seems to be a straightforward L16A case, yet I preferred not to > >adjust the score to 3H down something for a clear bottom, because I felt > >the gain for EW would be marginal, and NS would never understand what > >wrong they had done. I think I would have ruled differently had 3D-1 > >been a fair score to NS, or if the player concerned had been one of the > >younger generation. > > The logic of this escapes me. If we agree that NS have benefitted (and EW > suffered) as a result of an illegal call, then we should adjust the score. > Whether that makes a little difference or a lot should not affect our > willingness to do so. > > >What I would like to hear your opinions on, is: > >- Absent the UI, is it fair knowledge that elderly people tend to forget > >rare conventions, so that North's reasoning would be acceptable (and not > >a field)? > > Absent the UI, there is no restriction on North's actions. She may bid what > she likes, taking into account whatever (legal) factors seem relevant. > Although we are, by hypothesis, out of the realm of UI, we may well be in > the realm of MI if South has a habit of forgetting this particular > agreement (or agreements in general). NS should either caution their > opponents about this tendency prior to play or avoid troublesome conventions. > > >- IS UI of this sort "available" when an opponent/kibitzer/whosoever has > >noticed it, or only when it is fair to assume that offender's partner > >had noticed it (she would have to watch her partner's face, and there > >may be evidence against that)? It is not quite the same as a hesitation > >which is immediately noticed by everybody. > > If there is evidence that the offender's partner could not have been aware > of the UI, then it seems reasonable to say that UI was _not_ "available", > and hence imposes no restrictions. (e.g., partner is blind, and so could > not have seen a facial expression). But in general, the L16 considerations > come into play when we determine that UI was _available_, without regard to > a determination that the action was or was not observed by the offender's > partner. This avoids having to evaluate such claims as "but I never even > noticed the hesitation!" which are pretty frequent (and sometimes valid). > > Mike Dennis > I agree with Michael because this is a tournament situation. Although there is a clear-cut "right" and "wrong", had this situation occurred in a club game, then I might well have ruled along the lines of what Petrus suggested. In a tournament of any sort, the rules need to be adhered to for the fair play of all involved. That includes punishment for UI even against the seniors who may have been having a "senior moment." In that case, if N/S benefitted from the UI, then the score needs to be adjusted. The score of a bottom for 3H-1 is due entirely to the player forgetting her conventional agreements. First, she took advantage of the alert procedure (the announcement of transfer is for the opponent's benefit and information, not to awaken her to her error). Then she compounded the problem by correcting to 3D and making a face so her partner would realize she wasn't a 2-suiter, but had made a mistake. This is clearly adjustable and needs to be. She made the error by bidding 2D in the first place and her side deserves the bottom. Although, I am often a proponent of the two-sided ruling to avoid the windfall, in this case I am not. When the player bid 2D, she had committed her side to a poor result. At that point, before anything else befell, the opponents were deserving of the good score. This is a case where I would rule that both sides get the same score as the first error, and not the later complications really caused the score swing. Back to my first point, had this been in a local club game, I would probably have awarded a two-way result of 2H down whatever appropriate to the non-offending side and 3D down 1 for the offending side with a stern warning that what they did was wrong and that I was ruling in their favor but wouldn't do so in the future if this happened again. I tend to give some more generous rulings at the club level since many are there for the social aspect and the purpose and environment of the game is different from tournament standards. -Ted. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 9 07:17:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA07199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 07:17:36 +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 HAA07194 for ; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 07:17:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from pfas03a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.99.251] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt7-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12duey-000318-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 13:48:21 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Fielded psych Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 22:18:07 +0100 Message-ID: <01bfa19f$ef389cc0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Tony Musgrove To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Saturday, April 08, 2000 9:15 AM Subject: Fielded psych >Psychic bidding is not exactly de rigeur in the clubs where I direct. >However this happened today > > E S W N > 1C x 1S 1NT > 2C all pass > >East held West held > Q x x x ---- > x x x x x > x K J x x x > A K Q J x x x x x x x x > >2C was not a great success since 5C made at most tables. > >I was called by South, who felt that East may have raised to 4S. > >East is an "operator" who is know to enjoy the odd psych, but he claimed that >his partner had never done so. He claimed that everyone at the table knew >that his partner's bid was a psych following opponents double, and North's >1NT. > >We do not have access to an "Orange Book" in Australia. I believe that the >ruling in >UK would possibly be a "red" psych and at most 40% on the board. Is this >correct? > >How could I have made a ruling on this case (had the psych worked) without >calling East a cheat? > I would have started off by asking East whether West was promising 4 or 5 Spades for his bid. I would have asked East why he did not support Spades. I would have asked East, in that he had chosen to open just 1C on this hand, how strong he thought it was in support of Spades. We are getting to the stage where he is going to make the ruling for me. It depends much upon the style of South'd double (does it promise Spades? It may just be opening values any dist.) What about North's 1NT. does it just show 8-10 and balanced (like mine), or does it promise a good Spade holding, or even assuming Spades with South, a Club stop. Is this a psyche which has been clearly exposed by the opps bidding? I think youv'e got to be there to know which way this one will go, but I will not accuse him of cheating of course. Armed with the OB and it's guidelines, I will read the bit that applies. He will know that I am ruling this way because I must. I have not called him a cheat, the OB has not called him a cheat. It matters not whether he is a cheat, he gets the same ruling as anyone else. > >Cheers (\ /) ( \ _ / ) ( \( )/ ) ( / \ ) ( / \/ \ ) / \ ( ) Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 9 15:10:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA07950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 15:10:54 +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 PAA07945 for ; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 15:10:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-58-214-74.s74.tnt2.lnhdc.md.dialup.rcn.com (HELO hdavis) (208.58.214.74) by smtp.mail.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Apr 2000 22:10:37 -0700 X-Apparently-From: Message-ID: <003901bfa1e1$edb2e120$4ad63ad0@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000408181912.00814660@ozemail.com.au> Subject: Re: Fielded psych Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 01:10:27 -0400 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: "Tony Musgrove" To: Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2000 4:19 AM Subject: Fielded psych > Psychic bidding is not exactly de rigeur in the clubs where I direct. > However this happened today > > E S W N > 1C x 1S 1NT > 2C all pass > > East held West held > Q x x x ---- > x x x x x > x K J x x x > A K Q J x x x x x x x x > > 2C was not a great success since 5C made at most tables. > > I was called by South, who felt that East may have raised to 4S. > [snip] > > How could I have made a ruling on this case (had the psych worked) without > calling East a cheat? > > Cheers > > Tony > Two very different reasons for ruling that there was no fielded psych: 1) Look at it from the E point of view. E has four spades. N has made a takeout double, showing three or four spades. Partner has shown four spades. S has indicated a spade stop, and likely has three of them. Add it all together, and E is looking at a deck with about fourteen or fifteen spades in it (unless the spades around the table are exactly 4-3-4-2). E has pretty good AI that *someone* has psyched. And let's face it, 1m-X-1S may be one of the most common psychic calls in the game. If the psych has been exposed by AI, E is perfectly free to attempt to field it. 2) OK, now assume that E thinks W never psychs, and has 4 spades. Note that the E hand is particularly vulnerable to a forcing defense in a spade contract, even if partner does hold four. The monstrous support of a spade contract is an illusion. Give W something like KJxx, xxx, Kxxx, xx, and let the opponents get started with heart leads. Even if spades break 3-2, it won't be pretty. 4S will be OK if partner holds AKxx of spades, and the suit breaks 3-2, but that's not going to happen on this auction. Even if there is an eight card spade fit, this hand belongs in clubs. If E is a good enough player to visualize the force, staying out of spades is not fielding a psych, it's simply good bridge. A club call is better than a spade call, even if partner has not psyched. I might wonder why E didn't bid a lot more clubs, but I wouldn't dream of penalizing him for rebidding a solid eight card suit on this auction, and staying out of a precarious spade contract. Hirsch __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 9 16:16:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA08043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 16:16:22 +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 QAA08037 for ; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 16:16:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-58-214-74.s74.tnt2.lnhdc.md.dialup.rcn.com (HELO hdavis) (208.58.214.74) by smtp.mail.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Apr 2000 23:16:05 -0700 X-Apparently-From: Message-ID: <001801bfa1eb$13753c60$4ad63ad0@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000408181912.00814660@ozemail.com.au> <003901bfa1e1$edb2e120$4ad63ad0@hdavis> Subject: Re: Fielded psych Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 02:15:49 -0400 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: "Hirsch Davis" To: Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2000 1:10 AM Subject: Re: Fielded psych > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tony Musgrove" > To: > Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2000 4:19 AM > Subject: Fielded psych > > > > Psychic bidding is not exactly de rigeur in the clubs where I direct. > > However this happened today > > > > E S W N > > 1C x 1S 1NT > > 2C all pass > > > > East held West held > > Q x x x ---- > > x x x x x > > x K J x x x > > A K Q J x x x x x x x x > > > > 2C was not a great success since 5C made at most tables. > > > > I was called by South, who felt that East may have raised to 4S. > > A point I missed in my last post- I wouldn't penalize E for rebidding an eight card suit. However, I might have something to say about him bidding a 14 card hand... Hirsch __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 9 16:42:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA08102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 16:42:40 +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 QAA08097 for ; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 16:42:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from eduhi.at (petrus2.konvent [192.168.1.116]) by michael.gym (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA02484 for ; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 08:41:54 +0200 Message-ID: <38F02637.8DB40FE5@eduhi.at> Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 08:41:59 +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: Is Old Age "general bridge knowledge"? References: <200004081939.PAA18593@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > The logic of this escapes me. If we agree that NS have benefitted (and EW > > suffered) as a result of an illegal call, then we should adjust the score. > > Whether that makes a little difference or a lot should not affect our > > willingness to do so. > > I am sorry I did not make myself sufficiently clear. What I meant was: If the damage done by the infraction is slight (shared top for NOS instead of clear top) AND the OS is incapable of understanding their infraction AND the OS is so set in their ways that educating them is beyond my abilities: then I would let a result stand which I might otherwise adjust. On second thoughts, perhaps I should have given NOS their clear top privately (it would not have changed their final standings). > I agree with Michael because this is a tournament situation. > Although there is a clear-cut "right" and "wrong", had this > situation occurred in a club game, then I might well have > ruled along the lines of what Petrus suggested. > > > Back to my first point, had this been in a local club game, > I would probably have awarded a two-way result of 2H down > whatever appropriate to the non-offending side and 3D down 1 > for the offending side with a stern warning that what they > did was wrong and that I was ruling in their favor but wouldn't > do so in the future if this happened again. I tend to give > some more generous rulings at the club level since many are > there for the social aspect and the purpose and environment > of the game is different from tournament standards. > Agreed. But I am still not quite sure what to make of South's argument that she thought it more likely North had forgotten the convention than that she held a two-suiter. I have been informed that the two ladies play together every now and then but could not be called a regular partnership. So if their is no (specific) partnership experience: Would you accept this argument from South? Would you really expect South to explain such a 2D bid as "Transfer to hearts, but I would not be surprised if my partner had forgotten."? This sounds terribly embarrassing. Petrus From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 10 05:55:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA09780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 05:55:58 +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 FAA09775 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 05:55:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=ww) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 12eNo7-0004M9-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 21:55:43 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000409214938.00ef50b4@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 21:49:38 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Is Old Age "general bridge knowledge"? In-Reply-To: <38F02637.8DB40FE5@eduhi.at> References: <200004081939.PAA18593@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:41 AM 4/9/00 +0200, you wrote: > > >> > The logic of this escapes me. If we agree that NS have benefitted (and EW >> > suffered) as a result of an illegal call, then we should adjust the score. >> > Whether that makes a little difference or a lot should not affect our >> > willingness to do so. >> > >I am sorry I did not make myself sufficiently clear. >What I meant was: If the damage done by the infraction is slight (shared >top for NOS instead of clear top) AND the OS is incapable of >understanding their infraction AND the OS is so set in their ways that >educating them is beyond my abilities: then I would let a result stand >which I might otherwise adjust. well, in a social club rulings sometimes are a bit different then in real life. Ask yourself what you would do if it was your mother, half blind, rather deaf and problems with walking. Sure, if opponents ask you to rule if she revoked, you would do that. But in this case, i probably would (in a social event in the club) let the result stand and will try to give them all a bit education about how you play the game. It is probably against the rules, but in a club game i am a bit more lenient against very low-level players then usual (i am a bit older and wiser then since i started TD-ing perhaps). regards, anton On second thoughts, perhaps I should >have given NOS their clear top privately (it would not have changed >their final standings). > > >> I agree with Michael because this is a tournament situation. >> Although there is a clear-cut "right" and "wrong", had this >> situation occurred in a club game, then I might well have >> ruled along the lines of what Petrus suggested. >> > >> >> Back to my first point, had this been in a local club game, >> I would probably have awarded a two-way result of 2H down >> whatever appropriate to the non-offending side and 3D down 1 >> for the offending side with a stern warning that what they >> did was wrong and that I was ruling in their favor but wouldn't >> do so in the future if this happened again. I tend to give >> some more generous rulings at the club level since many are >> there for the social aspect and the purpose and environment >> of the game is different from tournament standards. >> >Agreed. >But I am still not quite sure what to make of South's argument that she >thought it more likely North had forgotten the convention than that she >held a two-suiter. I have been informed that the two ladies play >together every now and then but could not be called a regular >partnership. >So if their is no (specific) partnership experience: Would you accept >this argument from South? >Would you really expect South to explain such a 2D bid as "Transfer to >hearts, but I would not be surprised if my partner had forgotten."? This >sounds terribly embarrassing. > >Petrus > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 10 10:19:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA10465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 10:19:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from falgate.fujitsu.com.au (falgate.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.211.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA10460 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 10:19:48 +1000 (EST) Received: by falgate.fujitsu.com.au; id KAA18990; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 10:19:04 +1000 Received: from mailhost.fujitsu.com.au(137.172.19.140) by falgate via smap (V2.1) id xma018696; Mon, 10 Apr 00 10:18:31 +1000 Received: from sercit.fujitsu.com.au (sercit.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.40.224]) by mailhost.fujitsu.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA02438 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 10:18:30 +1000 Received: from newmanpm.fujitsu.com.au ([137.172.15.185]) by sercit.fujitsu.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA01360 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 10:13:28 +1000 Message-Id: <4.1.20000410095603.009b9cd0@sercit> X-Sender: petern@sercit X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 10:16:59 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Peter Newman Subject: L25B: Player advice needed Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Good Morning All, Exactly a year ago was my first encounter with Law 25B in the finals of our state (NSW - Australia) teams selection event. [Strongest event in our state - Butler pairs (imps against datum).] One year later, same opponents (though different partner) and again it rears its (ugly IMHO) head again. A simple auction: (Bd 27, Nil Vul, Dealer S) N E S W 1NT Pass 2D - taken out of bidding box - then "excuse me, I would like to see the director".... .... .... time passes .... [1NT=15-17, 2D would be transfer->Hearts] Director comes back and says North wishes to use their L25B option and change their call and NS to play for -3 imps. the auction proceeds: 2NT Pass ?? South holds: A642 A86 A104 KQ2 2 questions for the player trying to use this wonderful law.... 1) L25B1 "The substituted call may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender’s LHO " Is there are any guidelines about this kind of situation in regards East's accepting this? There seems to be no tactical advantage for doing this - only to be a nice guy (gender neutral). So if you like the opponents you do this? It seems very strange. [Contrast this with accepting insufficient bids which can clearly be of benefit to you.] 2) South is a super-maximum but just has a "normal" - 3D = I have a good hand for Diamonds (in this pairs methods). He would be tempted to have a go at 3NT. If North has king to six diamonds (and maybe a stray quack) and 3NT happens to make the datum will be +110 NS so it only costs 1 or 2 imps (you are already -3 imps) to go off and you can "punish" EW for 7 imps if you are right. What advice would you give South? I would appreciate guidelines on this law from a players perspective. PS: The reason for all of this was that NS had just changed their system to standard and 2D used to be a sign-off in Diamonds and was now a transfer to hearts....North didn't want to try transfering to their 2 card suit....though if they did and then subsequently followed up with 3NT [after going to see the director] would South with a 4-3-3-3 shape be able to pass or would that be using UI????? Cheers, Peter Newman Tournament Committee - NSWBA http://www.nswba.com.au From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 10 12:27:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA10752 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 12:27:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.143]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA10747 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 12:27:48 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (LHEA9504/950407.s1) id MAA23282 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 12:23:18 -0400 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200004091623.MAA23282@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: Is Old Age "general bridge knowledge"? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 12:23:18 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <38F02637.8DB40FE5@eduhi.at> from "Petrus Schuster OSB" at Apr 09, 2000 08:41:59 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 In the case of other UI, such as body language, facial expressions, etc, the player is *NOT* allowed to make that assumption and hence not allowed to use that experience. The information although perhaps intuitive was determined by her partner's clear "signals" rather than by any knowledge bridge or otherwise that she may have...and that is clearly legislated against. Had there been no UI, then she is always allowed to do that. For example, if they were playing with screens for some reason and she had no way of seeing her partner doing all that, then it would be designated as: 1NT-X -P-2D* P -2H-P-3D P -P!-P but alas, her partner reinforced the message with UI which cannot be allowed. At the club level, I try to teach my players that this is wrong, either by ruling against them, or giving them stern warnings that are very clear in the "you did something wrong and *THIS* time I will not rule against you, but don't repeat it or I will". They have to learn that it isn't right. However, if her partner poker faced bid 3D and she chose to intuit that her partner had a weak diamond hand, that's fine. After all, one day, her partner will have a forcing hand with 5-6 in the reds and they'll miss a cold 4H. -Ted. > Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 08:41:59 +0200 > From: Petrus Schuster OSB > > Agreed. > But I am still not quite sure what to make of South's argument that she > thought it more likely North had forgotten the convention than that she > held a two-suiter. I have been informed that the two ladies play > together every now and then but could not be called a regular > partnership. > So if their is no (specific) partnership experience: Would you accept > this argument from South? > Would you really expect South to explain such a 2D bid as "Transfer to > hearts, but I would not be surprised if my partner had forgotten."? This > sounds terribly embarrassing. > > Petrus > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 10 13:59:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA10904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 13:59:54 +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 NAA10899 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 13:59:46 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 3535415617; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 23:59:33 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001b01bfa12e$5882d500$f35908c3@dodona> References: <200004051613.JAA23816@mailhub.irvine.com><004501bf9f5f$1b6cfc20$a28301d5@ davidburn> <001b01bfa12e$5882d500$f35908c3@dodona> Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 23:11:07 -0400 To: "Grattan Endicott" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Ludicrous regulation? Cc: "David Burn" , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 7:23 AM +0100 4/8/00, Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ EBU Orange Book: Section 3.1: >"The right to ask questions is not a licence to do so >without consequence: if you ask about an unalerted >call and then pass you have shown an interest which >may influence your partner. Asking about an alerted >call and then bidding reduces this possibility, but >in either case if your partner acts in a way that >suggests he has taken advantage of your question >then unauthorised information may be deemed to >have been given. ..... omissis...... Thanks Grattan! I wish this made things more clear. I read the first sentence and concluded that in the EBU one could ask about an alerted call and then pass without automatically being deemed to have made UI available. Then I read the second sentence and became confused all over again. The "in either case" in particular has me baffled. It seems to me that there are at least four cases, since my opponent's call may or may not have been alerted and then, having asked a question, I may or may not pass. Most of my confusion would vanish if the second sentence started with "Asking about an unalerted call...". In case of a typo I decided to check the on-line copies via http://www.ebu.co.uk/landec Their wording agrees with yours, although they place the text in section 3.4.1. AW From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 10 15:24:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA11002 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 15:24:40 +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 PAA10996 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 15:24:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com ([24.92.226.146]) by mailhop1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 01:21:13 -0400 Received: from [24.95.201.62] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 01:19:46 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <38F02637.8DB40FE5@eduhi.at> References: <200004081939.PAA18593@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <38F02637.8DB40FE5@eduhi.at> Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 01:20:39 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Is Old Age "general bridge knowledge"? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: >I am sorry I did not make myself sufficiently clear. >What I meant was: If the damage done by the infraction is slight (shared >top for NOS instead of clear top) AND the OS is incapable of >understanding their infraction AND the OS is so set in their ways that >educating them is beyond my abilities: then I would let a result stand >which I might otherwise adjust. On second thoughts, perhaps I should >have given NOS their clear top privately (it would not have changed >their final standings). I'm no expert, and most of the traffic on blml of late has made my head spin, so I may have missed something earlier in this thread. But two things jump out at me from this paragraph: letting a result stand because OS are incapable of understanding their infraction is well, just plain wrong, and giving NOS their clear top privately is even worse. Even in a club game. IMHO. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 11 01:39:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA12185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 01:39:35 +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 BAA12180 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 01:39:26 +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 IAA04548; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 08:39:41 -0700 Message-Id: <200004101539.IAA04548@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: L16A judgements In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 08 Apr 2000 00:55:24 PDT." <200004080455.AAA00984@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 08:39:41 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > ex2: > > 1H - P - 2NT(jacoby) - 3S > > 4H - 4S - long hesitation followed by a non-forcing pass - P > > ? > > Would anybody really play pass as non-forcing here? After partner's > 2NT response, we expect to make game. How can we let the opponents > play undoubled? I think there are people who agree that passes aren't forcing if only one suit has been shown by the partnership. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 11 07:37:05 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA13143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 07:37:05 +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 HAA13138 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 07:36:55 +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 12elrR-000EEJ-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 22:36:46 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 02:34:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L16A: Player education References: <200004061518.IAA16354@mailhub.irvine.com> <002f01bfa028$c0f6d0c0$6eb601d5@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <002f01bfa028$c0f6d0c0$6eb601d5@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >Adam wrote: > >> Someday, over there, there will be an auction that neither opponent >> asks any questions about, and then declarer will complain that one >> opponent received UI that his partner had no interest in the hand, >> from his partner's failure to ask any questions, and that the >opponent >> chose an alternative that could have been suggested by this UI about >> the lack of interest. > >It may happen over there also. Your lawyers are more ingenious than >ours. I mentioned in some other context that one day, this auction >might occur in perfect tempo: 1S - 3S (limit) - 4S, and the man who >had bid 4S on an average opening bid would be found guilty of using >the UI that his partner had a normal, and not a minimum, limit raise >(with which he might have hesitated). > >It is precisely to prevent this sort of thing that the WBF Code of >Practice recommends random tempo when transferring the tray under the >screen. It is worth noting that this solution actually works >perfectly, as would any purely mechanical solution (such as "all >alerts should be followed by a question", or "all cards not covered by >a claim statement should be deemed to be played misere"). The >solutions which do not work are those which rely on any or all of: the >integrity of players (who do not have very much); the judgement of >Tournament Directors and Appeals Committees (vanishingly small); the >"intent of the Law" (since following Edgar Kaplan's death, God only >knows what this was, and even He might have to consult); or an appeal >to the "spirit of the game" (it being extremely dubious whether or not >this exists, but even if it does, it is wholly impossible to codify >within the Laws). > >And yet, the belief persists that it is perfectly OK to have a set of >Laws which the players of the game do not understand. Most situations, >according to certain eminent authorities, are not problematic, and >those that are can be left in the safe hands of TDs or ACs. This >ruinous complacency must somehow be disturbed; it is entirely shameful >that we should consider it necessary to "educate players" when we >ourselves have made the Laws so opaque that no one can be expected to >comprehend them. Well, who are we? Personally, I do not think the lawmakers are the same people who should be educating the general populace, and for us to throw up our hands and cry "Quel horreur!" seems a little pointless. We have the laws: we have TDs and ACs [just possibly not quite so bad as you assume]: we have a number of other people who are interested in the Laws, and it is better for us to do something constructive than to go round complaining about the state of the Law book. By all means, improve the Law book, but we have other duties before we can do that, so the people with vanishingly small judgement could do some good by educating people. And please don't talk about their difficulty in understanding the wording of the Law book: teaching players about the Laws is not the same as reading them out with no explanation. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo got over *fifty* emails on his birthday, April 5th. Quango got *twenty* emails on his birthday: he is **not** amused. Their pictures are at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 11 10:33:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA13504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 10:33:24 +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 KAA13498 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 10:33:16 +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 12eoc4-000KF2-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 00:33:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 00:17:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Ludicrous regulation? References: <200004051613.JAA23816@mailhub.irvine.com> <004501bf9f5f$1b6cfc20$a28301d5@davidburn> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Wildavsky wrote: >At 1:29 AM +0100 4/6/00, David Burn wrote: >>A question about an alerted call is deemed to convey interest in the >>suit asked about - you are not supposed to ask questions on every >>occasion, but only when you are "interested" in the answers to them. >>For the "reasoning" behind this ludicrous regulation, you will have >>to apply to wiser heads than mine. > >I recently (in the thread "Redress for N/S?") asked for a reference >to this regulation and received no reply. If no one on the BLML can >provide the text for such a regulation I have no reason to believe >that it exists, nor can I see why anyone would act as if it does. EBU Orange book 1998 #3.4.1 http://www.ebu.co.uk/landec -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo got over *forty* emails on his birthday, April 5th. Quango got *twenty* emails on his birthday: he is **not** amused. Their pictures are at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 11 10:33:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA13509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 10:33:27 +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 KAA13502 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 10:33:20 +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 12eoc2-000LIn-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 00:33:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 00:33:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fielded psych References: <3.0.6.32.20000408181912.00814660@ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000408181912.00814660@ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tony Musgrove wrote: >Psychic bidding is not exactly de rigeur in the clubs where I direct. >However this happened today > > E S W N > 1C x 1S 1NT > 2C all pass > >East held West held > Q x x x ---- > x x x x x > x K J x x x > A K Q J x x x x x x x x > >2C was not a great success since 5C made at most tables. > >I was called by South, who felt that East may have raised to 4S. > >East is an "operator" who is know to enjoy the odd psych, but he claimed that >his partner had never done so. He claimed that everyone at the table knew >that his partner's bid was a psych following opponents double, and North's >1NT. > >We do not have access to an "Orange Book" in Australia. I believe that the >ruling in >UK would possibly be a "red" psych and at most 40% on the board. Is this >correct? If it is ruled a Red Psyche, ie that East has fielded it, then we would give E/W 30%, N/S 60%, unless N/S got a better result anyway. There have been arguments in this thread about how East could have known it was a psyche because of the opponents' bidding. They have a lot more faith in the opponents bidding than I have! Why should the 1NT not be a distributional hand having a little bit of fun? To be honest, I might easily accept an argument that West has not fielded this one, though it depends slightly on which is his 14th card. People tend to rebid 8-card suits, for example. In England we would give East a chance in writing to explain his actions, and my ruling would be based on his answer. Maybe Amber, which is a final warning sort of ruling. >How could I have made a ruling on this case (had the psych worked) without >calling East a cheat? Easy: tell him you are calling it a fielded psyche. When someone tells you that is tantamount to cheating tell the person that remark is bordering on unethical. When you make a ruling that someone has broken a Law you are making no implication that his ethics are suspect unless you say so. Here you are merely saying he is in breach of L40A. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo got over *forty* emails on his birthday, April 5th. Quango got *twenty* emails on his birthday: he is **not** amused. Their pictures are at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 11 12:07:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA13682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 12:07:14 +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 MAA13677 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 12:07:05 +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 12eq4p-000EYk-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 03:06:52 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 03:04:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: L16A: Player education References: <200004061518.IAA16354@mailhub.irvine.com> <002f01bfa028$c0f6d0c0$6eb601d5@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 > > Well, who are we? Personally, I do not think the lawmakers are the >same people who should be educating the general populace, and for us to >throw up our hands and cry "Quel horreur!" seems a little pointless. We >have the laws: we have TDs and ACs [just possibly not quite so bad as >you assume]: we have a number of other people who are interested in the >Laws, and it is better for us to do something constructive than to go >round complaining about the state of the Law book. > > By all means, improve the Law book, but we have other duties before we >can do that, so the people with vanishingly small judgement could do >some good by educating people. And please don't talk about their >difficulty in understanding the wording of the Law book: teaching >players about the Laws is not the same as reading them out with no >explanation. > LawMakers and LawGivers are different animals. Us LawGivers moan constantly about the utter incompetence of the Lawmakers. But ... them's the laws. It's up to us to Give them, and moan like hell at the LawMakers so they do a better job next time. 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 Apr 11 22:04:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA14766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 22:04:55 +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 WAA14756 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 22:04:42 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id NAA03213 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 13:04:03 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 13:04 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Fielded 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: DWS wrote: > > If it is ruled a Red Psyche, ie that East has fielded it, then we > would give E/W 30%, N/S 60%, unless N/S got a better result anyway. > > There have been arguments in this thread about how East could have > known it was a psyche because of the opponents' bidding. They have a > lot more faith in the opponents bidding than I have! Why should the 1NT > not be a distributional hand having a little bit of fun? > No reason at all (or perhaps North is a big red 2-suiter) but surely this is enough to stop the psyche being red. Once you know that someone at the table is non-standard for their bid it is surely reasonable to proceed cautiously until one finds out who the joker is. I can think of several ways in which the auction might proceed when I would rule a failure to support spades at the next opportunity was indeed red (but the actual 3 passes is not one of them!). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 11 22:54:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA14880 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 22:54:48 +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 WAA14875 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 22:54:38 +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 NAA03711; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 13:54:24 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA24900; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 13:54:23 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 12:54:23 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 NAA05974; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 13:54:21 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id NAA29200; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 13:54:21 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 13:54:21 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200004111254.NAA29200@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, schuster@eduhi.at Subject: Re: Is Old Age "general bridge knowledge"? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > In our regional championships, the following auction happened: > Board 10, E, both > > N E S W > > P P 1NT > X P 2D* P *alerted: transfer to H > 2H P 3D P > P P > > N holds > > AJ76 > AJT > A95 > T82 > > S is a lady in her eighties. EW called me after the 3D bid and claimed > that S had pulled a face after the explanation of 2D.(not unlikely: she > was 3352) > 3D went down one for a shared bottom. > When I asked N after the hand why she had not removed to 3H, she told me > that she thought it more probable that S had forgotten their convention > than that she actually held a two-suiter. > I might rule that NS system was 2D = transfer to 2H or partner may forget and have diamonds. If you ask many poor players, they will tell you that 1NT-2D-2H-3D is to play with diamonds. One pair at our club actually play this as their only weak take-out to diamonds. [ I imagine 1NT-2C-2any-3C is weak take-out in clubs; and 1NT-2C-2any-3D and 1NT-2D-2H-3C are not defined.] I may be convinced that, amongst NS's peers: (1NT)-X-2D-2H means I think 2D is a transfer and there is no logical alternative to 3D with a weak hand with diamonds; (1NT)-X-2D-2H-3D means I have diamonds and there is no logical alternative to pass. There is still misinformation to deal with, EW might have been damaged by not being informed that 2D="D or H" when 2D is bid. Also "(1NT)-X-2D = D or H" may not be a permitted convention it the competition. In which case, in the EBU we would award an artificial adjusted score, which would be close to the score for a fielded psyche. Robin -- Robin Barker | Eail: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, 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 Apr 12 00:18:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA15070 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 23:56:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from main.internetalex.com ([212.103.187.45]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA15065 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 23:56:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from [212.103.188.103] by main.internetalex.com; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/28Aug96-0425PM) id AA02531; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 15:58:31 +0200 Message-Id: <316D1060.46454F7A@internetalex.com> Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 16:00:00 +0200 From: "S.S" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Pause due to sudden 4S Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello all, During a national event that took place last month in Alexandria, Egypt; the following happens: North: 1H East: 4S South: Pause to think, then Pass ( all I remember was I had 5 cards in H, 5 Hcp so I took some time to think to bid 5H or not ) West: Pass North: 5H East: Double, Director ! North had 6 running Hearts, I can't remember the exact hands because some time has passed. What makes me to bring this up is, recently I found out that opps filed a complaint to the international appeal committee. Opps on that day didn't accept Director's ruling which is to give them the 4S score, or 5H D-2 score. Appeal. Appeal committee of four ruled for N/S. I don't have access to exact shape of hand, sorry if it sounds vague. But is North allowed to bid after my thinking ? What laws apply here ? Thank you Sandra From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 12 00:33:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA15242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 00:33:47 +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 AAA15237 for ; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 00:33:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (pcciborowski.comarch.pl [195.116.125.138]) by omicron.comarch.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBAD75C053 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 16:33:12 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38F33735.9F157539@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 16:31:17 +0200 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: Fielded psych References: <3.0.6.32.20000408181912.00814660@ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Tony Musgrove wrote: > >Psychic bidding is not exactly de rigeur in the clubs where I direct. > >However this happened today > > > > E S W N > > 1C x 1S 1NT > > 2C all pass > > > >East held West held > > Q x x x ---- > > x x x x x > > x K J x x x > > A K Q J x x x x x x x x > > > >2C was not a great success since 5C made at most tables. > > > >I was called by South, who felt that East may have raised to 4S. > > > >East is an "operator" who is know to enjoy the odd psych, but he claimed that > >his partner had never done so. He claimed that everyone at the table knew > >that his partner's bid was a psych following opponents double, and North's > >1NT. > > > >We do not have access to an "Orange Book" in Australia. I believe that the > >ruling in > >UK would possibly be a "red" psych and at most 40% on the board. Is this > >correct? Can anyone clarify those colors of psyches to me? Is this some BBU regulation? Thanks a lot. -- *********************************************************************** - One school believes that high taxes are most profitable for the poor as there is more money in the budget for social purposes. The other one claims that low taxes are better for the poor as the rich ones can keep more money for investments that give work to the unemployed ones etc. Which side does your party support? - Both of these schools are right but we reject both viewpoints. ( from a TV debate before the elections in a certain European country ) Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 12 02:18:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA15392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 01:15:59 +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 BAA15387 for ; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 01:15:50 +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 QAA09196; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 16:15:23 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA11845; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 16:15:22 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 15:15:22 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 QAA06585; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 16:15:20 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id QAA29329; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 16:15:19 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 16:15:19 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200004111515.QAA29329@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: Konrad.Ciborowski@omicron.comarch.pl Subject: Re: Fielded psych Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > >We do not have access to an "Orange Book" in Australia. I believe that the > > >ruling in > > >UK would possibly be a "red" psych and at most 40% on the board. Is this > > >correct? > > Can anyone clarify those colors of psyches to me? > Is this some BBU regulation? Thanks a lot. > See http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/psych1.htm or EBU Orange Book http://www.ebu.co.uk/ob9a.pdf section 6.2. Robin -- Robin Barker | Eail: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, 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 Apr 12 03:03:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA15977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 03:03:23 +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 DAA15972 for ; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 03:03:15 +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 NAA09211; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 13:02:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <316D1060.46454F7A@internetalex.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 12:58:21 -0500 To: "S.S" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Pause due to sudden 4S Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 4:00 PM +0200 4/11/96, S.S wrote: (Your computer is four years out of date; please reset your clock.) >During a national event that took place last month in Alexandria, Egypt; >the >following happens: > >North: 1H >East: 4S >South: Pause to think, then Pass ( all I remember was I had 5 cards in >H, 5 >Hcp so I took some time to think to bid 5H or not ) >West: Pass >North: 5H >East: Double, Director ! >North had 6 running Hearts, I can't remember the exact hands because >some time >has passed. >What makes me to bring this up is, recently I found out that opps filed >a >complaint to the international appeal committee. >Opps on that day didn't accept Director's ruling which is to give them >the 4S >score, or 5H D-2 score. Appeal. Appeal committee of four ruled for N/S. >I don't have access to exact shape of hand, sorry if it sounds vague. >But is >North allowed to bid after my thinking ? What laws apply here? Laws 16A and 73C. Partner cannot choose a call which was suggested by your slow pass if he has a logical alternative. If partner does choose such a call, then the score should be adjusted. Whether the ruling is correct depends on whether the slow pass conveyed unauthorized information (I don't know Egyptian rules, but in most countries, you are required to wait 10 seconds after a jump bid by an opponent whether or not you have a problem), and on North's hand. If North had a normal opening with solid hearts, say xx AKQJxx Kxx xx, then passing is a logical alternative, and he cannot bid 5H after the slow pass, because the slow pass suggests values. If North had a distributional freak with a spade void, say - AKQJxx xx KQxxx, then passing is not a logical alternative, and there is no adjustment. With that hand, 5C and 5H are the logical alternatives, and the slow pass does not suggest either one over the other. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 12 08:18:15 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA16976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 08:18:15 +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 IAA16970 for ; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 08:18:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivegio.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.88]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA05994 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 18:17:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000411165239.012a82a0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 16:52:39 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Pause due to sudden 4S In-Reply-To: <316D1060.46454F7A@internetalex.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:00 PM 4/11/1996 +0200, Sandra wrote: >Hello all, > >During a national event that took place last month in Alexandria, Egypt; >the >following happens: > >North: 1H >East: 4S >South: Pause to think, then Pass ( all I remember was I had 5 cards in >H, 5 >Hcp so I took some time to think to bid 5H or not ) >West: Pass >North: 5H >East: Double, Director ! > >North had 6 running Hearts, I can't remember the exact hands because >some time >has passed. >What makes me to bring this up is, recently I found out that opps filed >a >complaint to the international appeal committee. >Opps on that day didn't accept Director's ruling which is to give them >the 4S >score, or 5H D-2 score. Appeal. Appeal committee of four ruled for N/S. > >I don't have access to exact shape of hand, sorry if it sounds vague. >But is >North allowed to bid after my thinking ? What laws apply here ? The Laws which apply to this situation are L73C and L16a. There may also be regulations promulgated by your sponsoring organization which would be relevant. L73c says: "When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side. " L16a spells out in some greater detail how to implement the principle of L73c, and at the same time provides for a relatively objective procedure for enforcement: "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. " The two areas of regulation which might apply pertain to the precise definition of "logical alternative" in L16a and the rights/responsibilities of players following skip bids. The definition of "Logical alternative" varies across organizations, but in general, a LA is an option that at least some fraction of players would choose, using the same methods but lacking the unauthorized information. And in some (most?) areas, the rights of players to spend some reasonable time to consider the problems posed by large jumps in the auction are protected. In North America, for example, it would be normal for East to say "skip bid" before calling 4S, and with or without this warning, it would be appropriate for South to wait 8 to 10 seconds before making any call. That would not be regarded as unauthorized information, although a substantially longer pause would be (as would an immediate bid). For purposes of discussion, we will assume that your pause was in fact the longer kind, so that your partner really was in possession of the unauthorized information that you were considering some sort of action over 4S. It is _not_ necessarily the case that he must pass in this situation. The answer depends on a number of factors: chiefly his hand but also the scoring and vulnerability. To determine whether your partner's actions are restricted, we must examine two issues: 1)did your partner have any logical alternative(s) to bidding 5H? and 2)did the fact that you hesitated so long make bidding 5H more attractive, compared to the logical alternative, than it would have been had you bid in tempo? For the logical alternative question, consider two examples: 1. 2. S - x S - xx H - AKQTxxx H - AKQxxx D - KQJx D - KJx C - x C - Qx Others may disagree, but I would suggest that with the first hand, most players would judge that the relative costs and benefits of bidding 5H make it the clear choice, and I would not consider Pass to be a logical alternative in this case (5H could make, and the hand offers few defensive prospects). In contrast, bidding 5H with the second hand is much less clear. Certainly some would do so, depending on the scoring and vulnerability, but others might judge that the hand offered greater defensive hopes against 4S as well as substantially greater risk of a severe penalty at 5H. Thus Pass is a logical alternative (LA) for hand 2. The second question in this case (what, if anything, does the hesitation suggest about the relative merits of bidding or passing) is much more complex, and has divided this group for some time. Clearly the hesitation suggests that you were either thinking about doubling 4S or bidding something else (most likely 5H). There are those who argue along the following lines: if you were considering a double, then that makes bidding 5H _less_ attractive, while if you were considering bidding on, then 5H is _more_ attractive. Since partner cannot tell which you were thinking about, the hesitation does not in fact point to one over the other, and so does not restrict your partner. I belong to the opposing school, which believes that since your hesitation clearly points toward some sort of action, _acting_ (either by bidding or doubling) is suggested over passing, if the latter is indeed a LA. Thus your partner may neither bid nor double if pass is a LA, as it is with hand 2. On the other hand, if pass is not a LA, then partner is free to choose either a bid or a double, since your hesitation does not point to one over the other. This sounds enormously complicated, I realize, but the key point to understand is that your partner must take special care to avoid taking advantage of unauthorized information (such as a long hesitation). In particular, if he has more than one alternative (and he has to assess these as honestly and objectively as possible), then he cannot choose one which has been made more attractive by your hesitation. If he does so, then the tournament director should adjust the result. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 12 10:37:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA17435 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 10:37:38 +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 KAA17430 for ; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 10:37:30 +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 UAA21460; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 20:37:13 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000411165239.012a82a0@pop.mindspring.com> References: <316D1060.46454F7A@internetalex.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 20:35:52 -0500 To: "Michael S. Dennis" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Pause due to sudden 4S Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 4:52 PM -0400 4/11/00, Michael S. Dennis wrote: [1H-4S-slow P-P-5H; opener has solid hearts] >The second question in this case (what, if anything, does the hesitation >suggest about the relative merits of bidding or passing) is much more >complex, and has divided this group for some time. Clearly the hesitation >suggests that you were either thinking about doubling 4S or bidding >something else (most likely 5H). There are those who argue along the >following lines: if you were considering a double, then that makes bidding >5H _less_ attractive, while if you were considering bidding on, then 5H is >_more_ attractive. Since partner cannot tell which you were thinking about, >the hesitation does not in fact point to one over the other, and so does >not restrict your partner. The hesitation does restrict your partner in any case. Double is more attractive if the hesitatotor was considering double, but also if he was considering 5H, since he can pull the double to 5H knowing that opener has extra values and 5H is likely to make. In this case, I think that a pass considering a penalty double also makes 5H more attractive. Opener has solid hearts, and thus does not need support to make 5H; he needs high-card values, and 5H thus has a better chance to make if partner has two defensive tricks (x AKQJxx Axx QJx opposite Axx xx QJx Kxxxx, say; 4S undoubled is going to be a bad score, while 5H will make.) In contrast, if opener has something like x KTxxxx AKxx QJ, 5H will probably go down opposite a penalty double, and if 4S is making, 5H may not even be a good sacrifice. >I belong to the opposing school, which believes that since your hesitation >clearly points toward some sort of action, _acting_ (either by bidding or >doubling) is suggested over passing, if the latter is indeed a LA. I would have accepted this position under the old Laws, but not under the new Laws, because I don't see "acting" as an alternative in a case like this. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 13 00:19:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA19506 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 00:19:38 +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 AAA19501 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 00:19:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-33qth0u.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.196.30]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA26578 for ; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 10:19:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000412143119.006f96c4@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, 12 Apr 2000 07:31:19 -0700 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Henry Sun Subject: Re: Pause due to sudden 4S Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:00 PM 4/11/96 +0200, you wrote: >Hello all, > >During a national event that took place last month in Alexandria, Egypt; >the following happens: > >North: 1H >East: 4S >South: Pause to think, then Pass ( all I remember was I had 5 cards in >H, 5 Hcp so I took some time to think to bid 5H or not ) >West: Pass >North: 5H >East: Double, Director ! > >North had 6 running Hearts, I can't remember the exact hands because >some time has passed. >What makes me to bring this up is, recently I found out that opps filed >a complaint to the international appeal committee. >Opps on that day didn't accept Director's ruling which is to give them >the 4S score, or 5H D-2 score. Appeal. Appeal committee of four ruled for N/S. > >I don't have access to exact shape of hand, sorry if it sounds vague. >But is North allowed to bid after my thinking ? What laws apply here ? >Thank you > >Sandra > in the acbl, as far as i know it, the situation you describe is treated differently if east announced a skip-bid or not. if east did, then south is required to pause and maintain the appearance of thought for 10-15 seconds, and only time taken substantially beyond that is considered to give unauthorized information. if south does pause appreciably beyond 10-15 seconds, then north's options are severely restricted: he may not make a call that is suggested by the UI unless there is no logical alternative to that call. a hand like VOID; akqxxxx; kqxxx x might qualify for a 5h call over a slow pass to 4s. but if east does not announce a skip bid, south is still entitled to her 10-15 seconds of thought, and if south takes such thought, then north's options are not severely restricted. he must not take outlandish action if that action is suggested by the UI, but he may take reasonable action, a call that (in the old days) 25% or so of his peers would have taken. a different sort of example was much discussed in the bridge world during the mid 1970s, so the legal situation may have changed somewhat. the bidding went 1nt-p-3nt-slow pass-p-p. opening leader has something like xxx; xx; jxx; qxxxx and led a small heart; 3rd hand had somethine like axx; kqjtxx; xxx; x and the hand went down. originally the bridge world ruled that the slow pass to 3nt conveyed UI to opening leader, and hence that a score adjustment was required; in subsequent discussions, the bridge world conceded that the failure to announce a skip bid before bidding 3nt meant that the slow pass to 3nt was protected by 3rd hand's right to 10-15 seconds of thought, and thus the small heart bid should be allowed. henrysun From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 13 00:45:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA19605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 00:45:21 +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 AAA19600 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 00:45:10 +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 12fONz-000EqX-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 14:44:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 12:16:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fielded psych References: <3.0.6.32.20000408181912.00814660@ozemail.com.au> <003901bfa1e1$edb2e120$4ad63ad0@hdavis> In-Reply-To: <003901bfa1e1$edb2e120$4ad63ad0@hdavis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: >> 1C x 1S 1NT >> 2C all pass >> >> East held West held >> Q x x x ---- >> x x x x x >> x K J x x x >> A K Q J x x x x x x x x >> >> 2C was not a great success since 5C made at most tables. >> >> I was called by South, who felt that East may have raised to 4S. >Two very different reasons for ruling that there was no fielded psych: > >1) Look at it from the E point of view. E has four spades. N has made >a takeout >double, showing three or four spades. Partner has shown four spades. S >has indicated a spade stop, and likely has three of them. Add it all >together, and E is looking at a deck with about fourteen or fifteen >spades in it (unless the spades around the table are exactly 4-3-4-2). >E has pretty good AI that *someone* has psyched. And let's face it, >1m-X-1S may be one of the most common psychic calls in the game. If the >psych has been exposed by AI, E is perfectly free to attempt to field >it. I have never been completely impressed by any logic that because oppos have shown something, pd must have psyched. For one thing, how do you not know that the oppos have psyched? Interestingly enough, last night I did my regular screening for the EBU of all recent Appeal and Psyche forms, and guess what I found!!!! 1C x 1S 1NT 2C The 2C bidder had four spades! Now, I am not going to tell you what his pd or LHO had, because it is not relevant. But his RHO had made a "practical" bid of 1NT with a nine-count - and singleton ace of spades. So when you are proving pd must have psyched, remember LHO may have 3 S's [for a t/o dbl - OK?] and RHO may have *one* spade: that leaves five for pd. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo got over *fifty* emails on his birthday, April 5th. Quango got *twenty* emails on his birthday: he is **not** amused. Their pictures are at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 13 01:50:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA19814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 01:50:46 +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 BAA19809 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 01:50:38 +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 IAA25164; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 08:50:53 -0700 Message-Id: <200004121550.IAA25164@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Pause due to sudden 4S In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 12 Apr 2000 07:31:19 PDT." <1.5.4.32.20000412143119.006f96c4@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 08:50:54 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henry Sun wrote: > At 04:00 PM 4/11/96 +0200, you wrote: > >Hello all, > > > >During a national event that took place last month in Alexandria, Egypt; > >the following happens: > > > >North: 1H > >East: 4S > >South: Pause to think, then Pass ( all I remember was I had 5 cards in > >H, 5 Hcp so I took some time to think to bid 5H or not ) etc. > in the acbl, as far as i know it, the situation you describe is treated > differently if east announced a skip-bid or not. if east did, then south > is required to pause and maintain the appearance of thought for 10-15 > seconds, and only time taken substantially beyond that is considered to > give unauthorized information. if south does pause appreciably > beyond 10-15 seconds, then north's options are severely restricted: > he may not make a call that is suggested by the UI unless there is > no logical alternative to that call. a hand like VOID; akqxxxx; kqxxx > x might qualify for a 5h call over a slow pass to 4s. > > but if east does not announce a skip bid, south is still entitled to > her 10-15 seconds of thought, and if south takes such thought, then > north's options are not severely restricted. he must not take > outlandish action if that action is suggested by the UI, but he may > take reasonable action, a call that (in the old days) 25% or so of > his peers would have taken. I don't think this is quite correct, and I'm not convinced your post came out the way you thought it would. As I understand the rules, South may pause for 10-15 seconds after a skip bid whether announced or not, and this pause is not deemed UI, and places *no* restrictions on partner. If South pauses appreciably longer, then the pause is UI (whether or not the skip bid is announced). If South does not pause at all after the skip bid, it may make a difference whether East announced the skip. If East announced the skip bid, then South's failure to pause is definitely UI to partner. If East did not announce the skip bid, then E-W may lose some of their rights to an adjusted score if South fails to pause. But South is expected to pause anyway, and if N-S are experienced enough to know better, the director could still rule that the failure to pause was UI. At least, those were the rules at some point. I'm not sure whether they've been changed or not. But I'm still sure that a 10-second pause or so after an unannounced skip bid is not considered to be a break in tempo. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 13 02:43:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA20096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 02:43:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f31.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.31]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA20091 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 02:43:46 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 67423 invoked by uid 0); 12 Apr 2000 16:43:08 -0000 Message-ID: <20000412164308.67422.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.21 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 09:43:07 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.21] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Pause due to sudden 4S Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 09:43:07 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Henry Sun >a different sort of example was much discussed in the bridge world >during the mid 1970s, so the legal situation may have changed >somewhat. the bidding went 1nt-p-3nt-slow pass-p-p. opening leader >has something like xxx; xx; jxx; qxxxx and led a small heart; >3rd hand had somethine like axx; kqjtxx; xxx; x and the hand went >down. originally the bridge world ruled that the slow pass to 3nt >conveyed UI to opening leader, and hence that a score adjustment >was required; in subsequent discussions, the bridge world conceded >that the failure to announce a skip bid before bidding 3nt meant that >the slow pass to 3nt was protected by 3rd hand's right to 10-15 >seconds of thought, and thus the small heart bid should be allowed. Why does the hesitation suggest a heart lead over spades or diamonds? -Todd ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 13 03:10:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA20208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 03:10:36 +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 DAA20203 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 03:10:25 +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 NAA24842; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 13:10:14 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.20000412143119.006f96c4@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 13:02:15 -0500 To: Henry Sun , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Pause due to sudden 4S Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 7:31 AM -0700 4/12/00, Henry Sun wrote: >but if east does not announce a skip bid, south is still entitled to >her 10-15 seconds of thought, and if south takes such thought, then >north's options are not severely restricted. he must not take >outlandish action if that action is suggested by the UI, but he may >take reasonable action, a call that (in the old days) 25% or so of >his peers would have taken. Kaplan gave this as an example in the Bridge World, but it is no longer valid. If East makes a skip bid, whether announced or not, South is required to wait for ten seconds before calling. Thus South's ten-second hesitation conveys no UI. The failure to use the skip-bid warning jeopardizes E-W's right to redress for a *fast* action. For example, if North opens 1S, East bids 4H, and South doubles quickly, that suggests a clear penalty double, and thus North should pull if pulling is a logical alternative. If East has not given the skip-bid warning, he is less likely to get a favorable ruling. (Again, an expert South is still expected to know his obligation even without the warning.) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 13 03:41:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA20434 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 03:41:56 +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 DAA20428 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 03:41:42 +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 NAA29007 for ; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 13:41:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA04711 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 13:41:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 13:41:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200004121741.NAA04711@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Pause due to sudden 4S X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" Most of what Mike wrote was very good. I especially appreciate the balanced description of two views about what the hesitation suggests. > if pass is not a LA, then partner is free to choose > either a bid or a double, since your hesitation does not point to one over > the other. I'm afraid I disagree here. If double and 5H (but not pass) are LA's, I think partner's hesitation makes double much more attractive and therefore illegal. If both calls are LA's, the hand must be strong and have a good mix of offensive and defensive values. If partner was considering a penalty double, surely double is now much more attractive. And if partner was considering 5H, he will bid it over the double. Another way to look at it: without UI, the downside of double is that partner leaves it in, and you get an inadequate penalty while 5H would have made, or on a really bad day, 4Sx makes. With the UI, those dangers are removed, making double more attractive. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 13 04:02:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA20562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 04:02:30 +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 EAA20557 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 04:02:21 +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 OAA29503; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 14:02:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA064432522; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 14:02:03 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 14:01:44 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Pause due to sudden 4S Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, htcs@mindspring.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 EAA20558 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henrysun wrote: in the acbl, as far as i know it, the situation you describe is treated differently if east announced a skip-bid or not. if east did, then south is required to pause and maintain the appearance of thought for 10-15 seconds, and only time taken substantially beyond that is considered to give unauthorized information. if south does pause appreciably beyond 10-15 seconds, then north's options are severely restricted: he may not make a call that is suggested by the UI unless there is no logical alternative to that call. a hand like VOID; akqxxxx; kqxxx x might qualify for a 5h call over a slow pass to 4s. but if east does not announce a skip bid, south is still entitled to her 10-15 seconds of thought, and if south takes such thought, then north's options are not severely restricted. he must not take outlandish action if that action is suggested by the UI, but he may take reasonable action, a call that (in the old days) 25% or so of his peers would have taken. [Laval Dubreuil] False IMHO. Skip bid warning or not, a player "must" hesitate about 10 sec. after any skip bid. I personnaly think we should eliminate the skip bid warning and enforce this regulation (the automatic hesitation) to avoid problems with players who tend to use the skip bid warning only when they have a weak hand... Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 13 05:23:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA21302 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 05:23:56 +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 FAA21294 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 05:23:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from p43s02a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.162.68] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt11-he.global.net.uk.noc.gxn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12f3jH-0008OE-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 17:41:31 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Pause due to sudden 4S Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 20:24:39 +0100 Message-ID: <01bfa4b4$bf2c8e20$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: Wednesday, April 12, 2000 5:53 PM Subject: Re: Pause due to sudden 4S >>From: Henry Sun >>a different sort of example was much discussed in the bridge world >>during the mid 1970s, so the legal situation may have changed >>somewhat. the bidding went 1nt-p-3nt-slow pass-p-p. opening leader >>has something like xxx; xx; jxx; qxxxx and led a small heart; >>3rd hand had somethine like axx; kqjtxx; xxx; x and the hand went >>down. originally the bridge world ruled that the slow pass to 3nt >>conveyed UI to opening leader, and hence that a score adjustment >>was required; in subsequent discussions, the bridge world conceded >>that the failure to announce a skip bid before bidding 3nt meant that >>the slow pass to 3nt was protected by 3rd hand's right to 10-15 >>seconds of thought, and thus the small heart bid should be allowed. > > Why does the hesitation suggest a heart lead over spades or diamonds? > What would you hesitate about in an auction like this? You are not thinking of bidding at the 4 level. Usually you are wondering whether to double? Double would usually ask for an unusual lead. If you double and get your unusual lead will the contract go off. Will partner find an unusual lead without the double? The hesitation suggests a short suit lead would be more correct than 4th highest of your longest and strongest. The hesitation suggests that you lead a heart with that hand. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 13 05:26:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA20260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 03:17:35 +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 DAA20255 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 03:17:22 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA26023 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 13:13:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200004121713.NAA26023@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: Pause due to sudden 4S To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 13:13:54 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20000412164308.67422.qmail@hotmail.com> from "Todd Zimnoch" at Apr 12, 2000 09:43:07 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: > > >From: Henry Sun > >a different sort of example was much discussed in the bridge world > >during the mid 1970s, so the legal situation may have changed > >somewhat. the bidding went 1nt-p-3nt-slow pass-p-p. opening leader > >has something like xxx; xx; jxx; qxxxx and led a small heart; > >3rd hand had somethine like axx; kqjtxx; xxx; x and the hand went > >down. originally the bridge world ruled that the slow pass to 3nt > >conveyed UI to opening leader, and hence that a score adjustment > >was required; in subsequent discussions, the bridge world conceded > >that the failure to announce a skip bid before bidding 3nt meant that > >the slow pass to 3nt was protected by 3rd hand's right to 10-15 > >seconds of thought, and thus the small heart bid should be allowed. > > Why does the hesitation suggest a heart lead over spades or diamonds? > It doesn't in itself. It's vaguely like certain lead directing doubles. Often partner can work it out from his hand. Sometimes he can't. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 13 06:29:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA21787 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 06:29:33 +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 GAA21781 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 06:29:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivegr0.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.67.96]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA09065 for ; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 16:29:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000412162624.012d7c8c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 16:26:24 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Fielded psych In-Reply-To: References: <003901bfa1e1$edb2e120$4ad63ad0@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.20000408181912.00814660@ozemail.com.au> <003901bfa1e1$edb2e120$4ad63ad0@hdavis> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:16 PM 4/12/2000 +0100, David S wrote: > Interestingly enough, last night I did my regular screening for the >EBU of all recent Appeal and Psyche forms, and guess what I found!!!! > > 1C x 1S 1NT > 2C > > The 2C bidder had four spades! > > Now, I am not going to tell you what his pd or LHO had, because it is >not relevant. But his RHO had made a "practical" bid of 1NT with a >nine-count - and singleton ace of spades. So when you are proving pd >must have psyched, remember LHO may have 3 S's [for a t/o dbl - OK?] and >RHO may have *one* spade: that leaves five for pd. "May have???" Yes of course, anything is possible. Either or both opponents _may_ have psyched, or just may have chosen to take an unusual action that seemed right to them in context. So, yes, partner _could_ have 5, or even 9 spades, for that matter. But what are the odds? The takeout doubler is significantly more likely to have 4 spades than 3, and the 1nt bidder is a whole lot more likely to have at least 3 than 1, or even 2. On average, the opponents have shown 7 spades between them. As a matter of general bridge knowledge, I would judge that a 1S response after the opponent's takeout double is a relatively common sort of psych, while neither of the opponents' actions would typically be psyched. Putting all of this together, it seems quite reasonable to suspect partner's 1S bid, without depending at all on partnership experience. You seem to be arguing that the correct standard to apply is to require the putative OS to show that the objective facts "proved" a psych in order to defend against a claim of an illegally fielded psych. But that is not written into the Laws, nor do I see any logical reason to follow that approach. IMO, if the objective facts (i.e., the auction plus the player's own cards) strongly point toward that possiblity, then that player is legally entitled to procede with caution, including a reluctance to raise partner's suspicious-sounding bid. And that is certainly the case here. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 13 07:57:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA22549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 07:57:37 +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 HAA22544 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 07:57:27 +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 OAA32500; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 14:57:41 -0700 Message-Id: <200004122157.OAA32500@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Fielded psych In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 12 Apr 2000 16:26:24 PDT." <3.0.1.32.20000412162624.012d7c8c@pop.mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 14:57:43 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mike Dennis wrote [responding to David Stevenson]: > You seem to be arguing that the correct standard to apply is to require the > putative OS to show that the objective facts "proved" a psych in order to > defend against a claim of an illegally fielded psych. But that is not > written into the Laws, nor do I see any logical reason to follow that > approach. IMO, if the objective facts (i.e., the auction plus the player's > own cards) strongly point toward that possiblity, then that player is > legally entitled to procede with caution, including a reluctance to raise > partner's suspicious-sounding bid. And that is certainly the case here. Hmmm . . . I went back through David's posts on this thread, and it appears to me that David has not been arguing anything at all, for either side, about whether a psych was illegally fielded. The closest he came on this issue was "To be honest, I might easily accept an argument that West [sic] has not fielded this one, though it depends slightly on which is his 14th card." All he did was to point out that the argument "East should have figured out that West was psyching" is bogus. Since that bogus argument was made by the "East-didn't-do-anything-illegal" camp, you've unfairly dumped him into the "Yes-East-did-something-illegal" camp. