From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 1 22:50:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA12112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 May 2000 22:50:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from hunter2.int.kiev.ua (hunter2.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA12105 for ; Mon, 1 May 2000 22:50:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from marina (ppp07.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.107]) by hunter2.int.kiev.ua (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA19977 for ; Mon, 1 May 2000 15:53:41 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <004201bfb36c$36eced40$6b047bc3@marina> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: Subject: L88 and concurrence of players Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 15:50:29 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi All! In the pair tournament I, as a TD, was called by the dealer (N) who had 14 cards and bided 1S. W (who really had 12 cards) was still counting his cards face down. The 14th card was a small club (c5). According to the L13 I deemed that the deal could be corrected and played normally with the concurrence of all four players. But the W did not give a consent. Ok, there is no problem with L13. I shall award. But under L88 I deemed that non-offending contestant is required to take an artificial adjusted score through his own choice, so he shall not be awarded a minimum of 60% and I adjusted NOS - 50%, OS - 40%. Am I right? Suppose it was an individual event, is it correct to adjust N-40%, S-40%, E-60%,W-50%? And a common question about the L88 - when the Low requires "concurrence of all four players" and TD shall award because there are no such concurrences, is Av+ need not be granted to NOS? Best wishes Sergey From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 1 23:27:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA12168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 May 2000 23:27:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp2.a2000.nl (duck.a2000.nl [62.108.1.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA12163 for ; Mon, 1 May 2000 23:27:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=ww) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 12mGDn-00023M-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 May 2000 15:26:47 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000501152558.00ef14c4@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 15:25:58 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: L88 and concurrence of players In-Reply-To: <004201bfb36c$36eced40$6b047bc3@marina> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:50 PM 5/1/00 +0300, you wrote: >Hi All! > >In the pair tournament I, as a TD, was called by the dealer (N) who had 14 >cards and bided 1S. W (who really had 12 cards) was still counting his cards >face down. >The 14th card was a small club (c5). According to the L13 I deemed that the >deal could be corrected and played normally with the concurrence of all four >players. But the W did not give a consent. Ok, there is no problem with L13. >I shall award. But under L88 I deemed that non-offending contestant is >required to take an artificial adjusted score through his own choice, so he >shall not be awarded a minimum of 60% and I adjusted NOS - 50%, OS - 40%. >Am I right? i dont think this is a fair method. I think the meaning of 13 is indeed that the non-offenders should be able to go for A+ if they wish. Only if it is somehow partly their fault too that this happened, they should get 50% >Suppose it was an individual event, is it correct to adjust N-40%, S-40%, >E-60%,W-50%? > i disagree. regards, anton >And a common question about the L88 - when the Low requires "concurrence of >all four players" and TD shall award because there are no such concurrences, >is Av+ need not be granted to NOS? > >Best wishes >Sergey > > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 2 01:09:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA12383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 May 2000 00:57:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA12374 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 00:56:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-60.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.60]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA17935; Mon, 1 May 2000 10:56:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002101bfb37d$b0472640$3c84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Eric Favager" , Subject: Re: Respect Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 10:58:17 -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 Hi Eric Good to see you emerge from lurker-land. Hope you'll speak up more...some of our grand masters and law givers can get out of touch with the lower level games unless we remind them how the masses playat bridge. I hope you find, as I do, that this list can be at least a gradual and partial cure for our ignorance. Have you told David about your cats and Dany about your dogs? Best regards, Craig -----Original Message----- From: Eric Favager To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sunday, April 30, 2000 6:21 AM Subject: Respect >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 > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 2 01:23:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA12463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 May 2000 01:23:17 +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 BAA12458 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 01:23:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.184] (dhcp165-184.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.184]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA17048; Mon, 1 May 2000 11:19:34 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <004201bfb36c$36eced40$6b047bc3@marina> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 11:05:40 -0500 To: "Sergey Kapustin" , From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: L88 and concurrence of players Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 3:50 PM +0300 5/1/00, Sergey Kapustin wrote: >Hi All! > >In the pair tournament I, as a TD, was called by the dealer (N) who had 14 >cards and bided 1S. W (who really had 12 cards) was still counting his cards >face down. >The 14th card was a small club (c5). According to the L13 I deemed that the >deal could be corrected and played normally with the concurrence of all four >players. But the W did not give a consent. Ok, there is no problem with L13. >I shall award. But under L88 I deemed that non-offending contestant is >required to take an artificial adjusted score through his own choice, so he >shall not be awarded a minimum of 60% and I adjusted NOS - 50%, OS - 40%. >Am I right? I don't think so. The objection is not a matter of choice; it is the result of the player not believing the board can be played fairly. If West had looked at his twelve cards, then he could be given 50%, as he could be considered partly at fault. But if you apply this, you must also give West 50% if he has looked when it is South who objects to the play of the board, even if this is after South has looked at his 13 cards. >Suppose it was an individual event, is it correct to adjust N-40%, S-40%, >E-60%,W-50%? No. South was not at fault, and must be given 60% as a non-offender. Average plus is awarded to "a contestant in no way at fault", and South is not the same contestant as North. In a pairs game, N-S must share the 40%, and in a team game, the whole team must take the -3 IMPs. However, if South had held the 12 cards, had looked at the cards, and then determined that he did not want to play with North having UI about his 13th card, you could give South 50%. This would not apply to West, who would have an advantage if there were UI problems. From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 2 02:46:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA12804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 May 2000 02:46:47 +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 CAA12797 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 02:46:37 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA01900 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 May 2000 12:39:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200005011639.MAA01900@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: useful equipment To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 12:39:53 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <000801bfb283$52e0fe40$e9b4f1c3@kooijman> from "ton kooijman" at Apr 30, 2000 11:05:44 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 ton kooijman writes: > > Let us assume the following:=20 > > AKJ > K72 > Q10875 > 65 > > Q1087654 > A109 > K > 74 This is a hand I've alluded to fairly frequently. Edgar Kaplan said that the best line of play was a trick two claim -- after playing the HA. There are after all 3 fast losers so taking any kind of risk in the effort to make an over-trick is silly. The US declarer was Mike Becker. Of course hearts were 6-1 and spades 3-0 or there wouldn't be anything to discuss. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 2 10:12:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA14004 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 May 2000 10:12:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA13998 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 10:11:51 +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 12mQHt-000C5N-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 2 May 2000 01:11:42 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 01:05:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: L88 and concurrence of players References: <004201bfb36c$36eced40$6b047bc3@marina> In-Reply-To: <004201bfb36c$36eced40$6b047bc3@marina> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <004201bfb36c$36eced40$6b047bc3@marina>, Sergey Kapustin writes >Hi All! > >In the pair tournament I, as a TD, was called by the dealer (N) who had 14 >cards and bided 1S. W (who really had 12 cards) was still counting his cards >face down. >The 14th card was a small club (c5). According to the L13 I deemed that the >deal could be corrected and played normally with the concurrence of all four >players. But the W did not give a consent. Ok, there is no problem with L13. >I shall award. But under L88 I deemed that non-offending contestant is >required to take an artificial adjusted score through his own choice, so he >shall not be awarded a minimum of 60% and I adjusted NOS - 50%, OS - 40%. >Am I right? No. West has a right to refuse to play, and has exercised it. It is not his own fault he cannot play (not at all to blame). 60% >Suppose it was an individual event, is it correct to adjust N-40%, S-40%, >E-60%,W-50%? Nope, 60/40 > >And a common question about the L88 - when the Low requires "concurrence of >all four players" and TD shall award because there are no such concurrences, >is Av+ need not be granted to NOS? No. cheers john > >Best wishes >Sergey > > -- 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 May 2 13:11:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA14564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 May 2000 13:11:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep02-svc.mail.telepac.pt (fep02-svc.mail.telepac.pt [194.65.5.201]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA14557 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 13:11:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.telepac.pt ([213.13.96.107]) by fep02-svc.mail.telepac.pt (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with ESMTP id <20000502031353.ESYG26289.fep02-svc.mail.telepac.pt@mail.telepac.pt> for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 04:13:53 +0100 Message-ID: <390E4717.DCA70D68@mail.telepac.pt> Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 04:10:47 +0100 From: Lino =?iso-8859-1?Q?Tralh=E3o?= Reply-To: LINOTRALHAO@mail.telepac.pt X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: pt,pt-BR,en,es,fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: 2/3 questions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk 1) Suppose the A spades is led out of turn and retracted under Law 47E1 (the wrong leader was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead). The information about this card (A spades) is no/yes authorized? To whom? 2) Inferences about a question are authorized to the questioned side? Suppose West leads card X (for example, spades 9) and declarer (South) asks East if West may have card Z (for example, spades 10). Not having card Z, may East conclude (and use the information) that his partner (West) have card Z? Suppose now that card Z is in declarer (South) hand. Does Law 73F2 apply here? By other words: in the "or the like" that appear in this Law are included questions? Yet another way to present this: Law 73D2 says that: "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, through the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), or by the manner in which the call or play is made." May he attempt to mislead an apponent by means of a question? From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 2 14:56:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA14782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 May 2000 14:56:37 +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 OAA14777 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 14:56:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from grabiner (dialup-20-30-bg.wcnet.org [205.133.172.30]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id AAA15693; Tue, 2 May 2000 00:54:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000502005355.0081cbf0@mail.wcnet.org> X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 00:53:55 -0400 To: LINOTRALHAO@mail.telepac.pt, BLML From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: 2/3 questions In-Reply-To: <390E4717.DCA70D68@mail.telepac.pt> 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 OAA14778 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:10 AM 5/2/00 +0100, Lino Tralhão wrote: >1) > > Suppose the A spades is led out of turn and retracted under Law 47E1 >(the wrong leader was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his >turn to lead). > The information about this card (A spades) is no/yes authorized? To >whom? I would say that it is AI to the side which made the lead and UI to the opponents; if South told West, "Your lead", this is South's infraction. > Inferences about a question are authorized to the questioned side? > > Suppose West leads card X (for example, spades 9) and declarer >(South) asks East if West may have card Z (for example, spades 10). Not >having card Z, may East conclude (and use the information) that his >partner (West) have card Z? Yes, but at his own risk. East may draw inference from South's question. > Suppose now that card Z is in declarer (South) hand. Does Law 73F2 >apply here? By other words: in the "or the like" that appear in this Law >are included questions? Not necessarily so; South may need to know the E-W agreements in order to play properly. For example, in the situation above, when West leads the 9, South, holding KQT, may want to play to convince East that West has T9xx or QT9xx. He needs to know which of these is a possible holding; both are common agreements on the lead of a 9. However, asking a leading question could be a problem here; the question should really be, "What does the lead of the 9 signify?" In some cases, there is a natural, if improper, way to ask a question. When an ace is led against a suit, declarer might ask, "What do you lead from AK?" This is improper, but it's the obvious question to be asked about the lead. > Yet another way to present this: >Law 73D2 says that: >"A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or >gesture, through the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in >hesitating before playing a singleton), or by the manner in which the >call or play is made." > May he attempt to mislead an apponent by means of a question? > > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 2 16:56:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA15212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 May 2000 16:56:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from hunter2.int.kiev.ua (hunter2.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA15207 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 16:56:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from marina (ppp05.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.105]) by hunter2.int.kiev.ua (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA04153 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 09:59:57 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <004e01bfb403$f5204ea0$69047bc3@marina> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: Subject: Re: L88 and concurrence of players Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 09:30:33 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wrote > >: David J. Grabiner wrote > > >Hi All! > > > >In the pair tournament I, as a TD, was called by the dealer (N) who had 14 > >cards and bided 1S. W (who really had 12 cards) was still counting his cards > >face down. > >The 14th card was a small club (c5). According to the L13 I deemed that the > >deal could be corrected and played normally with the concurrence of all four > >players. But the W did not give a consent. Ok, there is no problem with L13. > >I shall award. But under L88 I deemed that non-offending contestant is > >required to take an artificial adjusted score through his own choice, so he > >shall not be awarded a minimum of 60% and I adjusted NOS - 50%, OS - 40%. > >Am I right? > > I don't think so. The objection is not a matter of choice; it is the > result of the player not believing the board can be played fairly. > If West had looked at his twelve cards, then he could be given 50%, as he > could be considered partly at fault. But if you apply this, you must also > give West 50% if he has looked when it is South who objects to the play of > the board, even if this is after South has looked at his 13 cards. OK, thank you. > >Suppose it was an individual event, is it correct to adjust N-40%, S-40%, > >E-60%,W-50%? > > No. South was not at fault, and must be given 60% as a non-offender. > Average plus is awarded to "a contestant in no way at fault", and South is > not the same contestant as North. I don't understand it. "A contestant in no way at fault" is a quote from L12C1. But we have quote from L89: "In individual events, the Director shall enforce the penalty provisions of these Laws, and the provisions requiring the award of adjusted scores, equally against both members of the offending side, even though only one of them may be responsible for the irregularity." I don't understand it. "A contestant in no way at fault" is a quote from L12C1. But we have quote from L89: "In individual events, the Director shall enforce the penalty provisions of these Laws, and the provisions requiring the award of adjusted scores, equally against both members of the offending side, even though only one of them may be responsible for the irregularity." As I understand L89, in purposes of awarding of adjusted scores (not PP) there are no difference between such irregularities as a revoke, LOOT or don't counting cards in the hand before a play. > [snip] cheers Sergey From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 2 19:01:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA15676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 May 2000 19:01:41 +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 TAA15667 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 19:01:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Tue, 2 May 2000 11:01:05 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id KAA24159 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 10:37:17 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'BLML'" Subject: RE: 2/3 questions Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 10:38:32 +0200 Message-ID: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310AF@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101B1FC@xion.spase.nl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David J. Grabiner wrote: >However, asking a leading question could be a problem here; the question >should really be, "What does the lead of the 9 signify?" An even better question would be: "What are your lead agreements?". On the question, "What does the lead of card X mean?" the only sensible answer is, "He thinks he can miss it." A card in itself doesn't mean anything, it is the relationship with other cards that is important. >In some cases, there is a natural, if improper, way to ask a question. >When an ace is led against a suit, declarer might ask, "What do you lead >from AK?" This is improper, but it's the obvious question to be asked >about the lead. That is not an improper question. Why should it be? -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 2 19:01:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA15671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 May 2000 19:01:39 +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 TAA15664 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 19:01:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Tue, 2 May 2000 11:01:05 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id KAA24285 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 10:55:02 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: L88 and concurrence of players Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 10:56:16 +0200 Message-ID: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310B0@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101B1FD@xion.spase.nl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sergey Kapustin wrote: >I don't understand it. "A contestant in no way at fault" is a quote from >L12C1. But we have quote from L89: "In individual events, the Director shall >enforce the penalty provisions of these Laws, and the provisions requiring >the award of adjusted scores, equally against both members of the offending >side, even though only one of them may be responsible for the irregularity." >As I understand L89, in purposes of awarding of adjusted scores (not PP) >there are no difference between such irregularities as a revoke, LOOT or >don't counting cards in the hand before a play. L89 speaks of an adjusted score. An adjusted score is a score where a certain contract score is replaced by some other contract score, e.g. 4SC for +420 is replaced by 3S+1 for +170. That score is given to both contestants, although only one of them may be responsible for the irregularity. But if also a PP is given, then only the one responsible for the irregularity gets the PP, not his partner. The score we have to deal with here, however, is not an adjusted score, but an artificial score. No contract is scored on this deal at all, we simply award a certain amount of points. Therefore, L89 does not apply here. And then we have four contestants at the table, in an individual match. The contestants who counted their cards get 60%, the one contestant who didn't gets 40%. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 2 22:14:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA16172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 May 2000 22:14:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA16156 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 22:13:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-229.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.229]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA27782 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 14:13:39 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <390EC2E4.1B16F715@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 13:58:28 +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: L88 and concurrence of players References: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310B0@xion.spase.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot wrote: > > > The score we have to deal with here, however, is not an adjusted score, > but an artificial score. No contract is scored on this deal at all, > we simply award a certain amount of points. Therefore, L89 does not > apply here. And then we have four contestants at the table, in an > individual match. The contestants who counted their cards get 60%, > the one contestant who didn't gets 40%. > Sorry Martin, much as I'd like to rule as you try to, your argumentation won't work. An artificial score IS and adjusted score, and thus subject to L89. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 2 22:13:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA16170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 May 2000 22:13:59 +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 WAA16155 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 22:13:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-229.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.229]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA27771 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 14:13:36 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <390EC283.C54A4FD8@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 13:56:51 +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: L88 and concurrence of players References: <004e01bfb403$f5204ea0$69047bc3@marina> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sergey Kapustin wrote: > > > I don't understand it. "A contestant in no way at fault" is a quote from > L12C1. But we have quote from L89: "In individual events, the Director shall > enforce the penalty provisions of these Laws, and the provisions requiring > the award of adjusted scores, equally against both members of the offending > side, even though only one of them may be responsible for the irregularity." > I don't understand it. [clearly not - you've written it twice !] > As I understand L89, in purposes of awarding of adjusted scores (not PP) > there are no difference between such irregularities as a revoke, LOOT or > don't counting cards in the hand before a play. > You are right, Sergey. There is a slight problem with the Laws there. If the provisions of L12C1 would have been written as : "60% if you can't play the board, minus the appropriate penalty". Then the application would indeed give S 60% and N (that was the one who did not count) 40%. Since the rules have not been written that way, we should indeed punish South equally for his partner's not counting. Indeed he also has to suffer when his partner revokes, or simply misplays a hand as declarer. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 2 22:14:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA16171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 May 2000 22:14:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA16157 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 22:13:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-229.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.229]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA27797 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 14:13:42 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <390EC484.73BDD8E2@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 14:05:24 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: two leads Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi All, The 10 of diamonds is led from the wrong side. When the declaring side point to this, the correct leader now also makes an opening lead, the eight of clubs. The TD is called (that was me). I have told the players the following : - you, presumed declarer, may accept the lead of the 10 of diamonds. You can either play the contract yourself, or have your partner play it. In those cases, the eight of clubs is a penalty card (...) - you can also demand the diamond lead from the other side, in which case the 10 is picked up, but the club remains a penalty card (...) - or you must accept the club lead, and the diamond remains a penalty card. I realise that I've taken a shortcut here (and I have not written down every detail that you know I have added (...)), but am I basically correct or have I overlooked something ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 3 00:04:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA16545 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 May 2000 00:04:41 +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 AAA16540 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 00:04:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Tue, 2 May 2000 16:04:08 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id PAA28310 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 15:55:45 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: L88 and concurrence of players Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 15:55:27 +0200 Message-ID: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310B4@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101B200@xion.spase.nl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Martin Sinot wrote: >> >> >> The score we have to deal with here, however, is not an adjusted score, >> but an artificial score. No contract is scored on this deal at all, >> we simply award a certain amount of points. Therefore, L89 does not >> apply here. And then we have four contestants at the table, in an >> individual match. The contestants who counted their cards get 60%, >> the one contestant who didn't gets 40%. >> > >Sorry Martin, much as I'd like to rule as you try to, your >argumentation won't work. >An artificial score IS and adjusted score, and thus subject >to L89. Whoops! I always thought that it is as I wrote above. However, the definition states that ANY score awarded by the Director is an adjusted score, and can be either "assigned" (different contract scored for either or both sides) or "artificial" (when no score can be obtained on a deal). That means that it is indeed subject to L89, hence the partner of the contestant not counting his cards also gets 40%. Whether that is what we want remains to be seen, but that is a different question. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 3 00:34:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA16668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 May 2000 00:34:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from midntprod03.minfod.com ([207.227.70.194]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA16663 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 00:34:29 +1000 (EST) Received: by MIDNTPROD03 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Tue, 2 May 2000 09:34:16 -0500 Message-ID: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF0920@MIDNTPROD03> From: John Nichols To: Bridge Laws Subject: RE: two leads Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 09:34:16 -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 The eight of clubs is not a lead, since play must stop when the irregularity is pointed out. It was intentionally exposed, so it is a major penalty card. In addition to the options you listed, the declarer may forbid a lead of a diamond by the correct opening leader and the ten of diamonds is picked up. The result is the eight of clubs must be led (it is a major penalty card). This is not a logical choice, since your third option has the eight led but the ten remain a penalty card, but should it not also be presented to the declarer? -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@village.uunet.be] Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 7:05 AM To: Bridge Laws Subject: two leads Hi All, The 10 of diamonds is led from the wrong side. When the declaring side point to this, the correct leader now also makes an opening lead, the eight of clubs. The TD is called (that was me). I have told the players the following : - you, presumed declarer, may accept the lead of the 10 of diamonds. You can either play the contract yourself, or have your partner play it. In those cases, the eight of clubs is a penalty card (...) - you can also demand the diamond lead from the other side, in which case the 10 is picked up, but the club remains a penalty card (...) - or you must accept the club lead, and the diamond remains a penalty card. I realise that I've taken a shortcut here (and I have not written down every detail that you know I have added (...)), but am I basically correct or have I overlooked something ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 3 00:48:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA16748 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 May 2000 00:48:24 +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 AAA16743 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 00:48:16 +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 HAA27124; Tue, 2 May 2000 07:47:50 -0700 Message-Id: <200005021447.HAA27124@mailhub.irvine.com> To: BLML CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: 2/3 questions In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 02 May 2000 04:10:47 PDT." <390E4717.DCA70D68@mail.telepac.pt> Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 07:47:50 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > 1) > > Suppose the A spades is led out of turn and retracted under Law 47E1 > (the wrong leader was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his > turn to lead). > The information about this card (A spades) is no/yes authorized? To > whom? Law 16C makes this clear: the information is authorized to the defense, unauthorized to the declarer. > 2) > > Inferences about a question are authorized to the questioned side? > > Suppose West leads card X (for example, spades 9) and declarer > (South) asks East if West may have card Z (for example, spades 10). Not > having card Z, may East conclude (and use the information) that his > partner (West) have card Z? Yes. > Suppose now that card Z is in declarer (South) hand. Does Law 73F2 > apply here? By other words: in the "or the like" that appear in this Law > are included questions? Questions are definitely included in the list of things that could illegally deceive an opponent. > Yet another way to present this: > Law 73D2 says that: > "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or > gesture, through the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in > hesitating before playing a singleton), or by the manner in which the > call or play is made." > May he attempt to mislead an apponent by means of a question? No. My feeling is that if South phrases the question like this: "Could West have the 10?" when South holds the 10, I think it's highly likely that South is violating 73F2. Declarer does have the right to know what their carding agreements are. And sometimes declarer has a legitimate reason to know, even if he holds the 10; the opponents' carding agreements will tell declarer how East views the opening lead, and how West thinks East will view the opening lead, and this may allow declarer to draw inferences about the line of defense adopted by the opponents. However, asking a specific question about the 10, when declarer holds the 10, crosses over the line into illegal deception. In the ACBL, where lead agreements are marked on the card, I think the best thing to do is to look at the opponents' convention card, and ask a question only if it appears to be incomplete or incorrectly filled out, and then ask something like "What are your agreements about that lead?" or "What are your agreements about leading from an interior sequence?" Those wordings would be less likely to violate 73F2, IMHO. (Plus, if the opponents don't have a convention card properly filled out, I'd be reluctant to let them claim 73F2 damage from declarer's question anyway.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 3 01:08:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA16850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 May 2000 01:04:03 +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 BAA16844 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 01:03:46 +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 IAA27399; Tue, 2 May 2000 08:03:17 -0700 Message-Id: <200005021503.IAA27399@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: L88 and concurrence of players In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 02 May 2000 10:56:16 PDT." <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310B0@xion.spase.nl> Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 08:03:18 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot wrote: > L89 speaks of an adjusted score. An adjusted score is a score where a > certain contract score is replaced by some other contract score, e.g. > 4SC for +420 is replaced by 3S+1 for +170. . . . The score we have > to deal with here, however, is not an adjusted score, but an > artificial score. Nope, read Law 12C. A score for a different contract or result is an "assigned adjusted score" (12C2). An average-minus or average-plus is an "artificial adjusted score" (12C1). But both of these are two different kinds of "adjusted scores". -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 3 01:46:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA17006 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 May 2000 01:46:15 +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 BAA17001 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 01:46:07 +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 LAA22349 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 11:45:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA112902356; Tue, 2 May 2000 11:45:56 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 11:45:39 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: TR: two leads Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="BDY.RTF" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="BDY.RTF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id BAA17002 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Message d'origine----- De : DuBreuil, Laval Envoyé : 2 mai, 2000 09:35 À : hermandw Objet : RE: two leads Herman wrote: Hi All, The 10 of diamonds is led from the wrong side. When the declaring side point to this, the correct leader now also makes an opening lead, the eight of clubs. The TD is called (that was me). I have told the players the following : - you, presumed declarer, may accept the lead of the 10 of diamonds. You can either play the contract yourself, or have your partner play it. In those cases, the eight of clubs is a penalty card (...) - you can also demand the diamond lead from the other side, in which case the 10 is picked up, but the club remains a penalty card (...) - or you must accept the club lead, and the diamond remains a penalty card. I realise that I've taken a shortcut here (and I have not written down every detail that you know I have added (...)), but am I basically correct or have I overlooked something ? -- Herman DE WAEL IMHO you missed nothing Herman. You had to deal with a faced opening LOOT (Law 54) followed by an other lead (major penalty card as to Law 50). As you ruled: - declarer can accept D10 and C8 remains a penalty card; - declarer can require or forbid a D lead from right side, then D10 goes in hand, but C8 remains on table (penalty); - declarer can let defender choose his lead, but play of C8 is then mandatory (Law 50) and D10 remains on table. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 3 02:08:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA16819 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 May 2000 01:00:59 +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 BAA16814 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 01:00:41 +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 IAA27338; Tue, 2 May 2000 08:00:09 -0700 Message-Id: <200005021500.IAA27338@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: L88 and concurrence of players In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 02 May 2000 09:30:33 PDT." <004e01bfb403$f5204ea0$69047bc3@marina> Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 08:00:09 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sergey Kapustin wrote: > > No. South was not at fault, and must be given 60% as a non-offender. > > Average plus is awarded to "a contestant in no way at fault", and South is > > not the same contestant as North. > > I don't understand it. "A contestant in no way at fault" is a quote from > L12C1. But we have quote from L89: "In individual events, the Director shall > enforce the penalty provisions of these Laws, and the provisions requiring > the award of adjusted scores, equally against both members of the offending > side, even though only one of them may be responsible for the irregularity." According to Law 88, a non-offending contestant who is required to take an artificial adjusted score gets at least 60%. In an individual contest, each player is a contestant. So South gets awarded 60%. This seems to contradict Law 89 in a case like this, but I think Law 88 takes precedence since it is more specific in referring to "artificial adjusted scores" while Law 88 refers only to "adjusted scores". Anyway, that's how I'd rule. However, it appears to me to be a serious flaw in Laws 88-89 that they seem to say two opposite things. (I haven't checked to see if there's a WBFLC interpretation on this point.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 3 02:11:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA16838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 May 2000 01:02:51 +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 BAA16830 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 01:02:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Tue, 2 May 2000 17:01:56 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id QAA28603; Tue, 2 May 2000 16:59:11 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'Herman De Wael'" , "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: two leads Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 16:58:54 +0200 Message-ID: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310B5@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101B201@xion.spase.nl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Hi All, > >The 10 of diamonds is led from the wrong side. >When the declaring side point to this, the correct leader >now also makes an opening lead, the eight of clubs. > >The TD is called (that was me). > >I have told the players the following : > >- you, presumed declarer, may accept the lead of the 10 of >diamonds. You can either play the contract yourself, or have >your partner play it. In those cases, the eight of clubs is >a penalty card (...) >- you can also demand the diamond lead from the other side, >in which case the 10 is picked up, but the club remains a >penalty card (...) >- or you must accept the club lead, and the diamond remains >a penalty card. > >I realise that I've taken a shortcut here (and I have not >written down every detail that you know I have added (...)), >but am I basically correct or have I overlooked something ? Well, declarer *can* forbid the diamond lead, in which he must lead the C8 and D10 is picked up. I admit that it is a bit silly, though, since C8 must always be lead if declarer does not demand diamonds... -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 3 05:31:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA18026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 May 2000 05:31:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtppop2.gte.net (smtppop2.gte.net [207.115.153.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA18021 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 05:31:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from mike (1Cust3.tnt2.bellingham.wa.da.uu.net [63.25.64.3]) by smtppop2.gte.net with ESMTP for ; id OAA23201186 Tue, 2 May 2000 14:31:32 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <000e01bfb463$c1e78200$0b00000a@mike> Reply-To: "Mike Dodson" From: "Mike Dodson" To: "BLML" References: <200005021447.HAA27124@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: 2/3 questions Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 11:24:18 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam wrote: >Lino wrote: > > > > 1) > > > > Suppose the A spades is led out of turn and retracted under Law 47E1 > > (the wrong leader was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his > > turn to lead). > > The information about this card (A spades) is no/yes authorized? To > > whom? > > Law 16C makes this clear: the information is authorized to the > defense, unauthorized to the declarer. > 16C refers to NOS. Surely a lead out of turn, even if misinformed, is an offense. Its seems to me both sides are offending in this case. 47E1 specifies no penalty, not no offense. mike dodson From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 3 08:13:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA18536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 May 2000 08:13:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep02-svc.mail.telepac.pt (fep02-svc.mail.telepac.pt [194.65.5.201]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA18531 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 08:13:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([212.55.173.211]) by fep02-svc.mail.telepac.pt (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000502221542.JRMK26289.fep02-svc.mail.telepac.pt@default> for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 23:15:42 +0100 Reply-To: From: "Rui L.Marques" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: 2/3 questions Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 23:12:06 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <000e01bfb463$c1e78200$0b00000a@mike> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I would disagree on this point. Even because the fact that the laws stipulate that the opening leader can pick his card up without penalty, seems to point to the deduction that he is a non-offender. He showed his opening lead through no fault of his own... > 16C refers to NOS. Surely a lead out of turn, even if misinformed, is an > offense. Its seems to me both sides are offending in this case. 47E1 > specifies no penalty, not no offense. > > mike dodson > > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 3 19:01:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA21974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 May 2000 19:01:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from uucp.nl.uu.net (uucp.nl.uu.net [193.79.237.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA21969 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 19:01:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Wed, 3 May 2000 11:01:08 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id KAA32576 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 10:39:10 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: L88 and concurrence of players Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 10:38:55 +0200 Message-ID: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310B6@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101B207@xion.spase.nl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >According to Law 88, a non-offending contestant who is required to >take an artificial adjusted score gets at least 60%. In an individual >contest, each player is a contestant. So South gets awarded 60%. > >This seems to contradict Law 89 in a case like this, but I think Law >88 takes precedence since it is more specific in referring to >"artificial adjusted scores" while Law 88 refers only to "adjusted >scores". Anyway, that's how I'd rule. > >However, it appears to me to be a serious flaw in Laws 88-89 that they >seem to say two opposite things. This is an interesting case. Maybe we need some test cases to sort this out. Let's take the following hypothetical cases: In an individual contest, EW play 4S for +420, but West (and only West) used UI during the auction. The TD determines that NS were damaged by this. Case 1: TD judges that West's last 4S-bid should have been a pass, so corrects to 3S. What does every contestant get? OK, that was an easy one, right? Now let's consider this: Case 2: Same setting as before, but this time, TD cannot decide what the score would become had there been no infraction. So he decides to award artificial scores to everyone. Now what does everybody get? And now the original case: Case 3: Still in an individual contest, everybody counts his cards, except West, who happens to have 14 cards, North 12. The deal has become unplayable and artificial scores have to be assigned. What does everyone get here? I look forward to your reactions. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 3 23:21:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA22693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 May 2000 23:21:29 +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 XAA22688 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 23:21:18 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 18681 invoked from network); 3 May 2000 13:20:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.7.82) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 3 May 2000 13:20:27 -0000 Message-ID: <39102868.F6AC60E@inter.net.il> Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 16:23:52 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: LINOTRALHAO@mail.telepac.pt CC: BLML Subject: Re: 2/3 questions References: <390E4717.DCA70D68@mail.telepac.pt> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello Lino Q 1 = Read please L16C -> authorized for NOS , UI for OS. Q 2 = Any question is legal and ethic , as long as it is asked in the right manner. D. Grabiner was not right assuming that "what do you lead from AK ?" is not a decent question : a player can even add ...."and what do you lead from QJ...". Dany Lino Tralhão wrote: > 1) > > Suppose the A spades is led out of turn and retracted under Law 47E1 > (the wrong leader was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his > turn to lead). > The information about this card (A spades) is no/yes authorized? To > whom? > > 2) > > Inferences about a question are authorized to the questioned side? > > Suppose West leads card X (for example, spades 9) and declarer > (South) asks East if West may have card Z (for example, spades 10). Not > having card Z, may East conclude (and use the information) that his > partner (West) have card Z? > Suppose now that card Z is in declarer (South) hand. Does Law 73F2 > apply here? By other words: in the "or the like" that appear in this Law > are included questions? > > Yet another way to present this: > Law 73D2 says that: > "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or > gesture, through the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in > hesitating before playing a singleton), or by the manner in which the > call or play is made." > May he attempt to mislead an apponent by means of a question? From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 3 23:21:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA22700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 May 2000 23:21:43 +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 XAA22695 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 23:21:35 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 18862 invoked from network); 3 May 2000 13:20:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.7.82) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 3 May 2000 13:20:48 -0000 Message-ID: <3910287F.D9093813@inter.net.il> Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 16:24:15 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Dodson CC: BLML Subject: Re: 2/3 questions References: <200005021447.HAA27124@mailhub.irvine.com> <000e01bfb463$c1e78200$0b00000a@mike> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Mike first apply L47E1 - if the ootl was mistakenly informed , he did not make any infraction...only afterwards apply L16C - which explains the matter for both NOS and OS. Dany Mike Dodson wrote: > Adam wrote: > >Lino wrote: > > > > > > > 1) > > > > > > Suppose the A spades is led out of turn and retracted under Law 47E1 > > > (the wrong leader was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his > > > turn to lead). > > > The information about this card (A spades) is no/yes authorized? To > > > whom? > > > > Law 16C makes this clear: the information is authorized to the > > defense, unauthorized to the declarer. > > > 16C refers to NOS. Surely a lead out of turn, even if misinformed, is an > offense. Its seems to me both sides are offending in this case. 47E1 > specifies no penalty, not no offense. > > mike dodson From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 4 12:15:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA26410 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 May 2000 12:15:37 +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 MAA26399 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 12:15:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12nBAY-0009UP-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 May 2000 02:15:17 +0000 Message-ID: <9xPUY8AIzNE5EwIB@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 03:13:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: EBU Spring Foursomes 2000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Brd 6 AT84 W N E S Dlr E 7642 Vul E/W K95 2D#1 2H T4 X#2 NB 2S NB 963 KQJ752 NB 3H 3S AP T5 9 AJ72 Q43 Notes: AQ62 J93 #1: Multi -- #2: Not alerted AKQJ83 Result: Lead HA T86 3S+1 by E K875 NS-170 In the EBU, an unalerted double when partner has bid is for penalties. Before the 3H bid, N checked the meaning of the double. He was told it showed hearts, ie it was primarily for penalties. Before the opening lead, West pointed out the double asked partner to describe his hand, only passing if the 2D opening was based on a heart suit. The Director was called at this time. The Director was recalled after the stanza had been scored, and just before the next stanza, which was during the Correction Period according to the CoC of the event. The four players had looked at E/W's system file, and all four now agreed that West's description was correct and East's was wrong. North said he would have bid 3H first round if correctly informed: South said 4H by him was now routine. East said with his totally spade oriented hand he was never defending 2Hx or 3Hx and would always go to 3S. West said that if East bid 3S directly and South bid 4H he would always bid 4S: he had nearly bid it on the actual sequence. N/S said they were damaged because they might have played in 4H: E/W said N/S were not damaged because E/W would always bid 4S over 4H, and furthermore at the end of the hand N/S had said they were not damaged. N/S also suggested that 4S might be beaten. -- 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 May 4 14:49:35 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA28186 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 May 2000 14:49:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.iconz.co.nz (mail.iconz.co.nz [210.48.22.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA28176; Thu, 4 May 2000 14:48:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from carbon (grayson1.internet.co.nz [210.48.33.136]) by mail.iconz.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA012750957415426; Thu, 4 May 2000 16:43:46 +1200 (NZST) Received: by carbon with Microsoft Mail id <01BFB5E8.6902E220@carbon>; Thu, 4 May 2000 16:47:18 +1200 Message-ID: <01BFB5E8.6902E220@carbon> From: Blair Campbell To: "'Alan Ciplys'" , "'Alpha Resources'" , "'Amdel Instrument Division'" , "'Amdel Perth'" , "'Amdel Sydney'" , "'Andrew Gasiorowski'" To: "'Andrew McGregor'" , "'Andrew Powell'" , "'AngelaT'" , "'Anton Jakowetz'" , "'April Taylor'" , "'babrams@uniserve.com'" To: "'Bernadette Skurray'" , "'Biolab Direct'" , "'biolabs'" , "Rob Gregory (Graysons)" , "'Bob Silvani'" , "'Brenton Pritchard'" To: "'Brian Doran'" , "'bridge law admin'" , "'Bridge-laws'" , "'Chrissie Kouts'" , "'Christine Corrick'" , "'Cindy Taylor'" To: "'Darren Lyon'" , "'Darryl Thompson'" , "'Dave Armstrong'" , "'David Cox'" , "'Derek King'" , "'Dieter Beisiegel'" To: "'Dino Caputo'" , "'Doug Gifford'" , "'eugene setiawan'" , "'Fran Jenkins(NZCBA)'" , "'Geoff Anderson'" , "'Georgie Fiedler'" To: "'Geostats'" , "'Glenn Warren'" , "'Gorden Smith'" , "'Graeme Swain'" , "'Helen Kostalas'" , "'John Hempenstall'" To: "'Keith Wilson'" , "'Kim Allen'" , "'Kirsten Bennie'" , "'Knight Associates'" , "'KOliver'" , "'Laurie Miller'" To: "'Margaret Mulraney'" , "'Margret Archer'" , "'Maria Pamminger'" , "'Mark Garbin'" , "'Martin Clay'" , "'Massey University Library'" To: "'Mike Boumeeter'" , "'Minitab Inc.'" , "'Neville Walkom'" , "'Nickey Plunkett'" , "'Paul Capps'" , "'Paul Sokolowski'" To: "'Paul Woperis'" , "'Peter Dzwonczyk'" , "'Phil Meldrum'" , "'Rob Gregory'" , "'Robert Gregory'" , "'Rocklabs'" To: "'Ron Graves'" , "'RSolomon'" , "'Scott Matheson'" , "'Speros Galanopoulos'" , Steve La Brooy , "'Steve Labrooy'" To: "'Tom Moeller'" , "'Tony Aykroyd'" , "'William'" Subject: Change of Email Address Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 16:46:40 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear All My E mail address has now been changed to blair_campbel@amdel.com Please amend your mail list. Thanks. Regards Blair Campbell Amdel NZ Ltd. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 4 15:20:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA28268 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 May 2000 15:20:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtppop2.gte.net (smtppop2.gte.net [207.115.153.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA28263 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 15:20:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from mike (1Cust3.tnt2.bellingham.wa.da.uu.net [63.25.64.3]) by smtppop2.gte.net with ESMTP for ; id AAA22947637 Thu, 4 May 2000 00:20:16 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <001501bfb57c$afd1d600$0b00000a@mike> Reply-To: "Mike Dodson" From: "Mike Dodson" To: "BLML" References: <200005021447.HAA27124@mailhub.irvine.com> <000e01bfb463$c1e78200$0b00000a@mike> <3910287F.D9093813@inter.net.il> Subject: Re: 2/3 questions Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 20:55:26 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: "Dany Haimovici" > Dear Mike > > first apply L47E1 - if the ootl was mistakenly informed , he did not make any > infraction...only afterwards apply L16C - which explains the matter for both NOS > > and OS. > > Dany Before L47E1 is applied, it seems likely correct procedure in L41 is violated. The spade ace is exposed, was there a face up lead? If so, both sides have offended. Only if the ace was exposed after a face down lead and mistaken information corrected after the card was faced and before dummy was exposed might you argue there is an innocent side. Even in this case, isn't it everybody's responsibility to know whose lead it is? L47e1 recognizes the shared responsibility for the oloot by allowing the withdrawal of the card, no more. L47e1 says the card is withdrawn without penalty. It does not say the oloot was not an infraction. In my mind it does not make the defenders non offending, it just eliminates the normally onerous penalties for an oloot. L16 comes after the (non) penalty, not as part of it. mike > > Mike Dodson wrote: > > > Adam wrote: > > >Lino wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 1) > > > > > > > > Suppose the A spades is led out of turn and retracted under Law 47E1 > > > > (the wrong leader was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his > > > > turn to lead). > > > > The information about this card (A spades) is no/yes authorized? To > > > > whom? > > > > > > Law 16C makes this clear: the information is authorized to the > > > defense, unauthorized to the declarer. > > > > > 16C refers to NOS. Surely a lead out of turn, even if misinformed, is an > > offense. Its seems to me both sides are offending in this case. 47E1 > > specifies no penalty, not no offense. > > > > mike dodson > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 4 18:25:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA28594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 May 2000 18:25:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from mx1.mail.iig.com.au (mx1.mail.iig.com.au [203.61.192.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA28589 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 18:25:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from iig.com.au (cns-4-a101.pool.iig.com.au [203.102.105.101]) by mx1.mail.iig.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3/R8) with ESMTP id SAA09532 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 18:25:14 +1000 Message-ID: <391134D1.C4F6D75F@iig.com.au> Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 18:29:06 +1000 From: H Thompson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Respect Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As another lurker I'd like to second Eric's comments. Sarcasm isn't necessary. Didn't know about Dany's dogs. Helen Thompson From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 4 20:15:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA29087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 May 2000 20:15:05 +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 UAA29082 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 20:14:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from p8fs08a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.88.144] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt9-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12mttJ-0003uw-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 May 2000 08:48:18 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: EBU Spring Foursomes 2000 Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 11:17:10 +0100 Message-ID: <01bfb5b1$e8b0c140$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, May 04, 2000 3:25 AM Subject: EBU Spring Foursomes 2000 > > Brd 6 AT84 W N E S > Dlr E 7642 > Vul E/W K95 2D#1 2H > T4 X#2 NB 2S NB > 963 KQJ752 NB 3H 3S AP > T5 9 > AJ72 Q43 Notes: > AQ62 J93 #1: Multi > -- #2: Not alerted > AKQJ83 Result: > Lead HA T86 3S+1 by E > K875 NS-170 > > In the EBU, an unalerted double when partner has bid is for penalties. > > Before the 3H bid, N checked the meaning of the double. He was told >it showed hearts, ie it was primarily for penalties. > North has effectively said "I don't believe you". > > Before the opening lead, West pointed out the double asked partner to >describe his hand, only passing if the 2D opening was based on a heart >suit. The Director was called at this time. > Did the TD offer North the opportunity to change his final Pass? Law21 If not apply Law 82 and award N/S E/W +3imps to each side.(12C1) [I hope someone will pick up on this and explain the application of 12C2 in teams play.If we still had a CTD I would ask him:-)] If this option was offered and not accepted I would rule that absent the MI then N/S would very likely bid and make 4H.The MI has muddied the waters but I do not know why South did not bid 4H anyway. I would not allow a 4S save by E who has opened pre-emptively and should pass any decision to his partner, passing a double if it is made. There is nothing in E's hand that W might not expect. > Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 5 02:13:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA00506 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 May 2000 02:13:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA00501 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 02:13:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from 209-122-238-171.s171.tnt2.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com ([209.122.238.171] helo=erols) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #3) id 12nOFW-0004PZ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 May 2000 12:13:17 -0400 Message-ID: <009301bfb5e3$a54c2de0$020aa8c0@com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310B6@xion.spase.nl> Subject: Re: L88 and concurrence of players Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 12:13:03 -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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Sinot" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 4:38 AM Subject: RE: L88 and concurrence of players > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > >According to Law 88, a non-offending contestant who is required to > >take an artificial adjusted score gets at least 60%. In an individual > >contest, each player is a contestant. So South gets awarded 60%. > > > >This seems to contradict Law 89 in a case like this, but I think Law > >88 takes precedence since it is more specific in referring to > >"artificial adjusted scores" while Law 88 refers only to "adjusted > >scores". Anyway, that's how I'd rule. > > > >However, it appears to me to be a serious flaw in Laws 88-89 that they > >seem to say two opposite things. > To recap the problem, and rule out some cases: A contestant is the pair, in a pairs game, and the player in an individual event. L88 requires a non-offending contestant to receive at least 60% in receiving an artificial adjusted score. These scores are awarded under L12C1 when no bridge result is obtained. In an individual event, this would require that the partner of the offender receive 60% if not at fault in the infraction. L89 requires that penalties (except procedural) and awards of adjusted scores (both artificial under 12C1, or assigned under 12C2) be applied to both members of the offending side, even though only one of them may have been responsible for the infraction. This makes it clear that adjustments made under L12C2 apply to both members of the pair in an individual, as L88 does not apply assigned scores. This leaves us with adjustments made under L12C1. If a player's partner is responsible, then the two laws conflict. L88 tells us the non-offending player must receive 60%, while L89 tells us that both partners must share the adjusted score. I'm hoping those wiser in the Laws than I can see a resolution to this that I don't. IMO L89 should be modified to refer to assigned adjusted scores only. That is, whenever a pair in an individual event receives a bridge score, the pair would share in the score, even if the score came through an adjustment. However, if a bridge score is unobtainable and an artificial score is assigned, only the individual responsible for making a bridge result unobtainable would be penalized. Until there is some clarification, I'm going to try really hard to not award an artificial adjusted score in an individual event... Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 5 04:20:42 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA00854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 May 2000 04:20:42 +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 EAA00849 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 04:20:33 +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 OAA24139 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 14:20:23 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <9xPUY8AIzNE5EwIB@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 14:19:15 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: EBU Spring Foursomes 2000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 3:13 AM +0100 5/4/00, David Stevenson wrote: > Brd 6 AT84 W N E S > Dlr E 7642 > Vul E/W K95 2D#1 2H > T4 X#2 NB 2S NB > 963 KQJ752 NB 3H 3S AP > T5 9 > AJ72 Q43 Notes: > AQ62 J93 #1: Multi > -- #2: Not alerted > AKQJ83 Result: > Lead HA T86 3S+1 by E > K875 NS-170 > > In the EBU, an unalerted double when partner has bid is for penalties. > > Before the 3H bid, N checked the meaning of the double. He was told >it showed hearts, ie it was primarily for penalties. West has UI, but he did not make a bid suggested by the UI. However, this matters later. > Before the opening lead, West pointed out the double asked partner to >describe his hand, only passing if the 2D opening was based on a heart >suit. The Director was called at this time. Since North was last to speak, he could correct his final pass. If he was not given this option, then he could reasonably have bid 4H. If he was given the option and declined, he has not lost his right to redress, as his spade values are a possible indication that 3S and 4H may both go down. > North said he would have bid 3H first round if correctly informed: >South said 4H by him was now routine. Both bids here are automatic. >East said with his totally spade >oriented hand he was never defending 2Hx or 3Hx and would always go to >3S. Since East did this on the actual hand, we can accept this even though it may be bad bridge. East bids 3S over North's 3H, and South still bids 4H. >West said that if East bid 3S directly and South bid 4H he would >always bid 4S: he had nearly bid it on the actual sequence. This is where West's UI becomes relevant. West knows East has bid 3S opposite a heart penalty double, thus probably indicating semi-solid spades and short hearts; by agreement, it doesn't show as pure a hand. Is pass by west a LA? That's hard to tell; if East has two or three hearts and South is bidding game on high cards, then 4S will go down doubled but 4H may make. I'm not that familiar with Multi (illegal in the ACBL) and would need to consult with other players, but I would be inclined to rule pass not an LA under the EBU's rule and an LA under the ACBL rule. However, it is now likely that North won't double 4S, and South will compete to 5H, doubled by West. 5H goes down one. > N/S said they were damaged because they might have played in 4H: E/W >said N/S were not damaged because E/W would always bid 4S over 4H, and >furthermore at the end of the hand N/S had said they were not damaged. N/S are not required to make that determination. >N/S also suggested that 4S might be beaten. Can North find the winning line against 4S? He didn't find it against 3S, but he had a different picture of the hands, and the overtrick was less important than beating the contract if South had some more high cards. Two rounds of hearts, SK taken by North's SA, and North returns another heart. East must ruff in hand, and now he goes down because North will lead another heart when in with the DK. I think this defense is "at all probable" but not "likely"; North doesn't know that the ruff and sluff is safe. It is not even "at all probable" if North has doubled, as that tips off East to the trump split and suggests the lead of the first spade from dummy. Thus, if pass is not a LA to 4S, I rule -100 for E/W in 4S, -100 for N/S in 5Hx. If pass is a LA to 4S, I rule -620/+620 in 4H. But this is clearly a case that needs an expert committee; I don't know the standard of play at the EBU Spring Foursomes, but it may well be better than my standard of play, and I would need some idea of East's ability. From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 5 04:30:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA00895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 May 2000 04:30:39 +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 EAA00890 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 04:30:29 +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 OAA03703 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 14:30:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA13015 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 May 2000 14:30:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 14:30:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200005041830.OAA13015@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L88 and concurrence of players X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Hirsch Davis" [Good summary deleted.] > L89 requires that penalties (except procedural) and awards of adjusted > scores (both artificial under 12C1, or assigned under 12C2) be applied to > both members of the offending side, even though only one of them may have > been responsible for the infraction. The exact language is "provisions requiring the award of adjusted scores." If you read that literally, it forbids letting the table result stand for one partner while giving an adjusted score to the other, but it does not say that the adjusted scores assigned must be equal! If you believe this literal interpretation, it applies both to L12C1 and L12C2. To make this concrete, suppose in an individual event, South choose a call that violates L16A. There are no other infractions. The illegal call is cancelled, of course, and you award adjusted scores under L12C2. Under this interpretation, North gets the most favorable result that was likely had the infraction not occurred, not the least favorable result at all probable. I do not really believe the above is the correct interpretation! For one thing, L12C2 refers to "side," not "contestant." In contrast, L12C1 refers to "contestant." I believe this difference is significant. On the whole, reading L12C1, L12C2, L88, and L89 together, it seems to me that in an individual event when one player makes a board unplayable, his partner (if in no way at fault) should receive avg+. If, however, the board is played, adjusted scores should only be awarded under L12C2, and they should be the same for both members of the partnership ("side"). However, it also seems to me that reasonable people could disagree with _either_ of these notions. (I don't see how one could disagree with _both_.) From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 5 07:02:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA01411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 May 2000 07:02:24 +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 HAA01406 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 07:02:14 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 96119 invoked for bounce); 4 May 2000 20:11:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.57.171) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 4 May 2000 20:11:19 -0000 Message-ID: <028501bfb605$96ca5f40$ab391dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <9xPUY8AIzNE5EwIB@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: EBU Spring Foursomes 2000 Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 22:15:52 +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 David Stevenson wrote: > Brd 6 AT84 W N E S > Dlr E 7642 > Vul E/W K95 2D#1 2H > T4 X#2 NB 2S NB > 963 KQJ752 NB 3H 3S AP > T5 9 > AJ72 Q43 Notes: > AQ62 J93 #1: Multi > -- #2: Not alerted > AKQJ83 Result: > Lead HA T86 3S+1 by E > K875 NS-170 > > In the EBU, an unalerted double when partner has bid is for penalties. > > Before the 3H bid, N checked the > meaning of the double. He was told > it showed hearts, ie it was primarily for penalties. > > Before the opening lead, West > pointed out the double asked partner to > describe his hand, only passing if the > 2D opening was based on a heart > suit. The Director was called at this time. mmmh, seems the director at this point of time did not give N the option to change his final pass. I disagree with Anne here, I will not give E/W +3 IMPs on this board. > The Director was recalled after the stanza had been scored, and just > before the next stanza, which was during the Correction Period according > to the CoC of the event. The four players had looked at E/W's system > file, and all four now agreed that West's description was correct and > East's was wrong. MI is obvious. Furthermore, I don't understand why E explains W's double as penalties and then bids 3S on his own, even though partner has advertised that he probably beats 2H on his own? > North said he would have bid 3H first round if correctly informed: > South said 4H by him was now routine. East said with his totally spade > oriented hand he was never defending 2Hx or 3Hx and would always go to > 3S. Self-serving nonsense. If E opens a weak two in spades, and W doubles 2H for penalties, then it is normal that E's hand is "totally spade oriented". > West said that if East bid 3S directly and South bid 4H he would > always bid 4S: he had nearly bid it on the actual sequence. I adjust to 4H= for E/W, because it is "at all likely" that N/S play 4H without the MI. I think that with his solid hearts S should see after N's delayed raise to 3H that W certainly does not have a penalty-X of 2H. I do not consider it an egregious error not to bid 4H, and I thus adjust to 4H= for N/S, too. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 5 09:38:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA01670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:14:43 +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 IAA01633 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:14:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12nTsG-000PRp-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 May 2000 23:13:37 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 21:21:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: easter claim References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5BE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3.0.1.32.20000425150326.006f8890@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000425150326.006f8890@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >#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. I am sorry, I cannot see how the last sentence follows from what is written before. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 5 10:09:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA01674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:14:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA01648 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:14:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12nTsI-000PS3-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 May 2000 23:13:39 +0100 Message-ID: <7EBK0aBQ5dE5EwLC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 21:32:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: easter claim References: <003101bfb05b$ed6b2dc0$b484d9ce@oemcomputer> <20000428003039.20133.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000428003039.20133.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: >The 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. Does anyone actually suggest that most claims lead to BLML-type problems? I think not. If the sledgehammer is the only practical way, so be it. But in practice we have another way that seems to work to me: use the current Laws without worrying about them, and accept that in 0.5% of cases you have a problem. -- 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 May 5 11:09:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA01675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:14:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA01660 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:14:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12nTsO-000PS3-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 May 2000 23:13:47 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 22:46:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: easter claim References: <3907F4ED.4760B146@village.uunet.be> <000101bfb046$c0cca6a0$e88a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.de> In-Reply-To: <000101bfb046$c0cca6a0$e88a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.de> 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 IAA01664 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Bley wrote: >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? If Richard is in the forest when no-one can hear him, and he agrees with what Herman has said, is he still wrong? :)))) If you do not know where this comes from, on my Cats Newsgroup there is a sigfile that says: If a man gives an opinion in a forest where no woman can hear him, is he still wrong? :)))) -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 5 12:09:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA01618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:14:23 +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 IAA01604 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:13:56 +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 12nTs9-000PRs-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 May 2000 23:13:31 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 14:09:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: Re: Respect References: <002101bfb37d$b0472640$3c84d9ce@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: <002101bfb37d$b0472640$3c84d9ce@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <002101bfb37d$b0472640$3c84d9ce@oemcomputer>, Craig Senior writes >Hi Eric > >Good to see you emerge from lurker-land. Hope you'll speak up more...some >of our grand masters and law givers can get out of touch with the lower >level games unless we remind them how the masses playat bridge. I hope you >find, as I do, that this list can be at least a gradual and partial cure for >our ignorance. > >Have you told David about your cats and Dany about your dogs? The cats that own Eric are already on our list. Eric Favager Poppy, Daisy, Smiffie, Ollie, Monty, Fluffy 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/qu_npoo.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 5 12:42:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA01671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:14:43 +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 IAA01627 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:14:15 +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 12nTsH-000PRs-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 May 2000 23:13:38 +0100 Message-ID: <0EyJEWBc1dE5EwLo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 21:28:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: easter claim References: <200004241629.MAA23142@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.20000426140602.006914b0@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000426140602.006914b0@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >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." How about: "'Careless or inferior for the class of player involved' includes even play that would obviously be extraordinarily careless or grossly inferior for the actual player involved who wouldn't ever make such plays." ? -- 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 May 5 12:58:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA01672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:14:45 +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 IAA01616 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:14:11 +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 12nTsB-000PRq-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 May 2000 23:13:33 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 14:16:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 2/3 questions References: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101B1FC@xion.spase.nl> <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310AF@xion.spase.nl> In-Reply-To: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310AF@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot wrote: >David J. Grabiner wrote: > >>However, asking a leading question could be a problem here; the question >>should really be, "What does the lead of the 9 signify?" > >An even better question would be: "What are your lead agreements?". On >the question, "What does the lead of card X mean?" the only sensible >answer is, "He thinks he can miss it." A card in itself doesn't mean >anything, it is the relationship with other cards that is important. That sounds like a Bridge Lawyer talking. If the meaning of the question is obvious it need not be totally accurate, and an answer such as "He thinks he can miss it." is a breach of Proprieties and the Principle of Full disclosure. If given by an experienced player a PP should be routine. The ACBL say >** The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question. >** Any request for information should be the trigger. Opponents need >only indicate the desire for information - all relevant disclosure >should be given automatically. I agree with this. >>In some cases, there is a natural, if improper, way to ask a question. >>When an ace is led against a suit, declarer might ask, "What do you lead >>from AK?" This is improper, but it's the obvious question to be asked >>about the lead. > >That is not an improper question. Why should it be? If you led an ace when not holding the king then it is an obvious inference that it is partner's hand if declarer asks your partner what you lead from AK. -- 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 May 5 13:09:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA01676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:14:51 +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 IAA01647 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:14:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12nTsJ-000PRq-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 May 2000 23:13:41 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 21:47:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: easter claim References: <20000423203533.8341.qmail@hotmail.com> <001601bfad75$70711020$115608c3@dodona> <3903FCAE.388C2251@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3903FCAE.388C2251@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: >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. It is very difficult to see how Herman can possibly be wrong in what he has written here. In effect the only other arguments that have been produced basically seem to say that the Laws themselves are irrational: that may be so in certain cases but we should then make reasonable interpretations [as we already have to for an opening lead out of turn if unaccompanied by a lead in turn from partner]. >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. I don't care. There is no reasonable alternative interpretation, and that is good enough for me. -- 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 May 5 13:23:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA01613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:14:09 +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 IAA01590 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:13:42 +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 12nTrx-000PRs-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 May 2000 23:13:24 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 13:54:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L88 and concurrence of players References: <004201bfb36c$36eced40$6b047bc3@marina> In-Reply-To: <004201bfb36c$36eced40$6b047bc3@marina> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sergey Kapustin wrote: >In the pair tournament I, as a TD, was called by the dealer (N) who had 14 >cards and bided 1S. W (who really had 12 cards) was still counting his cards >face down. >The 14th card was a small club (c5). According to the L13 I deemed that the >deal could be corrected and played normally with the concurrence of all four >players. But the W did not give a consent. Ok, there is no problem with L13. >I shall award. But under L88 I deemed that non-offending contestant is >required to take an artificial adjusted score through his own choice, so he >shall not be awarded a minimum of 60% and I adjusted NOS - 50%, OS - 40%. >Am I right? It is normal when deciding what ArtAS to award to look at the wording of L12C1. L88 merely describes the mechanism. In this case N/S are at fault, E/W are not at fault. Thus N/S get Ave-, E/W get Ave+. The failure to be able to play the board is solely North's. The fact that West did not give his consent to play the board with the card replaced is a right granted by L13. >Suppose it was an individual event, is it correct to adjust N-40%, S-40%, >E-60%,W-50%? What did South do wrong? No, you give North Ave-, S/E/W Ave+. >And a common question about the L88 - when the Low requires "concurrence of >all four players" and TD shall award because there are no such concurrences, >is Av+ need not be granted to NOS? This is nothing to do with L88: try L12C1. A *contestant* who is at fault creating the situation gets Ave-, one who is partly at fault gets Ave, one who is not at fault gets Ave+. How do you apply Ave+ or Ave-? You look at L86 or L88 or Lille #4. -- 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 May 5 13:32:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA01614 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:14:14 +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 IAA01599 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:13:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12nTs6-000PRp-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 May 2000 23:13:30 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 14:03:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L88 and concurrence of players References: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101B1FD@xion.spase.nl> <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310B0@xion.spase.nl> In-Reply-To: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310B0@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot wrote: >Sergey Kapustin wrote: > >>I don't understand it. "A contestant in no way at fault" is a quote from >>L12C1. But we have quote from L89: "In individual events, the Director >shall >>enforce the penalty provisions of these Laws, and the provisions requiring >>the award of adjusted scores, equally against both members of the offending >>side, even though only one of them may be responsible for the >irregularity." >>As I understand L89, in purposes of awarding of adjusted scores (not PP) >>there are no difference between such irregularities as a revoke, LOOT or >>don't counting cards in the hand before a play. > >L89 speaks of an adjusted score. An adjusted score is a score where a >certain contract score is replaced by some other contract score, e.g. >4SC for +420 is replaced by 3S+1 for +170. That score is given to both >contestants, although only one of them may be responsible for the >irregularity. But if also a PP is given, then only the one responsible >for the irregularity gets the PP, not his partner. > >The score we have to deal with here, however, is not an adjusted score, >but an artificial score. No contract is scored on this deal at all, >we simply award a certain amount of points. Therefore, L89 does not >apply here. And then we have four contestants at the table, in an >individual match. The contestants who counted their cards get 60%, >the one contestant who didn't gets 40%. No, that is not the answer. What you are calling is an adjusted score is in fact an assigned adjusted score, and what you call an artificial score is an artificial adjusted score: both are adjusted scores. Read L12C. -- 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 May 5 13:39:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA01665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:14:42 +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 IAA01615 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:14:11 +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 12nTs7-000PRr-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 May 2000 23:13:29 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 14:06:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L88 and concurrence of players References: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101B207@xion.spase.nl> <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310B6@xion.spase.nl> In-Reply-To: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310B6@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot wrote: >Adam Beneschan wrote: > >>According to Law 88, a non-offending contestant who is required to >>take an artificial adjusted score gets at least 60%. In an individual >>contest, each player is a contestant. So South gets awarded 60%. >> >>This seems to contradict Law 89 in a case like this, but I think Law >>88 takes precedence since it is more specific in referring to >>"artificial adjusted scores" while Law 88 refers only to "adjusted >>scores". Anyway, that's how I'd rule. >> >>However, it appears to me to be a serious flaw in Laws 88-89 that they >>seem to say two opposite things. > >This is an interesting case. Maybe we need some test cases to sort >this out. Let's take the following hypothetical cases: > >In an individual contest, EW play 4S for +420, but West (and only West) >used UI during the auction. The TD determines that NS were damaged by >this. > >Case 1: > TD judges that West's last 4S-bid should have been a pass, so > corrects to 3S. What does every contestant get? 3S. >OK, that was an easy one, right? Now let's consider this: > >Case 2: > Same setting as before, but this time, TD cannot decide what > the score would become had there been no infraction. So he > decides to award artificial scores to everyone. Now what does > everybody get? A new TD because the previous one has been dumped in the river. It is *illegal* to give A+/A- in this case and no competent TD ever does it. >And now the original case: >Case 3: > Still in an individual contest, everybody counts his cards, > except West, who happens to have 14 cards, North 12. The deal > has become unplayable and artificial scores have to be assigned. > What does everyone get here? N/W Ave-, S/E Ave+, L12C1 refers. -- 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 May 5 14:04:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA01622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:14:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA01598 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:13:51 +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 12nTs6-000PRq-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 May 2000 23:13:27 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 14:01:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L88 and concurrence of players References: <004e01bfb403$f5204ea0$69047bc3@marina> In-Reply-To: <004e01bfb403$f5204ea0$69047bc3@marina> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sergey Kapustin wrote: >I don't understand it. "A contestant in no way at fault" is a quote from >L12C1. But we have quote from L89: "In individual events, the Director shall >enforce the penalty provisions of these Laws, and the provisions requiring >the award of adjusted scores, equally against both members of the offending >side, even though only one of them may be responsible for the irregularity." >I don't understand it. "A contestant in no way at fault" is a quote from >L12C1. But we have quote from L89: "In individual events, the Director shall >enforce the penalty provisions of these Laws, and the provisions requiring >the award of adjusted scores, equally against both members of the offending >side, even though only one of them may be responsible for the irregularity." >As I understand L89, in purposes of awarding of adjusted scores (not PP) >there are no difference between such irregularities as a revoke, LOOT or >don't counting cards in the hand before a play. Well, we have two Laws that happen to disagree if read in one way in a very unusual situation: I think we should take the meaning that is obviously correct rather than the one that is obviously wrong. After all, the normal meaning of L89 is obvious enough: If West revokes there is a penalty of so many tricks: L89 says it applies to the whole pair. If West hesitates and East's action is deemed illegal by the TD then the score is adjusted for both members of the pair. That is what L89 refers to. However, L12C1 is the basic ArtAS Law, and it says that a contestant in no way at fault gets Ave+. That means that the player in the pair not at fault gets Ave+ despite L89. Another way of reading L89 is that it just tells you to go to the relevant Law and apply it to the pair. OK, we do that: L12C1 is the relevant Law: it says we give different ArtASs to the two contestants who comprise the pair. -- 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 May 5 14:05:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA01663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:14:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA01617 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:14:11 +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 12nTsD-000PS3-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 May 2000 23:13:35 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 20:56:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson 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> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: >At 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". The definition of normal in the Law book is given by a footnote. "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, ``normal'' includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational." Despite some strange arguments to the contrary, I cannot believe any rational interpretation of this footnote fails to assume that it comprises all possible plays. Nothing else makes any real sense. Thus we have in the claim Laws a basic approach whereby we have normal play and we have irrational play. It also means that the difference between the two is considered "for the class of player involved". So to decide whether a play is normal or irrational the Laws direct us to [a] consider the class of player involved [b] decide whether a play is {1} careless for such a player {2} inferior for such a player {3} careful and superior for such a player If it is {1}, {2} or {3} then the play is normal: if not then it is irrational. That is the test, and it applies just as much as to normal in L69B, L70C, L70D, L70E, L71D [twice] as to irrational in L70E. -- 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 May 5 14:09:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA01673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:14:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA01649 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:14:27 +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 12nTsJ-000PRr-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 May 2000 23:13:43 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 21:51:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: easter claim References: <3.0.1.32.20000426133304.006f9a34@pop.cais.com> <200004261846.LAA25203@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.20000427130535.006f6298@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000427130535.006f6298@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 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. Is that what Adam said? It is not what I thought he said. If you want an objective definition then I do not think that you should have one that clearly does not work in some situations in the way you want. And with a flawed definition of this sort it will not be long before someone comes up with a position where the flaw is clearer. -- 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 May 5 14:38:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA01669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:14:42 +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 IAA01619 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:14:13 +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 12nTsE-000PRr-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 May 2000 23:13:36 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 21:11:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: easter claim References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5BE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3.0.6.32.20000421125055.007a6650@eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000421125055.007a6650@eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: >At 09:16 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: Forget TD tests. Consider your job as a TD. Are you really trying to tell me that any time someone makes a mistake you are going to completely ignore your responsibilities? Remember that in most cases where people play on either a strong personality has persuaded weak personalities to do something they know is wrong *or* playing on is so normal in that club that many people do not realise it is wrong at all. L80C6 requires a TD to rectify an error. It is a requirement, not an option for when the TD feels like it. The Law book tells you what to do when people play on after a claim, so neither you nor any other TD has any right ever not to rule on such a case. Give them a telling-off, fine. Issue a PP if necessary, fine. But you do not fail to give a ruling on the claim. It is not a "practical" answer, it is an "unacceptable" answer. Let me give all of you a TD test. Actually, I think I shall include it in the next one I set, so here is a preview: You are a TD in a proprietal ACBL club. It is affiliated to the ACBL, presumably [I am not sure of the set-up, but assume anyway] to a District and to a Unit. It has an owner and a manager who runs everything apart from the actual duplicate. It has a couple of other staff. The property on which it stands is given free by the local authority. It has players. [!] You have a wife and children [and cats]. To whom is your first responsibility as a Tournament Director? -- 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 May 5 15:37:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA02784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 May 2000 15:37:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from hunter2.int.kiev.ua (hunter2.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA02778 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 15:37:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from marina (ppp08.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.108]) by hunter2.int.kiev.ua (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA19127 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:41:15 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <002b01bfb654$5e9fc3e0$6c047bc3@marina> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: Subject: Re: L88 and concurrence of players Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 08:38:15 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wrote > David J. Grabiner wrote << >snip> >Under L88 I deemed that non-offending contestant is >required to take an artificial adjusted score through his own choice, so he >shall not be awarded a minimum of 60% and I adjusted NOS - 50%, OS - 40%. >Am I right? < Ok. Thank you I agree that the objection is not a matter of choice, and in this particular case non-offender shall be awarded a minimum of 60%. But I have next question. What is, or may be, a matter of choice? I can't construct situation when a non-offending contestant is required to take an artificial adjusted score through choice of his own. But suppose this situation exist and NOC in no way at fault is required to take an ArtAS through choice of his own. Then L88 don't apply to this NOC but under L12C1 this NOC gets Av+ in any way, does't it?. Or L88 supersedes L12C1 because the choice is not an irregularity? What is an ArtAS for NOC who has done his choice for taking it? I see conflict between L88 and L12C1 in this situation. sheers Sergey From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 5 17:56:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA03415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 May 2000 17:56:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA03410 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 17:56:49 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA22941 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 17:54:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 05 May 2000 17:54:57 +0000 (EST) Subject: Laws 16A, 72B2 and 73A2 To: Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 17:54:53 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 05/05/2000 05:52:53 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In the April 2000 edition of the Bridge World magazine, the editorial reported some of the results of a survey of readers on sportmanship and ethics. The analysis of the following question was interesting: >A player has a choice between actions Z and Y, and unauthorised information that suggests Z >over Y becomes available (such as through a variation in partner's tempo). With a decision he >considers clearcut, the player should [(E) choose the clear-cut action; (F) choose Y]. [snip] >Bridge World readers justified our faith in their good sense by voting for (E) over (F) by 93% to >7%. Absolutely right. The alternative is impossible: If something superfluous ever is to be >allowed to disrupt the normal flow of events, it must be an official, not a participant, who makes >that decision. Furthermore, a player who permitted extraneous factors to distort his actions >could find his partner being accused of sending reverse-influence information: North fears that >South will bid six spades, so he signs off slowly at five spades. (For discussion purposes, let's >call that type of illegality The Briar Patch Coup.) I would like to raise two points. Firstly, the survey question was ambiguously phrased. It is not clear from the wording whether action Y was a "logical alternative". If Y was *not* a LA, then the player has a choice between action Z and action Z, making the UI from partner immaterial. However, if action Y *is* a LA, even if the player would "never" normally choose that action, they are now required to do so under Law 16A. Furthermore, they should not choose their normal action, relying on the TD to adjust the score, due to Law 72B2. Secondly, if North employs the "Briar Patch Coup", breaking Law 73A2, South is not at fault for being deceived and righteously upholding Law 16A. However, I would recommend that South find a new partner. Best wishes Richard Hills richard.hills@immi.gov.au From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 5 22:09:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA04724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 May 2000 22:00:54 +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 WAA04707 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 22:00:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-13-10.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.13.10]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA14430 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 14:00:22 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <391281F7.FDCE6C74@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 10:10:31 +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: L88 and concurrence of players References: <200005041830.OAA13015@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > However, it also seems to me that > reasonable people could disagree with _either_ of these notions. > (I don't see how one could disagree with _both_.) You have low esteem for the people on this list. I am certain someone can be found to disagree with anything. I won't try, this time. :-) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 5 23:09:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA04729 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 May 2000 22:00:55 +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 WAA04708 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 22:00:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-13-10.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.13.10]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA14448 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 14:00:25 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39128329.D771C626@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 10:15:37 +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: 2/3 questions References: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101B1FC@xion.spase.nl> <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310AF@xion.spase.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > If you led an ace when not holding the king then it is an obvious > inference that it is partner's hand if declarer asks your partner what > you lead from AK. > Only in those jurisdictions where it is deemed illegal to ask the question when holding the king yourself. If it is the obvious question, it should be allowed to be asked regardless of which of the four players actually has it (including dummy!) Which is why I prefer not to deem the question illegal under any circumstances, nor the inferences. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 5 23:11:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA04992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 May 2000 23:11:08 +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 XAA04987 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 23:11:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-248.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.248]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA08241 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 15:10:48 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3912BF84.DFC38D37@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 14:33:08 +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: Laws 16A, 72B2 and 73A2 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello Richard, I believe this is your first posting ? Welcome to the list. Tell us something more about yourself, at some convenient moment. (some people will probably want to know if you have any cats or dogs) Anyway, on to your question. richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > In the April 2000 edition of the Bridge World magazine, the editorial > reported some of the results of a survey of readers on sportmanship and > ethics. The analysis of the following question was interesting: > > >A player has a choice between actions Z and Y, and unauthorised > information that suggests Z >over Y becomes available (such as through a > variation in partner's tempo). With a decision he >considers clearcut, the > player should [(E) choose the clear-cut action; (F) choose Y]. > > [snip] > > >Bridge World readers justified our faith in their good sense by voting for > (E) over (F) by 93% to >7%. Absolutely right. The alternative is > impossible: If something superfluous ever is to be >allowed to disrupt the > normal flow of events, it must be an official, not a participant, who makes > >that decision. Furthermore, a player who permitted extraneous factors to > distort his actions >could find his partner being accused of sending > reverse-influence information: North fears that >South will bid six > spades, so he signs off slowly at five spades. (For discussion purposes, > let's >call that type of illegality The Briar Patch Coup.) > I have no real comments on the question as put, or the response received. > I would like to raise two points. Firstly, the survey question was > ambiguously phrased. It is not clear from the wording whether action Y was > a "logical alternative". I hope that this was done deliberately. The term "logical alternative" means nothing to a player. In any definition of the term, there is always reference to something that some players would do. The player himself, at the table, can never know what other players would do. Nor can he consider what the TD and AC will rule as what other players would do. Thus the question is really well put. "an action he considers clearcut". He cannot possibly imagine doing anything else. > If Y was *not* a LA, then the player has a choice > between action Z and action Z, making the UI from partner immaterial. > > However, if action Y *is* a LA, even if the player would "never" normally > choose that action, they are now required to do so under Law 16A. > Furthermore, they should not choose their normal action, relying on the TD > to adjust the score, due to Law 72B2. > This is all well-known territory. > Secondly, if North employs the "Briar Patch Coup", breaking Law 73A2, South > is not at fault for being deceived and righteously upholding Law 16A. > However, I would recommend that South find a new partner. > I would recommend some severe penalty upon North. > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > richard.hills@immi.gov.au -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 6 00:07:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA05213 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 00:07:21 +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 AAA05208 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 00:07:13 +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 JAA14813 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 09:11:49 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000505090624.007a2960@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 09:06:24 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: easter claim In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000421125055.007a6650@eiu.edu> <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5BE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3.0.6.32.20000421125055.007a6650@eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:11 PM 5/4/2000 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > Let me give all of you a TD test. Actually, I think I shall include >it in the next one I set, so here is a preview: > > You are a TD in a proprietal ACBL club. It is affiliated to the ACBL, >presumably [I am not sure of the set-up, but assume anyway] to a >District and to a Unit. It has an owner and a manager who runs >everything apart from the actual duplicate. It has a couple of other >staff. The property on which it stands is given free by the local >authority. It has players. [!] You have a wife and children [and >cats]. > > To whom is your first responsibility as a Tournament Director? The cats, of course. I'll comment on the rest later. :) >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 6 00:09:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA04730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 May 2000 22:01:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA04716 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 22:00:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-13-10.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.13.10]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA14480 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 14:00:30 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <391284DD.534C1C10@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 10:22:53 +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> <3.0.6.32.20000421125055.007a6650@eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > You are a TD in a proprietal ACBL club. It is affiliated to the ACBL, > presumably [I am not sure of the set-up, but assume anyway] to a > District and to a Unit. It has an owner and a manager who runs > everything apart from the actual duplicate. It has a couple of other > staff. The property on which it stands is given free by the local > authority. It has players. [!] You have a wife and children [and > cats]. > > To whom is your first responsibility as a Tournament Director? > The cats of course, then the wife. Then the players. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 6 00:13:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA04732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 May 2000 22:01:01 +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 WAA04711 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 22:00:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-13-10.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.13.10]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA14468 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 14:00:28 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <391283EB.98D4DD3@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 10:18:51 +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: <003101bfb05b$ed6b2dc0$b484d9ce@oemcomputer> <20000428003039.20133.qmail@hotmail.com> <7EBK0aBQ5dE5EwLC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > If the sledgehammer is the only practical way, so be it. But in > practice we have another way that seems to work to me: use the current > Laws without worrying about them, and accept that in 0.5% of cases you > have a problem. > hear hear. When (someone) posted the sledgehammer allusion, my reaction was : even worse. The problem should be likened to a small fruitfly, harmless and even on the outside of your building. The building is a china shop with a glass pane. The remedy is a juggernaut racing towards the target at 100 km/h. Can you picture the damage ? And I can even imagine the fruitfly surviving the incident ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 6 00:53:34 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA05338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 00:53:34 +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 AAA05333 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 00:53:26 +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 JAA28972 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 09:58:06 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000505095243.0079fc50@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 09:52:43 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: easter claim In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000421125055.007a6650@eiu.edu> <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5BE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3.0.6.32.20000421125055.007a6650@eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:11 PM 5/4/2000 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Grant Sterling wrote: >>At 09:16 AM 4/21/2000 +0200, Kooijman, A. wrote: >>>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: > > Forget TD tests. Consider your job as a TD. Are you really trying to >tell me that any time someone makes a mistake you are going to >completely ignore your responsibilities? Remember that in most cases >where people play on either a strong personality has persuaded weak >personalities to do something they know is wrong *or* playing on is so >normal in that club that many people do not realise it is wrong at all. No, David, I should have been more clear. In _this particular case_ I think there is good reason to issue the practical ruling I stated above, but I would not do this in other similar cases. Mea culpa. As I read this case, I find that S claimed. W then refused to accept the claim, and made the declarer play out the hand. Declarer then made what he had claimed, and someone [I presume W, since N/S have nothing to complain about the result] called the TD. Why? If the hand was played out because 'a strong personality has persuaded weak personalities to do something they know is wrong', then the strong personality is engaging in the worst sort of double-shot. He has demanded that the hand be played out, planning I am certain to take any good result he can get from the [illegal] play of the cards, and then has the nerve to call the Director when his illegal plan fails, hoping to get a good result from him. If this is really what has happened, then you are quite right that I should not have left the table without issuing a PP. This is not merely the case of someone 'making a mistake'. If N/S in this case had made some error that led to the "claim failing", and had then called me because they knew they shouldn't have played the hand out, I would feel more sympathetic. The latter case you mentioned is the much more common one--the players involved didn't know there was anything wrong with playing the hand out. But then why was the TD called? If they didn't know anything was wrong with playing the hand out, then why didn't E/W just fold their cards and move on to the next board? No, I think unless there's something else going on this case really stinks. If W knew it was wrong to demand that the hand be played out, then he should shut up and take his medicine when the contract makes. If he didn't know it was wrong to have the hand played out, then what infraction is he calling the TD about? [From a legal standpoint, BTW, I really do think there's something to be said for regarding the demand to play a hand out as a waiver of penalties ala L11a. But I don't expect anyone to agree with me on that. Well, noting Herman's recent post, I should say that I'm sure there's _someone_ who will agree with me on that, somewhere on this list. :)] > L80C6 requires a TD to rectify an error. It is a requirement, not an >option for when the TD feels like it. The Law book tells you what to do >when people play on after a claim, so neither you nor any other TD has >any right ever not to rule on such a case. Give them a telling-off, >fine. Issue a PP if necessary, fine. But you do not fail to give a >ruling on the claim. It is not a "practical" answer, it is an >"unacceptable" answer. You are quite right, of course. Point taken. > Let me give all of you a TD test. Actually, I think I shall include >it in the next one I set, so here is a preview: > > You are a TD in a proprietal ACBL club. It is affiliated to the ACBL, >presumably [I am not sure of the set-up, but assume anyway] to a >District and to a Unit. It has an owner and a manager who runs >everything apart from the actual duplicate. It has a couple of other >staff. The property on which it stands is given free by the local >authority. It has players. [!] You have a wife and children [and >cats]. > > To whom is your first responsibility as a Tournament Director? Well, if you don't accept my 'cats' answer, I guess the answer is "Myself". {I was tempted to answer "the laws", but Meletus, in Plato's _Apology_, answers a similar question by saying "the laws", and Socrates then says "that is not what I'm asking--what _person_, who has knowledge of the laws...." I shall do David the honor of giving him the role of Socrates to my Meletus. Fortunately for him, on BLML this won't lead to his execution. :)} >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Respectfully, Grant Sterling From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 6 01:09:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA04889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 May 2000 22:44:27 +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 WAA04884 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 22:44:15 +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 IAA17733 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:42:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000505084548.006fc150@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 08:45:48 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: easter claim In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.20000425150326.006f8890@pop.cais.com> <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5BE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3.0.1.32.20000425150326.006f8890@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:21 PM 5/4/00 +0100, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>#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. > > I am sorry, I cannot see how the last sentence follows from what is >written before. It follows in the context of the complete original message. Implicit next-to-last sentence: "What remains for consideration produces no stronger a case for awarding the 13th trick than in #2, analyzed above." 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 May 6 01:19:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA06277 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 01:19:04 +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 BAA06257 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 01:18:51 +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 LAA14801 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 11:18:40 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310B6@xion.spase.nl> <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101B207@xion.spase.nl> <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310B6@xion.spase.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 11:17:32 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: L88 and concurrence of players Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 2:06 PM +0100 5/4/00, David Stevenson wrote: >>Case 3: >> Still in an individual contest, everybody counts his cards, >> except West, who happens to have 14 cards, North 12. The deal >> has become unplayable and artificial scores have to be assigned. >> What does everyone get here? > > N/W Ave-, S/E Ave+, L12C1 refers. North was not at fault as originally stated here; he did count his 12 cards. And if he didn't count, should he be given average or average-minus? His failure to count is an infraction, but it didn't cause the board to become unplayable. From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 6 01:21:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA04957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 May 2000 23:03:45 +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 XAA04951 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 23:03:35 +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 JAA18764 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 09:01:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000505090514.00704dc0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 09:05:14 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: 2/3 questions In-Reply-To: References: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310AF@xion.spase.nl> <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101B1FC@xion.spase.nl> <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310AF@xion.spase.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:16 PM 5/4/00 +0100, David wrote: >Martin Sinot wrote: >>David J. Grabiner wrote: >> >>>In some cases, there is a natural, if improper, way to ask a question. >>>When an ace is led against a suit, declarer might ask, "What do you lead >>>from AK?" This is improper, but it's the obvious question to be asked >>>about the lead. >> >>That is not an improper question. Why should it be? > > If you led an ace when not holding the king then it is an obvious >inference that it is partner's hand if declarer asks your partner what >you lead from AK. It's not so obvious. It is not at all unreasonable that declarer, holding the K and therefore knowing that LHO will not continue it, might want to vary his line of play based on whether RHO does or does not know that he (declarer) holds that card. The best declarers (Sami Kehela comes to mind) seem to have a knack for playing their cards in an order that minimizes the information their opponents can infer about their holdings, and gain many tricks as a result. They try to not only build an accurate picture of what their opponents hold, but also of what each opponent might think the other holds. To do the latter, they may have to determine what the opponents' leading agreements are even when the knowledge has no effect on the former. To make it improper to ask about potential holdings when you already know what the holding must be on the particular hand being played would be to delegitimize this aspect of the game. 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 May 6 01:34:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 01:34:06 +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 BAA07018 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 01:33:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA10298; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:33:35 -0700 Message-Id: <200005051533.IAA10298@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Laws 16A, 72B2 and 73A2 In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 05 May 2000 17:54:53 PDT." Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 08:33:36 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Hills wrote: > In the April 2000 edition of the Bridge World magazine, the editorial > reported some of the results of a survey of readers on sportmanship and > ethics. The analysis of the following question was interesting: > > >A player has a choice between actions Z and Y, and unauthorised > information that suggests Z >over Y becomes available (such as through a > variation in partner's tempo). With a decision he >considers clearcut, the > player should [(E) choose the clear-cut action; (F) choose Y]. > > [snip] > > >Bridge World readers justified our faith in their good sense by voting for > (E) over (F) by 93% to >7%. Absolutely right. The alternative is > impossible: If something superfluous ever is to be >allowed to disrupt the > normal flow of events, it must be an official, not a participant, who makes > >that decision. Furthermore, a player who permitted extraneous factors to > distort his actions >could find his partner being accused of sending > reverse-influence information: North fears that >South will bid six > spades, so he signs off slowly at five spades. (For discussion purposes, > let's >call that type of illegality The Briar Patch Coup.) > > I would like to raise two points. Firstly, the survey question was > ambiguously phrased. It is not clear from the wording whether action Y was > a "logical alternative". Uh, I think that was the point---to ask readers whether they thought Y should be treated as a Logical Alternative. If the choice Z is clearcut, then I believe Y is by definition not a Logical Alternative, but apparently 7% of readers don't agree. > . . . > Secondly, if North employs the "Briar Patch Coup", breaking Law 73A2, South > is not at fault for being deceived and righteously upholding Law 16A. > However, I would recommend that South find a new partner. According to current Law, that's correct. However, part of BW's aim here has been to examine the Laws and see if they produce what we want, and to recommend changes or a totally different approach if necessary. If the Law currently allows someone to get away with a Briar Patch Coup, BW might point to that as a serious flaw in the Laws and suggest a change. (However, I was disappointed with BW's discussion of the UI issue for another reason. The survey question used a "variation in partner's tempo" as an example of UI, but the discussion in the April BW relied on an example where a player heard a result from a loudmouth at another table. To me, these two types of UI have very different ramifications, and should not be mixed in the same discussion.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 6 02:09:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA06521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 01:21:50 +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 BAA06509 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 01:21:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA10066; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:21:12 -0700 Message-Id: <200005051521.IAA10066@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: easter claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 04 May 2000 21:11:30 PDT." Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 08:21:12 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Let me give all of you a TD test. Actually, I think I shall include > it in the next one I set, so here is a preview: > > You are a TD in a proprietal ACBL club. It is affiliated to the ACBL, > presumably [I am not sure of the set-up, but assume anyway] to a > District and to a Unit. It has an owner and a manager who runs > everything apart from the actual duplicate. It has a couple of other > staff. The property on which it stands is given free by the local > authority. It has players. [!] You have a wife and children [and > cats]. > > To whom is your first responsibility as a Tournament Director? The cats. This should be obvious. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 6 02:25:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA07271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 02:25:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA07266 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 02:25:19 +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 MAA06017 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 12:25:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA20846 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 May 2000 12:25:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 12:25:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200005051625.MAA20846@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 2/3 questions X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > It is not at all unreasonable that declarer, holding > the K and therefore knowing that LHO will not continue it, might want to > vary his line of play based on whether RHO does or does not know that he > (declarer) holds that card. This is a somewhat tricky point. I hope we all agree on the following two principles: 1. Declarer is entitled to know the opponents' lead agreements, as Eric says. 2. Declarer is not allowed to ask questions for the purpose of misleading the opponents, as David G. says. In real life, there may be a conflict between these principles. It seems to me that declarer should be very careful in phrasing questions to avoid misleading the opponents. It is best if he just looks at the convention card and doesn't ask any questions at all. If he must ask, "What are your lead and carding agreements?" is a much better phrasing than "What do you lead from AK?" At high levels of play, I would tend to judge the latter an infraction, especially if opponents have a properly filled out convention card declarer could have looked at. Judgments in individual cases may be tricky, but in essence the problem is no different than in any other case where a legitimate question may mislead opponents (or convey UI to partner, for that matter). It is always best to phrase questions in as neutral a way as possible. From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 6 02:33:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA07301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 02:33:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA07296 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 02:33:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id MAA06317; Fri, 5 May 2000 12:32:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA20864; Fri, 5 May 2000 12:32:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 12:32:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200005051632.MAA20864@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, bnewsr@blakjak.com Subject: Re: L88 and concurrence of players X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Still in an individual contest, everybody counts his cards, > > except West, who happens to have 14 cards, North 12. The deal > > has become unplayable and artificial scores have to be assigned. > > What does everyone get here? > From: David Stevenson > N/W Ave-, S/E Ave+, L12C1 refers. I think David was a bit hasty. The statement above is incomplete because it didn't tell who looked at his cards. A reasonable interpretation is that North counted his cards, found 12, and didn't look at them. (If he found 12, why would he look?) Presumably West, who didn't count, looked. (If he didn't look, the deal is playable.) If this is correct, North has done nothing wrong and gets avg+. It's trickier if North looked at his cards after all. (Stupid thing to do, after finding 12, but some people do things like that.) That was wrong, but it didn't matter to the result. I'd be tempted to give North avg in this case, but I don't feel very confident. From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 6 02:39:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA04710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 May 2000 22:00:47 +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 WAA04701 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 22:00:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-13-10.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.13.10]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA14415 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 14:00:18 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3912812D.77A13A1F@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 10:07:09 +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: L88 and concurrence of players References: <004e01bfb403$f5204ea0$69047bc3@marina> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nice angle, David, but I'm not certain it is correct. David Stevenson wrote: > > > Well, we have two Laws that happen to disagree if read in one way in a > very unusual situation: I think we should take the meaning that is > obviously correct rather than the one that is obviously wrong. I like your use of the word "obvious" here. When ever was anything obvious. > After > all, the normal meaning of L89 is obvious enough: If West revokes there > is a penalty of so many tricks: L89 says it applies to the whole pair. Agreed. And in no way different than if West throws a king under an ace. > If West hesitates and East's action is deemed illegal by the TD then the > score is adjusted for both members of the pair. Agreed. But not as obvious to some, who might say that West has done nothing wrong. But no problem, agreed. > That is what L89 refers > to. > We're clear on that. > However, L12C1 is the basic ArtAS Law, and it says that a contestant > in no way at fault gets Ave+. That means that the player in the pair > not at fault gets Ave+ despite L89. Well yes David, that is the argument. > Another way of reading L89 is that > it just tells you to go to the relevant Law and apply it to the pair. > OK, we do that: L12C1 is the relevant Law: it says we give different > ArtASs to the two contestants who comprise the pair. > Which is what some of us want to do, me included. But it does not get us off the hook of L89, much as you'd like to think so. L89 is quite clear when it says "the provisions requiring the award of adjusted scores, equally against both members". That must include ArtAss, as many have confirmed, including yourself. The L89 goes even further in mentioning one exception to this rule : it does not apply to procedural penalties. Thus I find L89 very clear, and -one might say- at odds with L12C1. There are two reasons I can think of for the use of "contestant" in L12C1. Firstly, the LC may have been thinking of teams, and secondly, at individual, the player may get his extra average over the 60%, not the pair. I still believe, despite what you write, that the Laws are insufficiently clear, and I would like the WBFLC to pronounce itself. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 6 02:40:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA07329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 02:40:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f58.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.58]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA07324 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 02:40:05 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 61926 invoked by uid 0); 5 May 2000 16:39:27 -0000 Message-ID: <20000505163927.61925.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.21 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 05 May 2000 09:39:27 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.21] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: easter claim Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 09:39:27 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Grant Sterling >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Subject: Re: easter claim >Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 09:52:43 -0500 > > [From a legal standpoint, BTW, I really do think there's something >to be said for regarding the demand to play a hand out as a waiver of >penalties ala L11a. But I don't expect anyone to agree with me on that. >Well, noting Herman's recent post, I should say that I'm sure there's >_someone_ who will agree with me on that, somewhere on this list. :)] Chalk one up, but I too expect this would be a futile crusade. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 6 03:00:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA07431 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 03:00:24 +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 DAA07426; Sat, 6 May 2000 03:00:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from [199.172.230.103] by stormy.ibl.bm (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-65377U14500L13000S0V35) with SMTP id bm; Fri, 5 May 2000 14:00:04 -0300 Date: 05 May 2000 14:02:26 -0300 Message-ID: <-1254587153jrhind@ibl.bm> From: Jack Rhind Subject: Board 23: Bermuda for Maastricht Trials To: , Adam Beneschan , CC: 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 DAB07427 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The following problem occurred in the trials to selsct a team for Maastricht Teams Olympiad. Board 23 All Vul. Dealer South AKJ KQT54 JT7 K7 QT960 75 J2 A983 985 KQ432 A43 J5 843 76 A6 QT9862 N E S W ------------------------------- Pass Pass 1C(1) 1D Dble(2) 1S 2H Pass 3C Pass 3D Pass 4C All Pass (1) Precision Club 16+ HCP (2) 5-8 HCP North opens 1C precision, and East makes a natural 1D overcall. West explains the 1D overcall as Capelletti, showing both majors. South explains North's 2H bid as showing stops in hearts, but denying stops in spades. South assumes North's 3D bid to be natural. North, understanding the the 1D overcall is natural intends 2H as natural and 3D as asking partner to bid 3NT with a diamond stop. The director rules that both sides have made errors (EW is misinformation and NS in bidding) and rules that the result stands. NS appeal claiming that they will arrive at 3Nt with the correct explanation. How do you rule, given that 3NT will be defeated on a diamond lead? One final, but important note, this event is PAIRS with IMP scoring. As the result stand, NS have -4 IMPS and EW has +4 IMPS. regards, Jack Rhind From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 6 03:36:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA07535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 03:36:31 +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 DAA07527 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 03:36:21 +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 KG50QNK0; Fri, 5 May 2000 12:36:13 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 12:36:00 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: easter claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I did an informal survey of the players in the local Thursday night game. I got about 15 answers to the questions of 1. line of play in 6 clubs. 2 show-up squeeze 1 "not taking the finesse" (no further explanation) 1 taking the ruffing finesse against east (All these from some of the better players) The rest all went for the finesse, playing west for the heart king. 2. When to claim? Nobody claims before they know for sure they have the rest of the tricks. (This agrees pretty well with what I know about these players.) 3. Line of play in 7 clubs. Still the 2 show-up squeezes, the rest finesse, playing west for the heart king. 4. When to claim when in 7 clubs. Same as when in 6. So, I think the bad players in 6 clubs should all be awarded 7, but the good players should be awarded 6, because they are the ones who might take the ruffing finesse. Everybody makes 7 when in 7. 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 May 6 04:02:53 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA07596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 04:02:53 +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 EAA07590 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 04:02:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA13203; Fri, 5 May 2000 11:02:18 -0700 Message-Id: <200005051802.LAA13203@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Board 23: Bermuda for Maastricht Trials In-reply-to: Your message of "05 May 2000 14:02:26 PDT." <-1254587153jrhind@ibl.bm> Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 11:02:19 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jack Rhind wrote: > The following problem occurred in the trials to selsct a team for Maastricht Teams Olympiad. > > Board 23 All Vul. Dealer South > > AKJ > KQT54 > JT7 > K7 > > QT960 75 > J2 A983 > 985 KQ432 > A43 J5 > > 843 > 76 > A6 > QT9862 > > N E S W > ------------------------------- > Pass Pass > 1C(1) 1D Dble(2) 1S > 2H Pass 3C Pass > 3D Pass 4C All Pass > > (1) Precision Club 16+ HCP > (2) 5-8 HCP > > North opens 1C precision, and East makes a natural 1D overcall. > West explains the 1D overcall as Capelletti, showing both majors. > South explains North's 2H bid as showing stops in hearts, but > denying stops in spades. South assumes North's 3D bid to be natural. > North, understanding the the 1D overcall is natural intends 2H as > natural and 3D as asking partner to bid 3NT with a diamond stop. Were there screens? If not, why did North "understand" 1D to be natural? I'm just curious; the answer should not have any effect on the ruling. > The director rules that both sides have made errors (EW is > misinformation and NS in bidding) and rules that the result stands. > NS appeal claiming that they will arrive at 3Nt with the correct > explanation. > > How do you rule, given that 3NT will be defeated on a diamond lead? > > One final, but important note, this event is PAIRS with IMP scoring. > As the result stand, NS have -4 IMPS and EW has +4 IMPS. First of all, I rule that Law 1 has been violated. This law specifies what cards bridge is played with, and this law does not mention the Zero of Spades. :) All right, I assume you meant the deuce. Whether South's explanation of 2H is correct or not is irrelevant, since E-W's actions did not depend on this explanation. I don't see anything horribly wrong that N-S did, given the misexplanation. One might quibble with the actions they took, but when a misexplanation paints such a gross misdescription of the hand (as it does here), N-S have to do something *really*, *really* awful, or a *really*, *really* obvious double shot, in the auction for a TD to rule that causation has been broken, in my opinion. So the only question left is, what would be the most favorable likely or probably result had the infraction not occurred? Most likely, N-S would have gotten to 3NT, but from which side? If 3NT is played by North, East has to lead the *king* of diamonds to beat the contract, and that's far from a certainty. If East leads a low diamond, 3NT will make either 3 or 4 (depending on whether declarer takes the spade finesse after running clubs, or whether East errs by pitching too many diamonds.) If 3NT is played by South, I can't find a reasonable way for 3NT to make on a diamond lead, even if South starts by winning the diamond, finessing spades, and cashing the king of clubs. All roads seem to lead to down 1, unless the defense does something terrible. One might argue that 3NT would make from South, because West, who thinks East has the majors, wouldn't lead a diamond. I don't like this argument, because we're supposed to compute the most favorable likely/probable results that would have happened if the infraction had not occurred, and this argument forces us to compute a result assuming that West misunderstood East's bid but had explained it correctly. However, one could also argue that West, knowing his partner overcalled in diamonds, might lead a spade anyway, thinking N-S had diamonds sufficiently stopped and so a spade would have a better chance to beat the contract. On a spade lead, declarer should make 9 or 10 tricks. So, although I'm not sure just how things should have gone, I think the likelihood of +630 for N-S is enough that I would award this as the final result for both sides. I could accept +600, or perhaps +600/-630. But I don't think I could award anything less than 3NT making. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 6 04:12:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA06993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 01:29:35 +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 BAA06988 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 01:29:27 +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 12nk2Q-0005oq-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 May 2000 15:29:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 16:19:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: L88 and concurrence of players References: <200005041830.OAA13015@cfa183.harvard.edu> <391281F7.FDCE6C74@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <391281F7.FDCE6C74@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <391281F7.FDCE6C74@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Steve Willner wrote: >> >> However, it also seems to me that >> reasonable people could disagree with _either_ of these notions. >> (I don't see how one could disagree with _both_.) > >You have low esteem for the people on this list. > >I am certain someone can be found to disagree with anything. > >I won't try, this time. :-) On principle, I disagree with this -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 6 05:03:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA07825 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 05:03:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail3.relaypoint.net (mail3.relaypoint.net [207.213.107.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA07820 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 05:03:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from relaypoint.net (dsl-64-32-15-25.hollywood.relaypoint.net [64.32.15.25]) by mail3.relaypoint.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA28210; Fri, 5 May 2000 12:02:16 -0700 Message-ID: <39131A97.3A0593AD@relaypoint.net> Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 12:01:43 -0700 From: Irwin J Kostal Reply-To: bigfoot@relaypoint.