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 13 09:45:07 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA22773 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 09:45:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from square.inter.net.il (square.inter.net.il [192.116.202.83]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA22764 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 09:44:56 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 9371 invoked from network); 12 Apr 2000 23:44:24 -0000 Received: from ramat-gan-16-195.inter.net.il (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.16.195) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 12 Apr 2000 23:44:24 -0000 Message-ID: <38F4FCD6.F6B5FA4A@inter.net.il> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 01:46:46 +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 Burn CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L16A: Player education References: <000e01bf9f43$6a4b2cc0$9484d9ce@oemcomputer> <003301bf9f5d$e0950260$a28301d5@davidburn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk OK all H-BLML Ms (human-blml members.) I read all the messages until 11.4 and don't want to be nasty , but I don't mind to bell the cats ! Have 11 at home ....... And I don't mind if - after reading some opinions here - a lot of rats will run away from the list, hearing SHOBO's bell while his claws ready for ......... What I am afraid is the running away of thousands of thousands of mouses from the clubs all over the world - like from a sinking boat - if the general trend of lawyers , barristers , solicitors, counsels at law or whatever law-xyz-ers will oppress the flavor to play bridge !!!! There is no doubt that players would learn some basics of ethics and proprieties during their first course of bridge ,and TDs must educate as the most important part of their ruling tasks ---- ============================================================ but everything must be done keeping the right proportions...... ============================================================ Dany David Burn wrote: > > I have been staying out of this, for the views expressed have been > sufficiently vigorous and comprehensive. I think, though, that one > incident which remains in my mind seven years after it took place may > give some notion of the extent of the problem. > > European Championships, 1993. Austria against Greece. East (Karlaftis) > for Greece opened a strong no trump, passed out. South (name withheld > to protect, for no particular reason, the guilty) led a heart from > A108xx. Dummy had J7x, North Q6x, declarer K9. The position is > well-known: when declarer plays low from dummy, North must avoid > playing the queen (it is not likely that partner has led low from the > AK against 1NT). > > Well, he did avoid playing the queen, but he took at least a minute to > do so. Declarer won with the nine and played a card, won by South. At > this point, if South placed declarer with HKQ9, he could plausibly > have followed a defence that did not involve leading hearts again > (which would have been fatal, for his remaining entry would be knocked > out while the hearts were still blocked). Instead, at lightning speed, > he cashed HA, led a heart to partner's queen, and in the fullness of > time defeated the contract. > > Very slowly, Karlaftis (who knew perfectly well what had happened) > returned his cards to the board. Finally, he shrugged and made no > protest. He knew, as every seasoned international player knows, that > this sort of thing happens all the time, and that it just was not > worth getting involved in an appeal about 1NT. Bobby Wolff, visiting > the Championships in his capacity as WBF President, was sitting beside > me as I helped provide the Vugraph commentary. He left after this > hand, remarking in a voice loud enough to be heard by the entire > audience, "Sick game we play, isn't it?" > > It is a sick game we play. The standard of "ethics" displayed by the > Austrians on this deal is by no means the worst that I have seen in > thirteen years of attending just about every major international > championship in one capacity or another. The "education" of players > that has been advocated on this thread does not need to start with > Todd Zimnoch, whose point is simply "If everyone else is going to > cheat, why shouldn't I?" It needs to start at the very top of the > game. Is anyone here an expert at belling cats? > > David Burn > London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 13 11:34:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA23445 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 11:34:51 +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 LAA23440 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 11:34:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivegle.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.174]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA18196 for ; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 21:34:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000412213134.012d81bc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 21:31:34 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Fielded psych In-Reply-To: <200004122157.OAA32500@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:57 PM 4/12/2000 PDT, Adam wrote: > >Mike Dennis wrote [responding to David Stevenson]: > >> You seem to be arguing that the correct standard to apply is to require the >> putative OS to show that the objective facts "proved" a psych in order to >> defend against a claim of an illegally fielded psych. But that is not >> written into the Laws, nor do I see any logical reason to follow that >> approach. IMO, if the objective facts (i.e., the auction plus the player's >> own cards) strongly point toward that possiblity, then that player is >> legally entitled to procede with caution, including a reluctance to raise >> partner's suspicious-sounding bid. And that is certainly the case here. > >Hmmm . . . I went back through David's posts on this thread, and it >appears to me that David has not been arguing anything at all, for >either side, about whether a psych was illegally fielded. The closest >he came on this issue was "To be honest, I might easily accept an >argument that West [sic] has not fielded this one, though it depends >slightly on which is his 14th card." All he did was to point out that >the argument "East should have figured out that West was psyching" is >bogus. Since that bogus argument was made by the >"East-didn't-do-anything-illegal" camp, you've unfairly dumped him >into the "Yes-East-did-something-illegal" camp. To be precise, I don't know whether anyone has argued that East _should_ have figured out that partner had psyched. Certainly the fact of East's reluctance to raise spades holding 4 is suggestive of this, although as others (maybe, implicitly, including David) have pointed out, rebidding clubs in this situation might be right irrespective of the liklihood of a psychic 1S response. The argument is not whether East _should_ field this psych, but whether the legal information available to him to make such a judgement is sufficient defense against a charge of an illegal agreement, if in fact we decide that he has fielded it. I believe that David's previous post was fairly clear in arguing that such a defense was invalid, since there were other possible explanations for the facts confronting East, and it is to that argument that I was responding. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 13 23:25:46 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA26579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 23:25:46 +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 XAA26574 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 23:25:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from idc by loki.cee.hw.ac.uk with local (Exim 3.12 #3) id 12fjcc-00007r-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 14:25:26 +0100 From: Ian D Crorie Subject: Re: Fielded psych To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au 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, 13 Apr 2000 14:25:26 +0100 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > At 12:16 PM 4/12/2000 +0100, David S wrote: > > Interestingly enough, last night I did my regular screening for the > >EBU of all recent Appeal and Psyche forms, and guess what I found!!!! > > > > 1C x 1S 1NT > > 2C > > > > The 2C bidder had four spades! > > > > Now, I am not going to tell you what his pd or LHO had, because it is > >not relevant. But his RHO had made a "practical" bid of 1NT with a > >nine-count - and singleton ace of spades. So when you are proving pd > >must have psyched, remember LHO may have 3 S's [for a t/o dbl - OK?] and > >RHO may have *one* spade: that leaves five for pd. [Mike Dennis] > "May have???" Yes of course, anything is possible. Either or both opponents > _may_ have psyched, or just may have chosen to take an unusual action that > seemed right to them in context. So, yes, partner _could_ have 5, or even 9 > spades, for that matter. But what are the odds? The takeout doubler is > significantly more likely to have 4 spades than 3, and the 1nt bidder is a > whole lot more likely to have at least 3 than 1, or even 2. On average, the > opponents have shown 7 spades between them. Since reading this argument I've been trying to think of a way to express clearly why I'm uncomfortable with it. Maybe I've managed; we'll see. I don't intend to argue much with the maths, aside from pointing out that the 1NT bidder here doesn't need to have spades stopped to bid 1NT; it shows appropriate values and clubs stopped. I might prefer 6.5 as the average number of spades but let's assume 7 is closer. This is the average number of spades opps are likely to hold *ignoring our bidding*. So why is it relevant? The *minimum* number of spades they should have is relevant, of course, but the *average*? I don't want to put words into Mike's mouth but the point is an important one to make: if partner has apriori only (say) a 10% chance of holding 4+ spades on the example auction, this doesn't mean that when he bids 1S that proves there is a 90% chance he is psyching. Imagine you hold: Jxxxx x QJTxxx x at neither vul and the auction goes: 1NT 2C* 3NT ? where 2C shows the majors. Now the average number of spades for LHO to hold is 3.25. The average number of spades for RHO to hold is a little harder to work out but they aren't likely to have too many, or they might have tried to penalise us, but with 0 or 1 they might have forced in a minor. Let's say around 2.5 would be average. That makes partner's 2C bid pretty suspicious and there's a good case not to bid 4S. Would anyone reason that way? I very much doubt that they would. The difference between the two cases is that the auction 1any Dbl 1S is a suspicious one to many players in itself, and the average lengths of opponent's suits is irrelevant. [Mike Dennis] > As a matter of general bridge knowledge, I would judge that a 1S response > after the opponent's takeout double is a relatively common sort of psych, > while neither of the opponents' actions would typically be psyched. Putting > all of this together, it seems quite reasonable to suspect partner's 1S > bid, without depending at all on partnership experience. > > You seem to be arguing that the correct standard to apply is to require the > putative OS to show that the objective facts "proved" a psych in order to > defend against a claim of an illegally fielded psych. But that is not > written into the Laws, nor do I see any logical reason to follow that > approach. IMO, if the objective facts (i.e., the auction plus the player's > own cards) strongly point toward that possiblity, then that player is > legally entitled to procede with caution, including a reluctance to raise > partner's suspicious-sounding bid. And that is certainly the case here. The point I made above aside, I have a lot of sympathy with this. However, there is the issue of full disclosure. With a partner who has been known to psyche in this situation I'd alert the 1S bid, just as I do with my regular partner after *any* 3rd in hand one level opening he makes (may be semi-psychic, often for the lead). Personally, I think I've psyched a major after 1x Dbl about twice in the last 12 years, though I know many people do it much more often. I worry when inexperienced players get caught out by a psych like this and are told that 'general bridge knowledge' allowed the psycher's partner to diagnose it. --- "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 Apr 14 05:46:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA28004 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 05:46:00 +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 FAA27999 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 05:45:52 +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 2VXNKZ4C; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 14:45:11 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 14:48:51 -0500 To: From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: UI and lead? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Monday evening I was playing with a regular partner. I held a hand something like xxx xxx xxxx Qx The auction went (Pard) (RHO) (Me) (LHO) P P P 1S 2H 2S P 3S P* * = long pause with some body language. (We four know each other very well, and play with each other as partners and as opponents a lot, so we all knew the long pause meant my partner really wanted to bid again, probably 4H.) More information: By agreement, partner's overcall may be based on zero HCP. (Once in a while it is.) Partner likes to psyche. I lead partner's suit when he overcalls in this sort of auction, unless I have a really good suit to lead, like KQJ or the like. It seems to me that the auction (without the UI) and my hand suggest that my partner does not have his usual junky overcall. The UI makes me think he actually has a heart suit much better than his usual 65432, not too bad, but probably only 5 heart cards and less than 11 HCP total because he didn't open the bidding with either a weak 2 or 1NT (weak, 11-14 HCP.) To what degree was I under constraint about leading a heart here? (I led a heart. No logical alternative, IMHO.) I always lead this partner's suit when he overcalls, unless I have a really good suit to lead, like KQJ or the like. Fifteen years of bad leads! (An accurate self-serving statement.) Does this change the degree of constraint on my lead? I'm offering this up because this sort of UI situation is very common in the games I play in, perhaps 20 cases a session with 6 tables playing 27 boards. Twitches, hesitations, and the like. Director calls about it are practically never made. The ACBL has a huge education job on its hands, if this is typical of the rest of the bottom 95% of the players, and I think it pretty much is. Don't get after Todd. He is an honest member of the crowd. WE WOULD NEVER USE UI! WE JUST BID (LEAD) WHAT WE WOULD ANYWAY! 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 Apr 14 06:27:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA28099 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 06:27:28 +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 GAA28094 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 06:27:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivei3s.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.72.124]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA18412 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 16:27:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000413162417.012da2c4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 16:24:17 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI and lead? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:48 PM 4/13/2000 -0500, Robert wrote: >On Monday evening I was playing with a regular partner. I held a hand >something like >xxx >xxx >xxxx >Qx >The auction went >(Pard) (RHO) (Me) (LHO) >P P P 1S >2H 2S P 3S >P* > >* = long pause with some body language. (We four know each other very >well, and play with each other as partners and as opponents a lot, so we >all knew the long pause meant my partner really wanted to bid again, >probably 4H.) > >More information: By agreement, partner's overcall may be based on zero >HCP. (Once in a while it is.) Partner likes to psyche. I lead partner's >suit when he overcalls in this sort of auction, unless I have a really good >suit to lead, like KQJ or the like. > >It seems to me that the auction (without the UI) and my hand suggest that >my partner does not have his usual junky overcall. The UI makes me think he >actually has a heart suit much better than his usual 65432, not too bad, >but probably only 5 heart cards and less than 11 HCP total because he >didn't open the bidding with either a weak 2 or 1NT (weak, 11-14 HCP.) > >To what degree was I under constraint about leading a heart here? (I led a >heart. No logical alternative, IMHO.) I always lead this partner's suit >when he overcalls, unless I have a really good suit to lead, like KQJ or >the like. Fifteen years of bad leads! (An accurate self-serving >statement.) Does this change the degree of constraint on my lead? I agree with you: no logical alternative. The problem becomes more difficult as other leads present themselves in increasing degrees of urgency, but here there is no problem. Would other players (absent UI) ignore partner's bid and lead one of the other topless suits? I really don't think so. BUT, the knowledge that "I always lead this partner's suit..." is, as a legal matter, irrelevant, except to the extent that it reflects something significant about partnership agreements (such as a commitment to suit quality as a guiding principle in overcalling style). What determines the LA's is the range of actions that others might take or at least seriously consider, given the same information without the UI. I would also question the extent to which the UI in this case "demonstrably suggests" a heart lead. Partner considered acting, but bidding 4H is certainly not the only thing he could have been considering, nor even necessarily the most likely. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 14 06:50:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA28158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 06:50:02 +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 GAA28150 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 06:49:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from p3bs02a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.130.60] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt5-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12fqX4-0000Fl-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 13:48:10 -0700 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: UI and lead? Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 21:50:49 +0100 Message-ID: <01bfa589$f2b4c8e0$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: Robert E. Harris To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, April 13, 2000 9:02 PM Subject: UI and lead? >Don't get after Todd. He is an honest member of the crowd. WE WOULD NEVER >USE UI! WE JUST BID (LEAD) WHAT WE WOULD ANYWAY! > But Robert, don't you see. When Todd is in receipt of UI, the benchmark of what he can freely do has changed. He might end up leading the card he would have led anyway, or he might end up making the bid he was going to make. The important thing is that he should first consider the nature of the UI, and then he must make an effort to take an action which the UI does not suggest, if he has a choice of actions to make. The outburst was caused when Todd said that he would always do, what he was going to do anyway. This sounded as though he was aware of what it was that the law demanded, and didn't care. The problem is, you see, other folk don't know what Todd was always going to do, absent the UI. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 14 07:27:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA28371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 07:27:20 +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 HAA28365 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 07:27:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.192] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12fr8h-00029g-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 22:27:04 +0100 Message-ID: <008001bfa58f$12190840$c05908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200004061518.IAA16354@mailhub.irvine.com><002f01bfa028$c0f6d0c0$6eb601d5@davidburn> Subject: Re: L16A: Player education Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 22:25:09 +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, April 11, 2000 3:04 AM Subject: Re: L16A: Player education -------- \x/ ----------- > > > LawMakers and LawGivers are different animals. > > Us LawGivers moan constantly about the utter incompetence of the > Lawmakers. But ... them's the laws. It's up to us to Give them, and > moan like hell at the LawMakers so they do a better job next time. > +=+ Law Making has levels of activity. There are legislators who write laws. There are layered courts of appeal that give practical meaning to what has been written. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 14 07:45:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA28440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 07:45:44 +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 HAA28434 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 07:45:36 +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 RAA00733; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 17:45:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 17:44:16 -0500 To: "Robert E. Harris" , From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: UI and lead? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 2:48 PM -0500 4/13/00, Robert E. Harris wrote: >On Monday evening I was playing with a regular partner. I held a hand >something like >xxx >xxx >xxxx >Qx (It doesn't matter much in the discussion what your 13th card was, but you had better find it before you revoke.) >The auction went >(Pard) (RHO) (Me) (LHO) >P P P 1S >2H 2S P 3S >P* >* = long pause with some body language. (We four know each other very >well, and play with each other as partners and as opponents a lot, so we >all knew the long pause meant my partner really wanted to bid again, >probably 4H.) > >More information: By agreement, partner's overcall may be based on zero >HCP. (Once in a while it is.) Partner likes to psyche. I lead partner's >suit when he overcalls in this sort of auction, unless I have a really good >suit to lead, like KQJ or the like. > >It seems to me that the auction (without the UI) and my hand suggest that >my partner does not have his usual junky overcall. You are allowed to draw an inference from the AI. You have AI here that partner has about 11 HCP and short spades, as well as the hearts shown by his overcall. >The UI makes me think he >actually has a heart suit much better than his usual 65432, not too bad, >but probably only 5 heart cards and less than 11 HCP total because he >didn't open the bidding with either a weak 2 or 1NT (weak, 11-14 HCP.) I would have assumed that he has six broken hearts (since he was apparently considering 4H), which is why he didn't open a weak 2-bid, but this depends on your system. >To what degree was I under constraint about leading a heart here? (I led a >heart. No logical alternative, IMHO.) I always lead this partner's suit >when he overcalls, unless I have a really good suit to lead, like KQJ or >the like. I think this is right; UI doesn't forbid you from playing reasonable bridge. Very few of your peers would consider not leading a suit in which partner has made a known sound overcall. If you had a stiff club, you would have something to think about; does the AI make it more or less likely that partner has the CA? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 14 07:59:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA28509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 07:59:39 +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 HAA28504 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 07:59:31 +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 RAA01798 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 17:59:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA06317 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 17:59:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 17:59:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200004132159.RAA06317@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI and lead? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Robert E. Harris" > On Monday evening I was playing with a regular partner. I held a hand > something like > xxx > xxx > xxxx > Qx > The auction went > (Pard) (RHO) (Me) (LHO) > P P P 1S > 2H 2S P 3S > P* > > * = long pause with some body language. This is a hard hand to analyze, especially without seeing the 13th card. Partner couldn't open (playing 11-14 NT), I have nothing, the opponents have found a major fit and yet still stopped in a part score. Where are the points? If the opponents have missed their cold game, it won't matter what I lead, so assume they haven't. Thus partner has points, and the C-Q seems attractive, maybe even if the hand has three clubs. Another conundrum: what can partner's hesitation suggest? Why are you so sure he was thinking of 4H? On five cards?! And if his hearts are long enough to think about 4H, why didn't he find a preempt in first seat? It's not at all clear to me what the hesitation suggests other than values, which we can assume partner has from the legal auction. Of course with the auction as given, it appears that partner is on lead. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 14 08:18:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA28586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 08:18:37 +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 IAA28580 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 08:18:29 +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 2VXNLDY0; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 17:18:20 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000413162417.012da2c4@pop.mindspring.com> References: Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 17:21:59 -0500 To: From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: UI and lead? Cc: "Michael S. Dennis" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk in comment on my remarks (snip) >> >>To what degree was I under constraint about leading a heart here? (I led a >>heart. No logical alternative, IMHO.) I always lead this partner's suit >>when he overcalls, unless I have a really good suit to lead, like KQJ or >>the like. Fifteen years of bad leads! (An accurate self-serving >>statement.) Does this change the degree of constraint on my lead? > Mike Dennis wrote >I agree with you: no logical alternative. The problem becomes more >difficult as other leads present themselves in increasing degrees of >urgency, but here there is no problem. Would other players (absent UI) >ignore partner's bid and lead one of the other topless suits? I really >don't think so. > >BUT, the knowledge that "I always lead this partner's suit..." is, as a >legal matter, irrelevant, except to the extent that it reflects something >significant about partnership agreements (such as a commitment to suit >quality as a guiding principle in overcalling style). What determines the >LA's is the range of actions that others might take or at least seriously >consider, given the same information without the UI. > >I would also question the extent to which the UI in this case "demonstrably >suggests" a heart lead. Partner considered acting, but bidding 4H is >certainly not the only thing he could have been considering, nor even >necessarily the most likely. > >Mike Dennis Evidently, a long history of always leading partner's suit (no matter how rotten a suit it is likely to be) absent another compelling possible lead is not enough? General experience has taught me that leading this partner's overcall suit is fairly likely to be worse than another randomly chosen lead. My point, poorly expressed, is that I know before he hesitates that leading his suit is likely to be wrong and a blind guess on my part is likely to be better. So the hesitation suggests leading his suit. A sensible player, placed as I am (with similar experience with this partner) would sometimes choose not to lead his suit, absent UI. My point is, many players with my experience with this partner and my general skill level might sometimes choose to lead some other suit. So, I really began to question my own actions, two days late. 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 Apr 14 08:36:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA28683 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 08:36:16 +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 IAA28678 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 08:36:09 +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 2VXNL1PR; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 17:36:01 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 17:39:41 -0500 To: From: "Robert E. Harris" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The fact that he didn't open 2H told me that he did not have about 6-10 points and even a pretty crummy 6 card heart suit. With a good 6 card heart suit and maybe 8-10 points he might open 2H or even 1H if he felt like it. You and others might think he had some other action in mind when he twitched and hesitated. The four of us at the table actually joked about it. We all knew what was going on, maybe not with the certainty needed for a criminal conviction, but sure enough to bet on it at unfavorable odds. The hesitation really said he had a pretty good heart suit. The auction showed it was not 6 or more cards long. A stiff club would have been made a less attractive lead by the UI. The UI tended to show that partner's stuff was mostly in hearts. I'm off to play another session with this partner in 1.5 hours. I'll keep a good look-out for UI on all sides of the table. Maybe some statistics would be useful for those who are trying to educate the players and revise the laws so the players can understand them and follow them. 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 Apr 14 10:39:05 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA29033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 10:39:05 +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 KAA29028 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 10:38:50 +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 12fu86-000Ml9-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 00:38:39 +0000 Message-ID: <95ubLBCIJg94EwVo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 18:22:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fielded psych References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ian D Crorie wrote: >> At 12:16 PM 4/12/2000 +0100, David S wrote: >> > Interestingly enough, last night I did my regular screening for the >> >EBU of all recent Appeal and Psyche forms, and guess what I found!!!! >> > >> > 1C x 1S 1NT >> > 2C >> > >> > The 2C bidder had four spades! >> > >> > Now, I am not going to tell you what his pd or LHO had, because it is >> >not relevant. But his RHO had made a "practical" bid of 1NT with a >> >nine-count - and singleton ace of spades. So when you are proving pd >> >must have psyched, remember LHO may have 3 S's [for a t/o dbl - OK?] and >> >RHO may have *one* spade: that leaves five for pd. > >[Mike Dennis] >> "May have???" Yes of course, anything is possible. Either or both opponents >> _may_ have psyched, or just may have chosen to take an unusual action that >> seemed right to them in context. So, yes, partner _could_ have 5, or even 9 >> spades, for that matter. But what are the odds? The takeout doubler is >> significantly more likely to have 4 spades than 3, and the 1nt bidder is a >> whole lot more likely to have at least 3 than 1, or even 2. On average, the >> opponents have shown 7 spades between them. >Since reading this argument I've been trying to think of a way to >express clearly why I'm uncomfortable with it. Maybe I've managed; >we'll see. Yes: an excellent response to the problem. >Would anyone reason that way? I very much doubt that they would. >The difference between the two cases is that the auction 1any Dbl 1S >is a suspicious one to many players in itself, and the average lengths >of opponent's suits is irrelevant. Let us look at another answer. I play at Blundellsands BC with four different partners, all female, all quite poor, and they *never* psyche. If the bidding goes 1C x 1S 1N and I have four spades [or five spades, come to that] I *know* my partner has *not* psyched. Now, suppose I play with Grattan, same sequence. Grattan could have psyched. What is the difference? Partnership: I cannot say Grattan *never* psyches. >[Mike Dennis] >> As a matter of general bridge knowledge, I would judge that a 1S response >> after the opponent's takeout double is a relatively common sort of psych, >> while neither of the opponents' actions would typically be psyched. Putting >> all of this together, it seems quite reasonable to suspect partner's 1S >> bid, without depending at all on partnership experience. Are you sure? Compare Grattan and the ladies. I *know* the ladies have not psyched: I cannot say that for grattan [or most other people]. What is the difference? My *partnership* knowledge. >Personally, I think I've psyched a major after 1x Dbl about twice >in the last 12 years, though I know many people do it much more often. >I worry when inexperienced players get caught out by a psych like this >and are told that 'general bridge knowledge' allowed the psycher's >partner to diagnose it. Yes: especially considering the above. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 14 11:09:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA29093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 11:09:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.alltel.net (mail.alltel.net [166.102.165.30]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA29088 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 11:09:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from alltel.net (cras18p6.navix.net [207.91.7.8]) by mail.alltel.net (8.9.3/ALLTEL Messaging Service) with ESMTP id UAA25587 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 20:09:23 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <38F670D0.EB272AE6@alltel.net> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 20:13:52 -0500 From: Norman Hostetler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-Alltel IS (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI and lead? References: <200004132159.RAA06317@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Robert E. Harris" > > On Monday evening I was playing with a regular partner. I held a hand > > something like > > xxx > > xxx > > xxxx > > Qx > > The auction went > > (Pard) (RHO) (Me) (LHO) > > P P P 1S > > 2H 2S P 3S > > P* > > > > * = long pause with some body language. > Of course with the auction as given, it appears that partner is on > lead. Not only that, but you are playing under the serious handicap of having only 12 cards. Norm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 14 11:31:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA29136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 11:31:40 +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 LAA29131 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 11:31:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivei7b.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.72.235]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA02431 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 21:31:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000413212828.012acdd0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 21:28:28 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI and lead? In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.20000413162417.012da2c4@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:21 PM 4/13/2000 -0500, Robert wrote: >Evidently, a long history of always leading partner's suit (no matter how >rotten a suit it is likely to be) absent another compelling possible lead >is not enough? General experience has taught me that leading this >partner's overcall suit is fairly likely to be worse than another randomly >chosen lead. My point, poorly expressed, is that I know before he >hesitates that leading his suit is likely to be wrong and a blind guess on >my part is likely to be better. So the hesitation suggests leading his >suit. A sensible player, placed as I am (with similar experience with this >partner) would sometimes choose not to lead his suit, absent UI. Sorry, but neither argument makes sense to me. One of the normal reasons for overcalling is to direct a lead, and so absent a compelling alternative, I would expect that to be the clear favorite. And it is still a bit obscure why the hesitation _demonstrably_ suggests leading the suit. If it carries any such suggestion, it is at best an oblique one. But hey, if your methods and tendencies are such that (a)you consider other leads to be logical alternatives, absent the UI and (b) partner's hesitation really does suggest leading his suit, then your legal obligation is to avoid a heart lead. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 14 11:42:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA29160 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 11:42:34 +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 LAA29155 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 11:42:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivei7b.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.72.235]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA16916 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 21:42:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000413213923.012af32c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 21:39:23 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Fielded psych In-Reply-To: <95ubLBCIJg94EwVo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:22 PM 4/13/2000 +0100, David S wrote: > Let us look at another answer. I play at Blundellsands BC with four >different partners, all female, all quite poor, and they *never* psyche. >If the bidding goes 1C x 1S 1N and I have four spades [or five spades, >come to that] I *know* my partner has *not* psyched. > > Now, suppose I play with Grattan, same sequence. Grattan could have >psyched. What is the difference? Partnership: I cannot say Grattan >*never* psyches. And suppose you sat down opposite an unfamiliar partner, but one you regarded as likely to be of comparable skill and tastes as yourself? Does your judgement that such a partner might well be the source of the apparent incongruity in the facts devolve from any partnership agreement (including implicit agreements derived from partnership experience)? The answer is "No." Your judgement, if you choose to make it, is based on general bridge knowledge. The Laws regulating your right to field a psych only restrict that right in the context of _partnership agreements_. If you judge that a partner at a particular skill level or age is more apt to psych than some other would be, then it is perfectly legal to make and act upon such a judgement, at least until it can be affirmed that the judgement reflects explicit or implicit partnership agreement. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 14 12:16:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA29256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 12:16:33 +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 MAA29247 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 12:16:21 +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 12fveU-0000zs-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 02:16:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 03:12:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI and lead? References: <3.0.1.32.20000413162417.012da2c4@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000413162417.012da2c4@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 02:48 PM 4/13/2000 -0500, Robert wrote: >>On Monday evening I was playing with a regular partner. I held a hand >>something like >>xxx >>xxx >>xxxx >>Qx >>The auction went >>(Pard) (RHO) (Me) (LHO) >>P P P 1S >>2H 2S P 3S >>P* >> >>* = long pause with some body language. (We four know each other very >>well, and play with each other as partners and as opponents a lot, so we >>all knew the long pause meant my partner really wanted to bid again, >>probably 4H.) >> >>More information: By agreement, partner's overcall may be based on zero >>HCP. (Once in a while it is.) Partner likes to psyche. I lead partner's >>suit when he overcalls in this sort of auction, unless I have a really good >>suit to lead, like KQJ or the like. >> >>It seems to me that the auction (without the UI) and my hand suggest that >>my partner does not have his usual junky overcall. The UI makes me think he >>actually has a heart suit much better than his usual 65432, not too bad, >>but probably only 5 heart cards and less than 11 HCP total because he >>didn't open the bidding with either a weak 2 or 1NT (weak, 11-14 HCP.) >> >>To what degree was I under constraint about leading a heart here? (I led a >>heart. No logical alternative, IMHO.) I always lead this partner's suit >>when he overcalls, unless I have a really good suit to lead, like KQJ or >>the like. Fifteen years of bad leads! (An accurate self-serving >>statement.) Does this change the degree of constraint on my lead? > >I agree with you: no logical alternative. The problem becomes more >difficult as other leads present themselves in increasing degrees of >urgency, but here there is no problem. Would other players (absent UI) >ignore partner's bid and lead one of the other topless suits? I really >don't think so. > >BUT, the knowledge that "I always lead this partner's suit..." is, as a >legal matter, irrelevant, except to the extent that it reflects something >significant about partnership agreements (such as a commitment to suit >quality as a guiding principle in overcalling style). What determines the >LA's is the range of actions that others might take or at least seriously >consider, given the same information without the UI. You compare with other people playing a similar system and style. If Robert always leads his partner's suit, then he has no LAs to leading it, because other people playing a similar style ["always lead partner's suit"] will not be seriously considering anything else. The difference between this and Todd's comments is that this is a no problem case: what we want is for people to act ethically, and that means doing what is obviously right. In this case, obviously right is the same as the putative successful action. -- 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 Apr 14 21:12:57 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA00772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 21:12:57 +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 VAA00767 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 21:12:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-173.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.173]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA25766 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 13:12:34 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38F6EA67.918D01F5@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 11:52:39 +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: Fielded psych References: <3.0.1.32.20000413213923.012af32c@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: > > > > > Now, suppose I play with Grattan, same sequence. Grattan could have > >psyched. What is the difference? Partnership: I cannot say Grattan > >*never* psyches. > > And suppose you sat down opposite an unfamiliar partner, but one you > regarded as likely to be of comparable skill and tastes as yourself? Does > your judgement that such a partner might well be the source of the apparent > incongruity in the facts devolve from any partnership agreement (including > implicit agreements derived from partnership experience)? The answer is > "No." Your judgement, if you choose to make it, is based on general bridge > knowledge. > > The Laws regulating your right to field a psych only restrict that right in > the context of _partnership agreements_. If you judge that a partner at a > particular skill level or age is more apt to psych than some other would > be, then it is perfectly legal to make and act upon such a judgement, at > least until it can be affirmed that the judgement reflects explicit or > implicit partnership agreement. > > Mike Dennis I have been sitting back from this argument but I cannot keep my mouth shut for very long. This discussion about "partnership experience" versus "general knowledge" is very interesting, but beside the point. What are we discussing here ? The banning of psyches - surely not The banning of the fielding of psyches - let me get back to that or The problem of complete information towards opponents. It seems to me that the discussion about "partnership experience" versus "general knowledge" is needed in only one type of ruling : did the opponents know as much as they are entitled to. Remember that they are only entitled to know that such-and-such never/rarely/frequently psyches. The fact that this player has "fielded" the psych has only come about from his own cards (AnEI to opponents), from their bidding (AI and available) and from the experience of the psyching frequency and style of partner. This last bit is EI (Entitled Information) to opponents and if they don't have it, they could be in for a little redress. Now it seems to me that several people, the EBU in particular, have taken a step too far. Their reasoning seems to be : - from your fielding of the psyche we deduce that you have knowledge of partner's tendencies to psyche (I can agree with that deduction - perhaps not in the cited case, but in many others) - partner's tendencies form partnership agreement, which must be disclosed to opponents (I agree with that one wholeheartedly) - you have failed to disclose this (I'm not certain about that one, psyching frequencies can be mentioned on the CC, was this done ?) - thus you are guilty of "concealed partnership understandings", and this is a hideous crime (I don't have to tell you what I think of that one ?) - thus we cancel the board (or that one ?) Can someone enlighten me if that is indeed the reasoning of the EBU ? Let me make my argument complete. I could live with a ruling that says : "We feel that you two have made your system thus that it has become too easy to psyche this particular type of bid without risk. We feel that this particular hand should be mentioned within the possible hands that this bid could be done with (even if only under psyching tendencies on the CC). We feel that the opponents were not given enough information, and that with the correct information (this-but could also be psyched with that), the bidding could have gone differently. We rule that you receive this adjusted score." I have given a ruling of that type recently myself. I was overruled by the AC, who agreed with my reasoning but found the psyche not as risk-free as I had imagined it to be. In short : I do not believe there is anything per se wrong in the fielding of a psyche. Have I told you about my last one ? Well, I won't, but suffice it to say that at the exact next table, another player psyched in exactly the same way. We both went for -1400. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 14 21:41:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA00874 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 21:41:27 +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 VAA00869 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 21:41:18 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id MAA07563 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 12:40:39 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 12:40 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Fielded 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: <95ubLBCIJg94EwVo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> DWS wrote: > Let us look at another answer. I play at Blundellsands BC with four > different partners, all female, all quite poor, and they *never* psyche. > If the bidding goes 1C x 1S 1N and I have four spades [or five spades, > come to that] I *know* my partner has *not* psyched. > > Now, suppose I play with Grattan, same sequence. Grattan could have > psyched. What is the difference? Partnership: I cannot say Grattan > *never* psyches. But the problem is not when you play with Grattan, who for the sake of argument we will say psyches with the frequency of a normal bridge player. Your problem is to avoid the partnership understanding you have with the Blundellsands ladies being a concealed one. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 14 23:11:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA01449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 23:11:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from poseidon.tcp.net.uk (poseidon.tcp.net.uk [195.80.0.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA01443 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 23:11:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (vt1-73.du.tcp.co.uk [195.80.1.73]) by poseidon.tcp.net.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA04837 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 14:11:13 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000414141429.00803e00@popmail.tcp.co.uk> X-Sender: spock@popmail.tcp.co.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 14:14:29 +0100 To: Bridge Laws From: M Smith Subject: Re: Fielded psych Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: Now it seems to me that several people, the EBU in particular, have taken a step too far. Their reasoning seems to be : - from your fielding of the psyche we deduce that you have knowledge of partner's tendencies to psyche (I can agree with that deduction - perhaps not in the cited case, but in many others) - partner's tendencies form partnership agreement, which must be disclosed to opponents (I agree with that one wholeheartedly) - you have failed to disclose this (I'm not certain about that one, psyching frequencies can be mentioned on the CC, was this done ?) - thus you are guilty of "concealed partnership understandings", and this is a hideous crime (I don't have to tell you what I think of that one ?) - thus we cancel the board (or that one ?) The situation may have changed recently but, as I understand the EBU regulations, players are specifically NOT allowed to fill in the portion of the convention realting to psyching tendencies. I was certainly told by a senior Director a year or so ago that for EBU events I had to remove my entry in that section of the WBF card. Marc Smith From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 15 01:09:11 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA01949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 01:09:11 +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 BAA01944 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 01:08:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (pcciborowski.comarch.pl [195.116.125.138]) by omicron.comarch.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id B89D25C032 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 17:08:41 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38F735A0.A866038B@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 17:13:36 +0200 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Fielded psych References: <3.0.1.32.20000413213923.012af32c@pop.mindspring.com> <38F6EA67.918D01F5@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > > "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: > > > > > > > > Now, suppose I play with Grattan, same sequence. Grattan could have > > >psyched. What is the difference? Partnership: I cannot say Grattan > > >*never* psyches. > > > > And suppose you sat down opposite an unfamiliar partner, but one you > > regarded as likely to be of comparable skill and tastes as yourself? Does > > your judgement that such a partner might well be the source of the apparent > > incongruity in the facts devolve from any partnership agreement (including > > implicit agreements derived from partnership experience)? The answer is > > "No." Your judgement, if you choose to make it, is based on general bridge > > knowledge. > > > > The Laws regulating your right to field a psych only restrict that right in > > the context of _partnership agreements_. If you judge that a partner at a > > particular skill level or age is more apt to psych than some other would > > be, then it is perfectly legal to make and act upon such a judgement, at > > least until it can be affirmed that the judgement reflects explicit or > > implicit partnership agreement. > > > > Mike Dennis > > I have been sitting back from this argument but I cannot > keep my mouth shut for very long. > > This discussion about "partnership experience" versus > "general knowledge" is very interesting, but beside the > point. > > What are we discussing here ? > > The banning of psyches - surely not > The banning of the fielding of psyches - let me get back to > that > or > The problem of complete information towards opponents. > > It seems to me that the discussion about "partnership > experience" versus "general knowledge" is needed in only one > type of ruling : did the opponents know as much as they are > entitled to. Remember that they are only entitled to know > that such-and-such never/rarely/frequently psyches. The > fact that this player has "fielded" the psych has only come > about from his own cards (AnEI to opponents), from their > bidding (AI and available) and from the experience of the > psyching frequency and style of partner. This last bit is > EI (Entitled Information) to opponents and if they don't > have it, they could be in for a little redress. > > Now it seems to me that several people, the EBU in > particular, have taken a step too far. > > Their reasoning seems to be : > - from your fielding of the psyche we deduce that you have > knowledge of partner's tendencies to psyche (I can agree > with that deduction - perhaps not in the cited case, but in > many others) > - partner's tendencies form partnership agreement, which > must be disclosed to opponents (I agree with that one > wholeheartedly) > - you have failed to disclose this (I'm not certain about > that one, psyching frequencies can be mentioned on the CC, > was this done ?) > - thus you are guilty of "concealed partnership > understandings", and this is a hideous crime (I don't have > to tell you what I think of that one ?) > - thus we cancel the board (or that one ?) > > Can someone enlighten me if that is indeed the reasoning of > the EBU ? > > Let me make my argument complete. > > I could live with a ruling that says : > > "We feel that you two have made your system thus that it has > become too easy to psyche this particular type of bid > without risk. We feel that this particular hand should be > mentioned within the possible hands that this bid could be > done with (even if only under psyching tendencies on the > CC). We feel that the opponents were not given enough > information, and that with the correct information (this-but > could also be psyched with that), the bidding could have > gone differently. We rule that you receive this adjusted > score." > > I have given a ruling of that type recently myself. I was > overruled by the AC, who agreed with my reasoning but found > the psyche not as risk-free as I had imagined it to be. > > In short : I do not believe there is anything per se wrong > in the fielding of a psyche. I'm not sure if I understand your point. Just for clarification. A player psyches and his partner fields it. Your attitude is that the opponents were not given enough information (no alert, no "frequent psyches" warning on the CC) and a) if they were damaged as a result of this infraction (i.e. because of a 1S psychic response they failed to reach cold 4S) then you rule MI and assign an adjusted score 4S= to both sides; b) if they were not damaged then you simply rule MI; no damage. If I understand you well in this case: 1H (dbl) - 1S 2S - 4H if the both hands are AKQx x AKxxx Qxxxxx Ax xxx xx xxx do you rule that the East-West pair simply committed an infraction (no alert of a 1S response as a possible psyche [or a "frequent psyches" pre-alert]) but as East-West were not damaged so you let the score stand? -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Sat Apr 15 01:20:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA01997 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 01:20:50 +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 BAA01992 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 01:20:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from p4bs06a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.166.76] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12g7tH-0000PB-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 16:20:15 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Fielded psych Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 16:21:25 +0100 Message-ID: <01bfa625$197286c0$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: M Smith To: Bridge Laws Date: Friday, April 14, 2000 2:24 PM Subject: Re: Fielded psych > >Herman De Wael wrote: > >Now it seems to me that several people, the EBU in >particular, have taken a step too far. > >Their reasoning seems to be : >- from your fielding of the psyche we deduce that you have >knowledge of partner's tendencies to psyche (I can agree >with that deduction - perhaps not in the cited case, but in >many others) >- partner's tendencies form partnership agreement, which >must be disclosed to opponents (I agree with that one >wholeheartedly) >- you have failed to disclose this (I'm not certain about >that one, psyching frequencies can be mentioned on the CC, >was this done ?) >- thus you are guilty of "concealed partnership >understandings", and this is a hideous crime (I don't have >to tell you what I think of that one ?) >- thus we cancel the board (or that one ?) > > >The situation may have changed recently but, as I understand the EBU >regulations, players are specifically NOT allowed to fill in the portion of >the convention realting to psyching tendencies. > >I was certainly told by a senior Director a year or so ago that for EBU >events I had to remove my entry in that section of the WBF card. > Yes Marc, you are correct. OB 4.3.4. WBF convention card, with all references to psychic habits removed, is permitted in Level 5 events etc. The normal EBU 20 and EBU 20A CCs do not have a box for psychic habits. I'm sure DWS will explain why. I really do not know the reason. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 15 02:00:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA02372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 02:00:57 +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 CAA02367 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 02:00:50 +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 2VXNMDHW; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 11:00:42 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 11:04:23 -0500 To: From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk RE Harris wrote >The fact that he didn't open 2H told me that he did not have about 6-10 >points and even a pretty crummy 6 card heart suit. With a good 6 card >heart suit and maybe 8-10 points he might open 2H or even 1H if he felt >like it. > >You and others might think he had some other action in mind when he >twitched and hesitated. The four of us at the table actually joked about >it. We all knew what was going on, maybe not with the certainty needed for >a criminal conviction, but sure enough to bet on it at unfavorable odds. >The hesitation really said he had a pretty good heart suit. The auction >showed it was not 6 or more cards long. > >A stiff club would have been made a less attractive lead by the UI. The UI >tended to show that partner's stuff was mostly in hearts. > > >I'm off to play another session with this partner in 1.5 hours. I'll keep >a good look-out for UI on all sides of the table. Maybe some statistics >would be useful for those who are trying to educate the players and revise >the laws so the players can understand them and follow them. > Sorry about the missing card. Not a spade or a heart. We play intermediate jump overcalls, so partner's choices when he overclled were 2H and 4H, since he did not have an opening hand for either 1H, 1NT, 2H(weak), 3H(pre-emptive, probably 7 cards) or 4H(mysterous). No more UI that I noticed last night, but I was busy as assisitant cattle-drover, trying to get the herd out the door before 11PM. (Club manager was busy with her novice game.) 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 Sat Apr 15 03:08:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA02547 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 03:08:37 +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 DAA02542 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 03:08:29 +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 12g9Zq-000Ia7-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 18:08:19 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 17:34:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fielded psych References: <01bfa625$197286c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bfa625$197286c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >Yes Marc, you are correct. >OB 4.3.4. WBF convention card, with all references to psychic habits >removed, is permitted in Level 5 events etc. >The normal EBU 20 and EBU 20A CCs do not have a box for psychic >habits. >I'm sure DWS will explain why. I really do not know the reason. Not me. I don't agree with it. However, I do not think you should blame the EBU for this one - I think everyone has been removing this box. ACBL, WBF, and so on. -- 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 Apr 15 07:19:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA03244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 07:19:44 +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 HAA03239 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 07:19:36 +1000 (EST) Received: by tst.tst.dk id <115202>; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 23:19:48 +0200 Message-Id: <00Apr14.231948cest.115202@tst.tst.dk> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Flemming=20B=F8gh-S=F8rensen?=" To: Subject: Re: Fielded psych Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 23:19:46 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id HAA03240 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>> David Stevenson 14-04-00 19:33 >>> >Anne Jones wrote: >>Yes Marc, you are correct. >>OB 4.3.4. WBF convention card, with all references to >>psychic habits removed, is permitted in Level 5 events >>etc. >>The normal EBU 20 and EBU 20A CCs do not have a >>box for psychic habits. >>I'm sure DWS will explain why. I really do not know the >>reason. > Not me. I don't agree with it. > However, I do not think you should blame the EBU for > this one - I think everyone has been removing this box. > ACBL, WBF, and so on. Well, not exactly everyone. We still have the box in Denmark, and I haven't heard of any suggestion that it should be removed. Flemming Bøgh-Sørensen Copenhagen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 15 09:19:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA03557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 09:19:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f132.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.132]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA03550 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 09:19:16 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 1930 invoked by uid 0); 14 Apr 2000 23:19:06 -0000 Message-ID: <20000414231906.1929.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.18 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 16:19:06 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.18] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI and lead? Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 16:19:06 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Whee, one last time. >From: "Anne Jones" >-----Original Message----- >From: Robert E. Harris > > >Don't get after Todd. He is an honest member of the crowd. WE WOULD >NEVER > >USE UI! WE JUST BID (LEAD) WHAT WE WOULD ANYWAY! > > >But Robert, don't you see. When Todd is in receipt of UI, the benchmark of >what he can freely do has changed. I don't think that's good. What I can do without risk of score adjustment, social isolation, etc. has changed. >He might end up leading the card he would have led >anyway, or he might end up making the bid he was going to make. The >important >thing is that he should first consider the nature of the UI, and then he >must make >an effort to take an action which the UI does not suggest, if he has a >choice of actions to make. In the case where the UI and AI differ in meaning and I've followed the UI, I'm in deep shit as I've deluded myself into thinking that I always would have done something that I really wouldn't have. (Whether or not this is worse than deluding myself that I had no LA is left as an exercise to the reader.) Ideally, this shouldn't happen. "What I always would have done" is undefined when the AI has no particular meaning, so avoiding the UI is trivial. In the case where the UI and AI carry the same meaning, neither the problem nor solution is obvious to me. >The outburst was caused when Todd said that he would always do, what he was >going to do anyway. And then defer to the director. Even if I did think I judged the situation correctly, I shouldn't rely on that thought. >This sounded as though he was aware of what it was that >the law demanded, and didn't care. The problem is, you see, other folk >don't >know what Todd was always going to do, absent the UI. Do they need to? Whether or not I do what I would normally have done is irrelevant to ruling on 16A as the action still may or may not be legal. They only need to know the suggested actions, the available options, and the course taken. But I'm not (entirely) stupid. If there's no doubt I can avoid L16A, I ensure that my score won't be adjusted. Afterall, it never gets adjusted up. But if I have second thoughts, leaving it to the director is preferable to shooting myself in the foot. -Todd ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 16 00:44:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA05161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 00:44:23 +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 AAA05156 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 00:44:14 +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 KAA11782 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 10:44:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id KAA09293; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 10:43:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 10:43:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200004151443.KAA09293@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Thanks again, and a Hmmmmmmm.... Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Last year, around Nov. of '98, I was asked by the local chief TD if I would be interested in becoming an assistant TD at the upcoming May '99 Regional. I said sure, wrote the exam, and had a great time working there. Last November, this same chief TD told me he liked my work. He told me to get in touch with the ACBL, and to apply to become a real TD (when this guy tells you to do something, he is not inviting a discussion: you just do it :-)). I just received the notice (well, dated late March) that I am now an employee of the ACBL. I am now a TD (part-time). I am certain that I would not be a TD were it not for the BLML. This resource not only has explained the Laws so that I can undertand them, but has furnished large numbers of examples I can draw on. Moreover, this group has demonstrated how to approach both the Laws and the players, critically, analytically, and with a certain amount of compassion. :-) Thank you all. Now for the Hmmmmm... A team game, players just finished Brd. 26. South writes the result in her scorecard, pulls her hand back out of the pocket, and askes her partner, "Well, then, what would YOU have bid?". You got it...North had already switched boards, and South had just faced her hand for Brd.27. :-) This board had already been played at the other table; no-one had looked at their cards, or even had their cards out of the pockets; NS are C players, EW are experienced A. I ruled that the board was unplayable, A+/A-. Comments? Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 16 02:26:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA05624 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 02:26:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail006.mail.onemain.com (SMTP-OUT001.ONEMAIN.COM [63.208.208.71]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA05619 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 02:26:38 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 3387 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2000 16:25:59 -0000 Received: from lax-ts2-h1-42-64.ispmodems.net (HELO oemcomputer) ([209.162.42.64]) (envelope-sender ) by mail006.mail.onemain.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 15 Apr 2000 16:25:59 -0000 Message-ID: <001701bfa6f7$19ca8960$402aa2d1@oemcomputer> From: "jim merzon" To: , Subject: Re: Thanks again, and a Hmmmmmmm.... Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 09:24:39 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.0810.800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.0810.800 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk what else can be done other than to require minimum iq's? ----- Original Message ----- From: A. L. Edwards To: Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2000 7:43 AM Subject: Thanks again, and a Hmmmmmmm.... > Last year, around Nov. of '98, I was asked by the local >chief TD if I would be interested in becoming an assistant >TD at the upcoming May '99 Regional. I said sure, wrote the >exam, and had a great time working there. > Last November, this same chief TD told me he liked my work. >He told me to get in touch with the ACBL, and to apply to >become a real TD (when this guy tells you to do something, >he is not inviting a discussion: you just do it :-)). I just >received the notice (well, dated late March) that I am now >an employee of the ACBL. I am now a TD (part-time). > I am certain that I would not be a TD were it not for >the BLML. This resource not only has explained the Laws >so that I can undertand them, but has furnished large >numbers of examples I can draw on. Moreover, this group >has demonstrated how to approach both the Laws and the >players, critically, analytically, and with a certain >amount of compassion. :-) Thank you all. > > Now for the Hmmmmm... > A team game, players just finished Brd. 26. South writes the >result in her scorecard, pulls her hand back out of the >pocket, and askes her partner, "Well, then, what would YOU >have bid?". > You got it...North had already switched boards, and South had >just faced her hand for Brd.27. :-) This board had already >been played at the other table; no-one had looked at their cards, >or even had their cards out of the pockets; NS are C players, >EW are experienced A. > I ruled that the board was unplayable, A+/A-. Comments? > Tony (aka ac342) > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 16 14:47:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA06978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 14:47:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (law2-f13.hotmail.com [216.32.181.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA06973 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 14:47:32 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 34647 invoked by uid 0); 16 Apr 2000 04:46:54 -0000 Message-ID: <20000416044654.34646.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.31.53.171 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 21:46:54 PDT X-Originating-IP: [200.31.53.171] From: "jorge pellegrini" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Subject: Re:Thanks again, and a Hmmmmmmm.... Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 00:46:54 CLT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A. L. Edwards wrote : A team game, players just finished Brd. 26. South writes the result in her scorecard, pulls her hand back out of the pocket, and askes her partner, "Well, then, what would YOU have bid?". You got it...North had already switched boards, and South had just faced her hand for Brd.27. :-) This board had already been played at the other table; no-one had looked at their cards, or even had their cards out of the pockets; NS are C players, EW are experienced A. I ruled that the board was unplayable, A+/A-. Comments? Tony (aka ac342) Hello: After to take some time reading the valuable commentaries of BLML. I allow myself to give an opinion, that I wait for well is received by You. At first an adjustment seems to me correct, a+/a- (3 Imp) nevertheless is necessary to investigate if in the other table was an unusual result, in favor of the innocent side, of being thus then one is due to fit to a result that normally would be due to have played and to give the difference of score to the innocent side, the category of the players is not something that can influence in the application of the law, at least not in this case. (Apologize my English ) Greetings Jorge Jorge Pellegrini J. - pellegri@hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/jorgepelle/ ACBL. 8598606 icq.41610821 (eyes) - aol.pellegrinijorge Fono-Fax.(56)(2)2111790 Chile ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 16 19:21:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA07314 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 19:21:17 +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 TAA07304 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 19:21:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-183.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.183]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA23373 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 11:21:01 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38F862D8.C34CDA9D@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 14:38:48 +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: Fielded psych References: <3.0.6.32.20000414141429.00803e00@popmail.tcp.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk M Smith wrote: > > > The situation may have changed recently but, as I understand the EBU > regulations, players are specifically NOT allowed to fill in the portion of > the convention realting to psyching tendencies. > > I was certainly told by a senior Director a year or so ago that for EBU > events I had to remove my entry in that section of the WBF card. > Which is one of the silliest regulations I have heard of. Surely psyching tendencies are part of partnership experience and must be available to opponents. If not on the CC, where then ? I know where this is leading, and I don't like it. We've had this discussion before and no-one seems to realise that they are killing the game by making regulations that effectively ban psyching. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 16 19:21:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA07313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 19:21:16 +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 TAA07303 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 19:21:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-183.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.183]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA23368 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 11:20:51 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38F8622F.D90DDEE2@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 14:35:59 +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: Fielded psych References: <3.0.1.32.20000413213923.012af32c@pop.mindspring.com> <38F6EA67.918D01F5@village.uunet.be> <38F735A0.A866038B@omicron.comarch.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > > > In short : I do not believe there is anything per se wrong > > in the fielding of a psyche. > > I'm not sure if I understand your point. > Just for clarification. A player psyches and his partner > fields it. Your attitude is that the opponents were not > given enough information (no alert, no "frequent psyches" warning > on the CC) and > > a) if they were damaged as a result of this infraction (i.e. > because of a 1S psychic response they failed to reach cold 4S) > then you rule MI and assign an adjusted score 4S= to both sides; > b) if they were not damaged then you simply rule MI; no damage. > That is my opinion, indeed. > If I understand you well in this case: > > 1H (dbl) - 1S > 2S - 4H > > if the both hands are > > AKQx x > AKxxx Qxxxxx > Ax xxx > xx xxx > > do you rule that the East-West pair simply committed an > infraction (no alert of a 1S response as a possible psyche > [or a "frequent psyches" pre-alert]) but as East-West were not > damaged so you let the score stand? > That could be my ruling, yes. Of course if EW have 4SpX-2 for a better score, I could rule they are in fact damaged. I don't see what this pair has done gravely wrong. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 16 19:46:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA07386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 19:46:30 +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 TAA07379 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 19:46:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.112] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12gld3-000MxT-00; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 10:46:10 +0100 Message-ID: <000901bfa788$a8fb5e20$705908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Anne Jones" Cc: References: <01bfa625$197286c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: Fielded psych Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 10:42:50 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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, April 14, 2000 4:21 PM Subject: Re: Fielded psych > > > >The situation may have changed recently but, as I understand the EBU > >regulations, players are specifically NOT allowed to fill in the portion of > >the convention realting to psyching tendencies. > > > >I was certainly told by a senior Director a year or so ago that for EBU > >events I had to remove my entry in that section of the WBF card. > > > Yes Marc, you are correct. > OB 4.3.4. WBF convention card, with all references to psychic habits > removed, is permitted in Level 5 events etc. > The normal EBU 20 and EBU 20A CCs do not have a box for psychic > habits. > I'm sure DWS will explain why. I really do not know the reason. > Anne > +=+ "If a player is recognized by partner to have a tendency to make a psyche of a given kind in a given situation there is an illegal partnership understanding. This is not resolved merely by the care of the partner not to field the psyche. The point is that where the tendency to psychic action is sufficiently apparent to the partner to be construed as an implied understanding the opponents are entitled under the laws to know about it. But immediately it is disclosed it will be treated as an unlicensed system. There is amongst some players a mistaken belief that all that is required is to avoid fielding the psyche, but for the reason stated this is not the case" [from EBU regulations 1990] . "(except that) a partnership which wishes to do so may use the official WBF convention card (with all reference to psychic habits obliterated) in competitions sponsored by the Union for which....(etc)" [EBU regulations 1987] My recollection from the 1980s is that the EBU did not allow statements on the CC about psychic habits because the CC was for the disclosure of partnership agreements. Possibly this basic position still holds, even if now stated in fresh words. Anything that is the subject of a partnership understanding is not properly to be termed 'psychic'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 16 19:53:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA07418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 19:53:26 +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 TAA07411 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 19:53:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.16] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12glim-000NQt-00; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 10:52:04 +0100 Message-ID: <001101bfa789$7c463fc0$105908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Cc: References: Subject: Re: Fielded psych Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 10:50:48 +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: Cc: Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 12:40 PM Subject: Re: Fielded psych > In-Reply-To: <95ubLBCIJg94EwVo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> > DWS wrote: > > Now, suppose I play with Grattan, ------ \x/ -------- > But the problem is not when you play with Grattan, who for the sake of > argument we will say psyches with the frequency of a normal bridge player. > > Tim West-Meads > +=+ Please define 'normal bridge player' ~ G ~ +=+ :-)) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 16 22:20:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA07671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 22:20:50 +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 WAA07666 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 22:20:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-32.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.32]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA11366 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 14:20:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38F98BCA.B63C9989@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 11:45:46 +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: Thanks again, and a Hmmmmmmm.... References: <20000416044654.34646.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello Jorge, nice to see some input from down under the other side. jorge pellegrini wrote: > > A. L. Edwards wrote : > Congratulations on your promotion, BTW > A team game, players just finished Brd. 26. South writes the result in her > scorecard, pulls her hand back out of the pocket, and askes her partner, > "Well, then, what would YOU have bid?". > You got it...North had already switched boards, and South had just faced her > hand for Brd.27. :-) This board had already been played at the other table; > no-one had looked at their cards, or even had their cards out of the > pockets; NS are C players, EW are experienced A. > I ruled that the board was unplayable, A+/A-. Comments? > Tony (aka ac342) > No comments. Straightforward really. But Jorge's comment is interesting : > Hello: > After to take some time reading the valuable commentaries of BLML. > I allow myself to give an opinion, that I wait for well is received by You. > At first an adjustment seems to me correct, a+/a- (3 Imp) nevertheless is > necessary to investigate if in the other table was an unusual result, in > favor of the innocent side, of being thus then one is due to fit to a result > that normally would be due to have played and to give the difference of > score to the innocent side, the category of the players is not something > that can influence in the application of the law, at least not in this case. A point I have been arguing for before. The case above is clear-cut, no result is possible, 12C1 it shall be. But sometimes a 12C1 is given because the TD or AC cannot be bothered to work out an equitable 12C3 (or worse still, a 12C2). Now I don't like this, but I agree that there are some cases where it feels right to award the like of 60%. In a pairs game there is no problem with that. But in a teams match there is. While 12C3 preserves the result at the other table, 12C1, when used in its current form to calculate, does not. And that is too great a difference between the two. That is why I am hoping that the WBFLC will accept the idea that in calculating for team matches, any L12C1 ruling will have to be calculated in some way that still preserves the other tables score. I know some ways of doing this, but that is beyond the scope of this article. > (Apologize my English ) > No apologies needed. Your meaning is clear enough. And you will pick up English very well if you keep following our little list. > Greetings > Jorge > > Jorge Pellegrini J. - pellegri@hotmail.com > http://www.geocities.com/jorgepelle/ > ACBL. 8598606 > icq.41610821 (eyes) - aol.pellegrinijorge > Fono-Fax.(56)(2)2111790 > Chile > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 17 00:06:32 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA07968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 00:06:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.iae.nl (postfix@mail.iae.nl [194.151.64.19]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA07962 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 00:06:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm14d03.iae.nl [212.61.2.68]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 0323220F1A for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 16:06:12 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <003201bfa7ac$f76d1d40$44023dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: Subject: truc with A J Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 16:03:59 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002F_01BFA7BD.60798F20" 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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002F_01BFA7BD.60798F20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Or how to make 2 tricks with A J. S/All AJ865 75 T872 T8 42 T7 KQT4 J632 AJ 9653 Q9543 AK2 KQ93 A98 KQ4 J76 W N E S !NT pass 2H pass 2S dbl pass 3H 3S pass pass pass hK 5 3 9 hQ 7 2 A hT s5 6 8 s2 6 7 K s4 A T 3 c3 T A 7 c4 8 K 6 d... 3 Q Now west hesitates for a long period before playing the ace. Only the = diamond suit could set the contract and east cannot have the king. = Playing the jack is not winning. South draws the wrong conclusion from the hesitation and so from the = distribution of the diamond suit. Declarer forgets the story of the two = frogs fallen in milk and continues defeatistly. The cQ in the ninth = trick is ruffed in north and the lead of a small diamond is ducked by = south! One down. ------=_NextPart_000_002F_01BFA7BD.60798F20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Or how to make 2 tricks with = A J.