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: richard.hills@immi.gov.au CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Laws 16A, 72B2 and 73A2 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm not a director, just a player, but in the situation, as described, the player seems to be in a 'can't win' position. If he takes a successful action, the opponents can call for the director and try for an adjustment. Should the player be calling the director himself, or must he wait on the opponent? After all, the problem, as stated, says that UI is definitely present. In such a case, it seems that a director's intervention is called for. I've not heard of anyone calling the director because he has received UI, only because he/she believes the opponents are recipients of same. Whatever happened to the standard of ethics exemplified by Helen Sobel's famous refusal to play a deal because she had seen a card in an opponent's hand? Irv Kostal richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 6 05:14:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA07343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 02:41:07 +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 CAA07338 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 02:40:46 +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 12nl9R-0002JQ-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 May 2000 16:40:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 14:31:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 2/3 questions References: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101B1FC@xion.spase.nl> <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310AF@xion.spase.nl> <39128329.D771C626@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <39128329.D771C626@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> If you led an ace when not holding the king then it is an obvious >> inference that it is partner's hand if declarer asks your partner what >> you lead from AK. >> > >Only in those jurisdictions where it is deemed illegal to >ask the question when holding the king yourself. No! No! No!! Whatever the rules you play under, it **is** an obvious inference. >If it is the obvious question, it should be allowed to be >asked regardless of which of the four players actually has >it (including dummy!) It is **not** the obvious question to someone who knows the effect of the answer. >Which is why I prefer not to deem the question illegal under >any circumstances, nor the inferences. Fine - but that is a separate rule, not a consequence. -- 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 May 6 05:17:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA05047 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 May 2000 23:23:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA05041 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 23:23:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12ni4c-000DYU-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 May 2000 14:23:20 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 12:05:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L88 and concurrence of players References: <002b01bfb654$5e9fc3e0$6c047bc3@marina> In-Reply-To: <002b01bfb654$5e9fc3e0$6c047bc3@marina> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sergey Kapustin wrote: >I agree that the objection is not a matter of choice, and in this particular >case non-offender shall be awarded a minimum of 60%. But I have next >question. What is, or may be, a matter of choice? I can't construct >situation when a non-offending contestant is required to take an artificial >adjusted score through choice of his own. >But suppose this situation exist and NOC in no way at fault is required to >take an ArtAS through choice of his own. Then L88 don't apply >to this NOC but under L12C1 this NOC gets Av+ in any way, does't it?. Or L88 >supersedes L12C1 because the choice is not an irregularity? What is an >ArtAS for NOC who has done his choice for taking it? I >see conflict between L88 and L12C1 in this situation. I think you are making difficulties for yourself. L12C1 tells you what score to give to a contestant who is unable to play a board. When you have decided then L88 [or L86 or Lille #4] tells you how to actually apply it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 6 05:46:31 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA07934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 05:46:31 +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 FAA07927 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 05:46:18 +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 PAA15699 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 15:44:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000505154758.00702aac@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 15:47:58 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: easter claim In-Reply-To: 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:56 PM 5/4/00 +0100, David wrote: > The definition of normal in the Law book is given by a footnote. > >"For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, ``normal'' includes play that >would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not >irrational." > > Despite some strange arguments to the contrary, I cannot believe any >rational interpretation of this footnote fails to assume that it >comprises all possible plays. Nothing else makes any real sense. > > Thus we have in the claim Laws a basic approach whereby we have normal >play and we have irrational play. It also means that the difference >between the two is considered "for the class of player involved". > > So to decide whether a play is normal or irrational the Laws direct us >to > >[a] consider the class of player involved >[b] decide whether a play is > > {1} careless for such a player > {2} inferior for such a player > {3} careful and superior for such a player > > If it is {1}, {2} or {3} then the play is normal: if not then it is >irrational. > > That is the test, and it applies just as much as to normal in L69B, >L70C, L70D, L70E, L71D [twice] as to irrational in L70E. I don't think anyone is assuming that the footnote fails to encompass all possible plays. This does not require that we interpret "normal" and "irrational" as complements, which they certainly are not in English. To repeat my previously cited analogy, for me to write to Jean-Pierre in French would be entirely rational, but extradinarily unusual, since I do not speak adequate French ("for the class of French speaker involved"). OTOH, for me, or anyone else, to write to Jean-Pierre in Sanskrit would be irrational, regardless of "the class of Sanskrit speaker involved", even were I a Sanskrit scholar for whom sending e-mail messages written in Sanskrit was not the least bit unusual. We normally assume in our discourse that it is unusual to act irrationally, at least for persons not confined to mental institutions. Were we to encounter a player for whom irrational play was normal, he would (by explicit policy in the ACBL, and, I would guess, by either explicit or implicit policy elsewhere) find himself quickly barred from competition for the serious offense of repeated dumping. But we cannot assume that because it is unusual to act irrationally it is therefore irrational to act unusually. Thus L69-71, in order to encompass all possible plays, must cover three classes of plays, i.e. those that are: (a) Normal for the class of player involved, thus presumptively rational. (b) Abnormal for the class of player involved, but nevertheless rational. (c) Irrational, thus presumptively abnormal (for any class of player, and thus for the class of player involved). L69-71 make it clear that we must consider plays in class (a), while not considering plays in class (c). As I read the footnote, what it tells us is that plays in class (b) are to be treated like those in class (a) rather than like those in class (c). It looks to me like the writer of the clarifying footnote recognized that the resulting interpretation of "normal" in L69-71 would, given the footnote, differ from the likely dictionary/common-sense interpretation of the term, and indicated this to the reader in the usual manner, by putting quotation marks around it. I assert that resolving this issue is of critical importance for our lawmakers/interpreters, since, unlike some of the angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin debates that BLML is occasionally prone to, this has serious real-world implications for how we rule in real situations. In particular, it leads one school to conclude that the footnote tells us that the "class of player involved" is of far more critical importance to our adjudications than the laws without the footnote might lead us to believe, and the other school to conclude that the class of player involved has little or no relevance to our adjudications. I freely admit to the fact that my strong preference for Grattan's interpretation follows not so much from a careful and considered reading of the words of the FLB as from a strong conviction based on long experience that it is much more satisfactory and comfortable, not only for TDs/ACs but for everyone involved, when adjudications can be made based solely on the facts of the dispute, without forcing the adjudicators to have to rely on subjective judgments about "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 Sat May 6 06:02:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA07990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 06:02:01 +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 GAA07985 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 06:01:52 +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 QAA16737 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 16:00:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000505160333.00702aac@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 16:03:33 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: easter claim In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000421125055.007a6650@eiu.edu> <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5BE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3.0.6.32.20000421125055.007a6650@eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:11 PM 5/4/00 +0100, David wrote: > Let me give all of you a TD test. Actually, I think I shall include >it in the next one I set, so here is a preview: > > You are a TD in a proprietal ACBL club. It is affiliated to the ACBL, >presumably [I am not sure of the set-up, but assume anyway] to a >District and to a Unit. It has an owner and a manager who runs >everything apart from the actual duplicate. It has a couple of other >staff. The property on which it stands is given free by the local >authority. It has players. [!] You have a wife and children [and >cats]. > > To whom is your first responsibility as a Tournament Director? Coming from David, I suspect that this is a trick question, since I'm confident that his real-life answer would be "to your cats, of course, as should be the case for any cat owner under any circumstances". But regardless of the theoretically correct answer, in real life, if you're a working TD, you'd better believe that your first responsibility is to whomever signs your paychecks, since if you believe anything else, you're not a TD, you're an ex-TD looking for work. 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 May 6 06:27:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA07317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 02:34:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (root@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA07312 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 02:34:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA23256 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 12:33:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200005051633.MAA23256@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: easter claim Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <3.0.6.32.20000505090624.007a2960@eiu.edu> References: <3.0.6.32.20000421125055.007a6650@eiu.edu> <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5BE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3.0.6.32.20000421125055.007a6650@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.20000505090624.007a2960@eiu.edu> Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 12:33:29 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >At 09:11 PM 5/4/2000 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >> Let me give all of you a TD test. Actually, I think I shall include >>it in the next one I set, so here is a preview: >> >> You are a TD in a proprietal ACBL club. It is affiliated to the ACBL, >>presumably [I am not sure of the set-up, but assume anyway] to a >>District and to a Unit. "Sanctioned" by the ACBL - almost the same thing, but clubs are very close to autonomous, and the ACBL tries to keep it that way. IIRC, all sanctioned clubs are members of the Unit and District in which they reside (but ICBW, here). >>It has an owner and a manager who runs >>everything apart from the actual duplicate. It has a couple of other >>staff. The property on which it stands is given free by the local >>authority. It has players. [!] You have a wife and children [and >>cats]. >> >> To whom is your first responsibility as a Tournament Director? I think my answer would be "the game of Bridge". If you changed it to be a tournament run by the ACBL, I'd have to, probably answer "the ACBL". But I wouldn't like it. What does that mean? I don't know. How my responsibilities lie from there I also don't know. But it is my firm belief that running a good, fast game, with justice to be done, and seen done, for all, without favouritism anywhere, and with such practicality as I can see done, is good responsible behaviour to the owner, the players, the ACBL, and presumably my wife and children. And "To whom is your first responsibility?" (note the truncation) - me, and my God, of course. As a result of which, all else (including not neglecting my wife and children, but not ruling in their favour either) follows. How's that for a non-answer? Michael. From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 6 06:27:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA07391 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 02:50:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (root@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA07384 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 02:50:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA23541 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 12:49:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200005051649.MAA23541@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L88 and concurrence of players Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: <004201bfb36c$36eced40$6b047bc3@marina> Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 12:49:26 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 4 May 2000 at 13:54, David Stevenson wrote: >Sergey Kapustin wrote: > >>In the pair tournament I, as a TD, was called by the dealer (N) who had 14 >>cards and bid 1S. W (who really had 12 cards) was still counting his cards >>face down. >>The 14th card was a small club (c5). According to the L13 I deemed that the >>deal could be corrected and played normally with the concurrence of all four >>players. But the W did not give a consent. Ok, there is no problem with L13. >>I shall award. But under L88 I deemed that non-offending contestant is >>required to take an artificial adjusted score through his own choice, so he >>shall not be awarded a minimum of 60% and I adjusted NOS - 50%, OS - 40%. >>Am I right? > > It is normal when deciding what ArtAS to award to look at the wording >of L12C1. L88 merely describes the mechanism. > > In this case N/S are at fault, E/W are not at fault. Thus N/S get >Ave-, E/W get Ave+. The failure to be able to play the board is solely >North's. The fact that West did not give his consent to play the board >with the card replaced is a right granted by L13. > However, L88 specifically states "through no fault *or choice* of his own" (my emphasis). West specifically chose to not allow the board to be played (which is his right by L13, but still is a choice taken). An analogous situation (and I know how bad analogies are in general, and especially on BLML) is my new computer. I have the right, granted by natural and legal laws, to open up my new computer and overclock it. I own the computer, I own all pieces of it. However, should I choose to do so, and it fails, I will not get the chip replaced, as the warranty states I should, because the warranty also states that overclocking the chip voids such protection. I want to give West A+, really I do. Ok, possibly I can - L88 simply states the positive (If not this and not that, then 60%+ at minimum) and doesn't explicity state the converse (if that, then 60% minimum (i.e. A+) does not apply). I guess what we have here is a "misreading" that sticks in our minds that "60% or actual score, whatever is better" <==> A+. It is unfortunate that L12C1 (which sends us to L88) and L88 do not match in their wording (L12C1 uses "in no way at fault", L88 uses "through no fault or choice of his own". Oh well, back to perl scripting. Hoping no-one else has been damaged by "ILOVEYOU", Michael. From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 6 06:31:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA08093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 06:31:35 +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 GAA08088 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 06:31:25 +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 QAA15364 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 16:31:16 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <39131A97.3A0593AD@relaypoint.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 16:30:56 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Laws 16A, 72B2 and 73A2 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:01 PM -0700 5/5/00, Irwin J Kostal wrote: >I'm not a director, just a player, but in the situation, as described, >the player seems to be in a 'can't win' position. If he takes a >successful action, the opponents can call for the director and try for >an adjustment. Should the player be calling the director himself, or >must he wait on the opponent? After all, the problem, as stated, says >that UI is definitely present. In such a case, it seems that a >director's intervention is called for. >I've not heard of anyone calling the director because he has received >UI, only because he/she believes the opponents are recipients of same. >Whatever happened to the standard of ethics exemplified by Helen Sobel's >famous refusal to play a deal because she had seen a card in an >opponent's hand? This is not ethics; it is required under L16B. (It isn't required that the player refuse to play the deal if the Director cdetermines the information to be inconsequential.) The distinction needs to be made between third-party UI (L16B) and UI from partner (L16A). If a player has UI from partner, he need not call the director, but he is bound by the restrictions of L16A not to choose a call or play which could have been suggested by the UI over a logical alternative. If the player chooses an action which is not suggested by the UI, there will be no adjustment. A player is required to call the director when correcting an explanation (L75D), which has the side effect of establishing UI. The only other time the director gets called when UI may have been transmitted (before it could have been used) is to establish the fact of the UI. In fact, most UI situations with players who know the ethical rules don't lead to director calls: partner makes a slow double and you leave it in, or makes a slow pass in a competitve auction and you don't balance. From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 6 06:41:22 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA08178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 06:41:22 +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 GAA08173 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 06:41:07 +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 QAA19626 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 16:39:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000505164247.006fd5bc@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 16:42:47 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: 2/3 questions In-Reply-To: <200005051625.MAA20846@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:25 PM 5/5/00 -0400, Steve wrote: >> From: Eric Landau >> It is not at all unreasonable that declarer, holding >> the K and therefore knowing that LHO will not continue it, might want to >> vary his line of play based on whether RHO does or does not know that he >> (declarer) holds that card. > >This is a somewhat tricky point. I hope we all agree on the following >two principles: > >1. Declarer is entitled to know the opponents' lead agreements, as Eric >says. I certainly agree, and expect that we all do. >2. Declarer is not allowed to ask questions for the purpose of >misleading the opponents, as David G. says. I strongly agree with this as well, but note that "for the purpose of" makes it a function of the asker's intent (which is no problem for me, although from previous discussion it might be for others). And I have not been able to find this principle stated in TFLB. The point of my statement quoted by Steve above is that L73F2 specifically does not apply here, since we cannot and should not assume that the questioner "has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action". >In real life, there may be a conflict between these principles. It >seems to me that declarer should be very careful in phrasing questions >to avoid misleading the opponents. It is best if he just looks at the >convention card and doesn't ask any questions at all. If he must ask, >"What are your lead and carding agreements?" is a much better phrasing >than "What do you lead from AK?" At high levels of play, I would tend >to judge the latter an infraction, especially if opponents have a >properly filled out convention card declarer could have looked at. > >Judgments in individual cases may be tricky, but in essence the problem >is no different than in any other case where a legitimate question may >mislead opponents (or convey UI to partner, for that matter). It is >always best to phrase questions in as neutral a way as possible. I agree with Steve (and Marv, who has made the point repeatedly) that it should be considered improper to ask any question that could conceivably mislead an opponent, even when doing so does not violate L73F2, when the information requested can be obtained by reading the opponents' CC. But I have been convinced (by David S. IIRC) that, regardless of what should be, it is not improper under our current laws, which grant an explicit right to ask such questions. OTOH, I agree with Herman that we should not penalize players for asking inappropriately phrased questions when the intent of the questioner is obviously to obtain information to which he is entitled rather than to mislead anyone. Of course, the correct question in the circumstances is not "What do you lead from AK?" but rather "What are your agreements regarding the lead of an A?" But I don't go so far as to believe that asking the former should be a presumptive infraction, unless it is entirely clear that the questioner knows better, which means, in my book, that he has been specifically instructed in the past by a TD or AC to be careful with his phrasing, and can therefore be found to have violated L90B8. 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 May 6 07:04:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA08241 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 07:04:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA08236 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 07:04:36 +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 RAA27158 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 17:04:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA21242 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 May 2000 17:04:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 17:04:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200005052104.RAA21242@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 2/3 questions X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > >2. Declarer is not allowed to ask questions for the purpose of > >misleading the opponents, as David G. says. > > I strongly agree with this as well, but note that "for the purpose of" > makes it a function of the asker's intent (which is no problem for me, > although from previous discussion it might be for others). And I have not > been able to find this principle stated in TFLB. > > The point of my statement quoted by Steve above is that L73F2 specifically > does not apply here, since we cannot and should not assume that the > questioner "has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action". We may disagree a little, but I think it is a matter of nuance rather than fundamentals. I would claim that L73F2 may or may not apply, depending on the circumstances. In other words, I interpret 'remark' to include questions asked. If there is no demonstrable bridge reason for the question, other than to mislead, then we should rule against the questioner. > Of course, the correct question in the circumstances is not "What do you > lead from AK?" but rather "What are your agreements regarding the lead of > an A?" Or better yet, ask about lead and play agreements _in general_. The person answering should mention the AK agreement, of course, along with attitude, count, special methods, etc. This gets you all the information you might (or might not) need without misleading and without telling the defenders what it was you wanted to know. From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 6 07:30:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA07377 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 02:47:58 +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 CAA07372 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 02:47:49 +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 JAA11655; Fri, 5 May 2000 09:47:24 -0700 Message-Id: <200005051647.JAA11655@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: 2/3 questions In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 05 May 2000 09:05:14 PDT." <3.0.1.32.20000505090514.00704dc0@pop.cais.com> Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 09:47:25 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > At 02:16 PM 5/4/00 +0100, David wrote: > > >Martin Sinot wrote: > >>David J. Grabiner wrote: > >> > >>>In some cases, there is a natural, if improper, way to ask a question. > >>>When an ace is led against a suit, declarer might ask, "What do you lead > >>>from AK?" This is improper, but it's the obvious question to be asked > >>>about the lead. > >> > >>That is not an improper question. Why should it be? > > > > If you led an ace when not holding the king then it is an obvious > >inference that it is partner's hand if declarer asks your partner what > >you lead from AK. > > It's not so obvious. It is not at all unreasonable that declarer, holding > the K and therefore knowing that LHO will not continue it, might want to > vary his line of play based on whether RHO does or does not know that he > (declarer) holds that card. Right. Also, knowing what RHO reads into the lead, and what LHO expects RHO to know about the lead, may help declarer draw inferences from both opponents' later plays. But even though I agree that declarer has an absolute right to find out what their agreement is, whether or not he holds the king, I still wonder whether some ways of finding out this information are more likely to mislead opponents than others. If declarer asked RHO, "Does your partner have the king?" when declarer has the king, I'd tend to think a 73D2 violation occurred. I'm less certain about the question "What do you lead from AK?". The original question, if I recall correctly, was "Does that promise the 9?" after leader led the 10, and I think that's a violation. Personally, when I become declarer, I've gotten in the practice of asking to see the opponents' convention card *before* I see the lead, and looking at their lead conventions and signalling agreements. I try to do this as soon as the auction is over (unless I already looked at it at the beginning of the round and remember what it said). If their card isn't marked, or they don't have a card, my feeling is that I should be able to ask whatever question I want (about the stuff that was supposed to be on their card) without worrying about 73D2/73F2, since the opponents' violation of the rules is the reason I have to ask a question. Maybe some TD's would disagree with me, but I doubt it. However, I still think that when a question is asked, even if some forms of questions could be held to violate 73D2, there have to be some forms that declarer is safely allowed to ask. Perhaps "What are your agreements about ace leads?" That question doesn't mention the king, so would it be safe? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 6 07:33:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA08315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 07:33:44 +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 ESMTP id HAA08310 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 07:33:31 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA24229 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 May 2000 17:32:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200005052132.RAA24229@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: easter claim To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 17:32:52 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at May 04, 2000 09:11:30 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: Thu, 4 May 2000 21:11:30 +0100 > From: David Stevenson > > Let me give all of you a TD test. Actually, I think I shall include > it in the next one I set, so here is a preview: > > You are a TD in a proprietal ACBL club. It is affiliated to the ACBL, > presumably [I am not sure of the set-up, but assume anyway] to a > District and to a Unit. It has an owner and a manager who runs > everything apart from the actual duplicate. It has a couple of other > staff. The property on which it stands is given free by the local > authority. It has players. [!] You have a wife and children [and > cats]. > > To whom is your first responsibility as a Tournament Director? > All of this is IMHO, of course, but this is regular practice in the US at club-leve games... In an ACBL-sanctioned club game, the club manager and the club director have the final authority on decisions within the club game. However, the club manager and club director wish to rule, they rule. They are completely autonomous. Club managers and directors need to inform their players when they make rulings that deviate from the ACBL and WBF laws so that their players are aware of the distinctions. I don't know how many times I've heard, "but I've gotten a ruling that...from a club game." I have to reiterate to the players that many club directors choose their own rulings that do not match the laws. I will gently inform them of the actual ruling (and cite or show the appropriate passage from the law book). When I direct at the club level, I am more leniant in many situations than when I direct at the tournament level (and for those of you in the DC area, I consider the WBL unit game as tournament level). However, when I deviate from the lawbook, I will say, "The ACBL laws require me to... but I'm going to rule..." so that all are aware of the distinctions. You have an obligation to make the players aware of what the laws/rules state. However, you have a responsibility to ensure a pleasant game for all. If you have to make adjustments to keep everyone happy, you do it. This refers back to Eric's statement that the person who pays your paycheck is your first responsibility. The club manager and/or owner pay your paycheck. The players pay theirs through their entry fees (at least in part). And the manager makes the call what goes in his/her club. And, of course, all of this is moot if you have a cat. The cat overrules all others. -Ted. From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 6 07:38:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA08334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 07:38:01 +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 HAA08329 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 07:37:47 +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 RAA23141 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 17:35:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000505173906.006a8c48@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 17:39:06 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Board 23: Bermuda for Maastricht Trials In-Reply-To: <-1254587153jrhind@ibl.bm> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:02 PM 5/5/00 -0300, Jack wrote: >The following problem occurred in the trials to selsct a team for Maastricht Teams Olympiad. > >Board 23 All Vul. Dealer South > > AKJ > KQT54 > JT7 > K7 > >QT960 75 >J2 A983 >985 KQ432 >A43 J5 > > 843 > 76 > A6 > QT9862 > >N E S W >------------------------------- > Pass Pass >1C(1) 1D Dble(2) 1S >2H Pass 3C Pass >3D Pass 4C All Pass > >(1) Precision Club 16+ HCP >(2) 5-8 HCP > >North opens 1C precision, and East makes a natural 1D overcall. >West explains the 1D overcall as Capelletti, showing both majors. >South explains North's 2H bid as showing stops in hearts, but denying stops in spades. South assumes North's 3D bid to be natural. North, understanding the the 1D overcall is natural intends 2H as natural and 3D as asking partner to bid 3NT with a diamond stop. > >The director rules that both sides have made errors (EW is misinformation and NS in bidding) and rules that the result stands. >NS appeal claiming that they will arrive at 3Nt with the correct explanation. E-W's giving misinformation is not merely an error (which doesn't matter per se), but an infraction (which does). I can see no case whatsoever for finding that N-S made an error sufficiently egregious as to justify even considering denial of redress, so the TD's opinion of the N-S bidding should have no relevance at all to the ruling. For the TD to have avoided making a proper adjudication on the grounds that N-S made an error in bidding is far more egregious than anything any of the players at the table did. >How do you rule, given that 3NT will be defeated on a diamond lead? That requires some intermediate determinations as to what might have happened had there been no UI, which I'm not quite up to analyzing right now. Ultimately we must decide whether it is "likely" and/or "at all probable" that N-S would have reached 3NT and gotten a lead that would have allowed them to obtain a better result than they got at the table in 4C. If it's "likely", adjust for both sides; if it's not "at all probable" do not adjust, and if it's "at all probable" but not "likely" adjust for E-W only. >One final, but important note, this event is PAIRS with IMP scoring. As the result stand, NS have -4 IMPS and EW has +4 IMPS. I do not believe that this has any importance or in any way affects the correct ruling. 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 May 6 07:42:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA05029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 May 2000 23:18:55 +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 XAA05024 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 23:18:47 +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 JAA19770 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 09:17:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000505092019.00701404@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 09:20:19 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: easter claim In-Reply-To: References: <3903FCAE.388C2251@village.uunet.be> <20000423203533.8341.qmail@hotmail.com> <001601bfad75$70711020$115608c3@dodona> <3903FCAE.388C2251@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:47 PM 5/4/00 +0100, David wrote: >Herman De Wael wrote: >>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. > > It is very difficult to see how Herman can possibly be wrong in what >he has written here. In effect the only other arguments that have been >produced basically seem to say that the Laws themselves are irrational: >that may be so in certain cases but we should then make reasonable >interpretations [as we already have to for an opening lead out of turn >if unaccompanied by a lead in turn from partner]. > >>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. > > I don't care. There is no reasonable alternative interpretation, and >that is good enough for me. There is no reasonable alternative interpretation only if one is (mis)led by the proximate use of "'normal'" and "irrational" into believing that the lawmakers intended them to stand as opposites; I agree with Grattan that there's no reason to assume this. The opposite of "normal" is "abnormal"; the opposite of "irrational" is "rational". If I were to send a private e-mail to Jean-Pierre in French, it would certainly be a rational thing to do, but it would be extremely abnormal (for the (class of) French speaker involved). My reading of the footnote is that it tells us specifically that all rational plays must be considered by the adjudicator regardless of how abnormal they might be 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 Sat May 6 07:55:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA08416 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 07:55:32 +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 HAA08410 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 07:55:10 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 21437 invoked from network); 5 May 2000 21:53:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.4.64) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 5 May 2000 21:53:58 -0000 Message-ID: <391343CA.4B99CF2C@inter.net.il> Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 00:57:31 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Dodson CC: BLML Subject: Re: 2/3 questions References: <200005021447.HAA27124@mailhub.irvine.com> <000e01bfb463$c1e78200$0b00000a@mike> <3910287F.D9093813@inter.net.il> <001501bfb57c$afd1d600$0b00000a@mike> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well Mike... Everyone should know who is the declarer and who must open the play. But life is not a programmed machinery -> it happens 12-15% of the games that the defenders ask who should lead. The very experienced Laws makers know this facts of life and put it as a special item (L47E) : the misinformed leader did not commit a deliberate infraction, he/she was just mislead by the opponents. I have no doubt they are not offenders ...But thinking again , I am not sure if the misinforming side should be defined "offenders"....This is why L47E doesn't say anything about penalties -> this Law just tries to redress the damage , got by the UI.........etc.,etc. Dany Mike Dodson wrote: > From: "Dany Haimovici" > > > Dear Mike > > > > first apply L47E1 - if the ootl was mistakenly informed , he did not > make any > > infraction...only afterwards apply L16C - which explains the matter for > both NOS > > > > and OS. > > > > Dany > Before L47E1 is applied, it seems likely correct procedure in L41 is > violated. The spade ace is exposed, was there a face up lead? If so, both > sides have offended. Only if the ace was exposed after a face down lead and > mistaken information corrected after the card was faced and before dummy was > exposed might you argue there is an innocent side. Even in this case, isn't > it everybody's responsibility to know whose lead it is? L47e1 recognizes the > shared responsibility for the oloot by allowing the withdrawal of the card, > no more. > > L47e1 says the card is withdrawn without penalty. It does not say the oloot > was not an infraction. In my mind it does not make the defenders non > offending, it just eliminates the normally onerous penalties for an oloot. > L16 comes after the (non) penalty, not as part of it. > > mike > > > > > Mike Dodson wrote: > > > > > Adam wrote: > > > >Lino wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) > > > > > > > > > > Suppose the A spades is led out of turn and retracted under Law > 47E1 > > > > > (the wrong leader was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was > his > > > > > turn to lead). > > > > > The information about this card (A spades) is no/yes authorized? > To > > > > > whom? > > > > > > > > Law 16C makes this clear: the information is authorized to the > > > > defense, unauthorized to the declarer. > > > > > > > 16C refers to NOS. Surely a lead out of turn, even if misinformed, is > an > > > offense. Its seems to me both sides are offending in this case. 47E1 > > > specifies no penalty, not no offense. > > > > > > mike dodson > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 6 08:01:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA08451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 08:01:25 +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 IAA08446 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 08:01:16 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 5747 invoked from network); 5 May 2000 22:00:37 -0000 Received: from lax-ts6-h2-15-37.ispmodems.net (HELO pieceofcrap) ([209.162.15.37]) (envelope-sender ) by mail006.mail.onemain.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 5 May 2000 22:00:37 -0000 Message-ID: <001301bfb6dd$ba500fe0$250fa2d1@pieceofcrap> From: "James B. Merzon" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200005052104.RAA21242@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: 2/3 questions Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 15:03:20 -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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk get me off your mailing list. i think i'm infected with the virus and may unwittingly be passing it along. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Friday, May 05, 2000 2:04 PM Subject: Re: 2/3 questions > > From: Eric Landau > > >2. Declarer is not allowed to ask questions for the purpose of > > >misleading the opponents, as David G. says. > > > > I strongly agree with this as well, but note that "for the purpose of" > > makes it a function of the asker's intent (which is no problem for me, > > although from previous discussion it might be for others). And I have not > > been able to find this principle stated in TFLB. > > > > The point of my statement quoted by Steve above is that L73F2 specifically > > does not apply here, since we cannot and should not assume that the > > questioner "has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action". > > We may disagree a little, but I think it is a matter of nuance rather > than fundamentals. I would claim that L73F2 may or may not apply, > depending on the circumstances. In other words, I interpret 'remark' > to include questions asked. If there is no demonstrable bridge > reason for the question, other than to mislead, then we should rule > against the questioner. > > > Of course, the correct question in the circumstances is not "What do you > > lead from AK?" but rather "What are your agreements regarding the lead of > > an A?" > > Or better yet, ask about lead and play agreements _in general_. The > person answering should mention the AK agreement, of course, along with > attitude, count, special methods, etc. This gets you all the > information you might (or might not) need without misleading and > without telling the defenders what it was you wanted to know. > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 6 08:33:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA08565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 08:33:26 +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 IAA08560 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 08:33:16 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 25633 invoked from network); 5 May 2000 22:32:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.4.64) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 5 May 2000 22:32:28 -0000 Message-ID: <39134CD2.D483601B@inter.net.il> Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 01:36:02 +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: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5BE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3.0.6.32.20000421125055.007a6650@eiu.edu> <391284DD.534C1C10@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk We agree with Herman's Priorities 101% !!!!!!!!! Shobo , Kushi and the GANG Herman De Wael wrote: > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > > You are a TD in a proprietal ACBL club. It is affiliated to the ACBL, > > presumably [I am not sure of the set-up, but assume anyway] to a > > District and to a Unit. It has an owner and a manager who runs > > everything apart from the actual duplicate. It has a couple of other > > staff. The property on which it stands is given free by the local > > authority. It has players. [!] You have a wife and children [and > > cats]. > > > > To whom is your first responsibility as a Tournament Director? > > > > The cats of course, then the wife. > > Then the players. > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 6 08:35:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA07358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 02:43:44 +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 CAA07353 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 02:43:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-130.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.130]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA01540 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 12:43:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <004d01bfb6b1$4fe5f380$8284d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Re: easter claim Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 12:45:23 -0400 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 The question really is if a woman disagrees with a cat is SHE wrong? And does it matter if it is a female cat? There are times in which we must persist in what we know is right regardless of the likely expectation that others will adjudge our opinion or action to be wrong. To wit, Jeff Rubens analysis and reader poll on Law 16 responsibilities in which he appears to take the position that if there is no clear alternative to the actual player who has received the UI he is ethically correct to take an action even though it is suggested thereby. The player himself, after all, is surely a representative of the class of player involved, and the only one whose normal action is known to him. Taking a "clear cut" action does not appear to be ethically wrong, even if a director and/or committee may later disagree on the presence of demonstrably suggested logical alternatives. If they were demonstrably suggested to the player in question, then his action would not be clear cut. I think Jeff's TBW approach, discussed in another thread here, has been given too little approval. It is one that the average player, wishing to play fairly but not a director, an FLB reader, or a BLML lurker, can adopt because he can understand it, and it does him no ethical discredit to do so. Grand masters and students of the law may be able to better apply it at the table, but most folks can't. This approach seems workable in that it adheres closely to the spirit of the law and of fair play. (Of course if the player is a woman, she can just say "oh s---", have dummy complain at the end of the hand, and count on redress from an A/C who cannot tell the forest from the trees and should leave decisions to their cats.) As a husband, a father of daughters and feed person of cats I humbly recognise that for lesser beings like myself there may be doubt over who rules the world...I just know that it is not I. :-)) -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, May 04, 2000 10:42 PM Subject: Re: easter claim >Richard Bley wrote: > >>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? > > If Richard is in the forest when no-one can hear him, and he agrees >with what Herman has said, is he still wrong? :)))) > > If you do not know where this comes from, on my Cats Newsgroup there >is a sigfile that says: > > If a man gives an opinion in a forest where no woman can hear him, is >he still wrong? :)))) > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 6 08:50:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA08623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 08:50:00 +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 IAA08618 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 08:49:51 +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 SAA00212 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 18:49:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA21393 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 May 2000 18:49:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 18:49:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200005052249.SAA21393@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: David Stevenson > The definition of normal in the Law book is given by a footnote. > > "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, ``normal'' includes play that > would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not > irrational." > > Despite some strange arguments to the contrary, I cannot believe any > rational interpretation of this footnote fails to assume that it > comprises all possible plays. Nothing else makes any real sense. I'm with you so far. > Thus we have in the claim Laws a basic approach whereby we have normal > play and we have irrational play. It also means that the difference > between the two is considered "for the class of player involved". But that last sentence is very much a matter of contention. > So to decide whether a play is normal or irrational the Laws direct us > to > > [a] consider the class of player involved > [b] decide whether a play is (and here again, [a] is far from clear) > {1} careless for such a player > {2} inferior for such a player > {3} careful and superior for such a player add {4} usual or ordinary play for such a player > If it is {1}, {2} or {3} then the play is normal: also normal if {4} > if not then it is irrational. Yes, fine. But nothing in the above forces the final ruling to depend on the class of player. Let's adapt (simplify) Ton's example: declarer has Axx in hand, Kxx in dummy, opponents lead the suit. Declarer claims the rest of the tricks. In order to make them, declarer has to win specifically the ace at this trick to retain a late entry to dummy. Also, the hand is complex enough that the need for a late entry may not be obvious. Clear? Now crashing the ace and king is surely irrational for anybody, and so is playing two low cards (when intending to take the rest). What about playing the king? For a good player, it's {1} or {2}. For a bad player, it's {4}. But either way, it is "normal." We can rule against _anybody_ by saying "Yes, I know, Mr. World Champion, you would never in a million years play the king. That play would be wildly inferior for your class of player. Nevertheless, inferior plays for your class of player are explicitly classed as "normal" , and therefore we must rule against you. Next time, please follow L68C even though the play is obvious to you." In spite of the certainty with which I wrote the above, quite a number of respected authorities (and also the ACBL) disagree with it. They believe 'irrational' somehow depends on the class of player and rule accordingly. In spite of those opinions, I don't see how the footnote text can be interpreted that way. An irrational play is irrational for anybody. The footnote says all other plays -- _even_ the careless or inferior -- count as "normal" as that term is used in the laws. As has often been pointed out, this is a special usage of the word, not the same as the ordinary (or _normal_) meaning. > That is the test, and it applies just as much as to normal in L69B, > L70C, L70D, L70E, L71D [twice] as to irrational in L70E. Yes. From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 6 09:39:51 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA08895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 09:39:51 +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 JAA08888 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 09:39:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from pbfs05a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.165.192] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12nrgf-0002Bx-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 6 May 2000 00:39:14 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Board 23: Bermuda for Maastricht Trials Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 00:42:15 +0100 Message-ID: <01bfb6eb$8b29b780$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: Anne Jones To: BLML Date: Friday, May 05, 2000 9:37 PM Subject: Re: Board 23: Bermuda for Maastricht Trials > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Adam Beneschan >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Cc: adam@irvine.com >Date: Friday, May 05, 2000 7:12 PM >Subject: Re: Board 23: Bermuda for Maastricht Trials > > >> >>Jack Rhind wrote: >> >>> The following problem occurred in the trials to selsct a team for >Maastricht Teams Olympiad. >>> >>> Board 23 All Vul. Dealer South >>> >>> AKJ >>> KQT54 >>> JT7 >>> K7 >>> >>> QT960 75 >>> J2 A983 >>> 985 KQ432 >>> A43 J5 >>> >>> 843 >>> 76 >>> A6 >>> QT9862 >>> >>> N E S W >>> ------------------------------- >>> Pass Pass >>> 1C(1) 1D Dble(2) 1S >>> 2H Pass 3C Pass >>> 3D Pass 4C All Pass >>> >>> (1) Precision Club 16+ HCP >>> (2) 5-8 HCP >>> >>> North opens 1C precision, and East makes a natural 1D overcall. >>> West explains the 1D overcall as Capelletti, showing both majors. >>> South explains North's 2H bid as showing stops in hearts, but >>> denying stops in spades. South assumes North's 3D bid to be natural. >>> North, understanding the the 1D overcall is natural intends 2H as >>> natural and 3D as asking partner to bid 3NT with a diamond stop. >> >>Were there screens? If not, why did North "understand" 1D to be >>natural? I'm just curious; the answer should not have any effect on >>the ruling. >> >>> The director rules that both sides have made errors (EW is >>> misinformation and NS in bidding) and rules that the result stands. >>> NS appeal claiming that they will arrive at 3Nt with the correct >>> explanation. >>> >>> How do you rule, given that 3NT will be defeated on a diamond lead? >>> >>> One final, but important note, this event is PAIRS with IMP scoring. >>> As the result stand, NS have -4 IMPS and EW has +4 IMPS. >> >>First of all, I rule that Law 1 has been violated. This law specifies >>what cards bridge is played with, and this law does not mention the >>Zero of Spades. :) All right, I assume you meant the deuce. >> >>Whether South's explanation of 2H is correct or not is irrelevant, >>since E-W's actions did not depend on this explanation. >> >>I don't see anything horribly wrong that N-S did, given the >>misexplanation. One might quibble with the actions they took, but >>when a misexplanation paints such a gross misdescription of the hand >>(as it does here), N-S have to do something *really*, *really* awful, >>or a *really*, *really* obvious double shot, in the auction for a TD >>to rule that causation has been broken, in my opinion. >> >>So the only question left is, what would be the most favorable likely >>or probably result had the infraction not occurred? >> >>Most likely, N-S would have gotten to 3NT, but from which side? If >>3NT is played by North, East has to lead the *king* of diamonds to >>beat the contract, and that's far from a certainty. If East leads a >>low diamond, 3NT will make either 3 or 4 (depending on whether >>declarer takes the spade finesse after running clubs, or whether East >>errs by pitching too many diamonds.) >> >If East leads KD and it is won in S. Clubs are played until the Ace wins. > A diamond though JT gives dec 2 Ds/ 5 clubs and 2 spads for 9 tks. >The best E/W can do is 1D/1C/1H and as long as they do not cash the AH >they will come to a Spade at the end.Dec will not take the finesse. >Anne > There's no entry back to the clubs. Hmm! OK KD is Nat lead - 3NT is not making. Anne > >>If 3NT is played by South, I can't find a reasonable way for 3NT to >>make on a diamond lead, even if South starts by winning the diamond, >>finessing spades, and cashing the king of clubs. All roads seem to >>lead to down 1, unless the defense does something terrible. >> >>One might argue that 3NT would make from South, because West, who >>thinks East has the majors, wouldn't lead a diamond. I don't like >>this argument, because we're supposed to compute the most favorable >>likely/probable results that would have happened if the infraction had >>not occurred, and this argument forces us to compute a result assuming >>that West misunderstood East's bid but had explained it correctly. >> >>However, one could also argue that West, knowing his partner >>overcalled in diamonds, might lead a spade anyway, thinking N-S had >>diamonds sufficiently stopped and so a spade would have a better >>chance to beat the contract. On a spade lead, declarer should make 9 >>or 10 tricks. >> >>So, although I'm not sure just how things should have gone, I think >>the likelihood of +630 for N-S is enough that I would award this as >>the final result for both sides. I could accept +600, or perhaps >>+600/-630. But I don't think I could award anything less than 3NT >>making. > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 6 10:20:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA08153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 06:38:10 +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 GAA08146 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 06:38:01 +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 VAA22754; Fri, 5 May 2000 21:18:48 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA26770; Fri, 5 May 2000 21:17:28 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Fri, 05 May 2000 20:17:27 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 TAA19585; Fri, 5 May 2000 19:24:04 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id TAA19372; Fri, 5 May 2000 19:24:03 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 19:24:03 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200005051824.TAA19372@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, jrhind@ibl.bm Subject: Re: Board 23: Bermuda for Maastricht Trials X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Board 23 All Vul. Dealer South > > AKJ > KQT54 > JT7 > K7 > > QT960 75 > J2 A983 > 985 KQ432 > A43 J5 > > 843 > 76 > A6 > QT9862 > > N E S W > ------------------------------- > Pass Pass > 1C(1) 1D Dble(2) 1S > 2H Pass 3C Pass > 3D Pass 4C All Pass > > (1) Precision Club 16+ HCP > (2) 5-8 HCP > > North opens 1C precision, and East makes a natural 1D overcall. > West explains the 1D overcall as Capelletti, showing both majors. [snip] > The director rules that both sides have made errors (EW is misinformation > and NS in bidding) and rules that the result stands. [snip] N I assume screens were is use with: W\E. S I'm not sure what mistakes NS have made in the bidding, but surely they aren't wild and gambling so as to deny them redress for damage. Assuming 1D=nat is right, the auction might go as it did with 3NT as the final bid, South will think 2H is natural and 3D asks for a stop. It is likely that West will lead spades and South will make (at least) nine tricks. In fact, ten tricks looks almost certain on a non-diamonds lead, EW will make HA, one diamond and CA. Adjust to NS:3NT+1 for both sides. Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: 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 Sat May 6 11:10:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA08158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 06:38:17 +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 GAA08151 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 06:38:06 +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 VAA22753 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 21:18:48 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA26768 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 21:17:27 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Fri, 05 May 2000 20:17:27 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 TAA19590 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 19:34:17 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id TAA19440 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 May 2000 19:34:17 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 19:34:17 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200005051834.TAA19440@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: EBU Spring Foursomes 2000 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Brd 6 AT84 W N E S > Dlr E 7642 > Vul E/W K95 2D#1 2H > T4 X#2 NB 2S NB > 963 KQJ752 NB 3H 3S AP > T5 9 > AJ72 Q43 Notes: > AQ62 J93 #1: Multi > -- #2: Not alerted > AKQJ83 Result: > Lead HA T86 3S+1 by E > K875 NS-170 > > In the EBU, an unalerted double when partner has bid is for penalties. > > Before the 3H bid, N checked the meaning of the double. He was told > it showed hearts, ie it was primarily for penalties. > > Before the opening lead, West pointed out the double asked partner to > describe his hand, only passing if the 2D opening was based on a heart > suit. The Director was called at this time. It is possible that North would bid 3H on the first round with the correct explanation (X=competitive), and apparently East would bid 3S (East's bidding seems agressive opposite a possible misfit, at red). South may well bid 4H now, is Pass a LA alternative to 4S by West now. Given that West did not bid 4S to make on the actual auction, I think Pass is a LA for West, and rule NS 4H= for both sides. Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: 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 Sat May 6 11:12:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA08120 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 06:35:04 +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 GAA08105 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 06:34:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from p37s04a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.164.56] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt11-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12nonh-0001QE-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 May 2000 21:34:17 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Board 23: Bermuda for Maastricht Trials Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 21:37:23 +0100 Message-ID: <01bfb6d1$b7d25c20$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: Jack Rhind To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ; Adam Beneschan ; owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: adam@irvine.com Date: Friday, May 05, 2000 6:13 PM Subject: Board 23: Bermuda for Maastricht Trials >The following problem occurred in the trials to selsct a team for Maastricht Teams Olympiad. > >Board 23 All Vul. Dealer South > > AKJ > KQT54 > JT7 > K7 > >QT960 75 >J2 A983 >985 KQ432 >A43 J5 > > 843 > 76 > A6 > QT9862 > >N E S W >------------------------------- > Pass Pass >1C(1) 1D Dble(2) 1S >2H Pass 3C Pass >3D Pass 4C All Pass > >(1) Precision Club 16+ HCP >(2) 5-8 HCP > >North opens 1C precision, and East makes a natural 1D overcall. >West explains the 1D overcall as Capelletti, showing both majors. >South explains North's 2H bid as showing stops in hearts, but denying stops in spades. South assumes North's 3D bid to be natural. North, understanding the the 1D overcall is natural intends 2H as natural and 3D as asking partner to bid 3NT with a diamond stop. > >The director rules that both sides have made errors (EW is misinformation and NS in bidding) and rules that the result stands. > I assume that the e/w agreement was not Capilletti, and there was MI. If indeed Capilletti was a figment of West's imagination then no doubt N/S were damaged. I think that 3NT would be bid by N most of the time, and I award +600 to N/S, -600 E/W. If the pair were playing Capiletti, and East has forgotten, then I agree with the TD, that the result must stand. > >NS appeal claiming that they will arrive at 3Nt with the correct explanation. > >How do you rule, given that 3NT will be defeated on a diamond lead? > >One final, but important note, this event is PAIRS with IMP scoring. As the result stand, NS have -4 IMPS and EW has +4 IMPS. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 6 12:06:06 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA05144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 May 2000 23:37:35 +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 XAA05137 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 23:37:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12niI6-000JpS-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 May 2000 14:37:14 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 14:32:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: EBU Spring Foursomes 2000 References: <01bfb5b1$e8b0c140$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bfb5b1$e8b0c140$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01bfb5b1$e8b0c140$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes > >----Original Message----- >From: David Stevenson >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: Thursday, May 04, 2000 3:25 AM >Subject: EBU Spring Foursomes 2000 > > >> >> Brd 6 AT84 W N E S >> Dlr E 7642 >> Vul E/W K95 2D#1 2H >> T4 X#2 NB 2S >NB >> 963 KQJ752 NB 3H 3S AP >> T5 9 >> AJ72 Q43 Notes: >> AQ62 J93 #1: Multi >> -- #2: Not >alerted >> AKQJ83 Result: >> Lead HA T86 3S+1 by E >> K875 NS-170 >> >> In the EBU, an unalerted double when partner has bid is for penalties. >> >> Before the 3H bid, N checked the meaning of the double. He was told >>it showed hearts, ie it was primarily for penalties. >> >North has effectively said "I don't believe you". >> >> Before the opening lead, West pointed out the double asked partner to >>describe his hand, only passing if the 2D opening was based on a heart >>suit. The Director was called at this time. >> >Did the TD offer North the opportunity to change his final Pass? Law21 >If not apply Law 82 and award N/S E/W +3imps to each side.(12C1) I think you are suggesting Anne that if the TD did not offer North the opportunity to change his final Pass, then now later he should rule TD error and adjust accordingly. No doubt David can and will speak for himself, but the point was that at this stage it is not clear in fact that there has indeed been misinformation. To reopen the auction if there had not been MI would be a clear mistake. David as I understand it preferred the hand to continue reserving the right to adjust later if there had been MI or any other problem. However I think you are mistaken if you think that had there been TD error the ruling should be +3 to both sides Law 82C C. Director's Error If the Director has given a ruling that he or the Chief Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, considering both sides as non-offending for that purpose I believe that this should be an assigned - not artificial score Say I've bid to a hopeless 6NT off two aces and some TD error (after the bidding has reached 6NT) leads to the opponents failing to double. The most favourable score I was ever going to get is -1 that I got at the table - the most favourable score they were going to get is -1 doubled >[I hope someone will pick up on this and explain the application of 12C2 >in teams play.If we still had a CTD I would ask him:-)] For how to apply 12C2 to teams play watch this space :))) >If this option was offered and not accepted I would rule that absent the MI >then N/S would very likely bid and make 4H.The MI has muddied the waters >but I do not know why South did not bid 4H anyway. >I would not allow a 4S save by E who has opened pre-emptively and should >pass any decision to his partner, passing a double if it is made. There is >nothing in E's hand that W might not expect. >> >Anne > mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 6 12:10:39 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA08124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 06:35:10 +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 GAA08104 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 06:34:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from p37s04a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.164.56] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt11-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12nond-0001Pu-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 May 2000 21:34:14 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Board 23: Bermuda for Maastricht Trials Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 21:37:16 +0100 Message-ID: <01bfb6d1$b3662860$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Adam Beneschan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: adam@irvine.com Date: Friday, May 05, 2000 7:12 PM Subject: Re: Board 23: Bermuda for Maastricht Trials > >Jack Rhind wrote: > >> The following problem occurred in the trials to selsct a team for Maastricht Teams Olympiad. >> >> Board 23 All Vul. Dealer South >> >> AKJ >> KQT54 >> JT7 >> K7 >> >> QT960 75 >> J2 A983 >> 985 KQ432 >> A43 J5 >> >> 843 >> 76 >> A6 >> QT9862 >> >> N E S W >> ------------------------------- >> Pass Pass >> 1C(1) 1D Dble(2) 1S >> 2H Pass 3C Pass >> 3D Pass 4C All Pass >> >> (1) Precision Club 16+ HCP >> (2) 5-8 HCP >> >> North opens 1C precision, and East makes a natural 1D overcall. >> West explains the 1D overcall as Capelletti, showing both majors. >> South explains North's 2H bid as showing stops in hearts, but >> denying stops in spades. South assumes North's 3D bid to be natural. >> North, understanding the the 1D overcall is natural intends 2H as >> natural and 3D as asking partner to bid 3NT with a diamond stop. > >Were there screens? If not, why did North "understand" 1D to be >natural? I'm just curious; the answer should not have any effect on >the ruling. > >> The director rules that both sides have made errors (EW is >> misinformation and NS in bidding) and rules that the result stands. >> NS appeal claiming that they will arrive at 3Nt with the correct >> explanation. >> >> How do you rule, given that 3NT will be defeated on a diamond lead? >> >> One final, but important note, this event is PAIRS with IMP scoring. >> As the result stand, NS have -4 IMPS and EW has +4 IMPS. > >First of all, I rule that Law 1 has been violated. This law specifies >what cards bridge is played with, and this law does not mention the >Zero of Spades. :) All right, I assume you meant the deuce. > >Whether South's explanation of 2H is correct or not is irrelevant, >since E-W's actions did not depend on this explanation. > >I don't see anything horribly wrong that N-S did, given the >misexplanation. One might quibble with the actions they took, but >when a misexplanation paints such a gross misdescription of the hand >(as it does here), N-S have to do something *really*, *really* awful, >or a *really*, *really* obvious double shot, in the auction for a TD >to rule that causation has been broken, in my opinion. > >So the only question left is, what would be the most favorable likely >or probably result had the infraction not occurred? > >Most likely, N-S would have gotten to 3NT, but from which side? If >3NT is played by North, East has to lead the *king* of diamonds to >beat the contract, and that's far from a certainty. If East leads a >low diamond, 3NT will make either 3 or 4 (depending on whether >declarer takes the spade finesse after running clubs, or whether East >errs by pitching too many diamonds.) > If East leads KD and it is won in S. Clubs are played until the Ace wins. A diamond though JT gives dec 2 Ds/ 5 clubs and 2 spads for 9 tks. The best E/W can do is 1D/1C/1H and as long as they do not cash the AH they will come to a Spade at the end.Dec will not take the finesse. Anne > >If 3NT is played by South, I can't find a reasonable way for 3NT to >make on a diamond lead, even if South starts by winning the diamond, >finessing spades, and cashing the king of clubs. All roads seem to >lead to down 1, unless the defense does something terrible. > >One might argue that 3NT would make from South, because West, who >thinks East has the majors, wouldn't lead a diamond. I don't like >this argument, because we're supposed to compute the most favorable >likely/probable results that would have happened if the infraction had >not occurred, and this argument forces us to compute a result assuming >that West misunderstood East's bid but had explained it correctly. > >However, one could also argue that West, knowing his partner >overcalled in diamonds, might lead a spade anyway, thinking N-S had >diamonds sufficiently stopped and so a spade would have a better >chance to beat the contract. On a spade lead, declarer should make 9 >or 10 tricks. > >So, although I'm not sure just how things should have gone, I think >the likelihood of +630 for N-S is enough that I would award this as >the final result for both sides. I could accept +600, or perhaps >+600/-630. But I don't think I could award anything less than 3NT >making. From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 6 12:15:39 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA09373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 12:15:39 +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 MAA09363 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 12:15:24 +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 12nu7W-0008K2-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 6 May 2000 02:15:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 18:30:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 2/3 questions References: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310AF@xion.spase.nl> <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101B1FC@xion.spase.nl> <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310AF@xion.spase.nl> <3.0.1.32.20000505090514.00704dc0@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000505090514.00704dc0@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 02:16 PM 5/4/00 +0100, David wrote: > >>Martin Sinot wrote: >>>David J. Grabiner wrote: >>> >>>>In some cases, there is a natural, if improper, way to ask a question. >>>>When an ace is led against a suit, declarer might ask, "What do you lead >>>>from AK?" This is improper, but it's the obvious question to be asked >>>>about the lead. >>> >>>That is not an improper question. Why should it be? >> >> If you led an ace when not holding the king then it is an obvious >>inference that it is partner's hand if declarer asks your partner what >>you lead from AK. > >It's not so obvious. It is not at all unreasonable that declarer, holding >the K and therefore knowing that LHO will not continue it, might want to >vary his line of play based on whether RHO does or does not know that he >(declarer) holds that card. It is an obvious inference. I am not saying the further things that you are inferring, just that. Now, perhaps we should tell people they cannot take advantage of the inference. Or perhaps there should be a disclaimer "Please tell me what you lead from AK: please note I always ask this on an ace lead whatever my holding". Or anything. Furthermore, it will not always be correct. But I do not believe that the proportion of declarers who would ask the question when holding the king is anything like as high as those who would ask not holding the king. Next time you get an ace lead and you hold the king, you ask, and see what happens. I'll hold your coat. >The best declarers (Sami Kehela comes to mind) seem to have a knack for >playing their cards in an order that minimizes the information their >opponents can infer about their holdings, and gain many tricks as a result. > They try to not only build an accurate picture of what their opponents >hold, but also of what each opponent might think the other holds. To do >the latter, they may have to determine what the opponents' leading >agreements are even when the knowledge has no effect on the former. To >make it improper to ask about potential holdings when you already know what >the holding must be on the particular hand being played would be to >delegitimize this aspect of the game. We are not delegitimising anything. What we are doing is to try to interpret the Laws in specific situations. I bet Sami would *never* say "what do you lead from ace-king?" whether holding the king or not. Apart from looking at the CC [allegedly not always present in the ACBL] he would ask "What are your carding arrangements?". Now, if you ask a specific question rather than a general one in defiance of ACBL guidelines and commonsense, why should we accept it? It is an unnecessary question, is it not? Ahah, I hear you say, what if the answer is not helpful, and declarer has to ask a supplementary question? Now I believe the defence has little case if they feel misled by the question. But if the only thing declarer says when he sees the dummy is "What do you lead from ace- king?" then I think he is getting close to an offence against the Proprieties if he holds the king. -- 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 May 6 12:15:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA09374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 12:15:39 +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 MAA09364 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 12:15:26 +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 12nu7f-0001y8-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 6 May 2000 02:15:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 18:17:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L88 and concurrence of players References: <004e01bfb403$f5204ea0$69047bc3@marina> <3912812D.77A13A1F@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3912812D.77A13A1F@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >I still believe, despite what you write, that the Laws are >insufficiently clear, and I would like the WBFLC to >pronounce itself. Hold it: as often the case, I am not saying the Laws could not be written better: all I am saying is how we should rule. I do not believe under current arrangements that we need, want or anything else to have the WBFLC pronouncing: let them write it better next time. -- 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 May 6 12:59:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA09552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 12:59:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep01-svc.mail.telepac.pt (fep01-svc.mail.telepac.pt [194.65.5.200]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA09547 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 12:59:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.telepac.pt ([213.13.96.108]) by fep01-svc.mail.telepac.pt (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with ESMTP id <20000506030229.PWNU110.fep01-svc.mail.telepac.pt@mail.telepac.pt> for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 04:02:29 +0100 Message-ID: <39138A52.6AC7ED59@mail.telepac.pt> Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 03:59:46 +0100 From: Lino =?iso-8859-1?Q?Tralh=E3o?= Reply-To: LINOTRALHAO@mail.telepac.pt X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: pt,pt-BR,en,es,fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: 2/3 questions References: <200005052104.RAA21242@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------7B09E9E3682BE5096212730D" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --------------7B09E9E3682BE5096212730D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Steve Willner wrote: > We may disagree a little, but I think it is a matter of nuance rather > than fundamentals. I would claim that L73F2 may or may not apply, > depending on the circumstances. In other words, I interpret 'remark' > to include questions asked. If there is no demonstrable bridge > reason for the question, other than to mislead, then we should rule > against the questioner. > In the UI list of Law 16A, appears "remark" and "question". So, in this Law, "questions" are not deemed included in "remarks", IMHO. How can we interpret, in Law 73F2, "questions" included in "remarks" ? Note that, in the list of misleading actions of Law 73D2 appears "remarks" but not "questions". So my question is: under which Law can we rule against a (intentionally) misleading question? Under Law73E which presents a list of legal misleading actions? --------------7B09E9E3682BE5096212730D Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit  
Steve Willner wrote:
We may disagree a little, but I think it is a matter of nuance rather
than fundamentals.  I would claim that L73F2 may or may not apply,
depending on the circumstances.  In other words, I interpret 'remark'
to include questions asked.  If there is no demonstrable bridge
reason for the question, other than to mislead, then we should rule
against the questioner.
 
In the UI list of Law 16A, appears "remark" and "question". So, in this Law, "questions" are not deemed included in "remarks", IMHO. How can we interpret, in Law 73F2, "questions" included in "remarks" ?
Note that, in the list of misleading actions of Law 73D2 appears "remarks" but not "questions".

    So my question is: under which Law can we rule against a (intentionally) misleading question?
Under Law73E which presents a list of legal misleading actions?
 
 
 
  --------------7B09E9E3682BE5096212730D-- From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 6 13:10:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA09619 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 13:10:48 +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 NAA09604 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 13:10:34 +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 12nuye-0005Cj-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 6 May 2000 03:10:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 03:27:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: easter claim References: <3903FCAE.388C2251@village.uunet.be> <20000423203533.8341.qmail@hotmail.com> <001601bfad75$70711020$115608c3@dodona> <3903FCAE.388C2251@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.20000505092019.00701404@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000505092019.00701404@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 09:47 PM 5/4/00 +0100, David wrote: > >>Herman De Wael wrote: >>>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. >> >> It is very difficult to see how Herman can possibly be wrong in what >>he has written here. In effect the only other arguments that have been >>produced basically seem to say that the Laws themselves are irrational: >>that may be so in certain cases but we should then make reasonable >>interpretations [as we already have to for an opening lead out of turn >>if unaccompanied by a lead in turn from partner]. >> >>>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. >> >> I don't care. There is no reasonable alternative interpretation, and >>that is good enough for me. > >There is no reasonable alternative interpretation only if one is (mis)led >by the proximate use of "'normal'" and "irrational" into believing that the >lawmakers intended them to stand as opposites; I agree with Grattan that >there's no reason to assume this. Of course there is a reason. When you judge a claim you have to judge whether a play is irrational or normal. If they are not opposites then the Laws do not let you resolve the conflict, which is ridiculous. I do not accept that the Laws are ridiculous. -- 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 May 6 13:10:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA09626 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 13:10:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA09620 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 13:10:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12nuye-000FI9-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 6 May 2000 03:10:02 +0000 Message-ID: <9AjLVSHad4E5Ewan@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 03:45:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Laws 16A, 72B2 and 73A2 References: <39131A97.3A0593AD@relaypoint.net> In-Reply-To: <39131A97.3A0593AD@relaypoint.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Irwin J Kostal wrote: >I'm not a director, just a player, but in the situation, as described, >the player seems to be in a 'can't win' position. If he takes a >successful action, the opponents can call for the director and try for >an adjustment. Should the player be calling the director himself, or >must he wait on the opponent? After all, the problem, as stated, says >that UI is definitely present. In such a case, it seems that a >director's intervention is called for. > >I've not heard of anyone calling the director because he has received >UI, only because he/she believes the opponents are recipients of same. I do so on a couple of occasions a year, as do my oppos. What is strange about it? As a general rule, if you want to keep bridge friendly, I offer a tip from better Bridge in Britain, defunct these many years. They had a rule that if there was an infraction, the side committing the infraction should call the TD and explain it to him. It is a good rule in many situations. >Whatever happened to the standard of ethics exemplified by Helen Sobel's >famous refusal to play a deal because she had seen a card in an >opponent's hand? Fortunately we do not have unethical players as typified by that disgraceful episode. She should have been thrown out of the tournament. -- 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 May 6 13:10:50 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA09621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 13:10:50 +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 NAA09605 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 13:10:35 +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 12nuyy-000CVD-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 6 May 2000 03:10:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 04:01:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Board 23: Bermuda for Maastricht Trials References: <-1254587153jrhind@ibl.bm> In-Reply-To: <-1254587153jrhind@ibl.bm> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jack Rhind wrote: >The following problem occurred in the trials to selsct a team for Maastricht >Teams Olympiad. > >Board 23 All Vul. Dealer South > > AKJ > KQT54 > JT7 > K7 > >QT960 75 >J2 A983 >985 KQ432 >A43 J5 > > 843 > 76 > A6 > QT9862 > >N E S W >------------------------------- > Pass Pass >1C(1) 1D Dble(2) 1S >2H Pass 3C Pass >3D Pass 4C All Pass > >(1) Precision Club 16+ HCP >(2) 5-8 HCP > >North opens 1C precision, and East makes a natural 1D overcall. >West explains the 1D overcall as Capelletti, showing both majors. >South explains North's 2H bid as showing stops in hearts, but denying stops in >spades. South assumes North's 3D bid to be natural. North, understanding the the >1D overcall is natural intends 2H as natural and 3D as asking partner to bid 3NT >with a diamond stop. > >The director rules that both sides have made errors (EW is misinformation and NS >in bidding) and rules that the result stands. Perhaps you would like to explain this a little further. Do your Directors give bidding lessons now? Or does he mean that the errors of N/S are sufficiently bad to be considered "irrational, wild or gambling"? If so, then [a] he is out of his tree and [b] he should still adjust for E/W. In fact the interest in this hand seems to rest in what an AC [or TD, if enabled] would do with L12C3. Without the infraction, 3NT will be bid and made at least one time in three, so a ruling to 3NT making or so seems automatic. Perhaps there is interest in whether we give the overtrick. One point made by another poster is that we have to check what the infraction is: I presume that there was MI one side of the screen and that is good enough for me. >NS appeal claiming that they will arrive at 3Nt with the correct explanation. > >How do you rule, given that 3NT will be defeated on a diamond lead? I think that is an oversimplification. Which diamond lead from where? >One final, but important note, this event is PAIRS with IMP scoring. As the >result stand, NS have -4 IMPS and EW has +4 IMPS. What relevance has the scoring? As a TD or AC I decide my ruling: it is then applied to decide what the score will be. I would far prefer to rule not knowing the effects of my ruling. --------------------- Adam Beneschan wrote: >One might argue that 3NT would make from South, because West, who >thinks East has the majors, wouldn't lead a diamond. I don't like >this argument, because we're supposed to compute the most favorable >likely/probable results that would have happened if the infraction had >not occurred, and this argument forces us to compute a result assuming >that West misunderstood East's bid but had explained it correctly. Note that this is a reasonable comment when considering the NOs, but the standard for the Os [at all probable] does not depend on whether the infraction has occurred. -- 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 May 6 13:10:47 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA09615 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 13:10:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA09603 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 13:10:33 +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 12nuye-0005Ck-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 6 May 2000 03:10:01 +0000 Message-ID: <+gULtPHEZ4E5EwZv@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 03:41:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 2/3 questions References: <200005051625.MAA20846@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.20000505164247.006fd5bc@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000505164247.006fd5bc@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >Of course, the correct question in the circumstances is not "What do you >lead from AK?" but rather "What are your agreements regarding the lead of >an A?" But I don't go so far as to believe that asking the former should >be a presumptive infraction, unless it is entirely clear that the >questioner knows better, which means, in my book, that he has been >specifically instructed in the past by a TD or AC to be careful with his >phrasing, and can therefore be found to have violated L90B8. That seems a bit naive! OK, there may be people who do things once in a lifetime, but let's worry about the majority. Last time he had the king, and asked what they lead from AK, what happened? I'll bet the oppos were annoyed. People who ask what they lead from AK will have a fair idea of the effects, novices and other very poor players excepted. -- 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 May 6 14:15:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA09855 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 14:15:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA09850 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 14:15:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12nvzg-000HxF-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 6 May 2000 04:15:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 05:14:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: easter claim References: <3.0.6.32.20000421125055.007a6650@eiu.edu> <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5BE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3.0.6.32.20000421125055.007a6650@eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.20000505160333.00702aac@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000505160333.00702aac@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.20000505160333.00702aac@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >At 09:11 PM 5/4/00 +0100, David wrote: > >> Let me give all of you a TD test. Actually, I think I shall include >>it in the next one I set, so here is a preview: >> >> You are a TD in a proprietal ACBL club. It is affiliated to the ACBL, >>presumably [I am not sure of the set-up, but assume anyway] to a >>District and to a Unit. It has an owner and a manager who runs >>everything apart from the actual duplicate. It has a couple of other >>staff. The property on which it stands is given free by the local >>authority. It has players. [!] You have a wife and children [and >>cats]. >> >> To whom is your first responsibility as a Tournament Director? Only twice have I resigned from being TD of the Young Chelsea. On both occasions it was because the proprietor suggested that I should take an action which was contrary to the FLB. On both occasions I was reinstated within the hour (and on both occasions as a result of intolerable pressure from the players against the proprietor). For that I'm grateful, and it was a long time ago. Personally I don't see how I can continue to work for an outfit which does not promulgate the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge. To me, at least, the game only has credibility if all the players can see there is a level playing field. I've never minded buying a drink in the bar after the game for someone who feels hard done by - That is politics. But to make an illegal ruling is just downright stupid. We might as well play strip pontoon instead. cheers john > >Coming from David, I suspect that this is a trick question, since I'm >confident that his real-life answer would be "to your cats, of course, as >should be the case for any cat owner under any circumstances". > >But regardless of the theoretically correct answer, in real life, if you're >a working TD, you'd better believe that your first responsibility is to >whomever signs your paychecks, this is bollox, and is why I have a lock on the London games (All 5 clubs I direct in) > since if you believe anything else, you're >not a TD, you're an ex-TD looking for work. > > >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 > -- 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 May 6 18:14:50 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA10396 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 18:14:50 +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 SAA10390 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 18:14:39 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 17312 invoked from network); 6 May 2000 08:13:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.2.131) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 6 May 2000 08:13:48 -0000 Message-ID: <3913D511.6273C927@inter.net.il> Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 11:17:22 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Landau CC: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: 2/3 questions References: <3.0.1.32.20000505164247.006fd5bc@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear H-BLML members The 1997 release of Law 20F - for our case 20F2 , including the footnote addressing to Law 16 - was written according to the modern bidding and cards play systems. When playing at the level of National league - every card has a quite accurate significance , not only itself but related to dummy's cards, previous cards played etc. , etc.... According to the principle of full disclosure the declarer is entitled to know all these agreements and can ask zillions questions , as long as it does not infringe Law 16...... Dany Eric Landau wrote: > At 12:25 PM 5/5/00 -0400, Steve wrote: > > >> From: Eric Landau > >> It is not at all unreasonable that declarer, holding > >> the K and therefore knowing that LHO will not continue it, might want to > >> vary his line of play based on whether RHO does or does not know that he > >> (declarer) holds that card. > > > >This is a somewhat tricky point. I hope we all agree on the following > >two principles: > > > >1. Declarer is entitled to know the opponents' lead agreements, as Eric > >says. > > I certainly agree, and expect that we all do. > > >2. Declarer is not allowed to ask questions for the purpose of > >misleading the opponents, as David G. says. > > I strongly agree with this as well, but note that "for the purpose of" > makes it a function of the asker's intent (which is no problem for me, > although from previous discussion it might be for others). And I have not > been able to find this principle stated in TFLB. > > The point of my statement quoted by Steve above is that L73F2 specifically > does not apply here, since we cannot and should not assume that the > questioner "has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action". > > >In real life, there may be a conflict between these principles. It > >seems to me that declarer should be very careful in phrasing questions > >to avoid misleading the opponents. It is best if he just looks at the > >convention card and doesn't ask any questions at all. If he must ask, > >"What are your lead and carding agreements?" is a much better phrasing > >than "What do you lead from AK?" At high levels of play, I would tend > >to judge the latter an infraction, especially if opponents have a > >properly filled out convention card declarer could have looked at. > > > >Judgments in individual cases may be tricky, but in essence the problem > >is no different than in any other case where a legitimate question may > >mislead opponents (or convey UI to partner, for that matter). It is > >always best to phrase questions in as neutral a way as possible. > > I agree with Steve (and Marv, who has made the point repeatedly) that it > should be considered improper to ask any question that could conceivably > mislead an opponent, even when doing so does not violate L73F2, when the > information requested can be obtained by reading the opponents' CC. But I > have been convinced (by David S. IIRC) that, regardless of what should be, > it is not improper under our current laws, which grant an explicit right to > ask such questions. > > OTOH, I agree with Herman that we should not penalize players for asking > inappropriately phrased questions when the intent of the questioner is > obviously to obtain information to which he is entitled rather than to > mislead anyone. > > Of course, the correct question in the circumstances is not "What do you > lead from AK?" but rather "What are your agreements regarding the lead of > an A?" But I don't go so far as to believe that asking the former should > be a presumptive infraction, unless it is entirely clear that the > questioner knows better, which means, in my book, that he has been > specifically instructed in the past by a TD or AC to be careful with his > phrasing, and can therefore be found to have violated L90B8. > > 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 May 6 21:50:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA10791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 21:50:22 +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 VAA10786 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 21:49:57 +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 12o35Y-000JzL-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 6 May 2000 12:49:42 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 11:28:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 2/3 questions References: <3.0.1.32.20000505164247.006fd5bc@pop.cais.com> <3913D511.6273C927@inter.net.il> In-Reply-To: <3913D511.6273C927@inter.net.il> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: >The 1997 release of Law 20F - for our case 20F2 , including the footnote >addressing >to Law 16 - was written according to the modern bidding and cards play systems. > >When playing at the level of National league - every card has a quite accurate >significance , not only itself but related to dummy's cards, previous cards >played etc. , etc.... According to the principle of full disclosure the >declarer is entitled to know all these agreements and can ask zillions >questions , as long as it does not infringe >Law 16...... And so long as he does not infringe the Proprieties. There is no problem with him asking a zillion questions - well, the problems are different, like harrassment, delay of game, and other things. But when a player asks a single question which he knows will create a certain presumption in the oppos' mind then his ethics are dubious. You make it sound as though the question is necessary, Dany. Of course it isn't. "Please describe your carding methods in detail" would cover it and would not mislead. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 7 00:45:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA11206 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 May 2000 00:45:46 +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 AAA11198 for ; Sun, 7 May 2000 00:45:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12o5pN-000OYo-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 6 May 2000 14:45:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 15:44:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: Board 23: Bermuda for Maastricht Trials References: <-1254587153jrhind@ibl.bm> In-Reply-To: <-1254587153jrhind@ibl.bm> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <-1254587153jrhind@ibl.bm>, Jack Rhind writes >The following problem occurred in the trials to selsct a team for Maastricht >Teams Olympiad. > >Board 23 All Vul. Dealer South > > AKJ > KQT54 > JT7 > K7 > >QT960 75 >J2 A983 >985 KQ432 >A43 J5 > > 843 > 76 > A6 > QT9862 > >N E S W >------------------------------- > Pass Pass >1C(1) 1D Dble(2) 1S >2H Pass 3C Pass >3D Pass 4C All Pass > >(1) Precision Club 16+ HCP >(2) 5-8 HCP > >North opens 1C precision, and East makes a natural 1D overcall. >West explains the 1D overcall as Capelletti, showing both majors. >South explains North's 2H bid as showing stops in hearts, but denying stops in >spades. South assumes North's 3D bid to be natural. North, understanding the the >1D overcall is natural intends 2H as natural and 3D as asking partner to bid 3NT >with a diamond stop. > >The director rules that both sides have made errors (EW is misinformation and NS >in bidding) and rules that the result stands. >NS appeal claiming that they will arrive at 3Nt with the correct explanation. > >How do you rule, given that 3NT will be defeated on a diamond lead? > >One final, but important note, this event is PAIRS with IMP scoring. As the >result stand, NS have -4 IMPS and EW has +4 IMPS. > >regards, > >Jack Rhind > Like others who have responded in this thread I assume that this was with screens in the normal orientation so that N and E were screenmates. Like others too I have little or no sympathy with the TD ruling. EW messed up and NS got in a muddle - hardly surprising since they both thought each others bidding meant different things as a result of the contradictory explanations. 3NT seems an obvious stopping place without MI and makes often enough for me (I haven't given much thought to the exact adjustment - I could probably be persuaded to = or +1) I see no real reason why an appeals committee should interfere with this ruling. (Although EW should probably be ashamed to appeal anyway on the grounds that everyone will find out that they don't know what they are doing :) ) mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 7 06:11:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA12239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 May 2000 06:11:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA12233 for ; Sun, 7 May 2000 06:10:59 +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 QAA23018; Sat, 6 May 2000 16:10:01 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200005051649.MAA23541@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> References: <004201bfb36c$36eced40$6b047bc3@marina> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 16:05:34 -0500 To: blml@farebrother.cx, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: L88 and concurrence of players Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:49 PM -0400 5/5/00, Michael Farebrother wrote: >On 4 May 2000 at 13:54, David Stevenson wrote: >> [North looks at his 14 cards, West has 12, and West refuses to play the >> hand after correction] >> In this case N/S are at fault, E/W are not at fault. Thus N/S get >>Ave-, E/W get Ave+. The failure to be able to play the board is solely >>North's. The fact that West did not give his consent to play the board >>with the card replaced is a right granted by L13. >> >However, L88 specifically states "through no fault *or choice* of his >own" (my emphasis). West specifically chose to not allow the board to >be played (which is his right by L13, but still is a choice taken). Even on this list, everyone (and I'm one of the guilty parties) forgets to look up Laws he thinks he knows. Thanks for getting the wording right. The only problem I see is that West might disagree with the TD's interpretation of L13; that is, he might believe that the information would interfere with normal play of the board. This shouldn't damage West, though; the card is UI to North if it matters (as if North becomes declarer and sees West play the C3 after giving West the C2). In an individual game, if it is South who objects to play of the board, South might not get average-plus. South is in no way at fault, but he is choosing to avoid playing a hand with a disadvantage due to North's infraction. However, if East or West objects, South must get average-plus. And this leads to a problem: what happens if two players object? >It is unfortunate that L12C1 (which sends us to L88) and L88 do not >match in their wording (L12C1 uses "in no way at fault", L88 uses >"through no fault or choice of his own". The only way that this can be reconciled within the wording is that if West objects as above at board-a-match scoring (the only case not covered by L86 or L88), he gets 60% (L12). In pairs or individual games, he gets 50% (L88). At IMPs, he gets +3 (L86), and at IMP pairs, +3 since L88 says "matchpoints", while L86 applies because the title "In Team Play" is not part of the law. I don't think this was the Lawmakers' intention. From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 7 06:32:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA12299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 May 2000 06:32:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA12292 for ; Sun, 7 May 2000 06:32:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.183] (dhcp165-183.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.183]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA26898; Sat, 6 May 2000 16:31:46 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200005051647.JAA11655@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Your message of "Fri, 05 May 2000 09:05:14 PDT." <3.0.1.32.20000505090514.00704dc0@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 16:20:10 -0500 To: Adam Beneschan , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: 2/3 questions Cc: adam@irvine.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 9:47 AM -0700 5/5/00, Adam Beneschan wrote: >Personally, when I become declarer, I've gotten in the practice of >asking to see the opponents' convention card *before* I see the lead, >and looking at their lead conventions and signalling agreements. I >try to do this as soon as the auction is over (unless I already looked >at it at the beginning of the round and remember what it said). If >their card isn't marked, or they don't have a card, my feeling is that >I should be able to ask whatever question I want (about the stuff that >was supposed to be on their card) without worrying about 73D2/73F2, >since the opponents' violation of the rules is the reason I have to >ask a question. Maybe some TD's would disagree with me, but I doubt >it. I have also proposed this interpretation. When a card (or a part of the card) is unmarked, a relevant question about that part of the card should not impose UI obligations on partner because it is a direct consequence of the opponents' infraction. If I inquire about a 4C response to 1H and am told it is Swiss (and double of Swiss would ask for a club lead while double of a splinter would as for a diamond lead), then partner has UI that I want a diamond lead. However, if Swiss is not marked on the card, partner should not be restricted from leading a diamond. The most common problem of this type occurs in the ACBL in the lead agrements section. The old card had no standard lead from two, three, four, or five small, and many players didn't bother to fill it out. The new card has standard agreements, but many players still don't fill it out even though the standard listed is low from three small and many players lead high. >However, I still think that when a question is asked, even if some >forms of questions could be held to violate 73D2, there have to be >some forms that declarer is safely allowed to ask. Perhaps "What are >your agreements about ace leads?" That question doesn't mention the >king, so would it be safe? Regardless of how a question is asked, it can still give an impression of the questioners interests by inference. The only agreement most players have on the lead of an ace against a suit contract is whether to lead it from AK. From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 7 06:32:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA12295 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 May 2000 06:32:05 +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 GAA12288 for ; Sun, 7 May 2000 06:31:57 +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 QAA26904; Sat, 6 May 2000 16:31:48 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200005052132.RAA24229@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> References: from "David Stevenson" at May 04, 2000 09:11:30 PM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 16:22:47 -0500 To: Ted Ying , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: easter claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 5:32 PM -0400 5/5/00, Ted Ying wrote: >When I direct at the club level, I am more leniant in many >situations than when I direct at the tournament level (and >for those of you in the DC area, I consider the WBL unit >game as tournament level). However, when I deviate from >the lawbook, I will say, "The ACBL laws require me to... >but I'm going to rule..." so that all are aware of the >distinctions. You have an obligation to make the players >aware of what the laws/rules state. However, you have a >responsibility to ensure a pleasant game for all. If you >have to make adjustments to keep everyone happy, you do it. You have support for this from the Law book. The book says, "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the laws." I believ eit was Edgar Kaplan who said that the reference to "tournaments" was deliberate, with clubs likely to be interpreted differently. From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 7 18:36:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA14474 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 May 2000 18:36:20 +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 SAA14469 for ; Sun, 7 May 2000 18:36:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-158.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.158]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA18876 for ; Sun, 7 May 2000 10:35:56 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39152A96.1077369C@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 10:34:30 +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: Belgian Redouble Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi All, Just when you thought you had seen everything, this happens : Setting : Belgian Pairs Cup, semi final, supposedly the 54 best pairs of Belgium. I get called at the table and four players are pointing at the bidding. This is what I see : Pass 1NT 1Di Pass Pass XX Pass Pass I ask west what happened and he tells me he wanted to double but took out the wrong bidding card. It seems as if the others believe him and so I say, "all right, just replace it with a red card and nothing happened". He does so and now South and West tap their bidding cards, in the casual way that is quite usual in Belgium to indicate a final pass. Then they start taking away their bidding cards, but North says, "hey the bidding isn't over !" While they put back the cards, North ponders for a small moment and decides to pass as well, which he too indicates by taking away the bidding cards. They get ready to play 1NTX, when North and South start a small argument. Amongst it all, I hear North saying to South, "but why did you pass then?", to which South responds, "because he did not say I could change my pass". Only now do I notice the dealer on the board. Yes I now realize that the bidding can also provide you with that clue, but I did not see it at the time (did you spot it ?) The bidding, as I had come to the table, had in fact proceeded : West North East South Pass Pass Pass 1Di 1NT XX Pass Pass Now that is a totally different ruling ! Since his partner has now already called, we can no longer apply L25A to change the inadvertent redouble, so it has to stand. And it is inadmissible. But "condoned". L35A. So the bidding has to start again, with East, who now does not HAVE to double (although I would have warned him against not doing so), after which South and West get to call again. But both are now in the knowledge that North wants to play it, since south has "told" him that it would be alright, and South has now told him that was not the case. Anyway, I ruled the board unplayable because of Director's error. But I was not going to let them get away with Av+, so I awarded Ave to both sides. I later told both pairs, who had consented in the solution, that in fact L82C instructed me to give them Av+, but that I still would not, because they had failed to correctly describe the problem to me. I was ready, if they had wanted to appeal, to ask them if they'd prefer Av+ and an additional PP (of 20%, presumably) to their current result. Belgians ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 8 00:26:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA15180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 May 2000 00:26:03 +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 AAA15175 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 00:25:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-5-149.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.5.149]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA10714 for ; Sun, 7 May 2000 16:25:45 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39153A79.3B299CA@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 11:42:17 +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: L16A in action Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Again, Belgian Pairs final. Last round, a table quite close to the bar, noise all round. I get called by the North player at one of the tables numbered 1 (that's just to say he's a seeded player, and a good one as well). He says to me, in Flemish "I've just heard behind me that in 6Clubs, you should take the Aces of Hearts and Spades". His opponent is in six clubs, and partner has just lead hearts. He holds the Ace. I am, in this kind of situation, not eager to halt play immediately, but ask him to play on. He takes his Ace, and declarer drops the King under it. This is the lay-out from his point of view : (I don't have a copy of the hands - oops) partner He5 Declarer Dummy HeK lots of clubs AKsome of diamonds singleton Spade QJsome of hearts he a few spades A and a few hearts he switches to a spade, of course. It turns out declarer, who does not know what happened (he speaks french and it was really very noisy), has dropped the King from K8 in a futile attempt to keep communication with his dummy (who has zillions of trumps and AK of diamonds). I tell him what happened and that he has been very silly. If he had just followed suit, I would have ruled Av+ to both sides. Even despite partner's claim that the 5 (small promising) does NOT show the King (there are quite a few even lower ones in his hand), I would have ruled that the spade return was only one possibility, now clearly the correct one, while the heart return would also be possible. The showing of KQJ of hearts by declarer, however, makes the spade return the only possibility, and I have awarded 6Cl-1 even despite the UI. Two questions : - do you agree with my decision on a "metaphysical" level, was it equitable ? - considering that L16B3 tells me I should "forthwith" give an AS, I might be wrong in my ruling. Don't you agree that this instruction (forthwith) is to be judged more leniently than perhaps is written? That this law might need to be modified ? I have at numerous occasions had people tell me, "I heard ..., and now I don't believe I can play this hand". On one occasion even, it wasn't absolutely the hand in question. So I always ask them to play on, reserving my right to still award an ArtAS later. Comments ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 8 06:00:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA16256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 May 2000 06:00:15 +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 GAA16251 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 06:00:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=ww) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 12oXDS-00015K-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 7 May 2000 21:59:50 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000507215839.00f43144@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 21:58:39 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: L16A in action In-Reply-To: <39153A79.3B299CA@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:42 AM 5/7/00 +0200, you wrote: >Again, Belgian Pairs final. > >Last round, a table quite close to the bar, noise all round. > >I get called by the North player at one of the tables >numbered 1 (that's just to say he's a seeded player, and a >good one as well). > >He says to me, in Flemish "I've just heard behind me that in >6Clubs, you should take the Aces of Hearts and Spades". > >His opponent is in six clubs, and partner has just lead >hearts. He holds the Ace. > >I am, in this kind of situation, not eager to halt play >immediately, but ask him to play on. > >He takes his Ace, and declarer drops the King under it. > >This is the lay-out from his point of view : >(I don't have a copy of the hands - oops) > > partner > He5 >Declarer Dummy >HeK lots of clubs > AKsome of diamonds > singleton Spade > QJsome of hearts > he > a few spades > A and a few hearts > >he switches to a spade, of course. > >It turns out declarer, who does not know what happened (he >speaks french and it was really very noisy), has dropped the >King from K8 in a futile attempt to keep communication with >his dummy (who has zillions of trumps and AK of diamonds). > >I tell him what happened and that he has been very silly. > >If he had just followed suit, I would have ruled Av+ to both >sides. Even despite partner's claim that the 5 (small >promising) does NOT show the King (there are quite a few >even lower ones in his hand), I would have ruled that the >spade return was only one possibility, now clearly the >correct one, while the heart return would also be possible. >The showing of KQJ of hearts by declarer, however, makes the >spade return the only possibility, and I have awarded 6Cl-1 >even despite the UI. > >Two questions : > >- do you agree with my decision on a "metaphysical" level, >was it equitable ? >- considering that L16B3 tells me I should "forthwith" give >an AS, I might be wrong in my ruling. Don't you agree that >this instruction (forthwith) is to be judged more leniently >than perhaps is written? >That this law might need to be modified ? > >I have at numerous occasions had people tell me, "I heard >..., and now I don't believe I can play this hand". On one >occasion even, it wasn't absolutely the hand in question. >So I always ask them to play on, reserving my right to still >award an ArtAS later. > >Comments ? >-- I should do that too. My opponents once called the TD, stating they overheard the slow players from last round, who were talking after changing places about the played contract, it should be 6H. But the new opponents didnt realize that i, in the mean time, had rearranged the boards in original order, and that i had changed the tableboard 90 degrees for my partner. So they started bidding 6 3 times (it was of course the last hand that was the 6H contract) and went down a lot. My PD finally failed to bid the 6H so all ended well, and i told opps after the last board what i had done. >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 8 12:29:27 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA17197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 May 2000 12:29:27 +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 MAA17192 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 12:29:13 +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 12odI2-000100-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 May 2000 02:28:59 +0000 Message-ID: <1DN20UCGRfF5Ewi+@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 23:55:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: EBU Spring Foursomes 2000 References: <200005051834.TAA19440@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200005051834.TAA19440@tempest.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Brd 6 AT84 W N E S > Dlr E 7642 > Vul E/W K95 2D#1 2H > T4 X#2 NB 2S NB > 963 KQJ752 NB 3H 3S AP > T5 9 > AJ72 Q43 Notes: > AQ62 J93 #1: Multi > -- #2: Not alerted > AKQJ83 Result: > Lead HA T86 3S+1 by E > K875 NS-170 > > In the EBU, an unalerted double when partner has bid is for penalties. > > Before the 3H bid, N checked the meaning of the double. He was told > it showed hearts, ie it was primarily for penalties. > > Before the opening lead, West pointed out the double asked partner to > describe his hand, only passing if the 2D opening was based on a heart > suit. The Director was called at this time. I do not necessarily claim I was right, but this was the most interesting ruling from the Spring 4s [by far]. Since it seemed to me difficult to discover which was the correct explanation and since damage was hardly likely during the play - the defence now had both the correct explanation and declarer's opinion - I did, as someone surmised, tell them I would not reopen the bidding so that damage from the final pass was a possibility that I would consider at the end of the hand. I believed that a player of East's system and style would normally bid 3S on the East hand if North raised to 3H. He would have a pretty good idea that partner's double was not based on a trump stack, and his opinion of his hand was shown by the fact that he did go on to 3S without letting his partner have a chance at 3H. I was worried somewhat by the possibility of 4S. Admittedly it could be beaten, but it wasn't, the argument for the different line made little sense, and it seemed to me that if East bid 3S West would bid 4S as a knee-jerk reaction. What it came down to: was there damage? I sometimes feel people go about this question wrong. Admittedly, the ACBL definitions of likely and at all probable make ruling in these circumstances difficult there, but for the rest of us, working out what you would adjust to and then seeing whether that was an improvement seems to work. In my view, South would bid 4H and be allowed to play there rarely: maybe one time in ten. I thought E/W playing in 4S and going off less likely. So what was the most favourable score for North-South that was likely absent the infraction? Probably 4S making - whoops! So I decided there was no damage, and let the table result stand. What was the least favourable score for East-West that was at all probable? Probably 4H making - I believed 4H= met the standard for at all probable but not for likely. So for E/W I assigned 4H=. Thus I assigned N/S NS-170 and E/W NS+420. The score in the other room was NS+420 [probably why they only asked for a ruling after scoring] so that means N/S lost 11 imps and E/W got 0 imps. Under L86B that means both sides get 5.5 imps, which I rounded to 5 imps [in favour of the NOs]. Both sides then gave me what they alleged was a twenty-pound note, but I was not convinced. One said "Bank of Scotland" on it, and the other "Clydesdale Bank". Neither sounded much like the Bank of England to me [which issues all English money]. The result of the match made any appeals moot. -- 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 May 8 13:23:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA17330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 May 2000 13:23:01 +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 NAA17325 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 13:22:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivehn0.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.70.224]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA30302 for ; Sun, 7 May 2000 23:22:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000507232005.01325748@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 23:20:05 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: L16A in action In-Reply-To: <39153A79.3B299CA@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:42 AM 5/7/2000 +0200, Herman wrote: >Again, Belgian Pairs final. > >Last round, a table quite close to the bar, noise all round. > >I get called by the North player at one of the tables >numbered 1 (that's just to say he's a seeded player, and a >good one as well). > >He says to me, in Flemish "I've just heard behind me that in >6Clubs, you should take the Aces of Hearts and Spades". > >His opponent is in six clubs, and partner has just lead >hearts. He holds the Ace. > >I am, in this kind of situation, not eager to halt play >immediately, but ask him to play on. > >He takes his Ace, and declarer drops the King under it. > >This is the lay-out from his point of view : >(I don't have a copy of the hands - oops) > > partner > He5 >Declarer Dummy >HeK lots of clubs > AKsome of diamonds > singleton Spade > QJsome of hearts > he > a few spades > A and a few hearts > >he switches to a spade, of course. > >It turns out declarer, who does not know what happened (he >speaks french and it was really very noisy), has dropped the >King from K8 in a futile attempt to keep communication with >his dummy (who has zillions of trumps and AK of diamonds). > >I tell him what happened and that he has been very silly. > >If he had just followed suit, I would have ruled Av+ to both >sides. Even despite partner's claim that the 5 (small >promising) does NOT show the King (there are quite a few >even lower ones in his hand), I would have ruled that the >spade return was only one possibility, now clearly the >correct one, while the heart return would also be possible. >The showing of KQJ of hearts by declarer, however, makes the >spade return the only possibility, and I have awarded 6Cl-1 >even despite the UI. > >Two questions : > >- do you agree with my decision on a "metaphysical" level, >was it equitable ? No. More details of the hands and auction might persuade me otherwise, but in general there are almost always logical alternatives in lead problems (in this case, for example, the K might be a false card to discourage the available ruff). Of course the relevant legal language of "could interfere with normal play" doesn't mention LA's specifically, but it does embody the same type of consideration, IMO. Thus if there is any reasonable possiblity that the player in this position might have gone wrong without the UI, then an adjustment is warranted. >- considering that L16B3 tells me I should "forthwith" give >an AS, I might be wrong in my ruling. Don't you agree that >this instruction (forthwith) is to be judged more leniently >than perhaps is written? No. I don't much care for substituting my own judgement for the legal text, and I think the forthwith wording has a valid purpose. By allowing the play to proceed, you raise the stakes on the outcome if you subsequently issue an adjustment. It should be possible to judge before the board is played whether or not it has been tainted by the UI. In this case I would probably judge that it had been (although I'm prepared to listen to an argument based on additional information). Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 8 13:59:52 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA17424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 May 2000 13:59:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA17419 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 13:59:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-58-212-254.s508.tnt1.lnhdc.md.dialup.rcn.com ([208.58.212.254] helo=erols) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #3) id 12oehf-0003QW-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 7 May 2000 23:59:32 -0400 Message-ID: <00d001bfb8a1$cc1f1de0$020aa8c0@com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <39153A79.3B299CA@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: L16A in action Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 23:59:13 -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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2000 5:42 AM Subject: L16A in action > Again, Belgian Pairs final. > > Last round, a table quite close to the bar, noise all round. > > I get called by the North player at one of the tables > numbered 1 (that's just to say he's a seeded player, and a > good one as well). > > He says to me, in Flemish "I've just heard behind me that in > 6Clubs, you should take the Aces of Hearts and Spades". > > His opponent is in six clubs, and partner has just lead > hearts. He holds the Ace. > > I am, in this kind of situation, not eager to halt play > immediately, but ask him to play on. > IMO this is completely contrary to 16B. If the UI could interfere with normal play (I would consider a defender knowing two aces are out against an opponent's slam in this category), the TD is given three options: Adjust positions (can't apply once the auction has started) Appoint a substitute (needs concurrence of all players) Award an artificial adjusted score forthwith. Playing on is not an option, unless the TD is ruling that the UI is inconsequential. Since you were prepared to award A+ later, you obviously thought the UI was not inconsequential. Play was over at that point, unless you could find a substitute for the defender who had the UI. Anything that occurred afterwards is like the play after a claim. It's not one of the options open to you by Law. Therefore, it never happened. > He takes his Ace, and declarer drops the King under it. > > This is the lay-out from his point of view : > (I don't have a copy of the hands - oops) > > partner > He5 > Declarer Dummy > HeK lots of clubs > AKsome of diamonds > singleton Spade > QJsome of hearts > he > a few spades > A and a few hearts > > he switches to a spade, of course. > > It turns out declarer, who does not know what happened (he > speaks french and it was really very noisy), has dropped the > King from K8 in a futile attempt to keep communication with > his dummy (who has zillions of trumps and AK of diamonds). > > I tell him what happened and that he has been very silly. > > If he had just followed suit, I would have ruled Av+ to both > sides. So, with A+ to both sides waiting, you let the players continue just in case someone makes a mistake? What's the point? The adjustment occurs as a result of the UI, not the play following it. The ruling is whether or not the UI *could* have an effect on play, not whether or not it did. >Even despite partner's claim that the 5 (small > promising) does NOT show the King (there are quite a few > even lower ones in his hand), I would have ruled that the > spade return was only one possibility, now clearly the > correct one, while the heart return would also be possible. > The showing of KQJ of hearts by declarer, however, makes the > spade return the only possibility, and I have awarded 6Cl-1 > even despite the UI. > > Two questions : > > - do you agree with my decision on a "metaphysical" level, > was it equitable ? Absolutely not. You screwed the Declarer royally. The hand was over as soon as the defender had the UI and summoned the TD. You had no right to allow play to continue, nor to base your ruling on any events following the summoning of the TD. If you had ruled that the UI was inconsequential, then and only then could play continue, but there would be no possibility of A+ once you had so decided. All players should have been award A+ at the table, or later using L82C. > - considering that L16B3 tells me I should "forthwith" give > an AS, I might be wrong in my ruling. Don't you agree that > this instruction (forthwith) is to be judged more leniently > than perhaps is written? No. I believe "forthwith" has a very clear meaning. There are many situations where the Laws are less than clear, and where the TD has to make a judgement call about what the Law actually says. This isn't one of them. > That this law might need to be modified ? > Perhaps, but it's up to the lawmakers to modify it. It's not something a TD should be doing at the table. > I have at numerous occasions had people tell me, "I heard > ..., and now I don't believe I can play this hand". On one > occasion even, it wasn't absolutely the hand in question. I've had this happen to me. The N player at the table before me yelling at E/W for opening a mini-Flannery. Three board rounds, and no idea which one it was. I summoned the TD, the TD told me to call her back when we got to a board that I could recognize due to the UI. I did so, and the TD had a substitute sit in from the moment I was aware that the UI applied to the hand (all players concurring). It seemed like a reasonable approach to me. 16B couldn't be applied until I knew which board I had information about. As soon as I did, the Law was applied correctly. > So I always ask them to play on, reserving my right to still > award an ArtAS later. > > Comments ? What's the point of having a Law book, if TD's don't apply it? There are many areas where we have honest disagreements about what a Law means. Here, you know full well what the Law says, and ignore it. > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 8 14:33:49 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA17514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 May 2000 14:33:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA17509 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 14:33:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from PeterB.enrichnz.co.nz ([210.55.93.201]) by mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <20000508043302.BELA10519676.mta3-rme@PeterB.enrichnz.co.nz> for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 16:33:02 +1200 Message-ID: <009701bfb8a6$97449780$6700a8c0@enrichnz.co.nz> From: "Peter Bowyer" To: Subject: Fw: L16A in action Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 16:33:37 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 WOW! What real friendly comments etc from Hirsch! Most conducive! for encouraging novice, but well meaning TDs, like me to be brave enough to ask a question Surely we all have only the best interests in mind with our (hopefully correct!) decisions for the betterment of all aspects of our game! Agree, it must be as per the Law's, but come on Hirsch, they are not always that straightforward to apply, hence this Bridge Laws group Hang in there Herman, seemed a reasonable question to me (I'll duck behind a wall now! :>) ) Kindest regards to all Peter Auckland New Zealand ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, 8 May 2000 15:59 Subject: Re: L16A in action > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws" > Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2000 5:42 AM > Subject: L16A in action > > > > Again, Belgian Pairs final. > > > > Last round, a table quite close to the bar, noise all round. > > > > I get called by the North player at one of the tables > > numbered 1 (that's just to say he's a seeded player, and a > > good one as well). > > > > He says to me, in Flemish "I've just heard behind me that in > > 6Clubs, you should take the Aces of Hearts and Spades". > > > > His opponent is in six clubs, and partner has just lead > > hearts. He holds the Ace. > > > > I am, in this kind of situation, not eager to halt play > > immediately, but ask him to play on. > > > > IMO this is completely contrary to 16B. If the UI could interfere with > normal play (I would consider a defender knowing two aces are out against an > opponent's slam in this category), the TD is given three options: > > Adjust positions (can't apply once the auction has started) > Appoint a substitute (needs concurrence of all players) > Award an artificial adjusted score forthwith. > > Playing on is not an option, unless the TD is ruling that the UI is > inconsequential. Since you were prepared to award A+ later, you obviously > thought the UI was not inconsequential. Play was over at that point, unless > you could find a substitute for the defender who had the UI. Anything that > occurred afterwards is like the play after a claim. It's not one of the > options open to you by Law. Therefore, it never happened. > > > He takes his Ace, and declarer drops the King under it. > > > > This is the lay-out from his point of view : > > (I don't have a copy of the hands - oops) > > > > partner > > He5 > > Declarer Dummy > > HeK lots of clubs > > AKsome of diamonds > > singleton Spade > > QJsome of hearts > > he > > a few spades > > A and a few hearts > > > > he switches to a spade, of course. > > > > It turns out declarer, who does not know what happened (he > > speaks french and it was really very noisy), has dropped the > > King from K8 in a futile attempt to keep communication with > > his dummy (who has zillions of trumps and AK of diamonds). > > > > I tell him what happened and that he has been very silly. > > > > If he had just followed suit, I would have ruled Av+ to both > > sides. > > So, with A+ to both sides waiting, you let the players continue just in case > someone makes a mistake? What's the point? The adjustment occurs as a > result of the UI, not the play following it. The ruling is whether or not > the UI *could* have an effect on play, not whether or not it did. > > >Even despite partner's claim that the 5 (small > > promising) does NOT show the King (there are quite a few > > even lower ones in his hand), I would have ruled that the > > spade return was only one possibility, now clearly the > > correct one, while the heart return would also be possible. > > The showing of KQJ of hearts by declarer, however, makes the > > spade return the only possibility, and I have awarded 6Cl-1 > > even despite the UI. > > > > Two questions : > > > > - do you agree with my decision on a "metaphysical" level, > > was it equitable ? > > Absolutely not. You screwed the Declarer royally. The hand was over as soon > as the defender had the UI and summoned the TD. You had no right to allow > play to continue, nor to base your ruling on any events following the > summoning of the TD. If you had ruled that the UI was inconsequential, then > and only then could play continue, but there would be no possibility of A+ > once you had so decided. > > All players should have been award A+ at the table, or later using L82C. > > > - considering that L16B3 tells me I should "forthwith" give > > an AS, I might be wrong in my ruling. Don't you agree that > > this instruction (forthwith) is to be judged more leniently > > than perhaps is written? > > No. I believe "forthwith" has a very clear meaning. There are many > situations where the Laws are less than clear, and where the TD has to make > a judgement call about what the Law actually says. This isn't one of them. > > > That this law might need to be modified ? > > > > Perhaps, but it's up to the lawmakers to modify it. It's not something a TD > should be doing at the table. > > > I have at numerous occasions had people tell me, "I heard > > ..., and now I don't believe I can play this hand". On one > > occasion even, it wasn't absolutely the hand in question. > > I've had this happen to me. The N player at the table before me yelling at > E/W for opening a mini-Flannery. Three board rounds, and no idea which one > it was. I summoned the TD, the TD told me to call her back when we got to a > board that I could recognize due to the UI. I did so, and the TD had a > substitute sit in from the moment I was aware that the UI applied to the > hand (all players concurring). It seemed like a reasonable approach to me. > 16B couldn't be applied until I knew which board I had information about. > As soon as I did, the Law was applied correctly. > > > So I always ask them to play on, reserving my right to still > > award an ArtAS later. > > > > Comments ? > > > What's the point of having a Law book, if TD's don't apply it? There are > many areas where we have honest disagreements about what a Law means. Here, > you know full well what the Law says, and ignore it. > > > -- > > Herman DE WAEL > > Antwerpen Belgium > > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > Hirsch > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 8 17:06:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA17843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 May 2000 17:06:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA17838 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 17:06:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA00498 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 09:08:08 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon May 08 09:05:45 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JP5H827UMO00GP52@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 May 2000 09:05:05 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 08 May 2000 09:04:45 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 09:05:01 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: Maastricht To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B5D4@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I take my part in misusing this forum, knowing that Di Sacco and Marques are reading this. Could you give your (e-mail) address to Carol von Linstow? Her address is 'Carolwbf1@aol.com'. may I ask you to send the message to me also, then I can be sure to have done my job? ton From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 8 20:03:00 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA18078 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 May 2000 20:03:00 +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 UAA18073 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 20:02:51 +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 LAA05610 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 11:02:36 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA14530 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 11:02:34 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 08 May 2000 10:02:33 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA01312 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 11:02:31 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id LAA16271 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 May 2000 11:02:31 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 11:02:31 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200005081002.LAA16271@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: LA v "at all probably"; was Re: EBU Spring Foursomes 2000 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Brd 6 AT84 W N E S > > Dlr E 7642 > > Vul E/W K95 2D#1 2H > > T4 X#2 NB 2S NB > > 963 KQJ752 NB 3H 3S AP > > T5 9 > > AJ72 Q43 Notes: > > AQ62 J93 #1: Multi > > -- #2: Not alerted > > AKQJ83 Result: > > Lead HA T86 3S+1 by E > > K875 NS-170 > > > > In the EBU, an unalerted double when partner has bid is for penalties. > > > > Before the 3H bid, N checked the meaning of the double. He was told > > it showed hearts, ie it was primarily for penalties. > > > > Before the opening lead, West pointed out the double asked partner to > > describe his hand, only passing if the 2D opening was based on a heart > > suit. The Director was called at this time. > [snip] > > I was worried somewhat by the possibility of 4S. Admittedly it could > be beaten, but it wasn't, the argument for the different line made > little sense, and it seemed to me that if East bid 3S West would bid 4S > as a knee-jerk reaction. > [snip] > > In my view, South would bid 4H and be allowed to play there rarely: > maybe one time in ten. I thought E/W playing in 4S and going off less > likely. > [snip] > > Thus I assigned N/S NS-170 and E/W NS+420. The score in the other > room was NS+420 [probably why they only asked for a ruling after > scoring] so that means N/S lost 11 imps and E/W got 0 imps. Under L86B > that means both sides get 5.5 imps, which I rounded to 5 imps [in favour > of the NOs]. David, You do not say if you think we should consider whether West's action should be considered constrained by L16A when awarding an AssAS. Perhaps you think pass by West is not a LA ("... if East bid 3S West would bid 4S as a knee-jerk reaction"). Does this mean a Pass by West is sufficiently unlikely that it is not a logical alternative, but sufficiently likely to be "at all probable". Or perhaps you did not think that "use" of UI was an issue. This is not a criticism of the ruling, just an attempt to understand. It is interesting that in the EBU, an action can fail to be a LA (~20%) but still be at all probable (~10%, "... maybe one time in ten ..."). In the ACBL, this would (apparently) not be possible: not a LA (~0%, "would not seriously consider"), at all probable (>16%, "one in six"). Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: 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 Mon May 8 22:09:37 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA18354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 May 2000 22:09:37 +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 WAA18345 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 22:09:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-8.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.8]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA02894 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 14:09:18 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3916A927.A7184F2F@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 13:46:47 +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: L16A in action References: <39153A79.3B299CA@village.uunet.be> <00d001bfb8a1$cc1f1de0$020aa8c0@com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thanks for your reply, Hirsh. Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > > I am, in this kind of situation, not eager to halt play > > immediately, but ask him to play on. > > > > IMO this is completely contrary to 16B. If the UI could interfere with > normal play (I would consider a defender knowing two aces are out against an > opponent's slam in this category), the TD is given three options: > > Adjust positions (can't apply once the auction has started) > Appoint a substitute (needs concurrence of all players) > Award an artificial adjusted score forthwith. > > Playing on is not an option, unless the TD is ruling that the UI is > inconsequential. Since you were prepared to award A+ later, you obviously > thought the UI was not inconsequential. Play was over at that point, unless > you could find a substitute for the defender who had the UI. Anything that > occurred afterwards is like the play after a claim. It's not one of the > options open to you by Law. Therefore, it never happened. > I realise all that. > > > > If he had just followed suit, I would have ruled Av+ to both > > sides. > > So, with A+ to both sides waiting, you let the players continue just in case > someone makes a mistake? What's the point? The adjustment occurs as a > result of the UI, not the play following it. The ruling is whether or not > the UI *could* have an effect on play, not whether or not it did. > Well, in actual fact, did it ? No it did not. I ruled that the south player had no other options than to play Ace of Hearts and small spade. So it did not have an effect on the play, and that was my consideration. Once I was certain of that, I allowed play to continue. The board was effectively over by that time, but that does not matter. > > > > - do you agree with my decision on a "metaphysical" level, > > was it equitable ? > > Absolutely not. You screwed the Declarer royally. I rather consider he screwed himself. By showing the king of hearts he gave opponents no single chance of handing him his contract. > The hand was over as soon > as the defender had the UI and summoned the TD. I don't believe that. The hand is over as soon as the Director considers the UI could interfere with normal play. Nowhere does it say in the book that the TD should make that decision "forthwith". like you yourself admit : [change the position of your reply] > I've had this happen to me. The N player at the table before me yelling at > E/W for opening a mini-Flannery. Three board rounds, and no idea which one > it was. I summoned the TD, the TD told me to call her back when we got to a > board that I could recognize due to the UI. I did so, and the TD had a > substitute sit in from the moment I was aware that the UI applied to the > hand (all players concurring). It seemed like a reasonable approach to me. > 16B couldn't be applied until I knew which board I had information about. > As soon as I did, the Law was applied correctly. Here as well, the TD did not award the ArtAs "forthwith", but only later, when it was possible to determine that the UI would interfere with normal play. What's the difference with my case ? [continue] > You had no right to allow > play to continue, nor to base your ruling on any events following the > summoning of the TD. If you had ruled that the UI was inconsequential, then > and only then could play continue, but there would be no possibility of A+ > once you had so decided. > > All players should have been award A+ at the table, or later using L82C. > > > - considering that L16B3 tells me I should "forthwith" give > > an AS, I might be wrong in my ruling. Don't you agree that > > this instruction (forthwith) is to be judged more leniently > > than perhaps is written? > > No. I believe "forthwith" has a very clear meaning. There are many > situations where the Laws are less than clear, and where the TD has to make > a judgement call about what the Law actually says. This isn't one of them. > OK, but L16C uses forthwith twice. The player should forthwith call the director, who then has a choice, one of which is to "fortwith" award an ArtAs. In between these two "moments", the TD needs to consider some things. How can he, without sometimes allowing play to continue. > > That this law might need to be modified ? > > > > Perhaps, but it's up to the lawmakers to modify it. It's not something a TD > should be doing at the table. > I agree with that completely. > > I have at numerous occasions had people tell me, "I heard > > ..., and now I don't believe I can play this hand". On one > > occasion even, it wasn't absolutely the hand in question. > > > > So I always ask them to play on, reserving my right to still > > award an ArtAS later. > > > > Comments ? > > What's the point of having a Law book, if TD's don't apply it? There are > many areas where we have honest disagreements about what a Law means. Here, > you know full well what the Law says, and ignore it. > That's not fair. I think I know what this laws allows me to do, and wait before making my consideration must be one of them. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 8 22:09:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA18355 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 May 2000 22:09:38 +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 WAA18344 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 22:09:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-8.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.8]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA02865 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 14:09:15 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3916A680.5D835636@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 13:35:28 +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 in action References: <3.0.1.32.20000507232005.01325748@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: > > > > >- do you agree with my decision on a "metaphysical" level, > >was it equitable ? > > No. More details of the hands and auction might persuade me otherwise, but > in general there are almost always logical alternatives in lead problems > (in this case, for example, the K might be a false card to discourage the > available ruff). Of course the relevant legal language of "could interfere > with normal play" doesn't mention LA's specifically, but it does embody the > same type of consideration, IMO. Thus if there is any reasonable possiblity > that the player in this position might have gone wrong without the UI, then > an adjustment is warranted. > Well, trust me, in this case, there wasn't. > >- considering that L16B3 tells me I should "forthwith" give > >an AS, I might be wrong in my ruling. Don't you agree that > >this instruction (forthwith) is to be judged more leniently > >than perhaps is written? > > No. I don't much care for substituting my own judgement for the legal text, > and I think the forthwith wording has a valid purpose. By allowing the play > to proceed, you raise the stakes on the outcome if you subsequently issue > an adjustment. I realise that. I'm reluctant to do it too often, but I am also reluctant to have to make an on-the-spot decision, while some extra play might clarify the situation. > It should be possible to judge before the board is played > whether or not it has been tainted by the UI. Well, for one thing, who knows if it really IS this board ? Who's to say that this player, knowing full well that 6Cl will be a bad contract, has picked on some UI to try and salvage 60%. Should I really take five minutes now to investigate ? While two seconds play will allow the board to be scored ? It may prove very difficult sometimes to "consider that the information could interfere with normal play". > In this case I would probably > judge that it had been (although I'm prepared to listen to an argument > based on additional information). > Well, with an attitude like that, isn't "I heard that we should cash ace of hearts and spades" enough to judge this ? I feel it is, if I absolutely have to rule at that time. By allowing play to go on for just two cards (ace of hearts and king of hearts), I could determine that the information had not interfered with normal play. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 9 01:10:01 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA18762 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 May 2000 00:52:35 +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 AAA18757 for ; Tue, 9 May 2000 00:52:22 +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 12ootG-000BZy-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 May 2000 15:52:11 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 15:47:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: LA v "at all probably"; was Re: EBU Spring Foursomes 2000 References: <200005081002.LAA16271@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200005081002.LAA16271@tempest.