S/All
       =20 AJ865
       =20 75
       =20 T872
       =20 T8
 
42        =         T7
KQT4          =  J632
AJ        =         9653
Q9543          = ; AK2
 
       =20 KQ93
       =20 A98
       =20 KQ4
       =20 J76
 
W       =20     N        =    =20 E            S
       =20             =    =20            =20        !NT
pass    =    =20 2H       =20 pass         2S
=
dbl          p= ass   =20    =20 3H          3S
pass    =    =20 pass     pass
 
hK        =     5        =    =20 3            =   9
hQ        =     7        =    =20 2            =  A
hT          &n= bsp;s5   =20        =20 6            =  =20 8
s2        =      6       =20    =20 7            =   K
s4        =      A       =20     T       =20       3
c3        =     =20 T            = A            =   7
c4          &n= bsp;  8         &n= bsp; =20 K            =   6
d...          =   =20             =20 3            =  Q
 
Now west hesitates for a long period = before playing=20 the ace. Only the diamond suit could set the contract and east cannot = have the=20 king. Playing the jack is not winning.
South draws the wrong conclusion from = the=20 hesitation and so from the distribution of the diamond suit. Declarer = forgets=20 the story of the two frogs fallen in milk and continues defeatistly. The = cQ in=20 the ninth trick is ruffed in north and the lead of a small diamond is = ducked by=20 south! One down.
------=_NextPart_000_002F_01BFA7BD.60798F20-- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 17 08:12:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA09394 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 08:12:05 +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 IAA09389 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 08:11:54 +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 12gxGR-000NJW-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 22:11:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 11:49:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fielded psych References: <3.0.6.32.20000414141429.00803e00@popmail.tcp.co.uk> <38F862D8.C34CDA9D@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <38F862D8.C34CDA9D@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: >M Smith wrote: >> >> >> The situation may have changed recently but, as I understand the EBU >> regulations, players are specifically NOT allowed to fill in the portion of >> the convention realting to psyching tendencies. >> >> I was certainly told by a senior Director a year or so ago that for EBU >> events I had to remove my entry in that section of the WBF card. >> > >Which is one of the silliest regulations I have heard of. > >Surely psyching tendencies are part of partnership >experience and must be available to opponents. If not on >the CC, where then ? > >I know where this is leading, and I don't like it. >We've had this discussion before and no-one seems to realise >that they are killing the game by making regulations that >effectively ban psyching. No, "they" are not. I don't like that removal myself, but it does not lead to "effectively" banning psyching. You may know where this is leading, but I think you are linking irrelevant things. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 17 08:11:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA09388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 08:11:49 +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 IAA09382 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 08:11:38 +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 12gxGJ-0007D4-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 22:11:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 11:53:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Thanks again, and a Hmmmmmmm.... References: <20000416044654.34646.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000416044654.34646.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk jorge pellegrini wrote: >A. L. Edwards wrote : > >A team game, players just finished Brd. 26. South writes the result in her >scorecard, pulls her hand back out of the pocket, and askes her partner, >"Well, then, what would YOU have bid?". >You got it...North had already switched boards, and South had just faced her >hand for Brd.27. :-) This board had already been played at the other table; >no-one had looked at their cards, or even had their cards out of the >pockets; NS are C players, EW are experienced A. >I ruled that the board was unplayable, A+/A-. Comments? > Tony (aka ac342) > >Hello: >After to take some time reading the valuable commentaries of BLML. >I allow myself to give an opinion, that I wait for well is received by You. >At first an adjustment seems to me correct, a+/a- (3 Imp) nevertheless is >necessary to investigate if in the other table was an unusual result, in >favor of the innocent side, of being thus then one is due to fit to a result >that normally would be due to have played and to give the difference of >score to the innocent side, the category of the players is not something >that can influence in the application of the law, at least not in this case. >(Apologize my English ) It would be nice for tables that get good scores not to lose them by mechanical foul-ups at the other table, especially by the partners of the pair that did badly, but can anyone tell me a Law that permits this? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 17 18:01:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA10502 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 18:01:16 +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 SAA10497 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 18:01:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-157.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.157]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA01957 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 10:00:57 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38F9B3CE.7E709206@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 14:36:30 +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: Fielded psych References: <01bfa625$197286c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <000901bfa788$a8fb5e20$705908c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > +=+ "If a player is recognized by partner to have a tendency > to make a psyche of a given kind in a given situation there is > an illegal partnership understanding. This is not resolved > merely by the care of the partner not to field the psyche. > The point is that where the tendency to psychic action is > sufficiently apparent to the partner to be construed as an > implied understanding the opponents are entitled under > the laws to know about it. But immediately it is disclosed > it will be treated as an unlicensed system. There is amongst > some players a mistaken belief that all that is required is to > avoid fielding the psyche, but for the reason stated this is > not the case" [from EBU regulations 1990] . > This is indeed what I feared to be the reasoning. The EBU have got it correct when they say that psyching tendency is a partnership understanding. They also have it correct that this needs to be disclosed to opponents. What they fail to see is that the Laws themselves use two different words: agreement and understanding. There can be an understanding that with a certain frequency an agreement can be changed from. That cannot, in my opinion, be subject to banning of regulations. If the regulations are written, or applied as strict as that, then this is effectively a ban on psyching, something nobody seems to say they want. As long as L40 is interpreted as "you may psyche just once in your career", it is not a correct interpretation. System regulations need to be written such that psyches are not subject to it. In order to do that, a good definition needs to be given for a psyche. I believe such definition needs to include : - gross misstatement - relative frequency of the occurence (either because the player does it very seldom, or because the situation which precedes it is relatively uncommon - like 2 HCP in third seat) - risk (no systemic traps to catch the psyche) > "(except that) a partnership which wishes to do so may > use the official WBF convention card (with all reference > to psychic habits obliterated) in competitions sponsored > by the Union for which....(etc)" [EBU regulations 1987] > > My recollection from the 1980s is that the EBU did not > allow statements on the CC about psychic habits because > the CC was for the disclosure of partnership agreements. > Possibly this basic position still holds, even if now stated > in fresh words. Anything that is the subject of a > partnership understanding is not properly to be termed > 'psychic'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Well, that cannot be a good statement. When it meets the criteria for psyche (whatever those are), it must be a psyche. Psyching frequency must indeed be part of partnership understanding. Add the last sentencce of Grattan's and by circular reasoning you find that there are no such things as psyches ! The regulations must be amended, or interpreted, to allow for this. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 17 18:26:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA10555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 18:26:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (law2-f149.hotmail.com [216.32.181.149]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA10550 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 18:26:48 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 36018 invoked by uid 0); 17 Apr 2000 08:26:11 -0000 Message-ID: <20000417082611.36017.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.31.58.70 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 01:26:10 PDT X-Originating-IP: [200.31.58.70] From: "jorge pellegrini" To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Thanks again, and a Hmmmmmmm.... Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 04:26:10 CLT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David wrote : >It would be nice for tables that get good scores not to lose them by >mechanical foul-ups at the other table, especially by the partners of >the pair that did badly, but can anyone tell me a Law that permits this? I believe that the Equity principle is the Law (not written) that David looks for. Greetings Jorge Jorge Pellegrini J. - pellegri@hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/jorgepelle/ ACBL. 8598606 icq.41610821 (eyes) - aol.pellegrinijorge Fono-Fax.(56)(2)2111790 Chile ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 17 19:57:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA10705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 19:57:48 +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 TAA10700 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 19:57:40 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id KAA17464 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 10:57:02 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 10:57 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Fielded 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: <001101bfa789$7c463fc0$105908c3@dodona> Grattan wrote: > > But the problem is not when you play with Grattan, who for the sake of > > argument we will say psyches with the frequency of a normal bridge > > player. > > > +=+ Please define 'normal bridge player' ~ G ~ +=+ :-)) Good point. Probably no such thing and certainly not intended as an accusation against Grattan:-) In the context I meant a player whose psych frequency is not known to be zero. I'm guessing here but I feel that a frequency of 1-3% is probably fairly "normal". Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 17 20:18:07 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA10752 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 20:18:07 +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 UAA10746 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 20:17:59 +1000 (EST) From: dburn@btinternet.com Received: from thorium ([194.75.226.70] helo=btinternet.com) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12h8b8-0002LF-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 11:17:42 +0100 Reply-to: dburn@btinternet.com To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 11:17:22 +0100 Subject: Re: Fielded psych X-Mailer: DMailWeb Web to Mail Gateway 2.4e, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <38fae4b2.484a.0@btinternet.com> X-User-Info: 193.113.57.163 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny" Edmund Burke Herman wrote: >Grattan Endicott wrote: >> >> > >> +=+ "If a player is recognized by partner to have a tendency >> to make a psyche of a given kind in a given situation there is >> an illegal partnership understanding. This is not resolved >> merely by the care of the partner not to field the psyche. >> The point is that where the tendency to psychic action is >> sufficiently apparent to the partner to be construed as an >> implied understanding the opponents are entitled under >> the laws to know about it. But immediately it is disclosed >> it will be treated as an unlicensed system. There is amongst >> some players a mistaken belief that all that is required is to >> avoid fielding the psyche, but for the reason stated this is >> not the case" [from EBU regulations 1990] . >> > >This is indeed what I feared to be the reasoning. > >The EBU have got it correct when they say that psyching >tendency is a partnership understanding. > >They also have it correct that this needs to be disclosed to >opponents. > >What they fail to see is that the Laws themselves use two >different words: agreement and understanding. There can be >an understanding that with a certain frequency an agreement >can be changed from. > >That cannot, in my opinion, be subject to banning of >regulations. Looking at the Code of Practice, I confess that I am having something of the same difficulty as Herman. It seems to me that the Code makes it illegal to produce a psychic call if there is some possibility that partner will recall the last time you took a similar action. In order to comply with this, presumably I must before each session say to Callaghan: "Do you remember the last time I opened 1S on a three count?" If he says "No", then I can do it again. But of course, if he has to be reminded of it before every session, he will never forget it - and the Code of Practice thus says in effect: "You may produce psyche X once in a lifteime with any given partner". This is, in my view, illegal (per Law 40A). Once again, we have a case where theory has become subservient to practice. The fact of the matter is that - even at the highest levels, which is something of a mystery - sponsoring organisations do not want people to psyche. So the legal freedom to "make any call or play... provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding" has been circumscribed by regulations to the effect that a "partnership understanding" is held to exist in circumstances where this is clearly not the position. Moreover, the regulations on psychic bidding have served to add a high level of confusion to the regulations on disclosure - see the thread "Agreement" on rec.games.bridge. It is simply wrong to say that because a player has taken an anti-systemic or deceptive action X, he now has a disclosable agreement with his partner that he will (or may) do X again. If he has taken action X because he believes that it was the "smallest lie" within the context of his agreed methods, and if his partner agrees that X was a reasonable action to have taken, then there is indeed a disclosable agreement now in force. But if he has taken action X with intent to deceive the opponents, and accepting the risk that his partner may be every bit as thoroughly hoodwinked, then he should be allowed to continue taking action X until Doomsday. The way in which it can be shown that the partnership does not have an understanding to take action X, but that a member of the partnership who does take it is flying solo, is by scrutinising the actions of the responder to X for any sign of extra-legal awareness. But if none is found, then X was legal, and will remain legal the next time it happens. The English regulations are no better and no worse than those I have encountered in other countries; they are in my view wrong-headed, but they exist primarily in order to make the game "more fun" for "lesser players", who think that psyching is cheating. And recent experience has shown me that it is simply not worth arguing on this list against any Law or regulation which does that :) David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 17 20:52:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA10813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 20:52:07 +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 UAA10808 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 20:51:58 +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 MAA24905 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 12:51:47 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200004171051.MAA24905@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: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 12:48:40 +0200 Subject: mistaken bid - infraction? 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 Big tournament, moderately big money, many 'instant'- partnerships forgetting conventions they agreed upon during the morning coffee. A number of forgotten agreements resulted in desastrous scores without TD's interference. But what about: Dealer: South. Vuln: All Swiss teams 98xxx Ax Kxxx Qx T Qxx QJTxxxx Kxx Txx Jxx Kx Axxx AKJx xx AQx JT9x West North East South - - - 1NT(15-17) 2H* 3NT all pass 2H alerted and explained as DONT (hearts & spades), as indicated on CC. Heart lead, immediately taken, spade ace, four rounds of diamonds, spade to the king. End of story. PP for EW, but this will not do NS any good. Is there a law that permits me to give them their cold 4S?? This is one of many examples, and I am aware that this topic has been discussed in the past, but nevertheless I would appreciate your comments. JP From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 17 21:09:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA10870 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 21:09:58 +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 VAA10865 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 21:09:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id NAA05526 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 13:11:38 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro999s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Apr 17 13:08:41 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JOCDLGMOGW00ARS6@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 13:08:22 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 13:08:22 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 13:08:20 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Thanks again, and a Hmmmmmmm.... To: "'David Stevenson'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5B7@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 > > It would be nice for tables that get good scores not to lose them by > mechanical foul-ups at the other table, especially by the partners of > the pair that did badly, but can anyone tell me a Law that > permits this? You are right, that would be nice. For some reason (?) this provision was taken out in '87. Let us consider to bring it in again. Would it be possible to bring in 3 substitutes for one board, using L16, or do you think it not being applicable for this problem?(meant as a joke, better to add that with all those devoted people) Another solution is to replace just partner and let the information free for opponents (that takes away the UI and is less of a joke). But probably easiest is to give an artificial adjusted score, with the given disadvantage. ton > > -- > 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 Apr 17 23:38:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA11286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 23:38:28 +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 XAA11281 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 23:38:16 +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 JAA18267; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 09:37:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA139828674; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 09:37:54 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 09:37:39 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Thanks again, and a Hmmmmmmm.... Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, pellegri@hotmail.com Cc: ac342@freenet.carleton.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 XAA11282 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jorge Pellegrini J. wrote: After to take some time reading the valuable commentaries of BLML. I allow myself to give an opinion, that I wait for well is received by You. (Apologize my English ) Greetings Jorge _________________________________________________________ Welcome Jorge. Happy to see somebody from South. As to your English, just do your best as many others.... Aim of BLML is bridge laws, not language. You know, members from England told me (a joke) that my English is not worst than that of some Americains... But some members, on this side of the pound, make the same joke about English speakers in the other parts of the world... Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 17 23:45:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA11319 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 23:45:20 +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 XAA11314 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 23:45:11 +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 JAA02398 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 09:44:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id JAA22155; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 09:44:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 09:44:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200004171344.JAA22155@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: mistaken bid - infraction? Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > >Big tournament, moderately big money, many 'instant'- >partnerships forgetting conventions they agreed upon during >the morning coffee. >A number of forgotten agreements resulted in desastrous >scores without TD's interference. But what about: > >Dealer: South. >Vuln: All >Swiss teams > 98xxx > Ax > Kxxx > Qx >T Qxx >QJTxxxx Kxx >Txx Jxx >Kx Axxx > AKJx > xx > AQx > JT9x > >West North East South > - - - 1NT(15-17) >2H* 3NT all pass > >2H alerted and explained as DONT (hearts & spades), as >indicated on CC. >Heart lead, immediately taken, spade ace, four rounds of >diamonds, spade to the king. End of story. > >PP for EW, but this will not do NS any good. >Is there a law that permits me to give them their cold 4S?? > >This is one of many examples, and I am aware that this topic >has been discussed in the past, but nevertheless I would >appreciate your comments. > I even disagree on the imposition of a PP on EW. NS are entitled to the the EW agreements, not that they actually hold the proper hand (subject to CPUs, of course). Yes, NS are unlucky that *this time* they were hurt by their opponents' error; no, they don't need the Laws or a sympathetic director to hold their hands and help them blow their noses. Tony (aka ac342) ps. I suppose a PP could be justified if EW have a history of disruptive behaviour, a la idea of "convention disruption"; then again, the idea of "convention disruption" leaves me queasy... From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 18 00:19:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA11363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 23:56:22 +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 XAA11357 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 23:56:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-224.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.224]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA25923 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 15:56:01 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38FAC6C3.50D42A13@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 10:09:39 +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: Thanks again, and a Hmmmmmmm.... References: <20000416044654.34646.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > It would be nice for tables that get good scores not to lose them by > mechanical foul-ups at the other table, especially by the partners of > the pair that did badly, but can anyone tell me a Law that permits this? > This is not a matter of Law, but of regulation. L12C1 does not say anything about this (only 60% at pairs is mentioned, nothing about teams). L78B does not help. L86A tells us that 60% equals 3IMPs. L78D says we can change this. So does L80F. I would gladly offer the WBF, or any SO, to help write a regulation to deal with this problem. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 18 01:11:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA11637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 01:11:18 +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 BAA11632 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 01:11:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (pcciborowski.comarch.pl [195.116.125.138]) by omicron.comarch.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 977D05C045 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 17:09:49 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38FB285E.2AAB03@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 17:06:06 +0200 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Cards from the wrong board - a new one Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Match. Screens. We've finished playing board 24. The opponents have a post mortem. In the meantime North (my partner) takes off board 24, puts boards 25 on the table and takes his cards out. About 10 seconds later my RHO replaces board 25 with board 26 and South, West and East take out their cards. So from then on everybody was playing board 26 but North who had his cards from board 25! East was dealer and passed. I did the same and LHO opened 1S. My partner passed the East raised to 2S. When the tray returned I saw that my partner's cards were still inside North pocket and realized what happened. What was I supposed to do? Am I aloowed to draw attention to this fact? What is the TD supposed to do? And what about Board 25? Do you rule that it's unplayable or simply decide the I have UI from my partner's passes on Board 26? -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Apr 18 01:19:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA11410 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:09:15 +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 AAA11401 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:09:06 +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 12hCCc-000PPF-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 15:08:51 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 12:46:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Thanks again, and a Hmmmmmmm.... References: <20000417082611.36017.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000417082611.36017.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk jorge pellegrini wrote: >David wrote : > >>It would be nice for tables that get good scores not to lose them by >>mechanical foul-ups at the other table, especially by the partners of >>the pair that did badly, but can anyone tell me a Law that permits this? > > >I believe that the Equity principle is the Law (not written) that David >looks for. The principle is not over-riding. It exists only where the Laws say it exists, surely? -- 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 Apr 18 02:16:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA11535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:50:33 +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 AAA11529 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:50:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id QAA06779 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 16:52:11 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro999s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Apr 17 16:49:14 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JOCLAN9TP600AXBI@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 16:48:43 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 16:48:43 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 16:48:41 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Thanks again, and a Hmmmmmmm.... To: "'Herman De Wael'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5BA@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 > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > > It would be nice for tables that get good scores not to > lose them by > > mechanical foul-ups at the other table, especially by the > partners of > > the pair that did badly, but can anyone tell me a Law that > permits this? > > > > This is not a matter of Law, but of regulation. > > L12C1 does not say anything about this (only 60% at pairs is > mentioned, nothing about teams). > L78B does not help. > L86A tells us that 60% equals 3IMPs. > > L78D says we can change this. > So does L80F. That seems too fast a conclusion to me. Talking about this specific case, L16 tells us to give an artificial adjusted score when the board can't be played. And this artificial score is well defined. ton From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 18 02:19:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA11702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 01:27:53 +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 BAA11697 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 01:27:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-199.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.199]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA28248 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 17:27:34 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38FB1D83.F5F55096@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 16:19:47 +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: Fielded psych References: <38fae4b2.484a.0@btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I would like to put on record that I agree with every word David Burn has produced in his message. David, you and I are usually on the same side, and don't let our recent disagreement cloud that over. dburn@btinternet.com wrote: > > "Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny" > Edmund Burke > In this case, I would not say the Laws are bad, just the combined interpretation in a few cases, each on its own defendable, but put together, a deadly combination. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 18 03:32:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA11489 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:31:32 +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 AAA11484 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:31:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 16:31:08 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id QAA30656 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 16:09:57 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: mistaken bid - infraction? Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 16:10:20 +0200 Message-ID: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C005004546901031098@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: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101B131@xion.spase.nl> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Peter Pals wrote: >Big tournament, moderately big money, many 'instant'- >partnerships forgetting conventions they agreed upon during >the morning coffee. >A number of forgotten agreements resulted in desastrous >scores without TD's interference. But what about: > >Dealer: South. >Vuln: All >Swiss teams > 98xxx > Ax > Kxxx > Qx >T Qxx >QJTxxxx Kxx >Txx Jxx >Kx Axxx > AKJx > xx > AQx > JT9x > >West North East South > - - - 1NT(15-17) >2H* 3NT all pass > >2H alerted and explained as DONT (hearts & spades), as >indicated on CC. >Heart lead, immediately taken, spade ace, four rounds of >diamonds, spade to the king. End of story. > >PP for EW, but this will not do NS any good. >Is there a law that permits me to give them their cold 4S?? I think not. Once you determined that NS received the correct information, they are not entitled to redress: L75B: A player may violate an announced partnership agreement (...) No player has the obligation to disclose to the opponents that he has violated an announced agreement and if the opponents are subsequently damaged, as through drawing a false inference from such violation, they are not entitled to redress. Of course, if this happens too often, you would determine that NS received wrong information, and rule accordingly. >This is one of many examples, and I am aware that this topic >has been discussed in the past, but nevertheless I would >appreciate your comments. > JP -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 18 03:32:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA12164 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 03:32:15 +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 DAA12159 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 03:32:08 +1000 (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 NAA14648; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 13:31:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200004171051.MAA24905@hera.frw.uva.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 13:30:53 -0500 To: Jan Peter Pals, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: mistaken bid - infraction? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:48 PM +0200 4/17/00, Jan Peter Pals wrote: >Big tournament, moderately big money, many 'instant'- >partnerships forgetting conventions they agreed upon during >the morning coffee. >A number of forgotten agreements resulted in desastrous >scores without TD's interference. But what about: > >Dealer: South. >Vuln: All >Swiss teams > 98xxx > Ax > Kxxx > Qx >T Qxx >QJTxxxx Kxx >Txx Jxx >Kx Axxx > AKJx > xx > AQx > JT9x > >West North East South > - - - 1NT(15-17) >2H* 3NT all pass > >2H alerted and explained as DONT (hearts & spades), as >indicated on CC. >Heart lead, immediately taken, spade ace, four rounds of >diamonds, spade to the king. End of story. > >PP for EW, but this will not do NS any good. I'm not sure that even a PP is appropriate. Forgetting your conventions is not a violation of any Law, although an established partnership is expected to know what they are doing in simple situations. But the score has to stand; a mistake is more likely to hurt the player who makes it, but if it turns out to be right, that's a fix. N-S were not damaged by >Is there a law that permits me to give them their cold 4S?? It's not a Law point, but South should probably have made his contract with an overtrick. When East follows to the first spade, South knows that West has misbid. He either has hearts or both hearts and clubs (since he didn't have diamonds). In either case, given West's long hearts, East is more likely to have the SQ. If South finesses the SJ, he makes an overtrick. (This is not automatic enough that I would deny the adjustment if there were a misexplanation. Declarer's actual play is reasonable, as West could have had QT rather than stiff T. Failing to count the hand properly when you know an opponent has misbid but don't know what he actually has is not an egregious error.) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 18 03:34:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA11411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:09:16 +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 AAA11400 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:09:03 +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 12hCCo-000PPG-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 15:08:51 +0100 Message-ID: <1TF2waAIyv+4Ewf2@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 12:59:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: mistaken bid - infraction? References: <200004171051.MAA24905@hera.frw.uva.nl> In-Reply-To: <200004171051.MAA24905@hera.frw.uva.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Peter Pals wrote: > >Big tournament, moderately big money, many 'instant'- >partnerships forgetting conventions they agreed upon during >the morning coffee. >A number of forgotten agreements resulted in desastrous >scores without TD's interference. But what about: > >Dealer: South. >Vuln: All >Swiss teams > 98xxx > Ax > Kxxx > Qx >T Qxx >QJTxxxx Kxx >Txx Jxx >Kx Axxx > AKJx > xx > AQx > JT9x > >West North East South > - - - 1NT(15-17) >2H* 3NT all pass > >2H alerted and explained as DONT (hearts & spades), as >indicated on CC. >Heart lead, immediately taken, spade ace, four rounds of >diamonds, spade to the king. End of story. > >PP for EW, but this will not do NS any good. >Is there a law that permits me to give them their cold 4S?? No. They have not been misinformed. Bridge is a game of mistakes. People will continue to make mistakes, and their opponents will be glad of it. Players do not want their opponents to stop making mistakes, yet some of those mistakes work in their favour. Some years back I was playing the last round of a National Swiss Teams final at table 1. Our opponents were a team of four unknowns who had been leading the event since the second round. My trump suit was: 7xxx AQT8xx So I lead a small one, 9, what should I play from dummy? We need to win 16-4 to win the event, and game makes if I lose no trick. Presumably the odds favour the queen, but do I want to follow the odds? I finally said to myself "Oh, tosh, just finesse as normal", and called for - the ten!!!! My brain had switched off for a moment, and I meant to play the queen. [Proponents of L45C4B will note that it would never occur to me to try to change the card: at that time I may have been unaware of the possibility]. Naturally next player discarded, otherwise there would be no story! We gained a lot on the board because of my mistake. Justice was [perhaps] served when we won 15-5, one full imp short of winning the event. Should my opponents have been able to call the TD and ask for a ruling because my mistakes worked in my favour? No, of course not - and Jan's case is no different. So long as the there is no MI, players should be allowed to gain from their mistakes sometimes: on balance they will 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 Tue Apr 18 03:37:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA12193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 03:37:51 +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 DAA12188 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 03:37:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com ([24.92.226.146]) by mailhop1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 13:34:22 -0400 Received: from [24.95.201.62] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 13:37:30 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200004171051.MAA24905@hera.frw.uva.nl> References: <200004171051.MAA24905@hera.frw.uva.nl> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 13:34:50 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: mistaken bid - infraction? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >2H alerted and explained as DONT (hearts & spades), as >indicated on CC. >Heart lead, immediately taken, spade ace, four rounds of >diamonds, spade to the king. End of story. > >PP for EW, but this will not do NS any good. >Is there a law that permits me to give them their cold 4S?? I'm probably missing something here, but... if their agreement was that 2H shows hearts and spades, and that was the explanation, on what grounds do you award EW a PP? 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/AwUBOPtL3b2UW3au93vOEQJhSgCgiYAQUKK/AtbApQNq/W35x5NOBggAoLTt 86qFJanhfJvXGY71dOAWxU8B =34Zz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 18 03:38:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA12199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 03:38:01 +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 DAA12194 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 03:37:53 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id n.d6.279b044 (4537); Mon, 17 Apr 2000 13:36:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 13:36:36 EDT Subject: Re: mistaken bid - infraction? To: grabiner@wcnet.org, j.p.pals@frw.uva.nl, 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 105 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 4/17/00 1:34:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, grabiner@wcnet.org writes: > I'm not sure that even a PP is appropriate. Forgetting your conventions > is not a violation of any Law, although an established partnership is > expected to know what they are doing in simple situations. > Excellent comment. On what bais is the PP being given. Who did what illegal? Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 18 03:45:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA12239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 03:45:32 +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 DAA12233 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 03:45:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.170.11] (helo=davidburn) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12hFZv-0005cL-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 18:44:56 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01bfa894$cb2e5260$0baa01d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5BA@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: Thanks again, and a Hmmmmmmm.... Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 18:45:59 +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 Ton wrote: > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > > > > > It would be nice for tables that get good scores not to > > lose them by > > > mechanical foul-ups at the other table, especially by the > > partners of > > > the pair that did badly, but can anyone tell me a Law that > > permits this? > > > > > > > This is not a matter of Law, but of regulation. > > > > L12C1 does not say anything about this (only 60% at pairs is > > mentioned, nothing about teams). > > L78B does not help. > > L86A tells us that 60% equals 3IMPs. > > > > L78D says we can change this. > > So does L80F. > > > That seems too fast a conclusion to me. Talking about this specific case, > L16 tells us to give an artificial adjusted score when the board can't be > played. And this artificial score > is well defined. I was consulted the other day by someone who had been asked to give a ruling on these circumstances: In the final session of a match, a slam had been bid at one table and had failed. When the board arrived at the other table, the king of hearts was face up on top of the opening bidder's hand. The board was considered fouled, and (because it was the final session) no substitute board was played. My view was that an adjustment was appropriate on the basis that the slam might or might not have been bid at the second table, and might or might not have made (the success or failure of the contract depended on the opening lead; a priori it was pretty much on a finesse). Thus, one would assign some percentage of 17 IMPs (slam bid and made), some percentage of 13 IMPs (slam not bid); some percentage of 0 IMPs (slam bid and defeated). Of course, the question of whether the facing of the king of hearts had been deliberate would not affect this type of score adjustment, though a (severe) penalty would apply if in fact it were held that a deliberate fouling of the board had taken place. I believe my judgement to have been in accordance with EBU regulations, which (paraphrased) imply that the standard adjustment applies unless an abnormally good result for a side considered non-offending has already occurred on the board. Reading the above, it seems to me that this view may not be official policy, and I would be interested in other opinions. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 18 04:09:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA12308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 04:09:13 +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 EAA12303 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 04:09:05 +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 OAA25664 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 14:07:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000417141212.006a3a84@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 14:12:12 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Fielded psych In-Reply-To: <000901bfa788$a8fb5e20$705908c3@dodona> References: <01bfa625$197286c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:42 AM 4/16/00 +0100, Grattan wrote: >+=+ "If a player is recognized by partner to have a tendency >to make a psyche of a given kind in a given situation there is >an illegal partnership understanding. This is not resolved >merely by the care of the partner not to field the psyche. >The point is that where the tendency to psychic action is >sufficiently apparent to the partner to be construed as an >implied understanding the opponents are entitled under >the laws to know about it. But immediately it is disclosed >it will be treated as an unlicensed system. There is amongst >some players a mistaken belief that all that is required is to >avoid fielding the psyche, but for the reason stated this is >not the case" [from EBU regulations 1990] . > >"(except that) a partnership which wishes to do so may >use the official WBF convention card (with all reference >to psychic habits obliterated) in competitions sponsored >by the Union for which....(etc)" [EBU regulations 1987] > >My recollection from the 1980s is that the EBU did not >allow statements on the CC about psychic habits because >the CC was for the disclosure of partnership agreements. >Possibly this basic position still holds, even if now stated >in fresh words. Anything that is the subject of a >partnership understanding is not properly to be termed >'psychic'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The problem is that I have a very good idea which of my partners may psych from time to time, and which will never psych. These are usually implicit agreements, developed from experience and observation, although in some cases the subject may have been discussed. Surely this is knowledge I have about my partner's bidding tendencies which the opponents do not, and which therefore should be appropriately disclosed. But now, it seems, I have no way to do so. According to Grattan, this is OK, because any agreement regarding psychs is an illegal CPU. My opponents may assume that my agreement is that my partnership never psychs, because any other agreement is illegal. So I MUST have an understanding with every partner that we don't ever psych. And then, if one of us does psych, and it works, our violation of our implicitly stated agreement never to psych raises a presumption of a CPU. Presumably I can still psych, but I can be certain that if I ever gain at the table by doing so, my gain will be wiped out by the TD or AC. So our SOs haven't quite banned psychs -- only successful psychs! That's too fine a distinction for my mind to grasp. 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 Apr 18 04:19:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA12144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 03:24:55 +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 DAA12139 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 03:24:44 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id f.d0.48dd6d5 (4537); Mon, 17 Apr 2000 13:23:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 13:23:00 EDT Subject: Re: Thanks again, and a Hmmmmmmm.... To: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA 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 105 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 4/17/00 9:40:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA writes: > You know, members from England told me (a joke) that my > English is not worst than that of some Americains... > But some members, on this side of the pound, make the > same joke about English speakers in the other parts of > the world... > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City HI, Do your French friends also feel the same about your Quebecois? The unfortunate characteristic of "English" is that it has the same title name as a country where it is spoken. So they think they own it! Much the same for the French. Away from there English is also healthy, wealthy, wise, and finely descriptive of the brain's functions. That includes all of the America's -- USA, Canada, Jamaica, Guyana, etc., some Asian nations, and even some of the countries contiguously adjacent to England. It is exactly this aspect of English that makes it the vital and world renowned language it is, not in spite of it. Best regards, Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 18 04:40:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA11783 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 01:54:36 +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 BAA11778 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 01:54:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from p55s06a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.118.86] helo=pacific) by cobalt9-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12gp5f-0000Yq-00; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 14:27:55 +0100 Message-ID: <000301bfa885$29132320$567693c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , References: <38fae4b2.484a.0@btinternet.com> Subject: Re: Fielded psych Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 16:24:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: 17 April 2000 11:17 Subject: Re: Fielded psych > "Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny" > Edmund Burke > > Herman wrote: > > >Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > The way in which it can be shown that the partnership does not have an understanding > to take action X, but that a member of the partnership who does take it is flying > solo, is by scrutinising the actions of the responder to X for any sign of extra-legal > awareness. But if none is found, then X was legal, and will remain legal the > next time it happens. > +=+ This, very sadly, is simply wrong. The absence of collusive action does not disprove the presence of an agreement. It merely shows that the partner did not take collusive action even if he knew full well that partner had psyched. That a partnership understanding may arise from past partnership experience is well established, and the priority is to protect the opponents from any failure to disclose such an understanding. For this reason the margin of proof leans against the psycher and his partner where the past experience is apparent. It is perhaps useful to look at what the laws say about agreements and partnership understandings. In regard to 'agreements' it is true this is the word that appears in 40E1 where the power to require a CC is prescribed. We must then look to Law 75B - "habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed" - and 75C which refers to "all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience". As for 'partnership understandings', Laws 40A & B establish that opponents are entitled to be aware of any. Regulations may prescribe how they are to be disclosed. It is also important to note the power of regulation (40D) applying to 'partnership understandings (even if not conventional) that permit the partnership's initial actions at the one level to be made with a hand of a King or more below average strength' - one use of such power is to require disclosure in a prescribed way, another is to forbid. This power to regulate is clearly available in regard to psychic action which is considered to be based upon a partnership understanding. I believe that the regulating authorities are acting entirely within their powers, and that they have a primary duty to ensure that innocent opponents are not treated abusively by partnerships that fail to make a true disclosure of their awareness of psychic proclivities. This is not a comment upon the dexterity with which the aim is accomplished. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 18 04:41:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA12435 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 04:41:04 +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 EAA12430 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 04:40:57 +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 LAA15959; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 11:41:14 -0700 Message-Id: <200004171841.LAA15959@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: mistaken bid - infraction? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 17 Apr 2000 09:44:55 PDT." <200004171344.JAA22155@freenet10.carleton.ca> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 11:41:15 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A. L. Edwards (and everybody else) said: > >PP for EW, but this will not do NS any good. > >Is there a law that permits me to give them their cold 4S?? > > > >This is one of many examples, and I am aware that this topic > >has been discussed in the past, but nevertheless I would > >appreciate your comments. > > I even disagree on the imposition of a PP on EW. NS are > entitled to the the EW agreements, not that they actually > hold the proper hand (subject to CPUs, of course). Like about six other responses, I don't see a legal basis for imposing a PP. My question: I thought I had read, on BLML or RGB, that some jurisdictions impose an automatic PP for mis-Ghessing (i.e. making a Ghestem bid with the wrong suits). Is this true? If so, what legal basis is claimed to allow such an automatic PP? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 18 05:25:16 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA12113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 03:17:28 +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 DAA12108 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 03:17:16 +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 SAA00152 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 18:17:07 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA16738 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 18:17:06 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 17:17:06 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 SAA02544 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 18:17:05 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id SAA11762 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 18:17:04 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 18:17:04 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200004171717.SAA11762@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fielded psych X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: dburn@btinternet.com > > "Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny" > Edmund Burke > > Herman wrote: > > >Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> > >> > > >> +=+ "If a player is recognized by partner to have a tendency > >> to make a psyche of a given kind in a given situation there is > >> an illegal partnership understanding. This is not resolved > >> merely by the care of the partner not to field the psyche. > >> The point is that where the tendency to psychic action is > >> sufficiently apparent to the partner to be construed as an > >> implied understanding the opponents are entitled under > >> the laws to know about it. But immediately it is disclosed > >> it will be treated as an unlicensed system. There is amongst > >> some players a mistaken belief that all that is required is to > >> avoid fielding the psyche, but for the reason stated this is > >> not the case" [from EBU regulations 1990] . > >> > > > >This is indeed what I feared to be the reasoning. > > > >The EBU have got it correct when they say that psyching > >tendency is a partnership understanding. > > > >They also have it correct that this needs to be disclosed to > >opponents. > [snip] > > Looking at the Code of Practice, I confess that I am having something > of the same difficulty as Herman. It seems to me that the Code makes it > illegal to produce a psychic call if there is some possibility that > partner will recall the last time you took a similar action. In order > to comply with this, presumably I must before each session say to > Callaghan: "Do you remember the last time I opened 1S on a three > count?" If he says "No", then I can do it again. But of course, if he > has to be reminded of it before every session, he will never forget it - > and the Code of Practice thus says in effect: "You may produce psyche X > once in a lifteime with any given partner". This is, in my view, > illegal (per Law 40A). > > Once again, we have a case where theory has become subservient to > practice. The fact of the matter is that - even at the highest levels, > which is something of a mystery - sponsoring organisations do not want > people to psyche. So the legal freedom to "make any call or play... > provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership > understanding" has been circumscribed by regulations to the effect that > a "partnership understanding" is held to exist in circumstances where > this is clearly not the position. Moreover, the regulations on psychic > bidding have served to add a high level of confusion to the regulations > on disclosure - see the thread "Agreement" on rec.games.bridge. > > It is simply wrong to say that because a player has taken an > anti-systemic or deceptive action X, he now has a disclosable agreement > with his partner that he will (or may) do X again. If he has taken > action X because he believes that it was the "smallest lie" within the > context of his agreed methods, and if his partner agrees that X was a > reasonable action to have taken, then there is indeed a disclosable > agreement now in force. But if he has taken action X with intent to > deceive the opponents, and accepting the risk that his partner may be > every bit as thoroughly hoodwinked, then he should be allowed to > continue taking action X until Doomsday. > [snip] > > The English regulations are no better and no worse than those I have > encountered in other countries; they are in my view wrong-headed, but [snip] > > David Burn > London, England I agree with David that EBU regulations and/or the WBF COP imply the restriction of psyches to once per partnership and this nullifies Law 40A. He (of course) put the case more eloquently than I. I disagree with Herman to the extent that he thinks these regulations are being misinterpreted to arrive at this conclusion. What I find curious is that the traffic light system for psyches in the EBU does not try to ascertain "If a player is recognized by partner to have a tendency to make a psyche of a given kind in a given situation". We only take action if "The actions of you and your partner following a psyche may provide evidence of an unauthorised - and therefore illegal - understanding." The whole wording of OB6.2 "Fielding", is based on partnership's action providing evidence of an authorised understanding; not on the partnerships unknown (and, in practice, unknowable) history of psyching. This history of psyching could be known from psyches which are recorded, but there is no requirement to record "green" psyches, so if you psyche but never field your history of psyching may not be known. I think this is as it should be, and the EBU traffic light system works well. But it does not implement the regulations quoted by Grattan (above). I think the laws and regulations should seek to distinguish (as Herman already thinks they do) between - partnership agreements about each others actions which they use as a basis for subsequent actions; and - other observed partnership history which they may not use as a basis for subsequent actions. Robin -- Robin Barker | Eail: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, 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 Apr 18 06:42:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA12750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 06:42:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from red.impulsedata.net (root@red.impulsedata.net [209.63.64.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA12740 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 06:42:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from BRIDGETODAY1 (195.phx-ts02.impulsedata.net [209.63.68.195]) by red.impulsedata.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA75638; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 13:39:20 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from golddoc@impulsedata.net) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20000417134515.00855bb0@impulsedata.net> X-Sender: golddoc@impulsedata.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 13:45:15 -0700 To: Jan Peter Pals From: Phil Guptill Subject: Re: mistaken bid - infraction? Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <200004171051.MAA24905@hera.frw.uva.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Jan & all! I've been away from any appreciable amount of directing for about 15 years now! In years past, the type of situation Jan has asked about was referred to as "the rub of the green." Most of the time, when partnership agreements are forgotten, the opponents will end up with a good result. Once in a while, as in the situation outlined to us, the opponents get fixed, and a bad result. I can't imagine why a pair should automatically be given a good score, or in this case permitting them to play in 4 spades, be- cause of what was described to us. I'm not sure about the current bridge laws, but logic would seem to dictate that opponents, of those who have forgotten their bidding agreements, can't have it both ways. I'm not familiar with "PP", but assume that it probably refers to penalty points, and if so, that also seems way out of line. I don't know if the fact that declarer in 3NT should have made 4, once his LHO followed to a spade, which should be done before the diamonds are played, matters. They could have profited from the situation, rather than looking for some adjustment be- cause the declarer's LHO had forgotten that they were playing Don't. At 12:48 PM 4/17/00 +0200, Jan Peter Pals wrote: > >Big tournament, moderately big money, many 'instant'- >partnerships forgetting conventions they agreed upon during >the morning coffee. >A number of forgotten agreements resulted in desastrous >scores without TD's interference. But what about: > >Dealer: South. >Vuln: All >Swiss teams > 98xxx > Ax > Kxxx > Qx >T Qxx >QJTxxxx Kxx >Txx Jxx >Kx Axxx > AKJx > xx > AQx > JT9x > >West North East South > - - - 1NT(15-17) >2H* 3NT all pass > >2H alerted and explained as DONT (hearts & spades), as >indicated on CC. >Heart lead, immediately taken, spade ace, four rounds of >diamonds, spade to the king. End of story. > >PP for EW, but this will not do NS any good. >Is there a law that permits me to give them their cold 4S?? > >This is one of many examples, and I am aware that this topic >has been discussed in the past, but nevertheless I would >appreciate your comments. > >JP > > > Phil Guptill...bigheart on OKB bridgetoday@impulsedata.net "Sight is a faculty; seeing is an art." From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 18 06:42:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA12751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 06:42:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f151.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.151]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA12741 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 06:42:29 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 41273 invoked by uid 0); 17 Apr 2000 20:41:52 -0000 Message-ID: <20000417204152.41272.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.23 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 13:41:52 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.23] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Thanks again, and a Hmmmmmmm.... Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 13:41:52 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >In a message dated 4/17/00 9:40:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA writes: > > You know, members from England told me (a joke) that my > > English is not worst than that of some Americains... > > But some members, on this side of the pound, make the I just love this inadvertant pun. So, I wonder if pound is a monetary unit or a penal institution? ;) > > same joke about English speakers in the other parts of > > the world... Consider it a silly rivalry. The OED (universally accepted) and the American Heritage (just imho) are the respective authorities. But as long as you are understood, the only goal that matters has been achieved. But there is a downside to speaking English natively. Most people assume that you're monolingual. -Todd ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 18 07:06:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA12847 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 07:06:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from red.impulsedata.net (root@red.impulsedata.net [209.63.64.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA12842 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 07:06:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from BRIDGETODAY1 (51.phx-ts01.impulsedata.net [209.63.68.51]) by red.impulsedata.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA77173; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 14:03:40 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from bridgetoday@impulsedata.net) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20000417140949.0085adf0@impulsedata.net> X-Sender: bridgetoday@impulsedata.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 14:09:49 -0700 To: Jan Peter Pals From: Phil Guptill Subject: Re: mistaken bid - infraction? Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, golddoc@impulsedata.net In-Reply-To: <200004171051.MAA24905@hera.frw.uva.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Jan & all! I've been away from any appreciable amount of directing for about 15 years now! In years past, the type of situation Jan has asked about was referred to as "the rub of the green." Most of the time, when partnership agreements are forgotten, the opponents will end up with a good result. Once in a while, as in the situation outlined to us, the opponents get fixed, and a bad result. I can't imagine why a pair should automatically be given a good score, or in this case permitting them to play in 4 spades, be- cause of what was described to us. I'm not sure about the current bridge laws, but logic would seem to dictate that opponents, of those who have forgotten their bidding agreements, can't have it both ways. I'm not familiar with "PP", but assume that it probably refers to penalty points, and if so, that also seems way out of line. I don't know if the fact that declarer in 3NT should have made 4, once his LHO followed to a spade, which should be done before the diamonds are played, matters. They could have profited from the situation, rather than looking for some adjustment be- cause the declarer's LHO had forgotten that they were playing Don't. At 12:48 PM 4/17/00 +0200, Jan Peter Pals wrote: > >Big tournament, moderately big money, many 'instant'- >partnerships forgetting conventions they agreed upon during >the morning coffee. >A number of forgotten agreements resulted in desastrous >scores without TD's interference. But what about: > >Dealer: South. >Vuln: All >Swiss teams > 98xxx > Ax > Kxxx > Qx >T Qxx >QJTxxxx Kxx >Txx Jxx >Kx Axxx > AKJx > xx > AQx > JT9x > >West North East South > - - - 1NT(15-17) >2H* 3NT all pass > >2H alerted and explained as DONT (hearts & spades), as >indicated on CC. >Heart lead, immediately taken, spade ace, four rounds of >diamonds, spade to the king. End of story. > >PP for EW, but this will not do NS any good. >Is there a law that permits me to give them their cold 4S?? > >This is one of many examples, and I am aware that this topic >has been discussed in the past, but nevertheless I would >appreciate your comments. > >JP > > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 18 08:09:27 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA12984 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 08:09:27 +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 IAA12979 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 08:09:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from calum (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA24977 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 18:09:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200004172209.SAA24977@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fielded psych Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <38F9B3CE.7E709206@village.uunet.be> References: <01bfa625$197286c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <000901bfa788$a8fb5e20$705908c3@dodona> <38F9B3CE.7E709206@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 18:09:03 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 16 April 2000 at 14:36, Herman De Wael wrote: >Grattan Endicott wrote: >> >> > >> +=+ "If a player is recognized by partner to have a tendency >> to make a psyche of a given kind in a given situation there is >> an illegal partnership understanding. This is not resolved >> merely by the care of the partner not to field the psyche. >> The point is that where the tendency to psychic action is >> sufficiently apparent to the partner to be construed as an >> implied understanding the opponents are entitled under >> the laws to know about it. But immediately it is disclosed >> it will be treated as an unlicensed system. There is amongst >> some players a mistaken belief that all that is required is to >> avoid fielding the psyche, but for the reason stated this is >> not the case" [from EBU regulations 1990] . >> The thing that concerns me is the leap in this regulation from "a psyche of a given kind in a given situation" to "tendency to psychic action"; in other words, from a set of specific calls in specific situations to general psychic habits. It can be well known that player X (or that pair X-Y (obviously a male pair :-)) psyches frequently, without Y recognizing anything about the kind or situation of the psych - if the individual psyches cannot be systematically classified. Assume that in the course of 8 sessions at a Regional, pair X-Y makes the following psyches, and that this is consistent with their style: 1. Opens 1NT (10-12) as dealer, white on red, with a 4441 3-count. 2. Passes a 19HCP hand in second seat when he could open. 3. Overcalls 1S with QJxxx and out, vulnerable, (assume this is not normal for X-Y) after P-P-1C. 4. Opens 1H in third seat with xxxx Kxx xxx xxx. 5. A forcing 2S response to a weak 2H opening with -- Txxx Qxxx xxxxx 6. A "first or second round" 4C control cuebid with Txx in clubs. 7. A lead-directing double of partner's bid suit with xxx to argue the opponents out of NT. 8. In a situation where they are playing transfers, bidding Stayman in response to partner's 1NT with KQxxxx AQTxxx -- A. "Tendency to psychic action"? Sure - X-Y psych frequently (very frequently, compared to usual in Southern Ontario). But can X or Y give any information about the "kind or situation of their psychs"? I can't see anything that I could learn about X-Y from this except that they psych a lot. They've psyched in all four seats, at differing vulnerabilities, with weak and strong hands, with hands that contain the called suit and without. But if this is regulated against, then they almost have to play a psych-free game, or they are in violation of system regulations. In other words, they can't psych because they psych too much! Not only that, they know that they can't psych, so they can completely trust each other - and all their opponents know (because they can't disclose this, either) is that they are rumoured to be very free-wheeling. > >This is indeed what I feared to be the reasoning. > >The EBU have got it correct when they say that psyching >tendency is a partnership understanding. > >They also have it correct that this needs to be disclosed to >opponents. > >What they fail to see is that the Laws themselves use two >different words: agreement and understanding. There can be >an understanding that with a certain frequency an agreement >can be changed from. > One thing in addition to this that I've always worried about: An agreement to never psych is also a partnership understanding, which needs to be disclosed to opponents. Is it allowed to have in your system "we choose not to use our option in L40A to purposely vary from system"? The argument given is often that pairs who psych frequently are at an advantage when a psych occurs because they can be "fairly certain" that it was their partner doing the psyching. But the counter-argument, just as valid, is that pairs who never psych have an advantage, in that they know that it is their opponents who are psyching, and can double or ignore it as they will, trusting partner to have her bid. >If the regulations are written, or applied as strict as >that, then this is effectively a ban on psyching, something >nobody seems to say they want. > >As long as L40 is interpreted as "you may psyche just once >in your career", it is not a correct interpretation. > >System regulations need to be written such that psyches are >not subject to it. In order to do that, a good definition >needs to be given for a psyche. I believe such definition >needs to include : [snip some conditions] > - the situation which precedes it is relatively uncommon - >like 2 HCP in third seat) > Here I have a difference with Herman - I believe that a "psych" that promises something specific is not a psych - it is a two-way call; even if it is not always done. And that can be subject to regulation. Basically what I said the last time this came up is that if I can tell, given that I know partner has psyched, enough about her hand to describe it, then it isn't a psych, to me at least. I am a little concerned about "systemic understandings" that aren't two-way, but that's another topic. What it means here is that a psyching tendancy that becomes frequent enough to fall under the EBU regulation above, but is only done by one member of the pair, creates a situation where the partnership is playing two different methods - which is also against regulation in most of the world. >> My recollection from the 1980s is that the EBU did not >> allow statements on the CC about psychic habits because >> the CC was for the disclosure of partnership agreements. >> Possibly this basic position still holds, even if now stated >> in fresh words. Anything that is the subject of a >> partnership understanding is not properly to be termed >> 'psychic'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Again, the difference between "psyching frequency" and "frequency of a particular psych" (or "expected hand for a particular psych", for that matter) is IMHO important. What can a partnership understanding that "we tend to psych frequently, perhaps as often as once every 3 or 4 sessions, and more frequently at pairs than at teams" be - which aptly describes my experience with one of my regular partners, and if he isn't aware of this, I'd be extremely surprised - but a disclosable part of our system? Note that nothing in the above statement says anything about The bids that are likely to be psyched, or the hands that will be held when the psychic bid is made. If we do not disclose this, we truly are at an advantage; we know something about the auction that our opponents don't - if there is a psych at the table, it is much more likely to be from our side than from theirs. Michael From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 18 08:24:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA13032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 08:24:23 +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 IAA13026 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 08:24:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.79] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12hJw4-0000ev-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 23:24:04 +0100 Message-ID: <006c01bfa8bb$b5c376e0$925408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <01bfa625$197286c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <3.0.1.32.20000417141212.006a3a84@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Fielded psych Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 22:50:45 +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: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 7:12 PM Subject: Re: Fielded psych > At 10:42 AM 4/16/00 +0100, Grattan wrote: > [from EBU regulations 1990] . > > [EBU regulations 1987] > > > >My recollection from the 1980s is that the EBU did not > >allow statements on the CC about psychic habits because > >the CC was for the disclosure of partnership agreements. > >Possibly this basic position still holds, even if now stated > >in fresh words. Anything that is the subject of a > >partnership understanding is not properly to be termed > >'psychic'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > Eric Landau: > According to Grattan, this is OK, because any agreement regarding psychs is > an illegal CPU> > +=+ The 'according to Grattan' bit strikes me as a bit strong when I merely quote words from a page. My position would be that the regulating authority has the power to require disclosure on the CC and/or otherwise, has the power to determine (regulate) whether a partnership understanding in relation to psychic action, being disclosed, is acceptable. I believe the regulating authority has a primary duty to protect innocent players from partnerships that have understandings about psychic action which they fail truly to disclose. In pursuit of this duty I hold the view that when partnership experience is apparent the RA may justifiably incline to a belief that the partnership is aware of it; I am little convinced by assertions that what is apparent to the world at large has left those most intimately concerned in a cocoon of blind unawareness. I do think the Director and the AC have to make their judgments as to the existence of an awareness in the partner's mind arising from partnership experience. In such a matter the CoP, for example, can be no more than a signpost. I have expressed no view as to the skill with which various regulations are cast. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 18 09:09:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA13165 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 09:09:37 +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 JAA13160 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 09:09:28 +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 12hKdp-0009QJ-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:09:18 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:02:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: mistaken bid - infraction? References: <200004171344.JAA22155@freenet10.carleton.ca> <200004171841.LAA15959@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200004171841.LAA15959@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >Like about six other responses, I don't see a legal basis for imposing >a PP. > >My question: I thought I had read, on BLML or RGB, that some >jurisdictions impose an automatic PP for mis-Ghessing (i.e. making a >Ghestem bid with the wrong suits). Is this true? If so, what legal >basis is claimed to allow such an automatic PP? L40D gives that right. It is not generally approved of - for example, the CoP says it is most undesirable - but it is legal. ------- Kojak wrote: >In a message dated 4/17/00 1:34:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >grabiner@wcnet.org writes: >> I'm not sure that even a PP is appropriate. Forgetting your conventions >> is not a violation of any Law, although an established partnership is >> expected to know what they are doing in simple situations. >Excellent comment. On what bais is the PP being given. Who did what illegal? It is permissible for an SO to make a regulation under L40D that a convention may only be played under certain conditions. Not forgetting them is such a condition. I do not approve of such a regulation [and nor does the CoP] but it is a legal one. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 18 11:21:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA13432 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 11:21:04 +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 LAA13427 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 11:20:57 +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, 17 Apr 2000 21:17:33 -0400 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 ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 21:09:20 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <200004171344.JAA22155@freenet10.carleton.ca> <200004171841.LAA15959@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 21:18:38 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: mistaken bid - infraction? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 David Stevenson wrote: >It is permissible for an SO to make a regulation under L40D that a >convention may only be played under certain conditions. Not forgetting >them is such a condition. I do not approve of such a regulation [and >nor does the CoP] but it is a legal one. But is there such a regulation in this case? 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/AwUBOPu4bL2UW3au93vOEQKmnQCgw3Od/8oNA6mKlUK80VtNXQG2wG4AnA32 SG9Dn9XLUmaSddJQIH8o3qjx =YxSX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 18 12:19:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA13563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:07:27 +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 MAA13529 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:07:06 +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 12hNPd-000DWz-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 02:06:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 02:50:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Fielded psych References: <01bfa625$197286c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <000901bfa788$a8fb5e20$705908c3@dodona> <3.0.1.32.20000417141212.006a3a84@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000417141212.006a3a84@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.20000417141212.006a3a84@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau writes snip > >According to Grattan, this is OK, because any agreement regarding psychs is >an illegal CPU. My opponents may assume that my agreement is that my >partnership never psychs, because any other agreement is illegal. I believe the agreement that "partner never psyches" to be illegal. It can only be the result of observation. 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 Apr 18 12:28:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA13636 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:28:35 +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 MAA13631 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:28:28 +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 12hNkQ-000PL0-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 02:28:18 +0000 Message-ID: <+PL6nEF0e8+4EwvS@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 03:25:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Thanks again, and a Hmmmmmmm.... References: <20000417204152.41272.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000417204152.41272.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <20000417204152.41272.qmail@hotmail.com>, Todd Zimnoch writes >>In a message dated 4/17/00 9:40:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >>Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA writes: >> > You know, members from England told me (a joke) that my >> > English is not worst than that of some Americains... >> > But some members, on this side of the pound, make the > > I just love this inadvertant pun. So, I wonder if pound is a monetary >unit or a penal institution? ;) > >> > same joke about English speakers in the other parts of >> > the world... > > Consider it a silly rivalry. The OED (universally accepted) and the >American Heritage (just imho) are the respective authorities. But as long >as you are understood, the only goal that matters has been achieved. > > But there is a downside to speaking English natively. Most people >assume that you're monolingual. > >-Todd nope, we have "English for foreigners" as a second language. We speak more slowly and much more loudly. 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 Apr 18 12:56:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA13707 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:56:03 +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 MAA13702 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:55:54 +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 12hNnJ-0006El-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 03:31:17 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 03:03:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: mistaken bid - infraction? References: <200004171344.JAA22155@freenet10.carleton.ca> <200004171841.LAA15959@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: >Hash: SHA1 > >David Stevenson wrote: > >>It is permissible for an SO to make a regulation under L40D that a >>convention may only be played under certain conditions. Not forgetting >>them is such a condition. I do not approve of such a regulation [and >>nor does the CoP] but it is a legal one. > >But is there such a regulation in this case? I very much doubt it, but that was not what I was answering. -- 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 Apr 18 13:11:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA13560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:07:26 +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 MAA13528 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:07:06 +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 12hNPd-000DWw-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 02:06:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 02:43:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Fielded psych References: <3.0.6.32.20000414141429.00803e00@popmail.tcp.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000414141429.00803e00@popmail.tcp.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.6.32.20000414141429.00803e00@popmail.tcp.co.uk>, M Smith writes snip > > >The situation may have changed recently but, as I understand the EBU >regulations, players are specifically NOT allowed to fill in the portion of >the convention realting to psyching tendencies. > >I was certainly told by a senior Director a year or so ago that for EBU >events I had to remove my entry in that section of the WBF card. that is still regrettably the case. (I'd allow it to be filled in at the YC though.) cheers john > >Marc Smith > -- 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 Apr 18 13:19:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA13559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:07:25 +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 MAA13530 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:07:07 +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 12hNPd-000DWy-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 02:06:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 02:48:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Fielded psych References: <01bfa625$197286c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <000901bfa788$a8fb5e20$705908c3@dodona> <38F9B3CE.7E709206@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <38F9B3CE.7E709206@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <38F9B3CE.7E709206@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes snip > >Well, that cannot be a good statement. >When it meets the criteria for psyche (whatever those are), >it must be a psyche. Psyching frequency must indeed be part >of partnership understanding. In my partnership it is, and it is not an agreement. Proddy is moving to Scunthorpe to get away from it. >Add the last sentencce of Grattan's and by circular >reasoning you find that there are no such things as psyches >! > >The regulations must be amended, or interpreted, to allow >for this. > Of course. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 18 14:10:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA13562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:07:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA13531 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:07:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12hNPf-000DWy-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 02:06:52 +0000 Message-ID: <4fo7T4E5H8+4EwPx@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 03:01:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Thanks again, and a Hmmmmmmm.... References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5BA@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <000b01bfa894$cb2e5260$0baa01d5@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <000b01bfa894$cb2e5260$0baa01d5@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <000b01bfa894$cb2e5260$0baa01d5@davidburn>, David Burn writes snip > >I believe my judgement to have been in accordance with EBU >regulations, which (paraphrased) imply that the standard adjustment >applies unless an abnormally good result for a side considered >non-offending has already occurred on the board. Reading the above, it >seems to me that this view may not be official policy, and I would be >interested in other opinions. I believe that EBU TD's are expected to do this. But I'd only do it in a head-to-head game, and I'd need a little bit of convincing. If it occurred and the SO didn't let me use 12C3 then I'd take it to appeal. cheers john > >David Burn >London, England > > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 18 14:15:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA13561 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:07:26 +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 MAA13534 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:07:10 +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 12hNPf-000DWw-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 02:06:51 +0000 Message-ID: <+vB6PyEeD8+4EwNs@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 02:56:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Thanks again, and a Hmmmmmmm.... References: <20000416044654.34646.qmail@hotmail.com> <38FAC6C3.50D42A13@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <38FAC6C3.50D42A13@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <38FAC6C3.50D42A13@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> It would be nice for tables that get good scores not to lose them by >> mechanical foul-ups at the other table, especially by the partners of >> the pair that did badly, but can anyone tell me a Law that permits this? >> > >This is not a matter of Law, but of regulation. > >L12C1 does not say anything about this (only 60% at pairs is >mentioned, nothing about teams). >L78B does not help. >L86A tells us that 60% equals 3IMPs. While we are on this, I've recently taken to ruling 2 imps in Butler imp games for use of Law 25B. Does this seem reasonable? cheers john > >L78D says we can change this. >So does L80F. > >I would gladly offer the WBF, or any SO, to help write a >regulation to deal with this problem. > > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 18 14:22:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA13564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:07:27 +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 MAA13541 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:07:11 +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 12hNPf-000DWz-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 02:06:52 +0000 Message-ID: <0vo4f8E6K8+4Ewt0@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 03:04:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: mistaken bid - infraction? References: <200004171051.MAA24905@hera.frw.uva.nl> <1TF2waAIyv+4Ewf2@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <1TF2waAIyv+4Ewf2@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <1TF2waAIyv+4Ewf2@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >Jan Peter Pals wrote: >> >>Big tournament, moderately big money, many 'instant'- >>partnerships forgetting conventions they agreed upon during >>the morning coffee. >>A number of forgotten agreements resulted in desastrous >>scores without TD's interference. But what about: >> >>Dealer: South. >>Vuln: All >>Swiss teams >> 98xxx >> Ax >> Kxxx >> Qx >>T Qxx >>QJTxxxx Kxx >>Txx Jxx >>Kx Axxx >> AKJx >> xx >> AQx >> JT9x >> >>West North East South >> - - - 1NT(15-17) >>2H* 3NT all pass >> >>2H alerted and explained as DONT (hearts & spades), as >>indicated on CC. >>Heart lead, immediately taken, spade ace, four rounds of >>diamonds, spade to the king. End of story. >> >>PP for EW, but this will not do NS any good. I'm very unhappy about the PP. None is deserved. What infraction has occurred? snip > > Should my opponents have been able to call the TD and ask for a ruling >because my mistakes worked in my favour? No, of course not - and Jan's >case is no different. So long as the there is no MI, players should be >allowed to gain from their mistakes sometimes: on balance they will not. > -- 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 Apr 18 16:51:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA14118 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 16:51:03 +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 QAA14113 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 16:50:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.152] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12hROL-0008AO-00; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 07:21:46 +0100 Message-ID: <006701bfa8fe$71827d80$f85408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <200004171344.JAA22155@freenet10.carleton.ca><200004171841.LAA15959@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: mistaken bid - infraction? Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 07:19:41 +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, April 18, 2000 3:03 AM Subject: Re: mistaken bid - infraction? > Ed Reppert wrote: > >Hash: SHA1 > > > >David Stevenson wrote: > > > >>It is permissible for an SO to make a regulation under L40D that a > >>convention may only be played under certain conditions. Not forgetting > >>them is such a condition. I do not approve of such a regulation [and > >>nor does the CoP] but it is a legal one. > > > >But is there such a regulation in this case? > > I very much doubt it, but that was not what I was answering. > +=+ In my view DWS has it right in these several statements. Let me add that what I was concerned to deal with, in the initial drafting of the CoP, was a situation in which a penalty is applied without the existence of such a regulation. I have seen this happen at international level in the past. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 18 17:41:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA14204 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 17:41:56 +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 RAA14199 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 17:41:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.12] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12hSdf-000A6x-00; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 08:41:40 +0100 Message-ID: <002001bfa909$9b37fa00$0c5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" Cc: References: <01bfa625$197286c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid><000901bfa788$a8fb5e20$705908c3@dodona><3.0.1.32.20000417141212.006a3a84@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Fielded psych Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 08:39:58 +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 ------ \x/ ------- > I believe the agreement that "partner never psyches" to be illegal. It > can only be the result of observation. > > cheers john > -- +=+ I recall, in times when Harold Franklin was at the helm of thinking on the subject, statements in regulations to the effect that "there can be no objection if a partnership announces that it will bid according to its disclosed system without violations" - I have not managed to look up an exact text. I recall that, in 1950's England, A.C.Douglas and J.E.Gordon used to make such a statement. I do not know whether these old-fashioned ideas still persist. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 18 21:26:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA14603 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 21:26:55 +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 VAA14598 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 21:26:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-197.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.197]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA25353 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 13:26:36 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38FC405F.1B548E8C@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 13:00:47 +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: Fielded psych References: <01bfa625$197286c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <000901bfa788$a8fb5e20$705908c3@dodona> <38F9B3CE.7E709206@village.uunet.be> <200004172209.SAA24977@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: > > On 16 April 2000 at 14:36, Herman De Wael wrote: > > [snip some conditions] > > > - the situation which precedes it is relatively uncommon - > >like 2 HCP in third seat) > > > Here I have a difference with Herman - I believe that a "psych" that > promises something specific is not a psych - it is a two-way call; even > if it is not always done. And that can be subject to regulation. > I agree that there is a problem here. What is the difference between a common psyche and a two-way call ? Well, I can only come up with frequency. I know how often you get dealt 3HCP and it is passed to you in third seat : once a year ! I also know how often I have opened 1He in third seat. once a tournament, almost. Any partner of mine who says he doesn't trust me when the bidding goes p-p-1He-Dbl will be asked to find another partner. Surely you "feel" that there is a difference. Just tell it to the opponents : -2Di opening : "weak, six of either major; or strong" -P-P-1He : "normal, five cards, 13+; or weak 0-2" what will they expect in the first case, what in the second (provided they realise that there are after all 40 points in a pack). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 18 22:02:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA14668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 22:02:25 +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 WAA14663 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 22:02:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from p3cs07a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.119.61] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt11-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12hWhh-0004to-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 13:02:05 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Equity? Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 13:03:18 +0100 Message-ID: <01bfa92e$15ae56c0$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 National Final Ladies Pairs Board 9 E/W vun dealer N Q52 JT5 K8 K7 QJ965 AT983 KQ986 42 A5 QJT93 KT43 J64 A A73 7642 872 The Auction. N E S W P 1D P 1H 2C 2S P 3NT WEST IS DEC IN 3NT. N E S W 1. QC AC* 2C 3C Dec Tk Dummy offers to get coffees for all. 2. 8D QD 4D AD* Dec Tk 3. KD* 3D 2D 5D Def Tk 4. 5S 8S JS KS* Dec Tk 5. 5H 2H AH* KH Def Tk 6. 5C 8S 8C* 4C Def Tk 7. 6C 9S 7C KC* Dec Tk 8. 2S AS* 4S 7S Dec Tk 9. 9C JD* 7D 6H Dec Tk 10. TH TD* 6D TC Dec Tk 11. JH 9D* 7H 9H Dec Tk at this point West realised that there were 3 cards in Dummy and 2 in the 3 other hands. It transpired that Dec had not turned 8S after Tk4 and had played it again to Tk6. The end position is QS JC QH 9H TS 3S 4H 3H 6S TD rules that dummy's T4 is deficient. and that dec who is about to play a Heart from dummy is to lose one trick. Questioned about the ruling TD reads Law 67B1b, and ref to Law 64 and says that while dummy is not subject to penalty for an established revoke, he is awarding one trick to N/S to do equity. Ruling 3NT making 9 Tks to 600 to E/W. Your opinions? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 18 22:49:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA14821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 22:49:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from stormy.ibl.bm ([199.172.192.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA14816; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 22:49:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from [199.172.230.151] by stormy.ibl.bm (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-65377U14500L13000S0V35) with SMTP id bm; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 09:49:09 -0300 Date: 18 Apr 2000 09:50:51 -0300 Message-ID: <-1256071050jrhind@ibl.bm> From: Jack Rhind Subject: Re:Equity? To: BLML , Anne Jones , 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 WAB14817 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reading Law 67B1a, it appears that since the suit led at the defective trick was spades, that declarer chooses a spade from the remaining three cards and puts it among the his played cards with no further penalty. From my read of the tricks played, no revoke appears to have occurred so I see no need for the assessment of a one trick penalty. regards, Jack Rhind *************************************************************** ##### # # ####### # # # ### # ### ### #### # # # # # # # ##### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ##### # ### # # ### ### # # # ## Voice: (441) 297-TECH Fax: (441) 293-4421 Jack A. Rhind (441) 293-0282 *************************************************************** On Wednesday, June 7, 1939, Anne Jones wrote: >National Final Ladies Pairs >Board 9 E/W vun dealer N > Q52 > JT5 > K8 >K7 QJ965 AT983 >KQ986 42 >A5 QJT93 >KT43 J64 A > A73 > 7642 > 872 >The Auction. >N E S W >P 1D P 1H >2C 2S P 3NT >WEST IS DEC IN 3NT. > N E S W >1. QC AC* 2C 3C Dec Tk >Dummy offers to get coffees for all. >2. 8D QD 4D AD* Dec Tk >3. KD* 3D 2D 5D Def Tk >4. 5S 8S JS KS* Dec Tk >5. 5H 2H AH* KH Def Tk >6. 5C 8S 8C* 4C Def Tk >7. 6C 9S 7C KC* Dec Tk >8. 2S AS* 4S 7S Dec Tk >9. 9C JD* 7D 6H Dec Tk >10. TH TD* 6D TC Dec Tk >11. JH 9D* 7H 9H Dec Tk > >at this point West realised that there were >3 cards in Dummy and 2 in the 3 other hands. >It transpired that Dec had not turned 8S after Tk4 >and had played it again to Tk6. >The end position is > QS JC >QH 9H TS 3S 4H > 3H 6S >TD rules that dummy's T4 is deficient. >and that dec who is about to play a Heart from >dummy is to lose one trick. >Questioned about the ruling TD reads Law 67B1b, >and ref to Law 64 and says that while dummy is not >subject to penalty for an established revoke, >he is awarding one trick to N/S to do equity. >Ruling 3NT making 9 Tks to 600 to E/W. >Your opinions? >Anne > > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 19 00:10:20 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA15101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 00:10:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe46.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA15095 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 00:10:12 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 62064 invoked by uid 65534); 18 Apr 2000 14:09:34 -0000 Message-ID: <20000418140934.62063.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [38.12.169.155] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <01bfa92e$15ae56c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: Equity? Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 09:10:19 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It appears that the first part of L67A belongs as L67 in order to establish some definition of defective trick [since DT is used in L67B]. But it does seem that the law is a little lazy in this situation because it is established that play by dummy was made to T4. So, in the words of L67A it was not a defective trick, albeit the failure to quit the card properly was defective. However, presumably without the quitted card it is a defective trick of some sort. The question now arises as to whether T4 must be fixed with the card that was played to it. L67B1a requires that the player with a card to follow suit must select such a card [which REQUIRES to not fix the quitted trick with the card actually played at T4]. No revoke here. But it does not seem right that a card be played twice, which is to say that if true the pack is defective and the result canceled. It seems appropriate that the original card [the one played at T6] is the one that belongs in T4. Which would in turn necessitate fixing T6. L67B1b requires that the player without a card to follow suit may select ANY card to the correct T6, it being an established revoke not subject to trick transfer but to L64C. I replayed the cards assuming that there were no defective tricks and conclude that the double play of the S8 had no legitimate bearing on the outcome. NS went out of their way to not collect a fourth trick if declarer was inclined to let them and that the table result should stand, director error or not. About the S8 the thought occurred to me that L45B might have something to say about it not being a part of T6 as it was not played [the second time], but no, it says that dummy's card is played by declarer calling for it and declarer did call for it, didn't he? Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: Anne Jones To: BLML Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 7:03 AM Subject: Equity? > National Final Ladies Pairs > Board 9 E/W vun dealer N > Q52 > JT5 > K8 > K7 QJ965 AT983 > KQ986 42 > A5 QJT93 > KT43 J64 A > A73 > 7642 > 872 > The Auction. > N E S W > P 1D P 1H > 2C 2S P 3NT > WEST IS DEC IN 3NT. > N E S W > 1. QC AC* 2C 3C Dec Tk > Dummy offers to get coffees for all. > 2. 8D QD 4D AD* Dec Tk > 3. KD* 3D 2D 5D Def Tk > 4. 5S 8S JS KS* Dec Tk > 5. 5H 2H AH* KH Def Tk > 6. 5C 8S 8C* 4C Def Tk > 7. 6C 9S 7C KC* Dec Tk > 8. 2S AS* 4S 7S Dec Tk > 9. 9C JD* 7D 6H Dec Tk > 10. TH TD* 6D TC Dec Tk > 11. JH 9D* 7H 9H Dec Tk > > at this point West realised that there were > 3 cards in Dummy and 2 in the 3 other hands. > It transpired that Dec had not turned 8S after Tk4 > and had played it again to Tk6. > The end position is > QS JC > QH 9H TS 3S 4H > 3H 6S > TD rules that dummy's T4 is deficient. > and that dec who is about to play a Heart from > dummy is to lose one trick. > Questioned about the ruling TD reads Law 67B1b, > and ref to Law 64 and says that while dummy is not > subject to penalty for an established revoke, > he is awarding one trick to N/S to do equity. > Ruling 3NT making 9 Tks to 600 to E/W. > Your opinions? > Anne > > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 19 00:59:35 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA15300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 00:59:35 +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 AAA15295 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 00:59:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from calum (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA15402 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 10:59:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200004181459.KAA15402@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fielded psych Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <38FC405F.1B548E8C@village.uunet.be> References: <01bfa625$197286c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <000901bfa788$a8fb5e20$705908c3@dodona> <38F9B3CE.7E709206@village.uunet.be> <200004172209.SAA24977@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <38FC405F.1B548E8C@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 10:59:15 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 18 April 2000 at 13:00, Herman De Wael wrote: >Michael Farebrother wrote: >> >> On 16 April 2000 at 14:36, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> [snip some conditions] >> >> > - the situation which precedes it is relatively uncommon - >> >like 2 HCP in third seat) >> > >> Here I have a difference with Herman - I believe that a "psych" that >> promises something specific is not a psych - it is a two-way call; even >> if it is not always done. And that can be subject to regulation. >> >I agree that there is a problem here. What is the >difference between a common psyche and a two-way call ? > >Well, I can only come up with frequency. I know how often >you get dealt 3HCP and it is passed to you in third seat : >once a year ! >I also know how often I have opened 1He in third seat. once >a tournament, almost. But consider this situation: p- p-1H- X 2H- X- p- 3H * Double is responsive p-4NT- p-6NT AP Ok, so it's obvious to the people in the side game in the other room that opener has psyched. But what does he have? If the psycher is me, he may have hearts or he may not. He may have a flat hand or a distributional monster. However, if he is Herman, he has 0-2 exactly, and IIRC from the last time the discussion came up, certain specific distributional requirements (though Ican'tRC right now what they are). If he is someone playing out-of-the-book K-S, he has specifically a 5 or 6-card suit headed by two of the top 4 honours. To me, that's the difference between a psych and a two-way bid: if partner, *given only that she knows that I have psyched*, can adequately describe my hand, it is not a "gross misstatement" and therefore not a psych. If frequency was the only determinator, then I could play 2D in the ACBL as Flannery (11-15, exactly 5H and 4S) or 0-3, at least 5-5 in the majors - because the 0-3 calls would be "psychs", as their frequency is much less than the Flannery bid. But I can't - that's an illegal convention (at least in the ACBL, under the GCC). >Any partner of mine who says he doesn't trust me when the >bidding goes p-p-1He-Dbl will be asked to find another >partner. > Of course. As I would expect. And as probably is mandatory, given the regulations about "implicit partnership understandings". >Surely you "feel" that there is a difference. >Just tell it to the opponents : >-2Di opening : "weak, six of either major; or strong" >-P-P-1He : "normal, five cards, 13+; or weak 0-2" >what will they expect in the first case, what in the second >(provided they realise that there are after all 40 points in >a pack). > Certainly there is a difference - the opponents are going to be able to work out which 1H hand you have pretty quickly, whereas the 2D bid has to wait until your side describes it. And if you want to play that 1H convention *in my game*, I have no problems with it, even though under the GCC, it's illegal (in fact, it's illegal in any ACBL sanctioned game). But the problem is that that's not what's told to the opponents; this is: 2D: "weak, six of either major; or strong (enumerate strong options here)" p-p-1H: if asked for an explanation (and likely they won't, because it isn't alerted), "natural". *That's* a concealed partnership understanding, and that's illegal. And if it's explained as "natural, but he has a tendency to open 1H in third seat with 0-2" - which is the correct explanation according to L75C - then it falls into the opening sentence of that EBU regulation, and it, IMHO, is now an regulable agreement, and likely in violation of those regulations. I'm not sure that this is a good thing, but I believe that's where it has to be, given that "systemic psychs" are considered to be bad for Bridge. Implied caveat here again (see last post) about one-sided vs. two-sided partnership agreements. Michael P.S. Herman - sorry about not making last month's FF game - and for not letting you know about it earlier. There was a Sectional in another city that weekend, and I couldn't put in the time to do the calculations. I have several excuses for not letting you know, but they are excuses. mdf From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 19 01:19:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA15381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 01:19:24 +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 BAA15376 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 01:18:44 +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 12hZlg-000Bs4-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 16:18:25 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 14:19:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Thanks again, and a Hmmmmmmm.... References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5BA@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <000b01bfa894$cb2e5260$0baa01d5@davidburn> <4fo7T4E5H8+4EwPx@probst.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <4fo7T4E5H8+4EwPx@probst.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article <000b01bfa894$cb2e5260$0baa01d5@davidburn>, David Burn > writes > >snip >> >>I believe my judgement to have been in accordance with EBU >>regulations, which (paraphrased) imply that the standard adjustment >>applies unless an abnormally good result for a side considered >>non-offending has already occurred on the board. Reading the above, it >>seems to me that this view may not be official policy, and I would be >>interested in other opinions. > >I believe that EBU TD's are expected to do this. But I'd only do it in a >head-to-head game, and I'd need a little bit of convincing. If it >occurred and the SO didn't let me use 12C3 then I'd take it to appeal. Personally, I would just do what the regulation told me too. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 19 01:20:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA15252 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 00:47:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from rjintra1.rjf.com (rjintra1.rjf.com [170.12.99.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA15247 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 00:47:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-108.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.108]) by rjintra1.rjf.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0) id 28DQL82T; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 10:47:00 -0400 Message-ID: <001801bfa945$1ca9f080$6c84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "jorge pellegrini" , Cc: Subject: Re: Re:Thanks again, and a Hmmmmmmm.... Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 10:48:05 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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 Can someone explain why this would not be governed by Law 24 and Law 24c rather than going to an artass score? It would seem all the cards would stay exposed throughout the auction, North would be forced to pass at first opportunity, and if NS are defenders all cards are penalty cards. There is surely no equity in a 3 IMP swing here, which is below the expectation with such disparate players...not that equity should override when there is a clearly defined remedy and penalty by the book. -- Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: jorge pellegrini To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Date: Sunday, April 16, 2000 12:55 AM Subject: Re:Thanks again, and a Hmmmmmmm.... >A. L. Edwards wrote : > >A team game, players just finished Brd. 26. South writes the result in her >scorecard, pulls her hand back out of the pocket, and askes her partner, >"Well, then, what would YOU have bid?". >You got it...North had already switched boards, and South had just faced her >hand for Brd.27. :-) This board had already been played at the other table; >no-one had looked at their cards, or even had their cards out of the >pockets; NS are C players, EW are experienced A. >I ruled that the board was unplayable, A+/A-. Comments? > Tony (aka ac342) > >Hello: >After to take some time reading the valuable commentaries of BLML. >I allow myself to give an opinion, that I wait for well is received by You. >At first an adjustment seems to me correct, a+/a- (3 Imp) nevertheless is >necessary to investigate if in the other table was an unusual result, in >favor of the innocent side, of being thus then one is due to fit to a result >that normally would be due to have played and to give the difference of >score to the innocent side, the category of the players is not something >that can influence in the application of the law, at least not in this case. >(Apologize my English ) > >Greetings > Jorge > > >Jorge Pellegrini J. - pellegri@hotmail.com >http://www.geocities.com/jorgepelle/ >ACBL. 8598606 >icq.41610821 (eyes) - aol.pellegrinijorge >Fono-Fax.(56)(2)2111790 >Chile >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 19 01:21:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA15410 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 01:21:19 +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 BAA15404 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 01:21:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-108.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.108]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA15146; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 11:20:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <004401bfa949$dc8e8e20$6c84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: Thanks again, and a Hmmmmmmm.... Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 11:22:06 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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 Ah, but you see mon ami, it is thou who be the "foreigner", n'est pas? :-)) In would seem that thy views are downright Unamerican! Besides, don't you Londoners have to translate Northern speech even within the confines of your island enclave? It is rather like the difference between Brooklyn and Biloxi. What is surprising is the degree of malleability the language possesses, allowing some semblance of intelligent discourse despite significant geographical disparities. As for our friends for whom Francais is the primary language, there are a number of us on list who are well enough educated to perhaps be of aid if a concept is untranslatable by the author. Do you let weakness in English deter you from sharing worthwhile comments or questions. While my French is very poor, there are others who will get the message if you are stuck and may be willing to help translate. We should all try to use clear English because that is the language more of us on list speak than any other...but we should encourage everyone to speak up...I assure you your English is probably much better than my command of your tongue. -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst >In article <20000417204152.41272.qmail@hotmail.com>, Todd Zimnoch > writes >>>In a message dated 4/17/00 9:40:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >>>Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA writes: >>> > You know, members from England told me (a joke) that my >>> > English is not worst than that of some Americains... >>> > But some members, on this side of the pound, make the >> >> I just love this inadvertant pun. So, I wonder if pound is a monetary >>unit or a penal institution? ;) >> >>> > same joke about English speakers in the other parts of >>> > the world... >> >> Consider it a silly rivalry. The OED (universally accepted) and the >>American Heritage (just imho) are the respective authorities. But as long >>as you are understood, the only goal that matters has been achieved. >> >> But there is a downside to speaking English natively. Most people >>assume that you're monolingual. >> >>-Todd > >nope, we have "English for foreigners" as a second language. We speak >more slowly and much more loudly. 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 Apr 19 01:59:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA15536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 01:59:04 +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 BAA15531 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 01:58:56 +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 LAA01106 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 11:58:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA08060 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 11:58:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 11:58:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200004181558.LAA08060@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Thanks again, and a Hmmmmmmm.... X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > >L86A tells us that 60% equals 3IMPs. > > While we are on this, I've recently taken to ruling 2 imps in Butler imp > games for use of Law 25B. Does this seem reasonable? Only if the SO has adopted a regulation under L80E. (Perhaps there's another provision, but I cannot find it. What Law allows the SO to decide whether scoring is by matchpoints or IMPs, for example? Surely choice of scoring method is up to the SO!) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 19 02:10:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA15744 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 02:10:41 +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 CAA15739 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 02:10:33 +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 RAA07801; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 17:10:21 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA20404; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 17:10:20 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 16:10:20 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 RAA14739; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 17:10:18 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id RAA16934; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 17:10:18 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 17:10:18 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200004181610.RAA16934@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: rts48u@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: Re:Thanks again, and a Hmmmmmmm.... Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Can someone explain why this would not be governed by Law 24 and Law 24c > rather than going to an artass score? It would seem all the cards would stay > exposed throughout the auction, North would be forced to pass at first > opportunity, and if NS are defenders all cards are penalty cards. There is > surely no equity in a 3 IMP swing here, which is below the expectation with > such disparate players...not that equity should override when there is a > clearly defined remedy and penalty by the book. Because we read the law book and find that L24 starts "When the Director determines, during the auction,". and L16B says "by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins," which leads to L16B3 "forthwith award an artificial adjusted score." The cards were exposed before the aution begins not during the auction so L16 applies not L24. Robin -- Robin Barker | Eail: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, 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 Apr 19 02:21:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA15797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 02:21:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA15792 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 02:21:09 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id f.ba.4445abe (3315); Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:19:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:19:43 EDT Subject: Re: Thanks again, and a Hmmmmmmm.... To: rmb1@cise.npl.co.uk, rts48u@ix.netcom.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 105 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 4/18/00 12:12:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rmb1@cise.npl.co.uk writes: > Because we read the law book and find > > that L24 starts "When the Director determines, during the auction,". > > and L16B says "by seeing a card belonging to another player at his > own table before the auction begins," > > which leads to L16B3 "forthwith award an artificial adjusted score." > > > The cards were exposed before the aution begins not during the auction > so L16 applies not L24. > > Robin Well done! Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 19 02:22:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA15811 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 02:22:35 +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 CAA15806 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 02:22:27 +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 RAA08297 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 17:22:18 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA21620 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 17:22:18 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 16:22:17 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 RAA17899 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 17:22:16 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id RAA16943 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 17:22:16 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 17:22:16 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200004181622.RAA16943@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Thanks again, and a Hmmmmmmm.... X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > > >L86A tells us that 60% equals 3IMPs. > > > > While we are on this, I've recently taken to ruling 2 imps in Butler imp > > games for use of Law 25B. Does this seem reasonable? > > Only if the SO has adopted a regulation under L80E. (Perhaps there's > another provision, but I cannot find it. What Law allows the SO to > decide whether scoring is by matchpoints or IMPs, for example? Surely > choice of scoring method is up to the SO!) > Law78D is the law which allows SOs to score the game how they like. The EBU regulations (in the white book) define standard adjustment for Butlers as 2IMPs (as I'm sure John knows). The standard adjustment for cross-imps is some formula involving square roots and the number of comparisons. Robin -- Robin Barker | Eail: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, 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 Apr 19 02:57:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA15928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 02:57:46 +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 CAA15923 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 02:57:37 +1000 (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 MAA25892; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:57:21 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20000418140934.62063.qmail@hotmail.com> References: <01bfa92e$15ae56c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:56:11 -0500 To: "Roger Pewick" , "blml" From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Equity? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 9:10 AM -0500 4/18/00, Roger Pewick wrote: [S8 played from dummy to fourth trick in spades but not turned, then played again to sixth trick in clubs] >It appears that the first part of L67A belongs as L67 in order to establish >some definition of defective trick [since DT is used in L67B]. But it does >seem that the law is a little lazy in this situation because it is >established that play by dummy was made to T4. So, in the words of L67A it >was not a defective trick, albeit the failure to quit the card properly was >defective. However, presumably without the quitted card it is a defective >trick of some sort. >About the S8 the thought occurred to me that L45B might have something to >say about it not being a part of T6 as it was not played [the second time], >but no, it says that dummy's card is played by declarer calling for it and >declarer did call for it, didn't he? However, the card was not in dummy at the time, having already been played to trick 4. (Yes, it was face up and mixed with the rest of dummy's cards, but that is not the same.) If declarer calls a card not in dummy, the call is void, and declarer must call a correct card. Instead, declarer placed a non-dummy card in the trick, and play went on. TYherefore, I would rule that trick 6 is defective. Four cards were played to trick 4, and someone failed to follow proper procedure in turning the trick. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 19 04:37:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA16262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 04:37:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from midntjsn01.minfod.com (midntjsn01.minfod.com [207.227.70.142]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA16257 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 04:37:11 +1000 (EST) Received: by midntjsn01.minfod.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 13:39:03 -0500 Message-ID: <510FEC8A3EF4D3118FB40050DA636AB61B30@midntjsn01.minfod.com> From: John Nichols To: BLML Subject: RE: Equity? Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 13:39:02 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk If the Director rules that trick 4 is defective then the hand with an extra card has a card of the suit led to the defective trick, so law 67B1a applies, not 67B1b. Take a spade from the dummy and no penalty. On the other hand, if the Director rules that it is trick 6 that is defective then we apply 67B1b. A club was let to trick 6 and dummy has no clubs. The law does not make an exception for the fact that the incorrect hand had no cards of the suit led. However, the director correctly ruled that dummy is not subject to a revoke penalty. As to equity, I don't see the penalty as appropriate. That would assume that dummy would discard a heart instead of a spade on trick 6 (not likely because the heard is clearly needed as an entry back to declarer's hand). If you force the heart discard, then N/S get both of the last two tricks, not just one. My ruling--E/W get the last two tricks. -----Original Message----- From: Anne Jones [mailto:eajewm@globalnet.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 7:03 AM To: BLML Subject: Equity? National Final Ladies Pairs Board 9 E/W vun dealer N Q52 JT5 K8 K7 QJ965 AT983 KQ986 42 A5 QJT93 KT43 J64 A A73 7642 872 The Auction. N E S W P 1D P 1H 2C 2S P 3NT WEST IS DEC IN 3NT. N E S W 1. QC AC* 2C 3C Dec Tk Dummy offers to get coffees for all. 2. 8D QD 4D AD* Dec Tk 3. KD* 3D 2D 5D Def Tk 4. 5S 8S JS KS* Dec Tk 5. 5H 2H AH* KH Def Tk 6. 5C 8S 8C* 4C Def Tk 7. 6C 9S 7C KC* Dec Tk 8. 2S AS* 4S 7S Dec Tk 9. 9C JD* 7D 6H Dec Tk 10. TH TD* 6D TC Dec Tk 11. JH 9D* 7H 9H Dec Tk at this point West realised that there were 3 cards in Dummy and 2 in the 3 other hands. It transpired that Dec had not turned 8S after Tk4 and had played it again to Tk6. The end position is QS JC QH 9H TS 3S 4H 3H 6S TD rules that dummy's T4 is deficient. and that dec who is about to play a Heart from dummy is to lose one trick. Questioned about the ruling TD reads Law 67B1b, and ref to Law 64 and says that while dummy is not subject to penalty for an established revoke, he is awarding one trick to N/S to do equity. Ruling 3NT making 9 Tks to 600 to E/W. Your opinions? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 19 04:48:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA16307 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 04:48:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from midntjsn01.minfod.com (midntjsn01.minfod.com [207.227.70.142]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA16302 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 04:48:50 +1000 (EST) Received: by midntjsn01.minfod.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 13:50:44 -0500 Message-ID: <510FEC8A3EF4D3118FB40050DA636AB61B31@midntjsn01.minfod.com> From: John Nichols To: BLML Subject: RE: Cards from the wrong board - a new one Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 13:50:43 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Of course you are allowed to draw attention--in particular the TD's attention. As TD I would start board 25 and as long as N (dealer) passes at his first turn allow the board to be played. I would be willing to listen to anyone's argument that the fact N did not take action over 1S was UI that was significantly different from the AI that he passed as dealer. (But I would not be easy to convince). As to board 26, If the bidding starts P P 1S P 2S then I would rule the board playable, otherwise not. -----Original Message----- From: Konrad Ciborowski [mailto:Konrad.Ciborowski@omicron.comarch.pl] Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 10:06 AM To: BLML Subject: Cards from the wrong board - a new one Match. Screens. We've finished playing board 24. The opponents have a post mortem. In the meantime North (my partner) takes off board 24, puts boards 25 on the table and takes his cards out. About 10 seconds later my RHO replaces board 25 with board 26 and South, West and East take out their cards. So from then on everybody was playing board 26 but North who had his cards from board 25! East was dealer and passed. I did the same and LHO opened 1S. My partner passed the East raised to 2S. When the tray returned I saw that my partner's cards were still inside North pocket and realized what happened. What was I supposed to do? Am I aloowed to draw attention to this fact? What is the TD supposed to do? And what about Board 25? Do you rule that it's unplayable or simply decide the I have UI from my partner's passes on Board 26? -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Apr 19 05:10:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA16361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 05:10:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA16356 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 05:10:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp181-99.worldonline.nl [195.241.181.99]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 6673636BFF; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 21:11:04 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003c01bfa969$5c62c3e0$63b5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Thanks again, and a Hmmmmmmm.... Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 21:07:29 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Ton wrote: > >> > David Stevenson wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > > It would be nice for tables that get good scores not to >> > lose them by >> > > mechanical foul-ups at the other table, especially by the >> > partners of >> > > the pair that did badly, but can anyone tell me a Law that >> > permits this? >> > > >> > Talking about this specific >case, >> L16 tells us to give an artificial adjusted score when the board >can't be >> played. And this artificial score >> is well defined. >I believe my judgement to have been in accordance with EBU >regulations, which (paraphrased) imply that the standard adjustment >applies unless an abnormally good result for a side considered >non-offending has already occurred on the board. Reading the above, it >seems to me that this view may not be official policy, and I would be >interested in other opinions. > >David Burn >London, England > The king of hearts faced up in one of the disaster hands, is not comparable with the particular case we were discussing. We always have L72B1 available and I would have used it with the heart king. But to do that we need a relation between the disaster and the infraction, which is not available when picking a wrong hand at the other table. In my opinion the laws do not allow us to make a distinction in treatment only based on the result on the board at the other table. They did before 1987. And I would like to make the EBU approach legal with the new edition. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 19 06:14:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA16522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 06:14:32 +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 GAA16515 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 06:14:22 +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 QAA17594 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 16:14:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA08353 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 16:14:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 16:14:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200004182014.QAA08353@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Thanks again, and a Hmmmmmmm.... X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "ton kooijman" > In my opinion the laws do not > allow us to make a distinction in treatment only based on the result on the > board at the other table. They did before 1987. For those who may not have the 1975 FLB at hand, I think what Ton has in mind is that in 1975, L16B1b1 said "The Director may assign an adjusted score to the pairs involved; or...." This language permits an _assigned_ AS, while the current (since 1987) language specifies an _artificial_ AS. The AssAS is more work, but it seems worthwhile in match play, where the person who caused the problem may have a direct interest in the outcome at the other table. The need seems less compelling in a large matchpoint game, where spoiling the board at the next table will not much affect one's own score. A PP ought to be plenty to keep the villains in line, although an AssAS could be closer to equity. As a side benefit, as an aid to assigning the correct AS, the TD could allow the board to be played, instructing both sides that the exposed card is AI. Then if one side benefits unduly from seeing the card, restore equity. But if one side benefits because their bidding system is perfect for the particular deal, they keep their score. Simply removing the word "artificial" from the current L16B3 might be enough change, although it would then fall to NCBO's, SO's, etc. to provide guidance. Alternatively, the LC might want to give guidance directly in the Laws. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 19 07:16:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA16708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 07:16:11 +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 HAA16703 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 07:16:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.74] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12hfLc-00006q-00; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 22:15:53 +0100 Message-ID: <009c01bfa97b$5a110680$025608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "dburn" Cc: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5BA@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <000b01bfa894$cb2e5260$0baa01d5@davidburn> Subject: Re: Thanks again, and a Hmmmmmmm.... Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 22:14:59 +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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 6:45 PM Subject: Re: Thanks again, and a Hmmmmmmm.... > > I was consulted the other day by someone who had been asked to give a > ruling on these circumstances: > > In the final session of a match, a slam had been bid at one table and > had failed. When the board arrived at the other table, the king of > hearts was face up on top of the opening bidder's hand. The board was > considered fouled, and (because it was the final session) no > substitute board was played. > +=+ Did you consider the application of 72B1 ? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 19 07:43:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA16805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 07:43:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe22.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.79]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA16800 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 07:43:37 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 12746 invoked by uid 65534); 18 Apr 2000 21:42:59 -0000 Message-ID: <20000418214259.12745.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [38.27.213.180] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <01bfa92e$15ae56c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: Equity? Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 16:43:44 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David J. Grabiner To: Roger Pewick Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 2:32 PM Subject: Re: Equity? > At 1:12 PM -0500 4/18/00, Roger Pewick wrote: > > >From: David J. Grabiner > > >> At 9:10 AM -0500 4/18/00, Roger Pewick wrote: > >> > >> [S8 played from dummy to fourth trick in spades but not turned, then > >played > >> again to sixth trick in clubs] > > >> >About the S8 the thought occurred to me that L45B might have something to > >> >say about it not being a part of T6 as it was not played [the second > >time], > >> >but no, it says that dummy's card is played by declarer calling for it > >and > >> >declarer did call for it, didn't he? > >> > >> However, the card was not in dummy at the time, having already been played > >> to trick 4. (Yes, it was face up and mixed with the rest of dummy's > >cards, > >> but that is not the same.) If declarer calls a card not in dummy, the > >call > >> is void, and declarer must call a correct card. > > >Has the time expired, perhaps, to void a play per L46B4, assuming the logic > >is upheld? Was there a discussion not too long ago about dummy playing a > >card other than called, and it was too late to change it? > > The time has expired, as governed under L45D4. The S8 was a card which > dumkmy (or actually declarer, since dummy was away from the table) placed > in the played poisition. (It was not named because L46B4 voids declarer's > call of a card not in dummy, and L45B says that the card was no longer in > dummy after being played at trick 4.) > > The expiration means that trick 6 can no longer be corrected, and whatever > was played ot trick 6 must stand; in this case, it's only 3 cards, By Jove!!! We have found a way to play the S8 three times in the same hand- if declarer wants to. > and that is the trick which is governed by the defective trick laws. > > If a defender had led to trick 7 and declarer had then discovered that > dummy had too many cards, then declarer could correct trick 6 under L45D4. > > Someone is guilty of an infraction of L65 for not turning a card, but that > law does not normally carry penalties, so the only penalties to impose are > as a result of the damage which occurs. > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 19 18:39:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA18002 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 18:39:51 +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 SAA17997 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 18:39:24 +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 KAA15392 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 10:38:53 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200004190838.KAA15392@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: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 10:35:44 +0200 Subject: Re: mistaken bid - infraction? Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal In-reply-to: References: <200004171051.MAA24905@hera.frw.uva.nl> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>2H alerted and explained as DONT (hearts & spades), as >>indicated on CC. >>Heart lead, immediately taken, spade ace, four rounds of >>diamonds, spade to the king. End of story. >> >>PP for EW, but this will not do NS any good. >>Is there a law that permits me to give them their cold 4S?? Ed Reppert wrote: > I'm probably missing something here, but... if their agreement was > that 2H shows hearts and spades, and that was the explanation, on > what grounds do you award EW a PP? 74B1 would come to mind. I realize it's a bit far-fetched... Of course nobody did anything illegal, as many of you have pointed out, but I am a little frustrated by the fact that the number of bad scores for NOs caused by players doing nothing illegal is increasing rapidly. In the NL there are tournaments every weekend, and some of these attract many occasional partnerships. You see them scribbling their CC's over a cup of coffee at the start of the tournament, and the first couple of rounds all goes well. But after a couple of beers in the afternoon, agreements are easily forgotten. Maybe DWS's tip: > It is permissible for an SO to make a regulation under > L40D that a convention may only be played under certain > conditions. Not forgetting them is such a condition. I do > not approve of such a regulation [and nor does the CoP] > but it is a legal one. is not such a bad one. Many thanks for your comments. JP From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 19 20:25:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA18229 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 20:25:51 +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 UAA18223 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 20:25:37 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id l.9c.2fbcac3 (3704); Wed, 19 Apr 2000 06:24:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <9c.2fbcac3.262ee36f@aol.com> Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 06:24:47 EDT Subject: Re: mistaken bid - infraction? To: j.p.pals@frw.uva.nl, 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 105 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 4/19/00 5:06:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time, j.p.pals@frw.uva.nl writes: > > I'm probably missing something here, but... if their agreement was > > that 2H shows hearts and spades, and that was the explanation, on > > what grounds do you award EW a PP? > > 74B1 would come to mind. I realize it's a bit far-fetched... Since you realize it is a bit far fetched you must also realize that you are fallng into the BLML trap -- decide what you want to do, and then find a Law you can stretch, if necessary, to make it sound legal. Not good. Law 74 has to do with conduct and etiquette, i.e. behavior, , reading the papers, knitting, needing to be constantly reminded that it is your turn to call or play -- not substance of the game of bridge. If you are of the opinion that the player is doing something intentionally then call it so. Call it a psychic call -- or use Law 72B1. That's what it's there for, and was written in such a way that you are legally protected from making accusations. The machinery is in place if only the operators knew how to use it. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 19 22:10:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA18578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 22:10:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt1-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt1-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.161]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA18573 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 22:09:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from pc6s07a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.119.199] helo=pacific) by cobalt1-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12htIV-0002XJ-00; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 13:09:35 +0100 Message-ID: <001e01bfa9f8$1b34ec60$c77793c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jan Peter Pals" , References: <200004171051.MAA24905@hera.frw.uva.nl> <200004190838.KAA15392@hera.frw.uva.nl> Subject: Re: mistaken bid - infraction? Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 13:08:23 +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: 19 April 2000 09:35 Subject: Re: mistaken bid - infraction? > ----------------- \x/ --------------- > Of course nobody did anything illegal, as many of you have > pointed out, but I am a little frustrated by the fact that the > number of bad scores for NOs caused by players doing > nothing illegal is increasing rapidly. > +=+ Curiously enough players are allowed to get bad scores. The game is played according to its Laws and if no-one breaks a law but one side gets a bad result this is actually considered to be part of of the scenery. I do urge you to follow the WBF Code of Practice, apply the laws, and not to invent a new game all of your own. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 19 22:58:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA18756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 22:58:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from ppp-245.erielink.com (moorebj@ppp-245.erielink.com [216.190.230.245]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA18751 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 22:58:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by ppp-245.erielink.com (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA03576 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 08:57:30 -0400 Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 08:57:29 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [exotic-systems] Prism Signals Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Greetings, I don't play this method, but I believe I can offer some help to those who do. All the adding and subtracting (6-6-8-6, for example) is tedious and unnecessary. You only need 4 pieces of information. First look at the dummy. Is dummy odd or even? What is the index suit (only suit having odd length if odd, only suit having even length if even)? Now look at your hand. Is your hand odd or even? What is the index suit? Now determine which prism *you* have with *dummy*. If the index suit matches, then you have either an odd or an even prism with dummy. If both hands have the same parity (both odd or both even), then you have an even prism; if not, then you have an odd prism. If you and dummy have black index suits, then you have either a red or a black prism (black if same parity, else red). If you and dummy have red index suits, then you have either a red or black prism (red if same parity, else black). If you and dummy have pointed index suits, then you have either a round or pointed prism (pointed if same parity, else round). Similarly, you and dummy may have major or minor prisms. Now an interesting point not made in Sheehan's excellent work. You and dummy hold the *opposite* prism as partner and declarer! You/Dummy Partner/Declarer Odd Even Even Odd Black Red Red Black Minor Major Major Minor Pointed Round Round Pointed I think this is much easier than doing all that subtraction. Again, you need to know dummy's parity, dummy's index, your parity, and your index. Determine the prism you have with dummy. Declarer has the opposite prism with partner. As soon as partner signals his index and parity, you will know declarer's pattern. Bruce Luis Argerich wrote: : [Reasonable prism signal summary deleted] From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 19 23:01:27 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA18782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 23:01:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from ppp-245.erielink.com (moorebj@ppp-245.erielink.com [216.190.230.245]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA18777 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 23:01:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by ppp-245.erielink.com (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA03611 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 09:00:19 -0400 Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 09:00:18 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Fielded psych Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: : Grattan Endicott : To: : Sent: 17 April 2000 11:17 : Subject: Re: Fielded psych :> "Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny" :> Edmund Burke :> :> Herman wrote: :> :> >Grattan Endicott wrote: :> > :> :> The way in which it can be shown that the partnership does not have an : understanding :> to take action X, but that a member of the partnership who does take it is : flying :> solo, is by scrutinising the actions of the responder to X for any sign of : extra-legal :> awareness. But if none is found, then X was legal, and will remain legal the :> next time it happens. :> : +=+ This, very sadly, is simply wrong. The absence of : collusive action does not disprove the presence of an : agreement. It merely shows that the partner did not take : collusive action even if he knew full well that partner had : psyched. That a partnership understanding may arise : from past partnership experience is well established, : and the priority is to protect the opponents from any : failure to disclose such an understanding. For this : reason the margin of proof leans against the psycher : and his partner where the past experience is apparent. : It is perhaps useful to look at what the laws say : about agreements and partnership understandings. In : regard to 'agreements' it is true this is the word that : appears in 40E1 where the power to require a CC is : prescribed. We must then look to Law 75B - "habitual : violations within a partnership may create implicit : agreements, which must be disclosed" - and 75C which : refers to "all special information conveyed to him through : partnership agreement or partnership experience". : As for 'partnership understandings', Laws 40A & B : establish that opponents are entitled to be aware of any. : Regulations may prescribe how they are to be disclosed. : It is also important to note the power of regulation (40D) : applying to 'partnership understandings (even if not : conventional) that permit the partnership's initial actions : at the one level to be made with a hand of a King or more : below average strength' - one use of such power is to : require disclosure in a prescribed way, another is to : forbid. This power to regulate is clearly available in : regard to psychic action which is considered to be : based upon a partnership understanding. : I believe that the regulating authorities are acting : entirely within their powers, and that they have a primary : duty to ensure that innocent opponents are not treated : abusively by partnerships that fail to make a true : disclosure of their awareness of psychic proclivities. : This is not a comment upon the dexterity with which : the aim is accomplished. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I believe I can see both sides of this issue, but somehow I find this last statement most troubling. When such lack of dexterity (in writing a regulation) has the practical effect of countermanding a Law there must be a problem. A cynical sort might assume that this lack was effected purposefully. I understand that the various authorities must have a certain latitude in writing and enforcing regulations. My understanding wanes when regulations take precedence over the Laws themselves. Bruce From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 20 00:03:06 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA18958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 00:03:06 +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 AAA18953 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 00:02:58 +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 PAA11745 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 15:02:45 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA11219 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 15:02:44 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 14:02:43 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA04093 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 15:02:42 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id PAA03318 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 15:02:41 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 15:02:41 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200004191402.PAA03318@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fielded psych X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mon Apr 17 19:58:21 2000 > From: "Grattan Endicott" > To: , > Subject: Re: Fielded psych > Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 16:24:29 +0100 > Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > > > Grattan Endicott ================================= > "In today's highly complex society it takes > years of training in rationalization, > accommodation and compromise to qualify > for the good jobs with the really big payoffs" > - Russell Baker. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: 17 April 2000 11:17 > Subject: Re: Fielded psych > > > > "Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny" > > Edmund Burke > > > > Herman wrote: > > > > >Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > > > The way in which it can be shown that the partnership does not have an > understanding > > to take action X, but that a member of the partnership who does take it is > flying > > solo, is by scrutinising the actions of the responder to X for any sign of > extra-legal > > awareness. But if none is found, then X was legal, and will remain legal the > > next time it happens. > > > +=+ This, very sadly, is simply wrong. The absence of > collusive action does not disprove the presence of an > agreement. It merely shows that the partner did not take > collusive action even if he knew full well that partner had > psyched. That a partnership understanding may arise > from past partnership experience is well established, > and the priority is to protect the opponents from any > failure to disclose such an understanding. For this > reason the margin of proof leans against the psycher > and his partner where the past experience is apparent. > > It is perhaps useful to look at what the laws say > about agreements and partnership understandings. In > regard to 'agreements' it is true this is the word that > appears in 40E1 where the power to require a CC is > prescribed. We must then look to Law 75B - "habitual > violations within a partnership may create implicit > agreements, which must be disclosed" - and 75C which > refers to "all special information conveyed to him through > partnership agreement or partnership experience". > As for 'partnership understandings', Laws 40A & B > establish that opponents are entitled to be aware of any. > Regulations may prescribe how they are to be disclosed. > It is also important to note the power of regulation (40D) > applying to 'partnership understandings (even if not > conventional) that permit the partnership's initial actions > at the one level to be made with a hand of a King or more > below average strength' - one use of such power is to > require disclosure in a prescribed way, another is to > forbid. This power to regulate is clearly available in > regard to psychic action which is considered to be > based upon a partnership understanding. > I believe that the regulating authorities are acting > entirely within their powers, and that they have a primary > duty to ensure that innocent opponents are not treated > abusively by partnerships that fail to make a true > disclosure of their awareness of psychic proclivities. > This is not a comment upon the dexterity with which > the aim is accomplished. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >From this, I understand that the laws prevent "habitual" psyching. But what is the poor player supposed to do? Suppose partner "habitually" open 1S third in hand, non-vulnerable against vulnerable with 0-3 points. [ I don't know how frequent habitual(L75B) is; even if it is always, 1S will still be natural almost all the time.] What should they do? (1) Dissolve their partnership. (2) Never open 1S third in hand, non-vulnerable against vulnerable; to open 1S (even with a normal opening hand) would contravene L40. (3) Agree not to do it ever again! I would like to see L75B changed to "(but habitual violations within a partnership may create experience, which must be disclosed)". This removes the oxymoron of violations of agreements becoming (implicit) agreements and draws a distinction between agreements (which are subject to regulation) and experience (which can not be subject to regulation). We still have L40 to deal with calls based on experience which have become understandings/agreements. Robin -- Robin Barker | Eail: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 20 00:02:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA18952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 00:02:56 +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 AAA18946 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 00:02:43 +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 12hv3l-00052E-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 15:02:29 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 15:01:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: mistaken bid - infraction? References: <9c.2fbcac3.262ee36f@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <9c.2fbcac3.262ee36f@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <9c.2fbcac3.262ee36f@aol.com>, Schoderb@aol.com writes >In a message dated 4/19/00 5:06:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >j.p.pals@frw.uva.nl writes: > >> > I'm probably missing something here, but... if their agreement was >> > that 2H shows hearts and spades, and that was the explanation, on >> > what grounds do you award EW a PP? >> >> 74B1 would come to mind. I realize it's a bit far-fetched... >Since you realize it is a bit far fetched you must also realize that you are >fallng into the BLML trap -- decide what you want to do, and then find a Law >you can stretch, if necessary, to make it sound legal. Not good. Law 74 has >to do with conduct and etiquette, i.e. behavior, , reading the papers, >knitting, Nope, not knitting. Adequate precedent I'm afraid Kojak. Skid Simon reported the story of a good player expostulating with his partner "How the f*** do you expect me to realise it was the lol on my left who'd psyched, she had a bag of knitting". Accordingly in all needle matches I take my bag of knitting in order to lull the opponents into a false sense of security. It might, within the context of L73D2, be deemed deceptive to knit at the table and, rather like Mme Defarge in Dicken's "Tale of Two Cities" who encrypted the names of the nobility she wished to guillotine into her work, I knit exceedingly complex patterns, probably containing encrypted information. But that is for you to prove. 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 Apr 20 00:52:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA19185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 00:52:16 +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 AAA19180 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 00:52:03 +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 12hvpV-000Kcc-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 14:51:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 14:33:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: mistaken bid - infraction? References: <200004171051.MAA24905@hera.frw.uva.nl> <200004190838.KAA15392@hera.frw.uva.nl> In-Reply-To: <200004190838.KAA15392@hera.frw.uva.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Peter Pals wrote: >>>2H alerted and explained as DONT (hearts & spades), as >>>indicated on CC. >>>Heart lead, immediately taken, spade ace, four rounds of >>>diamonds, spade to the king. End of story. >>> >>>PP for EW, but this will not do NS any good. >>>Is there a law that permits me to give them their cold 4S?? > >Ed Reppert wrote: > >> I'm probably missing something here, but... if their agreement was >> that 2H shows hearts and spades, and that was the explanation, on >> what grounds do you award EW a PP? > >74B1 would come to mind. I realize it's a bit far-fetched... > >Of course nobody did anything illegal, as many of you have >pointed out, but I am a little frustrated by the fact that the >number of bad scores for NOs caused by players doing >nothing illegal is increasing rapidly. I doubt it! Bad scores have been around for years, you know. What you seem to forget is that if pickup partners are playing more then good scores for NOs because of bidding misunderstandings are increasing even more! >In the NL there are tournaments every weekend, and some of >these attract many occasional partnerships. You see them >scribbling their CC's over a cup of coffee at the start of the >tournament, and the first couple of rounds all goes well. But >after a couple of beers in the afternoon, agreements are >easily forgotten. > >Maybe DWS's tip: > >> It is permissible for an SO to make a regulation under >> L40D that a convention may only be played under certain >> conditions. Not forgetting them is such a condition. I do >> not approve of such a regulation [and nor does the CoP] >> but it is a legal one. > >is not such a bad one. It is, you know. We want to encourage people to play the game. What you would do is to encourage the minority who whinge whenever they get a bad board while discouraging the majority. -- 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 Apr 20 00:52:34 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA19193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 00:52:34 +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 AAA19186 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 00:52:24 +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 12hvpV-000DkH-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 14:51:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 15:20:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Equity? References: <01bfa92e$15ae56c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bfa92e$15ae56c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: [reformatted] >National Final Ladies Pairs >Board 9 E/W vun dealer N > Q52 > JT5 > K8 >K7 QJ965 AT983 >KQ986 42 >A5 QJT93 >KT43 J64 A > A73 > 7642 > 872 >The Auction. > W N E S > P 1D P > 1H 2C 2S P > 3NT AP >WEST IS DEC IN 3NT. > W N E S >1. C3 CQ CA* C2 Dec Tk >Dummy offers to get coffees for all. White, no sugar, please. >2. DA* D8 DQ D4 Dec Tk >3. D5 DK* D3 D2 Def Tk >4. SK* S5 S8 SJ Dec Tk >5. HK H5 H2 HA* Def Tk >6. C4 C5 S8 C8* Def Tk >7. CK* C6 S9 C7 Dec Tk >8. S7 S2 SA* S4 Dec Tk >9. H6 C9 DJ* D7 Dec Tk >10. CT HT DT* D6 Dec Tk >11. H9 HJ D9* HY Dec Tk >at this point West realised that there were >3 cards in Dummy and 2 in the 3 other hands. >It transpired that Dec had not turned 8S after Tk4 >and had played it again to Tk6. >The end position is > QS JC >QH 9H TS 3S 4H > 3H 6S >TD rules that dummy's T4 is deficient. >and that dec who is about to play a Heart from >dummy is to lose one trick. >Questioned about the ruling TD reads Law 67B1b, >and ref to Law 64 and says that while dummy is not >subject to penalty for an established revoke, >he is awarding one trick to N/S to do equity. >Ruling 3NT making 9 Tks to 600 to E/W. >Your opinions? Let me summarise. According to the Laws the S8 was played at T4. L45B describes how a card is played from dummy - and that happened. Note that L45B does not refer to turning the card: a card is played by declarer naming it then dummy picking it out. L65A then says that each player turns the trick. This was not done by dummy, but this did not alter the fact that L45B said the card was played. What happened at T6? L46B4 tells us that a call for a card not in dummy is void. However, declarer [slightly misled by being able to see the card!] did not realise his mistake so dummy actually played no card to T6. At T11 it was realised something was wrong. What was wrong was that T6 was defective. L67B1B tells offender to choose a card to put into T6, which does not change the ownership of the trick, and constitutes a revoke unless it is a club. >The end position is > QS JC >QH 9H TS 3S 4H > 3H 6S >TD rules that dummy's T4 is deficient. >and that dec who is about to play a Heart from >dummy is to lose one trick. It is not quite clear to me what the TD did at this moment. What should have been done is for declarer to choose a card to put into T6, and then choose how to play the rest of the hand. Presumably declarer will put a spade into T6 and make the last two tricks. He may be subject to the one-trick penalty of L64 - but L64B3 says there is no automatic penalty for a revoke which is a failure to play a card from an exposed hand. How about L64C, the good old "restore equity" Law? What was the equity position at T6? No, not T4, there was no revoke then. Q2 JT -- 7 J965 AT9[8]3 Q986 4 -- JT9 KT4 64 -- 73 76 87 Declarer has made three of the first five tricks. T6 is: >6. C4 C5 ** C8* Def Tk although, of course, the players thought that the S8 was discarded. Declarer is going to make his good diamonds, dummy's SA, his HQ and his CK together with the three tricks he already has, but the S finesse is too dangerous. Equity at that moment is nine tricks for declarer. But wait a minute! As was actually demonstrated at the table, if South returns a club in the diagram position, North is squeezed for ten tricks. A spade return also gives ten, while a club or heart leads to only nine tricks. So, did the revoke cause South to go wrong? While you are thinking about that, let me point out another relevant Law. L65A required players to turn the trick, and dummy did not. We do not generally apply a PP for such lapses, but we would want to give the defenders equity if they were damaged. Under which Law? L12A1! There is no indemnity provided by the Laws otherwise for this breach, so L12A1 is applicable. What does this mean? It means we go back to T5, and see if the opponents play is affected by the extra card in dummy. Q2 JT5 -- 7 J965 AT9[8]3 KQ986 42 -- JT9 KT4 64 -- A73 76 87 >5. HK H5 H2 HA* Def Tk >6. C4 C5 ** C8* Def Tk Is T5 or T6 affected by the extra card in dummy? So, you see, we can adjust the score to do equity under L12A1 [because of the presence of the extra card in dummy] or under L64C. However, I do not see that South was damaged. I doubt he would duck the HK, and he misread the position at T7 to play another club which was the natural play. My judgement is that he would do anyway, so no adjustment is called for. Ten tricks to declarer. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 20 02:06:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA19652 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 02:06:06 +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 CAA19647 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 02:05:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from pb3s09a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.105.180] helo=pacific) by cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12hwyz-0001oQ-00; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 17:05:42 +0100 Message-ID: <000201bfaa19$141e5620$b46993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bruce Moore" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: Fielded psych Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 17:04:36 +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 > > When such lack of dexterity (in writing a regulation) has the > practical effect of countermanding a Law there must be a > problem. A cynical sort might assume that this lack was > effected purposefully. > > I understand that the various authorities must have a certain > latitude in writing and enforcing regulations. My understanding > wanes when regulations take precedence over the Laws themselves. > +=+ Well, maybe so. However, that is up to the bodies concerned; they determine their policies. My point is that they have the power to over-ride in this respect; the WBF Laws Committee has twice considered Law 40D in relation to this question. On the first occasion it noted that both the EBL and the ACBL had regulations forbidding psyches of conventional bids - and it found nothing to challenge in this. On the second occasion the EBL put the question direct to the WBF LC and the answer came that it did have the power under 40D, although this fact was conceded without enthusiasm. You may be interested to read something I wrote to a colleague in 1995: "Power to regulate psychic bidding occurs when the psyche is or may be conventional. Where the experience of the partnership is that the psycher may or may not hold the suit named this becomes defined as a conventional action." and "Under Law 40D Zonal Organizations are empowered to regulate understandings that permit of extremely weak openings based upon partnership understanding or expectation." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 20 02:22:59 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA19747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 02:22:59 +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 CAA19742 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 02:22:51 +1000 (EST) From: dburn@btinternet.com Received: from thorium ([194.75.226.70] helo=btinternet.com) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12hxFK-0005AJ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 17:22:34 +0100 Reply-to: dburn@btinternet.com To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 17:22:10 +0100 Subject: Re: Equity? X-Mailer: DMailWeb Web to Mail Gateway 2.4e, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <38fddd32.67ab.0@btinternet.com> X-User-Info: 193.113.57.163 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: >Anne Jones wrote: > >[reformatted] > >>National Final Ladies Pairs >>Board 9 E/W vun dealer N > >> Q52 >> JT5 >> K8 >>K7 QJ965 AT983 >>KQ986 42 >>A5 QJT93 >>KT43 J64 A >> A73 >> 7642 >> 872 > >>The Auction. >> W N E S >> P 1D P >> 1H 2C 2S P >> 3NT AP > >>WEST IS DEC IN 3NT. > >> W N E S >>1. C3 CQ CA* C2 Dec Tk >>Dummy offers to get coffees for all. > > White, no sugar, please. > >>2. DA* D8 DQ D4 Dec Tk >>3. D5 DK* D3 D2 Def Tk >>4. SK* S5 S8 SJ Dec Tk >>5. HK H5 H2 HA* Def Tk >>6. C4 C5 S8 C8* Def Tk >>7. CK* C6 S9 C7 Dec Tk >>8. S7 S2 SA* S4 Dec Tk >>9. H6 C9 DJ* D7 Dec Tk >>10. CT HT DT* D6 Dec Tk >>11. H9 HJ D9* HY Dec Tk > >>at this point West realised that there were >>3 cards in Dummy and 2 in the 3 other hands. >>It transpired that Dec had not turned 8S after Tk4 >>and had played it again to Tk6. >>The end position is >> QS JC >>QH 9H TS 3S 4H >> 3H 6S >>TD rules that dummy's T4 is deficient. >>and that dec who is about to play a Heart from >>dummy is to lose one trick. >>Questioned about the ruling TD reads Law 67B1b, >>and ref to Law 64 and says that while dummy is not >>subject to penalty for an established revoke, >>he is awarding one trick to N/S to do equity. >>Ruling 3NT making 9 Tks to 600 to E/W. >>Your opinions? > > Let me summarise. According to the Laws the S8 was played at T4. >L45B describes how a card is played from dummy - and that happened. >Note that L45B does not refer to turning the card: a card is played by >declarer naming it then dummy picking it out. I am just a bit confused. Was dummy back at the table at trick four, or did declarer pick the card out of dummy herself? Of course, the eight of spades had still been played to trick four, since declarer may "if necessary" play cards in this fashion, but what happened later may not be quite as straightforward. > L65A then says that each player turns the trick. This was not done by >dummy, but this did not alter the fact that L45B said the card was >played. > > What happened at T6? L46B4 tells us that a call for a card not in >dummy is void. However, declarer [slightly misled by being able to see >the card!] did not realise his mistake so dummy actually played no card >to T6. Is this correct? If dummy was still not back at the table, presumably declarer again played the card herself. This may not be especially relevant - whereas it simplifies the ruling somewhat for the card to be treated as though it were no longer in dummy, the fact is that the card physically *was* in dummy and was "played" just as much to trick six as to trick four (according to Law 45). The rest of Mr Stevenson's argument is no doubt as eloquent and persuasive as ever, and I shall look forward to reading it once this minor quibble has been cleared up. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 20 02:55:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA19865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 02:55:54 +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 CAA19860 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 02:55:46 +1000 (EST) From: dburn@btinternet.com Received: from thorium ([194.75.226.70] helo=btinternet.com) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12hxlC-00052V-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 17:55:30 +0100 Reply-to: dburn@btinternet.com To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 17:55:06 +0100 Subject: Re: Equity? X-Mailer: DMailWeb Web to Mail Gateway 2.4e, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <38fde4ea.a5e.0@btinternet.com> X-User-Info: 193.113.57.163 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This Law 67B is cracking stuff. Not only can you fail to take a trick with the ace of trumps, you can also revoke even if you don't have a card with which to follow suit. I suppose defective tricks don't happen very often, but given what seems to be to be a remarkably fierce set of penalties for them, this is just as well. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 20 04:00:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA20281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 04:00:25 +1000 (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 EAA20276; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 04:00:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from [199.172.230.54] by stormy.ibl.bm (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-65377U14500L13000S0V35) with SMTP id bm; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 15:00:04 -0300 Date: 19 Apr 2000 15:01:44 -0300 Message-ID: <-1255965996jrhind@ibl.bm> From: Jack Rhind Subject: Re:Equity? To: BLML , Anne Jones , 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 EAB20277 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Perhaps it would be useful here if someone (Grattan ??) could give us some clarification of 67B1b - "he may be subject to the one-trick penalty of Law 64." Is this simply a decision based on whether offender won the trick on which the revoke occurred or are we looking at something deeper here? regards, Jack Rhind *************************************************************** ##### # # ####### # # # ### # ### ### #### # # # # # # # ##### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ##### # ### # # ### ### # # # ## Voice: (441) 297-TECH Fax: (441) 293-4421 Jack A. Rhind (441) 293-0282 *************************************************************** On Wednesday, June 7, 1939, Anne Jones wrote: >National Final Ladies Pairs >Board 9 E/W vun dealer N > Q52 > JT5 > K8 >K7 QJ965 AT983 >KQ986 42 >A5 QJT93 >KT43 J64 A > A73 > 7642 > 872 >The Auction. >N E S W >P 1D P 1H >2C 2S P 3NT >WEST IS DEC IN 3NT. > N E S W >1. QC AC* 2C 3C Dec Tk >Dummy offers to get coffees for all. >2. 8D QD 4D AD* Dec Tk >3. KD* 3D 2D 5D Def Tk >4. 5S 8S JS KS* Dec Tk >5. 5H 2H AH* KH Def Tk >6. 5C 8S 8C* 4C Def Tk >7. 6C 9S 7C KC* Dec Tk >8. 2S AS* 4S 7S Dec Tk >9. 9C JD* 7D 6H Dec Tk >10. TH TD* 6D TC Dec Tk >11. JH 9D* 7H 9H Dec Tk > >at this point West realised that there were >3 cards in Dummy and 2 in the 3 other hands. >It transpired that Dec had not turned 8S after Tk4 >and had played it again to Tk6. >The end position is > QS JC >QH 9H TS 3S 4H > 3H 6S >TD rules that dummy's T4 is deficient. >and that dec who is about to play a Heart from >dummy is to lose one trick. >Questioned about the ruling TD reads Law 67B1b, >and ref to Law 64 and says that while dummy is not >subject to penalty for an established revoke, >he is awarding one trick to N/S to do equity. >Ruling 3NT making 9 Tks to 600 to E/W. >Your opinions? >Anne > > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 20 04:02:30 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA20303 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 04:02:30 +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 EAA20298 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 04:02:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from pc1s03a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.131.194] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt7-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12hymF-0000WI-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 19:00:40 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Equity? Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 19:02:48 +0100 Message-ID: <01bfaa29$7896e800$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: dburn@btinternet.com To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 5:30 PM Subject: Re: Equity? >DWS wrote: > >>Anne Jones wrote: >> >>[reformatted] >> >>>National Final Ladies Pairs >>>Board 9 E/W vun dealer N >> >>> Q52 >>> JT5 >>> K8 >>>K7 QJ965 AT983 >>>KQ986 42 >>>A5 QJT93 >>>KT43 J64 A >>> A73 >>> 7642 >>> 872 >> >>>The Auction. >>> W N E S >>> P 1D P >>> 1H 2C 2S P >>> 3NT AP >> >>>WEST IS DEC IN 3NT. >> >>> W N E S >>>1. C3 CQ CA* C2 Dec Tk >>>Dummy offers to get coffees for all. >> >> White, no sugar, please. >> >>>2. DA* D8 DQ D4 Dec Tk >>>3. D5 DK* D3 D2 Def Tk >>>4. SK* S5 S8 SJ Dec Tk >>>5. HK H5 H2 HA* Def Tk >>>6. C4 C5 S8 C8* Def Tk >>>7. CK* C6 S9 C7 Dec Tk >>>8. S7 S2 SA* S4 Dec Tk >>>9. H6 C9 DJ* D7 Dec Tk >>>10. CT HT DT* D6 Dec Tk >>>11. H9 HJ D9* HY Dec Tk >> >>>at this point West realised that there were >>>3 cards in Dummy and 2 in the 3 other hands. >>>It transpired that Dec had not turned 8S after Tk4 >>>and had played it again to Tk6. >>>The end position is >>> QS JC >>>QH 9H TS 3S 4H >>> 3H 6S >>>TD rules that dummy's T4 is deficient. >>>and that dec who is about to play a Heart from >>>dummy is to lose one trick. >>>Questioned about the ruling TD reads Law 67B1b, >>>and ref to Law 64 and says that while dummy is not >>>subject to penalty for an established revoke, >>>he is awarding one trick to N/S to do equity. >>>Ruling 3NT making 9 Tks to 600 to E/W. >>>Your opinions? >> >> Let me summarise. According to the Laws the S8 was played at T4. >>L45B describes how a card is played from dummy - and that happened. >>Note that L45B does not refer to turning the card: a card is played by >>declarer naming it then dummy picking it out. > >I am just a bit confused. Was dummy back at the table at trick four, or did >declarer pick the card out of dummy herself? Of course, the eight of spades >had still been played to trick four, since declarer may "if necessary" play >cards in this fashion, but what happened later may not be quite as straightforward. > No. Dummy played to trick 1 and 2 and quitted the cards as dummy does, behind the dummy. Dec played the rest herself, pulling them towards her, and quitting them in front of the dummy.Dummy returned at trick 10, and was busy serving coffee when dec realised the problem at trick 11. The defenders did not get involved in the play or quitting of dummy's cards. The defenders did not claim that their play would have been different if the 8S had been correctly quitted at Tk4. In fact they encouraged the TD to award 10 tricks. There was no appeal. Anne > >> L65A then says that each player turns the trick. This was not done by >>dummy, but this did not alter the fact that L45B said the card was >>played. >> >> What happened at T6? L46B4 tells us that a call for a card not in >>dummy is void. However, declarer [slightly misled by being able to see >>the card!] did not realise his mistake so dummy actually played no card >>to T6. > >Is this correct? If dummy was still not back at the table, presumably declarer >again played the card herself. This may not be especially relevant - whereas >it simplifies the ruling somewhat for the card to be treated as though it were >no longer in dummy, the fact is that the card physically *was* in dummy and >was "played" just as much to trick six as to trick four (according to Law 45). > > >The rest of Mr Stevenson's argument is no doubt as eloquent and persuasive as >ever, and I shall look forward to reading it once this minor quibble has been >cleared up. > >David Burn >London, England > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 20 05:02:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA20616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 05:02:14 +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 FAA20610 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 05:02:03 +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 PAA21880 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 15:01:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA09403 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 15:01:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 15:01:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200004191901.PAA09403@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Equity? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: dburn@btinternet.com > This Law 67B is cracking stuff. Not only can you fail to take a trick with the > ace of trumps, you can also revoke even if you don't have a card with which > to follow suit. I suppose defective tricks don't happen very often, but given > what seems to be to be a remarkably fierce set of penalties for them, this is > just as well. Given the views he has expressed before, I'd expect David to contend that defective tricks are rare precisely because the penalties are fierce. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 20 05:38:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA21081 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 05:38:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail021.mail.onemain.com (SMTP-OUT001.ONEMAIN.COM [63.208.208.71]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA21076 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 05:38:15 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 6775 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2000 19:37:37 -0000 Received: from lax-ts4-h2-46-62.ispmodems.net (HELO pieceofcrap) ([209.162.46.62]) (envelope-sender ) by mail021.mail.onemain.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 19 Apr 2000 19:37:37 -0000 Message-ID: <002201bfaa37$0fdc9220$3e2ea2d1@pieceofcrap> From: "James B. Merzon" To: Subject: Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 12:40:04 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001F_01BFA9FC.62C51880" 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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01BFA9FC.62C51880 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable how do i get off this mailing list? ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01BFA9FC.62C51880 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
how do i get off this mailing = list?
------=_NextPart_000_001F_01BFA9FC.62C51880-- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 20 08:04:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA22077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 08:04:12 +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 IAA22058 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 08:03:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.22] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12i2ZX-0006Ak-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 23:03:47 +0100 Message-ID: <00c901bfaa4b$36958160$165608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Fw: Equity? Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 21:37:53 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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, April 19, 2000 8:01 PM Subject: Re: Equity? > > From: dburn@btinternet.com > > This Law 67B is cracking stuff. Not only can you fail to take a trick with the > > ace of trumps, you can also revoke even if you don't have a card with which > > to follow suit. I suppose defective tricks don't happen very often, but given > > what seems to be to be a remarkably fierce set of penalties for them, this is > > just as well. > > Given the views he has expressed before, I'd expect David to contend > that defective tricks are rare precisely because the penalties are > fierce. > +=+ Whereas observation suggests to me it is because players have thirteen cards and are looking for something to do with them ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 20 08:04:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA22082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 08:04:14 +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 IAA22074 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 08:04:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.22] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12i2Zd-0006Ak-00; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 23:03:54 +0100 Message-ID: <00ce01bfaa4b$3aa4a100$165608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" References: <01bfaa29$7896e800$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: Equity? Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 23:02:04 +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 From: dburn@btinternet.com > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 5:30 PM > Subject: Re: Equity? > > >it simplifies the ruling somewhat for the card to be treated as though it > >were > >no longer in dummy, the fact is that the card physically *was* in dummy and > >was "played" just as much to trick six as to trick four (according to Law > 45). > > +=+ Very interesting. The question is whether the card was in dummy or whether it was merely face-up near or amongst dummy's cards. A card in dummy is played as 45B says, but not a card that is not in dummy but happens to be lying face up on the table somewhere. Do you not think it ceased to be in dummy when it was first played so that 46B4 applied on the further occasion? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 20 08:04:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA22081 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 08:04:12 +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 IAA22060 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 08:04:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.22] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12i2ZZ-0006Ak-00; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 23:03:50 +0100 Message-ID: <00cb01bfaa4b$383798a0$165608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jack Rhind" Cc: References: <-1255965996jrhind@ibl.bm> Subject: Re: Re:Equity? Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 22:42:16 +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 ; Anne Jones ; Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 7:01 PM Subject: Re:Equity? > Perhaps it would be useful here if someone (Grattan ??) could give us some clarification of 67B1b - "he may be subject to the one-trick penalty of Law 64." Is this simply a decision based on whether offender won the trick on which the revoke occurred or are we looking at something deeper here? > +=+ Oh heck, someone spoke to me and I wasn't even listening to the conversation. One trick penalty of Law 64 is exacted if the offender won the revoke trick or any subsequent trick. No trick won, no one trick penalty; so he may (or may not) be subject to the penalty. But wait, do I not read that the card not contributed to the trick was a card belonging to dummy? That's something else again - no one trick penalty (see 64B3). Does this answer the question usefully? Or what have I missed when called out of my slumber? And Law 64C? Yes, compensation may be given if the offending side has won more tricks than it would have done had dummy's cards been played in a regular fashion. But there is no damage to compensate if this is not the case. [Not having read the detail I am suspicious of the Director's phrase "to do equity"; nothing in the law about doing equity, only about compensation for damage.] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 20 08:04:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA22075 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 08:04:11 +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 IAA22059 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 08:03:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.22] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12i2ZV-0006Ak-00; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 23:03:46 +0100 Message-ID: <00c801bfaa4b$35bb4e00$165608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Robin Barker" Cc: References: <200004191402.PAA03318@tempest.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: Fielded psych Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 21:24:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 3:02 PM Subject: Re: Fielded psych > > From this, I understand that the laws prevent "habitual" psyching. > +=+ Lawmakers' discussions of psychics have led me to understand that their objective is to allow psychics which are truly psychics, where the partner has no glimmer that the psycher does not have what his call suggests, but to crack down on situations where partners know enough to be prepared for partner having psyched and do not reveal that they can anticipate the psychic because of past experience. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 20 10:10:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA22854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:10:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from praseodumium.btinternet.com (praseodumium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA22848 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:10:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.6.86.106] (helo=davidburn) by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12i4Wq-0002Bt-00; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 01:09:08 +0100 Message-ID: <007a01bfaa5c$ef674960$6a56063e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Anne Jones" , "BLML" References: <01bfaa29$7896e800$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <00ce01bfaa4b$3aa4a100$165608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: Equity? Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 01:09:48 +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 Grattan wrote: > > From: dburn@btinternet.com > > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > > Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 5:30 PM > > Subject: Re: Equity? > > > > >it simplifies the ruling somewhat for the card to be treated as though it > > >were > > >no longer in dummy, the fact is that the card physically *was* in dummy > and > > >was "played" just as much to trick six as to trick four (according to Law > > 45). > > > > +=+ Very interesting. The question is whether the card > was in dummy or whether it was merely face-up near or > amongst dummy's cards. A card in dummy is played as > 45B says, but not a card that is not in dummy but > happens to be lying face up on the table somewhere. > Do you not think it ceased to be in dummy when it > was first played so that 46B4 applied on the > further occasion? It's a question of what "it" is. As DWS (most ingeniously) points out, there is a sense in which the eight of spades has ceased to be in dummy after trick four, so could not be played to trick six. I am no philosopher, but the way I would put it is that the conceptual, or Platonic, eight of spades was played to trick four and thus could not be played to trick six, while the physical, or existential, eight of spades was played both to trick four and to trick six. Unfortunately, the Laws referring to the "play of a card" do not specify whether they are concerned with an actual piece of cardboard (which may be "played" once, more than once, or not at all), or with the "ideal" card of which the piece of cardboard is a mere shadow on the wall of a cave. I cannot bring myself to describe this as a failure on the part of the lawmakers, for the situation could not have been envisaged and the distinction could not have been considered necessary. I have no quarrel with - indeed, I have considerable admiration for - DWS's analysis of the legal aspects of the situation, though he rather spoils a bravura performance by producing an analysis of the (hypothetical) play surrounding the "infraction" that can most charitably be described as bilgewater. But it must be remembered that this is an even-numbered year; in 2001, when David wins the Grand Masters' Pairs once again, his mastery of double-dummy seven-card endings will return in all its former glory. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 20 10:45:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA22953 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:45:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA22948 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:45:25 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id 9.7d.3c42d60 (9677); Wed, 19 Apr 2000 20:43:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <7d.3c42d60.262facb8@aol.com> Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 20:43:36 EDT Subject: Re: Fielded psych To: Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk, rmb1@cise.npl.co.uk 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 105 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 4/19/00 6:08:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk writes: > +=+ Lawmakers' discussions of psychics have led me to understand > that their objective is to allow psychics which are truly psychics, where > the partner has no glimmer that the psycher does not have what his > call suggests, but to crack down on situations where partners know > enough to be prepared for partner having psyched and do not reveal > that they can anticipate the psychic because of past experience. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ All I can add to this is BRAVO! KOJAK From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 20 13:21:34 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA24793 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 13:21:34 +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 NAA24788 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 13:21:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2iveikm.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.74.150]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA27905 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 23:21:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000419231830.012f990c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 23:18:30 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Fielded psych In-Reply-To: <00c801bfaa4b$35bb4e00$165608c3@dodona> References: <200004191402.PAA03318@tempest.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:24 PM 4/19/2000 +0100, Grattan wrote: >+=+ Lawmakers' discussions of psychics have led me to understand >that their objective is to allow psychics which are truly psychics, where >the partner has no glimmer that the psycher does not have what his >call suggests, but to crack down on situations where partners know >enough to be prepared for partner having psyched and do not reveal >that they can anticipate the psychic because of past experience. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ That's great as far as it goes. Certainly we want to allow psychics that "truly are" psychics; after all the Laws say so. And they also make clear that partnership understandings, including those derived from partnership experience, must be disclosed and are subject to further regulation. So yes, we should crack down on the situation described in the last sentence. The problem is that there is a substantial gap in between these two types of situations which Grattan has not acknowledged in his previous posts on the subject. What about psychics which clearly are fielded, but as a result of general experience and bridge knowledge, rather than by virtue of specific relevant partnership experience? If I am playing with an unfamiliar partner of a certain age and apparent experience level, then I might be wary of partner's action in a particular situation, based upon the auction, my hand, and my assessment of partner's inclination, without any discussion or relevant experience. Even a big linguistic stretch cannot force this type of judgement under the tent covered by the legal language of "partnership experience". And even in an experienced partnership, my general knowledge of parter's style (including his inclination to psyche in general) may legitimately inform my judgements, so long as the opponents have access to the same information (as provided, for example, by a CC on which Frequent Psychs is marked). What I have detected in the arguments given by David and Grattan, inter alia, is not so much a bias against psychic bidding as against the fielding of psychic bids. Although the Laws do not refer to fielded psychic bids per se, I understand the argument that a fielded psych creates the presumption of a CPU. The question is whether and how such a presumption may be rebutted. --Is it enough to establish that the objective conditions made a psychic bid from partner a reasonable possibility, or must we prove that a psychic bid is the _only_ reasonable explanation for the facts faced by the fielder? In the hand that started this thread, it was reasonable to _suspect_ a psychic bid from partner, although as David rightly pointed out, this was by no means the only possible explanation for the auction. --Is it sufficient to establish that the partnership is brand new, and could not have formed the necessary experience to have established implied understandings? This seems to have been countered by the notion that _any_ knowledge that might contribute to informing such a judgement is tainted as "partnership experience" (partner's age, personality, what part of the country or even what club he plays in, common acquaintences), and that in brief, a lack of experience with this partner is no rebuttal against the inference of a CPU when a psych is fielded. --If my opponents are informed about our general psychic tendencies, is it legitimate for me to use this information in fielding a psychic bid, or will the claim that "partner is known to be aggressive" instead be regarded as evidence of the very CPU we are trying to disprove? --What weight should be given to the claim that "partner has never psyched in this type of situation"? Obviously the specifics of a particular situation are essentially unique, but if I have fielded a psych of an opening 1-bid from partner, is it exculpatory that this partner has never psyched an opening 1-bid playing with me, even though he is a wild and crazy guy? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 20 19:17:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA25404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 19:17:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailserver.ipf.net (smtp.itl-online.de [195.211.211.86]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA25399 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 19:17:11 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 1477 invoked from network); 20 Apr 2000 09:16:54 -0000 Received: from dialin-56.muenchen.okay.net (HELO rabbit) (194.117.252.56) by mail.okay.net with SMTP; 20 Apr 2000 09:16:54 -0000 Message-ID: <001b01bfaaa9$d53b6e20$38fc75c2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <7d.3c42d60.262facb8@aol.com> Subject: Re: Fielded psych Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 11:21:22 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 Grattan wrote: > +=+ Lawmakers' discussions of psychics have led me to understand > that their objective is to allow psychics which are truly psychics, where > the partner has no glimmer that the psycher does not have what his > call suggests, but to crack down on situations where partners know > enough to be prepared for partner having psyched and do not reveal > that they can anticipate the psychic because of past experience. > ~ Grattan ~ [I completely agree with Michael's remarks] This strikes me as being somewhat far away from real life, i.e. the statement covers two very unlikely scenarios but misses the more frequent ones. At the table, when someone psyches, the subsequent bidding together with a players hand will usually hint more or less strongly that something is not right. It does not take a genius to work out then that either somebody has psyched, or somebody has misbid. Our subsequent bidding then will be in "a wheel might have gone off"-mode. The hand from this thread, where opener holds Kxxx,x,x,AKQJxxx, and the bidding begins 1C X 1S pass is a fine example. I certainly do suspect that partner has psyched, no matter whether CHO did that particular psyche last week, or never psyched in his whole life yet. This is neither "we do not have a glimmer that the psycher does not have what his call suggests" nor "be prepared for partner having psyched because of past (partnership) experience". Then, players usually do psyche because they think that the psyche will improve their score. I.e., they expect that the psyche will mislead or hurt opponents more than partner. A typical example is the so-called baby-psyche (the name reflects the fact that the psyche is so old that it works against only babies): you open a nonvul 3minor, and partner bids 3NT with not much values but some fit. Are you expected to alert opponents to the fact that 3NT might be psychic? No, because the knowledge that 3NT might be a psyche comes from general bridge knowledge. Even if partner did that psyche before (everybody considers this psyche with the proper hands, say, with Ax,xxxx,xxxx,Axx, or with x,xxx,xxxxx,xxxx)! Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 20 19:52:19 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA25488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 19:52:19 +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 TAA25483 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 19:52:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-237.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.237]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA12559 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 11:51:57 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38FDB4B9.DC5FB593@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 15:29:30 +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: Fielded psych References: <01bfa625$197286c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <000901bfa788$a8fb5e20$705908c3@dodona> <38F9B3CE.7E709206@village.uunet.be> <200004172209.SAA24977@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <38FC405F.1B548E8C@village.uunet.be> <200004181459.KAA15402@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: > > On 18 April 2000 at 13:00, Herman De Wael wrote: > >Michael Farebrother wrote: > >> > >> On 16 April 2000 at 14:36, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> > >> [snip some conditions] > >> > >> > - the situation which precedes it is relatively uncommon - > >> >like 2 HCP in third seat) > >> > > >> Here I have a difference with Herman - I believe that a "psych" that > >> promises something specific is not a psych - it is a two-way call; even > >> if it is not always done. And that can be subject to regulation. > >> > >I agree that there is a problem here. What is the > >difference between a common psyche and a two-way call ? > > > >Well, I can only come up with frequency. I know how often > >you get dealt 3HCP and it is passed to you in third seat : > >once a year ! > >I also know how often I have opened 1He in third seat. once > >a tournament, almost. > I have thought about it and want to offer another possible distinction between a psyche and a two-way bid. If in the second round of bidding, the player who has made the possible psych/2way bid, has a call available to him which makes it possible to distinguish between the possible meanings of the call, it is a 2-way bid. If he hasn't, the call can be a psyche. (probably we need to include something about "normal auction"). Thus in a sequence : 2Cl-pass-2Di-pass-PASS, when player has a weak 2 in diamonds, we shall not call that a psyche, even if he can prove by CC that 2Cl is always supposed to be strong. But Pass-Pass-1He-Dbl-2He-Pass-PASS does not distinguish between a psyche and a real 12HCP opener. > But consider this situation: > > p- p-1H- X > 2H- X- p- 3H * Double is responsive > p-4NT- p-6NT > AP > > Ok, so it's obvious to the people in the side game in the other room > that opener has psyched. But what does he have? If the psycher is me, he > may have hearts or he may not. He may have a flat hand or a > distributional monster. However, if he is Herman, he has 0-2 > exactly, and IIRC from the last time the discussion came up, certain > specific distributional requirements (though Ican'tRC right now what they > are). If he is someone playing out-of-the-book K-S, he has > specifically a 5 or 6-card suit headed by two of the top 4 honours. > Yes indeed, and all that knowledge needs to be told opponents. > To me, that's the difference between a psych and a two-way bid: if > partner, *given only that she knows that I have psyched*, can adequately > describe my hand, it is not a "gross misstatement" and therefore not a > psych. > Wel, it is strange that you begin this sentence with "difference between psych and two-way bid". I was under the impression that you were arguing that there was no such difference. But I believe I see what you mean. If partner can tell what type of psyche it is, it should not count as a psyche. That is tantamount to saying : "you are not allowed to make the same psyche twice with the same partner", which is exactly the conclusion we do NOT want to reach. > If frequency was the only determinator, then I could play 2D in the ACBL > as Flannery (11-15, exactly 5H and 4S) or 0-3, at least 5-5 in the majors - > because the 0-3 calls would be "psychs", as their frequency is much less > than the Flannery bid. But I can't - that's an illegal convention (at > least in the ACBL, under the GCC). > Is there any systemic difference between the two possible meanings in subsequent bidding ? Is that system in use in all positions - then the frequency is far greater than that of my third hand 0-2 !! > >Any partner of mine who says he doesn't trust me when the > >bidding goes p-p-1He-Dbl will be asked to find another > >partner. > > > Of course. As I would expect. And as probably is mandatory, given the > regulations about "implicit partnership understandings". > > >Surely you "feel" that there is a difference. > >Just tell it to the opponents : > >-2Di opening : "weak, six of either major; or strong" > >-P-P-1He : "normal, five cards, 13+; or weak 0-2" > >what will they expect in the first case, what in the second > >(provided they realise that there are after all 40 points in > >a pack). > > > Certainly there is a difference - the opponents are going to be able to > work out which 1H hand you have pretty quickly, whereas the 2D bid has > to wait until your side describes it. Can they ever be quite certain ? And is that a problem ? > And if you want to play that 1H > convention *in my game*, I have no problems with it, even though under > the GCC, it's illegal (in fact, it's illegal in any ACBL sanctioned > game). But the problem is that that's not what's told to the opponents; > this is: > > 2D: "weak, six of either major; or strong (enumerate strong options > here)" > p-p-1H: if asked for an explanation (and likely they won't, because it > isn't alerted), "natural". > > *That's* a concealed partnership understanding, and that's illegal. No, that's a wrong explanation, no more (far less) severe than misalerting a transfer or misexplaining a Ghestem. Don't forget that we are saying to partner : "I believe you when you say you did not realise (soon) that partner had psyched. However, I have to rule that you could have known, and that therefor opponents were entitled to know that this was possible" I find that far less severe than not correctly explaining some part of the system, which partner not only could have known, but really should have known. There, we are far closer to "deliberate concealment". > And > if it's explained as "natural, but he has a tendency to open 1H in > third seat with 0-2" - which is the correct explanation according to > L75C - then it falls into the opening sentence of that EBU regulation, > and it, IMHO, is now an regulable agreement, and likely in violation of > those regulations. > Which is exactly the point I am trying to make. If such is the interpretation, then psyching itself becomes illegal. Therefor that interpretation cannot be the correct one. Don't forget that I am the most honest psycher around here. I have realised that I have a particular tendency, and I freely admit to it. Yet this concerns only one psyche per year. There are, out there, far less honest psychers. Who psyche in the same kind of position quite often. I would like to be able to tell their partners that this psyching tendency ought to be disclosed, and I would like to be able to tell the opponents, "yes, this should have been told you - but in this particular case I do not believe you are damaged". If I can only rule misinformation by at the same time ruling systemic, and illegal convention, then I won't do it. I will never have enough evidence to convict. (except when it's me psyching). What I'm trying to say is this : if you are calling my psyches systemic, it is only because I am foolish enough to tell you that it is a type of psyche I have done before. There is no difference between my psyche and the majority of others, and I would like to be able to rule in the same manner whether or not the player says he has done the same psyche before. We really need to be able to rule "psyching frequency" as entitled information, without being burdened at the same time to have to call it systemic and thus illegal. As I said, that would ban psyches altogether, and we do not want that. > I'm not sure that this is a good thing, but I believe that's where it > has to be, given that "systemic psychs" are considered to be bad for > Bridge. > Why? Or rather - what are you referring to when speaking of systemic psyches? I agree that there are certain things "bad for bridge". 1Di-Dbl-1Sp without spades springs to mind. But the reason this is "bad for bridge" is because it is systemic, and untold. Not because it is (or should be) a forbidden system. So give me the tools to call this misinformation. I do not need the tools to forbid this altogether. It becomes far less attractive, if it has to be told to opponents. > Implied caveat here again (see last post) about one-sided vs. two-sided > partnership agreements. > > Michael > > P.S. Herman - sorry about not making last month's FF game - and for not > letting you know about it earlier. There was a Sectional in another > city that weekend, and I couldn't put in the time to do the > calculations. I have several excuses for not letting you know, but they > are excuses. mdf That's all right. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 20 21:25:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA25690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 21:25:48 +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 VAA25685 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 21:25:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-214.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.214]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA14924 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 13:25:30 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38FEDE16.FD8182FA@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 12:38:14 +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: Fielded psych References: <200004191402.PAA03318@tempest.npl.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: > > > But what is the poor player supposed to do? > > Suppose partner "habitually" open 1S third in hand, non-vulnerable > against vulnerable with 0-3 points. [ I don't know how frequent > habitual(L75B) is; even if it is always, 1S will still be natural > almost all the time.] > > What should they do? > (1) Dissolve their partnership. > (2) Never open 1S third in hand, non-vulnerable against vulnerable; > to open 1S (even with a normal opening hand) would contravene L40. > (3) Agree not to do it ever again! > > I would like to see L75B changed to "(but habitual violations within > a partnership may create experience, which must be disclosed)". > > This removes the oxymoron of violations of agreements becoming (implicit) > agreements and draws a distinction between agreements (which are subject > to regulation) and experience (which can not be subject to regulation). > I did not think we needed a Law change to get there, but if that is what it takes, then I am totally in favour of it. > We still have L40 to deal with calls based on experience which have > become understandings/agreements. > Indeed we do, although I don't see why this sentence is needed. We are already using that one. > Robin > > -- > Robin Barker | Eail: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk > CMSC, 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 -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 20 21:25:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA25696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 21:25:56 +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 VAA25691 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 21:25:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-214.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.214]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA14947 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 13:25:32 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38FEE0A5.5DB03839@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 12:49:09 +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: Fielded psych References: <200004191402.PAA03318@tempest.npl.co.uk> <00c801bfaa4b$35bb4e00$165608c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Grattan Endicott ===================================== > " Unless one is a genius, it is best to aim > at being intelligible." - Sir Anthony Hope Hawkins. > ======================================= > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Robin Barker > To: > Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 3:02 PM > Subject: Re: Fielded psych > > > > > From this, I understand that the laws prevent "habitual" psyching. > > > +=+ Lawmakers' discussions of psychics have led me to understand > that their objective is to allow psychics which are truly psychics, where > the partner has no glimmer that the psycher does not have what his > call suggests, but to crack down on situations where partners know > enough to be prepared for partner having psyched and do not reveal > that they can anticipate the psychic because of past experience. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I agree with you, Grattan, but it won't work. The frequency of (real) psyches is such that although partner will afterwards realise there is previous experience, he will not do so at the time of the psyche. He may well have an inkling later on in the bidding, but it would be wrong for him to tell anything to the opponents. That is why we simply must have the opportunity of putting the particular psyching tendencies on the CC. Every psyche must be examined after the facts, and there will surface a few where such prior experience can be thought to exist. Those psyches must be dealt with as normal L40 cases, isinformation which will only very rarely lead to direct damage. But if the penalty on previous experience is that the psyche is named systemic and disallowed, that is tantamount to outlawing psyching altogether. So there simply MUST be a gap between previous experience with psyching and agreed psyching. Without such a gap, there is a de facto ban on psyching twice in your career (since your current partner might have known of your previous psyche, even if it wasn't with him). Grattan's argument that the Lawmakers want to ban only "habitual" psyching is valid, but they need to define "habitual", and that definition cannot simply be "previous experience". My definition of "systemic psyching" would include a frequency limit and a systemic escape route. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 20 22:44:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA25937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 22:44:50 +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 WAA25930 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 22:44:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from pf9s08a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.88.250] helo=pacific) by cobalt7-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12iGIO-0003XY-00; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 13:43:00 +0100 Message-ID: <002e01bfaac6$250b3040$fa5893c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Michael S. Dennis" Cc: "Bridge Laws" References: <200004191402.PAA03318@tempest.npl.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.20000419231830.012f990c@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Fielded psych Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:36:07 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: 20 April 2000 04:18 Subject: Re: Fielded psych > At 09:24 PM 4/19/2000 +0100, Grattan wrote: > >+=+ Lawmakers' discussions of psychics have led me to understand > >that their objective is to allow psychics which are truly psychics, where > >the partner has no glimmer that the psycher does not have what his > >call suggests, but to crack down on situations where partners know > >enough to be prepared for partner having psyched and do not reveal > >that they can anticipate the psychic because of past experience. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > That's great as far as it goes. Certainly we want to allow psychics that > "truly are" psychics; after all the Laws say so. And they also make clear > that partnership understandings, including those derived from partnership > experience, must be disclosed and are subject to further regulation. So > yes, we should crack down on the situation described in the last sentence. > > The problem is that there is a substantial gap in between these two types > of situations which Grattan has not acknowledged in his previous posts on > the subject. What about psychics which clearly are fielded, but as a result > of general experience and bridge knowledge, rather than by virtue of > specific relevant partnership experience? > > +=+ "The basis on which a player may diagnose a psyche by his partner during the auction is the legal calls, the disclosed understandings of his partnership, and the relationship of these to the cards he holds. Other authorized information such as his opponent's behaviour may be used in corroboration of his diagnosis (but only in corroboration - there must be substantial evidence from the other authorized information)." (Taken from the EBL Commentary, 1992, which had 'the approval of the EBL Laws Committee and the authority of the EBL Executive Committee') +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 20 23:55:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA26197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 23:55:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f22.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.22]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA26192 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 23:55:31 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 14990 invoked by uid 0); 20 Apr 2000 13:54:53 -0000 Message-ID: <20000420135453.14989.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.219 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 06:54:53 PDT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Equity? Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 06:54:53 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "David Burn" >To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Anne Jones" >, "BLML" >Subject: Re: Equity? >Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 01:09:48 +0100 > >Grattan wrote: > > > > From: dburn@btinternet.com > > > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > > > > Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 5:30 PM > > > Subject: Re: Equity? > > > > > > >it simplifies the ruling somewhat for the card to be treated as >though it > > > >were > > > >no longer in dummy, the fact is that the card physically *was* in >dummy > > and > > > >was "played" just as much to trick six as to trick four >(according to Law > > > 45). > > > > > > +=+ Very interesting. The question is whether the card > > was in dummy or whether it was merely face-up near or > > amongst dummy's cards. A card in dummy is played as > > 45B says, but not a card that is not in dummy but > > happens to be lying face up on the table somewhere. > > Do you not think it ceased to be in dummy when it > > was first played so that 46B4 applied on the > > further occasion? > >It's a question of what "it" is. As DWS (most ingeniously) points out, >there is a sense in which the eight of spades has ceased to be in >dummy after trick four, so could not be played to trick six. I am no >philosopher, but the way I would put it is that the conceptual, or >Platonic, eight of spades was played to trick four and thus could not >be played to trick six, while the physical, or existential, eight of >spades was played both to trick four and to trick six. > >Unfortunately, the Laws referring to the "play of a card" do not >specify whether they are concerned with an actual piece of cardboard >(which may be "played" once, more than once, or not at all), or with >the "ideal" card of which the piece of cardboard is a mere shadow on >the wall of a cave. I cannot bring myself to describe this as a >failure on the part of the lawmakers, for the situation could not have >been envisaged and the distinction could not have been considered >necessary. I have no quarrel with - indeed, I have considerable >admiration for - DWS's analysis of the legal aspects of the situation, >though he rather spoils a bravura performance by producing an analysis >of the (hypothetical) play surrounding the "infraction" that can most >charitably be described as bilgewater. But it must be remembered that >this is an even-numbered year; in 2001, when David wins the Grand >Masters' Pairs once again, his mastery of double-dummy seven-card >endings will return in all its former glory. > >David Burn >London, England > And how many times have you won the Grand Masters' Pairs? Don't bother to answer, I don't really want to know, but it did seem that you were building up a reasonable head of steam there only to shoot yourself in the foot with a bit of unnecessary sarcasm aimed at David Stevenson. Not that all sarcasm aimed at DWS is unnecessary - it's just that that bit was. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 21 01:39:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA26633 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 01:39:50 +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 BAA26628 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 01:39:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from pd6s03a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.115.215] helo=pacific) by cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12iJ3G-0005Sz-00; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 16:39:34 +0100 Message-ID: <000e01bfaade$97eb38e0$d77393c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" Cc: "Grattan Endicott" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" , "Anne Jones" References: <01bfaa29$7896e800$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <00ce01bfaa4b$3aa4a100$165608c3@dodona> <007a01bfaa5c$ef674960$6a56063e@davidburn> Subject: Re: Equity? Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 16:15:23 +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 > Unfortunately, the Laws referring to the "play of a card" do not > specify whether they are concerned with an actual piece of cardboard > (which may be "played" once, more than once, or not at all), or with > the "ideal" card of which the piece of cardboard is a mere shadow on > the wall of a cave. I cannot bring myself to describe this as a > failure on the part of the lawmakers, > David Burn > London, England > >+=+ You can't? Well, let me try! The lawmakers could easily have written Law 45C6: "Once played a card, unless legitimately withdrawn, may not be played to a subsequent trick" or maybe "to a later trick". +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 21 02:16:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA26916 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 02:16:07 +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 CAA26910 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 02:15:49 +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 MAA21440 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 12:15:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA14068 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 12:15:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 12:15:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200004201615.MAA14068@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fielded psych X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > I agree that there are certain things "bad for bridge". > > 1Di-Dbl-1Sp without spades springs to mind. > > But the reason this is "bad for bridge" is because it is > systemic, and untold. Not because it is (or should be) a > forbidden system. I believe it would be a legal system in the ACBL ("defense to opponents' conventions"). I agree with Herman that many cases can be dealt with as ordinary MI, nothing special. The hard part is deciding which cases are systems and which are psychics. Herman's idea of followup methods is surely one part of the answer, but I'm not sure it's the whole story. Wherever we end up, the results for bidding ought to be the same as the results for false carding during the play. How much disclosure do we demand for that? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 21 02:28:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA26956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 02:28:03 +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 CAA26951 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 02:27:55 +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 12iJnr-0001vt-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 16:27:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 16:52:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fielded psych References: <200004191402.PAA03318@tempest.npl.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.20000419231830.012f990c@pop.mindspring.com> <002e01bfaac6$250b3040$fa5893c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <002e01bfaac6$250b3040$fa5893c3@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ "The basis on which a player may diagnose >a psyche by his partner during the auction is the >legal calls, the disclosed understandings of his >partnership, and the relationship of these to the >cards he holds. Other authorized information such >as his opponent's behaviour may be used in >corroboration of his diagnosis (but only in >corroboration - there must be substantial evidence >from the other authorized information)." > (Taken from the EBL Commentary, 1992, > which had 'the approval of the EBL Laws > Committee and the authority of the EBL > Executive Committee') That is all very well, but is it in agreement with the Laws of Bridge? It is my personal view that the EBU has the balance nearly right, but is just a little too much against the use of general bridge knowledge. To me, the big question is always "What would I be thinking if the three others at the table were unknown to me?". If the answer is that I would be thinking "I bet my partner has psyched" then I am unconvinced that there has been a breach of Law 40. In my view, the evidence that is quoted here as only being used in corroboration may be compelling substantive evidence - and then the Guide is wrong, because it is now against 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 Fri Apr 21 07:53:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA27930 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 07:53:46 +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 HAA27924 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 07:53:37 +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 ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 17:50:09 -0400 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 ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 17:41:51 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <38FDB4B9.DC5FB593@village.uunet.be> References: <01bfa625$197286c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <000901bfa788$a8fb5e20$705908c3@dodona> <38F9B3CE.7E709206@village.uunet.be> <200004172209.SAA24977@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <38FC405F.1B548E8C@village.uunet.be> <200004181459.KAA15402@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <38FDB4B9.DC5FB593@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 17:47:45 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Fielded psych Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 3:29 PM +0200 4/19/00, Herman De Wael wrote: >I find that far less severe than not correctly explaining >some part of the system, which partner not only could have >known, but really should have known. There, we are far >closer to "deliberate concealment". Are we? Perhaps then we need a qualifying test, at least for high level players. If they don't show at least a very good memory according to this test (don't ask _me_ how to write such a test!) they can't play at those levels. It took my usual partner a _year_ to get to the point where she would consistently remember that a 2C response to 1NT is Stayman. Yeah, after a while, I began to alert her 3C bids. But it took me some time to realize that she really couldn't remember. Do you really want to suggest that before I did so, I was "close to deliberate concealment"? More recently, she is giving up Precision, because she can't remember more than about half the system - and which part she forgets in any given session is up for grabs. We're talking about going back to a 1940's Goren style card, that being what she learned as a child, but even then I envision sequences like 1H-3H (forcing)-Pass ("I forgot"). I suppose I could alert all of her bids, with the explanation that "I have no idea whether partner has remembered the system or not", but that seems counterproductive on several fronts, not the least of which is that if she's driving, I might well end up walking home. :-) How do you suggest this situation be handled? (Six months ago I would have said "don't play bridge with this person" is not an option. Now it is, but a reluctant one. I hope you've got a better idea. :-) 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/AwUBOP98T72UW3au93vOEQIyLACgro76W/oEbmhHy0TWqHR3DDvmS/oAoL9k SymeS71Wq17Vgz1R92yn0RMU =QT9k -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 21 09:35:03 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA28342 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 09:35:03 +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 JAA28326 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 09:34:50 +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 12iQSy-000Gps-0X for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 00:34:37 +0100 Message-ID: <6bM7SJAtJ5$4EwWn@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 00:27:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Fielded psych References: <200004191402.PAA03318@tempest.npl.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.20000419231830.012f990c@pop.mindspring.com> <002e01bfaac6$250b3040$fa5893c3@pacific> 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 >Grattan Endicott wrote: > >>+=+ "The basis on which a player may diagnose >>a psyche by his partner during the auction is the >>legal calls, the disclosed understandings of his >>partnership, and the relationship of these to the >>cards he holds. Other authorized information such >>as his opponent's behaviour may be used in >>corroboration of his diagnosis (but only in >>corroboration - there must be substantial evidence >>from the other authorized information)." >> (Taken from the EBL Commentary, 1992, >> which had 'the approval of the EBL Laws >> Committee and the authority of the EBL >> Executive Committee') > > > That is all very well, but is it in agreement with the Laws of Bridge? > > It is my personal view that the EBU has the balance nearly right, but >is just a little too much against the use of general bridge knowledge. Some years ago I was shown a hand with a strange auction and was asked "what do you think?". My comment was "It will be obvious to every bridge player in the country that South has psyched, with the exception of the whole of the EBU L&E". It's not quite as bad as that now, but whilst ones agreements can be regulated, a player may make (within the context of Law 74) any call on any hand, whether or not it conforms to his agreements. Within that context so too can his partner make any call - which leads to the problems of psyche facing psyche - which in turn can be treated as a cpu. Setting that one aside, we are now in a position that a player knows his partner, in certain situations, departs from the agreements. Clearly he must alert. *Why can this _not_ be on the cc?* as it is part of partnership experience. Why all the byzantine contortions to pretend that psyches are ok, when in some jurisdictions they clearly aren't (and only just are here in the UK) ? I get more aggravation from people who ask me "Can he open 1NT with a singleton? It's not allowed in " or some such nonsense than with any UI or MI rulings I have to give - and this *is the direct result of all the pratting about, paying lip-service to a Law which is perfectly clear*. L40A "A player may make any call or play ..." > > To me, the big question is always "What would I be thinking if the >three others at the table were unknown to me?". If the answer is that I >would be thinking "I bet my partner has psyched" then I am unconvinced >that there has been a breach of Law 40. > > In my view, the evidence that is quoted here as only being used in >corroboration may be compelling substantive evidence - and then the >Guide is wrong, because it is now against the Laws. > You have a flat 20 count, partner opens 2NT. Discuss. 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 Apr 21 09:35:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA28341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 09:35:02 +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 JAA28325 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 09:34:51 +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 12iQSz-000Gpu-0X; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 00:34:38 +0100 Message-ID: <67A7aSAfP5$4EwU6@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 00:33:51 +0100 To: Norman Scorbie Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Equity? References: <20000420135453.14989.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000420135453.14989.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <20000420135453.14989.qmail@hotmail.com>, Norman Scorbie writes snip > But it must be remembered that >>this is an even-numbered year; in 2001, when David wins the Grand >>Masters' Pairs once again, his mastery of double-dummy seven-card >>endings will return in all its former glory. >> >>David Burn >>London, England >> >And how many times have you won the Grand Masters' Pairs? Don't bother to >answer, I don't really want to know, but it did seem that you were building >up a reasonable head of steam there only to shoot yourself in the foot with >a bit of unnecessary sarcasm aimed at David Stevenson. >Not that all sarcasm aimed at DWS is unnecessary - it's just that that bit >was. > Norman, if you know the dramatis personnae, that was not sarcasm but English humoUr, and it was *very* funny. 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 Apr 21 09:35:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA28343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 09:35:04 +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 JAA28327 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 09:34:50 +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 12iQSz-000Gpt-0X for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 00:34:37 +0100 Message-ID: <+7A6aOAfM5$4Ew0b@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 00:30:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Fielded psych References: <7d.3c42d60.262facb8@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <7d.3c42d60.262facb8@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <7d.3c42d60.262facb8@aol.com>, Schoderb@aol.com writes >In a message dated 4/19/00 6:08:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk writes: > >> +=+ Lawmakers' discussions of psychics have led me to understand >> that their objective is to allow psychics which are truly psychics, where >> the partner has no glimmer that the psycher does not have what his >> call suggests, but to crack down on situations where partners know >> enough to be prepared for partner having psyched and do not reveal >> that they can anticipate the psychic because of past experience. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >All I can add to this is BRAVO! KOJAK Grattan and Kojak, this is all self-evident. That's why one *must* alert partner's known psyching proclivity or habit garnered from experience, and bid in accordance with ones' agreements. Provided this is done, I see no Law that is broken. 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 Apr 21 10:19:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA28516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 10:19:12 +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 KAA28511 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 10:19:04 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id i.4b.2d00e33 (4212); Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:17:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4b.2d00e33.2630f7fc@aol.com> Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:17:00 EDT Subject: Re: Fielded psych 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 105 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 4/20/00 7:38:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, john@probst.demon.co.uk writes: > I see no Law that is broken. Nor do I. Cheers, Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 21 10:22:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA28545 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 10:22:06 +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 KAA28539 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 10:21:55 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id i.17.47ed133 (4212); Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:19:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <17.47ed133.2630f897@aol.com> Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:19:35 EDT Subject: Re: Fielded psych 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 105 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 4/20/00 7:38:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, john@probst.demon.co.uk writes: > You have a flat 20 count, partner opens 2NT. Discuss. Touche, mon ami, mio amigo, my friend! I waiting for the answers to this! Regards from both of us, Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 21 11:11:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA28754 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 11:11:13 +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 LAA28749 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 11:11:05 +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 12iRyA-000CcB-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 02:10:54 +0100 Message-ID: <0y0ppHEph6$4Ewk$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 02:01:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Equity? References: <20000420135453.14989.qmail@hotmail.com> <67A7aSAfP5$4EwU6@probst.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <67A7aSAfP5$4EwU6@probst.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article <20000420135453.14989.qmail@hotmail.com>, Norman Scorbie > writes > >snip > >> But it must be remembered that >>>this is an even-numbered year; in 2001, when David wins the Grand >>>Masters' Pairs once again, his mastery of double-dummy seven-card >>>endings will return in all its former glory. >>> >>>David Burn >>>London, England >>> >>And how many times have you won the Grand Masters' Pairs? Don't bother to >>answer, I don't really want to know, but it did seem that you were building >>up a reasonable head of steam there only to shoot yourself in the foot with >>a bit of unnecessary sarcasm aimed at David Stevenson. >>Not that all sarcasm aimed at DWS is unnecessary - it's just that that bit >>was. >> >Norman, if you know the dramatis personnae, that was not sarcasm but >English humoUr, and it was *very* funny. cheers john That is not my opinion. David Burn has taken into his head to conduct an ongoing campaign to denigrate me in the eyes of BLML and RGB. I cannot believe that anyone finds it in the least funny: I certainly don't I am surprised at you John: I thought you were my friend. -- 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 Apr 21 13:53:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA29291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 13:53:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from red.impulsedata.net (red.impulsedata.net [209.63.64.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA29285 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 13:53:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from BRIDGETODAY1 (45.phx-ts01.impulsedata.net [209.63.68.45]) by red.impulsedata.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA05005; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:49:19 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from golddoc@impulsedata.net) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20000420205606.007ace00@impulsedata.net> X-Sender: golddoc@impulsedata.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:56:06 -0700 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Phil Guptill Subject: Re: mistaken bid - infraction?...a follow up Cc: j.p.pals@frw.uva.nl In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.20000417140949.0085adf0@impulsedata.net> References: <200004171051.MAA24905@hera.frw.uva.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Jan & all! I had a classical case of "the rub of the green" at a fairly strong 7 table local club game, playing match points last nite. My partner, a very, very strong player, who plays with so many different partners, that it's a bit of a challenge for him to remember partnership agreements with all of them, opened the bidding with 1D on the first board of that session. I held: S-AKx H-Jxx D-AK98 C-Axx I bid 2N, forcing, planning to raise my partner's nearly automatic 3N rebid to 4N, showing this type of a hand. My partner and I weren't on the same page on this one, as he alerted my bid as a non-forcing balanced 11-12 count, which he passed, holding: S-Jx H-A8xx D-Q10xx C-KQJ I got a heart lead, ducked and winning the trick with my HJ. >From there, it's a very simple matter of taking 11 tricks, so there was no slam on the hand, and we knew that some of the players to follow us would wonder how we managed to stay out of slam, never mind staying out of game. We did receive some good natured kidding about this hand after the game was completed. P.S. We were the only pair to avoid the poor slam, and our +210 ended up being an absolute top. If partner had remembered our agreement, we would have ended up playing 4N, which would have been a bit more deserving of a fine result than our actual contract. Nobody suggested that we should be forced to play the hand in 6N. It was just one of those things...usually a disaster... but on occasion, a huge fix for our opponents, as it was this time. >I've been away from any appreciable amount of directing for about >15 years now! >In years past, the type of situation Jan has asked about was >referred to as "the rub of the green." >Most of the time, when partnership agreements are forgotten, the >opponents will end up with a good result. But not this time! <*_*> Phil Guptill...bigheart on OKB bridgetoday@impulsedata.net "Sight is a faculty; seeing is an art." From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 21 16:57:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA29861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 16:57:00 +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 QAA29854 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 16:56:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id IAA06583 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 08:58:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Apr 21 08:56:14 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JOHPX72FIG00C48N@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 08:55:23 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 08:55:20 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 08:55:21 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Equity? To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , David Burn Cc: Grattan Endicott , Bridge Laws Mailing List , Anne Jones Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5BD@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:gester@globalnet.co.uk] > Verzonden: donderdag 20 april 2000 17:15 > Aan: David Burn > CC: Grattan Endicott; Bridge Laws Mailing List; Anne Jones > Onderwerp: Re: Equity? > > > Grattan Endicott ================================= > "A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the > moment a single man contemplates it, > bearing within him the image of a cathedral." > - Saint-Exupery I like to paraphrase this one: A played card ceases to be just a played card the moment Grattan Endicot tries to name it a played card. ton > =================================== > > > > Unfortunately, the Laws referring to the "play of a card" do not > > specify whether they are concerned with an actual piece of cardboard > > (which may be "played" once, more than once, or not at all), or with > > the "ideal" card of which the piece of cardboard is a mere shadow on > > the wall of a cave. I cannot bring myself to describe this as a > > failure on the part of the lawmakers, > > David Burn > > London, England > > > >+=+ You can't? Well, let me try! > The lawmakers could easily have > written Law 45C6: "Once played a card, > unless legitimately withdrawn, may not be > played to a subsequent trick" > or maybe "to a later trick". +=+ > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 21 17:20:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA29951 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 17:20:54 +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 RAA29946 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 17:20:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA23762 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 09:22:35 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Apr 21 09:20:07 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JOHQPMGJAC00C8RU@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 09:19:22 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 09:16:51 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 09:16:52 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: easter claim To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5BE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This site is somewhat dull lately, with no claim at all discussed. With Easter coming up you need a puzzle and no choice, it will be a claim. Try to forget months of discussions here and use the laws to solve it. W/- AKQ8 AQJ9 J6 874 J974 2 K87643 52 AK4 Q10987532 --- 63 10653 10 --- AKQJ10952 1) West opens 1H and south becomes declarer in 6C. After a diamond lead he draws trumps and claims for 13 tricks. West doesn't accept the claim and asks south to continue play, which he does. Small spade to the A and K. He ruffs a diamond takes the finesse in hearts and fulfills his prediction. The TD is called. 2) West opens 1H and south becomes declarer in 7C. After a diamond lead he draws trumps and claims 13 tricks with the statement thay he starts playing spades. The TD is called by west who shows his spades. What decisions do you make? This problem was one (2) in an examination In the Netherlands and Belgium last week. We decided our own answers of course. But a huge majority in this group with another view (no new members allowed to react!) might influence that. We are as flexible as possible to let them pass this examen, as you understand. ton From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 21 18:50:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA00372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 18:50:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA00367 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 18:49:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from meteo.fr (rubis.meteo.fr [137.129.5.28]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA18867 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 08:49:02 GMT Message-ID: <3900160A.CCC8E221@meteo.fr> Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 10:49:14 +0200 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: easter claim References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5BE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Kooijman, A." a écrit : > > This site is somewhat dull lately, with no claim at all discussed. With > Easter coming up you need a puzzle and no choice, it will be a claim. Try to > forget months of discussions here and use the laws to solve it. > > W/- AKQ8 > AQJ9 > J6 > 874 > J974 2 > K87643 52 > AK4 Q10987532 > --- 63 > 10653 > 10 > --- > AKQJ10952 > > 1) West opens 1H and south becomes declarer in 6C. After a diamond lead he > draws trumps and claims for 13 tricks. West doesn't accept the claim and > asks south to continue play, which he does. Small spade to the A and K. He > ruffs a diamond takes the finesse in hearts and fulfills his prediction. The > TD is called. > 2) West opens 1H and south becomes declarer in 7C. After a diamond lead he > draws trumps and claims 13 tricks with the statement that he starts playing > spades. The TD is called by west who shows his spades. > > What decisions do you make? > 1) firstly, play ceases after a claim; so what declarer played from trick 4 is voided; admonition to 4 players for failing to call director sooner. I can see a free line of play for declarer: even if 1H only promised 4 cards, West known to hold 4 spades and 0 club, would have opened 1D with only 4 cards in hearts; so after D ruffed and 2 rounds of trumps, AK of spades then, seeing west holds 4 spades, HA, heart ruffed, C8, heart ruffed, 4 remaining trumps. However, I think failing to spot this line of play would not be irrational, as it would not be irrational to play HA before 2 rounds of spades. 12 tricks to NS. 2) not so clear-cut, as declarer no more can be supposed to play inadvertently HA before spades. I think failing to notice spades are not good would be irrational; however I can see 2 losing lines which don't appear to me to be irrational. Declarer might choose the (very) weak line of trying to ruff out HK in east's hand, or he might choose the line described in (1), ruffing 2 hearts before squeezing West, but inadvertently failing to unblock clubs. 12 tricks to NS but i could be inclined to award a good note to a persuasive student who had assigned 13 tricks. Did you mention with which club declarer ruffed the diamond lead? Did you make any reference to the class of players involved? JP Rocafort > > ton -- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 21 20:20:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA00530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:43:35 +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 TAA00519 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:43:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.136] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12iZxq-000JzC-00; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 10:43:07 +0100 Message-ID: <00b701bfab76$140621a0$885408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Grattan Endicott'" , "David Burn" Cc: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" , "Anne Jones" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5BD@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: Equity? Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 09:39:19 +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 > > I like to paraphrase this one: > > A played card ceases to be just a played card the moment Grattan Endicot > tries to name it a played card. > > ton > +=+ Ah yes, maybe so. But I cannot escape some minimal responsibility for the laws being what they are, even if the giant K dominated the scene for so long. The truth is that I am surprised that on a number of occasions I lost the battle yet won the war. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 21 21:20:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA00529 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:43:35 +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 TAA00518 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:43:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.136] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12iZxo-000JzC-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 10:43:05 +0100 Message-ID: <00b601bfab76$12c73900$885408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <20000420135453.14989.qmail@hotmail.com><67A7aSAfP5$4EwU6@probst.demon.co.uk> <0y0ppHEph6$4Ewk$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Equity? Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 09:30:42 +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 >Norman, if you know the dramatis personnae, that was not sarcasm but > >English humoUr, and it was *very* funny. cheers john > DWS: > That is not my opinion. > > David Burn has taken into his head to conduct an ongoing campaign to > denigrate me in the eyes of BLML and RGB. I cannot believe that anyone > finds it in the least funny: I certainly don't > +=+ I think we have to come to terms with the fact that not only do different people have different senses of humour, but on the other side different people also have different thicknesses of skin. Anyone who knows David Burn will know that his comment was just his sense of fun coming out, teasing heavily, and anyone who knows David Stevenson will know that he does react very sensitively when people pass remarks that he takes personally. Restraint on the one part and growth of an extra layer of skin on the other would lead to fewer cat and dog performances. From experience, taking the flak for poorly expressed law and for the decisions of appeals committees does pickle the skin - and DWS is going to need the treatment if his ambitions as a Director and Appeal Committee member are not to be hampered. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 21 21:22:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA00973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 21:22:44 +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 VAA00961 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 21:22:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-13-143.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.13.143]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA29085; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 13:22:21 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39002985.C0CB378F@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 12:12:21 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ed Reppert CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Fielded psych References: <01bfa625$197286c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <000901bfa788$a8fb5e20$705908c3@dodona> <38F9B3CE.7E709206@village.uunet.be> <200004172209.SAA24977@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <38FC405F.1B548E8C@village.uunet.be> <200004181459.KAA15402@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <38FDB4B9.DC5FB593@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk sorry Ed, this is getting off-topic. Ed Reppert wrote: > > > At 3:29 PM +0200 4/19/00, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >I find that far less severe than not correctly explaining > >some part of the system, which partner not only could have > >known, but really should have known. There, we are far > >closer to "deliberate concealment". > read again : closer. closER. Partner should have known, and didn't tell. Close to deliberate IMO. In a psyche : partner could have known, and didn't tell. Absolutely not deliberate, and yet, some people are willing to rule "concealed partnership understanding", and give PP for that. While all that was wrong was a failure to explain completely. [snip] Please read the entire thread before jumping in on something. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 21 21:22:43 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA00972 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 21:22:43 +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 VAA00962 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 21:22:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-13-143.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.13.143]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA29099 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 13:22:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39003053.19B43461@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 12:41:23 +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: easter claim References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5BE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I don't want to stay out of this one, of course. I have not yet read any of the replies. I was not involved with the TD exam in Belgium and this is the first time I see the two problems. "Kooijman, A." wrote: > > > W/- AKQ8 > AQJ9 > J6 > 874 > J974 2 > K87643 52 > AK4 Q10987532 > --- 63 > 10653 > 10 > --- > AKQJ10952 > > 1) West opens 1H and south becomes declarer in 6C. After a diamond lead he > draws trumps and claims for 13 tricks. West doesn't accept the claim and > asks south to continue play, which he does. Small spade to the A and K. He > ruffs a diamond takes the finesse in hearts and fulfills his prediction. The > TD is called. The play is voided. There was no claim statement to speak of, so we do not know which 13 tricks South intends to make. There are two possible lines which lead to 13 tricks. If declarer finesses in hearts, he scores 13 tricks. If declarer plays for the spades to drop, he will notice they do not after the second round. At that time the spades are : Q8 J9 106 and declarer cannot fail to lose a spade trick. In at least one line, he has already cashed the Ace of Hearts, and in the other, it would be foolish for him to finesse in hearts. 12 tricks. > W/- AKQ8 > AQJ9 > J6 > 874 > J974 2 > K87643 52 > AK4 Q10987532 > --- 63 > 10653 > 10 > --- > AKQJ10952 > 2) West opens 1H and south becomes declarer in 7C. After a diamond lead he > draws trumps and claims 13 tricks with the statement thay he starts playing > spades. The TD is called by west who shows his spades. > What is the problem here for declarer - why did he claim ? It cannot be that declarer believes he can always make 4 spade tricks, even if they are 4-1. So we assume his statement is something like : I start on spades. If they are 3-2, I have 13 tricks (correct). I have not said what I would do if they are not. I rule that playing on spades means cashing Ace-King, and noting that the two was singleton. I assume the level of play is good enough for declarer to realise that he cannot make four tricks in spades now. Since he is in a grand after all, there is now only one line which allows the contract to make : finesse the King of hearts. I rule that any other line than ruffing a diamond and playing hearts to the queen is irrational. 13 tricks. > What decisions do you make? > > This problem was one (2) in an examination In the Netherlands and Belgium > last week. We decided our own answers of course. But a huge majority in this > group with another view (no new members allowed to react!) might influence > that. We are as flexible as possible to let them pass this examen, as you > understand. > > ton -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 21 21:26:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA00554 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:45:42 +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 TAA00548 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:45:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uniduesseldorf.de (actually Isis104.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de) by neptun with SMTP (local, PP); Fri, 21 Apr 2000 11:44:37 +0200 From: Richard Bley To: "Kooijman, A." , bridge-laws Subject: RE: easter claim Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 11:44:34 +0200 Message-ID: <000301bfab76$3324bec0$688a6386@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: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5BE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> 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 Hi Ton, > This site is somewhat dull lately, with no claim at all > discussed. With > Easter coming up you need a puzzle and no choice, it will > be a claim. Try to > forget months of discussions here and use the laws to solve it. > Ok, forgotten.... > W/- AKQ8 > AQJ9 > J6 > 874 > J974 2 > K87643 52 > AK4 Q10987532 > --- 63 > 10653 > 10 > --- > AKQJ10952 > > 1) West opens 1H and south becomes declarer in 6C. After a > diamond lead he > draws trumps and claims for 13 tricks. West doesn't accept > the claim and > asks south to continue play, which he does. Small spade to > the A and K. He > ruffs a diamond takes the finesse in hearts and fulfills > his prediction. The > TD is called. Ok. Play is voided of course. Give them a warning for playing on if u like. 12 tricks. There is one argument, which leads me to 12 tricks very directly: Look at the hands and think, that East might have a singleton spade NINE. Then there is a finesse possible. I´m not convinced, that a player who claims (with 4 spade tricks in mind obviously) will solve the situation, it´s not irrational to try to cash the spade 8 after playing 3 rounds of spades. (careless yes, but not irrational) > 2) West opens 1H and south becomes declarer in 7C. After a > diamond lead he > draws trumps and claims 13 tricks with the statement thay > he starts playing > spades. The TD is called by west who shows his spades. > same argument here. 12 tricks. > What decisions do you make? > > This problem was one (2) in an examination In the > Netherlands and Belgium > last week. We decided our own answers of course. But a huge > majority in this > group with another view (no new members allowed to react!) > might influence > that. We are as flexible as possible to let them pass this > examen, as you > understand. > > > ton > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 21 22:19:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA00538 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:43:44 +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 TAA00531 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:43:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.136] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12iZxv-000JzC-00; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 10:43:12 +0100 Message-ID: <00b901bfab76$17336cc0$885408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" Cc: References: <200004191402.PAA03318@tempest.npl.co.uk><3.0.1.32.20000419231830.012f990c@pop.mindspring.com><002e01bfaac6$250b3040$fa5893c3@pacific> Subject: Re: Fielded psych Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 10:41:43 +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: Thursday, April 20, 2000 4:52 PM > That is all very well, but is it in agreement with the Laws of Bridge? > > It is my personal view that the EBU has the balance nearly right, but > is just a little too much against the use of general bridge knowledge. > +=+ I was drafting something and it disappeared off the face of the earth. If it landed somewhere I may be repeating myself, but here goes, let us deploy our *genius :-)) Does the 'genius' come out of a lamp when you rub it? The distinction needs to be made between defining the law and the use of the law. I do not think David and I would have the slightest difficulty in agreeing what the law says and what it means. That subject comes under the heading of 'The meaning of the Law'. After the law has been defined there are matters to do with the application of the defined law to cases; this is a separate matter and is one for the bodies which supervise the appeals scene. At WBF level the Laws Committee is not responsible for the latter area, it belongs to the Appeals Committee, but in places we will find that one committee wears both hats. So we come to the point of 'agreement with the laws'. What we are talking about currently is the nature of the evidence needed to prove or disprove a breach of the law. The law is silent on the question of evidence - properly silent since this is a matter for the judges not for the lawgivers - so it is for Directors and appeals committees to determine whether the evidence is strong enough. Sponsoring Organisations may give guidance, may regulate, as to the standards of evidence required, and the extract quoted was an example of such guidance by one entity. I have no doubt that other bodies will have their own views, but we must understand that we are not talking about conflict with the law - we are talking about the acceptance of what the law is and judgemental application of it to what occurs. As an incidental matter, let me note that the WBF Code of Practice does not attempt to define the law. It takes the defined law and recommends a manner for its application. It is not a Laws Committee document but one produced in connection with appeals committee matters. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 22 02:07:21 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA02332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 02:07:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from square.inter.net.il (square.inter.net.il [192.116.202.83]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA02327 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 02:07:10 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 9227 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2000 16:06:32 -0000 Received: from ramat-gan-16-150.inter.net.il (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.16.150) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 21 Apr 2000 16:06:32 -0000 Message-ID: <39006F24.C16EAAAE@inter.net.il> Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 18:09:24 +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: Herman De Wael CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: easter claim References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5BE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <39003053.19B43461@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well ....here Devil's advocate answering (maybe The Devil himself !): FIRST : The play ceases ..IMHO it must be the most important answer for the poor people trying to overcome this examination -> the ones who didn't answered it should restart the basic TDs' course..... SECOND: I can find a lot of loosing lines for both cases.... Chance A: The very excited declarer tries to be in dummy : play the 2 of trump to the 4 in dummy , loosing to the BOLD 6 !!!!! Chance B : (which is not so funny - even a good player check for the distribution of the "cold suits..") : the excited declarer plays the A & K spade, before pulling trumps........ And now , the most venerable collistiers - you can find some other 8-9 possibilities to loose 1 or more tricks.... Chr chr chr chr Dany P.S. Dear Ton - if this would happen at a high level tournament , I mean high level players , I believe that none should summon me , and if did I'd let the result stand and warn the declarer (with a thick rope in my left hand and TFLB in the other ) - "last insufficient claim before gallows..." Herman De Wael wrote: > > I don't want to stay out of this one, of course. > > I have not yet read any of the replies. > > I was not involved with the TD exam in Belgium and this is > the first time I see the two problems. > > "Kooijman, A." wrote: > > > > > > W/- AKQ8 > > AQJ9 > > J6 > > 874 > > J974 2 > > K87643 52 > > AK4 Q10987532 > > --- 63 > > 10653 > > 10 > > --- > > AKQJ10952 > > > > 1) West opens 1H and south becomes declarer in 6C. After a diamond lead he > > draws trumps and claims for 13 tricks. West doesn't accept the claim and > > asks south to continue play, which he does. Small spade to the A and K. He > > ruffs a diamond takes the finesse in hearts and fulfills his prediction. The > > TD is called. > > The play is voided. > There was no claim statement to speak of, so we do not know > which 13 tricks South intends to make. > There are two possible lines which lead to 13 tricks. > If declarer finesses in hearts, he scores 13 tricks. > If declarer plays for the spades to drop, he will notice > they do not after the second round. At that time the spades > are : > > Q8 > J9 > 106 > > and declarer cannot fail to lose a spade trick. > In at least one line, he has already cashed the Ace of > Hearts, and in the other, it would be foolish for him to > finesse in hearts. > > 12 tricks. > > > W/- AKQ8 > > AQJ9 > > J6 > > 874 > > J974 2 > > K87643 52 > > AK4 Q10987532 > > --- 63 > > 10653 > > 10 > > --- > > AKQJ10952 > > > 2) West opens 1H and south becomes declarer in 7C. After a diamond lead he > > draws trumps and claims 13 tricks with the statement thay he starts playing > > spades. The TD is called by west who shows his spades. > > > > What is the problem here for declarer - why did he claim ? > It cannot be that declarer believes he can always make 4 > spade tricks, even if they are 4-1. > > So we assume his statement is something like : > > I start on spades. If they are 3-2, I have 13 tricks > (correct). > I have not said what I would do if they are not. > > I rule that playing on spades means cashing Ace-King, and > noting that the two was singleton. > > I assume the level of play is good enough for declarer to > realise that he cannot make four tricks in spades now. > > Since he is in a grand after all, there is now only one line > which allows the contract to make : finesse the King of > hearts. > > I rule that any other line than ruffing a diamond and > playing hearts to the queen is irrational. > > 13 tricks. > > > What decisions do you make? > > > > This problem was one (2) in an examination In the Netherlands and Belgium > > last week. We decided our own answers of course. But a huge majority in this > > group with another view (no new members allowed to react!) might influence > > that. We are as flexible as possible to let them pass this examen, as you > > understand. > > > > ton > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 22 02:33:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA02423 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 02:33:53 +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 CAA02418 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 02:33:45 +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 12igN5-0001uZ-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 16:33:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 17:32:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Equity? References: <20000420135453.14989.qmail@hotmail.com> <67A7aSAfP5$4EwU6@probst.demon.co.uk> <0y0ppHEph6$4Ewk$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <0y0ppHEph6$4Ewk$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <0y0ppHEph6$4Ewk$@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>In article <20000420135453.14989.qmail@hotmail.com>, Norman Scorbie >> writes >> >>snip >> >>> But it must be remembered that >>>>this is an even-numbered year; in 2001, when David wins the Grand >>>>Masters' Pairs once again, his mastery of double-dummy seven-card >>>>endings will return in all its former glory. >>>> >>>>David Burn >>>>London, England >>>> >>>And how many times have you won the Grand Masters' Pairs? Don't bother to >>>answer, I don't really want to know, but it did seem that you were building >>>up a reasonable head of steam there only to shoot yourself in the foot with >>>a bit of unnecessary sarcasm aimed at David Stevenson. >>>Not that all sarcasm aimed at DWS is unnecessary - it's just that that bit >>>was. >>> >>Norman, if you know the dramatis personnae, that was not sarcasm but >>English humoUr, and it was *very* funny. cheers john > > That is not my opinion. > > David Burn has taken into his head to conduct an ongoing campaign to >denigrate me in the eyes of BLML and RGB. I cannot believe that anyone >finds it in the least funny: I certainly don't > > I am surprised at you John: I thought you were my friend. > I seem to have been hauled into a battle I'd rather not be involved in. I've broken bread with both of you many times. Some of the things which DALB espouses I entirely disagree with. He has some interesting ideas, which are not in accord with my perception (nor DWS's, since we are mostly in agreement here) of how the Law is given. IMO DALB does his case no good when he overdoes the sarcasm and IMO is occasionally downright rude to DWS with his comments. However remarks about DWS's membership of one of the most elite bottom- top clubs in the world made me fall about laughing and I did not see anything offensive in those remarks at all. So, that's where I stand. DALB is occasionally IMO gratuitously offensive to DWS, which is a pity. DWS perceives a vendetta against him personally by DALB, which IMO is an overstatement in that it is DALB's style to use his considerable powers of use of English to put his points as forcefully as possible, and in so doing exceeds what most of us consider reasonable. My friendship with both of you is as it always was, based on a respect for your considerable skills in playing and in interpreting the Law, and being good pals to get completely rat-arsed with. 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 Apr 22 02:40:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA02451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 02:40:07 +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 CAA02446 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 02:39:59 +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 MAA28390 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 12:39:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA18769 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 12:39:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 12:39:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200004211639.MAA18769@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: easter claim X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think the analysis below overlooked a bit of the problem statement. > I can find a lot of loosing lines for both cases.... > Chance A: The very excited declarer tries to be in dummy : > play the 2 of trump to the 4 in dummy , loosing to the BOLD 6 !!!!! > Chance B : (which is not so funny - even a good player check for the > distribution of the "cold suits..") : the excited declarer plays > the A & K spade, before pulling trumps........ The claim didn't happen until trumps had been drawn, so neither of the above is possible. I'd call both lines irrational even if trumps had not been drawn, although some obviously disagree. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 22 02:41:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA02466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 02:41:55 +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 CAA02461 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 02:41:47 +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 12igUs-000CXx-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 16:41:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 17:40:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: easter claim References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5BE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5BE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5BE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.n l>, Kooijman, A. writes >This site is somewhat dull lately, with no claim at all discussed. With >Easter coming up you need a puzzle and no choice, it will be a claim. Try to >forget months of discussions here and use the laws to solve it. > >W/- AKQ8 > AQJ9 > J6 > 874 >J974 2 >K87643 52 >AK4 Q10987532 >--- 63 > 10653 > 10 > --- > AKQJ10952 > >1) West opens 1H and south becomes declarer in 6C. After a diamond lead he >draws trumps and claims for 13 tricks. West doesn't accept the claim and >asks south to continue play, which he does. Small spade to the A and K. He >ruffs a diamond takes the finesse in hearts and fulfills his prediction. The >TD is called. 12 tricks, he might have cashed a top heart before playing spades. The play after the claim is not relevant. HdW might rule 13 here. >2) West opens 1H and south becomes declarer in 7C. After a diamond lead he >draws trumps and claims 13 tricks with the statement thay he starts playing >spades. The TD is called by west who shows his spades. Since the spades are to be played first, then the H finesse becomes mandatory. 13 tricks > >What decisions do you make? > >This problem was one (2) in an examination In the Netherlands and Belgium >last week. We decided our own answers of course. But a huge majority in this >group with another view (no new members allowed to react!) might influence >that. We are as flexible as possible to let them pass this examen, as you >understand. > > >ton -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 22 02:48:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA02507 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 02:48:36 +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 CAA02502 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 02:48:26 +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 MAA28663 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 12:48:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA18785 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 12:48:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 12:48:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200004211648.MAA18785@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Equity? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > However remarks about DWS's membership of one of the most elite bottom- > top clubs in the world made me fall about laughing and I did not see > anything offensive in those remarks at all. What was it Kaplan (?) wrote in a similar context? Something about "not having gotten into the contest by taking a wrong turn in the hotel lobby?" When one plays at the level both David's have achieved, the occasional (and inevitable!) poor finish is bound to provide some merriment to the onlookers. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 22 02:51:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA02529 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 02:51:47 +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 CAA02523 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 02:51:38 +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 MAA29393 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 12:51:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA18797 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 12:51:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 12:51:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200004211651.MAA18797@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: easter claim X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > >1) West opens 1H and south becomes declarer in 6C. After a diamond lead he > >draws trumps and claims for 13 tricks. West doesn't accept the claim and > >asks south to continue play, which he does. Small spade to the A and K. He > >ruffs a diamond takes the finesse in hearts and fulfills his prediction. The > >TD is called. > > 12 tricks, he might have cashed a top heart before playing spades. The > play after the claim is not relevant. HdW might rule 13 here. Analysis incomplete. It is still not easy to misplace the 13th trick. Are you suggesting declarer doesn't notice when East shows out? I am not stating my own opinion, just pointing out the insufficiency of this one. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 22 03:51:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA02715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 03:51:49 +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 DAA02709 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 03:51:38 +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 MAA28710 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 12:56:03 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000421125055.007a6650@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 12:50:55 -0500 To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: easter claim In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5BE@fdwag002s.fd.agro .nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:16 AM 4/21/2000 +0200, Kooijman, A. wrote: >This site is somewhat dull lately, with no claim at all discussed. With >Easter coming up you need a puzzle and no choice, it will be a claim. Try to >forget months of discussions here and use the laws to solve it. What discussions? :) >1) West opens 1H and south becomes declarer in 6C. After a diamond lead he >draws trumps and claims for 13 tricks. West doesn't accept the claim and >asks south to continue play, which he does. Small spade to the A and K. He >ruffs a diamond takes the finesse in hearts and fulfills his prediction. The >TD is called. Practical solutions for my local club: "If you didn't want to bother to call me when the claim was made, don't expect something from me now." I read L68d, and L11a {I am aware that this is not, strictly speaking, forfeiting the penalty for an irregularity, but I am sure they'll get the idea}. But I wouldn't give this practical answer on a TD test, so here's the other answer: Play ceases. Declarer's claim of '13 tricks' is totally insufficient as a claim statement, so it gives us no real guidance to the play, but it does at least suggest he isn't planning on cashing his 12 high tricks and quitting. My very limited card-playing skills can only conceive of a few ways to play this contract, all of which ultimately end up in some kind position that gives 13 tricks to anyone who can count. While I am aware that many posters to this list, including myself, have at one time or another posted hands that contained other than 13 cards, I do not think that 'people sometimes do X' proves 'X is not irrational'. I think failure to count is irrational. 13 tricks. If the K of hearts were on the other side, or if the spade suit was on the other side, or if declarer had claimed only 12 top tricks and than later changed his mind, I would rule differently. But on this layout I just can't find a way to lose a trick. >2) West opens 1H and south becomes declarer in 7C. After a diamond lead he >draws trumps and claims 13 tricks with the statement thay he starts playing >spades. The TD is called by west who shows his spades. > >What decisions do you make? Same call. Declarer has to make 13 tricks, and is able to count and know that cashing from the top doesn't do it. He can count and know that when E shows out on the second round the J won't drop. From that point, as the cards lie, I just can't find a losing line, except playing E for the K of hearts despite W having opened the bidding [showing almost all the outstanding points] and opened the bidding _in hearts_ [showing most of the outstanding hearts]. No, I can't stomach forcing that on declarer. As I said, I may have missed another line--maybe E/W can show it to me. :) >This problem was one (2) in an examination In the Netherlands and Belgium >last week. We decided our own answers of course. But a huge majority in this >group with another view (no new members allowed to react!) might influence >that. We are as flexible as possible to let them pass this examen, as you >understand. So there's my answer. 13 tricks on both claims. >ton -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 22 05:20:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA02651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 03:33:22 +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 DAA02646 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 03:33:14 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id SAA23483 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 18:32:35 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 18:32 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: easter claim To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5BE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Ton wrote: > This site is somewhat dull lately, with no claim at all discussed. With > Easter coming up you need a puzzle and no choice, it will be a claim. > Try to > forget months of discussions here and use the laws to solve it. At least the "Burn Decision" is easy - 5 tricks to the defence. > > W/- AKQ8 > AQJ9 > J6 > 874 > J974 2 > K87643 52 > AK4 Q10987532 > --- 63 > 10653 > 10 > --- > AKQJ10952 > I will try to identify possible hands where West does not hold the HK - otherwise no rational line exists to go down (IMO). J974 2 87643 K52 AKQ4 10987532 --- 63 would fit the bill. I also decide it likely that a faint tempo break over 1NT would have occurred with the actual East hand and possibly be misinterpreted by South to mean the revised one. > 1) West opens 1H and south becomes declarer in 6C. After a diamond lead > draws trumps and claims for 13 tricks. West doesn't accept the claim and > asks south to continue play, which he does. Small spade to the A and K. > He ruffs a diamond takes the finesse in hearts and fulfills his > prediction. The TD is called. Firstly PPs to both sides (maybe as warnings if I feel they didn't know any better) for playing on. Secondly the play although void, tells me that South is not the class of player to understand squeezes. Thus I feel there is no possibility of him finding a 100% line to cater to either hand. South might try HA ruffing finesse after SAK but my inclinations are that he is not good enough to consider this line so I award 13 tricks (I advise EW that I believe an appeal would have merit since my decision is close). If South believes I have unfairly criticised his talents I will adjust to 6C=. > 2) West opens 1H and south becomes declarer in 7C. After a diamond lead > draws trumps and claims 13 tricks with the statement thay he starts > playing spades. The TD is called by west who shows his spades. Now the indications are that South is a better player and understands, at least to an extent, the squeeze/ruffing finesse potential of the hand. I ask for the line he intends to take and if it is eg SAK,HA,HRuff High,Club to Dummy, HRuff then squeeze West I will award the contract. If he states a line where, at a late stage he could suddenly decide to play E for the HK then I award 7C-1 (unless local regs allow me to award eg 80% of 7C= + 20% of 7C-1). Interesting hand - both bad and good players get to make but intermediates go down. Anyone want to rule on case 2) where the hands are as in my example. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 22 05:32:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA03064 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 05:32:29 +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 FAA03059 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 05:32:21 +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 MAA22442; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 12:31:49 -0700 Message-Id: <200004211931.MAA22442@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: easter claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 21 Apr 2000 12:41:23 PDT." <39003053.19B43461@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 12:31:50 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman de Wael wrote: > > W/- AKQ8 > > AQJ9 > > J6 > > 874 > > J974 2 > > K87643 52 > > AK4 Q10987532 > > --- 63 > > 10653 > > 10 > > --- > > AKQJ10952 > > > 2) West opens 1H and south becomes declarer in 7C. After a diamond lead he > > draws trumps and claims 13 tricks with the statement thay he starts playing > > spades. The TD is called by west who shows his spades. > > > > What is the problem here for declarer - why did he claim ? > It cannot be that declarer believes he can always make 4 > spade tricks, even if they are 4-1. > > So we assume his statement is something like : > > I start on spades. If they are 3-2, I have 13 tricks > (correct). > I have not said what I would do if they are not. > > I rule that playing on spades means cashing Ace-King, and > noting that the two was singleton. > > I assume the level of play is good enough for declarer to > realise that he cannot make four tricks in spades now. > > Since he is in a grand after all, there is now only one line > which allows the contract to make : finesse the King of > hearts. > > I rule that any other line than ruffing a diamond and > playing hearts to the queen is irrational. After ruffing the opening lead, drawing trumps, and playing two rounds of spades to discover the break, why would it be irrational to cash the ace of hearts and play five more rounds of trumps, playing West for something like J974 876543 AKQ void? Or, for that matter, simply taking a ruffing finesse against East? I believe these plays fit in the category of (very) inferior, but I don't see how they can be called irrational. I'd rule 12 tricks on both problems. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 22 06:27:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA03190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 06:27:11 +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 GAA03185 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 06:27:03 +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, 21 Apr 2000 16:23:39 -0400 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, 21 Apr 2000 16:15:23 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <39002985.C0CB378F@village.uunet.be> References: <01bfa625$197286c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <000901bfa788$a8fb5e20$705908c3@dodona> <38F9B3CE.7E709206@village.uunet.be> <200004172209.SAA24977@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <38FC405F.1B548E8C@village.uunet.be> <200004181459.KAA15402@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <38FDB4B9.DC5FB593@village.uunet.be> <39002985.C0CB378F@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 16:18:00 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Fielded psych Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Please read the entire thread before jumping in on >something. I did. I'll say no more. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBOQC5jb2UW3au93vOEQJpxQCeLIX1Il9hVy6zqfLZ/O3vkKeyPB8AoNSw 20c9HYHlQKMkblB15L+dzava =AZ+F -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 22 13:34:26 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA04290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 13:34:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from neodymium.btinternet.com (neodymium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.83]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA04285 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 13:34:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.13.37] (helo=davidburn) by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12iqfY-0007Cr-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 04:33:21 +0100 Message-ID: <000701bfac0b$b143ede0$250d073e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5BE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: easter claim Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 04:34:13 +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 Ton wrote: > This site is somewhat dull lately, with no claim at all discussed. With > Easter coming up you need a puzzle and no choice, it will be a claim. Try to > forget months of discussions here and use the laws to solve it. > > AKQ8 > AQJ9 > J6 > 874 > J974 2 > K87643 52 > AK4 Q10987532 > --- 63 > 10653 > 10 > --- > AKQJ10952 > > 1) West opens 1H and south becomes declarer in 6C. After a diamond lead he > draws trumps and claims for 13 tricks. West doesn't accept the claim and > asks south to continue play, which he does. Small spade to the A and K. He > ruffs a diamond takes the finesse in hearts and fulfills his prediction. The > TD is called. > 2) West opens 1H and south becomes declarer in 7C. After a diamond lead he > draws trumps and claims 13 tricks with the statement that he starts playing > spades. The TD is called by west who shows his spades. > What decisions do you make? > This problem was one (2) in an examination In the Netherlands and Belgium > last week. We decided our own answers of course. But a huge majority in this > group with another view (no new members allowed to react!) might influence > that. We are as flexible as possible to let them pass this examen, as you > understand. Not sure I'd make a distinction between the two cases, since what declarer actually did in the first case is voided by the Director (L68D), and one considers only what he might have done. But it seems to me that there is a problem here of a kind that has been only vaguely discussed in the past. The problem is this: Law 70E The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends on finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal line of play, or unless failure to adopt this line of play would be irrational. This means that, in effect, declarer is not allowed to play anyone for the king of hearts, unless to fail to do so would be irrational. In a simpler case, what of a declarer who claims the last three tricks with A103 facing KJ2 of a suit, not realising that the queen is still outstanding? Does he succeed if the queen is singleton? I think that he may be held to succeed half the time - that is, if the queen happens to be singleton in the hand due to play second to the next trick (else, it would be rational to lead low to - say - the jack and lose to the singleton queen offside). Does he succeed if the queen is doubleton? I don't think so - here, it would be rational to finesse the "wrong" way, whichever that might be. It can't be right that the Laws permit declarer to drop a doubleton queen by claiming to which he would have lost half the time in actual play. Assuming that the claim occurs at the point where declarer has ruffed the opening diamond lead with C2 and cashed CAK, he might "rationally" play two top spades and, on observing East show out, take the ruffing heart finesse (why should West not have opened the bidding with such as J9xx xxxxx AKQx none ?) That would be a foolish ("inferior") line of play given West's opening bid, to be sure, but it would not be an irrational one, and would certainly be one that he could be considered to take in view of L70E. Of course, a competent practitioner intending to take the ruffing heart finesse would not play like this; rather, he would play SAK, HA, heart ruffed high, C8, heart. When East showed out, he would ruff and finish the clubs, squeezing West in the majors. But do the Laws permit declarer to play as well as this? Even if they do, would the actual declarer play as well as this? The difficulty is that there is no class of player who would in practice fail to make this contract. Anyone below a certain level would take the simple heart finesse on the bidding; anyone at or above a certain level would see that if the simple heart finesse is right, it is not needed, so would follow the squeeze line since this gives the extra chance that West has opened light and East has HKx or HKxx. No one would in reality play East for HKxxx or longer, the only time that the ruffing finesse gains. The case appears strong for awarding 13 tricks to any declarer in both cases. For an average player, it would be irrational not to take the simple heart finesse; for a good player, it would be irrational not to follow the squeeze line (which would become proven when East showed out on the third heart). But I would have some sympathy with the view that in a claim situation, L70E might be interpreted to mean that declarer could rationally go down by taking a ruffing heart finesse. Of course, in a sensible world the ruling would be a trivial one - declarer goes down five, and serve him right. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 23 08:26:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA07061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 08:26:25 +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 IAA07056 for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 08:26:11 +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 SAA02568 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 18:26:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA03331 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 18:26:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 18:26:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200004222226.SAA03331@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: easter claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Kooijman, A." > W/- AKQ8 > AQJ9 > J6 > 874 > J974 2 > K87643 52 > AK4 Q10987532 > --- 63 > 10653 > 10 > --- > AKQJ10952 > 1) West opens 1H and south becomes declarer in 6C. After a diamond lead he > draws trumps and claims for 13 tricks. West doesn't accept the claim and The "play" is irrelevant, as others have noted. > 2) West opens 1H and south becomes declarer in 7C. After a diamond lead he > draws trumps and claims 13 tricks with the statement thay he starts playing > spades. The TD is called by west who shows his spades. These are flawed claims, not flawed claim statements, so I want to rule against declarer if possible. The difficulty is that the cards lie so favorably that it is hard to find a rational line of play that gives fewer than 13 tricks. At the YC, there is no problem. Declarer might have miscounted spades and play four rounds. Oops! Another line that declarer might take is the ruffing finesse in hearts. If you deem either of these lines rational, the answer is easy. Personally, I don't think so. Others have given constructions where East holds the H-K, but surely the likelihood of those is so far below that of West holding the king that it's irrational to play that way. Yes, sometimes the 5% chance wins and the 95% chance loses, but that doesn't make it rational to play for the 5%. In fact, the more I look, the harder these cases seem. I think they are great problems for a training course or casebook, but I'm not so sure they belong on an exam except perhaps at the highest TD level. My first thought was that the problems are identical, but on closer look, I find two differences. The first declarer is only in 6C, and it might be rational to play for only 12 tricks. Also, the second declarer specified playing spades first. These differences are significant, so let's consider each case in turn. If the first declarer believes all his cards are good, not noticing the spade problem, it would be rational to cash trumps first. West bares the H-K, dummy discards hearts (still thinking spades are good), and West wins trick 13 with a spade. This is not a great line of play, but I don't think I can call it irrational. It does guarantee 12 tricks, after all. So I rule 12 tricks in case 1. The second declarer avoids the above fate by playing spades first. Let him play two rounds, and (as above) rule he won't miscount when East shows out (else four rounds of spades, and we are done). Now what? In real life, declarers either take the heart finesse or set up a squeeze, and both lines work. Could declarer misplay, maybe cashing all of dummy's honors? I don't think so. And there's no way to guess the discards wrong because West has to discard before dummy. Given the judgments at the beginning, I don't see any way to avoid 13 tricks. It is far from clear to me how to write guidelines that would force all of us to reach the same conclusions in these cases. It seems to me that the best we will be able do is offer a long list of worked examples. I am beginning to think the YC approach may have merit, although quite frankly I don't like it one bit. I look forward to the official answers! From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 23 12:59:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA07579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 12:59:45 +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 MAA07573 for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 12:59:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.108] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12jCbv-000Ax5-00; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 03:59:03 +0100 Message-ID: <003501bfaccf$f7cd5520$6c5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: , "cathie ritchie" , "Cathrina Endicott" , "Christina MacEachen" , "John Wignall" , "lynn hunt" , "Patricia Davidson" , "Paul Endicott" Subject: Not talking bridge (much). Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 03:57:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 18:27:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-238.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.238]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA06125; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 10:27:24 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39015FC5.4BFE9B07@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 10:16:05 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Roger Pewick , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: easter claim References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5BE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <39003053.19B43461@village.uunet.be> <20000421144702.38704.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Roger, Hi all, Although Roger mailed me this in private, I do not believe he is afraid to show this line of reasoning to the rest of you. And he raises a quite interesting topic. Anyway, sorry for sharing this with the group, but .. Roger Pewick wrote: > > > > > I rule that any other line than ruffing a diamond and > > playing hearts to the queen is irrational. > > heart ace and ruffing finesse against east? > Yes, maybe. The problem stated that West had opened 1He. Which makes that line about 1/5th as likely to succeed. This is an interesting problem though. The other line may not be called irrational per se, but can it not be called irrational to choose a line which is so clearly less probable to succeed ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 23 18:27:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA08136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 18:27:45 +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 SAA08126 for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 18:27:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-238.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.238]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA06129 for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 10:27:26 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <390163B4.30AC784E@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 10:32:52 +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: easter claim References: <200004211931.MAA22442@mailhub.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > > > I rule that any other line than ruffing a diamond and > > playing hearts to the queen is irrational. > > After ruffing the opening lead, drawing trumps, and playing two rounds > of spades to discover the break, why would it be irrational to cash > the ace of hearts and play five more rounds of trumps, playing West > for something like J974 876543 AKQ void? Or, for that matter, simply > taking a ruffing finesse against East? I believe these plays fit in > the category of (very) inferior, but I don't see how they can be > called irrational. > There is a mix-up in the word inferior here. An inferior play, for claiming purposes, is one which a reasonable declarer might try, even if, after some reflection, he could come to the conclusion that there are other possibilities, which have a better probability of success. A line, in other words, which a player might find and which he would embark on because he does not look further. But an inferior play can also be one which, from the very face of it, is clearly less likely to succeed than another one. If that other line cannot be failed to be noticed, it is no longer a careless mistake to embark on the inferior line, but it becomes an irrational one. IMO. In the case at hand, declarer may well forget to find the ruffing finesse line (I overlooked it in my analysis), but he cannot fail to find the normal finesse. So if he does find the ruffing finesse line, he cannot at the same time fail to realise that it is a clearly inferior one, at 5-to-1 at least. Then I think we can rule it irrational for him to embark on it. Again, IMO. Please realise that the principle is more important than the actual application on this hand. Although I believe the hand illustrates the principle remarkably well. 13 tricks to the declarer in the grand slam. > I'd rule 12 tricks on both problems. > > -- Adam -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 23 19:13:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA08227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 19:13:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA08222 for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 19:12:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp181-16.worldonline.nl [195.241.181.16]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 61E6536B83; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 11:12:36 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001c01bfad03$a2097860$10b5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Kooijman, A." , Subject: Re: easter claim Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 11:09:22 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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 Some of the answers look like ours, so I am not disappointed in ours nor those. Steve Willner asks for the official answers. Here they come, but remember that 'official' is only related to the answers for the exam, not to an official judgement by a bridge authority. We don't accept those, do we? Both these cases happened in the Tel Aviv Festival February this year. In the 6C we decided it being possible (included in normal play) to cash the Ace of hearts first, going to dummy, after which we did not allow to develop the squeeze: 12 tricks (A squeeze is only automatic for those who know the word squeeze). Declarer didn't accept that, having made 13 tricks herself and wanted to appeal. In 7C we allowed the 13 tricks. When declarer starts with spades, as he stated, he will make 13 tricks in any normal play, given the 1H-opening, we said. Yes we used the last line of 70E: or unless failure to adopt this line of play would be irrational. At the end the first declarer did not appeal, but then got aware of the second decision and I am still not sure I suceeded in explaining the reasons. You might know that the WBF is trying to find examples to set a standard for rulings to be made. I think this is one we could use for claims, illustrating careless/inferior but not irrational play (we had severe problems in translating the word irrational in Dutch and came up with the translation for foolish/silly, being 'dwaas'). We could have used 'irrationeel', but what does it mean? It should include lines which in the real world nobody would follow, but the player forced by the TD because of a clumsy claim (I like alliteration). ton >This site is somewhat dull lately, with no claim at all discussed. With >Easter coming up you need a puzzle and no choice, it will be a claim. Try to >forget months of discussions here and use the laws to solve it. > >W/- AKQ8 > AQJ9 > J6 > 874 >J974 2 >K87643 52 >AK4 Q10987532 >--- 63 > 10653 > 10 > --- > AKQJ10952 > >1) West opens 1H and south becomes declarer in 6C. After a diamond lead he >draws trumps and claims for 13 tricks. West doesn't accept the claim and >asks south to continue play, which he does. Small spade to the A and K. He >ruffs a diamond takes the finesse in hearts and fulfills his prediction. The >TD is called. >2) West opens 1H and south becomes declarer in 7C. After a diamond lead he >draws trumps and claims 13 tricks with the statement thay he starts playing >spades. The TD is called by west who shows his spades. > >What decisions do you make? > >This problem was one (2) in an examination In the Netherlands and Belgium >last week. We decided our own answers of course. But a huge majority in this >group with another view (no new members allowed to react!) might influence >that. We are as flexible as possible to let them pass this examen, as you >understand. > > >ton > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 23 19:58:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA08321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 19:58:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA08316 for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 19:58:26 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 25170 invoked for bounce); 23 Apr 2000 09:58:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.117.252.174) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 23 Apr 2000 09:58:14 -0000 Message-ID: <001d01bfad0b$1b0633a0$aefc75c2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200004222226.SAA03331@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: easter claim Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 11:52:10 +0200 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 Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Kooijman, A." > > W/- AKQ8 > > AQJ9 > > J6 > > 874 > > J974 2 > > K87643 52 > > AK4 Q10987532 > > --- 63 > > 10653 > > 10 > > --- > > AKQJ10952 > > > 1) West opens 1H and south becomes declarer in 6C. After a diamond lead he > > draws trumps and claims for 13 tricks. West doesn't accept the claim and > > The "play" is irrelevant, as others have noted. > > > 2) West opens 1H and south becomes declarer in 7C. After a diamond lead he > > draws trumps and claims 13 tricks with the statement thay he starts playing > > spades. The TD is called by west who shows his spades. > > These are flawed claims, not > flawed claim statements, so I want to rule > against declarer if possible. The difficulty is that the cards lie so > favorably that it is hard to find a rational line of play that gives > fewer than 13 tricks. > > At the YC, there is no problem. > Declarer might have miscounted spades > and play four rounds. Oops! *lol* > Another line that declarer might take is > the ruffing finesse in hearts. I consider this line to be irrational. > If you deem either of these lines > rational, the answer is easy. Personally, I don't think so. Others > have given constructions where East holds the H-K, but surely the > likelihood of those is so far below > that of West holding the king that > it's irrational to play that way. Yes, sometimes the 5% chance wins > and the 95% chance loses, but that > doesn't make it rational to play for the 5%. [...] > My first thought was that the problems are identical, but on closer > look, I find two differences. The first declarer is only in 6C, and it > might be rational to play for only > 12 tricks. Also, the second declarer > specified playing spades first. These differences are significant, so > let's consider each case in turn. > > If the first declarer believes all his cards are good, not noticing the > spade problem, it would be rational > to cash trumps first. West bares > the H-K, dummy discards hearts (still thinking spades are good), and > West wins trick 13 with a spade. This is not a great line of play, but > I don't think I can call it irrational. It does guarantee 12 tricks, > after all. So I rule 12 tricks in case 1. I agree. > The second declarer avoids the above > fate by playing spades first. Let > him play two rounds, and (as above) > rule he won't miscount when East > shows out (else four rounds of spades, > and we are done). Now what? In > real life, declarers either take the heart finesse or set up a squeeze, > and both lines work. Could declarer > misplay, maybe cashing all of dummy's honors? Declarer makes 13 tricks when he draws trumps, then cashed all three S honours from dummy, and then ruffs a D back to hand. I rule 13 tricks for the second declarer. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 23 22:22:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA08590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 22:22:27 +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 WAA08585 for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 22:22:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.231] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12jLOs-000L5t-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 13:22:10 +0100 Message-ID: <002801bfad1e$a2f73f80$e75408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <001c01bfad03$a2097860$10b5f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: easter claim Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 13:10:32 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Kooijman, A. ; Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2000 10:09 AM Subject: Re: easter claim > Some of the answers look like ours, so I am not disappointed in ours nor > those. Steve Willner asks for the official answers. Here they come, but > remember that 'official' is only related to the answers for the exam, not to > an official judgement by a bridge authority. We don't accept those, do we? > Both these cases happened in the Tel Aviv Festival February this year. In > the 6C we decided it being possible (included in normal play) to cash the > Ace of hearts first, going to dummy, after which we did not allow to develop > the squeeze: 12 tricks (A squeeze is only automatic for those who know the > word squeeze). Declarer didn't accept that, having made 13 tricks herself > and wanted to appeal. In 7C we allowed the 13 tricks. When declarer starts > with spades, as he stated, he will make 13 tricks in any normal play, given > the 1H-opening, we said. Yes we used the last line of 70E: or unless failure > to adopt this line of play would be irrational. At the end the first > declarer did not appeal, but then got aware of the second decision and I am > still not sure I suceeded in explaining the reasons. > You might know that the WBF is trying to find examples to set a standard for > rulings to be made. I think this is one we could use for claims, > illustrating careless/inferior but not irrational play (we had severe > problems in translating the word irrational in Dutch and came up with the > translation for foolish/silly, being 'dwaas'). We could have used > 'irrationeel', but what does it mean? It should include lines which in the > real world nobody would follow, but the player forced by the TD because of > a clumsy claim (I like alliteration). > > ton > > +=+ I will add it to my collection. I was tempted to remark that ruffing a small Heart before taking the ruffing finesse is a better play than just the ruffing finesse, but then I asked myself how greatly inferior this is anyway, given the opening bid by West. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 24 04:21:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA09401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 03:24:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe52.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA09396 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 03:24:30 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 44870 invoked by uid 65534); 23 Apr 2000 17:23:51 -0000 Message-ID: <20000423172351.44869.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [38.31.97.227] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5BE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <39003053.19B43461@village.uunet.be> <20000421144702.38704.qmail@hotmail.com> <39015FC5.4BFE9B07@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: easter claim Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 12:24:38 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: Roger Pewick ; Bridge Laws Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2000 3:16 AM Subject: Re: easter claim > Hi Roger, > Hi all, > > Although Roger mailed me this in private, I do not believe > he is afraid to show this line of reasoning to the rest of > you. > > And he raises a quite interesting topic. > > Anyway, sorry for sharing this with the group, but .. > > Roger Pewick wrote: > > > > > > > > I rule that any other line than ruffing a diamond and > > > playing hearts to the queen is irrational. > > > > heart ace and ruffing finesse against east? > > > > Yes, maybe. > > The problem stated that West had opened 1He. > Which makes that line about 1/5th as likely to succeed. > > This is an interesting problem though. > > The other line may not be called irrational per se, but can > it not be called irrational to choose a line which is so > clearly less probable to succeed ? > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html not a problem,. Herman My point was that given the obscene possibility such as playing 4 rounds of spades for the adjudicated line which it would be known to those who say and then stop before claiming 4 spade tricks, 'starting with spades' that 13 tricks would be impossible. Even when a 50% finesse is in plain sight a normal line would be any line with hope that the cards are a certain way, even when it is 1 chance in 50, particularly if the alternative is 0%. the finesse depends on which player has the HK and there are other legitimate plays for finding the HK elsewhere. and 70E says that other legitimate plays are to be looked at, especially if they are losing plays. Just because it is normal to see the finesse to the Q five times or 100 times more quickly than the ruffing finesse, does not make the ruffing finesse irrational. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 24 06:36:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA09843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 06:36:19 +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 GAA09838 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 06:36:11 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 8342 invoked by uid 0); 23 Apr 2000 20:35:33 -0000 Message-ID: <20000423203533.8341.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 152.203.110.161 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 13:35:33 PDT X-Originating-IP: [152.203.110.161] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: easter claim Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 13:35:33 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Roger Pewick" > >Just because it is normal to see the finesse to the Q five times or 100 >times more quickly than the ruffing finesse, does not make the ruffing >finesse irrational. It would be exceptionally nice to have an objective definition. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 24 08:43:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA10116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 08:43:49 +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 IAA10111 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 08:43:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.17] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12jV6A-000EDr-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 23:43:31 +0100 Message-ID: <001601bfad75$70711020$115608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <20000423203533.8341.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: easter claim Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 23:42:25 +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: Sunday, April 23, 2000 9:35 PM Subject: Re: easter claim > >From: "Roger Pewick" > > > >Just because it is normal to see the finesse to the Q five times or 100 > >times more quickly than the ruffing finesse, does not make the ruffing > >finesse irrational. > > It would be exceptionally nice to have an objective definition. > > -Todd > +=+ 'An objective definition' rolls nicely on the tongue! Let us consider the situation: 1. No definition of 'irrational' appears in the law book. Therefore it must be given its ordinary dictionary meaning. 2. The Oxford English Dictionary says: "Contrary to or not in accordance with reason; unreasonable, utterly illogical, absurd." 3. My view of the footnote is that the comma after 'involved' places a lacuna between 'the class of player involved' and 'irrational'. Therefore it may well be that the quality of irrationality to be determined is an absolute one, and not a matter of irrationality to be judged by the class of player. 4. So the question to be put, perhaps, is whether a line of play under consideration has no reasonable basis, is utterly illogical, absurd, when viewed in isolation from any thought of the player involved. As though it were observed on a screen with no player's identity attached to it and seen to be something no rational mind could entertain. 5. In the footnote no limitation is placed upon the terms 'careless' or 'inferior'. If a play is not irrational it may be grossly, but grossly, inferior for the class of player, and yet still 'normal' as defined. 6. I think it is then left to (a) the Director, and (b) the appeals committee, to make the judgement. In this thread a number of personalities have substituted for the Director in making the judgement. One may wonder how successful they have been in detaching themselves from the influences of preconception. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 24 14:36:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA10814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 14:36:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f234.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.234]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA10809 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 14:36:00 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 95511 invoked by uid 0); 24 Apr 2000 04:35:22 -0000 Message-ID: <20000424043522.95510.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 152.171.186.94 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 21:35:22 PDT X-Originating-IP: [152.171.186.94] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: easter claim Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 21:35:22 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Grattan Endicott" >----- Original Message ----- > +=+ 'An objective definition' rolls nicely on the tongue! > Let us consider the situation: > >1. No definition of 'irrational' appears in the law book. > Therefore it must be given its ordinary dictionary meaning. > >2. The Oxford English Dictionary says: > "Contrary to or not in accordance with reason; unreasonable, >utterly illogical, absurd." > >3. My view of the footnote is that the comma after 'involved' >places a lacuna between 'the class of player involved' and >'irrational'. Therefore it may well be that the quality >of irrationality to be determined is an absolute one, and not >a matter of irrationality to be judged by the class of player. This is not the case in practice. I haven't decided in my own mind whether or not it should be, though my inclination is that current practice, while very often incorrectly delivered, is at least reasonably well-guided. I would prefer an approach that doesn't take the player into accont at all, but I can appreciate the argument why this can be impractical. >4. So the question to be put, perhaps, is whether a line of >play under consideration has no reasonable basis, is >utterly illogical, absurd, when viewed in isolation from any >thought of the player involved. As though it were observed >on a screen with no player's identity attached to it and >seen to be something no rational mind could entertain. > >5. In the footnote no limitation is placed upon the terms >'careless' or 'inferior'. If a play is not irrational it may be >grossly, but grossly, inferior for the class of player, and >yet still 'normal' as defined. Yes, for purposes of delivering a ruling you only need to decide whether the play was normal or irrational. Careless and inferior are mentioned so as to be grouped with normal rather than irrational. But since careless and inferior are mentioned in light of the class of player, it follows that borderline plays (or even not so borderline) may be relegated to being irrational for some players and normal for others. And it does happen that way. >6. I think it is then left to (a) the Director, and (b) the >appeals committee, to make the judgement. In this >thread a number of personalities have substituted for >the Director in making the judgement. One may >wonder how successful they have been in detaching >themselves from the influences of preconception. Which is why an objective definition would be nice. It would serve to minimize the personal perception factor. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 24 17:48:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA11121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 17:48:53 +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 RAA11116 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 17:48:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.138] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12jdbe-000MWi-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 08:48:35 +0100 Message-ID: <000d01bfadc1$95a6e760$8a5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <20000424043522.95510.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: easter claim Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 08:47:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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, April 24, 2000 5:35 AM Subject: Re: easter claim ------------- \x/ -------------- > Yes, for purposes of delivering a ruling you only need to decide > whether the play was normal or irrational. Careless and inferior are > mentioned so as to be grouped with normal rather than irrational. > But since careless and inferior are mentioned in light of the class of > player, it follows that borderline plays (or even not so borderline) may be > relegated to being irrational for some players and normal for others. And > it does happen that way. > +=+ You will have noticed perhaps that in previous comments, and at times in appeals committees I have gone along with the practice, which is as you say to allow that for the world's front line players and a stratum that can play in their company certain things are unthinkable, hence irrational. However, I am not so certain this is truly what the law says - or if it does I think that comma has no place in it. In my attitude to language I am reputed legalistic, but my record in application of the laws is one I believe largely of pragmatism but not disregard. I just think it is easy enough to say what you mean if you know what you mean, and the indirect or inferential language of a Kaplan is a style I would not choose for stating the truth of the law. +=+ > >6. I think it is then left to (a) the Director, and (b) the > >appeals committee, to make the judgement. In this > >thread a number of personalities have substituted for > >the Director in making the judgement. One may > >wonder how successful they have been in detaching > >themselves from the influences of preconception. > > Which is why an objective definition would be nice. It would serve to > minimize the personal perception factor. > +=+ Well, I don't know. Irrationality is a subjective concept, a question of judgement even for the psychiatrist - a matter of comparison with what is normal behaviour. 'Normal'? - well, you know what I mean, things us sane people would do. That makes many a genius irrational. I wonder if 'unthinkable' would be a better word? "... careless or inferior but not unthinkable for the class of player ..." [This would enable ACs to be even more insulting without offence :-))) ] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 24 21:22:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA11504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 21:22:17 +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 VAA11495 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 21:22:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-12-172.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.12.172]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA05447 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 13:21:58 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3903FCAE.388C2251@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 09:50:06 +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: easter claim References: <20000423203533.8341.qmail@hotmail.com> <001601bfad75$70711020$115608c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > 3. My view of the footnote is that the comma after 'involved' > places a lacuna between 'the class of player involved' and > 'irrational'. Therefore it may well be that the quality > of irrationality to be determined is an absolute one, and not > a matter of irrationality to be judged by the class of player. > IMO it does not. Remember what the footnote tries to do : define "normal". A line of play is either "normal" or "not normal". Therefor there can be no gap between "careless or inferior for the class of player involved" and "irrational". If the border for the one is flexible, then so must be the other. To judge otherwise would allow for certain lines to be at the same time "irrational" AND "careless for this player" - that's for a very bad player; or neither - for a very good one. Certainly that cannot be the meaning of the footnote. I am not enough of an English semantic Scholar to be able to decide whether it is the comma that is in error, or Grattan's analysis of it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 24 21:22:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA11505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 21:22:18 +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 VAA11494 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 21:22:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-12-172.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.12.172]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA05441 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 13:21:56 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3903FAAD.A766EE5A@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 09:41:33 +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: easter claim References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5BE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <39003053.19B43461@village.uunet.be> <20000421144702.38704.qmail@hotmail.com> <39015FC5.4BFE9B07@village.uunet.be> <20000423172351.44869.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: > > > not a problem,. Herman > > My point was that given the obscene possibility such as playing 4 rounds of > spades for the adjudicated line which it would be known to those who say and > then stop before claiming 4 spade tricks, 'starting with spades' that 13 > tricks would be impossible. Even when a 50% finesse is in plain sight a > normal line would be any line with hope that the cards are a certain way, > even when it is 1 chance in 50, particularly if the alternative is 0%. the > finesse depends on which player has the HK and there are other legitimate > plays for finding the HK elsewhere. and 70E says that other legitimate > plays are to be looked at, especially if they are losing plays. > > Just because it is normal to see the finesse to the Q five times or 100 > times more quickly than the ruffing finesse, does not make the ruffing > finesse irrational. Yes it does. Or rather, the line is not irrational, but the choosing of the line is irrational. The player who does find the ruffing finesse line (and not all players would) cannot fail to also find the normal finesse, and cannot fail to realise that this line is far superior. (all this subject to discussion perhaps, but if we agree on it, the conclusion is :) Therefor, it would be irrational for the player to embark on that line. All of this is catered for in L70E : "... shall not accept ... unstated line ... one opponent rather than the other ..., unless ... failure to adopt this line of play would be irrational." So IMO, > Just because it is normal to see the finesse to the Q five times or 100 > times more quickly than the ruffing finesse, does not make the ruffing > finesse irrational. yes it does. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 24 22:58:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA11782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 22:58:15 +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 WAA11777 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 22:58:08 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id p.bf.284a6ef (4386); Mon, 24 Apr 2000 08:57:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 08:57:23 EDT Subject: Vacation To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, Michael.Bean@t-online.de, aba@via-net-works.net.ar, Carolwbf1@aol.com, joanandron@worldnet.att.net, rgrenside@ozemail.com.au, Susi421@aol.com, Schoders@aol.com, MVSMITH@pacificcoast.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'll be off the internet from today until 10 May. Going for vacation to England. If emergency, I can be reached by E-Mail at anna@ecats.co.uk Have a happy!!!! Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 24 23:14:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA11864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 23:14:47 +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 XAA11859 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 23:14:37 +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 JAA24733 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 09:14:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id JAA22884 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 09:14:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 09:14:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200004241314.JAA22884@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: easter claim X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ You will have noticed perhaps that in previous comments, > and at times in appeals committees I have gone along with > the practice, which is as you say to allow that for the world's > front line players and a stratum that can play in their company > certain things are unthinkable, hence irrational. However, I > am not so certain this is truly what the law says - or if it does > I think that comma has no place in it. I am pleased to see that we agree on the interpretation of the language. It isn't just the comma, IMHO, but also the order in which the adjectives and qualifying phrase are given. If "for the class of player" had been placed at the end of the sentence, it would have modified everything or at least could be read as doing so. As things stand, it seems very hard to read the phrase as qualifying 'irrational'. As things stand, we can say to _any_ player, "We know such a play would be grossly careless for a player of your skills, but it isn't irrational on its face, and some players might choose it. Therefore the laws force us to rule against you. Next time, please make a proper claim statement." > In my attitude to language > I am reputed legalistic, but my record in application of the laws > is one I believe largely of pragmatism but not disregard. Yes, actually saying something like the above to, for instance, Michael Rosenberg would not be easy! Legal, yes. Easy, no. > I just think it is easy enough to say what you mean if you > know what you mean, I'm glad you think it's easy! I'd have said 'possible' or 'usually possible'. Those of us who criticize should not underestimate the difficulty of the task of writing, even aside from the task of deciding what the Laws ought to be. > I wonder if 'unthinkable' would be a better > word? "... careless or inferior but not unthinkable > for the class of player ..." [This would enable > ACs to be even more insulting without offence > :-))) ] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ If the intention is to judge what the player involved probably would have done (a bad idea IMHO but certainly thinkable), then why not come out and say so? But if the intention is to reject only lines that are wrong for anybody (like playing the low cards before the high cards or discarding winners instead of ruffing the opponents' tricks), then irrational seems better to me. It is "thinkable" that a player could play the 2 from AKQ2, but that doesn't make it rational. (Yes, I know you can construct hands where it is rational, but I hope my point is clear.) I don't think this law is badly phrased, but the planned list of worked examples will be very valuable. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 25 01:26:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA12288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 01:26:40 +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 BAA12283 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 01:26:28 +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 KAA13112 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 10:30:55 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000424102543.007b5eb0@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 10:25:43 -0500 To: From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: easter claim In-Reply-To: <000d01bfadc1$95a6e760$8a5408c3@dodona> References: <20000424043522.95510.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:47 AM 4/24/2000 +0100, Grattan Endicott wrote: >From: Todd Zimnoch >> Yes, for purposes of delivering a ruling you only need to decide >> whether the play was normal or irrational. Careless and inferior are >> mentioned so as to be grouped with normal rather than irrational. >> But since careless and inferior are mentioned in light of the class >of >> player, it follows that borderline plays (or even not so borderline) may >be >> relegated to being irrational for some players and normal for others. And >> it does happen that way. >> >+=+ You will have noticed perhaps that in previous comments, >and at times in appeals committees I have gone along with >the practice, which is as you say to allow that for the world's >front line players and a stratum that can play in their company >certain things are unthinkable, hence irrational. However, I >am not so certain this is truly what the law says - or if it does >I think that comma has no place in it. In my attitude to language >I am reputed legalistic, but my record in application of the laws >is one I believe largely of pragmatism but not disregard. >I just think it is easy enough to say what you mean if you >know what you mean, and the indirect or inferential >language of a Kaplan is a style I would not choose for >stating the truth of the law. +=+ I agree that the comma suggests one thing, but I think the argument from Herman is very powerful in the opposite direction. If 'class of player' modifies only 'careless', then _it_ has no place in this law. What purpose does mentioning the class of player serve, if irrational actions are defined universally? As Herman has pointed out, this would mean that there are some actions that are both 'careless' (and therefore normal) _and_ irrational (and therefore not normal), and other plays which are not objectively irrational (and therefore normal) but which we may judge that this class of player would _never_ make, and therefore not normal, either. I think the passage makes much more sense if 'class' modifies both 'careless' and 'irrational'. >> Which is why an objective definition would be nice. It would serve >to >> minimize the personal perception factor. I don't think we'll ever come up with an objective definition that captures the idea the lawmakers intended--we will either end up with one that is objective but much stronger or much weaker than intended, or one that requires on-the-spot adjudication. I personally am not concerned about the latter, but I know many people on this list are. >:-))) ] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Respectfully, -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 25 02:30:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA12647 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 02:30:05 +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 CAA12639 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 02:29:54 +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 MAA04941 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 12:29:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA23142 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 12:29:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 12:29:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200004241629.MAA23142@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: easter claim X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Grant Sterling > I agree that the comma suggests one thing, but I think the > argument from Herman is very powerful in the opposite direction. If > 'class of player' modifies only 'careless', then _it_ has no place in > this law. What purpose does mentioning the class of player serve, if > irrational actions are defined universally? Let's try it again. One class of play is 'irrational'. This is to be judged universally, not dependent on the player involved. The other class of play is 'normal' (a poor word choice). This class includes plays that would be careless or inferior. This is also to be judged universally. For a poor player, such plays are indeed normal in the usual sense of the word. For a good player, such plays are below his usual standard, i.e. inferior or careless for the class of player involved. That is, even the best player _cannot_ argue "I am too good ever to make such a stupid play," if the play isn't irrational. The language _reinforces_ the concept that the skill of the player at the table doesn't matter. Grattan: if Grant is confused, I take back my comment that the words do not need any change. Perhaps "class of player" should be deleted, or perhaps "player involved" should be replaced by "good player." Maybe something along the lines of "Normal includes plays that are careless or inferior, even plays so bad a good player is unlikely to make them." Another thought would be to make the part after the comma a separate sentence: "Normal includes all plays except those that are irrational." From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 25 03:31:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA12862 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 03:31:49 +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 DAA12856 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 03:31:41 +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 KAA07144; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 10:31:12 -0700 Message-Id: <200004241731.KAA07144@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: easter claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 24 Apr 2000 10:25:43 PDT." <3.0.6.32.20000424102543.007b5eb0@eiu.edu> Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 10:31:10 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > I don't think we'll ever come up with an objective definition that > captures the idea the lawmakers intended--we will either end up with one > that is objective but much stronger or much weaker than intended, or one > that requires on-the-spot adjudication. > I personally am not concerned about the latter, but I know many > people on this list are. I'm not too concerned about directors and AC's using their judgment. But I am concerned about directors and AC's not knowing what they're supposed to adjudicate. From the discussion of this hand, it seems to be the case that we don't have a clear idea of what "irrational" is supposed to mean. My conception of the term "irrational" is that it was meant to cover plays such as compressing one's own tricks by unloading winners on other winners for no good reason, or ruffing one's own winners, or starting a suit by leading low from AKQJT2 (opposite 543), or following with the queen when they lead into your A-Q doubleton and third hand plays the king. Things like that, that one cannot fathom any possible reason for doing. But others seem to think that it covers any play that seems bad to them, even if the person making the play is playing for a specific lie of the cards. On the hand in question, someone could decide to play East for the king of hearts and take a ruffing finesse, perhaps forgetting about the 1H opening (perhaps the auction, which was not given, took eight more rounds to reach 7C, so that the 1H opening may have disappeared from declarer's consciousness), or perhaps somehow getting it into one's head that West was probably psyching or that West had the three top diamonds or something. Since the declarer who makes that play is playing for something, I wouldn't call it a play that has "no basis in reason", although the reasoning involved would be quite faulty. But others interpret the word "irrational" differently. It doesn't help that the word apparently can't be translated adequately into some languages; Herman said the word is translated as "silly" or "foolish" in Dutch, although the class of plays I would call "silly" seems to me to be vastly different from the class of plays I'd call "irrational" for the purposes of adjudicating a claim. (I make "silly" and "foolish" plays all the time, including two just last Wednesday.) I can accept different directors making different rulings in the same situation, for example a difference of opinion about what is "likely" or "probable" when ruling on a L12C2 case; but I can't really accept different directors not even being on the same page about what they're supposed to determine. But that seems to be the case here. I don't think that using the term "irrational" in the Laws, with no definition or clarification, is acceptable. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 25 04:31:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA12820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 03:17:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f132.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.132]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA12815 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 03:17:03 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 27121 invoked by uid 0); 24 Apr 2000 17:16:24 -0000 Message-ID: <20000424171624.27120.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.23 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 10:16:24 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.23] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: easter claim Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 10:16:24 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Herman De Wael >Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > > 3. My view of the footnote is that the comma after 'involved' > > places a lacuna between 'the class of player involved' and > > 'irrational'. Therefore it may well be that the quality > > of irrationality to be determined is an absolute one, and not > > a matter of irrationality to be judged by the class of player. > > > >IMO it does not. > >Remember what the footnote tries to do : define "normal". A >line of play is either "normal" or "not normal". Therefor >there can be no gap between "careless or inferior for the >class of player involved" and "irrational". >If the border for the one is flexible, then so must be the >other. This is not true. The line for irrational can be static while the definition of careless or inferior gets extended into normal. After all, there are normal plays that are not careless. The point is that careless or inferior lines are always considered normal. To borrow an example sent by a friend. Axxx AK5 AK54 54 KJxxx QJ QJT Axx 6 Spades, lead is the KC which you win with the ace, LHO holds QT9 of spades. Irrational - attacking clubs Normal for an average player (aka me) - either the hearts or the diamonds first for the club sluff, expecting to make on 3334 distribution from LHO Normal (not careless) for an expert - three rounds of diamonds first, expecting to make on 3244 or 3334 distribution from LHO Careless (still normal) for an expert - three rounds of hearts first. The question becomes, at what stage is the line so inferior that we cannot assign it to an expert and instead call it irrational? Some argue that it should never happen. The footnote as written can be interpreted that way. What I'd like to see people avoid is, "I would have gotten it and he's a better player than I, so...." >To judge otherwise would allow for certain lines to be at >the same time "irrational" AND "careless for this player" - >that's for a very bad player; or neither - for a very good >one. Certainly that cannot be the meaning of the footnote. > >I am not enough of an English semantic Scholar to be able to >decide whether it is the comma that is in error, or >Grattan's analysis of it. It is the comma. While I think that your interpretation is more likely the intended one, and definitely the one used, the grammar is otherwise. And the meaning as written does not contain a logical contradiction. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 25 05:20:48 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA13215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 05:20:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe28.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.85]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA13210 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 05:20:39 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 12592 invoked by uid 65534); 24 Apr 2000 19:20:01 -0000 Message-ID: <20000424192001.12591.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [38.31.108.153] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5BE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <39003053.19B43461@village.uunet.be> <20000421144702.38704.qmail@hotmail.com> <39015FC5.4BFE9B07@village.uunet.be> <20000423172351.44869.qmail@hotmail.com> <3903FAAD.A766EE5A@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: easter claim Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 14:20:47 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: Monday, April 24, 2000 2:41 AM Subject: Re: easter claim > Roger Pewick wrote: > > > > > > not a problem,. Herman > > > > My point was that given the obscene possibility such as playing 4 rounds of > > spades for the adjudicated line which it would be known to those who say and > > then stop before claiming 4 spade tricks, 'starting with spades' that 13 > > tricks would be impossible. Even when a 50% finesse is in plain sight a > > normal line would be any line with hope that the cards are a certain way, > > even when it is 1 chance in 50, particularly if the alternative is 0%. the > > finesse depends on which player has the HK and there are other legitimate > > plays for finding the HK elsewhere. and 70E says that other legitimate > > plays are to be looked at, especially if they are losing plays. > > > > Just because it is normal to see the finesse to the Q five times or 100 > > times more quickly than the ruffing finesse, does not make the ruffing > > finesse irrational. > > Yes it does. > > Or rather, the line is not irrational, but the choosing of > the line is irrational. > > The player who does find the ruffing finesse line (and not > all players would) cannot fail to also find the normal > finesse, and cannot fail to realise that this line is far > superior. (all this subject to discussion perhaps, but if we > agree on it, the conclusion is :) Therefor, it would be > irrational for the player to embark on that line. > > All of this is catered for in L70E : > > "... shall not accept ... unstated line ... one opponent > rather than the other ..., unless ... failure to adopt this > line of play would be irrational." > > So IMO, > > > Just because it is normal to see the finesse to the Q five times or 100 > > times more quickly than the ruffing finesse, does not make the ruffing > > finesse irrational. > > yes it does. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html [HC] "This is Howard Cossell and I'm in Israel for The Bridge ChampioonShips. We are going over to Table Number One where Bob Hamman- PerHaps-The-World's-Greatest-Player, has arrived at a contract of 7C, and see what is happening. Or, perhaps what is not happening." [HC] " Play is at a standstill, the opening lead was the diamond ace, ruffed in hand, trumps have been pulled with the ace and king. It is trick 4 and the action has ground to a halt. Let's look into Bob Hamman's mind to gain some insight as to what is holding things up" [mind of BH] " I've got 13 tricks if spades behave, but if they don't I have to decide whether to lead a heart to the queen, trump out the king in RHO's hand, or take a ruffing finesse. I can test spades so I need to be careful about burning too many entries for a squeeze. The problem is that some of these are mutually exclusive and I am not willing to take a position on what to do about hearts if spades don't break. S***, these Israelis will bid on anything. There is not enough information to claim. I'd better play this one trick at a time and maybe I will get some help. No claim yet." [HC] " Sorry everyone, our censors were not fast enough. And there you have it folks, Hamman is going to find out about his heart problem and we are not going to learn how he going to handle it until he does. This is Howard Cossell, Over to you Bubba." Personally, because of the layout, for an expert player this case is very close to one that it would be irrational to not ruff to discover the hearts, finding out about the guaranteed squeeze [there are enough entries after the second spade]. Perhaps the important question is whether it is 'unthinkable' for an expert to not work on the hearts? But in this instance is it not imperative to ascertain what class of player he is? So what class of player is he? We first want a player who will look before he leaps by checking distribution. What evidence do we have? Well, he has pulled trump. And he has claimed by stating he will start by playing spades, but in fact leapt before looking [I really must learn to improve my alliteration]. He has ruffed the opening lead low instead of high, giving him one, instead of two possible trump entries. He has acted fairly conscientious, he did not claim 4 spades, 8 clubs and a heart but did burn an entry that he did not have to. But these things were not what was critical to the hand. What was critical was the spade distribution and its possible effect on the remaining play, and here he did not perform. So, his class is of a player that does the trivial things but does not take a stand on the critical things. For a player with such a track record [does not explore the spades] I find it not irrational, but careless that he will fail to explore the hearts. One might also consider that if he had explored the spades I assert he would not have claimed at T6. And if he had tabled his cards at T6 for 13 tricks, what class of player would that be? Which begs the question, is this not what claimer had done at T4? Further, in claimer's resolve to 'begin with spades' he certainly has done less than a player at the time of a claim, who remarks that if spades don't break then he can get the thirteenth trick by finessing the Q if LHO holds the K or ruffing out the K if held by RHO, which resolves nothing. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 25 06:26:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA13482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 06:26:38 +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 GAA13475 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 06:26:28 +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 MAA26538 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 12:26:18 -0800 Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 12:26:09 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: easter claim In-Reply-To: <20000424171624.27120.qmail@hotmail.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Axxx > AK5 > AK54 > 54 > > KJxxx > QJ > QJT > Axx > > 6 Spades, lead is the KC which you win with the ace, LHO holds QT9 of > spades. Are you saying that declarer plays off the SAK at tricks 2-3? > Irrational - attacking clubs (If not, ducking the club at trick 2, betting the farm on picking up the spades without loss later, is inferior, giving up all chance at an overtick, but not irrational.) > Normal for an average player (aka me) - either the hearts or the diamonds > first for the club sluff, expecting to make on 3334 distribution from LHO > Normal (not careless) for an expert - three rounds of diamonds first, > expecting to make on 3244 or 3334 distribution from LHO > Careless (still normal) for an expert - three rounds of hearts first. If you know you have an unavoidable spade loser you need *two* club pitches. This means you need LHO to be 3343, or 3244/3253 if you play diamonds first, or 3334 if you play hearts first. This doesn't change the general idea that either one is normal, but that hearts first is careless. > The question becomes, at what stage is the line so inferior that we > cannot assign it to an expert and instead call it irrational? Some argue > that it should never happen. The footnote as written can be interpreted > that way. What I'd like to see people avoid is, "I would have gotten it and > he's a better player than I, so...." I rather like the idea that a line of play that succeeds against best defense for some possible lie of the opposing cards is never to be judged irrational. (This leaves open the question of what it means to "succeed," which can be fuzzy especially at matchpoints. For the moment, suppose "succeed" means "takes at least as many tricks as any other line of play does.") I am not altogether certain whether this delineates the full list of rational plays or not, but I can''t think offhand of a situation where it fails to do so. In Ton's 6C/7C case this would mean 12 tricks to both declarers there exist lines that acheive the maximum result against some other possible lie of the cards (e.g. singleton king offside being dropped) but lose a trick on the actual layout. In the case of playing AJ2 opposite Q43, this means that low to the jack is rational, low to the queen is rational, cashing the ace and then leading low to either honor on the next round is rational, leading the queen or leading the jack is inferior but rational (still achieves 2 tricks whenever 2 is that can be had), but leading the ace and then paying both the Q and J to the second trick is irrational. I don't think it should make any difference if declarer says he "needs three tricks" from the suit or not. There are only two ways (small to the jack, or cashing the ace) that can actually give him three tricks -- but there are plenty of layouts where there winning 3 tricks is completely impossible. Yes, I want to see declarer lose a trick to singleton king onside if he claims in this situation. (A damn stupid time to claim, I might add.) I realize this is a rather harsher view of what "irrational" means than is in common usage. I think it would have its advantages all the same. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 25 07:04:37 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA13716 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 07:04:37 +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 HAA13711 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 07:04:28 +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 QAA03192 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 16:09:01 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000424160348.007a6b30@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 16:03:48 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: easter claim In-Reply-To: <200004241731.KAA07144@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:31 AM 4/24/2000 PDT, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >Grant Sterling wrote: > >> I don't think we'll ever come up with an objective definition that >> captures the idea the lawmakers intended--we will either end up with one >> that is objective but much stronger or much weaker than intended, or one >> that requires on-the-spot adjudication. >> I personally am not concerned about the latter, but I know many >> people on this list are. > >I'm not too concerned about directors and AC's using their judgment. >But I am concerned about directors and AC's not knowing what they're >supposed to adjudicate. From the discussion of this hand, it seems to >be the case that we don't have a clear idea of what "irrational" is >supposed to mean. My conception of the term "irrational" is that it >was meant to cover plays such as compressing one's own tricks by >unloading winners on other winners for no good reason, or ruffing >one's own winners, or starting a suit by leading low from AKQJT2 >(opposite 543), or following with the queen when they lead into your >A-Q doubleton and third hand plays the king. Things like that, that >one cannot fathom any possible reason for doing. But others seem to {{{Just out of curiousity--why do you think it was 'meant to cover' plays like that? Surely it was not the opposing phrase 'careless or inferior for the class of player' that make you think so?}}} >think that it covers any play that seems bad to them, even if the >person making the play is playing for a specific lie of the cards. On Perhaps. I think it covers plays that are far less likely to succeed than another play that a player of this class will certainly see. [I.e., if a player of this class can see two lines to make the contract, one of which has about a 70% chance of success and the other works only if one opponent has psyched with specific cards, then I think it would be irrational for the player to choose the latter line.] OTOH, perhaps some would prefer the David Hume definition: "It is not contrary to reason for me to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.... It is as little contrary to reason to prefer even my own acknowledge lesser good to my greater...." On this definition, it would not be irrational to play all one's high cards on top of one another, or to underruff. I commend this definition to David Burn, should he wish to argue that his proposed claim law can be subsumed under the current wording of the laws. :) The advantage of my reading is that it makes the opposition of 'careless or inferior' and 'irrational' nearly perfect. Otherwise, there is apparently an enormous lacuna. Taking a 40% line over a 60% line might well be 'inferior'. Taking a 1% line over an 80% line must be something vastly stronger than 'inferior'. I might 'carelessly' fail to unblock an 8. If I fail to notice that a singleton ace might block the suit, that is something far more radical than 'careless'. Put it another way: 'Careless' and 'inferior' are extraordinarily weak terms. If you make 'irrational' extraordinarily strong, then the law says something like "Players on my basketball team must be tall. 'Tall' includes players over 7 feet, but not players under 5'." Well and good, but since the vast majority of people are in between, what does that tell us? The vast majority of bad plays fall between "merely careless or inferior" and "manifestly irrational even for Mrs. Guggenheim". So I think as long as weak words like careless or inferior are used to define 'normal', then we should have a correspondingly weak understanding of 'irrational'. If you think that TD's need more direction in applying this law, then diddling with the placement of the comma is not good enough, nor is a definition of 'irrational'. [Unless it is _my_ definition of irrational, which fills up most of the space. :)] If you wish to make 'irrational' a very strong concept that carries the load, then please also replace not only 'class of player' but 'careless or inferior' as well. {I am happy to make suggestions from my vast storehouse of words, if you'd like: "Normal includes plays that are moronic or plays that would be rejected as manifestly stupid even by the chronically inept, but not plays that are transparently irrational even to the average American voter." That ought to do it, at least for TD's familiar with the American voter or the chronically inept.} >the hand in question, someone could decide to play East for the king >of hearts and take a ruffing finesse, perhaps forgetting about the 1H >opening (perhaps the auction, which was not given, took eight more >rounds to reach 7C, so that the 1H opening may have disappeared from >declarer's consciousness), or perhaps somehow getting it into one's >head that West was probably psyching or that West had the three top >diamonds or something. Since the declarer who makes that play is >playing for something, I wouldn't call it a play that has "no basis in >reason", although the reasoning involved would be quite faulty. But But if he forgets that sort of thing or assumes someone's psyching, why not have him cash four rounds of spades because he assumes someone's revoked, or because he can't count to 13 and forgot to notice the J didn't fall? >others interpret the word "irrational" differently. It doesn't help >that the word apparently can't be translated adequately into some >languages; Herman said the word is translated as "silly" or "foolish" >in Dutch, although the class of plays I would call "silly" seems to me >to be vastly different from the class of plays I'd call "irrational" >for the purposes of adjudicating a claim. (I make "silly" and >"foolish" plays all the time, including two just last Wednesday.) And Herman and I think that it was irrational of you to make such silly plays, and we should not force such plays upon you if you make an incomplete ot faulty claim statement. >I can accept different directors making different rulings in the same >situation, for example a difference of opinion about what is "likely" >or "probable" when ruling on a L12C2 case; but I can't really accept >different directors not even being on the same page about what they're >supposed to determine. But that seems to be the case here. I don't >think that using the term "irrational" in the Laws, with no definition >or clarification, is acceptable. It doesn't bother me that much, but I can understand the desire for clarity. Unfortunately, it seems likely that if it is clarified it will be in a direction I don't like, so frankly I'd just as soon have it stay the way it is. :) > -- Adam Respectfully, Grant Sterling From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 25 09:15:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA14123 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 09:15:06 +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 JAA14118 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 09:14:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.151] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12js40-000Oyt-00; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 00:14:48 +0100 Message-ID: <002e01bfae42$fac43360$975408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Grant Sterling" References: <3.0.6.32.20000424160348.007a6b30@eiu.edu> Subject: Re: easter claim Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 00:14:52 +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, April 24, 2000 10:03 PM Subject: Re: easter claim ------------- \x/ ------------ > > It doesn't bother me that much, but I can understand the desire > for clarity. Unfortunately, it seems likely that if it is clarified it > will be in a direction I don't like, so frankly I'd just as soon have it > stay the way it is. :) > > Respectfully, > Grant Sterling > +=+ Oh, you must not rely upon the lawmakers to that extent!! They might do anything :-) But seriously, we may all be fascinated by the effect of a comma but what I'd like to hear is what do we think the intention of the law ought to be? What is in my mind is an adaptation of wording that is used in the Code of Practice: " For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71 "normal" refers to actions (?plays) that would be given serious consideration by players of like expertise, of whom it could reasonably be expected some might adopt them". But I must desist; Kojak and Bud are now flying and I must get a little sleep before I go to meet them. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 25 10:26:27 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA14411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 09:46:47 +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 JAA14405 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 09:46:36 +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 12jsYU-0007LH-0U for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 00:46:18 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 00:33:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: easter claim References: <20000424043522.95510.qmail@hotmail.com> <000d01bfadc1$95a6e760$8a5408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <000d01bfadc1$95a6e760$8a5408c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <000d01bfadc1$95a6e760$8a5408c3@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott===================================== >"To avoid suffocation keep away from children" > - Marks & Spencer, AD2000. >___________________________________ > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Todd Zimnoch >To: >Sent: Monday, April 24, 2000 5:35 AM >Subject: Re: easter claim >------------- \x/ -------------- > >> Yes, for purposes of delivering a ruling you only need to decide >> whether the play was normal or irrational. Careless and inferior are >> mentioned so as to be grouped with normal rather than irrational. >> But since careless and inferior are mentioned in light of the class >of >> player, it follows that borderline plays (or even not so borderline) may >be >> relegated to being irrational for some players and normal for others. And >> it does happen that way. >> >+=+ You will have noticed perhaps that in previous comments, >and at times in appeals committees I have gone along with >the practice, which is as you say to allow that for the world's >front line players and a stratum that can play in their company >certain things are unthinkable, hence irrational. However, I >am not so certain this is truly what the law says - or if it does >I think that comma has no place in it. In my attitude to language >I am reputed legalistic, but my record in application of the laws >is one I believe largely of pragmatism but not disregard. >I just think it is easy enough to say what you mean if you >know what you mean, and the indirect or inferential >language of a Kaplan is a style I would not choose for >stating the truth of the law. +=+ > >> >6. I think it is then left to (a) the Director, and (b) the >> >appeals committee, to make the judgement. In this >> >thread a number of personalities have substituted for >> >the Director in making the judgement. One may >> >wonder how successful they have been in detaching >> >themselves from the influences of preconception. >> >> Which is why an objective definition would be nice. It would serve >to >> minimize the personal perception factor. >> >+=+ Well, I don't know. Irrationality is a subjective >concept, a question of judgement even for the >psychiatrist - a matter of comparison with what is >normal behaviour. 'Normal'? - well, you know >what I mean, things us sane people would do. > That makes many a genius irrational. > I wonder if 'unthinkable' would be a better >word? "... careless or inferior but not unthinkable >for the class of player ..." [This would enable >ACs to be even more insulting without offence >:-))) ] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > How would you rule at Hamman's table if he faced AQ9xx facing KTxx without a claim statement, Grattan? I'm still ruling down 1. The claim itself is sufficient evidence of carelessness, not irrationality IMO. 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 Apr 25 11:53:50 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA14845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 11:53:50 +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 LAA14840 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 11:53:41 +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 ; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 21:50:07 -0400 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 ; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 21:41:48 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3903FCAE.388C2251@village.uunet.be> References: <20000423203533.8341.qmail@hotmail.com> <001601bfad75$70711020$115608c3@dodona> <3903FCAE.388C2251@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 20:48:19 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: easter claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 9:50 AM +0200 4/24/00, Herman De Wael wrote: >To judge otherwise would allow for certain lines to be at >the same time "irrational" AND "careless for this player" - >that's for a very bad player; or neither - for a very good >one. Certainly that cannot be the meaning of the footnote. I don't think you can conclude that. If there's a gap between "careless" and irrational, then that gap is narrowest at the lowest levels. A superior reasoning faculty (one trained by experience, perhaps) would be able to see most possible lines of play, and to reject most, if not all of the irrational ones as such. It would also reject most of the "careless or inferior" ones. A poor reasoning faculty (through lack of experience, let's say) would reject fewer lines as irrational, true, but does that really matter? Among the lines this poor faculty can work out, he _will_ reject those he sees as irrational, and he will reject those he sees as inferior. His problem is that he will not recognize that some normal (ie, not irrational) plays are inferior, and so those lines will be among the ones from which he chooses. He will include some irrational lines among those from which he chooses, but so what? It's the TD or appeals committee who are prohibited from considering those lines, not the player. The player says "my line of play is x", and the TD says (though perhaps not out loud) "that line is irrational, you can't possibly make your contract on it". So he rules down one, or whatever, instead of making. (To put it more succintly, what I'm saying is that an irrational line of play _must_ fail to accomplish its objective.) But the TD will not consider any other irrational lines if there's any question (perhaps the TD can't see that the line is irrational, or perhaps the player _has_ chosen a normal line). There's no gap between rational (normal) and irrational. Some normal plays are inferior (that is, they have a lower probability of success than average) and some are careless (the "class of player involved" should know the line is inferior, but he chooses it anyway), but the set of plays consists of two distinct subsets, rational (or normal) and irrational. The set of normal plays _also_ consists of two distinct subsets, superior and inferior. On an absolute basis, half of the normal plays are in each subset, but any given player will likely miss some (not necessarily the same) percentage of both subsets. How large that percentage is depends on the "class of player", and it will be larger for lesser players. At least, I think that's what Grattan is saying. And if so I, from my lofty perch here on the bottom rung of the "class of player" ladder, agree with him. :-) 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/AwUBOQT6mL2UW3au93vOEQL1mgCg7dkPkIQA0yzdiR3m/gdggM/yRWYAoIU5 oOg/t2egc8+zWF2sHql5XW2l =DzvC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 25 11:54:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA14852 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 11:54:09 +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 LAA14847 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 11:54:02 +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, 24 Apr 2000 21:50:11 -0400 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 ; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 21:41:51 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3903FAAD.A766EE5A@village.uunet.be> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5BE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <39003053.19B43461@village.uunet.be> <20000421144702.38704.qmail@hotmail.com> <39015FC5.4BFE9B07@village.uunet.be> <20000423172351.44869.qmail@hotmail.com> <3903FAAD.A766EE5A@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 21:45:47 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: easter claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 9:41 AM +0200 4/24/00, Herman De Wael wrote: >The player who does find the ruffing finesse line (and not >all players would) cannot fail to also find the normal >finesse, and cannot fail to realise that this line is far >superior. (all this subject to discussion perhaps, but if we >agree on it, the conclusion is :) Therefor, it would be >irrational for the player to embark on that line. I think there's a difference between an irrational line of play, in the sense Grattan defined irrational earlier, and an irrational action by a player. And I think that Law 70 refers to the former, and not the latter. Perhaps, as I suggested in another message, the Law would consider the latter action to be "careless". 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/AwUBOQT6nL2UW3au93vOEQJTlwCeLGKOFWI0F0a2h+c8xZyXICzKnjAAnRel Je3FuXJi+bFB/oIcTgeE0mh1 =YXK5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 25 17:06:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA15462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 17:06:49 +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 RAA15457 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 17:06:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uniduesseldorf.de (actually Isis48.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de) by neptun with SMTP (local, PP); Tue, 25 Apr 2000 09:05:45 +0200 From: Richard Bley To: John Probst , bridge-laws Subject: RE: easter claim Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 09:05:43 +0200 Message-ID: <000001bfae84$ac0b48c0$308a6386@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: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: sniph > How would you rule at Hamman's table if he faced AQ9xx facing KTxx > without a claim statement, Grattan? I'm still ruling down 1. The > claim itself is sufficient evidence of carelessness, not > irrationality > IMO. cheers john > -- Hi, Obviously there are two very different claim-problems. declarer claims and ONE he still has sth technical to do in this hand. TWO he has different chances of play after claiming. I think ONE is a case where experts should be handled differently to mediocre players. This quoted case here shows it: I would believe that in this case here, Hamman claims because he wants to save time and everyone (IHHO) sees, that the hand is technically over. That he claims with AQ9xx vs. K10xx because he doesnt see the problem is IMHO far too one-sighted (I hope this is the correct term here...) But if he has say AQ9x vs. K10xx (a case TWO here) he has to play in a way that doesnt succeed. Here 4 tricks IMHO are only if the Jack is singleton. Tons case is a TWO case of course. The problem was here if there is a legitimate second line, which still loses a trick. I believed that there are still lines for losing tricks in both cases. One reason was that the players might carelessly (even experts dont look at every spot every time) think, that a spade finesse might work, look at this: AKQ8 vs. 10xxx and the opps cards are Jxxx and 9. In this case the second spade finesse works. Probably I´m wrong here (as most times, when TON has sth different in mind), but I think that the players (at least experts) in case ONE deserves more protection for his claims than in case TWO. Another reason is that a play which might succeed be a different lay of cards and would be now unsuccessful, should be tested. (Maybe playing for the finessse in spades, maybe playing the squeeze, maybe playing the ruffing finesse). After claiming the hand should be over. If this isnt the case, the claimer deserves no protection from TD. He overlooked (that´s for sure) a guessing problem and the TD should not be the person, to play the hand to the end. Hopefully I could make my point. cheers Richard From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 25 19:31:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA15725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 19:31:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from star-one.de ([195.143.49.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA15720 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 19:30:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from sofrant2.star-one.de ([172.16.1.3]) by gate.star-one.de with SMTP id <115203>; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 11:31:45 +0200 Received: from 127.0.0.1 by sofrant2.star-one.de (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Tue, 25 Apr 2000 11:30:11 +0200 (Westeuropäische Sommerzeit) Received: by SOFRANT2 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 11:30:11 +0200 Message-ID: From: "ACFarwig, Christian" To: "BLML (E-Mail)" Subject: AW: easter claim MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 11:31:40 +0200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>W/- AKQ8 AQJ9 J6 874 J974 2 K87643 52 AK4 Q10987532 --- 63 10653 10 --- AKQJ10952 1) West opens 1H and south becomes declarer in 6C. After a diamond lead he draws trumps and claims for 13 tricks. West doesn't accept the claim and asks south to continue play, which he does. Small spade to the A and K. He ruffs a diamond takes the finesse in hearts and fulfills his prediction. The TD is called. 2) West opens 1H and south becomes declarer in 7C. After a diamond lead he draws trumps and claims 13 tricks with the statement thay he starts playing spades. The TD is called by west who shows his spades. << 1: 13 tricks. All play after the claim is void. _But_ declarer proved by his continuation that he was aware of the spade-looser and how to overcome it. I conceed 13 tricks. 2: 12 tricks. The contract is one off. There are losing options for declarer (i.e. ruffing finesse in hearts). Just my 2c, Christian This mail was scanned by STAR-ONE AG Anti-Virus Defense System From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 25 20:17:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA15849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 20:17:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f146.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA15844 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 20:17:30 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 88088 invoked by uid 0); 25 Apr 2000 10:16:52 -0000 Message-ID: <20000425101652.88087.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.219 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 03:16:52 PDT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Equity? Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 03:16:52 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >Reply-To: "John Probst" >To: Norman Scorbie >CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Subject: Re: Equity? >Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 00:33:51 +0100 > >In article <20000420135453.14989.qmail@hotmail.com>, Norman Scorbie > writes > >snip > > > But it must be remembered that > >>this is an even-numbered year; in 2001, when David wins the Grand > >>Masters' Pairs once again, his mastery of double-dummy seven-card > >>endings will return in all its former glory. > >> > >>David Burn > >>London, England > >> > >And how many times have you won the Grand Masters' Pairs? Don't bother to > >answer, I don't really want to know, but it did seem that you were >building > >up a reasonable head of steam there only to shoot yourself in the foot >with > >a bit of unnecessary sarcasm aimed at David Stevenson. > >Not that all sarcasm aimed at DWS is unnecessary - it's just that that >bit > >was. > > >Norman, if you know the dramatis personnae, that was not sarcasm but >English humoUr, and it was *very* funny. cheers john >-- Er...I'm English. I have two degrees in English (my wife refuses to let me refer to myself as Doctor Scorbie, but perhaps it's just as well: I don't really want strangers showing me their pustules at cocktail parties). That was sarcasm. ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 25 21:31:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA16021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 21:31:36 +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 VAA16016 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 21:31:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 13:31:04 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id NAA14500 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 13:14:22 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'BLML (E-Mail)'" Subject: RE: easter claim Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 13:15:35 +0200 Message-ID: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690103109D@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 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101B1C1@xion.spase.nl> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ACFarwig, Christian wrote: >1: 13 tricks. All play after the claim is void. _But_ declarer proved by his >continuation that he was aware of the spade-looser and how to overcome it. I >conceed 13 tricks. Of course he is aware of the spade loser, now that West doesn't accept the claim. That's why TD should not accept this (cancelled) play as evidence that declarer knew what he was doing. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 25 22:17:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA16181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 22:17:42 +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 WAA16176 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 22:17:35 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id NAA29948 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 13:16:56 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 13:16 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: easter claim To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <3903FAAD.A766EE5A@village.uunet.be> HDW wrote: > The player who does find the ruffing finesse line (and not > all players would) cannot fail to also find the normal > finesse, and cannot fail to realise that this line is far > superior. (all this subject to discussion perhaps, but if we > agree on it, the conclusion is I don't see the justification for "far superior" in your analysis. I cannot calculate the a priori odds of J9xx,xxxxx,AKQx against J9xx,Kxxxxx,AHx - my maths isn't up to it, even away from the table. However I would be surprised if the difference was much greater than 60/40. This would be within the bounds of allowing "table presence" to modify the choice of line. I agree with Hermann however that if we believe a player would correctly identify an 80% line and a 20% alternative then it would be irrational (regardless of the class of player) to choose the inferior line. I would suggest that the lawmakers consider the class of plays that I call "bizarre or unnatural" ie those that are so convoluted or strange that we really cannot imagine them being found at the table (eg premature cashing of the HA by a poor player in the easter example.) Whether these sort of plays are grouped with Careless/Inferior (as DB would no doubt favour) or with Irrational (my preference) is far less important than giving TDs clarification on how to deal with such cases consistently. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 26 00:21:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA16755 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 00:21:11 +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 AAA16750 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 00:21:00 +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 KAA10893 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 10:20:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA00246 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 10:20:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 10:20:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200004251420.KAA00246@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: easter claim X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > What is in my mind is an adaptation of wording that is > used in the Code of Practice: " For the purposes of Laws > 69, 70 and 71 "normal" refers to actions (?plays) that > would be given serious consideration by players of like > expertise, of whom it could reasonably be expected some > might adopt them". Pardon me for the repetition, but I think the "like expertise" part is a really bad idea. It injects a possibly difficult judgment for no visible gain. If a player presents a bad claim, then why not make even the top expert play like Mrs. Guggenheim? If he had been in form, he wouldn't have claimed! Make it "by some players," and I think you have something. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 26 03:58:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA17686 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 03:58:46 +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 DAA17681 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 03:58:37 +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 NAA02445 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 13:57:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000425140251.006fd3f4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 14:02:51 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: mistaken bid - infraction? In-Reply-To: <200004190838.KAA15392@hera.frw.uva.nl> References: <200004171051.MAA24905@hera.frw.uva.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:35 AM 4/19/00 +0200, Jan wrote: >Of course nobody did anything illegal, as many of you have >pointed out, but I am a little frustrated by the fact that the >number of bad scores for NOs caused by players doing >nothing illegal is increasing rapidly. But NOs get bad scores whenever the NOs they're playing against get good scores. This is always caused by something, which isn't always a good or bad bid or play; sometimes it's just luck. If nobody at the table does anything illegal, one NOS or the other has to get the bad score. Sure, bad scores are frustrating, but giving the other side a bad score doesn't make you a presumptive offender of some sort. >In the NL there are tournaments every weekend, and some of >these attract many occasional partnerships. You see them >scribbling their CC's over a cup of coffee at the start of the >tournament, and the first couple of rounds all goes well. But >after a couple of beers in the afternoon, agreements are >easily forgotten. And each time an agreement is forgotten, it reduces the pair's likelihood of scoring well over the long haul. But just because they will lose points on average doesn't mean they will lose points every time it happens; sometimes they will gain, and their opponents will lose, just as when a declarer forgets the percentage play and takes an low-probability line that just happens to work on that particular deal. As nobody has done anything illegal, it's just another fix. What's the problem? 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 Apr 26 04:59:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA17871 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 04:59:19 +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 EAA17866 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 04:59:11 +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 OAA08438 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 14:57:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000425150326.006f8890@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 15:03:26 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: easter claim In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5BE@fdwag002s.fd.agro .nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:16 AM 4/21/00 +0200, Kooijman wrote: >This site is somewhat dull lately, with no claim at all discussed. With >Easter coming up you need a puzzle and no choice, it will be a claim. Try to >forget months of discussions here and use the laws to solve it. > >W/- AKQ8 > AQJ9 > J6 > 874 >J974 2 >K87643 52 >AK4 Q10987532 >--- 63 > 10653 > 10 > --- > AKQJ10952 > >1) West opens 1H and south becomes declarer in 6C. After a diamond lead he >draws trumps and claims for 13 tricks. West doesn't accept the claim and >asks south to continue play, which he does. Small spade to the A and K. He >ruffs a diamond takes the finesse in hearts and fulfills his prediction. The >TD is called. >2) West opens 1H and south becomes declarer in 7C. After a diamond lead he >draws trumps and claims 13 tricks with the statement thay he starts playing >spades. The TD is called by west who shows his spades. > >What decisions do you make? #2 is obviously trivial. There's no need to debate the presumption that after two rounds of spades declarer will realize that he cannot run spades for four tricks, because even though we allow such a presumption (the subject of all that previous debate) he remains with alternative lines for the 13th trick, not all of which succeed. 12 tricks. #1 is even more trivial, albeit less obviously so. "South... declares... and claims for 13 tricks. West doesn't accept the claim..." and play ceases. That West then "asks South to continue play", along with all that occurs subsequently, is irrelevant to the outcome. 12 tricks. 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 Apr 26 11:11:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA18566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 11:11:45 +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 LAA18561 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 11:11:31 +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 12kGMG-000B99-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 01:11:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 19:05:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Equity? References: <20000425101652.88087.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000425101652.88087.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <20000425101652.88087.qmail@hotmail.com>, Norman Scorbie writes snip >>snip >> >> > But it must be remembered that >> >>this is an even-numbered year; in 2001, when David wins the Grand >> >>Masters' Pairs once again, his mastery of double-dummy seven-card >> >>endings will return in all its former glory. >> >> >> >>David Burn >> >>London, England >> >> snip >> > >>Norman, if you know the dramatis personnae, that was not sarcasm but >>English humoUr, and it was *very* funny. cheers john >>-- > >Er...I'm English. I have two degrees in English (my wife refuses to let me >refer to myself as Doctor Scorbie, but perhaps it's just as well: I don't >really want strangers showing me their pustules at cocktail parties). That >was sarcasm. >________________________________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > humoUr disguised as sarcasm, given the cast :)) It is still very funny, and whilst DALB is sometimes over the top wrt DWS this paragraph was not such an exhibit. 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 Apr 26 16:36:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA18980 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 16:36:16 +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 QAA18975 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 16:36:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.149] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12kLQR-000Bs9-00; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 07:35:56 +0100 Message-ID: <000901bfaf49$c5ea4000$955608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200004251420.KAA00246@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: easter claim Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 07:24:07 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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, April 25, 2000 3:20 PM Subject: Re: easter claim > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > What is in my mind is an adaptation of wording that is > > used in the Code of Practice: " For the purposes of Laws > > 69, 70 and 71 "normal" refers to actions (?plays) that > > would be given serious consideration by players of like > > expertise, of whom it could reasonably be expected some > > might adopt them". > > Pardon me for the repetition, but I think the "like expertise" part is a > really bad idea. It injects a possibly difficult judgment for no visible > gain. If a player presents a bad claim, then why not make even the > top expert play like Mrs. Guggenheim? If he had been in form, he wouldn't > have claimed! > > Make it "by some players," and I think you have something. > >+=+ Noted. +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 26 20:08:17 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA19340 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 20:08:17 +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 UAA19334 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 20:07:58 +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 12kOjK-000BHs-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 11:07:47 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 11:05:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Equity? References: <20000420135453.14989.qmail@hotmail.com> <67A7aSAfP5$4EwU6@probst.demon.co.uk> <0y0ppHEph6$4Ewk$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00b601bfab76$12c73900$885408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <00b601bfab76$12c73900$885408c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > >Grattan Endicott-------------- /x\ ------------ >> >Norman, if you know the dramatis personnae, that was not sarcasm but >> >English humoUr, and it was *very* funny. cheers john >> >DWS: >> That is not my opinion. >> >> David Burn has taken into his head to conduct an ongoing campaign to >> denigrate me in the eyes of BLML and RGB. I cannot believe that anyone >> finds it in the least funny: I certainly don't >> >+=+ I think we have to come to terms with the fact that >not only do different people have different senses of >humour, but on the other side different people also have >different thicknesses of skin. Anyone who knows David >Burn will know that his comment was just his sense of >fun coming out, teasing heavily, and anyone who knows >David Stevenson will know that he does react very >sensitively when people pass remarks that he takes >personally. Restraint on the one part and growth of an >extra layer of skin on the other would lead to fewer >cat and dog performances. > From experience, taking the flak for poorly >expressed law and for the decisions of appeals >committees does pickle the skin - and DWS is >going to need the treatment if his ambitions as a >Director and Appeal Committee member are not >to be hampered. I suppose it just seems that this is different. Of course I expect people to be rude to me when I am a Director or member of an Appeals Committee. While not acceptable it is understandable and I take little notice. As for poorly expressed Law, I would expect a certain amount of flak if I were ever responsible for it: I certainly expect flak for the Orange book, for example. But is this *really* the same as personal remarks on this sort of list? The common digs whenever Burn is losing an argument? He has told me that he is able to argue sensibly with me on points of Law. While that its true he is doing so less and less. His contributions are getting less useful and more derogatory. Am I really meant to accept this? What good does it do the list or the newsgroup? In the case of the deficient trick four or trick six revoke he dismisses my offering as bilgewater and produces nothing of any use as rebuttal. I like to think that I am writing for the sake of all people on this list, and many of the lurkers are wondering what the right answer is. They see my offering, and then they see Burn's: do you think it is an offering this list really needs? OK, Grattan, if you think it is normal for personal remarks of this nature to be made, and people should be thick-skinned enough to take them, fine. Just ponder this. As purely personal remarks [as against people telling me I am wrong, which is of course acceptable] I seem to get more from Burn than everyone else put together. That is adding up all the remarks of that sort from every source, real life, the Internet, when I am directing, on Appeals Committees, spousal comments, comments from partners, shopkeepers and so on. Do you really think I should find this acceptable? I was very pleased at Norman's contribution: if the contributions of Grattan and John mean that I am wrong and the list thinks I should accept personal denigration as a method of supporting losing arguments I would appreciate knowing it, and I can then consider my future 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 Wed Apr 26 20:15:01 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA19378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 20:15:01 +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 UAA19365 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 20:14:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-252.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.252]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA03974 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 12:14:37 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39057510.883F308D@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 12:36:00 +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: easter claim References: <20000423203533.8341.qmail@hotmail.com> <001601bfad75$70711020$115608c3@dodona> <3903FCAE.388C2251@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > > > At 9:50 AM +0200 4/24/00, Herman De Wael wrote: > >To judge otherwise would allow for certain lines to be at > >the same time "irrational" AND "careless for this player" - > >that's for a very bad player; or neither - for a very good > >one. Certainly that cannot be the meaning of the footnote. > > I don't think you can conclude that. If there's a gap between > "careless" and irrational, then that gap is narrowest at the lowest > levels. A superior reasoning faculty (one trained by experience, > perhaps) would be able to see most possible lines of play, and to > reject most, if not all of the irrational ones as such. It would also > reject most of the "careless or inferior" ones. A poor reasoning > faculty (through lack of experience, let's say) would reject fewer > lines as irrational, true, but does that really matter? Among the > lines this poor faculty can work out, he _will_ reject those he sees > as irrational, and he will reject those he sees as inferior. His > problem is that he will not recognize that some normal (ie, not > irrational) plays are inferior, and so those lines will be among the > ones from which he chooses. He will include some irrational lines > among those from which he chooses, but so what? It's the TD or > appeals committee who are prohibited from considering those lines, > not the player. The player says "my line of play is x", and the TD > says (though perhaps not out loud) "that line is irrational, you > can't possibly make your contract on it". So he rules down one, or > whatever, instead of making. (To put it more succintly, what I'm > saying is that an irrational line of play _must_ fail to accomplish > its objective.) But the TD will not consider any other irrational > lines if there's any question (perhaps the TD can't see that the line > is irrational, or perhaps the player _has_ chosen a normal line). > > There's no gap between rational (normal) and irrational. Some normal > plays are inferior (that is, they have a lower probability of success > than average) and some are careless (the "class of player involved" > should know the line is inferior, but he chooses it anyway), but the > set of plays consists of two distinct subsets, rational (or normal) > and irrational. The set of normal plays _also_ consists of two > distinct subsets, superior and inferior. On an absolute basis, half > of the normal plays are in each subset, but any given player will > likely miss some (not necessarily the same) percentage of both > subsets. How large that percentage is depends on the "class of > player", and it will be larger for lesser players. > > At least, I think that's what Grattan is saying. And if so I, from my > lofty perch here on the bottom rung of the "class of player" ladder, > agree with him. :-) > > Regards, > > Ed > Well Ed, what you are saying is this : Irrational = not dependent on player normal = not irrational normal = careless OR inferior inferior = dependent on player conclusion : careless = dependent on player (in the reverse) That means that the phrase "normal includes careless and inferior for the class of player" means absolutely nothing. That cannot be the solution. If an action is inferior for player A but not for B, and it is deemed not irrational. What is it then ? For player A it is normal (inferior) But for player B it is neither - not normal nor irrational. If you call it careless for B, then there is no need for the distinction "inferior for the class of player involved". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 26 20:15:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA19386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 20:15:03 +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 UAA19366 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 20:14:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-252.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.252]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA04008 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 12:14:41 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39057F90.12190D78@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 13:20:48 +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: easter claim References: <200004241629.MAA23142@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: Grant Sterling > > I agree that the comma suggests one thing, but I think the > > argument from Herman is very powerful in the opposite direction. If > > 'class of player' modifies only 'careless', then _it_ has no place in > > this law. What purpose does mentioning the class of player serve, if > > irrational actions are defined universally? > > Let's try it again. > > One class of play is 'irrational'. This is to be judged universally, not dependent > on the player involved. > > The other class of play is 'normal' (a poor word choice). This class > includes plays that would be careless or inferior. This is also to be > judged universally. For a poor player, such plays are indeed normal in > the usual sense of the word. For a good player, such plays are below > his usual standard, i.e. inferior or careless for the class of player > involved. That is, even the best player _cannot_ argue "I am too good > ever to make such a stupid play," if the play isn't irrational. The > language _reinforces_ the concept that the skill of the player at the > table doesn't matter. > Then why does it say so. Look Steve, the concept that different levels of players get judged differently, is accepted, and IMO normal. You seem to believe this ought not to be so, and you are entitled to your opinions, but don't start reading in the laws things that are clearly not there. > Grattan: if Grant is confused, I take back my comment that the words do > not need any change. Perhaps "class of player" should be deleted, or > perhaps "player involved" should be replaced by "good player." Maybe > something along the lines of "Normal includes plays that are careless > or inferior, even plays so bad a good player is unlikely to make them." > Another thought would be to make the part after the comma a separate > sentence: "Normal includes all plays except those that are irrational." But these are Law changes, Steve, not clarifications. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 26 20:21:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA19388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 20:15:05 +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 UAA19373 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 20:14:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-252.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.252]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA04047 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 12:14:45 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3905840A.F227B3D4@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 13:39:54 +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: easter claim References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5BE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <39003053.19B43461@village.uunet.be> <20000421144702.38704.qmail@hotmail.com> <39015FC5.4BFE9B07@village.uunet.be> <20000423172351.44869.qmail@hotmail.com> <3903FAAD.A766EE5A@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > At 9:41 AM +0200 4/24/00, Herman De Wael wrote: > >The player who does find the ruffing finesse line (and not > >all players would) cannot fail to also find the normal > >finesse, and cannot fail to realise that this line is far > >superior. (all this subject to discussion perhaps, but if we > >agree on it, the conclusion is :) Therefor, it would be > >irrational for the player to embark on that line. > > I think there's a difference between an irrational line of play, in > the sense Grattan defined irrational earlier, and an irrational > action by a player. And I think that Law 70 refers to the former, and > not the latter. Perhaps, as I suggested in another message, the Law > would consider the latter action to be "careless". > It was I who said there were two types of irrationality. Surely that must also mean that the Law refers to only one of them. In your opionion, they would refer to both again. A line of play cannot be "irrational" as such. It is only the fact that the player would not, never, ever, consider taking the line that makes it irrational. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 26 21:27:52 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA19387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 20:15:05 +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 UAA19370 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 20:14:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-252.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.252]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA04026 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 12:14:43 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39058311.57353C0F@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 13:35:45 +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: easter claim References: <3.0.6.32.20000424160348.007a6b30@eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk hear, hear, Grant, you are the voice of wisdom. Grant Sterling wrote: > > > Perhaps. I think it covers plays that are far less likely to > succeed than another play that a player of this class will certainly > see. [I.e., if a player of this class can see two lines to make the > contract, one of which has about a 70% chance of success and the other > works only if one opponent has psyched with specific cards, then I think > it would be irrational for the player to choose the latter line.] Exactly. > > The advantage of my reading is that it makes the opposition of > 'careless or inferior' and 'irrational' nearly perfect. Otherwise, there > is apparently an enormous lacuna. Taking a 40% line over a 60% line > might well be 'inferior'. Taking a 1% line over an 80% line must be > something vastly stronger than 'inferior'. I might 'carelessly' fail to > unblock an 8. If I fail to notice that a singleton ace might block the > suit, that is something far more radical than 'careless'. > Put it another way: 'Careless' and 'inferior' are extraordinarily > weak terms. If you make 'irrational' extraordinarily strong, then the law > says something like "Players on my basketball team must be tall. 'Tall' > includes players over 7 feet, but not players under 5'." Well and good, > but since the vast majority of people are in between, what does that tell > us? The vast majority of bad plays fall between "merely careless or > inferior" and "manifestly irrational even for Mrs. Guggenheim". So I think > as long as weak words like careless or inferior are used to define 'normal', > then we should have a correspondingly weak understanding of 'irrational'. A very good analysis. Both terms are so strong that there seems to be a giant middle ground. The border lies somewhere in the middle, and we may well be better off discussing middle ground cases. The case that started the thread is far too close to one of the sides, and still people are discussing it. Or to put it in basketball terms. Grant says a 7ft basketball player can certainly play in his team, and a 5ft one cannot, and now we are here discussing whether or not to allow a 6ft11inch and a bit player into the team. While there is a 6ft player for whom we cannot decide whether he should be definitely "in" or definitely "out". That is a far more interesting discussion ! > If you think that TD's need more direction in applying this law, > then diddling with the placement of the comma is not good enough, nor is a > definition of 'irrational'. [Unless it is _my_ definition of irrational, > which fills up most of the space. :)] If you wish to make 'irrational' a very > strong concept that carries the load, then please also replace not only > 'class of player' but 'careless or inferior' as well. {I am happy to > make suggestions from my vast storehouse of words, if you'd like: "Normal > includes plays that are moronic or plays that would be rejected as > manifestly stupid even by the chronically inept, but not plays that > are transparently irrational even to the average American voter." That > ought to do it, at least for TD's familiar with the American voter or > the chronically inept.} > That seems to be the definition some on the list are working from. And even then they cannot decide. > >to be vastly different from the class of plays I'd call "irrational" > >for the purposes of adjudicating a claim. (I make "silly" and > >"foolish" plays all the time, including two just last Wednesday.) > > And Herman and I think that it was irrational of you to make such > silly plays, and we should not force such plays upon you if you make an > incomplete ot faulty claim statement. > Indeed, as I see it, some people do irrational things at some times. That does not make those actions "careless" in the view of the Laws. Some people revoke, but not even David Burn awards every claim with the maximum penalty possible, given that claimer should revoke at every given opportunity. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 26 22:38:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA19849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 22:38:13 +1000 (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 WAA19844; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 22:38:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from [199.172.230.102] by stormy.ibl.bm (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-65377U14500L13000S0V35) with SMTP id bm; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 09:37:50 -0300 Date: 26 Apr 2000 09:39:48 -0300 Message-ID: <-1255380514jrhind@ibl.bm> From: Jack Rhind Subject: Re: easter claim To: Steve Willner , , Grattan Endicott , X-Mailer: QuickMail Pro 2.0.4 (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 WAB19845 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The way the law is worded at present leads, IMHO, to directors looking for and trying to justify a line of play that declarer can take that will be unsuccessful so that we can award in favour of the non-offending side. Perhaps we should be considering another alternative: If the director(s) feel that the successful line of play is one that would be taken by 80-90% of the players, then award in favour of the declarer, otherwise award in favour of the defenders. Much has been said about the terms "irrational" and "normal" and the prevalent view seems to be that what is normal for some players may be viewed as irrational by others. The example of how Hammon would play KTxx opposite AQ98x is a case in point. In my view, awarding based on percentages, might make these problems easier and fairer, as long as the percentage is high. regards to all, Jack Rhind From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 27 02:50:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA20478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 02:50:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail1.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.192]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA20473 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 02:50:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-017.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.209]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA69440 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 17:50:01 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <00b701bfafa0$137c3ac0$d1307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: easter claim Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 17:54:20 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Kooijman, A." wrote: > > > W/- AKQ8 > AQJ9 > J6 > 874 > J974 2 > K87643 52 > AK4 Q10987532 > --- 63 > 10653 > 10 > --- > AKQJ10952 > > 1) West opens 1H and south becomes declarer in 6C. After a diamond lead he > draws trumps and claims for 13 tricks. West doesn't accept the claim and > asks south to continue play, which he does. Small spade to the A and K. He > ruffs a diamond takes the finesse in hearts and fulfills his prediction. The > TD is called. > W/- AKQ8 > AQJ9 > J6 > 874 > J974 2 > K87643 52 > AK4 Q10987532 > --- 63 > 10653 > 10 > --- > AKQJ10952 > 2) West opens 1H and south becomes declarer in 7C. After a diamond lead he > draws trumps and claims 13 tricks with the statement thay he starts playing > spades. The TD is called by west who shows his spades. > > What decisions do you make? > > This problem was one (2) in an examination In the Netherlands and Belgium > last week. We decided our own answers of course. But a huge majority in this > group with another view (no new members allowed to react!) might influence > that. We are as flexible as possible to let them pass this examen, as you > understand. Ton later continues: In 7C we allowed the 13 tricks. When declarer starts with spades, as he stated, he will make 13 tricks in any normal play, given the 1H-opening, we said. Yes we used the last line of 70E: or unless failure to adopt this line of play would be irrational. At the end the first declarer did not appeal, but then got aware of the second decision and I am still not sure I suceeded in explaining the reasons. You might know that the WBF is trying to find examples to set a standard for rulings to be made. I think this is one we could use for claims, illustrating careless/inferior but not irrational play. ton While the first part of the problem 6C is easy for the T.D. (12 tricks) the second part of the problem 7C is not so obvious. Is failure to take the Heart finesse really an irrational play? The majority on this list believe so. Hence I am just about convinced. 13 tricks. Regards Fearghal. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 27 02:50:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA20472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 02:50:42 +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 CAA20466 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 02:50:33 +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 MAA04155 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 12:48:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000426125455.00690008@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 12:54:55 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: easter claim In-Reply-To: <39003053.19B43461@village.uunet.be> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5BE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:41 PM 4/21/00 +0200, Herman wrote: >"Kooijman, A." wrote: >> >> W/- AKQ8 >> AQJ9 >> J6 >> 874 >> J974 2 >> K87643 52 >> AK4 Q10987532 >> --- 63 >> 10653 >> 10 >> --- >> AKQJ10952 > >What is the problem here for declarer - why did he claim ? >It cannot be that declarer believes he can always make 4 >spade tricks, even if they are 4-1. > >So we assume his statement is something like : > >I start on spades. If they are 3-2, I have 13 tricks >(correct). >I have not said what I would do if they are not. > >I rule that playing on spades means cashing Ace-King, and >noting that the two was singleton. > >I assume the level of play is good enough for declarer to >realise that he cannot make four tricks in spades now. > >Since he is in a grand after all, there is now only one line >which allows the contract to make : finesse the King of >hearts. ...either way, n'est pas? He could play HA, then HQ discarding a spade, planning, if the HQ is covered, to ruff and take his 13th with the HJ (SQ entry). Might even be a superior play, as he has already seen four black cards in W vs three in E. Indeed, it can never be right to finesse W for the HK, as it's always better to cash HA and run the squeeze, adding the extra chance of HK stiff in E. So, for extra credit, if the statement were "test spades and if they don't break play W for the HK", do we give him 13 tricks if the HK is stiff in E? My instinctive problem with Herman's extremely broad view of "irrational" is that it raises questions like these, which are better left unasked. 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 Apr 27 03:28:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA20640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 03:28:50 +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 DAA20635 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 03:28:39 +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 NAA06693 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 13:27:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000426133304.006f9a34@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 13:33:04 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: easter claim In-Reply-To: <20000423203533.8341.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:35 PM 4/23/00 PDT, Todd wrote: >>From: "Roger Pewick" >> >>Just because it is normal to see the finesse to the Q five times or 100 >>times more quickly than the ruffing finesse, does not make the ruffing >>finesse irrational. > > It would be exceptionally nice to have an objective definition. How about "a play that could not succeed on any lie of the opponent's cards"? Only a tad harsher than ideal IMHO, and certainly objective. 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 Apr 27 04:01:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA20796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 04:01:48 +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 EAA20791 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 04:01:37 +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 OAA09096 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 14:00:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000426140602.006914b0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 14:06:02 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: easter claim In-Reply-To: <200004241629.MAA23142@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:29 PM 4/24/00 -0400, Steve wrote: >> From: Grant Sterling >> I agree that the comma suggests one thing, but I think the >> argument from Herman is very powerful in the opposite direction. If >> 'class of player' modifies only 'careless', then _it_ has no place in >> this law. What purpose does mentioning the class of player serve, if >> irrational actions are defined universally? > >Let's try it again. > >One class of play is 'irrational'. This is to be judged universally, not dependent >on the player involved. > >The other class of play is 'normal' (a poor word choice). This class >includes plays that would be careless or inferior. This is also to be >judged universally. For a poor player, such plays are indeed normal in >the usual sense of the word. For a good player, such plays are below >his usual standard, i.e. inferior or careless for the class of player >involved. That is, even the best player _cannot_ argue "I am too good >ever to make such a stupid play," if the play isn't irrational. The >language _reinforces_ the concept that the skill of the player at the >table doesn't matter. Thank you, Steve! I've been groping towards this for a while now, but couldn't quite get it articulated. If the law simply left us to choose between "normal" and "irrational", we would continually hear arguments like "But I would never make such a stupid play in three lifetimes, so how can you possibly call it 'normal' for ME? In MY case it MUST be considered irrational." The lawmakers gave us that footnote so we could respond to such arguments by pointing to it! Perhaps what we need is a footnote to the footnote, along the lines of, "'Careless or inferior for the class of player involved' includes even play that would obviously be extraordinarily careless or grossly inferior for the class of player involved." Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 27 04:21:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA20599 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 03:22:03 +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 DAA20594 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 03:21:51 +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 NAA06272 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 13:20:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000426132615.006fbf5c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 13:26:15 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: easter claim In-Reply-To: <39015FC5.4BFE9B07@village.uunet.be> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5BE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <39003053.19B43461@village.uunet.be> <20000421144702.38704.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:16 AM 4/22/00 +0200, Herman wrote: >Roger Pewick wrote: >> >> > I rule that any other line than ruffing a diamond and >> > playing hearts to the queen is irrational. >> >> heart ace and ruffing finesse against east? > >Yes, maybe. > >The problem stated that West had opened 1He. >Which makes that line about 1/5th as likely to succeed. > >This is an interesting problem though. > >The other line may not be called irrational per se, but can >it not be called irrational to choose a line which is so >clearly less probable to succeed ? No way. To argue that it is irrational to place a card in a particular opponent's hand based on an inference from the auction is to take the position that the last clause of L70E renders the entire previous text of that law inapplicable to any situation. 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 Apr 27 04:47:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA21018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 04:47:20 +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 EAA21013 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 04:47:12 +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 LAA25203; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 11:46:44 -0700 Message-Id: <200004261846.LAA25203@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: easter claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 26 Apr 2000 13:33:04 PDT." <3.0.1.32.20000426133304.006f9a34@pop.cais.com> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 11:46:44 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > At 01:35 PM 4/23/00 PDT, Todd wrote: > > >>From: "Roger Pewick" > >> > >>Just because it is normal to see the finesse to the Q five times or 100 > >>times more quickly than the ruffing finesse, does not make the ruffing > >>finesse irrational. > > > > It would be exceptionally nice to have an objective definition. > > How about "a play that could not succeed on any lie of the opponent's > cards"? Only a tad harsher than ideal IMHO, and certainly objective. I'm not sure whether this definition will produce what we want. AQ64 KJ3 Q543 T3 64 98 92 T8764 T7 J986 KJT8752 KJ752 93 AQ5 AK2 AQ IMPs. West opens 3C, and eventually South lands in 6S. The opening lead is a trump. South draws trumps and plays three rounds of diamonds; when they don't break (West pitching a club), South, figuring there's no point in trying the club finesse, faces his hand, saying "Making 6" without a statement. E-W call the director and say the result should be 6S, down 1. The reason is that it's not irrational for South to lead the king to hearts under the ace, then play the jack under the queen, then another heart. The reason is that this will "succeed" on a lie of the opponent's cards, where West holds xx T98 xx KJTxxx. Since, according to Eric's rule, there is a lie of the opponents' cards on which this play succeeds, playing hearts this way cannot be considered irrational, and therefore we must assume that declarer *could* play them this way, resulting in down 1. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 27 05:07:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA21102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 05:07:55 +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 FAA21096 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 05:07:48 +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 OAA27797 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 14:12:04 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000426140648.007cb630@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 14:06:48 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: easter claim In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000426132615.006fbf5c@pop.cais.com> References: <39015FC5.4BFE9B07@village.uunet.be> <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5BE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <39003053.19B43461@village.uunet.be> <20000421144702.38704.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:26 PM 4/26/2000 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >>The other line may not be called irrational per se, but can >>it not be called irrational to choose a line which is so >>clearly less probable to succeed ? > >No way. To argue that it is irrational to place a card in a particular >opponent's hand based on an inference from the auction is to take the >position that the last clause of L70E renders the entire previous text of >that law inapplicable to any situation. I haven't replied to Eric's other posts--although I of course disagree with them, it is a matter of different views about what the claim laws are supposed to accomplish, and this has been amply hashed out already. But this argument, I thought, was based on a misunderstanding of the opposing view, and so I should comment. Th conclusion you have reached here, Eric, is clearly incorrect. What Herman has argued is that there are _some_ cases where the inference from the auction is _so_ strong that it would be irrational to ignore it. Accepting this would have absolutely no effect on the application of L70e to cases where there is no inference from the auction relevant to the location of the card, or to the huge number of cases where there is _some_ inference available, but the evidence is not so strong that defying it would be irrational. >Eric Landau elandau@cais.com Respectfully, -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 27 05:24:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA21139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 05:24:10 +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 FAA21134 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 05:23:56 +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 PAA29587 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:23:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA08317 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:23:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:23:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200004261923.PAA08317@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: easter claim X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > To argue that it is irrational to place a card in a particular > opponent's hand based on an inference from the auction is to take the > position that the last clause of L70E renders the entire previous text of > that law inapplicable to any situation. Don't you think there's a difference between situations where the auction and prior play has given little indication of where a card may be and other situations where the auction makes it 20:1 or so that the card is in a particular hand? Can it really be rational to play for the 5% chance? I think the last clause is precisely for the second kind of situation. It doesn't affect L70E in the more common situations of the first kind. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 27 05:26:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA21050 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 04:59:09 +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 EAA21045 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 04:59:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-61.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.61]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA12090; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 14:58:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <007d01bfafb1$aa46c4a0$3d84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: easter claim Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:00:16 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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: Eric Landau >Perhaps what we need is a footnote to the footnote, along the lines of, >"'Careless or inferior for the class of player involved' includes even play >that would obviously be extraordinarily careless or grossly inferior for >the class of player involved." Or perhaps what is needed is to enforce the law as it is now actually written, without presuming that such a footnote is what is now meant. The lawmakers could easily have added such intensifiers if they meant such a stern test. They did not. Mssrs. Kaplan, Endicott et al may have said what they meant rather than what you would prefer. Sobeit. While I most often agree with you, I think you are off base on this one. This law "aint broke"...don't try to "fix" it by reading into it legislative intent that was not present. Enforce it as written. -- Craig From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 27 05:28:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA21168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 05:28:41 +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 FAA21163 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 05:28:33 +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 JH7ZZ2V5; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 14:28:25 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00b701bfafa0$137c3ac0$d1307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 14:32:25 -0500 To: From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: easter claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Not-very-good players all know how to take a finesse, while some of them would not think of spades splitting 3-2. (The possibility would not occur to them.) I'd give the worst 20% of the players all 13 tricks. (Of course, they don't claim.) I think most better players would get 13 tricks, also. If the ruffing finesse possibility is the best we can come up with as an alternative, I would supose everyone in our local bridge clubs would get 13 tricks, at least when awake. (I have problems after 9 PM.) 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 Thu Apr 27 06:21:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA21234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 05:58:13 +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 FAA21229 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 05:58:05 +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 PAA01033 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:57:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA08357 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:57:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:57:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200004261957.PAA08357@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: easter claim X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > How about "a play that could not succeed on any lie of the opponent's > cards"? Only a tad harsher than ideal IMHO, and certainly objective. This is both too harsh and too lenient. On the one hand, it makes plays that could succeed on a rare lie of the cards "normal," even when there are simpler and much better lines. Adam's example is pertinent. On the other hand, it makes failing to see an obscure unblock or overtake (e.g. KQ opposite AJ9x, needing four tricks, no entries, heh heh) automatically irrational. We can have some objective _guidelines_ (suits top down, no crashing honors, no discarding winners, etc.), but I don't see how to write an objective rule. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 27 10:39:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA21234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 05:58:13 +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 FAA21229 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 05:58:05 +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 PAA01033 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:57:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA08357 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:57:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:57:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200004261957.PAA08357@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: easter claim X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > How about "a play that could not succeed on any lie of the opponent's > cards"? Only a tad harsher than ideal IMHO, and certainly objective. This is both too harsh and too lenient. On the one hand, it makes plays that could succeed on a rare lie of the cards "normal," even when there are simpler and much better lines. Adam's example is pertinent. On the other hand, it makes failing to see an obscure unblock or overtake (e.g. KQ opposite AJ9x, needing four tricks, no entries, heh heh) automatically irrational. We can have some objective _guidelines_ (suits top down, no crashing honors, no discarding winners, etc.), but I don't see how to write an objective rule. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 27 11:10:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA00337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 11:10:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f153.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.153]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA00332 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 11:10:28 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 24918 invoked by uid 0); 26 Apr 2000 23:23:09 -0000 Message-ID: <20000426232309.24917.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.22 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 16:23:09 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.22] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: easter claim Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 16:23:09 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Grant Sterling > Th conclusion you have reached here, Eric, is clearly incorrect. >What Herman has argued is that there are _some_ cases where the inference >from the auction is _so_ strong that it would be irrational to ignore it. >Accepting this would have absolutely no effect on the application of L70e >to cases where there is no inference from the auction relevant to the >location >of the card, or to the huge number of cases where there is _some_ inference >available, but the evidence is not so strong that defying it would be >irrational. You're injecting more subjectivity into the laws again. The only evidence that one player holds a specific card that's so strong that it's irrational to defy should be that his partner is known to be void. And even then, people have been known to lose count. It wouldn't be a silly requirement to force people to mention who they are playing for an important card as part of the claim or be ruled against. It wouldn't even be novel or quiant if people did it voluntarily. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 27 11:23:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA00361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 11:23:07 +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 LAA00356 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 11:22:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.1.26] (helo=davidburn) by gadolinium with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12kbXx-0001wV-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 00:48:45 +0100 Message-ID: <002a01bfafda$3144ff80$1a01073e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3.0.6.32.20000424160348.007a6b30@eiu.edu> <39058311.57353C0F@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: easter claim Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 00:50:24 +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 Herman wrote: [snips follow] > A very good analysis. Both terms are so strong that there > seems to be a giant middle ground. The border lies > somewhere in the middle, and we may well be better off > discussing middle ground cases. The case that started the > thread is far too close to one of the sides, and still > people are discussing it. Quite so. > That seems to be the definition some on the list are working > from. > And even then they cannot decide. Precisely. > Indeed, as I see it, some people do irrational things at > some times. > That does not make those actions "careless" in the view of > the Laws. > Some people revoke, but not even David Burn awards every > claim with the maximum penalty possible, given that claimer > should revoke at every given opportunity. I concur with every word. That is to say, I agree entirely that we have no idea what Laws 68, 69 and 70 actually mean. Nor do I see any possibility that we ever will concur as to the meanings of "normal", "careless", "inferior" or "irrational". Have we not reached a point where we should simply cease to try? Why not instead adopt a simple rule that a claim should be accompanied by a statement leaving no doubt about the tricks the claimer proposes to win, and the order in which he proposes to play cards in order to win those tricks? Any margin of doubt in such a statement is to be resolved by assuming that cards not covered by the statement are played in the legal order most disadvantageous to the claimer... David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 27 11:42:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA21240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 05:58:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f90.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.90]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA21235 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 05:58:14 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 98360 invoked by uid 0); 26 Apr 2000 19:50:54 -0000 Message-ID: <20000426195054.98359.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.22 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 12:50:54 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.22] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: easter claim Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 12:50:54 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Adam Beneschan >E-W call the director and say the result should be 6S, down 1. The >reason is that it's not irrational for South to lead the king to >hearts under the ace, then play the jack under the queen, then another >heart. The reason is that this will "succeed" on a lie of the >opponent's cards, where West holds xx T98 xx KJTxxx. Since, according >to Eric's rule, there is a lie of the opponents' cards on which this >play succeeds, playing hearts this way cannot be considered >irrational, and therefore we must assume that declarer *could* play >them this way, resulting in down 1. But it's a nice start. "a play that could not succeed on any lie of the opponent's cards or needlessly compresses winners." The new addition will preclude your example. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 27 11:51:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA00430 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 11:51:02 +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 LAA00425 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 11:50:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.1.26] (helo=davidburn) by ruthenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12kbMq-0000sd-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 00:37:17 +0100 Message-ID: <001001bfafd8$2c6e8320$1a01073e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5BE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3.0.1.32.20000426125455.00690008@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: easter claim Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 00:35:56 +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: > At 12:41 PM 4/21/00 +0200, Herman wrote: > > >"Kooijman, A." wrote: > >> > >> W/- AKQ8 > >> AQJ9 > >> J6 > >> 874 > >> J974 2 > >> K87643 52 > >> AK4 Q10987532 > >> --- 63 > >> 10653 > >> 10 > >> --- > >> AKQJ10952 > > > >What is the problem here for declarer - why did he claim ? > >It cannot be that declarer believes he can always make 4 > >spade tricks, even if they are 4-1. > > > >So we assume his statement is something like : > > > >I start on spades. If they are 3-2, I have 13 tricks > >(correct). > >I have not said what I would do if they are not. > > > >I rule that playing on spades means cashing Ace-King, and > >noting that the two was singleton. > > > >I assume the level of play is good enough for declarer to > >realise that he cannot make four tricks in spades now. > > > >Since he is in a grand after all, there is now only one line > >which allows the contract to make : finesse the King of > >hearts. > > ...either way, n'est pas? He could play HA, then HQ discarding a spade, > planning, if the HQ is covered, to ruff and take his 13th with the HJ (SQ > entry). Might even be a superior play, as he has already seen four black > cards in W vs three in E. > > Indeed, it can never be right to finesse W for the HK, as it's always > better to cash HA and run the squeeze, adding the extra chance of HK stiff > in E. Not just HK stiff, but HKx and HKxx (and Hxx, as in the actual case, which would show up on the third round of hearts). I seem to recall saying before that a declarer intending to take the ruffing heart finesse (as a competent declarer should) would play: SAK, HA, heart ruffed high, C8, heart. On seeing East show out, the squeeze would be proven. Even given the bidding, this is without doubt the correct line of play, but no one would claim on the basis of it. > So, for extra credit, if the statement were "test spades and if they don't > break play W for the HK", do we give him 13 tricks if the HK is stiff in E? No. Such a declarer would "rationally" play SAK, club (or diamond ruff) to hand, heart to the queen. > My instinctive problem with Herman's extremely broad view of "irrational" > is that it raises questions like these, which are better left unasked. All questions like these are better left unasked, especially since no one seems to know the answers. Instead, a claimer should state what tricks he expects to win, and the order in which he will play his cards in order to win them... but we have been here before. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 27 13:05:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA00534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 13:05:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA00529 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 13:05:45 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 40789 invoked for bounce); 27 Apr 2000 03:05:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.117.252.33) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 27 Apr 2000 03:05:35 -0000 Message-ID: <000301bfaff6$1fcb5c60$21fc75c2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <00b701bfafa0$137c3ac0$d1307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> Subject: Re: easter claim Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 05:10:09 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 Fearghal wrote: > "Kooijman, A." wrote: > > W/- AKQ8 > > AQJ9 > > J6 > > 874 > > J974 2 > > K87643 52 > > AK4 Q10987532 > > --- 63 > > 10653 > > 10 > > --- > > AKQJ10952 > > > 2) West opens 1H and south becomes > > declarer in 7C. After a diamond lead he > > draws trumps and claims 13 tricks > > with the statement thay he starts playing > > spades. The TD is called by west who shows his spades. > > > > > > What decisions do you make? > > > > This problem was one (2) in an > > examination In the Netherlands and Belgium > > last week. We decided our own answers > > of course. But a huge majority in this > > group with another view (no new > > members allowed to react!) might influence > > that. We are as flexible as possible to > > let them pass this examen, as you > > understand. > > Ton later continues: > In 7C we allowed the 13 tricks. When declarer starts > with spades, as he stated, he will make > 13 tricks in any normal play, given > the 1H-opening, we said. Yes we > used the last line of 70E: or unless failure > to adopt this line of play would be irrational. At the end the first > declarer did not appeal, but then got > aware of the second decision and I am > still not sure I suceeded in explaining the reasons. > You might know that the WBF is trying > to find examples to set a standard for > rulings to be made. I think this is one we could use for claims, > illustrating careless/inferior but not irrational play. > > > ton > > > > While the first part of the problem > 6C is easy for the T.D. (12 tricks) the > second part of the problem 7C is not so obvious. Is failure to take the > Heart finesse really an irrational play? Declarer's claim statement describes a line where he will discover the bad spade break before he decides how to play the hearts. In seven clubs, cashing 12 tricks for one down is irrational, when there are normal lines which lead to 13 tricks. Three successful normal lines are: the simple heart finesse against West, the show-up squeeze against West (cash dummy's third spade, then run the trumps), and playing HA H ruff and then squeeze W in the majors. The only point to discuss is whether the failing line "H ruffing finesse" is a normal line or an irrational one. I consider it to be irrational to place the HK with E, when W has opened 1H, holds the long hearts (W has a club void), and without the HK would not have normal opening strength. We would have ruled down one if spades were 4-1 and the singleton HK were offside, because then the normal line "H finesse" leads to one down. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 27 20:40:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA01096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 20:40:38 +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 UAA01090 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 20:40:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-203.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.203]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA17638 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 12:40:19 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3907F4ED.4760B146@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 10:06:05 +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: easter claim References: <20000426232309.24917.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > >From: Grant Sterling > > Th conclusion you have reached here, Eric, is clearly incorrect. > >What Herman has argued is that there are _some_ cases where the inference > >from the auction is _so_ strong that it would be irrational to ignore it. > >Accepting this would have absolutely no effect on the application of L70e > >to cases where there is no inference from the auction relevant to the > >location > >of the card, or to the huge number of cases where there is _some_ inference > >available, but the evidence is not so strong that defying it would be > >irrational. > > You're injecting more subjectivity into the laws again. The only > evidence that one player holds a specific card that's so strong that it's > irrational to defy should be that his partner is known to be void. And even > then, people have been known to lose count. > It wouldn't be a silly requirement to force people to mention who they > are playing for an important card as part of the claim or be ruled against. > It wouldn't even be novel or quiant if people did it voluntarily. > > -Todd > > You can require all that you like, you will still have cases where people will have forgotten to do so. And you will have to rule on those cases. What is wrong with you guys ? I am as harsh as I need to be, and I rule against bad claims with no apparent problem. And then sometimes a claim comes along where you ahve to rule in favour of claimer, simply because it is the right thing to do. Those cases end up on blml, while 99% of all claims don't. And then we are having endless discussions about them. Face it, guys (and the occasional doll), the claim Laws are not as David Burn would write them. Sometimes we do rule in favour of claimer. I read the claim law like this : if there is any chance at all that declarer will make less tricks, when he plays out the hand, then he gets less tricks. But when I feel that the claimer will always make a certain number of tricks, I give him that number. What is so wrong with that ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 27 23:19:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA01580 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 23:19:31 +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 XAA01574 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 23:19:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uniduesseldorf.de (actually Isis232.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de) by neptun with SMTP (local, PP); Thu, 27 Apr 2000 14:47:33 +0200 From: Richard Bley To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws Subject: RE: easter claim Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 14:47:31 +0200 Message-ID: <000101bfb046$c0cca6a0$e88a6386@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: <3907F4ED.4760B146@village.uunet.be> 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of > Herman De Wael > Sent: Donnerstag, 27. April 2000 10:06 > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: easter claim > > > Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > > > >From: Grant Sterling > > > Th conclusion you have reached here, Eric, is > clearly incorrect. > > >What Herman has argued is that there are _some_ cases > where the inference > > >from the auction is _so_ strong that it would be > irrational to ignore it. > > >Accepting this would have absolutely no effect on the > application of L70e > > >to cases where there is no inference from the auction > relevant to the > > >location > > >of the card, or to the huge number of cases where there > is _some_ inference > > >available, but the evidence is not so strong that > defying it would be > > >irrational. > > > > You're injecting more subjectivity into the laws > again. The only > > evidence that one player holds a specific card that's so > strong that it's > > irrational to defy should be that his partner is known to > be void. And even > > then, people have been known to lose count. > > It wouldn't be a silly requirement to force people > to mention who they > > are playing for an important card as part of the claim or > be ruled against. > > It wouldn't even be novel or quiant if people did it voluntarily. > > > > -Todd > > > > > > You can require all that you like, you will still have cases > where people will have forgotten to do so. > > And you will have to rule on those cases. > > What is wrong with you guys ? > > I am as harsh as I need to be, and I rule against bad claims > with no apparent problem. And then sometimes a claim comes > along where you ahve to rule in favour of claimer, simply > because it is the right thing to do. > > Those cases end up on blml, while 99% of all claims don't. > > And then we are having endless discussions about them. > > Face it, guys (and the occasional doll), the claim Laws are > not as David Burn would write them. Sometimes we do rule in > favour of claimer. > > I read the claim law like this : if there is any chance at > all that declarer will make less tricks, when he plays out > the hand, then he gets less tricks. But when I feel that > the claimer will always make a certain number of tricks, I > give him that number. > > What is so wrong with that ? > Herman, I wholeheartedly agree to this basic statement. So when I´m confessing that our opinions are the same, does that mean, that I´m wrong? Cheers Richard From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 28 01:17:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA01920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 01:17:50 +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 BAA01915 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 01:17:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-180.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.180]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA21889; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 11:17:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <003101bfb05b$ed6b2dc0$b484d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: easter claim Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 11:19:03 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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 (snip) we >have no idea what Laws 68, 69 and 70 actually mean. Nor do I see any >possibility that we ever will concur as to the meanings of "normal", >"careless", "inferior" or "irrational". Have we not reached a point >where we should simply cease to try? Why not instead adopt a simple >rule that a claim should be accompanied by a statement leaving no >doubt about the tricks the claimer proposes to win, and the order in >which he proposes to play cards in order to win those tricks? Any >margin of doubt in such a statement is to be resolved by assuming that >cards not covered by the statement are played in the legal order most >disadvantageous to the claimer... > >David Burn >London, England Why not? Because what we have now is a far better system than this would be. Because your proposal would effectively do away with claims and make the game tedious. Because the use of a sledgehammer to crush a fly is not necessary. Because in the vast majority of cases an intelligent trained director can and does adjudicate an imperfect claim statement in a correct and fair manner. Because in trying to use Occam's razor you have cut the jugular. It aint broke...lets stop trying to fix it. Instead, let's work on improving it with universal ground rules (trumps are played top down, we don't crash honours needlessly etc.) and better director and player education. This will work and make the game more pleasant and playable for all. Your proposal, for all its well intentioned simplicity will only create much hard feeling and make games at lower levels nearly interminable. You don't play them...you don't have to sit and twiddle your thumbs and try not to nod off as Col. and Mrs. Kumquat both agonize over a hand where their decisions have no bearing on the outcome. You don't have to try and keep a movement going when Joe Slowpoke and Susie Yawn are also partners. You don't have the whole room irritated when scores must wait for the slow plays to be finished. Claims are good for the game...let's encourage, not destroy them. -- Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 28 02:40:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA02288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 02:40:25 +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 CAA02283 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 02:40:14 +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 MAA17805 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 12:38:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000427124417.006a53c0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 12:44:17 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: easter claim In-Reply-To: <007d01bfafb1$aa46c4a0$3d84d9ce@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:00 PM 4/26/00 -0400, Craig wrote: >-----Original Message----- >From: Eric Landau >>Perhaps what we need is a footnote to the footnote, along the lines of, >>"'Careless or inferior for the class of player involved' includes even play >>that would obviously be extraordinarily careless or grossly inferior for >>the class of player involved." > >Or perhaps what is needed is to enforce the law as it is now actually >written, without presuming that such a footnote is what is now meant. The >lawmakers could easily have added such intensifiers if they meant such a >stern test. They did not. Mssrs. Kaplan, Endicott et al may have said what >they meant rather than what you would prefer. Sobeit. While I most often >agree with you, I think you are off base on this one. This law "aint >broke"...don't try to "fix" it by reading into it legislative intent that >was not present. Enforce it as written. Perhaps I should take to using smileys or something. I wasn't suggesting that such a footnote to the footnote is really needed; I was attempting to suggest that what it states is definitionally obvious. If acceptance of the fact that the word "careless" subsumes the extraordinarily careless or that the word "inferior" subsumes the grossly inferior would change the meaning of the law, the law must be in a lot worse shape than any of us thought. 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 Apr 28 03:01:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA02369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 03:01:46 +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 DAA02364 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 03:01:36 +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 NAA19032 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 13:00:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000427130535.006f6298@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 13:05:35 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: easter claim In-Reply-To: <200004261846.LAA25203@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:46 AM 4/26/00 PDT, Adam wrote: >> How about "a play that could not succeed on any lie of the opponent's >> cards"? Only a tad harsher than ideal IMHO, and certainly objective. > >I'm not sure whether this definition will produce what we want. > > AQ64 > KJ3 > Q543 >T3 64 98 >92 T8764 >T7 J986 >KJT8752 KJ752 93 > AQ5 > AK2 > AQ > >IMPs. West opens 3C, and eventually South lands in 6S. The opening >lead is a trump. South draws trumps and plays three rounds of >diamonds; when they don't break (West pitching a club), South, >figuring there's no point in trying the club finesse, faces his hand, >saying "Making 6" without a statement. > >E-W call the director and say the result should be 6S, down 1. The >reason is that it's not irrational for South to lead the king to >hearts under the ace, then play the jack under the queen, then another >heart. The reason is that this will "succeed" on a lie of the >opponent's cards, where West holds xx T98 xx KJTxxx. Since, according >to Eric's rule, there is a lie of the opponents' cards on which this >play succeeds, playing hearts this way cannot be considered >irrational, and therefore we must assume that declarer *could* play >them this way, resulting in down 1. Roger's plea for an objective definition was for something that we would use to select possible lines for consideration when adjudicating flawed claims. Mr. Burn's views aside, I don't think too many of us would accept the notion that "making six" represents a flawed claim when the declarer shows us 12 tricks entirely in top-card winners with no blockages or other problems to deal with. Or that we would find a claim for three tricks on AK10 opposite Q32 defective because the claimer did not explicitly state that he would take them with the A, K and Q, notwithstanding that the first-round finesse of the 10 would "succeed" half 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 Apr 28 03:29:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA02443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 03:29:38 +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 DAA02437 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 03:29:26 +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 NAA21066 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 13:27:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000427133356.006fb494@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 13:33:56 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: easter claim In-Reply-To: <3907F4ED.4760B146@village.uunet.be> References: <20000426232309.24917.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:06 AM 4/27/00 +0200, Herman wrote: >I read the claim law like this : if there is any chance at >all that declarer will make less tricks, when he plays out >the hand, then he gets less tricks. But when I feel that >the claimer will always make a certain number of tricks, I >give him that number. > >What is so wrong with that ? What is wrong with it on its face is that the result of applying it depends entirely on the adjudicator's subjective opinion of what each individual declarer might or might not do. In real life, it leaves committees with no answer to "But I would never go down on that hand in a million years!" except "Sorry, we think you're bad enough that you might." 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 Apr 28 04:08:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA02398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 03:16:41 +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 DAA02393 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 03:16:28 +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 NAA20094 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 13:14:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000427132058.006f5b54@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 13:20:58 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: easter claim In-Reply-To: <200004261923.PAA08317@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:23 PM 4/26/00 -0400, Steve wrote: >> From: Eric Landau >> To argue that it is irrational to place a card in a particular >> opponent's hand based on an inference from the auction is to take the >> position that the last clause of L70E renders the entire previous text of >> that law inapplicable to any situation. > >Don't you think there's a difference between situations where the >auction and prior play has given little indication of where a card may >be and other situations where the auction makes it 20:1 or so that the >card is in a particular hand? Can it really be rational to play for >the 5% chance? > >I think the last clause is precisely for the second kind of situation. >It doesn't affect L70E in the more common situations of the first >kind. No, I don't think there's a difference. I see no circumstances under which a claimer should be assumed by an adjudicator to make a specific play based on an inference from the auction when he has neither acted on that inference prior to claiming nor mentioned it in his statement. Moreover, to even talk of threshold percentages is nonsense. When we use a phrase like "a 95% inference" we can only mean an inference which has been assigned a subjective probability of 95% in the mind of the inferer. There is no such thing, even as an unmeasurable theoretical ideal, as the assignment of an objective probability to an inference. 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 Apr 28 08:43:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA03071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 08:43:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA03066 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 08:43:03 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 48331 invoked for bounce); 27 Apr 2000 22:42:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.117.252.169) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 27 Apr 2000 22:42:52 -0000 Message-ID: <00d401bfb09a$97f60c40$a9fc75c2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3.0.1.32.20000427130535.006f6298@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: easter claim Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 00:26:19 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 Eric Landau wrote: > Mr. Burn's views aside, I don't think too many of us would accept > the notion that "making six" represents a flawed claim when the declarer > shows us 12 tricks entirely in top-card winners with no blockages or other > problems to deal with. Or that we would find a claim for three tricks on > AK10 opposite Q32 defective because the claimer did not explicitly state > that he would take them with the A, K and Q, notwithstanding that the > first-round finesse of the 10 would "succeed" half the time. Good example. There is an obvious 100% line, and an obvious 50% line. The 50% line thus is irrational, even though a 50% line would be very fine normal under different conditions. Eric's example illustrates why the majority thinks that in the case under discussion playing E for the HK is irrational, and not just careless. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 28 10:31:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 10:31:25 +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 KAA03278 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 10:31:17 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 20134 invoked by uid 65534); 28 Apr 2000 00:30:39 -0000 Message-ID: <20000428003039.20133.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [38.11.201.15] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <003101bfb05b$ed6b2dc0$b484d9ce@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: easter claim Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 13:56:32 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Craig Senior To: David Burn ; Bridge Laws Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2000 10:19 AM Subject: Re: easter claim > (snip) we > >have no idea what Laws 68, 69 and 70 actually mean. Nor do I see any > >possibility that we ever will concur as to the meanings of "normal", > >"careless", "inferior" or "irrational". Have we not reached a point > >where we should simply cease to try? Why not instead adopt a simple > >rule that a claim should be accompanied by a statement leaving no > >doubt about the tricks the claimer proposes to win, and the order in > >which he proposes to play cards in order to win those tricks? Any > >margin of doubt in such a statement is to be resolved by assuming that > >cards not covered by the statement are played in the legal order most > >disadvantageous to the claimer... > > > >David Burn > >London, England > > > Why not? Because what we have now is a far better system than this would be. > Because your proposal would effectively do away with claims and make the > game tedious. Because the use of a sledgehammer to crush a fly is not > necessary. The disparate views expressed here and over the years in fact suggest that a sledgehammer is needed to deal with a fly. And as such is the case, then a sledgehammer is the cost of doing business. This is the point that I see David Burn making, and it is a valid point. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas > Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 29 01:24:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA24593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Apr 2000 01:24:35 +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 BAA24586 for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2000 01:24:26 +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 KAA16323 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 10:28:46 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000428102327.007a9cb0@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 10:23:27 -0500 To: "blml" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: easter claim In-Reply-To: <20000428003039.20133.qmail@hotmail.com> References: <003101bfb05b$ed6b2dc0$b484d9ce@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:56 PM 4/27/2000 -0500, Roger Pewick wrote: >From: Craig Senior >> Because your proposal would effectively do away with claims and make the >> game tedious. Because the use of a sledgehammer to crush a fly is not >> necessary. > >The disparate views expressed here and over the years in fact suggest that a >sledgehammer is needed to deal with a fly. And as such is the case, then a >sledgehammer is the cost of doing business. This is the point that I see >David Burn making, and it is a valid point. I expect this to be my final comment on this thread. I think we have come to an agreement on one thing: If we really want to crush this fly, then the sledgehammer is the most certain way or doing it. If your goal is to guarantee that a person who makes a bad claim will never ever take a trick that there is the slightest possibility he would have failed to take had the hand been played out, then you must adopt a law that forces the most horrible play on anyone who claims imperfectly. Or, if your goal is to guarantee that the exact same claim always results in the exact same number of tricks, across all the world and for any and all declarers and defenders, then you must have a claim law that is totally unambiguous, and the horrible play law seems best for that. [I still think this will not actually achieve this goal, but that's a matter that has already been hashed out somewhat.] OTOH, if neither of these things are a particularly high priority to you, then the fly is a mere annoyance, and hardly worth the damage to the walls from the hammer blow. Obviously, I'm in the latter camp. >Roger Pewick >Houston, Texas Respectfully, Grant Sterling From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 29 01:56:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA25974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Apr 2000 01:56:55 +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 BAA25965 for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2000 01:56:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-51.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.51]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA27116 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 17:56:22 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <390965E5.45593E52@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 12:20:21 +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: easter claim References: <20000426232309.24917.qmail@hotmail.com> <3.0.1.32.20000427133356.006fb494@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > At 10:06 AM 4/27/00 +0200, Herman wrote: > > >I read the claim law like this : if there is any chance at > >all that declarer will make less tricks, when he plays out > >the hand, then he gets less tricks. But when I feel that > >the claimer will always make a certain number of tricks, I > >give him that number. > > > >What is so wrong with that ? > > What is wrong with it on its face is that the result of applying it depends > entirely on the adjudicator's subjective opinion of what each individual > declarer might or might not do. In real life, it leaves committees with no > answer to "But I would never go down on that hand in a million years!" > except "Sorry, we think you're bad enough that you might." > Consider all my above remarks to be amended to "a player of the class ..." and the response of the AC can be "Sorry, we think some players of your class would ...". As to "subjective opinion". Yes of course we need subjective opinion. Our game is littered with decisions of that kind. Our TD's are trained in it. Our AC's have to do it all the time. I don't see the problem, and I think that all the cures that have been suggested for resolving the (IMO nonexistent) problem are far worse than the problem if it exists at all. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 29 05:13:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA03389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Apr 2000 04:02:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f60.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.60]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA03378 for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2000 04:02:32 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 55176 invoked by uid 0); 28 Apr 2000 18:01:52 -0000 Message-ID: <20000428180152.55175.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.21 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 11:01:52 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.21] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: easter claim Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 11:01:52 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Herman De Wael >As to "subjective opinion". Yes of course we need >subjective opinion. Our game is littered with decisions of >that kind. Our TD's are trained in it. Our AC's have to do >it all the time. I'm not convinced of the need for subjective opinion except with regards to UI laws. The laws are very inconsistant about irregularities, saying, "You made an honest mistake -- tough shit," (revokes) and "You made an honest mistake, but let's resolve this in the most 'equitable' manner possible so that your mistake has no impact." Equitable often being a matter of judgement. Consider case 37 from the Vancouver Appeals book. http://www.acbl.org/members/Casebooks/99vancouver.asp#others It's a philosophical difference of opinion whether you believe that we should always strive for equity. Personally, I think that mistakes, no matter how brain-dead, trivial, or innocent are a part of life and shouldn't be rectified in bridge for those having an unlucky or just plain old bad day. There is a very simple law for case 37 above that removes all opinion from the ruling as well as removing its more complex counterpart from the law book. >I don't see the problem, and I think that all the cures that >have been suggested for resolving the (IMO nonexistent) >problem are far worse than the problem if it exists at all. The local club director where I live now, well, she just kicks ass. And a certain someone keeps cancelling sectional engagements on me, but I do see awkward claims often enough. My biggest complaint about rulings on claims happen when a defender claims a trick for his partner. Shouldn't be allowed IMO. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 29 06:21:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA05070 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Apr 2000 06:21:39 +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 GAA05065 for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2000 06:21:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-21.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.21]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA17015; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 16:21:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <007301bfb14f$8a1dba40$1584d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Todd Zimnoch" , Subject: Re: easter claim Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 16:22:53 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There are ladies present on this list...can you watch your language please? -----Original Message----- From: Todd Zimnoch The laws are very inconsistant about irregularities, >saying, "You made an honest mistake -- tough sxxx" (revokes) > The local club director where I live now, well, she just kicks xxx. Really, it sounds like you are trying to withdraw a card played from dummy or something. :-)) Craig From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 29 21:20:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA06949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Apr 2000 21:20:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA06944 for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2000 21:20:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp180-141.worldonline.nl [195.241.180.141]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 26FE036B35; Sat, 29 Apr 2000 13:20:01 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <006401bfb1cc$59342ea0$8db4f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Steve Willner" , Subject: easter claim on our route to Ascension Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 11:33:32 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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 >Subject: Re: easter claim > > >> > From: "Grattan Endicott" >> > What is in my mind is an adaptation of wording that is >> > used in the Code of Practice: " For the purposes of Laws >> > 69, 70 and 71 "normal" refers to actions (?plays) that >> > would be given serious consideration by players of like >> > expertise, of whom it could reasonably be expected some >> > might adopt them". >> Do I understand you well? Is this a proposal to change the footnote of L69? I doubt it being an improvement. With this change we restrict the collection of normal play making it easier to make bad claims without consequences. I don't have problems with the footnote as it is. It does not seem right to say that careless play is given serious consideration by players, while careless play should include the collection of possibilities to be considered by the TD. What we should try to do is describing that a bad claim is allowed when the TD is convinced (sure) that the proposed number of tricks would have been the result when play had continued. As I said before (bad) claims are normal part of the game and players should not be penalized when making (bad) claims. With AKQ74 opposite 9632 claiming 5 tricks without an entry to the AKQ-hand knowing (or restricting the claim to) a 3-2 division should not be allowed, even not on the highest level. It is careless not to unblock, not irrational. The same and even more normal with AK10 opposite J7 claiming 3 tricks if the Q in on side. It is good play to play the A first and it is normal not to unblock the J. But I am less sure when play is from the J7 hand without having an entry to that hand. Is there anybody not playing the J then? I am afraid that our discussions need to be concentrated on these questions, without being able to formulate our approach in clearer general directions for use (not being ready to adopt David Burns' suggestion, though it is clear in itself). I estimate that in the 7C easter claim really nobody (from those capable to make a claim) would fail to make 13 tricks and therefore the claim should be allowed. That approach might be a direction for use in itself. ton From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 29 21:44:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA07014 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Apr 2000 21:44:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from square.inter.net.il (square.inter.net.il [192.116.202.83]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA07006 for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2000 21:44:13 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 12739 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2000 11:43:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.7.175) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 29 Apr 2000 11:43:29 -0000 Message-ID: <390ACBA0.2D3C3B8@inter.net.il> Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 14:46:41 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grant Sterling CC: blml Subject: Re: easter claim References: <003101bfb05b$ed6b2dc0$b484d9ce@oemcomputer> <3.0.6.32.20000428102327.007a9cb0@eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I agree with your "line of thinking" but I didn't like the use of "commas" and "sledgehammers" ....they can bring the bridge game to a COMA....... I don't want to be one of the coroners....... Cheers Dany Grant Sterling wrote: > At 01:56 PM 4/27/2000 -0500, Roger Pewick wrote: > >From: Craig Senior > >> Because your proposal would effectively do away with claims and make the > >> game tedious. Because the use of a sledgehammer to crush a fly is not > >> necessary. > > > >The disparate views expressed here and over the years in fact suggest that a > >sledgehammer is needed to deal with a fly. And as such is the case, then a > >sledgehammer is the cost of doing business. This is the point that I see > >David Burn making, and it is a valid point. > > I expect this to be my final comment on this thread. I think we have > come to an agreement on one thing: > If we really want to crush this fly, then the sledgehammer is the > most certain way or doing it. > If your goal is to guarantee that a person who makes a bad claim > will never ever take a trick that there is the slightest possibility he > would have failed to take had the hand been played out, then you must > adopt a law that forces the most horrible play on anyone who claims > imperfectly. > Or, if your goal is to guarantee that the exact same claim always > results in the exact same number of tricks, across all the world and for > any and all declarers and defenders, then you must have a claim law that > is totally unambiguous, and the horrible play law seems best for that. > [I still think this will not actually achieve this goal, but that's > a matter that has already been hashed out somewhat.] > OTOH, if neither of these things are a particularly high priority > to you, then the fly is a mere annoyance, and hardly worth the damage to > the walls from the hammer blow. Obviously, I'm in the latter camp. > > >Roger Pewick > >Houston, Texas > Respectfully, > Grant Sterling From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 29 21:44:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA07009 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Apr 2000 21:44:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from square.inter.net.il (square.inter.net.il [192.116.202.83]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA07001 for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2000 21:44:07 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 12714 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2000 11:43:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.7.175) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 29 Apr 2000 11:43:23 -0000 Message-ID: <390ACB98.E2E360EF@inter.net.il> Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 14:46:33 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herman De Wael CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: easter claim References: <20000426232309.24917.qmail@hotmail.com> <3907F4ED.4760B146@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This statement should be the TDs' guide - or flowing chart - to manage a contested claim....... I think Grattan would put it as the first recommendation in "the Commentaries" for the Laws 68-71. Dany Herman De Wael wrote: > Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > S N O O P Y (didn't find the puppy's picture....) > I read the claim law like this : if there is any chance at > all that declarer will make less tricks, when he plays out > the hand, then he gets less tricks. But when I feel that > the claimer will always make a certain number of tricks, I > give him that number. > > What is so wrong with that ? > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 29 21:46:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA07042 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Apr 2000 21:46:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from square.inter.net.il (square.inter.net.il [192.116.202.83]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA07037 for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2000 21:46:39 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 13251 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2000 11:45:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.7.175) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 29 Apr 2000 11:45:54 -0000 Message-ID: <390ACC30.79DB0B84@inter.net.il> Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 14:49:05 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan Endicott CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, Carolwbf1@aol.com, cathie ritchie , Cathrina Endicott , Christina MacEachen , John Wignall , lynn hunt , Patricia Davidson , Paul Endicott Subject: Re: Not talking bridge (much). References: <003501bfaccf$f7cd5520$6c5908c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well......I hope and wish you to come back VICTORIOUS as adequate for the Victory Day (May 9). Dany Grattan Endicott wrote: > Grattan Endicott ===================================== > "So absolute she seems, > And in herself complete, so well to know, > Her own, that which she wills to do or say, > Seems wisest, virtuousest, discreetest, best." > - 'Paradise Lost'. > ----------------------------------------------------- > > +=+ For the information of some who need to > know and many whom it will merely bore, my > lines of internet communication will be dead > from April 26th to May 9th inclusive. During > this period Bill Schoder and I will be the > submissive partners in a foursome touring > the English Outback. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 29 23:21:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA07233 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Apr 2000 23:21:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA07228 for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2000 23:20:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp181-7.worldonline.nl [195.241.181.7]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 07A9E36BB0; Sat, 29 Apr 2000 15:20:39 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00a601bfb1dd$3114d1c0$8db4f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: easter claim Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 14:14:44 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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 > >A line of play cannot be "irrational" as such. It is only >the fact that the player would not, never, ever, consider >taking the line that makes it irrational. >Herman DE WAEL This seems boring semantic, but there is no distinction between irrational and careless in this respect. As far as I understand the word 'careless' a player would never, ever consider taking a line that makes the play careless. The meaning of careless has to do with not considering. This is not true for 'inferior', everybody does consider inferior play almost all the time, some of them rejecting, many of them adopting such a line of play. ton From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 30 19:10:28 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA09318 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Apr 2000 19:10:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA09313 for ; Sun, 30 Apr 2000 19:10:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp180-233.worldonline.nl [195.241.180.233]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id E7E8A36BC6 for ; Sun, 30 Apr 2000 11:09:58 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000801bfb283$52e0fe40$e9b4f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: Subject: useful equipment Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 11:05:44 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01BFB294.07B6FD00" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BFB294.07B6FD00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Let us assume the following:=20 AKJ K72 Q10875 65 Q1087654 A109 K 74 You are TD in the Bermuda Bowl final: USA versus Italy and they call you = at the table where Belladonna is declarer in 4spades after west has = opened the bidding with 1H, doubled by north. West's first lead was the = club K won by east with the ace, who played H6 in the second trick. Now = Belladonna claimed conceding another club and the diamond ace. An = incredible thing happens, east calls you and contests the claim. = Belladonna, the friendliest and most courteous bridge player in the = world apologizes and shows 7 spade tricks, A,K in hearts and a diamond = trick, which makes 10. You ask east what problem he has and he tells you = that south could have won the second trick in dummy after which the = diamond Q can't be reached anymore. East has the three remaining spades = and a singleton heart. Belladonna keeps calm.=20 You tell the players to continue play with the next board giving them = your decision later. But you wonder why east called you. This is a cold = 10 tricks and Belladonna is certainly capable of counting 10 tricks. = Still wondering you are called at the other table where exactly the same = thing has happened. The USA declarer claiming ten tricks in the second = trick.=20 How lucky you are, even when the decisions are not automatic they = certainly have to be the same. But what if the second table hadn't = called you? Can you decide not to allow Belladonna to make 10 tricks? (I = don't know the USA declarer but Hamman, Wolff, Weichsel, Sontag, Rubin = and Becker where in the team). Make up your mind before continuing = reading. Most of the description above happened but not the claims. Belladonna = took the heart A but only played trumps once and then diamonds, so east = got even two ruffs and declarer went 2 off. The USA declarer played = heart 9 and then 2 rounds of spades to save an entry to the diamond Q, 1 = off. Stockholm 1983.=20 My advise is to make a print out of this story and to show it to even = the world's best players after you have decided to award declarer a = trick less because of the possibility of careless play. Careless, not = irrational.=20 ton ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BFB294.07B6FD00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Let us assume the following: =
 
          &nbs= p;    =20 AKJ
        &n= bsp;      =20 K72
          &nbs= p;    =20 Q10875
          &nbs= p;    =20 65
 
          &nbs= p;    =20 Q1087654
          &nbs= p;    =20 A109
          &nbs= p;    =20 K
          &nbs= p;    =20 74
 
You are TD in the Bermuda Bowl = final: USA versus=20 Italy and they call you at the table where Belladonna is declarer in = 4spades=20 after west has opened the bidding with 1H, doubled by north.  = West's first=20 lead was the club K won by east with the ace, who played H6 in the = second trick.=20 Now Belladonna claimed conceding another club and the diamond ace. An = incredible=20 thing happens, east calls you and contests the claim. Belladonna, the=20 friendliest and most courteous bridge player in the world apologizes and = shows 7=20 spade tricks, A,K in hearts and a diamond trick, which makes 10. You ask = east=20 what problem he has and he tells you that south could have won the = second trick=20 in dummy after which the diamond Q can't be reached anymore. East has = the three=20 remaining spades and a singleton heart. Belladonna keeps calm. =
 
You tell the players to continue = play with the=20 next board giving them your decision later. But you wonder why east = called you.=20 This is a cold 10 tricks and Belladonna is certainly capable of counting = 10=20 tricks. Still wondering you are called at the other table where exactly = the same=20 thing has happened. The USA declarer claiming ten tricks in the second = trick.=20
How lucky you are, even when the = decisions are=20 not automatic they certainly have to be the same. But what if the second = table=20 hadn't called you? Can you decide not to allow Belladonna to make 10 = tricks? (I=20 don't know the USA declarer but Hamman, Wolff, Weichsel, Sontag, Rubin = and=20 Becker where in the team). Make up your mind before continuing=20 reading.
 
Most of the description above = happened but not=20 the claims. Belladonna took the heart A but only played trumps once and = then=20 diamonds, so east got even two ruffs and declarer went 2 off.  The = USA=20 declarer played heart 9 and then 2 rounds of spades to save an entry to = the=20 diamond Q, 1 off. Stockholm 1983.
 
 
My advise is to make a print out of this story and = to show it=20 to even the world's best players after you have decided to award = declarer a=20 trick less because of the possibility of careless play. Careless, not=20 irrational.
 
ton
 
 
 
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BFB294.07B6FD00-- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 30 20:14:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA09413 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Apr 2000 20:14:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail1-gui.server.ntli.net (mail1-gui.server.ntli.net [194.168.222.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA09408 for ; Sun, 30 Apr 2000 20:14:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from net.ntl.com ([194.168.18.14]) by mail1-gui.server.ntli.net (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 0-33929U70000L2S50) with ESMTP id AAA22949 for ; Sun, 30 Apr 2000 11:14:36 +0100 Message-ID: <390C069B.BEB8AC19@net.ntl.com> Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 11:10:35 +0100 From: Eric Favager X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Respect Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear All, As a lurker of the BLML, I find it sad that the normally friendly, informative banter about bridge should denigrate to a slanging match. Perhaps it would be useful if all contributors kept the list free from personal comments, unless they are sure that they would be received favourably. As to general content, I find the discussion informative if occasionally esoteric. Again perhaps it would be helpful if posters considered he less well informed on the list. Just a thought Eric