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: >> > Brd 6 AT84 W N E S >> > Dlr E 7642 >> > Vul E/W K95 2D#1 2H >> > T4 X#2 NB 2S NB >> > 963 KQJ752 NB 3H 3S AP >> > T5 9 >> > AJ72 Q43 Notes: >> > AQ62 J93 #1: Multi >> > -- #2: Not alerted >> > AKQJ83 Result: >> > Lead HA T86 3S+1 by E >> > K875 NS-170 >> > >> > In the EBU, an unalerted double when partner has bid is for penalties. >> > >> > Before the 3H bid, N checked the meaning of the double. He was told >> > it showed hearts, ie it was primarily for penalties. >> > >> > Before the opening lead, West pointed out the double asked partner to >> > describe his hand, only passing if the 2D opening was based on a heart >> > suit. The Director was called at this time. >> >[snip] >> >> I was worried somewhat by the possibility of 4S. Admittedly it could >> be beaten, but it wasn't, the argument for the different line made >> little sense, and it seemed to me that if East bid 3S West would bid 4S >> as a knee-jerk reaction. >> >[snip] >> >> In my view, South would bid 4H and be allowed to play there rarely: >> maybe one time in ten. I thought E/W playing in 4S and going off less >> likely. >> >[snip] >> >> Thus I assigned N/S NS-170 and E/W NS+420. The score in the other >> room was NS+420 [probably why they only asked for a ruling after >> scoring] so that means N/S lost 11 imps and E/W got 0 imps. Under L86B >> that means both sides get 5.5 imps, which I rounded to 5 imps [in favour >> of the NOs]. > >David, > >You do not say if you think we should consider whether West's action >should be considered constrained by L16A when awarding an AssAS. > >Perhaps you think pass by West is not a LA ("... if East bid 3S West >would bid 4S as a knee-jerk reaction"). Does this mean a Pass by West >is sufficiently unlikely that it is not a logical alternative, but >sufficiently likely to be "at all probable". Or perhaps you did not >think that "use" of UI was an issue. > >This is not a criticism of the ruling, just an attempt to understand. I think the bid of 3S over 3H to be a 90% action. I think the bid of 4S over 4H to be a 90% action. I don't think LAs come into it. I believe that N/S were not damaged through MI as NOs, but the standards for E/W meant there was damage in effect there. >It is interesting that in the EBU, an action can fail to be a LA (~20%) >but still be at all probable (~10%, "... maybe one time in ten ..."). > >In the ACBL, this would (apparently) not be possible: not a LA (~0%, >"would not seriously consider"), at all probable (>16%, "one in six"). -- 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 May 9 04:09:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA19467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 May 2000 04:09:32 +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 EAA19462 for ; Tue, 9 May 2000 04:09:21 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 13387 invoked for bounce); 8 May 2000 18:09:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.57.209) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 8 May 2000 18:09:10 -0000 Message-ID: <013201bfb919$3095ae20$d1391dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: Subject: Double dummy with screens ;-) Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 20:07:15 +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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Where do the current laws adress the following situations? IMPs, 2x16 boards with screens. N E || S W - p 1S P 1NT 2H 3NT AP Obviously, N is now declarer in 3NT. How, due to S's final 3NT bid the screenmates E and N erroneously think that S declares 3NT. N thus puts his hand down as dummy, and E does not lead. Then the screen is lifted ;-). Next segment, the bidding goes N E || S W p p p 1NT p p 2H p This time, N and E notice neither S's 2H bid, nor W's pass. When the screen is lifted, N has led against 1NT, and the E hand has been tabled as dummy. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 9 09:04:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA20387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 May 2000 09:04:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA20382 for ; Tue, 9 May 2000 09:04:00 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA21020 for ; Tue, 9 May 2000 09:02:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 09 May 2000 09:02:04 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: Laws 16A, 72B2 and 73A2 To: Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 09:01:56 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 09/05/2000 08:59:58 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I believe that David has hit the nail on the head. Active Ethics and the Laws require you to leave in partner's slow penalty double, even if you would *automatically* remove it otherwise. (Leaving in a penalty double is surely always a logical alternative.) The straw man of the "Briar Patch Coup" should not deflect you from doing what is right. Routinely acting in such a way in such situations - instead of going the Director and Appeals Committee route - not only makes Bridge a fairer, but also a more pleasant game. Best wishes Richard Hills richard.hills@immi.gov.au PS As a newcomer to the list, I will give a brief biography. I have no children, spouse or cats, giving me more free time to play Bridge. I live in Canberra, capital of Australia, and have had some minor successes in Australian championships. I am also a longstanding member of Australian Bridge magazine's Bidding Forum panel. From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 9 12:43:30 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA20963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 May 2000 12:43:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA20957 for ; Tue, 9 May 2000 12:43:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-58-212-254.s508.tnt1.lnhdc.md.dialup.rcn.com ([208.58.212.254] helo=erols) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #3) id 12ozzC-0001XW-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 May 2000 22:43:05 -0400 Message-ID: <002601bfb957$e47db480$020aa8c0@com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <39153A79.3B299CA@village.uunet.be> <00d001bfb8a1$cc1f1de0$020aa8c0@com> <3916A927.A7184F2F@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: L16A in action Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 21:42:43 -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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 7:46 AM Subject: Re: L16A in action I'm going to assume we're in agreement that L16B is the relevant law, despite the subject of the thread. I'll repost it here, so that we don't have to keep looking back through the Law book: "16.B. Extraneous Information from Other Sources When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information about a board he is playing or has yet to play, as by looking at the wrong hand; by overhearing calls, results or remarks; by seeing cards at another table; or by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins, the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information. If the Director considers that the information could interfere with normal play, he may: 1. Adjust Positions if the type of contest and scoring permit, adjust the players' positions at the table, so that the player with information about one hand will hold that hand; or, 2. Appoint Substitute with the concurrence of all four players, appoint a temporary substitute to replace the player who received the unauthorized information; or, 3. Award an Adjusted Score forthwith award an artificial adjusted score. " [snip} HdW: > > > > > > If he had just followed suit, I would have ruled Av+ to both > > > sides. > > HD: > > So, with A+ to both sides waiting, you let the players continue just in case > > someone makes a mistake? What's the point? The adjustment occurs as a > > result of the UI, not the play following it. The ruling is whether or not > > the UI *could* have an effect on play, not whether or not it did. > > > HdW: > Well, in actual fact, did it ? > No it did not. > I ruled that the south player had no other options than to > play Ace of Hearts and small spade. > So it did not have an effect on the play, and that was my > consideration. Once I was certain of that, I allowed play to > continue. The board was effectively over by that time, but > that does not matter. > HD: You seem to be confused by the word "could". It doesn't mean that the UI will have an effect on these particular players on this hand. It means that there is a possibility that the UI will interfere with normal play on the hand. Only that. With a defender having the UI that two aces are out against a slam, I can make that ruling in less time than it takes to type this sentence. Unless the defender that has the UI is also holding both of the aces, play will stop, and L16B1, L16B2, or L16B3 will be applied. The fact that on this particular hand, the UI did not affect the play does not matter in the least. The *potential* of the UI determines the ruling, not its actual effect. If you don't know whether or not the UI will affect the play, you are acknowledging that it could. That's enough to rule. HdW: > > > > > > - do you agree with my decision on a "metaphysical" level, > > > was it equitable ? > > HD: > > Absolutely not. You screwed the Declarer royally. > HdW: > I rather consider he screwed himself. By showing the king > of hearts he gave opponents no single chance of handing him > his contract. > HD: It was a silly play, but it was made in a situation where he was not supposed to be playing. You had made the determination that the UI was significant, as evidenced by your readiness to award A+, but did not apply the remedies provided in L16B. IMO the whole thing was happening in a legal limbo. I'm not sure that I'm happy awarding Declarer A+ in this situation, mind you, as it appears that a reasonable bridge result has been obtained, apparently uninfluenced by the UI. However, I don't see any alternative. Had the ruling been delivered correctly, in the manner required by law, Declarer would have received A+. I can't see giving him any less because of subsequent events that should not have occurred (unless he agreed to a substitute per 16B2. However, playing a slam missing two aces, I suspect he would have taken the A+). > > The hand was over as soon > > as the defender had the UI and summoned the TD. > HdW: > I don't believe that. The hand is over as soon as the > Director considers the UI could interfere with normal play. > Nowhere does it say in the book that the TD should make that > decision "forthwith". > HD: Of course it does. Look back over 16B. If the TD rules that the UI could interfere with normal play, then the players have the option to try and obtain a bridge score under L16B1 or L16B2, as well as the ArtAS of L16B3. By delaying the decision of whether or not the UI could interfere, you are denying the players the right to try and obtain a bridge score under those laws. How exactly do you propose to appoint a substitute once you decide that the UI could interfere with play, if the play has continued during your ruminations? At this point, there is no way to apply 16B1 or 16B2, and the players have been deprived of those potential remedies. HdW: > like you yourself admit : > > [change the position of your reply] > HD: > > I've had this happen to me. The N player at the table before me yelling at > > E/W for opening a mini-Flannery. Three board rounds, and no idea which one > > it was. I summoned the TD, the TD told me to call her back when we got to a > > board that I could recognize due to the UI. I did so, and the TD had a > > substitute sit in from the moment I was aware that the UI applied to the > > hand (all players concurring). It seemed like a reasonable approach to me. > > 16B couldn't be applied until I knew which board I had information about. > > As soon as I did, the Law was applied correctly. > HdW: > Here as well, the TD did not award the ArtAs "forthwith", > but only later, when it was possible to determine that the > UI would interfere with normal play. HD: No, the TD appointed a substitute as soon as I was aware of the board on which I had UI. I was not allowed to take a bridge action once I was aware of which board the UI applied to. In fact, the UI would have had no effect on that particular hand, but that was immaterial. HdW: > What's the difference with my case ? > HD: You allowed play to continue in the presence of significant extraneous UI about the hand. In my case, a substitute was appointed and a bridge result obtained under L16B2. You have denied the players this recourse. > [continue] > HD: > > You had no right to allow > > play to continue, I'm going to modify my own statement and say that you had no right to allow play to continue unless you had appointed a substitute under 16B2, with the concurrence of the players, which is more accurate than my previous statement. The situation was not appropriate for 16B1. >nor to base your ruling on any events following the > > summoning of the TD. If you had ruled that the UI was inconsequential, then > > and only then could play continue, but there would be no possibility of A+ > > once you had so decided. > > > > All players should have been award A+ at the table, or later using L82C. > > HdW: > > > - considering that L16B3 tells me I should "forthwith" give > > > an AS, I might be wrong in my ruling. Don't you agree that > > > this instruction (forthwith) is to be judged more leniently > > > than perhaps is written? > > HD: > > No. I believe "forthwith" has a very clear meaning. There are many > > situations where the Laws are less than clear, and where the TD has to make > > a judgement call about what the Law actually says. This isn't one of them. > > > HdW: > OK, but L16C uses forthwith twice. The player should > forthwith call the director, who then has a choice, one of > which is to "fortwith" award an ArtAs. In between these two > "moments", the TD needs to consider some things. How can > he, without sometimes allowing play to continue. > HD: He must rule on the spot. If he allows play to continue before ruling, he denies the players their options under 16B1 and 16B2, which cannot be right. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 9 13:51:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA21112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 May 2000 13:51:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA21107 for ; Tue, 9 May 2000 13:51:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-58-212-254.s508.tnt1.lnhdc.md.dialup.rcn.com ([208.58.212.254] helo=erols) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #3) id 12p12z-0007HO-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 May 2000 23:51:02 -0400 Message-ID: <000801bfb969$cabf42e0$020aa8c0@com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: Subject: Re: L16A in action Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 23:50:52 -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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ack! Got to correct my own silliness. That will teach me to write too quickly. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hirsch Davis" To: Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 9:42 PM Subject: Re: L16A in action >With a defender having the UI that two aces are out > against a slam, I can make that ruling in less time than it takes to type > this sentence. Unless the defender that has the UI is also holding both of > the aces, play will stop, and L16B1, L16B2, or L16B3 will be applied. > This is an oversimplification. As soon as I hit "send", I was able to construct several scenarios where this would be false. Oh well. It wasn't the first time I sent too quickly, and probably won't be the last. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 9 17:13:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA21545 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 May 2000 17:13:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from rsc.anu.edu.au (rsc [150.203.35.129]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA21540 for ; Tue, 9 May 2000 17:12:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from medvesajt.anu.edu.au (medvesajt.anu.edu.au [150.203.35.241]) by rsc.anu.edu.au (8.10.0/8.10.0) with SMTP id e497CtK06415 for ; Tue, 9 May 2000 17:12:55 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 17:12:55 +1000 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@medvesajt.anu.edu.au To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Double dummy with screens ;-) In-Reply-To: <013201bfb919$3095ae20$d1391dc2@rabbit> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 8 May 2000, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Where do the current laws adress the following situations? The laws don't cover play with screens. The Sponsoring Organisation can make regulations to cover these situations and should have. > IMPs, 2x16 boards with screens. > > > N E || S W > - p 1S P > 1NT 2H 3NT AP > > Obviously, N is now declarer in 3NT. > How, due to S's final 3NT bid the screenmates > E and N erroneously think that S declares 3NT. > > N thus puts his hand down as dummy, and > E does not lead. Then the screen is lifted ;-). Regulation could/should require the screenmate of the person making the final pass to announce "Contract" or something similar. The screens regulations could/should also require that the person making the lead still leads face-down, their screenmate announces "Lead" and the people on the *other* side of the screen lift the screen. This way a lead by the wrong hand is impossible without 1) a breach of the regulations (PP at national championship level), or 2) at least three people erring > Next segment, the bidding goes > > N E || S W > p p p 1NT > p p 2H p > > > This time, N and E notice neither S's 2H bid, > nor W's pass. When the screen is lifted, N > has led against 1NT, and the E hand has > been tabled as dummy. The above suggestions also prevent this situation except under the two conditions above. I suggest you consult your SO's regulations in this area if you want to make a ruling :-) Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 9 18:27:23 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA21620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 May 2000 18:27:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from rsc.anu.edu.au (rsc [150.203.35.129]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA21615 for ; Tue, 9 May 2000 18:27:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from medvesajt.anu.edu.au (medvesajt.anu.edu.au [150.203.35.241]) by rsc.anu.edu.au (8.10.0/8.10.0) with SMTP id e498RFK08630 for ; Tue, 9 May 2000 18:27:15 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 18:27:15 +1000 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@medvesajt.anu.edu.au To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Board 23: Bermuda for Maastricht Trials In-Reply-To: <200005051802.LAA13203@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 5 May 2000, Adam Beneschan wrote: > Jack Rhind wrote: > > > The following problem occurred in the trials to selsct a team for Maastricht Teams Olympiad. > > > > Board 23 All Vul. Dealer South > > > > AKJ > > KQT54 > > JT7 > > K7 > > > > QT960 75 > > J2 A983 > > 985 KQ432 > > A43 J5 > > > > 843 > > 76 > > A6 > > QT9862 > > > > N E S W > > ------------------------------- > > Pass Pass > > 1C(1) 1D Dble(2) 1S > > 2H Pass 3C Pass > > 3D Pass 4C All Pass > > > > (1) Precision Club 16+ HCP > > (2) 5-8 HCP > > > > North opens 1C precision, and East makes a natural 1D overcall. > > West explains the 1D overcall as Capelletti, showing both majors. > > South explains North's 2H bid as showing stops in hearts, but > > denying stops in spades. South assumes North's 3D bid to be natural. > > North, understanding the the 1D overcall is natural intends 2H as > > natural and 3D as asking partner to bid 3NT with a diamond stop. > > > > The director rules that both sides have made errors (EW is > > misinformation and NS in bidding) and rules that the result stands. > > NS appeal claiming that they will arrive at 3Nt with the correct > > explanation. > > > > How do you rule, given that 3NT will be defeated on a diamond lead? > > > > One final, but important note, this event is PAIRS with IMP scoring. > > As the result stand, NS have -4 IMPS and EW has +4 IMPS. > > If 3NT is played by South, I can't find a reasonable way for 3NT to > make on a diamond lead, even if South starts by winning the diamond, > finessing spades, and cashing the king of clubs. All roads seem to > lead to down 1, unless the defense does something terrible. Note the position of the diamond 9,8 and 7. If South covers in dummy every diamond that West ever leads then a double diamond stopper exists. This gives the contract hope on a number of layouts. For example, on any diamond lead, North, East and South all cover with their lowest card. South plays a heart to the HA. Best for East is now to win AH and exit with a small diamond. East can see that if declarer has 5 club tricks, 2(+) spades, 1 heart and AD then there is no hope for the defence. Thus West has a club trick. If West's original lead might be consistent with a tripleton then East must duck a diamond - retaining West's small diamond as a communication card with West's club honour or East's 9H for an entry. At this level, this defence should probably be found (AC/TD decision needed), but if East wins AH and clears diamonds, or switches spades or clubs, or ducks AH then: A) East clears diamonds South must keep East off lead, thus West has the AC. We have 2 diamonds, a club, a heart and two spades without trying hard and the best chance for extra tricks is for two more heart tricks and either an endplay on West or an extra spade trick. First we'll play on clubs. Cash KC, then another club will be won by West - the club suit is now high. West cannot exit his heart or a club, so exits a spade, and declarer must finesse. To get two more heart tricks there must be a doubleton jack of hearts or jack and two small with West. If East has JxH, then cash QH (dropping JH) and play hearts. If West has JxH then exit a LOW heart which West wins perforce and declarer claims. If West has JxxH then cash QH and exit any heart and claim. The West hand has 6 cards known (3C 3D) and the East hand has 7 cards known (2C 5D). This small bias in favour of the low heart exit is probably outweighed by the cases where QH is best. The best option for declarer is probably to cash QH and this will see 3NT fail. However the low heart exit does allow the contract to be made. This would not seem to be "at all probable" :-) B) East switches spades Clearly West does not have AC else he would clear diamonds. A second diamond stopper must exist for the contract to make (or West with an original singleton and the heart stopper). South has 3S, 1C, 1H, 2D(probably) and needs two more heart tricks. First try clubs to see what happens, KC all duck, club JQA. West exits a diamond which is covered by North. East can win or not. Then declarer has to pick the heart layout as for case A). Again declarer will probably fail. C) East switches clubs East must switch the small club to make life hard for South. South knows East does not hold AC since if he did he would clear diamonds. Thus, run the club to the K (unblocking K under the A if necessary) and a club back JQA. Cover West's diamond exit and we are back in the same kind of position. D) East ducks KH South needs a second diamond stopper and West with at most one entry, so West has AC and possibly AH. South has 2S, 1C, 2D, 1H and needs at least two more heart tricks. There are no more entries to hand, so there are no layouts for three more heart tricks, but two more can be made by playing for a doubleton AH with East or doubleton JH with either hand. The latter seems a bit more likely, so playing QH actually drops the J from West. When back in, declarer must now switch to KC (ducked) and club JQA. Declarer cannot now make his contract unless West exits his last club (duh). Well, I set out to prove it could be made on a diamond lead, but I guess it shouldn't/won't make. :-) Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 9 18:36:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA21645 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 May 2000 18:36:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from rsc.anu.edu.au (rsc [150.203.35.129]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA21640 for ; Tue, 9 May 2000 18:36:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from medvesajt.anu.edu.au (medvesajt.anu.edu.au [150.203.35.241]) by rsc.anu.edu.au (8.10.0/8.10.0) with SMTP id e498aVK08912 for ; Tue, 9 May 2000 18:36:36 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 18:36:31 +1000 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@medvesajt.anu.edu.au To: BLML Subject: Re: Board 23: Bermuda for Maastricht Trials In-Reply-To: <01bfb6d1$b7d25c20$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 5 May 2000, Anne Jones wrote: > >The following problem occurred in the trials to selsct a team for > Maastricht Teams Olympiad. > > > >Board 23 All Vul. Dealer South > > > > AKJ > > KQT54 > > JT7 > > K7 > > > >QT960 75 > >J2 A983 > >985 KQ432 > >A43 J5 > > > > 843 > > 76 > > A6 > > QT9862 > > > >N E S W > >------------------------------- > > Pass Pass > >1C(1) 1D Dble(2) 1S > >2H Pass 3C Pass > >3D Pass 4C All Pass > > > >(1) Precision Club 16+ HCP > >(2) 5-8 HCP > > > >North opens 1C precision, and East makes a natural 1D overcall. > >West explains the 1D overcall as Capelletti, showing both majors. > >South explains North's 2H bid as showing stops in hearts, but denying stops > in spades. South assumes North's 3D bid to be natural. North, understanding > the the 1D overcall is natural intends 2H as natural and 3D as asking > partner to bid 3NT with a diamond stop. > > > >The director rules that both sides have made errors (EW is misinformation > and NS in bidding) and rules that the result stands. > > > I assume that the e/w agreement was not Capilletti, and there was MI. > If indeed Capilletti was a figment of West's imagination then no doubt N/S > were damaged. > I think that 3NT would be bid by N most of the time, and I award +600 to > N/S, -600 E/W. If West leads a spade, sure. > If the pair were playing Capiletti, and East has forgotten, then I agree > with the TD, that the result must stand. > > Anne I disagree. North has still been damaged in the auction by misexplanation by *East* that 1D is natural. He lacks the information that his partner interprets 2H as showing a heart stop, and that his partner interprets 3D as natural and that his partner "knows" their side does not have a spade stopper for notrump. He does know that partner doesn't have a heart fit and doesn't have a diamond stopper, and has a marginal hand with a number of clubs. 4C seems a good spot. With sufficient shape for 5C partner must do something more than bid 4C, given that East is limited and that 3D doesn't establish a unilateral gameforce. Whatever the correct agreement, North-South have been given misinformation on at least one side of the screen and have not committed an egregious bidding error sufficient for the table result to be allowed to stand. Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 9 19:03:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA21732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 May 2000 19:03:16 +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 TAA21727 for ; Tue, 9 May 2000 19:03:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Tue, 9 May 2000 11:02:48 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id KAA08033 for ; Tue, 9 May 2000 10:49:40 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: Double dummy with screens ;-) Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 10:49:31 +0200 Message-ID: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310BB@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-reply-to: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101B26F@xion.spase.nl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thomas Dehn wrote: >Where do the current laws adress the following situations? >IMPs, 2x16 boards with screens. > > >N E || S W >- p 1S P >1NT 2H 3NT AP > >Obviously, N is now declarer in 3NT. >How, due to S's final 3NT bid the screenmates >E and N erroneously think that S declares 3NT. > >N thus puts his hand down as dummy, and >E does not lead. Then the screen is lifted ;-). I guess East now has a slight advantage in leading, and EW in defending ;-) North picks up his hand, East leads, and South puts down the dummy. And NE are required to drink at least 3 cups of strong black coffee before continuing. >Next segment, the bidding goes > >N E || S W >p p p 1NT >p p 2H p > > >This time, N and E notice neither S's 2H bid, >nor W's pass. When the screen is lifted, N >has led against 1NT, and the E hand has >been tabled as dummy. First, the ruling about the coffee stands, although the number of cups should be increased to at least 5 :-) The auction is not over, and because the screen has been lifted, L24B,C apply (if the screen had remained closed, North and East could have picked up their cards without penalty). The screen should be closed again during the remainder of the auction; North has one card exposed and East 13. The auction continues with North; South and West must pass once (L24B,C). After the auction is over, if NS become defenders, then North has one major penalty card, and if EW become defenders, then East has 13 penalty cards. And yes, 7NT could be a very nice contract for NS...... -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 9 22:52:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA22097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 May 2000 22:52:37 +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 WAA22092 for ; Tue, 9 May 2000 22:52:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-205.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.205]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA08293; Tue, 9 May 2000 14:52:08 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3917DBDB.28F4DF17@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 11:35:23 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Trevor Walker , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L16A in action References: <39153A79.3B299CA@village.uunet.be> <00d001bfb8a1$cc1f1de0$020aa8c0@com> <3916A927.A7184F2F@village.uunet.be> <3916DC95.D5F7DC02@emtex.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Trevor Walker wrote: > > I have no easy way to reply to the mailing list; if > you choose to forward this I will not object. > There are a lot of ways of doing that. Reply-to-all works for me, after which I delete the real poster - no need to send him twice. I also have blml in my address book. > Nobody seems to have raised the point that declarer > did not speak Flemish and, according to Herman, did > not understand what was going on. It would be difficult > to persuade me that Herman was right in any event, but I > do not believe that a declarer who understood the problem > would have dropped the king. > Which is just another way of saying that the UI did not interfere with normal play. > Trevor > > > -- > Trevor Walker, Emtex Ltd. > 70 St Albans Rd., Watford, Hertfordshire, UK > Tel +44 (0)1923 242420 -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 10 00:09:11 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA22328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 May 2000 00:09:11 +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 AAA22323 for ; Wed, 10 May 2000 00:09:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from p8as06a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.166.139] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt1-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12pAf9-0001mn-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 May 2000 07:07:03 -0700 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Board 23: Bermuda for Maastricht Trials Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 15:11:47 +0100 Message-ID: <01bfb9c0$83504b00$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: Mark Abraham To: BLML Date: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 9:48 AM Subject: Re: Board 23: Bermuda for Maastricht Trials >On Fri, 5 May 2000, Anne Jones wrote: > >> >The following problem occurred in the trials to select a team for >> Maastricht Teams Olympiad. >> > >> >Board 23 All Vul. Dealer South >> > >> > AKJ >> > KQT54 >> > JT7 >> > K7 >> > >> >QT960 75 >> >J2 A983 >> >985 KQ432 >> >A43 J5 >> > >> > 843 >> > 76 >> > A6 >> > QT9862 >> > >> >N E S W >> >------------------------------- >> > Pass Pass >> >1C(1) 1D Dble(2) 1S >> >2H Pass 3C Pass >> >3D Pass 4C All Pass >> > >> >(1) Precision Club 16+ HCP >> >(2) 5-8 HCP >> > >> >North opens 1C precision, and East makes a natural 1D overcall. >> >West explains the 1D overcall as Capelletti, showing both majors. >> >South explains North's 2H bid as showing stops in hearts, but denying stops >> in spades. South assumes North's 3D bid to be natural. North, understanding >> the the 1D overcall is natural intends 2H as natural and 3D as asking >> partner to bid 3NT with a diamond stop. >> > >> >The director rules that both sides have made errors (EW is misinformation >> and NS in bidding) and rules that the result stands. >> > >> I assume that the e/w agreement was not Capilletti, and there was MI. >> If indeed Capilletti was a figment of West's imagination then no doubt N/S >> were damaged. >> I think that 3NT would be bid by N most of the time, and I award +600 to >> N/S, -600 E/W. > >If West leads a spade, sure. > West is supposed to believe that East has the majors. I would have expected a double of 3NT by S, and a Spade lead.I would be most suspicious of a field if he found a diamond lead. > >> If the pair were playing Capiletti, and East has forgotten, then I agree >> with the TD, that the result must stand. >> >> Anne > >I disagree. North has still been damaged in the auction by misexplanation >by *East* that 1D is natural. He lacks the information that his partner >interprets 2H as showing a heart stop, and that his partner interprets 3D >as natural and that his partner "knows" their side does not have a spade >stopper for notrump. > This is an interesting point. It would not happen without screens. North would have seen West's alert. North is entitled to know they are playing Capiletti, but he is not entitled to know that East has forgotten.Law75B. SOs regulate (or should) the way in which MI is reduced to a minimum when screens are in use. The fact that Alerts, are not available across the screen makes me wonder if the use of CCs should be more emphasised. When I advocated the abolition of the alerting procedure some time ago, others thought that it was far more useful than a well completed CC. In the above example, I would like to see a situation where North has got no redress for MI, if he has a CC which clearly says Capiletti. It is a first round of bidding situation, N/S are playing Precision, I suggest that they have a duty to familiarise themselves with the defence that is in use. In my experience, screens are rarely used for 2 board rounds, it is not a great encumbrance to show some interest, rather than ignore that information which is available in the hope of gathering benefit from screaming MI. > >He does know that partner doesn't have a heart fit and doesn't have a >diamond stopper, and has a marginal hand with a number of clubs. 4C seems >a good spot. With sufficient shape for 5C partner must do something more >than bid 4C, given that East is limited and that 3D doesn't establish a >unilateral gameforce. > >Whatever the correct agreement, North-South have been given >misinformation on at least one side of the screen and have not committed >an egregious bidding error sufficient for the table result to be allowed >to stand. > Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 10 03:07:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA22886 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 May 2000 03:07:11 +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 DAA22881 for ; Wed, 10 May 2000 03:06:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-185.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.185]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA09570 for ; Tue, 9 May 2000 13:06:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001601bfb9d9$411fad20$b984d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Re: L16A in action Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 13:08:51 -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 This whole thread recalls an incident from over 15 years ago when I was new to organised bridge, had perhaps a dozen master points, and insisted on playing at the highest level available so that I could learn and improve my game. The setting was the Pittsburgh Labor Day Regional. My partner, who may have had 50 some odd points was annoyed at me...I think for the wrong reason. The room was noisy, and as we were finishing our final board of the round it was impossible not to hear the loud comment "Did you get to the spade slam on Board 24" "No" "Too bad, it's laydown after you find the knig of hearts onside." We had yet to play 24. To my partner's chagrin, I summoned the director and spoke to him away from the table about what I had overheard. To my considerable surprise he told me that I was free to use the information at my own risk. When we got to board 24, partner opened one of a minor and I leaped to 6S holding 15 highs and a solid 7 card spade suit. As promised the KH was in the pocket and the contract rolled easily. I explained to the opponents that I had overheard information about the hand and had notified the director who told me to go ahead and use it at my own risk. I suggested they might wish to call the director or appeal the result in some way if they felt (as I did) that this might be unfair to them. They didn't want to be bothered as they were having a 40% game and were more interested in getting to dinner on time. I've felt rather guilty about that one...and my partner of course felt I should have just kept my big mouth shut. It does sound as though the director was way off base...but what should I have done as a novice at that point? -- Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: Hirsch Davis >I'm going to assume we're in agreement that L16B is the relevant law, >despite the subject of the thread. I'll repost it here, so that we don't >have to keep looking back through the Law book: > >"16.B. Extraneous Information from Other Sources >When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information about a board >he is playing or has yet to play, as by looking at the wrong hand; by >overhearing calls, results or remarks; by seeing cards at another table; or >by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the >auction begins, the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the >recipient of the information. If the Director considers that the information >could interfere with normal play, he may: >1. Adjust Positions >if the type of contest and scoring permit, adjust the players' positions at >the table, so that the player with information about one hand will hold that >hand; or, >2. Appoint Substitute >with the concurrence of all four players, appoint a temporary substitute to >replace the player who received the unauthorized information; or, >3. Award an Adjusted Score >forthwith award an artificial adjusted score. " From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 10 05:38:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA23238 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 May 2000 05:38:55 +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 FAA23233 for ; Wed, 10 May 2000 05:38:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2iveglf.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.175]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA25041 for ; Tue, 9 May 2000 15:38:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000509153546.013273b8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 15:35:46 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: L16A in action In-Reply-To: <001601bfb9d9$411fad20$b984d9ce@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:08 PM 5/9/2000 -0400, Craig wrote: >This whole thread recalls an incident from over 15 years ago when I was new >to organised bridge, had perhaps a dozen master points, and insisted on >playing at the highest level available so that I could learn and improve my >game. The setting was the Pittsburgh Labor Day Regional. My partner, who may >have had 50 some odd points was annoyed at me...I think for the wrong >reason. The room was noisy, and as we were finishing our final board of the >round it was impossible not to hear the loud comment "Did you get to the >spade slam on Board 24" "No" "Too bad, it's laydown after you find the knig >of hearts onside." We had yet to play 24. To my partner's chagrin, I >summoned the director and spoke to him away from the table about what I had >overheard. To my considerable surprise he told me that I was free to use the >information at my own risk. When we got to board 24, partner opened one of a >minor and I leaped to 6S holding 15 highs and a solid 7 card spade suit. As >promised the KH was in the pocket and the contract rolled easily. I >explained to the opponents that I had overheard information about the hand >and had notified the director who told me to go ahead and use it at my own >risk. I suggested they might wish to call the director or appeal the result >in some way if they felt (as I did) that this might be unfair to them. They >didn't want to be bothered as they were having a 40% game and were more >interested in getting to dinner on time. I've felt rather guilty about that >one...and my partner of course felt I should have just kept my big mouth >shut. It does sound as though the director was way off base...but what >should I have done as a novice at that point? > Exactly as you did at the time. The director's ruling was ridiculous, of course, but you followed his advice in good faith. I would say, however, that if a similar situation arose today, I would expect you (or indeed, anyone in this forum) to understand and act in accordance with what we know your legal obligations to be, in spite of the incorrect advice offered. In particular, at an event on the scale of a Regional, it would certainly be possible to find a TD who can offer the correct ruling, and that is what a knowledgeable player should attempt to do, IMO. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 10 21:28:06 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA24843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 May 2000 21:28:06 +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 VAA24838 for ; Wed, 10 May 2000 21:27:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-40.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.40]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA12054 for ; Wed, 10 May 2000 13:27:46 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <391939D3.D5B23C4E@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:28:35 +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 in action References: <001601bfb9d9$411fad20$b984d9ce@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am replying in part to what Craig Senior wrote: > [but which I snip] and in part to what several others have written to me in private messages. I thank those for not wanting to expose me as a bad director on full list, but I don't feel I need such protection. There seems to be a general opinion, among those that voiced one, that I got it wrong. Now if that opinion were based on my misreading the position, and the taking of heart ace and returning small spade not so obvious as I ruled it to be, then I will take that criticism and agree that my ruling was wrong. I have received only one such reply, of someone who suggested that the dropping of the king could also induce the defender to think there was a heart ruff to take. I don't believe this to be the case, but in any case, that is not the point under discussion. The point under discussion is whether or not I am allowed to let play proceed before taking my decision as to whether the information could interfere with normal play. I think the Laws do not preclude this. Nowhere in L16B does it say that both "forthwith"s refer to the same instant. There was a case posted where the Director allowed play to continue until such time as the player recognized the deal he had UI about. The case from Craig 25 years ago is of the same sort. The TD neglected to tell Craig to call him back when he recognized the deal, and Craig misunderstood his obligations and took an undeserved top. But in both cases, between the "forthwith" calling of the TD and his "forthwith" application of L16C3, quite a lot of time has passed, and even a lot of play on the board in question has gone on. Let's retell the story of my board 18 once more, but slightly altered. Suppose Yves (that's him) had called me half way through the session, and told me what he had heard. Of course he does not know on which board it happens, but that's all right. I don't believe the advice to players "call me back when you recognize the board" is the correct one. It is practical, but not necessarily correct. I prefer to have the advice to TD's be : find out which board it was. Suppose I do that and find it is board 18. Do I now cancel board 18 for Yves ? Well, according to the interpretation given by Hirsh, I should. I should now decide whether or not the info could interfere with normal play. Of course it could. The three of clubs can interfere with normal play. That is why I don't believe Hirsh's interpretation to be correct. OK, I don't award Av+ straight away, and wait for board 18 to hit the table. I might change the positions, but that would not help in this case. I allow play to start, keeping an eye on the bidding from a distance. After all, the bidding may be totally different, and Yves might even never realize it was this board. Suppose the bidding turns to a point where EW announce a club fit and start investigating slam. Should I interrupt them ? I think not. Suppose Yves now recognizes the board, and sees me hovering. He casts me a glancing look. I believe I am entitled to answer him in sign language, saying "please continue". Suppose they do reach six clubs. If Yves is on lead, I must now rule, and I guess I would cancel the board. But his partner is on lead, and still the UI has not influenced the board. And it is still possible that is won't. If partner leads a diamond, the contract is made and the UI has not influenced the outcome. Suppose partner leads a heart, and dummy comes down. Now I do have to make a decision. But one possibility is to still allow the play to continue, if I consider that it is impossible to not play the Ace. And now declarer foolishly drops the king. Again I must make a decision. Again I can rule that the UI does not interfere with Yves' decision making process. The board is now effectively over, the UI has not interfered. I am happy with the result. So is Yves, and his partner, and even declarer, after I've told him what happened, is happy with my ruling, even if not with the outcome, which is his own fault. At every stage is this (alternate universe) ruling, the UI has become progressively more important, but at no stage it has interfered too much with the normal outcome. I believe it is the duty of the TD to monitor this progressive importance, but not to decide straight away. In the (real universe) ruling, I only came in at the penultimate moment. I do not believe there is something fundamentally different between the one ruling and the next. Now Hirsh, where would you jump in in the alternate universe ruling ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 11 00:58:36 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA25583 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 May 2000 00:58:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe33.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.90]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA25577 for ; Thu, 11 May 2000 00:58:28 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 7204 invoked by uid 65534); 10 May 2000 14:57:50 -0000 Message-ID: <20000510145750.7203.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.12.51] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <001601bfb9d9$411fad20$b984d9ce@oemcomputer> <391939D3.D5B23C4E@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: L16A in action Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 09:58:46 -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 A discussion of an inappropriate topic that might be overheard is an inappropriate discussion. Such inappropriate discussions ruins the opportunity for fair play by others. This is the reason for the artificial score. You allow a board to be played that has information available and an extraordinary result ensues, or maybe not quite so extraordinary, and then you adjust because you judge that UI may have been used. BAH! I am always going to believe that I got my extraordinary result because I either earned or I was screwed by the opponents. And what is worse is the sap who might have made the inspired bid or play and refuses to, and gets a royal screwing for it. ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 5:28 AM Subject: Re: L16A in action > I am replying in part to what > > Craig Senior wrote: > > > [but which I snip] > > and in part to what several others have written to me in > private messages. I thank those for not wanting to expose > me as a bad director on full list, but I don't feel I need > such protection. > > There seems to be a general opinion, among those that voiced > one, that I got it wrong. > > Now if that opinion were based on my misreading the > position, and the taking of heart ace and returning small > spade not so obvious as I ruled it to be, then I will take > that criticism and agree that my ruling was wrong. > I have received only one such reply, of someone who > suggested that the dropping of the king could also induce > the defender to think there was a heart ruff to take. > I don't believe this to be the case, but in any case, that > is not the point under discussion. > > The point under discussion is whether or not I am allowed to > let play proceed before taking my decision as to whether the > information could interfere with normal play. > > I think the Laws do not preclude this. Nowhere in L16B does > it say that both "forthwith"s refer to the same instant. > > There was a case posted where the Director allowed play to > continue until such time as the player recognized the deal > he had UI about. > > The case from Craig 25 years ago is of the same sort. The > TD neglected to tell Craig to call him back when he > recognized the deal, and Craig misunderstood his obligations > and took an undeserved top. > > But in both cases, between the "forthwith" calling of the TD > and his "forthwith" application of L16C3, quite a lot of > time has passed, and even a lot of play on the board in > question has gone on. > > Let's retell the story of my board 18 once more, but > slightly altered. > > Suppose Yves (that's him) had called me half way through the > session, and told me what he had heard. Of course he does > not know on which board it happens, but that's all right. > > I don't believe the advice to players "call me back when you > recognize the board" is the correct one. It is practical, > but not necessarily correct. > > I prefer to have the advice to TD's be : find out which > board it was. > Suppose I do that and find it is board 18. > > Do I now cancel board 18 for Yves ? > Well, according to the interpretation given by Hirsh, I > should. > I should now decide whether or not the info could interfere > with normal play. Of course it could. The three of clubs > can interfere with normal play. > > That is why I don't believe Hirsh's interpretation to be > correct. > > OK, I don't award Av+ straight away, and wait for board 18 > to hit the table. I might change the positions, but that > would not help in this case. I allow play to start, keeping > an eye on the bidding from a distance. After all, the > bidding may be totally different, and Yves might even never > realize it was this board. > > Suppose the bidding turns to a point where EW announce a > club fit and start investigating slam. Should I interrupt > them ? I think not. > > Suppose Yves now recognizes the board, and sees me > hovering. He casts me a glancing look. I believe I am > entitled to answer him in sign language, saying "please > continue". > > Suppose they do reach six clubs. If Yves is on lead, I must > now rule, and I guess I would cancel the board. But his > partner is on lead, and still the UI has not influenced the > board. And it is still possible that is won't. If partner > leads a diamond, the contract is made and the UI has not > influenced the outcome. > > Suppose partner leads a heart, and dummy comes down. > Now I do have to make a decision. > But one possibility is to still allow the play to continue, > if I consider that it is impossible to not play the Ace. > And now declarer foolishly drops the king. > > Again I must make a decision. Again I can rule that the UI > does not interfere with Yves' decision making process. The > board is now effectively over, the UI has not interfered. > > I am happy with the result. So is Yves, and his partner, > and even declarer, after I've told him what happened, is > happy with my ruling, even if not with the outcome, which is > his own fault. > > At every stage is this (alternate universe) ruling, the UI > has become progressively more important, but at no stage it > has interfered too much with the normal outcome. > I believe it is the duty of the TD to monitor this > progressive importance, but not to decide straight away. > > In the (real universe) ruling, I only came in at the > penultimate moment. I do not believe there is something > fundamentally different between the one ruling and the next. > > Now Hirsh, where would you jump in in the alternate universe > ruling ? Have you considered that one of the reasons for informing the director of such things is so that he can put a stop to it? And for the unfortunate recipient of the data- why must he be put into the ethical bind? The power of suggestion is immense. It is not a perquisite that a player consciously recognize a board for the outcome to possibly be affected. There can always be doubt. There was a tournament where a pair of boards were not shuffled [that is, preduplicated] from the previous session. I raised cain with the director for not canceling the boards when I learned that it happened [at the middle of the session]. I did not consciously recall the boards [like others] but I suspect my subconscious did. I tracked down the boards and noted that I took one more trick on the first board and 2 more tricks on the second. I was and still am disgusted with the directing staff. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas > Herman DE WAEL From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 11 03:51:06 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA27505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 May 2000 03:51:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from mxb.usuhs.mil ([131.158.7.192]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA27499 for ; Thu, 11 May 2000 03:50:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis ([131.158.186.130]) by mxb.usuhs.mil; Wed, 10 May 2000 13:48:18 -0400 Message-ID: <000501bfbaa8$357e3980$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <001601bfb9d9$411fad20$b984d9ce@oemcomputer> <391939D3.D5B23C4E@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: L16A in action Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 13:50:16 -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: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 6:28 AM Subject: Re: L16A in action > > The point under discussion is whether or not I am allowed to > let play proceed before taking my decision as to whether the > information could interfere with normal play. > > I think the Laws do not preclude this. Nowhere in L16B does > it say that both "forthwith"s refer to the same instant. > > There was a case posted where the Director allowed play to > continue until such time as the player recognized the deal > he had UI about. > > The case from Craig 25 years ago is of the same sort. The > TD neglected to tell Craig to call him back when he > recognized the deal, and Craig misunderstood his obligations > and took an undeserved top. > > But in both cases, between the "forthwith" calling of the TD > and his "forthwith" application of L16C3, quite a lot of > time has passed, and even a lot of play on the board in > question has gone on. > > Let's retell the story of my board 18 once more, but > slightly altered. > > Suppose Yves (that's him) had called me half way through the > session, and told me what he had heard. Of course he does > not know on which board it happens, but that's all right. > > I don't believe the advice to players "call me back when you > recognize the board" is the correct one. It is practical, > but not necessarily correct. > > I prefer to have the advice to TD's be : find out which > board it was. > Suppose I do that and find it is board 18. > Agree completely. The TD should have found out which board the UI was about, and not let me even start play on that board. > Do I now cancel board 18 for Yves ? No, you first have to decide whether or not the UI could influence normal play. > Well, according to the interpretation given by Hirsh, I > should. No (see my previous comment) > I should now decide whether or not the info could interfere > with normal play. Of course it could. The three of clubs > can interfere with normal play. > NOW you cancel the board for Yves. Since you cannot apply 16B1, you attempt to find a substitute for Yves per 16B2 with the concurrence of the players, to try and obtain a bridge result. If you cannot find a substitute they will agree to, you award A+ to all players (and a PP to the player who gave the UI, in all cases). > That is why I don't believe Hirsh's interpretation to be > correct. > The judgement of whether or not a specific card could interfere with normal play is a bridge judgement, not a matter of law. If you decide that it could interfere with normal play, then you rule as 16B tells you to. > OK, I don't award Av+ straight away, and wait for board 18 > to hit the table. If you know that the player had UI about board 18, you do not allow the player to play it. In my case, I'm convinced that the TD was being lazy, as we were playing three-board rounds and she would have had to look at all three to determine which one I had the UI about. She should have done this, and not allowed me to even start the problem board. >I might change the positions, but that > would not help in this case. I allow play to start, keeping > an eye on the bidding from a distance. After all, the > bidding may be totally different, and Yves might even never > realize it was this board. > > Suppose the bidding turns to a point where EW announce a > club fit and start investigating slam. Should I interrupt > them ? I think not. > If you knew this was the board Yves had significant UI about, it should never have gotten this far. However, if you are aware that Yves has significant extraneous UI about the board, you must apply L16B. > Suppose Yves now recognizes the board, and sees me > hovering. He casts me a glancing look. I believe I am > entitled to answer him in sign language, saying "please > continue". > > Suppose they do reach six clubs. If Yves is on lead, I must > now rule, and I guess I would cancel the board. But his > partner is on lead, and still the UI has not influenced the > board. And it is still possible that is won't. If partner > leads a diamond, the contract is made and the UI has not > influenced the outcome. > Again, you're still ruling based on results, not the potential of the UI. I'll post a tougher problem at the end. > Suppose partner leads a heart, and dummy comes down. > Now I do have to make a decision. > But one possibility is to still allow the play to continue, > if I consider that it is impossible to not play the Ace. > And now declarer foolishly drops the king. > > Again I must make a decision. Again I can rule that the UI > does not interfere with Yves' decision making process. The > board is now effectively over, the UI has not interfered. > > I am happy with the result. So is Yves, and his partner, > and even declarer, after I've told him what happened, is > happy with my ruling, even if not with the outcome, which is > his own fault. > > At every stage is this (alternate universe) ruling, the UI > has become progressively more important, but at no stage it > has interfered too much with the normal outcome. > I believe it is the duty of the TD to monitor this > progressive importance, but not to decide straight away. > However, L16B tells you to intervene once you decide that the UI *could* interfere with play, not when it does. I admire your attempt to get an actual bridge result on the hand. However, L16B only allows this to occur through application of 16B1 or 16B2. > In the (real universe) ruling, I only came in at the > penultimate moment. I do not believe there is something > fundamentally different between the one ruling and the next. > > Now Hirsh, where would you jump in in the alternate universe > ruling ? > I've already indicated that, but here's a harder one, I think. Opponents reach a slam, partner leads to a defender's ace, and the defender hears from behind the UI that the defense has two aces against the slam. He summons the TD, who looks at the hand and determines that the UI could change the line of defense taken, as the defender has a likely line that he could alter after the player determines where partner's ace must be... But Declarer has a hidden void! Further, all suits are breaking so that Declarer has twelve stone cold tricks on any normal line of play (normal to include careless, but not irrational...;) Declarer doesn't know the suits are breaking, and could not claim. So now we have a really tough problem: The UI could change the line of play taken by the defense, but not the result of the hand. Equity appears to demand that I simply award Declarer the slam, and that is in fact what my instincts are screaming to do. However, it all hinges on the meaning of the phrase "could interfere with normal play". If altering the line of defense meets this criterion, then I do not have that option, but must use the remedies in 16B. However, if the phrase "could interfere with normal play" means that the UI suggests options that a player could use to his advantage, then I can allow play to continue, as no options would be advantageous. If I'm forced to give this ruling, I go with equity and rule that the UI could not interfere with normal play. The Scope of the Laws tells us "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." Here, the irregularity could clearly cause no damage, so keeping the normal score at least falls within the spirit of the Laws, as expressed by the Scope. Comments? Have I made an illegal ruling here? If you agree with my ruling, let's make it harder still. Instead of a slam that can be claimed, let's make it a game or even a part score, where the defense will get in several times, and will make many decisions based on UI. Nevertheless, although play will be grossly tainted by the UI, the result on the hand is fixed. Despite the effect of the UI on defensive play, Declarer can always some to a fixed number of tricks through normal play, which the defense cannot affect. I'll confess that I think invoking 16B is clearer here, where the defense will make many decisions based on UI. Although the result may be fixed, the defense of the hand is could be a UI-tainted farce, not resembling bridge at all. If applying L16B is correct here, is it also correct on my first example? Over to you. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 11 06:10:27 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA00376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 May 2000 05:37:27 +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 FAA00367 for ; Thu, 11 May 2000 05:37:13 +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 PAA15429 for ; Wed, 10 May 2000 15:36:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA04839 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 May 2000 15:36:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 15:36:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200005101936.PAA04839@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L16B in action X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have changed the subject to match the actual topic under discussion. It strikes me -- and I would really like to hear comments from LC members -- that the existing L16B contemplates information received _in advance_ of playing the board. The law is hard to apply to Herman's original case of information received _during_ the course of play. For information received in advance, it makes sense to cancel the board if the information might be important. Cancelling is much less equitable for information received after play starts, where the bridge result may already have been determined before the UI was available. It also strikes me that it is very hard in practice to know whether a given piece of information will matter. As Herman says, the three of clubs _probably_ won't, two aces against a slam _probably_ will, but in either case, you could be wrong. Hirsch (I gather) wants to cancel the board automatically. (What will he do if he decides the information is immaterial, but the course of actual play proves him wrong? The only way to prevent that is not to allow play.) Herman wants to see whether a bridge result can be achieved. I tend to think players would prefer that, but I doubt it would be unanimous. (What is?) > From: "Hirsch Davis" > Declarer has twelve stone cold tricks on any normal line of play... > The UI could change the line of play taken by the defense, but not the > result of the hand. ... > Instead of a > slam that can be claimed, let's make it a game or even a part score, > where the defense will get in several times, and will make many > decisions based on UI. I don't see how these two are different. Either you rule based on the line of play or based on the result. The law text "interfere with normal play" can be interpreted either way. What does it mean to "interfere," as opposed to "change?" Does any change constitute interference? Or does 'interfere' require that the result be different? Let me offer a couple more examples. Both of these really happened but in different tournaments some months (years?) apart. The UI was the same: I moved to a new table and saw a pickup slip with 6NT EW +1440 sitting face up on the table. Of course I turned it over right away, but I couldn't "unsee" it. Partner didn't see it in either case, and the board was one I would play a few rounds later. Of course I told the TD both times. Case 1: an individual tournament. TD checks the hand records, sees I'll be holding a balanced 20-count, and cancels the board. Hirsch would approve, and so do I. I probably would have had lots of choices in the bidding and could have steered us to the slam. Case 2: pairs tournament with a regular partner. TD checks the hand record and sees I hold a balanced 16. He decides to let us play, advising both sides that there might be an adjusted score later. As it happens, given our partnership methods, I have _no_ options whatsoever in the bidding. Knowing our methods, I could have predicted that this was likely, but of course it was far from certain. Partner takes control and puts us in the making slam. With the TD's permission, we switch seats and partner plays it. TD decides not to adjust. Herman would approve, and so do I. (I think the slam was worth about 70%.) Comments? From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 11 12:17:32 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA02345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 May 2000 12:17:32 +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 MAA02340 for ; Thu, 11 May 2000 12:17:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2iveiad.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.77]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA10450 for ; Wed, 10 May 2000 22:17:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000510221421.01326aac@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 22:14:21 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: L16B in action In-Reply-To: <200005101936.PAA04839@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:36 PM 5/10/2000 -0400, Steve wrote: >Let me offer a couple more examples. Both of these really happened but >in different tournaments some months (years?) apart. The UI was the >same: I moved to a new table and saw a pickup slip with 6NT EW +1440 >sitting face up on the table. Of course I turned it over right away, >but I couldn't "unsee" it. Partner didn't see it in either case, and >the board was one I would play a few rounds later. Of course I told >the TD both times. > >Case 1: an individual tournament. TD checks the hand records, sees >I'll be holding a balanced 20-count, and cancels the board. Hirsch >would approve, and so do I. I probably would have had lots of choices >in the bidding and could have steered us to the slam. > >Case 2: pairs tournament with a regular partner. TD checks the hand >record and sees I hold a balanced 16. He decides to let us play, >advising both sides that there might be an adjusted score later. As it >happens, given our partnership methods, I have _no_ options whatsoever >in the bidding. Knowing our methods, I could have predicted that this >was likely, but of course it was far from certain. Partner takes >control and puts us in the making slam. With the TD's permission, we >switch seats and partner plays it. TD decides not to adjust. Herman >would approve, and so do I. (I think the slam was worth about 70%.) > >Comments? I have no idea what principle you think separates these two cases. A balanced 20-ct vs. a balanced 16? On either hand, your role in the decision-making process could have been completely inconsequential (how about 2nt - 6nt?) or riddled with difficult decisions, and the likelihood of either scenario seems pretty much the same in either case. If the TD wants to assess the chance that the UI _could_ change the result, then he must, at a minimum, consider all 4 hands, and maybe the available scores up to that point as well. Although this seems to me to be a pretty pointless exercise in all but small percentage of cases. The knowledge that 12 tricks are probably available in no-trump will only rarely be inconsequential. Very few boards score up as +1440 across the field. Invariably, a few miss the slam, or several bid it in less profitable strains, or a defensive miscue yields an overtrick, or a couple of sharp declarers spot the double squeeze. Obviously I trust you to do your best to avoid being influenced by the UI, but the Laws are written so that your opponents don't have to trust your integrity. Unless the TD is confident _at the time the UI is received_ that it is irrelevant, he is properly instructed to exercise one of the L16B options. The key word is "forthwith", and although Herman as a non-native English speaker can be forgiven for misunderstanding its meaning, you have no such excuse. And like other L16 enforcement provisions, this procedure protects the TD. If he instead follows the procedure preferred by you and Herman, he risks the following unpleasant scenario. He allows you to play the board, standing ready to adjust if he thinks the UI has made a difference. You successfully bid the slam (of course you and I know that's exactly what would have happened anyway), but then he rules to cancel the board. What does that mean? Precisely that your integrity has been called into question. It presents an ugly implication, and for that reason he will be reluctant to cancel the board, having posed it implicitly as a test of your ethics. No, the lawmakers have it right. Make a clean decision "forthwith", i.e., without trying to get a result which may only have to be set aside with hard feelings all around. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 11 13:45:06 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA02522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 May 2000 13:45:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA02516 for ; Thu, 11 May 2000 13:44:59 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA12359 for ; Thu, 11 May 2000 13:43:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 11 May 2000 13:43:00 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: L16B in action To: Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 13:41:37 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 11/05/2000 01:40:54 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: "It strikes me -- and I would really like to hear comments from LC members -- that the existing L16B contemplates information received _in advance_ of playing the board. The law is hard to apply to Herman's original case of information received _during_ the course of play." L16B specifically refers to both: *a board he is playing or has yet to play* [snip] "It also strikes me that it is very hard in practice to know whether a given piece of information will matter. As Herman says, the three of clubs _probably_ won't, two aces against a slam _probably_ will, but in either case, you could be wrong. Hirsch (I gather) wants to cancel the board automatically. (What will he do if he decides the information is immaterial, but the course of actual play proves him wrong? The only way to prevent that is not to allow play.) Herman wants to see whether a bridge result can be achieved. I tend to think players would prefer that, but I doubt it would be unanimous. (What is?)" > From: "Hirsch Davis" > Declarer has twelve stone cold tricks on any normal line of play... > The UI could change the line of play taken by the defense, but not the > result of the hand. ... > Instead of a > slam that can be claimed, let's make it a game or even a part score, > where the defense will get in several times, and will make many > decisions based on UI. "I don't see how these two are different. Either you rule based on the line of play or based on the result. The law text "interfere with normal play" can be interpreted either way. What does it mean to "interfere," as opposed to "change?" Does any change constitute interference? Or does 'interfere' require that the result be different?" *could interfere with normal play* IMHO encompasses both a different result, and the possibility of a different result. (Law 16B requires the Director to prognosticate.) "Let me offer a couple more examples. Both of these really happened but in different tournaments some months (years?) apart. The UI was the same: I moved to a new table and saw a pickup slip with 6NT EW +1440 sitting face up on the table. Of course I turned it over right away, but I couldn't "unsee" it. Partner didn't see it in either case, and the board was one I would play a few rounds later. Of course I told the TD both times." "Case 1: an individual tournament. TD checks the hand records, sees I'll be holding a balanced 20-count, and cancels the board. Hirsch would approve, and so do I. I probably would have had lots of choices in the bidding and could have steered us to the slam." "Case 2: pairs tournament with a regular partner. TD checks the hand record and sees I hold a balanced 16. He decides to let us play, advising both sides that there might be an adjusted score later. As it happens, given our partnership methods, I have _no_ options whatsoever in the bidding. Knowing our methods, I could have predicted that this was likely, but of course it was far from certain. Partner takes control and puts us in the making slam. With the TD's permission, we switch seats and partner plays it. TD decides not to adjust. Herman would approve, and so do I. (I think the slam was worth about 70%.)" In both cases the correct decision by the TD, assuming only Steve had the UI, would have been to rotate the board 90 degrees. Best wishes Richard Hills richard.hills@immi.gov.au From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 11 15:14:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA02708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 May 2000 15:14:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from rsc.anu.edu.au (rsc [150.203.35.129]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA02702 for ; Thu, 11 May 2000 15:14:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from medvesajt.anu.edu.au (medvesajt.anu.edu.au [150.203.35.241]) by rsc.anu.edu.au (8.10.0/8.10.0) with SMTP id e4B5ECK20190 for ; Thu, 11 May 2000 15:14:12 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 15:14:12 +1000 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@medvesajt.anu.edu.au To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L16B in action In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 11 May 2000 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >> Steve Willner wrote: >> >> "Let me offer a couple more examples. Both of these really happened >> (snip) >> "Case 1: an individual tournament. TD checks the hand records, sees >> (snip) >> "Case 2: pairs tournament with a regular partner. TD checks the hand > > In both cases the correct decision by the TD, assuming only Steve had the > UI, would have been to rotate the board 90 degrees. > > Richard Hills This would be good in principle, unless there was a defence to hold the contract to fewer than 13 tricks given the knowledge that one declarer has made 13 tricks... However this is academic since L16B does not permit this course - the players' positions may only be adjusted "so that the player with information about one hand will hold that hand". The director's actions in these cases are currently limited to the appointment of a substitute or an AAS. Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 11 16:11:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA02891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 May 2000 16:11:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA02886 for ; Thu, 11 May 2000 16:11:46 +1000 (EST) 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 ; Thu, 11 May 2000 02:11:07 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 02:06:26 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: L16B in action Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >"Case 1: an individual tournament. TD checks the hand records, sees >I'll be holding a balanced 20-count, and cancels the board. Hirsch >would approve, and so do I. I probably would have had lots of choices >in the bidding and could have steered us to the slam." > >"Case 2: pairs tournament with a regular partner. TD checks the hand >record and sees I hold a balanced 16. He decides to let us play, >advising both sides that there might be an adjusted score later. As it >happens, given our partnership methods, I have _no_ options whatsoever >in the bidding. Knowing our methods, I could have predicted that this >was likely, but of course it was far from certain. Partner takes >control and puts us in the making slam. With the TD's permission, we >switch seats and partner plays it. TD decides not to adjust. Herman >would approve, and so do I. (I think the slam was worth about 70%.)" > >In both cases the correct decision by the TD, assuming only Steve had the >UI, would have been to rotate the board 90 degrees. How does that help? In case one, Steve's partner, who would have been scored +1440 along with Steve, is now, through no fault of his own, scored -1440. Likewise opponents get +1440 instead of -1440. In case two, same problem. Seems a bit unfair, to me. 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/AwUBORpPGr2UW3au93vOEQIDKgCff3JkXj3qmhI/QUZ45PMIRr33ZQsAniKv 8JeyrpxHAJyFzvb4nb5fX5L+ =pJU7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 11 17:56:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA03075 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 May 2000 17:56:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (smtp2.ihug.co.nz [203.109.252.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA03070 for ; Thu, 11 May 2000 17:56:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from julie (p382-tnt4.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.18.104.142]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id TAA12695 for ; Thu, 11 May 2000 19:56:40 +1200 Message-ID: <000d01bfbb1d$aa8d5ce0$8e6812ce@ihug.co.nz> From: "Julie Atkinson" To: References: <001601bfb9d9$411fad20$b984d9ce@oemcomputer> <391939D3.D5B23C4E@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: L16A in action Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 19:51:06 +1200 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk When dealing with this sort of situation I normally allow the auction and play to continue..... but advise the players to call me back if they find themselves in an untenable position, or to call me at the end of play when I can judge. 90% of these situations end with no UI, as the recipient has misheard or been completely misinformed. I feel strongly that a player in receipt of this type of information should feel comfortable in recalling me as they are unable to bid/play further without making a choice as result of UI. Ethical players invariably penalise themselves by trying to be fair. Julie Atkinson From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 11 21:18:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA03459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 May 2000 21:18:56 +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 VAA03454 for ; Thu, 11 May 2000 21:18:44 +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 12pqyt-000E1w-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 May 2000 11:18:16 +0000 Message-ID: <8L77XsAzjiG5Ewqx@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 04:28:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L16B in action References: <200005101936.PAA04839@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200005101936.PAA04839@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >It strikes me -- and I would really like to hear comments from LC >members Why not other members of BLML? >-- that the existing L16B contemplates information received _in >advance_ of playing the board. The Law includes the words "... about a board he is playing or ..." and so it applies sometimes to boards that are being played at the time. Let us take a simple example: declarer is wondering how to play the trumps in board 16 when from the next table some idiot says "You know you would have made board 16 if you had played for the queen over the jack as I am always telling you". This will interfere with normal play, it is too late to adjust the seating or to put in a substitute, so under L16B3 the TD gives A+/A+ and ambles off to deal with the offending idiot. What is the difficulty with this? What alternative method of dealing with this are you suggesting? -- 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 May 12 01:31:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA04140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 May 2000 01:31:39 +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 BAA04135 for ; Fri, 12 May 2000 01:31:27 +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 LAA26440 for ; Thu, 11 May 2000 11:31:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA11713 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 May 2000 11:31:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 11:31:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200005111531.LAA11713@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L16B in action X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > I have no idea what principle you think separates these two cases. At least two: in an individual, I will not be constrained by bidding system, whereas with a regular partner, I will be. Second, balanced 16's lacking a five-card major are almost always dealt with as notrump hands in the appropriate range (usually 15-17 around here), whereas balanced 20's offer much more freedom, e.g. to bid suits or not or to evaluate as "good" or "bad" 20. In point of fact, as the second hand went, I had _no_ choices in the auction. If partner had held different cards, that might not have been the case. It's easy to imagine a quantitative 4NT invitation, for example. If that had happened, the hand would indeed have become unplayable. > If he instead follows the procedure preferred by you and Herman, Please note that I have not endorsed playing out the hand in all cases. In the first example I gave, I think the TD was exactly right to cancel the board "forthwith." > he risks > the following unpleasant scenario. He allows you to play the board, > standing ready to adjust if he thinks the UI has made a difference. You > successfully bid the slam (of course you and I know that's exactly what > would have happened anyway), but then he rules to cancel the board. What > does that mean? Precisely that your integrity has been called into > question I wouldn't take it that way, but I can see that some players would. As with many rulings, the TD would have to do some careful explaining. That shouldn't be beyond the ability of a good TD. From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 12 01:36:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA04158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 May 2000 01:36:13 +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 BAA04153 for ; Fri, 12 May 2000 01:36:05 +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 LAA26690 for ; Thu, 11 May 2000 11:35:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA11722 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 May 2000 11:35:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 11:35:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200005111535.LAA11722@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L16B in action X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > L16B specifically refers to both: *a board he is playing or has yet to > play* Thanks for the comments. Yes, it says, that, but the remedies don't really seem to address the case of "is playing." (IMHO, of course.) > In both cases the correct decision by the TD, assuming only Steve had the > UI, would have been to rotate the board 90 degrees. An interesting approach, and it might even work. OTOH, given the UI, I might be more inclined to preempt or sacrifice, knowing it won't be a phantom. From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 12 02:25:56 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA04490 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 May 2000 02:25:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA04485 for ; Fri, 12 May 2000 02:25:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-92.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.92]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA14886 for ; Thu, 11 May 2000 18:25:32 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <391A9163.97FD1CA9@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 12:54:27 +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 in action References: <001601bfb9d9$411fad20$b984d9ce@oemcomputer> <391939D3.D5B23C4E@village.uunet.be> <000501bfbaa8$357e3980$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws" > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 6:28 AM > Subject: Re: L16A in action > > > > > The point under discussion is whether or not I am allowed to > > let play proceed before taking my decision as to whether the > > information could interfere with normal play. > > > > I think the Laws do not preclude this. Nowhere in L16B does > > it say that both "forthwith"s refer to the same instant. > > > > There was a case posted where the Director allowed play to > > continue until such time as the player recognized the deal > > he had UI about. > > > > The case from Craig 25 years ago is of the same sort. The > > TD neglected to tell Craig to call him back when he > > recognized the deal, and Craig misunderstood his obligations > > and took an undeserved top. > > > > But in both cases, between the "forthwith" calling of the TD > > and his "forthwith" application of L16C3, quite a lot of > > time has passed, and even a lot of play on the board in > > question has gone on. > > > > Let's retell the story of my board 18 once more, but > > slightly altered. > > > > Suppose Yves (that's him) had called me half way through the > > session, and told me what he had heard. Of course he does > > not know on which board it happens, but that's all right. > > > > I don't believe the advice to players "call me back when you > > recognize the board" is the correct one. It is practical, > > but not necessarily correct. > > > > I prefer to have the advice to TD's be : find out which > > board it was. > > Suppose I do that and find it is board 18. > > > > Agree completely. The TD should have found out which board the UI was > about, and not let me even start play on that board. > > > Do I now cancel board 18 for Yves ? > > No, you first have to decide whether or not the UI could influence > normal play. > But that is a tough one, isn't it ? Well, it is not in this case. Knowing that there are two aces to cash against a slam is an easy decision. But sometimes it is not as easy. What do you do if a player comes up and tells me he knows his LHO has the three of clubs. Can you decide straight away if that info could influence normal play ? Well, if you HAVE to decide, the answer will always be positive. Isn't it better to be able to defer that decision? > > Well, according to the interpretation given by Hirsh, I > > should. > > No (see my previous comment) > Well, actually, what you are saying is YES. You tell me I have to make a decision, and I am not allowed to let play continue in the meantime. I hope you understand what you are saying. You don't allow me to let Yves play one more card. You do not argue your case because you think I have enough information that should induce me to rule "could interfere", but rather because you think I should never, ever allow play to continue. You are wrong there. > > I should now decide whether or not the info could interfere > > with normal play. Of course it could. The three of clubs > > can interfere with normal play. > > > > NOW you cancel the board for Yves. Also if the info concerns the three of clubs ? What are we arguing over ? Are you saying that the info is too much, so that my decision should have been "yes it could interfere". Or are you saying I am fundamentally wrong in allowing playing on regardless of the situation ? > Since you cannot apply 16B1, you > attempt to find a substitute for Yves per 16B2 with the concurrence of > the players, to try and obtain a bridge result. If you cannot find a > substitute they will agree to, you award A+ to all players (and a PP to > the player who gave the UI, in all cases). > There can never be substitutions in a National Championship, can there ? > > That is why I don't believe Hirsh's interpretation to be > > correct. > > > > The judgement of whether or not a specific card could interfere with > normal play is a bridge judgement, not a matter of law. If you decide > that it could interfere with normal play, then you rule as 16B tells you > to. > Yes indeed. And I judged it was not, at that time. Do you really mean that I can only judge this once ? Do you really believe that if you judge the three of clubs could not interfere, you as TD have no right to change your ruling when suddenly it does turn out to be important ? > > OK, I don't award Av+ straight away, and wait for board 18 > > to hit the table. > > If you know that the player had UI about board 18, you do not allow the > player to play it. Even if it is the three of clubs ? I was always under the impression that the first duty of the TD was to try and save the board. > In my case, I'm convinced that the TD was being > lazy, as we were playing three-board rounds and she would have had to > look at all three to determine which one I had the UI about. She should > have done this, and not allowed me to even start the problem board. > I agree that it should be the TD's task, not the player's. But sometimes this is impossible. > >I might change the positions, but that > > would not help in this case. I allow play to start, keeping > > an eye on the bidding from a distance. After all, the > > bidding may be totally different, and Yves might even never > > realize it was this board. > > > > Suppose the bidding turns to a point where EW announce a > > club fit and start investigating slam. Should I interrupt > > them ? I think not. > > > > If you knew this was the board Yves had significant UI about, it should > never have gotten this far. However, if you are aware that Yves has > significant extraneous UI about the board, you must apply L16B. > > > Suppose Yves now recognizes the board, and sees me > > hovering. He casts me a glancing look. I believe I am > > entitled to answer him in sign language, saying "please > > continue". > > > > Suppose they do reach six clubs. If Yves is on lead, I must > > now rule, and I guess I would cancel the board. But his > > partner is on lead, and still the UI has not influenced the > > board. And it is still possible that is won't. If partner > > leads a diamond, the contract is made and the UI has not > > influenced the outcome. > > > > Again, you're still ruling based on results, not the potential of the > UI. I'll post a tougher problem at the end. > No, I do not rule based on results. I have ruled that at no time, the UI "was certain to" (yes I know the FLB says "could") interfere with normal play. > > Suppose partner leads a heart, and dummy comes down. > > Now I do have to make a decision. > > But one possibility is to still allow the play to continue, > > if I consider that it is impossible to not play the Ace. > > And now declarer foolishly drops the king. > > > > Again I must make a decision. Again I can rule that the UI > > does not interfere with Yves' decision making process. The > > board is now effectively over, the UI has not interfered. > > > > I am happy with the result. So is Yves, and his partner, > > and even declarer, after I've told him what happened, is > > happy with my ruling, even if not with the outcome, which is > > his own fault. > > > > At every stage is this (alternate universe) ruling, the UI > > has become progressively more important, but at no stage it > > has interfered too much with the normal outcome. > > I believe it is the duty of the TD to monitor this > > progressive importance, but not to decide straight away. > > > > However, L16B tells you to intervene once you decide that the UI *could* > interfere with play, not when it does. I admire your attempt to get an > actual bridge result on the hand. However, L16B only allows this to > occur through application of 16B1 or 16B2. > No it does not, the TD is allowed to rule it could not interfere. > > In the (real universe) ruling, I only came in at the > > penultimate moment. I do not believe there is something > > fundamentally different between the one ruling and the next. > > > > Now Hirsh, where would you jump in in the alternate universe > > ruling ? > > > > I've already indicated that, but here's a harder one, I think. > > Opponents reach a slam, partner leads to a defender's ace, and the > defender hears from behind the UI that the defense has two aces against > the slam. He summons the TD, who looks at the hand and determines that > the UI could change the line of defense taken, as the defender has a > likely line that he could alter after the player determines where > partner's ace must be... > > But Declarer has a hidden void! Further, all suits are breaking so that > Declarer has twelve stone cold tricks on any normal line of play (normal > to include careless, but not irrational...;) Declarer doesn't know the > suits are breaking, and could not claim. So now we have a really tough > problem: > > The UI could change the line of play taken by the defense, but not the > result of the > hand. > > Equity appears to demand that I simply award Declarer the slam, and that > is in fact what my instincts are screaming to do. However, it all > hinges on the meaning of the phrase "could interfere with normal play". > If altering the line of defense meets this criterion, then I do not > have that option, but must use the remedies in 16B. However, if the > phrase "could interfere with normal play" means that the UI suggests > options that a player could use to his advantage, then I can allow play > to continue, as no options would be advantageous. > I understand your dilemma. Again, all we have proven is that the Laws lack sufficient clarity in expressing what, we think, they are trying to say. > If I'm forced to give this ruling, I go with equity and rule that the UI > could not interfere with normal play. The Scope of the Laws tells us > "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, > but rather as redress for damage." Here, the irregularity could clearly > cause no damage, so keeping the normal score at least falls within the > spirit of the Laws, as expressed by the Scope. > > Comments? Have I made an illegal ruling here? > I don't believe you have, you seem to believe so. > If you agree with my ruling, let's make it harder still. Instead of a > slam that can be claimed, let's make it a game or even a part score, > where the defense will get in several times, and will make many > decisions based on UI. Nevertheless, although play will be grossly > tainted by the UI, the result on the hand is fixed. Despite the effect > of the UI on defensive play, Declarer can always some to a fixed number > of tricks through normal play, which the defense cannot affect. > > I'll confess that I think invoking 16B is clearer here, where the > defense will make many decisions based on UI. Although the result may > be fixed, the defense of the hand is could be a UI-tainted farce, not > resembling bridge at all. If applying L16B is correct here, is it also > correct on my first example? > While you are trying to make the example harder, you have in fact made it easier. Since there is no possible diversion, all tables will have an average, and awarding Av+ or the table score will not affect much. The first example was better. Since the pair without the UI are in slam, you should not take away their (probably good) score. But don't forget that L16B deals with innocent people. I don't have to take away the winning slam, but I should not either take away the losing slam, simply because this is to the benefit of the innocent player in possession of UI. Yves was innocent here, and I believe that with or without the UI, he would have gotten a good score. I don't believe L16B intends me to take that score away. So yes, I do think that "interfere with normal play" should be interpreted as "influence the final result". > Over to you. > > Hirsch interesting discussion, actually. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 12 04:04:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA04760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 May 2000 04:04:15 +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 EAA04753 for ; Fri, 12 May 2000 04:04:05 +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 OAA08147 for ; Thu, 11 May 2000 14:03:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000d01bfbb1d$aa8d5ce0$8e6812ce@ihug.co.nz> References: <001601bfb9d9$411fad20$b984d9ce@oemcomputer> <391939D3.D5B23C4E@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 13:58:05 -0500 To: From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: L16B in action Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 7:51 PM +1200 5/11/00, Julie Atkinson wrote: >When dealing with this sort of situation I normally allow the auction and >play to continue..... but advise the players to call me back if they find >themselves in an untenable position, or to call me at the end of play when I >can judge. 90% of these situations end with no UI, as the recipient has >misheard or been completely misinformed. I feel strongly that a player in >receipt of this type of information should feel comfortable in recalling me >as they are unable to bid/play further without making a choice as result of >UI. Ethical players invariably penalise themselves by trying to be fair. I have also had some TD's let us play the hand while standing by to determine whether the UI is material. For example, I sat down as East to play Board 25, and heard South say, "3NT isn't any better; everyone is 4-4-4-1." I called the TD, and assumed that the comment belonged to Board 24, which I played several rounds later. On Board 24, the TD stood by the table; we bid the hand, and when South got to 3NT, he ruled average-plus for both sides as there was no way to prevent me from having a count on the hand. I think he intended to let play continue if I were dummy. Is this acceptable in principle? It seems to contradict "forthwith", but it could be justified by allowing the TD to determine that the UI was material, and *then* forthwith award an adjusted score/ I wouldn't have allowed it on the board in question, as the UI would have influenced my bidding even if I was due to become dummy. In Steve's examples, the TD could have made such a ruling. With the balanced 20 count which was about to be opened either 1D or 2NT, the UI would be immediately material. With the balanced 16 count, Steve could confirm that he had no choice in the auction. From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 12 04:10:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 May 2000 03:22:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe38.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.95]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA04633 for ; Fri, 12 May 2000 03:22:09 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 800 invoked by uid 65534); 11 May 2000 17:21:30 -0000 Message-ID: <20000511172130.799.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.13.5] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <001601bfb9d9$411fad20$b984d9ce@oemcomputer> <391939D3.D5B23C4E@village.uunet.be> <000501bfbaa8$357e3980$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> <391A9163.97FD1CA9@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: L16A in action Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 12:22:29 -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: Thursday, May 11, 2000 5:54 AM Subject: Re: L16A in action > I was always under the impression that the first duty of the > TD was to try and save the board. I was under the impression that the duty of the director is to administer the game in accordance with the law. And I would think that by doing so there would be less of an inclination by players to create boards to save. Cheers Roger Pewick Houston, Texas > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 12 04:50:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA04956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 May 2000 04:50:07 +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 EAA04951 for ; Fri, 12 May 2000 04:49:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA12606; Thu, 11 May 2000 11:49:35 -0700 Message-Id: <200005111849.LAA12606@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: L16B in action In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 10 May 2000 15:36:46 PDT." <200005101936.PAA04839@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 11:49:36 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > I have changed the subject to match the actual topic under discussion. > > It strikes me -- and I would really like to hear comments from LC > members -- that the existing L16B contemplates information received _in > advance_ of playing the board. The law is hard to apply to Herman's > original case of information received _during_ the course of play. > > For information received in advance, it makes sense to cancel the board > if the information might be important. Cancelling is much less > equitable for information received after play starts, where the bridge > result may already have been determined before the UI was available. Or even sometimes if the bridge result hasn't been determined . . . What's the correct ruling in this hypothetical situation? You and partner hold a combined 24 HCP, but bid beautifully to get to a cold, but difficult-to-reach, spade slam. In fact, the hand will take 12 or 13 tricks based on whether you guess the queen of trumps. After the auction is over, an idiot who has been kicked out of David Stevenson's game and is now playing in your game, says loudly, "You know you would have made 13 tricks on board 16 if you had played for the queen over the jack as I am always telling you". So you call the TD. Assume nobody is available to play as a substitute, so that if L16B applies, the TD must apply L16B3. If you could fast-forward to the end of the game to see the results, you would find this: My partner Brian and I, who bid all our 24-point slams, reached 6S played by me, and due to my fantastic ability to guess the opponent's cards, have made only 12 tricks. Another pair reached 6S and made the overtrick. Everyone else, except you and your partner, stopped in game, with about half guessing the queen correctly. What score should the TD give you for the board? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 12 05:10:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA04569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 May 2000 02:40:51 +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 CAA04564 for ; Fri, 12 May 2000 02:40:43 +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 MAA29647 for ; Thu, 11 May 2000 12:40:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA11823 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 May 2000 12:40:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 12:40:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200005111640.MAA11823@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L16B in action X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Why not other members of BLML? On whether the LC has considered the effect of L16B in relation to information received during play??? > Let us take a simple example: declarer is wondering how to play the > trumps in board 16 when from the next table some idiot says "You know > you would have made board 16 if you had played for the queen over the > jack as I am always telling you". > > This will interfere with normal play, it is too late to adjust the > seating or to put in a substitute, so under L16B3 the TD gives A+/A+ and > ambles off to deal with the offending idiot. > > What is the difficulty with this? What if the contract is a part score when everybody else is in game? Or, as in the original case, a doomed slam was reached before the UI became available? The difficulty is that avg+/avg+ is not equity. > What alternative method of dealing with this are you suggesting? I haven't made a suggestion, and maybe nothing can be done. But some possibilities occur to me. 1. Allow play to continue, then judge later whether the UI made any difference or could have (basically Herman's approach, I think). 2. If play is already in progress, allow an _assigned_ adjusted score. (Treat both sides as non-offending from the moment of the UI.) 3. If play hasn't started, and the movement permits, play a substitute board. (Is this already legal in, e.g., KO team play? Let's say the caddy drops the board and exposes some cards. Does it matter if the board has been played at the other table? It looks to me as though L6D3 would apply, but I'm not sure.) As is very unusual for me, I don't have a strong opinion on any of these matters. From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 12 05:58:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA05066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 May 2000 05:58:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from hunter2.int.kiev.ua (hunter2.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA05061 for ; Fri, 12 May 2000 05:58:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from marina (ppp03.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.103]) by hunter2.int.kiev.ua (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA21816 for ; Thu, 11 May 2000 23:02:15 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <001b01bfbb83$a783b600$67047bc3@marina> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: Subject: Lille #10 with screen Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 22:59:43 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Teams. Screen was used. Neither Side Vulnerable. E N W S 2C 2S S explained to his screenmate W that after 2C ACOL his partner's bid 2S was conventional but he could not recall what was actually agreed. He said it may be D+H or S natural. CC exists, but this convention isn't presented in CC. W called TD (me). I with W and N went away from the table. N explained to W that when 2C is like Precession his 2S means D+H but after 2C ACOL his 2S is natural. I explained to N that he should not use the UI that his partner may be uncertain of the meaning. Then N returned to the table. I asked W about the meaning of his biding in cases when 2S is natural and when 2S is conventional. W explained to me that in the case when 2S was conventional he planed to bid "2NT" and in the case when 2S was natural he planed to bid "Double". In case when 2S is conventional they have no agreement about "Double". These conventions were presented in WE's CC. So after W would bid "Double" S would guess what their own agreement was. Then W returned to the table and I with S went away from the table. I explained to S that if he requests a full explanation of the opponent's bids, the information about opponent's hands would be AI for him. But inferences about their own agreement from the W's explanation about type of used conventions would be UI for him. Just in case I asked him what kind of variants he would expect. He said "D+H". Finally we all returned to the table and the bidding continued without any questions. E N W S 2C 2S P P 3D P 4D P 7D P P 7S D P P P The result was 7SD -5. (7D was workable) I ruled result stand. S held: SQJxxxx Hxxx Dxx Cxx How could I have made a ruling on this case? I am not sure that it was all correct. Any comments, please. Cheers Sergey From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 12 06:34:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA05147 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 May 2000 06:34:04 +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 GAA05142 for ; Fri, 12 May 2000 06:33:56 +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 QAA25382 for ; Thu, 11 May 2000 16:33:31 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200005111640.MAA11823@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 16:24:26 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: L16B in action Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:40 PM -0400 5/11/00, Steve Willner wrote: >3. If play hasn't started, and the movement permits, play a substitute >board. (Is this already legal in, e.g., KO team play? Let's say the >caddy drops the board and exposes some cards. Does it matter if the >board has been played at the other table? It looks to me as though >L6D3 would apply, but I'm not sure.) This is standard practice in board-a-match, in which the substitute board causes no problems. In the National Open BAM teams, there was a spare pair of baords available for this purpose; when I told the TD that I had overheard possibly relevant information about a board from the opponents who had just played it, he used the spare pair for both boards when they came up, not even checking which of the two boards was the one to which the information applied. It isn't allowed by L16B, unless you construe "substitute" to allow the board to be substituted. However, it's an obvious way to deal with the problems. From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 12 06:42:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA05167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 May 2000 06:42:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.15]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA05162 for ; Fri, 12 May 2000 06:42:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from PeterB.enrichnz.co.nz ([210.55.93.201]) by mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <20000511204149.IGSB14081560.mta4-rme@PeterB.enrichnz.co.nz>; Fri, 12 May 2000 08:41:49 +1200 Message-ID: <001e01bfbb89$6ababd80$6700a8c0@enrichnz.co.nz> From: "Peter Bowyer" To: "ZZ Bridge Laws" Subject: Ruling Query Please Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 08:42:13 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 Hello There Advice on a ruling please TD (myself) Called to table, insufficient bid, 5H over 5H by partner, offender had been ace/king asking (Partnership hold 4 Aces, 1 King) Law read, insufficient bid not accepted, options explained to offender, who now bids 6H Offender's partner said "But he could have passed!" TD "..that was in the options give", offender "But I did not realise that was what you said" Opposition agreed options did cover all The hand was such that a player of the level of the offender certainly WOULD have passed and NOT bid 6H if he had clearly understood his options (Play (or non-play!) was now behind with other tables due to move) To get play moving TD felt that there had been a genuine misunderstanding of options, and allowed the 6H to be cancelled and options given again and a pass was made Opposition objected strongly but did not appeal The 6H would have gone 1 light giving an outright top board to opposition Your comments/advice would be most appreciated Thank you Peter Bowyer Auckland New Zealand From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 12 08:07:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA05320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 May 2000 08:07:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA05315 for ; Fri, 12 May 2000 08:07:45 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id IAA21518; Fri, 12 May 2000 08:05:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 12 May 2000 08:05:45 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: Ruling Query Please To: bowyerpn@xtra.co.nz...C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 08:04:22 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 12/05/2000 08:03:39 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Law 21A A player has no recourse if he has made a call on the basis of his own misunderstanding. Best wishes Richard Hills richard.hills@immi.gov.au "Peter Bowyer" @octavia.anu.edu.au on 12/05/2000 06:42:13 Sent by: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au To: "ZZ Bridge Laws" cc: Subject: Ruling Query Please Hello There Advice on a ruling please TD (myself) Called to table, insufficient bid, 5H over 5H by partner, offender had been ace/king asking (Partnership hold 4 Aces, 1 King) Law read, insufficient bid not accepted, options explained to offender, who now bids 6H Offender's partner said "But he could have passed!" TD "..that was in the options give", offender "But I did not realise that was what you said" Opposition agreed options did cover all The hand was such that a player of the level of the offender certainly WOULD have passed and NOT bid 6H if he had clearly understood his options (Play (or non-play!) was now behind with other tables due to move) To get play moving TD felt that there had been a genuine misunderstanding of options, and allowed the 6H to be cancelled and options given again and a pass was made Opposition objected strongly but did not appeal The 6H would have gone 1 light giving an outright top board to opposition Your comments/advice would be most appreciated Thank you Peter Bowyer Auckland New Zealand From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 12 09:39:42 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA05515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 May 2000 09:39:42 +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 JAA05510 for ; Fri, 12 May 2000 09:39:33 +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 12q2Y0-000MAS-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 May 2000 23:39:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 00:02:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L16B in action References: <200005111640.MAA11823@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200005111640.MAA11823@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 >> Why not other members of BLML? > >On whether the LC has considered the effect of L16B in relation to >information received during play??? > >> Let us take a simple example: declarer is wondering how to play the >> trumps in board 16 when from the next table some idiot says "You know >> you would have made board 16 if you had played for the queen over the >> jack as I am always telling you". >> >> This will interfere with normal play, it is too late to adjust the >> seating or to put in a substitute, so under L16B3 the TD gives A+/A+ and >> ambles off to deal with the offending idiot. >> >> What is the difficulty with this? > >What if the contract is a part score when everybody else is in game? >Or, as in the original case, a doomed slam was reached before the UI >became available? The difficulty is that avg+/avg+ is not equity. So? I really think we are going to have to stop worrying about equity so much. If you are discussing changing the Laws, well fine, but if not then I suggest we rule as per the Laws of the game of Bridge, and leave the Lawmakers to change it if necessary for the future. >> What alternative method of dealing with this are you suggesting? > >I haven't made a suggestion, and maybe nothing can be done. But some >possibilities occur to me. > >1. Allow play to continue, then judge later whether the UI made any >difference or could have (basically Herman's approach, I think). Illegal per the wording of L16B. >2. If play is already in progress, allow an _assigned_ adjusted score. >(Treat both sides as non-offending from the moment of the UI.) Illegal per the wording of L16B. >3. If play hasn't started, and the movement permits, play a substitute >board. (Is this already legal in, e.g., KO team play? Let's say the >caddy drops the board and exposes some cards. Does it matter if the >board has been played at the other table? It looks to me as though >L6D3 would apply, but I'm not sure.) This is of some interest: substitute boards are an interesting question. If the auction has started then I think you are committed to L16B, but before it starts? >As is very unusual for me, I don't have a strong opinion on any of >these matters. As I have said a few times recently, I think people would help others on this list if they indicated whether they are talking of changing the Laws, or applying them. The application of L16B is fairly simple: you read it from the book, then apply it. Now, I know that several TDs have been known to adopt an illegal approach by not cancelling the board immediately but letting it proceed for a time. Perhaps I might go further and say *many* TDs have done it! Do I have sympathy for them? Yes! It is not impossible that I might do some such thing myself in certain circumstances. But it is important that TDs realise what the Law is, and that they are taking a risk by not following the Law. One of these days they will let a board be played for a time, and then try to cancel it - but by then one side will have got a good score. Of course, they may *then* try giving a non-balancing score that benefits both sides: if one pair win the event on this totally illegal ruling they better be prepared for the ensuing lawsuit. -- 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 May 12 13:40:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA05938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 May 2000 13:40:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA05933 for ; Fri, 12 May 2000 13:40:32 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA06165 for ; Fri, 12 May 2000 13:38:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 12 May 2000 13:38:31 +0000 (EST) Subject: Convention disruption To: Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 13:37:04 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 12/05/2000 01:36:25 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At last November's Australian Spring Nationals, my partner and I were playing a complex artificial relay system. On one deal pard made a mistake in the middle of a game-force relay auction. As a result, we arrived in a poor 3NT instead of a cold 4S. However, because of the explanation given of the meaning of partner's auction, the wrong lead was found and 3NT made. The TD was called, and determined (thanks to a copy of our system notes that pard had with him) that there had been a mistaken bid, not a mistaken explanation. (Footnote 22 to Law 75.) He therefore ruled that the result would stand. However, the TD subsequently ruled that there would be a PP of any imps our team might have gained on the board, due to convention disruption. This cost us 10 imps when the opposing pair were found to have failed in 6S. I pose several questions. Firstly, given that the TD agreed that we had not committed an irregularity under Law 75, can a PP be imposed on a non-offending side? Secondly, is there such an animal as convention disruption? Thirdly, does Law 40 imply that partnerships must know their system, and if so at what batting average? Best wishes Richard Hills richard.hills@immi.gov.au From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 12 16:50:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA06449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 May 2000 16:50:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA06444 for ; Fri, 12 May 2000 16:49:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.38] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12q9GE-000Iqd-00; Fri, 12 May 2000 07:49:23 +0100 Message-ID: <001e01bfbbde$59452220$265408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , References: Subject: Re: Convention disruption Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 07:48:54 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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, May 12, 2000 4:37 AM Subject: Convention disruption -------\x/------- > I pose several questions. Firstly, given that the TD agreed that we had > not committed an irregularity under Law 75, can a PP be imposed on a > non-offending side? Secondly, is there such an animal as convention > disruption? Thirdly, does Law 40 imply that partnerships must know their > system, and if so at what batting average? > +=+ The WBF Code of Practice states: "A procedural penalty may only be applied where there is a violation of the laws or of a regulation made under the laws. If an appeals committee awards a procedural penalty it should specify what law or regulation has been violated. In particular the WBF wishes to stress that a player who forgets his convention, misbids or misuses it, is not subject to automatic penalty. It is envisaged that a procedural penalty will only be applied in aggravated circumstances, as for example misuse several times repeated. Score adjustment is the way to redress damage." There are some persons of significant status who would change the law so that it is an offence not to know your system; at present no such offence exists, but it is a violation of Law 40B if you fail to disclose the meaning of a call in the manner required by the regulations of the SO when the call is the subject of a special partnership understanding. . See also Law 75C and the SO's alerting regulations. Opponents are entitled to an adjusted score if damaged by failure to disclose the meaning of a call which they should not be expected to recognize from general bridge knowledge. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 12 20:13:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA07121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 May 2000 20:13:43 +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 UAA07110 for ; Fri, 12 May 2000 20:13:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-57.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.57]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA18757 for ; Fri, 12 May 2000 12:13:22 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <391AE3B3.67F03AAC@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 18:45:39 +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: L16B in action References: <200005111531.LAA11713@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > > If he instead follows the procedure preferred by you and Herman, > > Please note that I have not endorsed playing out the hand in all > cases. In the first example I gave, I think the TD was exactly right > to cancel the board "forthwith." > Exactly what I am saying. In some cases, the TD must be allowed to let the hand continue for some time in order to determine that the UI cannot interfere. > > he risks > > the following unpleasant scenario. He allows you to play the board, > > standing ready to adjust if he thinks the UI has made a difference. You > > successfully bid the slam (of course you and I know that's exactly what > > would have happened anyway), but then he rules to cancel the board. What > > does that mean? Precisely that your integrity has been called into > > question > > I wouldn't take it that way, but I can see that some players would. As > with many rulings, the TD would have to do some careful explaining. > That shouldn't be beyond the ability of a good TD. Exactly. And if there really is some difficulty, then the player himself should realize that he is about to make a decision which is influenced by the UI. Most players will refuse to play on. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 12 20:13:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA07122 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 May 2000 20:13:44 +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 UAA07111 for ; Fri, 12 May 2000 20:13:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-57.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.57]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA18748 for ; Fri, 12 May 2000 12:13:20 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <391AE2D6.C5BBFEAD@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 18:41:58 +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: L16B in action References: <200005101936.PAA04839@cfa183.harvard.edu> <8L77XsAzjiG5Ewqx@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Steve Willner wrote: > >It strikes me -- and I would really like to hear comments from LC > >members > > Why not other members of BLML? > > >-- that the existing L16B contemplates information received _in > >advance_ of playing the board. > > The Law includes the words "... about a board he is playing or ..." > and so it applies sometimes to boards that are being played at the time. > > Let us take a simple example: declarer is wondering how to play the > trumps in board 16 when from the next table some idiot says "You know > you would have made board 16 if you had played for the queen over the > jack as I am always telling you". > > This will interfere with normal play, it is too late to adjust the > seating or to put in a substitute, so under L16B3 the TD gives A+/A+ and > ambles off to deal with the offending idiot. > > What is the difficulty with this? What alternative method of dealing > with this are you suggesting? > David, have you been listening (to our ramblings). The point I am raising is whether or not the TD is allowed to have play continue in order to determine whether or not the UI will interfere. Or whether he has to make an immediate decision, and live with the consequences. What if he decides it will not interfere, and then later it turns out it will ? I know that the FLB uses "could" and not "will", but the question remains. If "could" is to be interpreted literally, then the answer is always positive. If it is to be interpreted as "may well", then the answer is the same as "will". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 12 20:31:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA07161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 May 2000 20:31:13 +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 UAA07156 for ; Fri, 12 May 2000 20:31:04 +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 12qCia-000Evd-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 May 2000 10:30:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 01:21:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Ruling Query Please References: <001e01bfbb89$6ababd80$6700a8c0@enrichnz.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <001e01bfbb89$6ababd80$6700a8c0@enrichnz.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Bowyer wrote: >Hello There > >Advice on a ruling please > >TD (myself) Called to table, insufficient bid, 5H over 5H by partner, >offender had been >ace/king asking (Partnership hold 4 Aces, 1 King) >Law read, insufficient bid not accepted, options explained to offender, who >now bids 6H >Offender's partner said "But he could have passed!" >TD "..that was in the options give", offender "But I did not realise that >was what you said" >Opposition agreed options did cover all >The hand was such that a player of the level of the offender certainly >WOULD have passed and NOT bid 6H if he had clearly understood his options >(Play (or non-play!) was now behind with other tables due to move) >To get play moving >TD felt that there had been a genuine misunderstanding of options, and >allowed the 6H to be cancelled and options given again and a pass was made >Opposition objected strongly but did not appeal >The 6H would have gone 1 light giving an outright top board to opposition > >Your comments/advice would be most appreciated I think this is a judgement decision. You have to decide whether the player should have got this right because you gave a correct ruling [and to be correct it must be understandable] in which case, as Richard Hills says, L21A says "A player has no recourse if he has made a call on the basis of his own misunderstanding." However, if you think that you made a mistake [and giving the ruling correctly but in a way that will not be understood is a mistake] then L82C applies. Will any rectification be allowed that allows a score to be made normally? No, not really. You cannot just cancel a call: you let the hand be played out and adjust if necessary. Certainly you were wrong to allow the offender another call: his partner has basically told him to pass, and there is no Law that permits you to cancel the call of 6H, and you would not really want there to be one after his partner has told him what to do. So the call of 6H stands. Do you adjust? For each side? Well, assuming that you did make a mistake [and that does not mean they did not just not listen] then you have to judge what would have happened, giving each side the benefit of the doubt. Some people have a habit of giving ArtASs under L82C, but that is wrong: you assign scores. I am sure a lot of TDs will now give 6H-1 to one side, 5H= to the other, the easy option. Be brave! If you really believe that he would have passed 5H if he had understood and that it was your fault he did not then the correct ruling is 5H= *for both sides*. -- 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 May 12 23:11:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA07549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 May 2000 23:11:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA07542 for ; Fri, 12 May 2000 23:11:22 +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 12qFDj-0009iS-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 May 2000 14:11:13 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 12:45:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L16B in action References: <200005101936.PAA04839@cfa183.harvard.edu> <8L77XsAzjiG5Ewqx@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <391AE2D6.C5BBFEAD@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <391AE2D6.C5BBFEAD@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> Steve Willner wrote: >> >It strikes me -- and I would really like to hear comments from LC >> >members >> >> Why not other members of BLML? >> >> >-- that the existing L16B contemplates information received _in >> >advance_ of playing the board. >> >> The Law includes the words "... about a board he is playing or ..." >> and so it applies sometimes to boards that are being played at the time. >> >> Let us take a simple example: declarer is wondering how to play the >> trumps in board 16 when from the next table some idiot says "You know >> you would have made board 16 if you had played for the queen over the >> jack as I am always telling you". >> >> This will interfere with normal play, it is too late to adjust the >> seating or to put in a substitute, so under L16B3 the TD gives A+/A+ and >> ambles off to deal with the offending idiot. >> >> What is the difficulty with this? What alternative method of dealing >> with this are you suggesting? >> > >David, have you been listening (to our ramblings). > >The point I am raising is whether or not the TD is allowed >to have play continue in order to determine whether or not >the UI will interfere. > >Or whether he has to make an immediate decision, and live >with the consequences. I believe he has to make an immediate decision. -- 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 May 13 02:55:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA08206 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 May 2000 02:55:38 +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 CAA08200 for ; Sat, 13 May 2000 02:55:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12qIiT-0003QO-0Y for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 May 2000 17:55:09 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 17:51:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Ruling Query Please References: <001e01bfbb89$6ababd80$6700a8c0@enrichnz.co.nz> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > Do you adjust? For each side? Well, assuming that you did make a >mistake [and that does not mean they did not just not listen] then you >have to judge what would have happened, giving each side the benefit of >the doubt. Some people have a habit of giving ArtASs under L82C, but >that is wrong: you assign scores. > > I am sure a lot of TDs will now give 6H-1 to one side, 5H= to the >other, the easy option. Be brave! If you really believe that he would >have passed 5H if he had understood and that it was your fault he did >not then the correct ruling is 5H= *for both sides*. > I entirely concur with this. I have done so in the past, but I'm wondering whether 82C applies and I should give 5H= and 6H-1 on that basis. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 13 02:55:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA08211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 May 2000 02:55:45 +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 CAA08202 for ; Sat, 13 May 2000 02:55:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12qIiY-0003Sp-0Y for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 May 2000 17:55:14 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 17:48:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: L16B in action References: <200005101936.PAA04839@cfa183.harvard.edu> <8L77XsAzjiG5Ewqx@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <391AE2D6.C5BBFEAD@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <391AE2D6.C5BBFEAD@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <391AE2D6.C5BBFEAD@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> Steve Willner wrote: >> >It strikes me -- and I would really like to hear comments from LC >> >members >> >> Why not other members of BLML? >> My own approach in these areas is to ask the player who's got the wire "Do you want to try to play the board? If you do and if in the course of playing it you believe that the UI causes it to be impossible to play it then I'll award an average plus both sides". I'll also explain to the other players that there is a wire and if they wish to take average plus they may do so before starting the hand. This seems to work, as sometimes the player becomes dummy, or has no decisions to make. I'm not sure that the approach is entirely legal however, but the customers did come out to play bridge. cheers john >> >-- that the existing L16B contemplates information received _in >> >advance_ of playing the board. >> >> The Law includes the words "... about a board he is playing or ..." >> and so it applies sometimes to boards that are being played at the time. >> > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 13 04:59:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA08556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 May 2000 04:59:39 +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 EAA08547 for ; Sat, 13 May 2000 04:59:28 +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 OAA06095 for ; Fri, 12 May 2000 14:59:19 -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: Fri, 12 May 2000 14:57:52 -0500 To: From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Convention disruption Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 1:37 PM +1000 5/12/00, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >However, the TD subsequently ruled that there would be a PP of any imps our >team might have gained on the board, due to convention disruption. This >cost us 10 imps when the opposing pair were found to have failed in 6S. This is nt a proper procedural penalty for any infraction. A procedural penalty is a penalty imposed for a violation of procedure such as slow play or failure to correct misinformation, and is not related to the board in question. What the TD effectively did was to reduce your score to the lower of average or the score attained at the table. I don't think a score adjustment is in order, but if it is, then it should be an adjustment to the lower of the table result and -50, or some other number, taking away your gain at this table. You actually gained 10 IMPs due to something which happened at the other table. If the TD wanted to impose a PP, it should have been 2 IMPs, or .5 VP's, or something similar. Another point is that if the TD *had* ruled mistaken explanation, you would have been +2 IMPs on this board, with your score adjusted to -50 and the other table at +100. You shouldn't be worse off not having violated the rules. >I pose several questions. Firstly, given that the TD agreed that we had >not committed an irregularity under Law 75, can a PP be imposed on a >non-offending side? Secondly, is there such an animal as convention >disruption? Thirdly, does Law 40 imply that partnerships must know their >system, and if so at what batting average? All three of these are really the same question. Convention disruption is not an infraction according to the Laws; usually, convention mix-ups hurt the player who forgets, and if it turns out not to work out that way occasionally, the opponents get a fix. From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 13 04:59:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA08557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 May 2000 04:59:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA08546 for ; Sat, 13 May 2000 04:59:28 +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 OAA06089 for ; Fri, 12 May 2000 14:59:18 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <391AE2D6.C5BBFEAD@village.uunet.be> <200005101936.PAA04839@cfa183.harvard.edu> <8L77XsAzjiG5Ewqx@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <391AE2D6.C5BBFEAD@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 14:43:03 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: L16B in action Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:45 PM +0100 5/12/00, David Stevenson wrote: >Herman De Wael wrote: >>David, have you been listening (to our ramblings). >>The point I am raising is whether or not the TD is allowed >>to have play continue in order to determine whether or not >>the UI will interfere. >>Or whether he has to make an immediate decision, and live >>with the consequences. > I believe he has to make an immediate decision. And what if a player or the TD discovers later that the information was consequential? Example: the C2 is left face up in the East hand by the previous pair, and the other players see it. The TD checks the hand records and decides that the C2 is inconsequential in East's hand of 8 K864 9752 7542. South declares 4S. West leads KA of spades, and East discards the C4 on the second spade. E-W are playing odd-even discards. Because he has seen the C2, West knows that the C4 is not East's lowest even club, and switches to a heart to beat the contract. Do you now adjust? And if so, do you adjust to A+/A+, or to +50/+420? From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 13 06:26:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA08756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 May 2000 06:26:30 +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 GAA08751 for ; Sat, 13 May 2000 06:26:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2iveiak.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.84]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA19313 for ; Fri, 12 May 2000 16:26:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000512162322.013314bc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 16:23:22 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Convention disruption In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:37 PM 5/12/2000 +1000, Richard wrote: >I pose several questions. Firstly, given that the TD agreed that we had >not committed an irregularity under Law 75, can a PP be imposed on a >non-offending side? Secondly, is there such an animal as convention >disruption? Thirdly, does Law 40 imply that partnerships must know their >system, and if so at what batting average? 1. IMO, no. David and Grattan have argued in the past that PP's can be imposed for just about anything, and under that interpretation, of course, your bone-headed TD was within his legal rights, if not necessarily within his right mind. Others of us have argued that the language of L90 and _all_ of the included examples describe a fairly specific class of offenses for which a PP might be appropriate, and forgetting one's agreements does not fit into this class. 2. I am not sure of the coinage of the phrase "convention disruption", but it seems to be a notion that has been aggressively pushed by Bobby Wolff. Needless to say, it as an idea with no foundation in the Laws. 3. L40 implies no such thing. In the strictest sense, it is arguably impossible not to know your agreements, since one reasonable definition of agreements is those things that we share as a common knowledge base about the meaning of bids. Obviously we all have the experience of having forgotten a bidding agreement at one time or other, however. So a more precise question is "Does Law 40 make it illegal to forget your bidding agreements?" Still, the answer is "No", and in fact L75 implicitly suggests that such forgetfulness should not be regarded as an infraction. The only relevant implication from L40 is that where such forgetfulness becomes a pattern which forms a de facto part of the agreement, then the opponents are entitled to that information. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 13 06:31:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA08771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 May 2000 06:31:29 +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 GAA08766 for ; Sat, 13 May 2000 06:31:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2iveiak.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.84]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA06487 for ; Fri, 12 May 2000 16:31:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000512162822.012f7d40@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 16:28:22 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Convention disruption In-Reply-To: <001e01bfbbde$59452220$265408c3@dodona> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:48 AM 5/12/2000 +0100, Grattan wrote: > >+=+ The WBF Code of Practice states: > "A procedural penalty may only be applied >where there is a violation of the laws or of a >regulation made under the laws. If an appeals >committee awards a procedural penalty it >should specify what law or regulation has been >violated. In particular the WBF wishes to stress >that a player who forgets his convention, misbids >or misuses it, is not subject to automatic penalty. >It is envisaged that a procedural penalty will >only be applied in aggravated circumstances, as >for example misuse several times repeated." Hmm, can we reconcile the first sentence with the last? Precisely which law or regulation is violated by repeated misuse of a convention? Maybe Emerson was right: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 13 07:16:33 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA08868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 May 2000 07:16:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA08863 for ; Sat, 13 May 2000 07:15:58 +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 12qMmA-000Gmk-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 May 2000 21:15:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 21:33:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Convention disruption References: <001e01bfbbde$59452220$265408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <001e01bfbbde$59452220$265408c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >From: >> I pose several questions. Firstly, given that the TD agreed that we had >> not committed an irregularity under Law 75, can a PP be imposed on a >> non-offending side? Secondly, is there such an animal as convention >> disruption? Thirdly, does Law 40 imply that partnerships must know their >> system, and if so at what batting average? >+=+ The WBF Code of Practice states: > "A procedural penalty may only be applied >where there is a violation of the laws or of a >regulation made under the laws. If an appeals >committee awards a procedural penalty it >should specify what law or regulation has been >violated. In particular the WBF wishes to stress >that a player who forgets his convention, misbids >or misuses it, is not subject to automatic penalty. >It is envisaged that a procedural penalty will >only be applied in aggravated circumstances, as >for example misuse several times repeated. >Score adjustment is the way to redress damage." > >There are some persons of significant status >who would change the law so that it is an >offence not to know your system; at present >no such offence exists, but it is a violation of >Law 40B if you fail to disclose the meaning >of a call in the manner required by the >regulations of the SO when the call is the >subject of a special partnership understanding. >. See also Law 75C and the SO's alerting >regulations. > Opponents are entitled to an adjusted >score if damaged by failure to disclose the >meaning of a call which they should not be >expected to recognize from general bridge >knowledge. Unfortunately, Grattan is quoting the CoP which [apart from not being available at the time of your event] is not necessarily accepted everywhere, and in particular may be in conflict with Australian regulations. Under L40D, the sponsoring organisation has the right, confirmed on various occasions by the WBFLC, to establish conditions for the use of conventions. So, whatever the CoP says, it is legal to issue a PP for convention disruption. The relevant ABF regulation appears in the ABF Alerts Regulations effective 1-5-98: #8 MISINFORMATION It is implicit in the Laws relating to misinformation that a partnership should know its own system. The Director may impose a penalty upon a pair which consistently displays ignorance of its own system and/or specific conventions, and may prohibit such a pair from playing any such system. I do not actually agree with the first sentence and am in the middle of writing reports for the ABF where I make that point. However, as explained above, I believe the second sentence of the regulation to be legal under L40D and L90. Whether it is a desirable regulation is a totally different point, but we must remember that Australian tournaments allow far more varied systems than most other places, and the disruption from someone not knowing their systems is correspondingly greater. So, to answer your questions, can a PP be imposed? Yes, under L40D and the ABF regulations the TD has the right. Is there such an animal as convention disruption? Certainly! Over the world, every day, a million people forget their system, and chaos ensues! Most of the time, the people who forget get a bad board, and their oppos do not complain: some of the time they get a good board, and their oppos complain like anything! It is part of bridge. Does Law 40 imply that partnerships must know their system? No, there is no direct suggestion of that. But L40D gives SOs wide-ranging powers to regulate conventions, and that is why this sort of PP is legal. You do not ask what we think of the actual ruling? You wrote: >However, the TD subsequently ruled that there would be a PP of any imps our >team might have gained on the board, due to convention disruption. This >cost us 10 imps when the opposing pair were found to have failed in 6S. I believe it to be a dreadful ruling showing a complete abuse of the power vested in the Directors, unless you were consistently getting your system wrong. Even so there is no reason to give such a large PP. This is way beyond anything that is suggested by the ABF regulation, and is just completely wrong. What did the Appeals Committee do? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 13 08:00:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA08977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 May 2000 08:00:16 +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 IAA08971 for ; Sat, 13 May 2000 08:00:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.1] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12qNTU-000EUJ-00; Fri, 12 May 2000 23:00:00 +0100 Message-ID: <008701bfbc5d$905c1f00$015908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , References: <200005101936.PAA04839@cfa183.harvard.edu><8L77XsAzjiG5Ewqx@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <391AE2D6.C5BBFEAD@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: L16B in action Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 22:13:08 +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: Friday, May 12, 2000 5:48 PM Subject: Re: L16B in action > In article <391AE2D6.C5BBFEAD@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael > writes > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> > >> Steve Willner wrote: > >> >It strikes me -- and I would really like to hear comments from LC > >> >members > >> +=+ Whatever this is, I have not been following the subject matter of the thread. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 13 12:24:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA09483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 May 2000 12:24:38 +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 MAA09474 for ; Sat, 13 May 2000 12:24:29 +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 12qRbE-000FJs-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 May 2000 03:24:18 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 01:02:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: UI from Brisbane MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk 97 posts on RGB, so let's see what BLML thinks! -------------- I played in a local club one day Swiss pairs congress today, and had problems on board 20 in the PM. The hands were as follows:- S 3 H KQJ6 D QJT53 C 865 S JT8 S AQ652 H T54 H 98 D 9764 D -- C A43 C KJT972 S K974 H A732 D AK82 C Q DLR WEST, ALL VUL After West & North passed, East opened the bidding with 2S. South queried West, and was told that the bid showed 5+/5+ in Spades & a Minor, either weak or strong (less than 5 losers). South now doubled. West, in tempo, bid 3S, immediately alerted by East. Without inquiry, North bid 4H in tempo. West bid 4S, also in tempo. South baulked, then asked for explanation of the auction. South was told that the 3S bid could be anything from zero points up to a 14-count, and the only certainty was Spade support. South was also told that by agreement, East's bid of 4S showed the strong option. South hesitated for a few seconds, and then said "This is all too complicated for me!" whilst passing. West passed in tempo, and after ten seconds or so, North bid 5H. East reserved his rights, and the contract was passed out. The Spade ace was led, and a switch to the club King saw West retain the lead. Unable to get East on lead, the defence was finished & 5H was scored up. You are called as Tournament Director - what do you decide? The sandman Brisbane Australia -- 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 May 13 12:24:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA09481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 May 2000 12:24:35 +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 MAA09467 for ; Sat, 13 May 2000 12:24:23 +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 12qRb9-000FJs-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 May 2000 03:24:12 +0100 Message-ID: <7wJK5IC+NJH5EwQV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 00:27:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L16B in action References: <391AE2D6.C5BBFEAD@village.uunet.be> <200005101936.PAA04839@cfa183.harvard.edu> <8L77XsAzjiG5Ewqx@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <391AE2D6.C5BBFEAD@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David J. Grabiner wrote: >At 12:45 PM +0100 5/12/00, David Stevenson wrote: >>Herman De Wael wrote: > >>>David, have you been listening (to our ramblings). > >>>The point I am raising is whether or not the TD is allowed >>>to have play continue in order to determine whether or not >>>the UI will interfere. > >>>Or whether he has to make an immediate decision, and live >>>with the consequences. > >> I believe he has to make an immediate decision. > >And what if a player or the TD discovers later that the information was >consequential? > >Example: the C2 is left face up in the East hand by the previous pair, and >the other players see it. The TD checks the hand records and decides that >the C2 is inconsequential in East's hand of 8 K864 9752 7542. South >declares 4S. West leads KA of spades, and East discards the C4 on the >second spade. E-W are playing odd-even discards. Because he has seen the >C2, West knows that the C4 is not East's lowest even club, and switches to >a heart to beat the contract. > >Do you now adjust? And if so, do you adjust to A+/A+, or to +50/+420? I expect you adjust to +50/+420. Which Law? L82C, I expect: after all, I made a mistake, didn't I? In practical terms if it is a really top class event you do not let them play it [I know several English TDs who do not let them play it in any event] but if it is a lesser event I usually let them play it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 13 12:24:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA09478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 May 2000 12:24:35 +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 MAA09466 for ; Sat, 13 May 2000 12:24:23 +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 12qRb8-000FJt-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 May 2000 03:24:12 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 00:30:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Ruling Query Please References: <001e01bfbb89$6ababd80$6700a8c0@enrichnz.co.nz> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article , David Stevenson > writes >> >> Do you adjust? For each side? Well, assuming that you did make a >>mistake [and that does not mean they did not just not listen] then you >>have to judge what would have happened, giving each side the benefit of >>the doubt. Some people have a habit of giving ArtASs under L82C, but >>that is wrong: you assign scores. >> >> I am sure a lot of TDs will now give 6H-1 to one side, 5H= to the >>other, the easy option. Be brave! If you really believe that he would >>have passed 5H if he had understood and that it was your fault he did >>not then the correct ruling is 5H= *for both sides*. >> >I entirely concur with this. I have done so in the past, but I'm >wondering whether 82C applies and I should give 5H= and 6H-1 on that >basis. cheers john Obviously I have not made myself clear. Of course L82C applies, and you give 5H= *for both sides* on that basis. You don't just give them points for luck. If you had ruled right, and are sure they would have reached 5H then you have no legal basis for allowing a 6H-1 score. You don't like it? Fine, don't ever make a mistake and you will never have to do this! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 13 15:33:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA09777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 May 2000 15:33:04 +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 PAA09772 for ; Sat, 13 May 2000 15:32:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.217] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12qUXd-0000fT-00; Sat, 13 May 2000 06:32:46 +0100 Message-ID: <000d01bfbc9c$d07aebe0$d95608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <001e01bfbbde$59452220$265408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: Convention disruption Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 06:30:23 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 9:33 PM Subject: Re: Convention disruption From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 13 22:46:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA10301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 May 2000 22:46:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail1.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.192]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA10296 for ; Sat, 13 May 2000 22:46:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-008.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.200]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA93817 for ; Sat, 13 May 2000 13:45:33 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <001f01bfbcd9$e83e8600$c8307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: UI from Brisbane Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 13:51:02 +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 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote@: 97 posts on RGB, so let's see what BLML thinks! -------------- I played in a local club one day Swiss pairs congress today, and had problems on board 20 in the PM. The hands were as follows:- S 3 H KQJ6 D QJT53 C 865 S JT8 S AQ652 H T54 H 98 D 9764 D -- C A43 C KJT972 S K974 H A732 D AK82 C Q DLR WEST, ALL VUL After West & North passed, East opened the bidding with 2S. South queried West, and was told that the bid showed 5+/5+ in Spades & a Minor, either weak or strong (less than 5 losers). South now doubled. West, in tempo, bid 3S, immediately alerted by East. Without inquiry, North bid 4H in tempo. West bid 4S, also in tempo. South baulked, then asked for explanation of the auction. South was told that the 3S bid could be anything from zero points up to a 14-count, and the only certainty was Spade support. South was also told that by agreement, East's bid of 4S showed the strong option. South hesitated for a few seconds, and then said "This is all too complicated for me!" whilst passing. West passed in tempo, and after ten seconds or so, North bid 5H. East reserved his rights, and the contract was passed out. The Spade ace was led, and a switch to the club King saw West retain the lead. Unable to get East on lead, the defence was finished & 5H was scored up. You are called as Tournament Director - what do you decide? South has conveyed UI by his questions and remarks. North's 5H bid is certainly suggested over Pass by the UI. The T.D. adjusts to 4S-2 (or some such). PP to South. Regards, Fearghal. From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 13 23:50:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA10485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 May 2000 23:50:57 +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 XAA10480 for ; Sat, 13 May 2000 23:50:49 +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 JAA08108 for ; Sat, 13 May 2000 09:50:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id JAA27470 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 May 2000 09:50:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 09:50:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200005131350.JAA27470@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L16B in action Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > I expect you adjust to +50/+420. Which Law? L82C, I expect: after > all, I made a mistake, didn't I? Herman: take note. Just first rule the information is inconsequential, then use 82C if you change your mind. This is a good example of the Kaplan principle: if you don't like how the ruling comes out under one law, find a different law. David: the above is NOT a personal attack. I think you have found a clever and legal way to rule the way many of us would like to on _a small fraction_ of the difficult L16B hands. While I quite like the above _for the hands where it is appropriate_, it is not something I would like to see very often. But it does seem very good for Herman's original case. From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 14 01:14:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA10734 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 May 2000 01:14:47 +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 BAA10729 for ; Sun, 14 May 2000 01:14:38 +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 12qdcY-00090Y-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 May 2000 16:14:27 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 15:05:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: New Address References: <001601bfbcda$e1ad8100$6057fd3e@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <001601bfbcda$e1ad8100$6057fd3e@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk anne_jones wrote: >anne_jones@ntlworld.com Some of you may have noticed that my address seems to have shortened. That is true: I now own the Domain name blakjak.com so [in theory] my email address will remain as ?????????@blakjak.com for life even if I change ISP. This means if you write to me you should generally use though replies to posts are generally directed to If you want to ask specific advice on a ruling you may get a quicker answer on but please don't use that address for general matters. All the old addresses still work, though, and will do for the foreseeable future. I am not giving up my no 3 spot in the BLML address list just yet, despite Alan LeBendig breathing down my neck! My website address is interesting. http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/??????? works and will continue to. If you wish to bookmark it or link to it I suggest you stick to the full address. However, you could try typing a shorter address and see what happens. Both the following should work in Netscape or IE5: http://www.blakjak.com/??????? http://blakjak.com/??????? However, unless you go via my index page, you may find funny effects when following links. My index page is very easy to reach: I think any of the following four will reach it: http://www.blakjak.com http://blakjak.com www.blakjak.com blakjak.com Try them and see! I am working on trying to get the site to work better using my new address. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 14 20:03:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA13428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 May 2000 20:03:06 +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 UAA13420 for ; Sun, 14 May 2000 20:02:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.164] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12qvES-000PYO-00; Sun, 14 May 2000 11:02:45 +0100 Message-ID: <000701bfbd8b$b378b780$a45608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: WBF Code of Practice Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 10:59:13 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Mon, 15 May 2000 00:06:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12qz1v-000KId-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 14 May 2000 15:06:04 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 11:45:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: New Address References: <001601bfbcda$e1ad8100$6057fd3e@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > All the old addresses still work, though, and will do for the >foreseeable future. I am not giving up my no 3 spot in the BLML address >list just yet, despite Alan LeBendig breathing down my neck! According to the latest list, I am now no 2 [stop grinning, Steve]. But what has happened to Markus? Perhaps I should write un*ub*cr*be in this and see if it reaches him! -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK As an experiment please use these new addresses: comments appreciated Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/cat_menu.htm Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/sty_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 15 02:24:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA14984 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 May 2000 02:24:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from cgomboc.drotposta.hu (cgomboc.drotposta.hu [212.108.226.84]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA14978 for ; Mon, 15 May 2000 02:24:26 +1000 (EST) From: Martaandras@uze.net Received: from agomboc.drotposta.hu ([212.108.226.81] helo=LOCALHOST) by cgomboc.drotposta.hu with smtp (Exim 3.12 #1) id 12r1BA-0003uV-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 14 May 2000 18:23:45 +0200 Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 18:27:00 +0100 (MET DST) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: A problem from Germany Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id CAA14979 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A friend of mine directing in Germany wrote me the following problem. As he is not on the Web he asked me to tell you the story and ask for your opinion. Bidding ( E-W are passing all around) S N 1 NT* 2 C* 13-15 HCP Asking for distribution 2 NT* 3 C* 4-3-3-3 (4 card suit not specified) Which is the 4 card suit? 3 D* 4 H Diamond All pass According to the local regulations no alert was permitted above 3 NT. No questions were raised by E-W during the bidding but when East tabled the OL W called the TD. Explained that as he knew N-S bidding system he knew the 4 H bid was splinter therefore something curious happened. The TD told the players to continue the play. As everyone suspected N had a 6 card heart suit. The result, 10 tricks was a normal score as most of the pairs achieved the same some made 11. N-S stated that according to the system the meaning of the 4 H bid was a singleton and this was confirmed by the systems notes. Following the questions of the TD N stated the she had forgotten the system. South responded that her partner, a very young player had only been playing their system for a short time and often forgot such a convention especially this one. There was no prolonged hesitation by either of the players. Questions 1. Should the TD change the score? 2. Should the TD allow the pair to play this "system"? Thanks. Andras Booc martaandras@uze.net From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 15 12:30:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA15971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 May 2000 12:30:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA15966 for ; Mon, 15 May 2000 12:30:12 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA07157 for ; Mon, 15 May 2000 12:28:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 15 May 2000 12:28:09 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: Convention disruption To: Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 12:26:41 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 15/05/2000 12:26:01 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: "Does Law 40 imply that partnerships must know their system? No, there is no direct suggestion of that. But L40D gives SOs wide-ranging powers to regulate conventions, and that is why this sort of PP is legal." However, Michael S. Dennis wrote: "So a more precise question is "Does Law 40 make it illegal to forget your bidding agreements?" Still, the answer is "No", and in fact L75 implicitly suggests that such forgetfulness should not be regarded as an infraction." Therefore, my latest question is whether the power given to SOs under Law 40D allows them to nullify the application of other Laws, such as Law 75? The introduction to Law 90B states: "Offences subject to penalty include *but are not limited to*", which suggests that TDs have unlimited power to assess a PP. But to my mind the operative word is "offences", ie non-offending pairs may not have a PP inflicted on them. Best wishes Richard Hills richard.hills@immi.gov.au From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 15 17:52:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA16335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 May 2000 17:52:53 +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 RAA16330 for ; Mon, 15 May 2000 17:52:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.168] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12rFfx-000BGR-00; Mon, 15 May 2000 08:52:29 +0100 Message-ID: <001301bfbe42$abdd76c0$7e5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , References: Subject: Re: Convention disruption Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 08:53:25 +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: Monday, May 15, 2000 3:26 AM Subject: Re: Convention disruption > The introduction to Law 90B states: "Offences subject to penalty include > *but are not limited to*", which suggests that TDs have unlimited power to > assess a PP. But to my mind the operative word is "offences", ie > non-offending pairs may not have a PP inflicted on them. > +=+ If there is a regulation, breach of that is an offence. By the ruling of the WBF Executive Committee sitting jointly with its Rules & Regulations Committee the restriction in Law 80F applies only to regulations made under 80F and not to those authorized elsewhere in the laws. When there is neither breach of law nor of regulation there is no power to apply a PP. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 15 17:55:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA16363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 May 2000 17:55:35 +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 RAA16354 for ; Mon, 15 May 2000 17:55:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-254.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.254]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA19117 for ; Mon, 15 May 2000 09:55:10 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <391BEECE.733DEB53@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 13:45:18 +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: L16B in action References: <200005111640.MAA11823@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > [snip] > > 1. Allow play to continue, then judge later whether the UI made any > difference or could have (basically Herman's approach, I think). > I have never said that. I allow play to continue, until I can tell whether or not the UI could influence. In the example given, by the time I make the final decision, the board is (almost) over, but if the King hadn't dropped, I would have ruled Av+/Av+ before Yves plays the small spade. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 15 17:55:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA16366 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 May 2000 17:55:38 +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 RAA16355 for ; Mon, 15 May 2000 17:55:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-254.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.254]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA19155 for ; Mon, 15 May 2000 09:55:17 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <391BF096.AFB871D4@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 13:52:54 +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: Convention disruption References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > At last November's Australian Spring Nationals, my partner and I were > playing a complex artificial relay system. On one deal pard made a mistake > in the middle of a game-force relay auction. As a result, we arrived in a > poor 3NT instead of a cold 4S. However, because of the explanation given > of the meaning of partner's auction, the wrong lead was found and 3NT made. > > The TD was called, and determined (thanks to a copy of our system notes > that pard had with him) that there had been a mistaken bid, not a mistaken > explanation. (Footnote 22 to Law 75.) He therefore ruled that the result > would stand. > Seems correct. > However, the TD subsequently ruled that there would be a PP of any imps our > team might have gained on the board, due to convention disruption. This > cost us 10 imps when the opposing pair were found to have failed in 6S. > Ooops ? Pardon ? > I pose several questions. Firstly, given that the TD agreed that we had > not committed an irregularity under Law 75, can a PP be imposed on a > non-offending side? Well, you had not committed one infraction, but perhaps another. I would like to find out which of the possible infractions this TD thought he was giving a PP under ? > Secondly, is there such an animal as convention > disruption? Yes, there is, but there should not be, and in any case, it's not this one. > Thirdly, does Law 40 imply that partnerships must know their > system, I always use L74B1 for that one, and I've been criticized for it. > and if so at what batting average? > Certainly not to the extent you seem to have here. A fourth round bidding mistake, which lands you in an inferior contract, should not incur PP's. More often than not, the bad score it gives you should be enough. But there is a fourth question. What in the ***** is the suggestion that the PP you get, should depend on the result of the other table. What if your partners pick up +2800 there ? > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > richard.hills@immi.gov.au -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 15 18:02:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA16403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 May 2000 18:02:54 +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 SAA16398 for ; Mon, 15 May 2000 18:02:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from rbusch.ozemail.com.au (3cust46.tnt1.bne1.da.uu.net [210.84.82.110]) by oznet11.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA19988; Mon, 15 May 2000 18:02:33 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000515180704.00a9df14@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 18:07:04 +1000 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Reg Busch Subject: Re: UI from Brisbane In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:02 13/05/2000 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > > 97 posts on RGB, so let's see what BLML thinks! > > -------------- > >I played in a local club one day Swiss pairs congress today, and had >problems on board 20 in the PM. The hands were as follows:- > > S 3 > H KQJ6 > D QJT53 > C 865 >S JT8 S AQ652 >H T54 H 98 >D 9764 D -- >C A43 C KJT972 > S K974 > H A732 > D AK82 > C Q > >DLR WEST, ALL VUL > >After West & North passed, East opened the bidding with 2S. South >queried West, and was told that the bid showed 5+/5+ in Spades & a >Minor, either weak or strong (less than 5 losers). South now doubled. >West, in tempo, bid 3S, immediately alerted by East. Without inquiry, >North bid 4H in tempo. West bid 4S, also in tempo. South baulked, then >asked for explanation of the auction. South was told that the 3S bid >could be anything from zero points up to a 14-count, and the only >certainty was Spade support. South was also told that by agreement, >East's bid of 4S showed the strong option. South hesitated for a few >seconds, and then said "This is all too complicated for me!" whilst >passing. West passed in tempo, and after ten seconds or so, North bid >5H. East reserved his rights, and the contract was passed out. The >Spade ace was led, and a switch to the club King saw West retain the >lead. Unable to get East on lead, the defence was finished & 5H was >scored up. You are called as Tournament Director - what do you decide? > >The sandman > >Brisbane Australia You are asked to decide how you would rule as TD, so perhaps it's best if you know the facts as presented at the table to the TD, not as presented above. Firstly, whilst it was claimed and not disputed that South hesitated for some time before passing, there was no mention of any remarks made by South (though this was brought up at appeal). Secondly, there was no mention to the TD of the explanation that the 4S bid showed the 'strong' option. Reg Busch. >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 May 15 20:25:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA16591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 May 2000 20:25:03 +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 UAA16586 for ; Mon, 15 May 2000 20:24:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-218.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.218]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA10606 for ; Mon, 15 May 2000 12:24:38 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <391FB52F.C06BB726@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 10:28:31 +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: L16B in action References: <200005131350.JAA27470@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: David Stevenson > > I expect you adjust to +50/+420. Which Law? L82C, I expect: after > > all, I made a mistake, didn't I? > > Herman: take note. Just first rule the information is inconsequential, > then use 82C if you change your mind. This is a good example of the > Kaplan principle: if you don't like how the ruling comes out under one > law, find a different law. > I don't like this. > David: the above is NOT a personal attack. I think you have found a > clever and legal way to rule the way many of us would like to on _a > small fraction_ of the difficult L16B hands. While I quite like the > above _for the hands where it is appropriate_, it is not something I > would like to see very often. But it does seem very good for Herman's > original case. I prefer to rule that the UI does not influence, until such time as the player would like to give his partner a signal. Now I rule that it does influence, and stop the board and award Av+/Av+ at the moment the player wants to discard the C4. Or rather, I have deferred my judgment that it could not interfere until such time as it seems possible to make that determination. Note that I do not let the play finish. I stop the board before the C4 gets played (or I try to). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 15 20:24:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA16585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 May 2000 20:24:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA16578 for ; Mon, 15 May 2000 20:24:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-218.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.218]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA10588 for ; Mon, 15 May 2000 12:24:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <391FB41E.26A11E63@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 10:23:58 +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: L16B in action References: <200005101936.PAA04839@cfa183.harvard.edu> <8L77XsAzjiG5Ewqx@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <391AE2D6.C5BBFEAD@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > > >The point I am raising is whether or not the TD is allowed > >to have play continue in order to determine whether or not > >the UI will interfere. > > > >Or whether he has to make an immediate decision, and live > >with the consequences. > > I believe he has to make an immediate decision. > OK, when ? A player comes up to you and tells you of something he heard. According to you, you must make an immediate decision. I suppose by "immediate" you mean, before the board gets played. So now indeed, you have the time to make a thorough investigation, and you make a decision before the board actually hits the table. Could work in practice. But suppose the player calls you while the board is in progress. Do you stop the board to make the same thorough investigation ? Does not work in practice. So you make a rash decision. And then again. Suppose you have made a thorough investigation, and you decide it is not likely to make a difference. And then it does, after all. Do you really want to rule that all UI "could" interfere ? I would like to follow your belief, but I believe it is simply not practical. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 15 23:11:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA16866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 May 2000 22:22:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA16856 for ; Mon, 15 May 2000 22:22:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12rJsg-000Dns-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 May 2000 13:21:55 +0100 Message-ID: <1hPWcgAG89H5Eww0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 12:27:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L16B in action References: <200005101936.PAA04839@cfa183.harvard.edu> <8L77XsAzjiG5Ewqx@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <391AE2D6.C5BBFEAD@village.uunet.be> <391FB41E.26A11E63@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <391FB41E.26A11E63@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> > >> >The point I am raising is whether or not the TD is allowed >> >to have play continue in order to determine whether or not >> >the UI will interfere. >> > >> >Or whether he has to make an immediate decision, and live >> >with the consequences. >> >> I believe he has to make an immediate decision. >> > >OK, when ? > >A player comes up to you and tells you of something he >heard. > >According to you, you must make an immediate decision. > >I suppose by "immediate" you mean, before the board gets >played. > >So now indeed, you have the time to make a thorough >investigation, and you make a decision before the board >actually hits the table. > >Could work in practice. > >But suppose the player calls you while the board is in >progress. > >Do you stop the board to make the same thorough >investigation ? > >Does not work in practice. > >So you make a rash decision. > >And then again. Suppose you have made a thorough >investigation, and you decide it is not likely to make a >difference. And then it does, after all. Do you really >want to rule that all UI "could" interfere ? > >I would like to follow your belief, but I believe it is >simply not practical. Oh, Herman! You may not like following the Laws of bridge when you make rulings, and that is your choice. Me, I follow the Laws. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK As an experiment please use these new addresses: comments appreciated Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/cat_menu.htm Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/sty_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 16 00:11:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA16870 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 May 2000 22:22:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA16858 for ; Mon, 15 May 2000 22:22:14 +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 12rJsg-000Dnt-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 May 2000 13:21:55 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 12:33:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Convention disruption References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > >"Does Law 40 imply that partnerships must know their system? No, there is >no direct suggestion of that. But L40D gives SOs wide-ranging powers to >regulate conventions, and that is why this sort of PP is legal." > >However, Michael S. Dennis wrote: > >"So a more precise question is "Does Law 40 make it illegal to forget your >bidding agreements?" Still, the answer is "No", and in fact L75 implicitly >suggests that such forgetfulness should not be regarded as an infraction." > >Therefore, my latest question is whether the power given to SOs under Law >40D allows them to nullify the application of other Laws, such as Law 75? > >The introduction to Law 90B states: "Offences subject to penalty include >*but are not limited to*", which suggests that TDs have unlimited power to >assess a PP. But to my mind the operative word is "offences", ie >non-offending pairs may not have a PP inflicted on them. I do not suggest it is *desirable*, but I am sure it is *legal* under L40D for an SO to make a condition of playing a convention that it is not forgotten. Thus, forgetting it becomes an offence and can be penalised under L90. What is more the Australian regulations do tend to support this. In many situations an SO will lay down guidelines for the issue of PPs. The EBU do in the area of making up boards. It would not be illegal for an SO to say that you should always lose 3 imps whenever you forget a convention. In fact, if you limit it to Ghestem, I would have some feeling *for* such a regulation. Where Michael is going wrong is by asking "Does L40 make it illegal to forget a convention?" The answer is no, but L40 does make it legal for an SO to make it illegal. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK As an experiment please use these new addresses: comments appreciated Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/cat_menu.htm Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/sty_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 16 11:15:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA18469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 May 2000 11:15:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA18464 for ; Tue, 16 May 2000 11:14:56 +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 12rVwc-000Nqc-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 May 2000 01:14:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 01:50:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: A bit quiet MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It seems a bit quiet in here. Possibly one of the reasons is that there is *ginormous* [sic] discussion going on in England [by email, naturally] on whether and how the EBU should accept the Code of Practice. This is between a small sub-committee [three of the four members being BLML regulars], one advisor [also a BLML regular] and the Chairman of the L&EC who was meant to be keeping away from the discussions. We are reaching the 100 email mark! There are three main questions, namely [1] Is it legal to enable L12C3 for TDs? [2] If we do enable L12C3 for TDs how do we apply it? [3] Is the methodology of the CoP on psyches the way to go? http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/wbf_cop.htm -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK As an experiment please use these new addresses: comments appreciated Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 16 13:02:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA18691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 May 2000 13:02:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA18685 for ; Tue, 16 May 2000 13:02:07 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA10356 for ; Tue, 16 May 2000 13:00:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 16 May 2000 13:00:02 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re:Convention disruption To: Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 12:58:34 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 16/05/2000 12:57:55 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: "Well, you had not committed one infraction, but perhaps another. I would like to find out which of the possible infractions this TD thought he was giving a PP under ?" "> Secondly, is there such an animal as convention > disruption?" "Yes, there is, but there should not be, and in any case, it's not this one." "> Thirdly, does Law 40 imply that partnerships must know their > system," "I always use L74B1 for that one, and I've been criticized for it." I agree that *aggravated* cases (the word used by the WBF CoP) or *consistently displays ignorance of its own system* (the words used by the Australian regulation) would fall under L74B1 - a partnership which generates random results on many deals through inadaquately preparing their system, is as much at fault as a frivolous bidder who opens 7NT on every deal. However, under Note 22 to Law 75 an occasional mistaken bid is classified as *no infraction of Law*. IMHO other laws such as Law 40D (and any regulation made under it) cannot over-ride the specific no infraction provision of Law 75. Best wishes Richard Hills richard.hills@immi.gov.au From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 16 17:33:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA19373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 May 2000 17:33:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from neptun.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 ESMTP id RAA19368 for ; Tue, 16 May 2000 17:33:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uniduesseldorf.de (Isis4.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.4]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0FUN00DGW6BTRF@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 May 2000 09:33:30 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 09:33:27 +0200 From: Richard Bley Subject: RE: A bit quiet In-reply-to: To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <000401bfbf09$06a746a0$048a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.de> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David wrote: > There are three main questions, namely [1] Is it legal to > enable L12C3 > for TDs? [2] If we do enable L12C3 for TDs how do we apply > it? [3] Is > the methodology of the CoP on psyches the way to go? [1] maybe. who knows. But beware: QUOD LICET JOVI NON LICET BOVI [2] Dont do it. For installing 12C3 to TDs you need: a) TD which are excellent players as well (who is, say: why should they be TD, when they are playing so well, to win championships??) b) enough reference players at the playing area to interview (which was a important point in the WBF Code as well). To make abstract rules to catch this, is very difficult and a big gate to mistakes... [3] yes. No reason to make own ways I think for practical reasons Cheers Richard Bley From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 16 19:30:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA19630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 May 2000 19:30:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA19625 for ; Tue, 16 May 2000 19:30:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.158] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12rdfi-0001cY-00; Tue, 16 May 2000 10:29:50 +0100 Message-ID: <006001bfbf19$70aae9c0$9e5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Richard Bley" Cc: References: <000401bfbf09$06a746a0$048a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.de> Subject: Re: A bit quiet Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 10:16:40 +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 Stevenson ; Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 8:33 AM Subject: RE: A bit quiet > David wrote: > > > There are three main questions, namely [1] Is it legal to > > enable L12C3 > > for TDs? [2] If we do enable L12C3 for TDs how do we apply > > it? [3] Is > > the methodology of the CoP on psyches the way to go? > > [1] > maybe. who knows. But beware: > QUOD LICET JOVI NON LICET BOVI > +=+ The WBF has authorized it; the EBL has approved it; the WBFLC minuted acceptance and found no objection to it. For those subject to these decisions it is legal. +=+ > > [2] > Dont do it. For installing 12C3 to TDs you need: > a) TD which are excellent players as well (who is, say: > why should > they be TD, when they are playing so well, to win > championships??) > +=+ Patronising. Perhaps it is right to limit the power to TDs of certain categories only, and these only when TDs in charge, but there are numbers of TDs well able to handle it and, in Europe at least (but not only in Europe), TDs who are first class players. +=+ ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 16 20:15:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA19756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 May 2000 20:15:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from ausinfo.com.au (babe.ausinfo.com.au [203.17.19.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA19751 for ; Tue, 16 May 2000 20:15:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from Q4Z5P8 [203.17.19.109] by ausinfo.com.au [127.0.0.1] with SMTP (MDaemon.v2.8.5.0.R) for ; Tue, 16 May 2000 20:18:09 +1000 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000516102723.0067140c@mail.ausinfo.com.au> X-Sender: tstrongbridge@mail.ausinfo.com.au (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 20:27:23 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tom Strong Subject: law45C2 X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X-Return-Path: tstrongbridge@ausinfo.com.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At a recent club game a player, while playing a hand romoved a card from his hand and placed it with the butt end of the card on the table at a 90 degree angle. His opponent called the director and insisted that this was a played card under law 45C2. He believed that this section with its three parts separated by commas indicated that there were three diffenent situations where the card was played-ie held face up or touching or nearly touching the table or maintained in such a position as to indicated that it had been played. What are others opinions on this? My own is that the first two parts are to be considered together. Is this ambiguous or just poorly drafted? Tom Strong From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 16 21:40:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA20065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 May 2000 21:40:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from neodymium (neodymium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.83]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA20060 for ; Tue, 16 May 2000 21:40:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.36.57] (helo=davidburn) by neodymium with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12rfhs-0000Om-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 May 2000 12:40:12 +0100 Message-ID: <000a01bfbf2b$319af100$3924073e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <1.5.4.32.20000516102723.0067140c@mail.ausinfo.com.au> Subject: Re: law45C2 Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 12:38:01 +0100 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tom Strong wrote: > At a recent club game a player, while playing a hand romoved a card from > his hand and placed it with the butt end of the card on the table at a 90 > degree angle. > His opponent called the director and insisted that this was a > played card under law 45C2. He believed that this section with > its three parts separated by commas indicated that there were three > diffenent situations where the card was played-ie held face up or touching > or nearly touching the table or maintained in such > a position as to indicated that it had been played. > What are others opinions on this? My own is that the first two > parts are to be considered together. > Is this ambiguous or just poorly drafted? It is ambiguous and therefore poorly drafted. The words say this: Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up, touching or nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played. In English, this can certainly be interpreted as: Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up; and declarer must play a card from his hand touching or nearly touching the table; and declarer must play a card from his hand maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played. But this would mean that if, for example, declarer put his cards face down in front of him and started to think, he would have to play the bottom card of the pile, since it was touching the table. Obviously, this is not what was intended - what was intended is that declarer should in some circumstances have to play a face-up card, but there are no circumstances in which he will have to play a face-down card This fact and L45A: Each player... plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing it on the table immediately before him indicate that the way in which L45C2 is intended to be read is: Declarer must play a card from his hand if it is held face up and: touches the table; or nearly touches the table; or is maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played. When the Laws are rewritten in around 2005, maybe they can be repunctuated as well. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 16 22:05:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA20171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 May 2000 22:05:51 +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 WAA20166 for ; Tue, 16 May 2000 22:05:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA14142 for ; Tue, 16 May 2000 08:03:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000516080847.006cbf84@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 08:08:47 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: law45C2 In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.20000516102723.0067140c@mail.ausinfo.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:27 PM 5/16/00 +1000, Tom wrote: > At a recent club game a player, while playing a hand romoved a card from >his hand and placed it with the butt end of the card on the table at a 90 >degree angle. > His opponent called the director and insisted that this was a >played card under law 45C2. He believed that this section with >its three parts separated by commas indicated that there were three >diffenent situations where the card was played-ie held face up or touching >or nearly touching the table or maintained in such >a position as to indicated that it had been played. > What are others opinions on this? My own is that the first two >parts are to be considered together. > Is this ambiguous or just poorly drafted? The wording might be improved a bit ("Declarer must play a card from his hand if it is held face up, touches or nearly touches..., or is maintained..."), but I've always read it as "(a) held, (b) touching, or (c) maintained" rather than (a) held, touching, or (b) maintained". That's probably because I have a very hard time visualizing a card which might be considered "held face up, touching or nearly touching the table" while not being "maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played", although on reflection that could be subtly circular reasoning. 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 May 16 22:06:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA20187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 May 2000 22:06:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (mta03-svc.server.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.43]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA20173 for ; Tue, 16 May 2000 22:06:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.253.89.115]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000516120553.GFMY290.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Tue, 16 May 2000 13:05:53 +0100 Message-ID: <002c01bfbf2f$aa32fe60$7359fd3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" References: <1.5.4.32.20000516102723.0067140c@mail.ausinfo.com.au> Subject: Re: law45C2 Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 13:09:38 +0100 Organization: X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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: Tom Strong To: Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 11:27 AM Subject: law45C2 > At a recent club game a player, while playing a hand romoved a card from > his hand and placed it with the butt end of the card on the table at a 90 > degree angle. > His opponent called the director and insisted that this was a > played card under law 45C2. He believed that this section with > its three parts separated by commas indicated that there were three > diffenent situations where the card was played-ie held face up or touching > or nearly touching the table or maintained in such > a position as to indicated that it had been played. > What are others opinions on this? My own is that the first two > parts are to be considered together. > Is this ambiguous or just poorly drafted? > Tom Strong I think that if this mannerism, which many have, and which is most annoying were to be ruled as playing a card, many of us would be happy. However IMO there would be an "or" between "face up" and "touching". No, sad though I think it to be, I do not think this is a played card. I don't think it is either ambiguous, or poorly drafted. I think it says what it means. My sympathy to the man who called the TD. How about a PP to declarer for annoying his opponent :-) Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 17 01:38:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA21057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 2000 01:38:45 +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 BAA21051 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 01:38:34 +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 12rjQI-000KJ5-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 May 2000 16:38:19 +0100 Message-ID: <54EFquAVzUI5Ew4z@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 14:27:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A bit quiet References: <000401bfbf09$06a746a0$048a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.de> In-Reply-To: <000401bfbf09$06a746a0$048a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Bley wrote: >David wrote: > >> There are three main questions, namely [1] Is it legal to >> enable L12C3 >> for TDs? [2] If we do enable L12C3 for TDs how do we apply >> it? [3] Is >> the methodology of the CoP on psyches the way to go? > >[1] >maybe. who knows. But beware: >QUOD LICET JOVI NON LICET BOVI Perhaps a translation would be nice. >[2] >Dont do it. For installing 12C3 to TDs you need: > >a) TD which are excellent players as well (who is, say: why should >they be TD, when they are playing so well, to win championships??) We expect our TDs who can give the better rulings to have an ability to play. >b) enough reference players at the playing area to interview (which >was a important point in the WBF Code as well). To make abstract rules >to catch this, is very difficult and a big gate to mistakes... We do not need to follow the WBF methodology. But answer me this, how would you have enough good players to provide ACs but not enough for TDs to consult? >[3] >yes. No reason to make own ways I think for practical reasons In practical terms, the answer is easy: from what I have read and seen we already handle psyches in a way that is accepted completely: why should we change? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK As an experiment please use these new addresses: comments appreciated Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 17 02:19:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA21360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 2000 02:19:28 +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 CAA21355 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 02:19:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-78.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.78]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA07372 for ; Tue, 16 May 2000 18:19:06 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39213B6E.930143D5@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 14:13:34 +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: L16B in action References: <200005101936.PAA04839@cfa183.harvard.edu> <8L77XsAzjiG5Ewqx@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <391AE2D6.C5BBFEAD@village.uunet.be> <391FB41E.26A11E63@village.uunet.be> <1hPWcgAG89H5Eww0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > > >I would like to follow your belief, but I believe it is > >simply not practical. > > Oh, Herman! > > You may not like following the Laws of bridge when you make rulings, > and that is your choice. Me, I follow the Laws. > Sorry David, Not my intention at all. It is your belief that L16B tells the TD to make an immediate ruling. That is not my interpretation. I have tried to explain why my interpretation works better. I do believe I am following the Laws as well ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 17 02:58:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA21477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 2000 02:58:16 +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 CAA21471 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 02:58:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Tue, 16 May 2000 18:57:43 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id RAA02043; Tue, 16 May 2000 17:36:31 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'Tom Strong'" , Subject: RE: law45C2 Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 17:35:24 +0200 Message-ID: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310BF@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101B2B5@xion.spase.nl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tom Strong wrote: > At a recent club game a player, while playing a hand romoved a card from >his hand and placed it with the butt end of the card on the table at a 90 >degree angle. > His opponent called the director and insisted that this was a >played card under law 45C2. He believed that this section with >its three parts separated by commas indicated that there were three >diffenent situations where the card was played-ie held face up or touching >or nearly touching the table or maintained in such >a position as to indicated that it had been played. > What are others opinions on this? My own is that the first two >parts are to be considered together. > Is this ambiguous or just poorly drafted? > Tom Strong I guess it is poorly drafted. The article reads: ... Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up, touching or nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played ... I think what is really meant is the following: ... Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up AND (touching OR nearly touching the table OR maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played) ... (more or less written mathematically :-) ) >From this syntax, it follows that, for a card of declarer to be played, it must be: a) held face up, and b) held in such a way that it "looks as if it has been played", one way or another. You get the same meaning if the second comma in the original rule is dropped. Thus, if declarer drops a card, it is not played (condition b above has not been met). Likewise, a card with the butt end on the table but which is not visible to the others is not played (does not meet condition a). I know players who always play their cards like that, so it is apparently not uncommon. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 17 03:12:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA21516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 2000 03:12:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from neodymium (neodymium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.83]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA21510 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 03:12:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.99.57.105] (helo=davidburn) by neodymium with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12rktT-0004f6-00; Tue, 16 May 2000 18:12:32 +0100 Message-ID: <001301bfbf59$98402b40$693963c3@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <000401bfbf09$06a746a0$048a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.de> <54EFquAVzUI5Ew4z@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: A bit quiet Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 18:10:10 +0100 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > >QUOD LICET JOVI NON LICET BOVI > > Perhaps a translation would be nice. It means roughly "rank has its privileges" (literally "what is permitted to Jove is not permitted to an ox"). David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 17 03:36:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA21575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 2000 03:36:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net (hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA21569 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 03:36:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-001kslawrP112.dialsprint.net [158.252.181.72]) by hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA16402 for ; Tue, 16 May 2000 10:35:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <200005161234390200.009DCA60@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <001301bfbf59$98402b40$693963c3@davidburn> References: <000401bfbf09$06a746a0$048a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.de> <54EFquAVzUI5Ew4z@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <001301bfbf59$98402b40$693963c3@davidburn> X-Mailer: Calypso Evaluation Version 3.10.03.02 (3) Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 12:34:39 -0500 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A bit quiet Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> >QUOD LICET JOVI NON LICET BOVI >> >> Perhaps a translation would be nice. > >It means roughly "rank has its privileges" (literally "what is >permitted to Jove is not permitted to an ox"). Ah. Thanks. The closest I'd come was "Just because I let you play your Bon Jovi albums in the house doesn't mean I'll put up with all of your (bull)." But I didn't quite see the connection to bridge. Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 17 03:38:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA21597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 2000 03:38:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA21591 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 03:38:38 +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 12rlIa-0006wm-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 May 2000 17:38:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 18:35:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: law45C2 References: <1.5.4.32.20000516102723.0067140c@mail.ausinfo.com.au> In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.20000516102723.0067140c@mail.ausinfo.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <1.5.4.32.20000516102723.0067140c@mail.ausinfo.com.au>, Tom Strong writes > At a recent club game a player, while playing a hand romoved a card from >his hand and placed it with the butt end of the card on the table at a 90 >degree angle. > His opponent called the director and insisted that this was a >played card under law 45C2. He believed that this section with >its three parts separated by commas indicated that there were three >diffenent situations where the card was played-ie held face up or touching >or nearly touching the table or maintained in such >a position as to indicated that it had been played. > What are others opinions on this? My own is that the first two >parts are to be considered together. > Is this ambiguous or just poorly drafted? > Tom Strong > > Declarer's card is only played when it is, *essentially*, face up on the table. He has as much latitude to wave it around as he likes until he faces it, *indicating that it HAS been played*. This card clearly was *not* played. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 17 03:38:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA21602 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 2000 03:38:50 +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 DAA21592 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 03:38:38 +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 12rlIa-000CM7-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 May 2000 17:38:29 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 18:37:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: law45C2 References: <1.5.4.32.20000516102723.0067140c@mail.ausinfo.com.au> <002c01bfbf2f$aa32fe60$7359fd3e@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <002c01bfbf2f$aa32fe60$7359fd3e@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <002c01bfbf2f$aa32fe60$7359fd3e@vnmvhhid>, anne_jones writes >----- Original Message ----- >From: Tom Strong >To: >Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 11:27 AM >Subject: law45C2 > > >> At a recent club game a player, while playing a hand romoved a card from >> his hand and placed it with the butt end of the card on the table at a 90 >> degree angle. >> His opponent called the director and insisted that this was a >> played card under law 45C2. He believed that this section with >> its three parts separated by commas indicated that there were three >> diffenent situations where the card was played-ie held face up or touching >> or nearly touching the table or maintained in such >> a position as to indicated that it had been played. >> What are others opinions on this? My own is that the first two >> parts are to be considered together. >> Is this ambiguous or just poorly drafted? >> Tom Strong > >I think that if this mannerism, which many have, and which is most >annoying were to be ruled as playing a card, many of us would be happy. >However IMO there would be an "or" between "face up" and "touching". >No, sad though I think it to be, I do not think this is a played card. >I don't think it is either ambiguous, or poorly drafted. I think it says >what it means. >My sympathy to the man who called the TD. How about a PP to declarer >for annoying his opponent :-) >Anne > > I'd give one to the defender for wasting the TD's time. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 17 03:51:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA21656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 2000 03:51:49 +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 DAA21651 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 03:51:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA09788; Tue, 16 May 2000 10:51:17 -0700 Message-Id: <200005161751.KAA09788@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: law45C2 In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 16 May 2000 17:35:24 PDT." <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310BF@xion.spase.nl> Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 10:51:18 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >From this syntax, it follows that, for a card of declarer to be played, it > must be: a) held face up, and b) held in such a way that it "looks as if > it has been played", one way or another. You get the same meaning if the > second comma in the original rule is dropped. > > Thus, if declarer drops a card, it is not played (condition b above has not > been met). Neither has condition (a), actually, since a dropped card is not "held" face up. But you're right; a wrong reading of L45C2 might lead one to believe that a dropped card is played since it is touching the table (even if it is lands on the table face down!!!), but that's clearly the wrong reading. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 17 04:43:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA21908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 2000 04:43:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from neptun.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 ESMTP id EAA21903 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 04:42:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uniduesseldorf.de (Isis45.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.45]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0FUO007KB1B9NU@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 May 2000 20:42:47 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 20:42:44 +0200 From: Richard Bley Subject: RE: A bit quiet In-reply-to: <54EFquAVzUI5Ew4z@blakjak.demon.co.uk> To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <000001bfbf66$86437340$2d8a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.de> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David wrote: > Richard Bley wrote: > >David wrote: > > > >> There are three main questions, namely [1] Is it legal to > >> enable L12C3 > >> for TDs? [2] If we do enable L12C3 for TDs how do we apply > >> it? [3] Is > >> the methodology of the CoP on psyches the way to go? > > > >[1] > >maybe. who knows. But beware: > >QUOD LICET JOVI NON LICET BOVI > > Perhaps a translation would be nice. Thanks to David we now have one. I had only a german one and found it very difficult to translate it into english (it´s like a smal children game where you whisper sth into the first ears and it becomes completely different after 5 or so stages...; only it´s with myself ;-))) > > >[2] > >Dont do it. For installing 12C3 to TDs you need: > > > >a) TD which are excellent players as well (who is, say: why should > >they be TD, when they are playing so well, to win championships??) > > We expect our TDs who can give the better rulings to have > an ability > to play. It is maybe a good idea to buy a big knife for someone who learned to be a butcher, but would you give it in the hand of a child??? 12C3 is a very powerful rule and in the wrong hands with desastrous results. > > >b) enough reference players at the playing area to interview (which > >was a important point in the WBF Code as well). To make > abstract rules > >to catch this, is very difficult and a big gate to mistakes... > > We do not need to follow the WBF methodology. But answer > me this, how > would you have enough good players to provide ACs but not > enough for TDs > to consult? > because you need a lot of judgement to make such decisions. A real expert player can judge these situations immediately or can at least tell, that he is not able to judge immediately. A player of lesser degree (what we in germany call a "province expert") is not able to do this. THe standard here in germany is, that there are roundabout two/three players who are able to judge this sort of situations correctly. In other countries I would guess the same numbers (maybe more in France/USA) but I doubt that there is a substantial bigger number in england/wales. A comittee has a real discussion as an advantage. So the SO is able to mix the characters. Cheers Richard From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 17 08:39:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA22608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 2000 08:39:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA22603 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 08:39:40 +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 SAA06918 for ; Tue, 16 May 2000 18:39:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA28965 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 May 2000 18:39:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 18:39:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200005162239.SAA28965@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: law45C2 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Tom Strong > What are others opinions on this? My own is that the first two > parts are to be considered together. The ACBL agrees with you. _Duplicate Decisions_ says "If the card is held in a manner to indicate declarer has determined to play it, the card is played." Nothing about touching the table. FWIW, I agree with you and the ACBL. My initial reaction was that the opponent was correct in his interpretation of the text as written, but he cannot be. Look closely at the verbs. 'Held' goes with the first two clauses but *not* with the third, which has its own verb 'maintained'. Thus 'touching' modifies 'held' and is not independent. Grattan: care to make a note to consider deleting both commas? From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 17 09:47:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA22869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 2000 09:47:58 +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 JAA22853 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 09:47:46 +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 12rr3m-000JUc-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 May 2000 23:47:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 00:45:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI from Brisbane References: <3.0.1.32.20000515180704.00a9df14@ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000515180704.00a9df14@ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reg Busch wrote: >David Stevenson copied from RGB: >>After West & North passed, East opened the bidding with 2S. South >>queried West, and was told that the bid showed 5+/5+ in Spades & a >>Minor, either weak or strong (less than 5 losers). South now doubled. >>West, in tempo, bid 3S, immediately alerted by East. Without inquiry, >>North bid 4H in tempo. West bid 4S, also in tempo. South baulked, then >>asked for explanation of the auction. South was told that the 3S bid >>could be anything from zero points up to a 14-count, and the only >>certainty was Spade support. South was also told that by agreement, >>East's bid of 4S showed the strong option. South hesitated for a few >>seconds, and then said "This is all too complicated for me!" whilst >>passing. West passed in tempo, and after ten seconds or so, North bid >>5H. East reserved his rights, and the contract was passed out. The >>Spade ace was led, and a switch to the club King saw West retain the >>lead. Unable to get East on lead, the defence was finished & 5H was >>scored up. You are called as Tournament Director - what do you decide? >You are asked to decide how you would rule as TD, so perhaps it's best if >you know the facts as presented at the table to the TD, not as presented >above. Firstly, whilst it was claimed and not disputed that South hesitated >for some time before passing, there was no mention of any remarks made by >South (though this was brought up at appeal). Secondly, there was no >mention to the TD of the explanation that the 4S bid showed the 'strong' >option. I asked the original poster to comment. He has said that he is certain that the TD was told South had made comments, and he is certain that the TD was told the 4S bid showed the strong option. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK As an experiment please use these new addresses: comments appreciated Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 17 09:47:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA22867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 2000 09:47:56 +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 JAA22852 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 09:47:46 +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 12rr3j-000JUd-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 May 2000 23:47:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 00:37:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L16B in action References: <200005101936.PAA04839@cfa183.harvard.edu> <8L77XsAzjiG5Ewqx@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <391AE2D6.C5BBFEAD@village.uunet.be> <391FB41E.26A11E63@village.uunet.be> <1hPWcgAG89H5Eww0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <39213B6E.930143D5@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <39213B6E.930143D5@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> > >> >I would like to follow your belief, but I believe it is >> >simply not practical. >> >> Oh, Herman! >> >> You may not like following the Laws of bridge when you make rulings, >> and that is your choice. Me, I follow the Laws. >> > >Sorry David, > >Not my intention at all. > >It is your belief that L16B tells the TD to make an >immediate ruling. >That is not my interpretation. > >I have tried to explain why my interpretation works better. > >I do believe I am following the Laws as well ! That is rather different from saying "but I believe it is simply not practical". -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK As an experiment please use these new addresses: comments appreciated Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 17 09:47:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA22868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 2000 09:47:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA22854 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 09:47:47 +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 12rr3m-000LKA-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 May 2000 23:47:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 00:40:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A bit quiet References: <54EFquAVzUI5Ew4z@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000001bfbf66$86437340$2d8a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.de> In-Reply-To: <000001bfbf66$86437340$2d8a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Bley wrote: >It is maybe a good idea to buy a big knife for someone who learned to >be a butcher, but would you give it in the hand of a child??? > >12C3 is a very powerful rule and in the wrong hands with desastrous >results. This is an objection I have seen before. OK, why? I do not believe that in the hands of poor TDs or ACs that L12C3 is likely to reach worse rulings than L12C2: in fact, I believe the opposite to be true. In my view, one of the advantages of L12C3 is that incompetent TDs and ACs will make judgement rulings more accurately. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK As an experiment please use these new addresses: comments appreciated Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 17 11:15:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA23087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 2000 11:15:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA23082 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 11:15:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-58-212-242.s496.tnt1.lnhdc.md.dialup.rcn.com ([208.58.212.242] helo=erols) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #3) id 12rsQl-0004zU-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 May 2000 21:15:26 -0400 Message-ID: <004301bfbf9d$60670c40$020aa8c0@com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <391AE2D6.C5BBFEAD@village.uunet.be><200005101936.PAA04839@cfa183.harvard.edu><8L77XsAzjiG5Ewqx@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <391AE2D6.C5BBFEAD@village.uunet.be> <7wJK5IC+NJH5EwQV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: L16B in action Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 21:15:15 -0400 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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 7:27 PM Subject: Re: L16B in action > David J. Grabiner wrote: > > > >And what if a player or the TD discovers later that the information was > >consequential? > > > >Example: the C2 is left face up in the East hand by the previous pair, and > >the other players see it. The TD checks the hand records and decides that > >the C2 is inconsequential in East's hand of 8 K864 9752 7542. South > >declares 4S. West leads KA of spades, and East discards the C4 on the > >second spade. E-W are playing odd-even discards. Because he has seen the > >C2, West knows that the C4 is not East's lowest even club, and switches to > >a heart to beat the contract. > > > >Do you now adjust? And if so, do you adjust to A+/A+, or to +50/+420? > > I expect you adjust to +50/+420. Which Law? L82C, I expect: after > all, I made a mistake, didn't I? > I may be missing something here. L82C does not specify whether the adjusted score is artificial or assigned. Accordingly, I would go back and assign the score that would have occurred in the absence of my error. A bridge score without applying 16A1 or 16A2 is not possible if the UI was correctly judged by the TD to be consequential. There's no way to know what would have happened had the TD appointed a substitute, so all that's left is 16B3, or A+/A+, as the most likely result of a correct original ruling. Is there a reason not to rule this? > In practical terms if it is a really top class event you do not let > them play it [I know several English TDs who do not let them play it in > any event] but if it is a lesser event I usually let them play it. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ > Hirsch Davis Rockville, MD USA From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 17 11:36:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA23161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 2000 11:36:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA23156 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 11:36:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-58-212-242.s496.tnt1.lnhdc.md.dialup.rcn.com ([208.58.212.242] helo=erols) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #3) id 12rslB-0002mU-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 May 2000 21:36:32 -0400 Message-ID: <004801bfbfa0$53503060$020aa8c0@com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <3.0.1.32.20000509153546.013273b8@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Correcting a bad ruling: was Re: L16A in action Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 21:36:20 -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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael S. Dennis" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 3:35 PM Subject: Re: L16A in action [ruling immaterial} > > Exactly as you did at the time. The director's ruling was ridiculous, of > course, but you followed his advice in good faith. > > I would say, however, that if a similar situation arose today, I would > expect you (or indeed, anyone in this forum) to understand and act in > accordance with what we know your legal obligations to be, in spite of the > incorrect advice offered. In particular, at an event on the scale of a > Regional, it would certainly be possible to find a TD who can offer the > correct ruling, and that is what a knowledgeable player should attempt to > do, IMO. > > Mike Dennis > IMO this is a dangerous course. There is a prescribed appeals process to go through if you get a bad ruling from a TD. However, getting a second ruling from a different TD is not part of this process. The TD has ruled. You may wish to ask the TD to read you the law he is ruling under, as a glance at the law book will often correct a TD error. If that doesn't work, you should *not* seek out another TD to give you a ruling you agree with (even if you know you are right). The second TD has no right to reverse the first one, and should refer you back to the original TD to start your appeal. If you try and get a second ruling without telling the second TD that someone has already ruled, the penalty will be a big one. IMO you must follow the instructions of the TD (or risk a penalty under L90B8), *even if you know them to be wrong* and appeal, even if the bad ruling was in your favor. Hirsch Davis Rockville, MD USA From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 17 12:22:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA23260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 2000 12:22:42 +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 MAA23255 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 12:22:33 +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 12rtTa-000HbM-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 May 2000 03:22:23 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 03:17:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L16B in action References: <391AE2D6.C5BBFEAD@village.uunet.be> <200005101936.PAA04839@cfa183.harvard.edu> <8L77XsAzjiG5Ewqx@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <391AE2D6.C5BBFEAD@village.uunet.be> <7wJK5IC+NJH5EwQV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <004301bfbf9d$60670c40$020aa8c0@com> In-Reply-To: <004301bfbf9d$60670c40$020aa8c0@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Stevenson" >To: >Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 7:27 PM >Subject: Re: L16B in action > > >> David J. Grabiner wrote: > >> > >> >And what if a player or the TD discovers later that the information was >> >consequential? >> > >> >Example: the C2 is left face up in the East hand by the previous pair, >and >> >the other players see it. The TD checks the hand records and decides >that >> >the C2 is inconsequential in East's hand of 8 K864 9752 7542. South >> >declares 4S. West leads KA of spades, and East discards the C4 on the >> >second spade. E-W are playing odd-even discards. Because he has seen >the >> >C2, West knows that the C4 is not East's lowest even club, and switches >to >> >a heart to beat the contract. >> > >> >Do you now adjust? And if so, do you adjust to A+/A+, or to +50/+420? >> >> I expect you adjust to +50/+420. Which Law? L82C, I expect: after >> all, I made a mistake, didn't I? >> > >I may be missing something here. L82C does not specify whether the adjusted >score is artificial or assigned. Accordingly, I would go back and assign the >score that would have occurred in the absence of my error. A bridge score >without applying 16A1 or 16A2 is not possible if the UI was correctly judged >by the TD to be consequential. There's no way to know what would have >happened had the TD appointed a substitute, so all that's left is 16B3, or >A+/A+, as the most likely result of a correct original ruling. Is there a >reason not to rule this? A result was obtained at the table, and thus the Laws tell you to assign a score not to give an artificial one. I really think that your example is a good one to show what is wrong with this illegal method. If a sub had been appointed then the probable results were NS+420, NS-50. We treat each side as non-offending per L82C, so we give N/S NS+420, E/W NS-50. What is difficult about that? You say "There's no way to know what would have happened ..." which seems to be the most common reason quoted for the illegal A+/A- score, but L12C2 does *not* ask you to determine "what would have happened", just to decide the most likely/at all probable scores. It *really* is not difficult to assign in these circumstances. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK As an experiment please use these new addresses: comments appreciated Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 17 13:30:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA23450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 2000 13:30:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA23445 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 13:30:39 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA10609 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 13:28:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 17 May 2000 13:28:34 +0000 (EST) Subject: Claim jumping To: Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 13:27:05 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 17/05/2000 01:26:26 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A few years ago, I chaired an appeals committee which ruled on a disputed claim. The facts were as follows: In a Swiss Teams match between average players and some visiting expert sharks, an average declarer in 5D claimed, announcing that she was drawing trumps. The sharks disputed the claim, because if declarer won the final round of trumps in the wrong hand, then there would be no access to the other hand's established winners to provide necessary discards. The Director routinely ruled in favour of the sharks, but advised declarer to appeal. The committee unanimously ruled that declarer was of sufficiently strong standard that it would be "irrational" for her to lock herself in the wrong hand. Questions: 1. Edgar Kaplan once wrote that it was in the interests of the game for claims to be encouraged (since otherwise bridge sessions would drag on). Kaplan also stated that only a small minority of claims are free from technical error. Therefore, was it sporting for the sharks to dispute a claim for a making contract on the assumption that declarer was of sub-normal intelligence? 2. Could, should or must the TD have ruled immediately in declarer's favour? Best wishes Richard Hills richard.hills@immi.gov.au From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 17 16:05:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA23998 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 2000 16:05:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from neptun.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 ESMTP id QAA23993 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 16:05:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uniduesseldorf.de (Isis138.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.138]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0FUO00E1HWWBOU@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 May 2000 08:05:00 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 08:04:59 +0200 From: Richard Bley Subject: RE: A bit quiet In-reply-to: To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <000001bfbfc5$d515c720$8a8a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.de> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > This is an objection I have seen before. OK, why? > > I do not believe that in the hands of poor TDs or ACs > that L12C3 is > likely to reach worse rulings than L12C2: in fact, I believe the > opposite to be true. > > In my view, one of the advantages of L12C3 is that > incompetent TDs and > ACs will make judgement rulings more accurately. No they will make more decisions which are "faule Kompromisse" (dont know the english expression here; can someone help me?), Because they are untcertain about the result, they will make sth in between most of the time where they shouldnt. The result would be even more AC-decisions because nobody can understand the reason for using 12C3. As Kojak said: It´s an instrument which should be used very rarely". This point is threatened if you allow (minor-competent) TDs to use it. From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 17 18:50:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA24464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 2000 18:50:43 +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 SAA24459 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 18:50:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.151.23] (helo=davidburn) by ruthenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12rzX4-0000rR-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 May 2000 09:50:22 +0100 Message-ID: <002f01bfbfdc$8b756460$179701d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200005162239.SAA28965@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: law45C2 Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 09:40:48 +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 Steve wrote: > > From: Tom Strong > > What are others opinions on this? My own is that the first two > > parts are to be considered together. > > The ACBL agrees with you. _Duplicate Decisions_ says "If the card > is held in a manner to indicate declarer has determined to play it, > the card is played." Nothing about touching the table. > > FWIW, I agree with you and the ACBL. My initial reaction was that the > opponent was correct in his interpretation of the text as written, but > he cannot be. Look closely at the verbs. 'Held' goes with the first > two clauses but *not* with the third, which has its own verb > 'maintained'. Thus 'touching' modifies 'held' and is not independent. > > Grattan: care to make a note to consider deleting both commas? That won't quite work. In this sentence: Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up, touching or nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played. the phrases: "held face up", "touching or nearly touching the table", and "maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played", are (or can be read as) adjectival clauses modifying "card". "Held", "touching" and "maintained" are all participles, and there is no rule of English grammar which would lead to the conclusion that "touching" in some way modifies "held". There is no indication from the words alone that the first two phrases are to be read as a compound adjectival clause, while the third is independent of the first two. That is only an inference from what we know of the game of bridge and from the other laws relating to played cards. Removing the first comma would be a great step in the right direction: Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up touching or nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played. but begs the question: what does "maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played" mean, over and above "held face up touching or nearly touching the table"? After all, per L45A, a played card is only a card placed face up on the table by the player, which is covered by the first clause. In what other way can a card be "maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played"? David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 17 20:11:55 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA24762 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 2000 20:11:55 +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 UAA24757 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 20:11:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-143.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.143]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA13654; Wed, 17 May 2000 12:11:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39226F9C.C95859C@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 12:08:28 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws , Yael Yseboodt Subject: Antwerp Mixed Pairs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello blml-ers, I have been asked by a competitor of the recent Antwerp Mixed Pairs to explain a set of rulings I gave. I want to do this via this forum. I copy this to her, so if I expand a bit much of the Laws, understand that this is for the benefit of a non-TD reader. The second session of the Antwerp Mixed Pairs (18 pairs) is a double Howell. I get called during round 5. Pair 13 (the eventual winners) tell me that they have already played board 1. It turns out they have played it the round before. At that time, I also get called at another table, by pair 13, who are trying to play board 3, which they also recognise. Indeed, pairs 13 and 4 had met during the previous round, and had played boards 1-4 in stead of 13-16, as they should have. By a sheer coincidence they are now both supposed to play boards 1-4, simultaneously. - Laws interlude - Law 15A1 is very clear : since none of the 4 players had previously played the boards, their scores on boards 1-4 should count as normal. Law 15A2 tells that the Director MAY require both pairs to play the correct boards against one another later. Law 15B says that their opponents cannot play the board and should get an artificial score. Law 8A1 gives the TD the power to instruct the players as to the proper movement. - end interlude - It is my habit to always try and save as many boards as possible. In this instance, that proved very simple. Since all 4 pairs were now unable to play boards 1-4 against their correct opponents, there was ample time to instruct them to do otherwise. So I told pairs 8 and 18 to now play boards 1-4, which allowed pairs 13 and 4 to play the correct boards 13-16 that they should have played in the previous round. Note that the Laws award me the power to instruct the players to play these boards, and they are not allowed to refuse to do so. I don't know if I would have ordered them to play them after the end of the tournament (which finished after midnight, 36 boards played in an evening !), but since they had the time anyway, there was no doubt that I was doing the right thing. That is where our present co-reader comes in. Lying second after the first session, and finishing second overall, they contest my right to order this mix-up, and complain that pair 13 now have met pair 4 twice, while qualifying this pair 4 as a weak one. My response to this is that it would be very unfair of me to not impose the -in my view- correct procedure based on the names and places of the people involved. If the pairs were reversed, and pair 4 would have been far stronger, it would be the eventual winners who might complain that they had to face them twice, but my ruling should have been the same. A second complaint was regarding penalties. - Law interlude Law 90A tells the TD that he can award Procedural Penalties for, among others "any offence that inconveniences other contestants". This certainly falls in that category. Law 90B7 says that offenses subject to penalty include "errors in procedure that require an adjusted score for any contestant". - end interlude It is not my habit to throw penalties around for failure to correctly play according to the guidecard. I have not done so at that time. There is certainly no reason for me to award penalties simply because the pair at fault are lying first, and the pair lying second asks me to award penalties. I feel I have to follow my own internal consistency, which does not include awarding a penalty for this mistake. However, you may remember that pairs 13 and 18 had started the bidding on board 1. When they start playing the board again, pair 8 start the bidding differently than pair 13 did the first time. Now I simply have to rule this board unplayable for pairs 8 and 18, award Average+ to both, and, according to L90B7, give a procedural penalty to the pairs involved, 13 and 4. I did in fact give a PP of 10%, which is the standard I always use. I don't believe I have done anything wrong, and I don't invite comments from the readers per se. A non-reply of the list will also convince my friends, whom I congratulate with their second place, that my actions were according to the book, and consistent. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 17 22:43:41 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA25388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 2000 22:43:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (mta03-svc.server.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.43]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA25383 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 22:43:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.253.88.71]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000517124322.KBFK290.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 13:43:22 +0100 Message-ID: <001201bfbffe$199ed020$8959fd3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" References: <39226F9C.C95859C@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Antwerp Mixed Pairs Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 13:47:22 +0100 Organization: X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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 ; Yael Yseboodt Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 11:08 AM Subject: Antwerp Mixed Pairs > Hello blml-ers, > > I have been asked by a competitor of the recent Antwerp > Mixed Pairs to explain a set of rulings I gave. > I want to do this via this forum. > > I copy this to her, so if I expand a bit much of the Laws, > understand that this is for the benefit of a non-TD reader. > > The second session of the Antwerp Mixed Pairs (18 pairs) is > a double Howell. I get called during round 5. > The whole point of this movement is that as you presumably played a Mitchell in the first half, and played only 8 rounds, you end up with a nearly balanced movement. All the players play all the boards (except for one set in round 1), and they play every other pair once. > > Pair 13 (the eventual winners) tell me that they have > already played board 1. It turns out they have played it > the round before. > > At that time, I also get called at another table, by pair > 13, who are trying to play board 3, which they also > recognise. > This would have been pair 4 not 13:-) > > Indeed, pairs 13 and 4 had met during the previous round, > and had played boards 1-4 in stead of 13-16, as they should > have. > > By a sheer coincidence they are now both supposed to play > boards 1-4, simultaneously. > > - Laws interlude - > > Law 15A1 is very clear : since none of the 4 players had > previously played the boards, their scores on boards 1-4 > should count as normal. > Yes. And this is what you did. Law 15A refers to the current round. That round is no longer current. > > Law 15A2 tells that the Director MAY require both pairs to > play the correct boards against one another later. > I believe you should only apply Law 15A2 if you are unable to apply Law 15A1. I do not believe it is correct to do both. > > Law 15B says that their opponents cannot play the board and > should get an artificial score. > This round is no longer the current round refered to in Law 15A. On this round the opponents at the table cannot play the boards as they have played them before. This is a Law 12 C1 ruling. > > Law 8A1 gives the TD the power to instruct the players as to > the proper movement. > > - end interlude - > > It is my habit to always try and save as many boards as > possible. > I agree with this, but in this instance I do not believe the law allows you to do what you did. > > In this instance, that proved very simple. Since all 4 > pairs were now unable to play boards 1-4 against their > correct opponents, there was ample time to instruct them to > do otherwise. > But at the cost of playing the same pair twice. The two non offending pairs should be getting A+ and their opps A or A- depending on the degree of fault. > > So I told pairs 8 and 18 to now play boards 1-4, which > allowed pairs 13 and 4 to play the correct boards 13-16 that > they should have played in the previous round. > > Note that the Laws award me the power to instruct the > players to play these boards, and they are not allowed to > refuse to do so. > Correct. I am sure you advised them of their right of Appeal. > > I don't know if I would have ordered them to play them after > the end of the tournament (which finished after midnight, 36 > boards played in an evening !), but since they had the time > anyway, there was no doubt that I was doing the right thing. > Don't agree. > > That is where our present co-reader comes in. Lying second > after the first session, and finishing second overall, they > contest my right to order this mix-up, and complain that > pair 13 now have met pair 4 twice, while qualifying this > pair 4 as a weak one. > I would not have been a happy bunny either. > > My response to this is that it would be very unfair of me to > not impose the -in my view- correct procedure based on the > names and places of the people involved. If the pairs were > reversed, and pair 4 would have been far stronger, it would > be the eventual winners who might complain that they had to > face them twice, but my ruling should have been the same. > That is why we aim to have movements that are good. You are better than most at this. Of course you do not take the strength of the players into account. You do not have to if you rule the boards unplayable. > > A second complaint was regarding penalties. > > - Law interlude > > Law 90A tells the TD that he can award Procedural Penalties > for, among others "any offence that inconveniences other > contestants". This certainly falls in that category. > > Law 90B7 says that offenses subject to penalty include > "errors in procedure that require an adjusted score for any > contestant". > > - end interlude > > It is not my habit to throw penalties around for failure to > correctly play according to the guidecard. I have not done > so at that time. > I go along with this > > There is certainly no reason for me to award penalties > simply because the pair at fault are lying first, and the > pair lying second asks me to award penalties. > I would be inclined to award a PP to the second pair for even asking. >I feel I have to follow my own internal consistency, which does not > include awarding a penalty for this mistake. > Yes. > > However, you may remember that pairs 13 and 18 had started > the bidding on board 1. When they start playing the board > again, pair 8 start the bidding differently than pair 13 did > the first time. Now I simply have to rule this board > unplayable for pairs 8 and 18, award Average+ to both, and, > according to L90B7, give a procedural penalty to the pairs > involved, 13 and 4. > See Herman. None of this would have happened. > > I did in fact give a PP of 10%, which is the standard I > always use. > Hmm! > > I don't believe I have done anything wrong, and I don't > invite comments from the readers per se. A non-reply of the > list will also convince my friends, whom I congratulate with > their second place, that my actions were according to the > book, and consistent. > Sorry Herman. I would not have done it this way. But that does matter. There are procedures for appeal, and this is the way complaints should be dealt with. The players who are unhappy should have put up the deposit, or shut up. It is no doubt too late now. > Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 17 23:14:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA25531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 2000 23:14:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com (imo-d02.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA25525 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 23:14:45 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id n.7a.557b463 (4390); Wed, 17 May 2000 09:14:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <7a.557b463.2653f519@aol.com> Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 09:14:01 EDT Subject: Re: Correcting a bad ruling: was Re: L16A in action To: hdavis@erols.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/16/00 9:38:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hdavis@erols.com writes: > [ruling immaterial} > > > > Exactly as you did at the time. The director's ruling was ridiculous, of > > course, but you followed his advice in good faith. > > > > I would say, however, that if a similar situation arose today, I would > > expect you (or indeed, anyone in this forum) to understand and act in > > accordance with what we know your legal obligations to be, in spite of the > > incorrect advice offered. In particular, at an event on the scale of a > > Regional, it would certainly be possible to find a TD who can offer the > > correct ruling, and that is what a knowledgeable player should attempt to > > do, IMO. > > > > Mike Dennis > > > > IMO this is a dangerous course. There is a prescribed appeals process to go > through if you get a bad ruling from a TD. However, getting a second ruling > from a different TD is not part of this process. The TD has ruled. You may > wish to ask the TD to read you the law he is ruling under, as a glance at > the law book will often correct a TD error. If that doesn't work, you > should *not* seek out another TD to give you a ruling you agree with (even > if you know you are right). The second TD has no right to reverse the first > one, and should refer you back to the original TD to start your appeal. If > you try and get a second ruling without telling the second TD that someone > has already ruled, the penalty will be a big one. IMO you must follow the > instructions of the TD (or risk a penalty under L90B8), *even if you know > them to be wrong* and appeal, even if the bad ruling was in your favor. > > Hirsch Davis Can't help but strongly agree with Hirsh on this one. The route should be Appeal to the Chief TD under Law 93, and the Chief TD applies Law 82. After that it may or may not go to an AC, BUT NOT BEFORE. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 17 23:14:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA25524 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 2000 23:14:43 +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 XAA25519 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 23:14:36 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id 3.7c.59f0fae (4390); Wed, 17 May 2000 09:13:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <7c.59f0fae.2653f513@aol.com> Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 09:13:55 EDT Subject: Re: law45C2 To: Dburn@btinternet.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/17/00 4:53:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Dburn@btinternet.com writes: > but begs the question: what does "maintained in such a position as to > indicate that it has been played" mean, over and above "held face up > touching or nearly touching the table"? After all, per L45A, a played > card is only a card placed face up on the table by the player, which > is covered by the first clause. In what other way can a card be > "maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been > played"? > One of the ways that Edgar used to get a big laugh out is when the declarer,having been cross ruffed to a disaster by the defenders now is going to win the next trick no matter what they lead and slaps his card face up against his forehead. It also supports the connection between face up and at or near the table. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 17 23:15:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA25551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 2000 23:15:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA25532 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 23:15:01 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id 4.3b.4f64be9 (4390); Wed, 17 May 2000 09:13:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3b.4f64be9.2653f50d@aol.com> Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 09:13:49 EDT Subject: Re: A bit quiet To: bley@uni-duesseldorf.de, bnewsr@blakjak.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/17/00 2:07:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, bley@uni-duesseldorf.de writes: > "faule Kompromisse" "Rotten/lazy compromises" meaning they will make poor decisions and/or will not be able to arrive at expert supportable conclusions. I like it better in German! Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 18 00:29:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA25862 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 May 2000 00:29:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe3.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.107]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA25856 for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 00:29:20 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 61731 invoked by uid 65534); 17 May 2000 14:28:42 -0000 Message-ID: <20000517142842.61730.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.12.37] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" , "Herman De Wael" References: <39226F9C.C95859C@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Antwerp Mixed Pairs Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 09:29:42 -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 The 5 table Howell that I am familiar with joins the movements at T3 and shows boards 13-16 starting on T4 . At R4 they will be at T1 and at R5 will be at BYE stand. Fine. Boards 1-4 at R4 will be on the BYE stand and during R5 will be on the BYE stand. Were 4 and 13 really supposed to play 1-4 during R5? Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws ; Yael Yseboodt Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 5:08 AM Subject: Antwerp Mixed Pairs > Hello blml-ers, > > I have been asked by a competitor of the recent Antwerp > Mixed Pairs to explain a set of rulings I gave. > I want to do this via this forum. > > I copy this to her, so if I expand a bit much of the Laws, > understand that this is for the benefit of a non-TD reader. > > The second session of the Antwerp Mixed Pairs (18 pairs) is > a double Howell. I get called during round 5. > > Pair 13 (the eventual winners) tell me that they have > already played board 1. It turns out they have played it > the round before. > At that time, I also get called at another table, by pair > 13, who are trying to play board 3, which they also > recognise. > > Indeed, pairs 13 and 4 had met during the previous round, > and had played boards 1-4 in stead of 13-16, as they should > have. > > By a sheer coincidence they are now both supposed to play > boards 1-4, simultaneously. > > - Laws interlude - > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 18 01:07:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA26087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 May 2000 01:07:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA26082 for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 01:07:40 +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 LAA14254 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 11:07:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA05626 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 May 2000 11:07:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 11:07:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200005171507.LAA05626@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: law45C2 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > > Grattan: care to make a note to consider deleting both commas? > > That won't quite work. In this sentence: > > Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up, touching or > nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to > indicate that it has been played. > > the phrases: "held face up", "touching or nearly touching the table", > and "maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been > played", are (or can be read as) adjectival clauses modifying "card". I suppose you are right, but it looks strange to me. "Declarer must play a card from his hand touching or nearly touching the table?" There is something missing, but I'm not a good enough grammarian to say exactly what's wrong. Put in a verb like 'held', though, and the sentence is fine. I don't think deleting the first comma is the whole solution. If you do that, there is no need for the second comma before 'or'. Is the solution to add an explicit subject for the second clause? Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up touching or nearly touching the table or a card maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played. It's interesting that there seems to be universal agreement on the intended meaning, even though there are several different lines of reasoning to reach the conclusion. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 18 01:16:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA26131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 May 2000 01:16:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA26126 for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 01:16:10 +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 LAA14690 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 11:15:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA05644 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 May 2000 11:15:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 11:15:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200005171515.LAA05644@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Antwerp Mixed Pairs X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > It is not my habit to throw penalties around for failure to > correctly play according to the guidecard. Shouldn't this be a matter of SO policy rather than TD habit? The ACBL _Duplicate Decisions_ is vague. "Any error in procedure (failure to count cards, playing the wrong board)" is "subject to penalty," but I don't see guidelines on when a penalty should in fact be given. > Now I simply have to rule this board > unplayable for pairs 8 and 18, award Average+ to both, and, > according to L90B7, give a procedural penalty to the pairs > involved, 13 and 4. It seems strange to let issuance of a PP depend on whether or not the bidding in the replay happens to go the same way it did the first time. The offense is the same either way. Perhaps the PP should go only to the pair who *started the auction* on a board they had already played. That's what prevented the board from being played later. That is, of course, if you haven't already given a PP simply for playing the wrong boards. Do other SO's have guidelines for these situations? From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 18 01:38:15 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA26244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 May 2000 01:38:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (root@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA26239 for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 01:38:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA16220 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 11:37:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200005171537.LAA16220@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A bit quiet Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: <54EFquAVzUI5Ew4z@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000001bfbf66$86437340$2d8a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.de> Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 11:37:40 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 17 May 2000 at 0:40, David Stevenson wrote: >Richard Bley wrote: > >>It is maybe a good idea to buy a big knife for someone who learned to >>be a butcher, but would you give it in the hand of a child??? >> >>12C3 is a very powerful rule and in the wrong hands with desastrous >>results. > > This is an objection I have seen before. OK, why? > > I do not believe that in the hands of poor TDs or ACs that L12C3 is >likely to reach worse rulings than L12C2: in fact, I believe the >opposite to be true. > > In my view, one of the advantages of L12C3 is that incompetent TDs and >ACs will make judgement rulings more accurately. > David, ITYM "less inaccurately". HTH! :-) But seriously, I believe you are right, it will improve these results - mostly because people might just start giving L12C3 rulings rather than ignoring L12C2 because "it's too hard" or "it's too unfair". However, I do believe there will be a perception problem: When giving a ruling under L12C2, it is often harsh for the OS and extremely lenient for the NOS. One side feels hard done by (the NOS's comparators don't know what happened, so they don't feel hard done by, even though they have the same "right" to), but it's easily explained by showing the FLB that that's what the TD has to do. When given a chance to use L12C3, anyone that feels hard done by (and now both sides will, more often) can rationalize to themselves that "TD is an incompetent player, and I would never be so stupid" or "the TD doesn't like me/is friends with the opponents/would rather keep the regulars happy, that's why he ruled such-and-such" (and trust me, there are certain TD's out here - luckily mostly at the clubs - who do rule that way already) or "that was just unfair". And the only thing the TD can do is point to the FLB which says that his opinion is law, barring appeal. I don't believe, as some of my ACBL compatriots do, that those rationalizations will actually be true (in any more cases than they already are) - but the thoughts will be easier to form, and will happen more often. And here, at least, where Mr. and Mrs. LN already believe that any director call is "calling the cops" (and when they do do it, they make sure it sounds like it, too - they are righteously incensed), and there is a general distrust of TD's and more interest in "just play bridge" (i.e. let us do what we've always done, OBM and all; don't play any fancy conventions, meaning anything we don't play; play out claims, because we can't bother to think, and anyway, you might make a mistake, ...), and where the general knowledge of our TD's is both suspected and suspect (most are great. But more are suspect than it seems in other parts of the world, and I can't rememeber the last time any TD but me opened up the FLB *at the table, while ruling*. In 6 years of tournament bridge here, I can't remember it.) - well, I agree with the ACBL laws commission to not bring L12C3 into effect... *Until* we have educated our AC's better (and from the sounds of things, we're getting there fast), our TD's better (see previous para.), and our audience better (this is by far the hardest thing to do, because we haven't bothered for the last 15 years or so.) Michael. P.S. South is tight in 4S with the following layout (trumps are gone): -- AQx Qx x Tx KJxx -- -- And claims, "Diamond Q pitching a heart". *East* then shows the DA and calls the director. Any objections to 4S=? Any objections to 4S-1 if there was any way to play the hearts wrong (i.e. if they hadn't been solid in any way)? Any objections to 4S-1 if *West* had held the DA? I'm pretty certain I'm on solid ground here, but this has raised quite a stink among the "favoured regulars" at the club...mdf From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 18 02:11:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA26625 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 May 2000 02:11:25 +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 CAA26619 for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 02:11:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-30.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.30]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA26170; Wed, 17 May 2000 12:10:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <005101bfc01a$d1a509c0$1e84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , Subject: Re: A bit quiet Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 12:13:18 -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 From: Michael Farebrother South is tight in 4S with the following layout (trumps are gone): > >-- >AQx >Qx >x > >Tx >KJxx >-- >-- > >And claims, "Diamond Q pitching a heart". *East* then shows the DA and >calls the director. Any objections to 4S=? Any objections to 4S-1 if >there was any way to play the hearts wrong (i.e. if they hadn't been >solid in any way)? Any objections to 4S-1 if *West* had held the DA? > >I'm pretty certain I'm on solid ground here, but this has raised quite a stink among the "favoured regulars" at the club...mdf No objection to 4S just made, as it would certainly be irrational not to trump after the ace of diamonds appears. The play the hearts wrong case is moot...they ARE solid. If west hold DA (or DK for that matter) 4S-1 sounds right. WTP with the "favoured regulars"? Craig From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 18 02:20:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA26669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 May 2000 02:20:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [207.213.113.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA26663 for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 02:20:09 +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 JAA00692; Wed, 17 May 2000 09:19:48 -0700 Message-Id: <200005171619.JAA00692@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: law45C2 In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 17 May 2000 11:07:25 PDT." <200005171507.LAA05626@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 09:19:48 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "David Burn" > > > Grattan: care to make a note to consider deleting both commas? > > > > That won't quite work. In this sentence: > > > > Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up, touching or > > nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to > > indicate that it has been played. > > > > the phrases: "held face up", "touching or nearly touching the table", > > and "maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been > > played", are (or can be read as) adjectival clauses modifying "card". > > I suppose you are right, but it looks strange to me. "Declarer must > play a card from his hand touching or nearly touching the table?" > There is something missing, but I'm not a good enough grammarian to say > exactly what's wrong. Put in a verb like 'held', though, and the > sentence is fine. > > I don't think deleting the first comma is the whole solution. If you > do that, there is no need for the second comma before 'or'. Is the > solution to add an explicit subject for the second clause? > > Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up touching or nearly > touching the table or a card maintained in such a position as to > indicate that it has been played. Maybe we should make things easier on ourselves and drop the assumption that we have to cram everything into one sentence. How about: 45C2. Declarer's Card Declarer must play a card from his hand that is: (a) held face up, and touching or nearly touching the table; or (b) maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played. OK, so this doesn't possess the charm and style of a Hemingway or a Steinbeck or even a John Grisham. I can live with that defect. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 18 03:11:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA26707 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 May 2000 02:23:01 +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 CAA26686 for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 02:22:45 +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 12s6aZ-000DOl-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 May 2000 17:22:27 +0100 Message-ID: <8OvqnZB9bsI5Ew6n@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 17:21:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Antwerp Mixed Pairs References: <39226F9C.C95859C@village.uunet.be> <20000517142842.61730.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000517142842.61730.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <20000517142842.61730.qmail@hotmail.com>, Roger Pewick writes >The 5 table Howell that I am familiar with joins the movements at T3 and >shows boards 13-16 starting on T4 . At R4 they will be at T1 and at R5 will >be at BYE stand. Fine. Boards 1-4 at R4 will be on the BYE stand and >during R5 will be on the BYE stand. Were 4 and 13 really supposed to play >1-4 during R5? I have 4 different 5 table Howells at the YC. Groner's, the Frog Howell (paix mes amis), Farrington and the EBU (Manning's) one. Depends who is using the premises as to which set gets put out. cheers john > > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 18 04:23:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA26708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 May 2000 02:23:01 +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 CAA26685 for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 02:22:45 +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 12s6aY-000DOj-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 May 2000 17:22:27 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 17:16:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Antwerp Mixed Pairs References: <39226F9C.C95859C@village.uunet.be> <001201bfbffe$199ed020$8959fd3e@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <001201bfbffe$199ed020$8959fd3e@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <001201bfbffe$199ed020$8959fd3e@vnmvhhid>, anne_jones writes >> >> I don't believe I have done anything wrong, and I don't >> invite comments from the readers per se. A non-reply of the >> list will also convince my friends, whom I congratulate with >> their second place, that my actions were according to the >> book, and consistent. >> >Sorry Herman. I would not have done it this way. But that does >matter. There are procedures for appeal, and this is the way >complaints should be dealt with. The players who are unhappy >should have put up the deposit, or shut up. It is no doubt too >late now. You can't appeal a director's ruling on a point of Law, only on a matter of judgement. >> >Anne > > > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 18 04:25:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA27389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 May 2000 04:25:37 +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 EAA27384 for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 04:25:27 +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 OAA08547; Wed, 17 May 2000 14:25:09 -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: Wed, 17 May 2000 14:24:04 -0500 To: richard.hills@immi.gov.au, From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Claim jumping Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 1:27 PM +1000 5/17/00, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >A few years ago, I chaired an appeals committee which ruled on a disputed >claim. The facts were as follows: > >In a Swiss Teams match between average players and some visiting expert >sharks, an average declarer in 5D claimed, announcing that she was drawing >trumps. The sharks disputed the claim, because if declarer won the final >round of trumps in the wrong hand, then there would be no access to the >other hand's established winners to provide necessary discards. > >The Director routinely ruled in favour of the sharks, but advised declarer >to appeal. The committee unanimously ruled that declarer was of >sufficiently strong standard that it would be "irrational" for her to lock >herself in the wrong hand. The director should have ruled in declarer's favor if the facts are as given here. This could well have been an abuse of process by the experts. If the director wasn't sure whether the line was rational, and couldn't determine it, then he might rule in favor of the defenders. If this was under the current laws, the director should have appealed the ruling himself. Otherwise, if the claimer decided not to appeal, the experts would have unjustly gained points. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 18 04:26:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA26705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 May 2000 02:23:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA26687 for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 02:22:45 +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 12s6ab-000DP2-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 May 2000 17:22:30 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 16:46:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: law45C2 References: <200005162239.SAA28965@cfa183.harvard.edu> <002f01bfbfdc$8b756460$179701d5@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <002f01bfbfdc$8b756460$179701d5@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <002f01bfbfdc$8b756460$179701d5@davidburn>, David Burn writes > >but begs the question: what does "maintained in such a position as to >indicate that it has been played" mean, over and above "held face up >touching or nearly touching the table"? After all, per L45A, a played >card is only a card placed face up on the table by the player, which >is covered by the first clause. In what other way can a card be >"maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been >played"? RHO rises Ace in a ludicrous position and drops your stiff King. As a measure of your disgust I would have thought that if you shred the card into confetti and place it in the ashtray (you can smoke at the YC in one of the sections) it would be deemed to be played. (I'm not suggesting you try it as I'll fine you a deck of cards and assess a PP for it) cheers john > >David Burn >London, England > > > > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 18 05:29:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA26706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 May 2000 02:23:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA26688 for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 02:22:45 +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 12s6aZ-000DOk-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 May 2000 17:22:27 +0100 Message-ID: <3eYoTQBgSsI5Ewb6@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 17:11:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Antwerp Mixed Pairs References: <39226F9C.C95859C@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <39226F9C.C95859C@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <39226F9C.C95859C@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Hello blml-ers, > >I have been asked by a competitor of the recent Antwerp >Mixed Pairs to explain a set of rulings I gave. >I want to do this via this forum. I am in complete agreement with Herman's actions. People drag themselves down to the bridge club to play bridge, not to sit-out for half an hour drinking Belgian coffee and eating Belgian chocolate. He is to be congratulated for enhancing the players' life expectancies as well as resolving a glitch in the movement. Given that the Law allows for people playing the wrong boards then the Law accepts this may create an imbalance in the movement. Under the circumstances one tries to get as many people playing bridge as possible, with no regard for the "fairness" involved. Digression: We experimented a few months ago with the "Ukranian" movement - created jointly by a pair of Ukranians and Adrian Scheps at the YC. The movement was 7 1/2 tables so I set out 3 board rounds share and relay. For two rounds Adrian didn't bother to put the relay into circulation. Meanwhile the Ukranians didn't bother to sit out, and the pair who got overtaken spent 45 minutes in the bar chatting up Wendy (Nobody minds sit-outs at the YC, when there's Wendy in the bar). About the fourth round the Ukranians bumped into a set of boards they'd already played (Well they'd jumped one place and the boards jumped one place so it all blew up one round early). Having re-assembled all the boards and players onto the right tables I now started some serious board sharing (you get more flexibility later on in the movement) and we wound up with everyone playing all the rounds except for one table that had to sit out the last round as there were just no boards left they both hadn't already played. I fined absolutely everyone, including Wendy for holding the pair up. I don't suppose this movement had as much balance and fairness in it as one would like, but at least everyone got a game. Scheps is now banned from being responsible for the relay boards and the Ukranians have returned to the Ukraine, so I don't suppose we'll use that movement again. The worst part was scoring it. The particular movement was not in the YC computer library, so I had to edit in every last sorry detail of the movement before I could score up. To reiterate, Herman on this occasion was right. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 18 05:56:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA28096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 May 2000 05:56:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta02-svc.server.ntlworld.com (mta02-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.42] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA28091 for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 05:56:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.253.85.201]) by mta02-svc.server.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000517205556.KSMN10065.mta02-svc.server.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 20:55:56 +0000 Message-ID: <000901bfc03a$90c48e60$c955fd3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" References: <39226F9C.C95859C@village.uunet.be><001201bfbffe$199ed020$8959fd3e@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: Antwerp Mixed Pairs Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 21:00:34 +0100 Organization: X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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: John (MadDog) Probst To: Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 5:16 PM Subject: Re: Antwerp Mixed Pairs > In article <001201bfbffe$199ed020$8959fd3e@vnmvhhid>, anne_jones > writes > >> > >> I don't believe I have done anything wrong, and I don't > >> invite comments from the readers per se. A non-reply of the > >> list will also convince my friends, whom I congratulate with > >> their second place, that my actions were according to the > >> book, and consistent. > >> > >Sorry Herman. I would not have done it this way. But that does > >matter. There are procedures for appeal, and this is the way > >complaints should be dealt with. The players who are unhappy > >should have put up the deposit, or shut up. It is no doubt too > >late now. > > You can't appeal a director's ruling on a point of Law, only on a matter > of judgement. > John (MadDog) Probst I believe there has been a misapplication of Law 15, and a failure to apply Law 12 when it would have been correct to do so. I can appeal. But that is not really what this is about. Herman is asking if he acted correctly. What do you think? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 18 06:37:56 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA28695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 May 2000 06:37:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta02-svc.server.ntlworld.com (mta02-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.42] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA28686 for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 06:37:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.253.89.145]) by mta02-svc.server.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000517213717.KWRO10065.mta02-svc.server.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 21:37:17 +0000 Message-ID: <000f01bfc040$3f63ac80$9159fd3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" References: <39226F9C.C95859C@village.uunet.be> <3eYoTQBgSsI5Ewb6@probst.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Antwerp Mixed Pairs Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 21:41:14 +0100 Organization: X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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: John (MadDog) Probst To: Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 5:11 PM Subject: Re: Antwerp Mixed Pairs > In article <39226F9C.C95859C@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael > writes > >Hello blml-ers, > > > >I have been asked by a competitor of the recent Antwerp > >Mixed Pairs to explain a set of rulings I gave. > >I want to do this via this forum. > > I am in complete agreement with Herman's actions. People drag themselves > down to the bridge club to play bridge, not to sit-out for half an hour > drinking Belgian coffee and eating Belgian chocolate. He is to be > congratulated for enhancing the players' life expectancies as well as > resolving a glitch in the movement. > > Given that the Law allows for people playing the wrong boards then the > Law accepts this may create an imbalance in the movement. Under the > circumstances one tries to get as many people playing bridge as > possible, with no regard for the "fairness" involved. > > Digression: We experimented a few months ago with the "Ukranian" > movement - created jointly by a pair of Ukranians and Adrian Scheps at > the YC. The movement was 7 1/2 tables so I set out 3 board rounds share > and relay. For two rounds Adrian didn't bother to put the relay into > circulation. Meanwhile the Ukranians didn't bother to sit out, and the > pair who got overtaken spent 45 minutes in the bar chatting up Wendy > (Nobody minds sit-outs at the YC, when there's Wendy in the bar). About > the fourth round the Ukranians bumped into a set of boards they'd > already played (Well they'd jumped one place and the boards jumped one > place so it all blew up one round early). > > Having re-assembled all the boards and players onto the right tables I > now started some serious board sharing (you get more flexibility later > on in the movement) and we wound up with everyone playing all the rounds > except for one table that had to sit out the last round as there were > just no boards left they both hadn't already played. I fined absolutely > everyone, including Wendy for holding the pair up. > And yourself for not making sure everyone got it right?:-) Seriously, I have had movements go wrong, I have had relays played out of order, I have saved a movement by having lots of sharing of boards. I know what you are saying, but I'll bet that in this rehashed movement, you went round looking for boards that had not been played, and did not make people play an opponent twice, if there were other opps that had not been played. > > I don't suppose this movement had as much balance and fairness in it as > one would like, but at least everyone got a game. Scheps is now banned > from being responsible for the relay boards and the Ukranians have > returned to the Ukraine, so I don't suppose we'll use that movement > again. The worst part was scoring it. The particular movement was not > in the YC computer library, so I had to edit in every last sorry detail > of the movement before I could score up. > Yes - it's great fun, but Herman was running a 2 session competition, and the law allows for this mistake, and advocates an art adj. This is what I believe Herman should have done. > Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 18 09:41:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA00121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 May 2000 09:41:16 +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 JAA00103 for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 09:41:09 +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; Wed, 17 May 2000 19:37:25 -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; Wed, 17 May 2000 19:28:44 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <39226F9C.C95859C@village.uunet.be> <001201bfbffe$199ed020$8959fd3e@vnmvhhid> Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 19:35:41 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Antwerp Mixed Pairs Cc: "John Probst" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >You can't appeal a director's ruling on a point of Law, only on a matter >of judgement. Uh, the relevant law (93B3) says that an appeals committee can't _overrule_ the TD on a point of law, but can recommend the TD reconsider his ruling. It does _not_ say you can't appeal. 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/AwUBOSMuBb2UW3au93vOEQIcGACgzUgQ938JHBjx9zadEe5Zs/7hACgAn37n qvxRZnfEwTFatwIsjjfbwSX4 =4L8y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 18 10:47:11 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA00435 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 May 2000 10:47:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from gadolinium (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA00430 for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 10:47:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.11.14] (helo=davidburn) by gadolinium with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12sESi-0004LP-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 May 2000 01:46:52 +0100 Message-ID: <003d01bfc062$195fcce0$0e0b073e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <200005171507.LAA05626@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: law45C2 Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 01:43:34 +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 Steve wrote: > > From: "David Burn" > > > Grattan: care to make a note to consider deleting both commas? > > > > That won't quite work. In this sentence: > > > > Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up, touching or > > nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to > > indicate that it has been played. > > > > the phrases: "held face up", "touching or nearly touching the table", > > and "maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been > > played", are (or can be read as) adjectival clauses modifying "card". > > I suppose you are right, but it looks strange to me. "Declarer must > play a card from his hand touching or nearly touching the table?" > There is something missing, but I'm not a good enough grammarian to say > exactly what's wrong. Put in a verb like 'held', though, and the > sentence is fine. Yes, of course it is, which is why the words are as they are. The intention, remember, was that a card must be played if it was (a) face up and (b) touching the table, which is what you and I as bridge players would expect, and what the writers of the Laws meant to say. However, the Laws should be written so that a non-bridge-player, or a Martian, would come to the same conclusion about what they mean as a bridge player would. A Martian would have no difficulty with the notion that a card is legally a played card if it is either held face up, or touching the table - only a bridge player would "know" that there is no reason why a card held face down should be a played card however close it may be to the table. >From a grammatical point of view, "held" is no more (and no less) of a "verb" than "touching" is; both are participles - the former a past participle, the latter a present participle - and as such both are (syntactically) not verbs at all but adjectives, describing the possible states of a card. The same applies, of course, to "maintained". > I don't think deleting the first comma is the whole solution. If you > do that, there is no need for the second comma before 'or'. Is the > solution to add an explicit subject for the second clause? > > Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up touching or nearly > touching the table or a card maintained in such a position as to > indicate that it has been played. That would work perfectly. The reason for the comma before the second "or" is purely cosmetic; in English, one uses a comma not only for semantic reasons, but to insert a natural break in a sentence where the reader might draw a breath or pause to regroup his ideas. The preceding sentence would, for example, be correctly and unambiguously punctuated if it contained no comma at all (as indeed would the current sentence). But as a matter of style, such unpunctuated sentences would be considered abhorrent. It is important to realise, moreover, that your proposed wording (and the wording of the actual Law) contains only three verbs: "must", "play" and "indicate". "Held", "touching" and "maintained" are not verbs. > It's interesting that there seems to be universal agreement on the > intended meaning, even though there are several different lines of > reasoning to reach the conclusion. Oh, quite so. Everybody knows what the Laws mean. From time to time, however, it occurs to some of us to wonder why they do not say it. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 18 10:49:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA00458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 May 2000 10:49:18 +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 KAA00453 for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 10:49:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.191] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12sEUm-0004z1-00; Thu, 18 May 2000 01:49:00 +0100 Message-ID: <006101bfc063$044e5140$425608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , References: <39226F9C.C95859C@village.uunet.be><001201bfbffe$199ed020$8959fd3e@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: Antwerp Mixed Pairs Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 01:48:35 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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, May 17, 2000 5:16 PM Subject: Re: Antwerp Mixed Pairs > In article <001201bfbffe$199ed020$8959fd3e@vnmvhhid>, anne_jones > writes > >> > >> I don't believe I have done anything wrong, and I don't > >> invite comments from the readers per se. A non-reply of the > >> list will also convince my friends, whom I congratulate with > >> their second place, that my actions were according to the > >> book, and consistent. > >> > >Sorry Herman. I would not have done it this way. But that does > >matter. There are procedures for appeal, and this is the way > >complaints should be dealt with. The players who are unhappy > >should have put up the deposit, or shut up. It is no doubt too > >late now. >::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > You can't appeal a director's ruling on a point of Law, only on a matter of judgement. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: +=+ This last bit needs to be rephrased. See 93B1. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 18 11:05:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA00522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 May 2000 11:05:18 +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 LAA00517 for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 11:05:10 +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 12sEkF-000NaL-0X for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 May 2000 02:05:00 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 02:04:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: A bit quiet References: <54EFquAVzUI5Ew4z@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000001bfbf66$86437340$2d8a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.de> <200005171537.LAA16220@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> In-Reply-To: <200005171537.LAA16220@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <200005171537.LAA16220@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>, Michael Farebrother writes snip > But more are suspect than it >seems in other parts of the world, and I can't rememeber the last time >any TD but me opened up the FLB *at the table, while ruling*. In 6 >years of tournament bridge here, I can't remember it.) - well, I agree >with the ACBL laws commission to not bring L12C3 into effect... > >*Until* we have educated our AC's better (and from the sounds of things, >we're getting there fast), our TD's better (see previous para.), and our >audience better (this is by far the hardest thing to do, because we >haven't bothered for the last 15 years or so.) This as I see it is what the EBU did, starting about 15 years ago, when TD exams, training weekends etc. were set up. The process of education has now gotten down to the players themselves. My perception is that TD calls are considered normal "Let's ask the TD, ok?" being the sort of thing players say to each other. "Thank you Director" being a norm at the end of a ruling. It took a lot of hard work by the EBU CTD and luminaries such as DALB and DWS to get there. Arriving later on the scene (I've only been a serious TD for the last 7 or 8 years) what I see is a game where generally the players respect the Law and the TDs and where it is a pleasure for both sides when a problem is resolved. It doesn't mean everyone is happy, but mostly everyone accepts it. > >Michael. > >P.S. South is tight in 4S with the following layout (trumps are gone): presume you mean he's already lost 3 tricks > >-- >AQx >Qx >x > >Tx >KJxx >-- >-- > >And claims, "Diamond Q pitching a heart". *East* then shows the DA and >calls the director. Any objections to 4S=? Any objections to 4S-1 if >there was any way to play the hearts wrong (i.e. if they hadn't been >solid in any way)? Any objections to 4S-1 if *West* had held the DA? > >I'm pretty certain I'm on solid ground here, but this has raised quite a >stink among the "favoured regulars" at the club...mdf Careless players play Q's under Kings when taking finesses. This careless player is pitching a H on the DQ (Ace appearing or no). Down 1 cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 18 13:51:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA02565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 May 2000 13:51:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA02560 for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 13:51:22 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA13454 for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 13:49:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 18 May 2000 13:49:14 +0000 (EST) Subject: PPs on TDs To: Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 13:47:44 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 18/05/2000 01:47:05 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Last night I was playing Director at my local club. I was called to a table by a pair who claimed that their opponents had given misinformation. After questioning the players, I discovered that what had actually occurred was failure to Alert. I then had to decide if there was any consequent damage and, if so, what adjusted score to award. As a result of this process I became intimately acquainted with the nature of the deal. So when the board arrived at my table at the next round, I ruled under L88 that both my side and my opponents would be awarded Ave+. However, in the Australian code of ethics for TDs, it states that (where possible) playing directors should defer any ruling on a board that they have not yet played. So I should have awarded a PP against myself under L90B7. Naturally, I would have appealed my own ruling, since it was made by a self-admitted incompetent TD. My question is: Do I have to notify myself of my appeal verbally, or can notification be through UI? Best wishes Richard Hills richard.hills@immi.gov.au From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 18 18:11:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA03180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 May 2000 18:11:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep2.mail.ozemail.net (fep2.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.122]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA03175 for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 18:10:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from rbusch.ozemail.com.au (1cust38.tnt3.bne1.da.uu.net [210.84.85.38]) by fep2.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA15091; Thu, 18 May 2000 18:10:39 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000518175411.00aa701c@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 17:54:11 +1000 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Reg Busch Subject: Re: UI from Brisbane In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.20000515180704.00a9df14@ozemail.com.au> <3.0.1.32.20000515180704.00a9df14@ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 00:45 17/05/2000 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Reg Busch wrote: >>David Stevenson copied from RGB: > >>>After West & North passed, East opened the bidding with 2S. South >>>queried West, and was told that the bid showed 5+/5+ in Spades & a >>>Minor, either weak or strong (less than 5 losers). South now doubled. >>>West, in tempo, bid 3S, immediately alerted by East. Without inquiry, >>>North bid 4H in tempo. West bid 4S, also in tempo. South baulked, then >>>asked for explanation of the auction. South was told that the 3S bid >>>could be anything from zero points up to a 14-count, and the only >>>certainty was Spade support. South was also told that by agreement, >>>East's bid of 4S showed the strong option. South hesitated for a few >>>seconds, and then said "This is all too complicated for me!" whilst >>>passing. West passed in tempo, and after ten seconds or so, North bid >>>5H. East reserved his rights, and the contract was passed out. The >>>Spade ace was led, and a switch to the club King saw West retain the >>>lead. Unable to get East on lead, the defence was finished & 5H was >>>scored up. You are called as Tournament Director - what do you decide? > >>You are asked to decide how you would rule as TD, so perhaps it's best if >>you know the facts as presented at the table to the TD, not as presented >>above. Firstly, whilst it was claimed and not disputed that South hesitated >>for some time before passing, there was no mention of any remarks made by >>South (though this was brought up at appeal). Secondly, there was no >>mention to the TD of the explanation that the 4S bid showed the 'strong' >>option. > > I asked the original poster to comment. He has said that he is >certain that the TD was told South had made comments, and he is certain >that the TD was told the 4S bid showed the strong option. > All I can say is that I was the director concerned, and I have no recollection whatsoever of these facts which the original poster is so certain of. I was quite surprised when the AC Chairman later commented to me about South's reported remarks. Incidentally the AC upheld my ruling. Reg. > >-- >David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > As an experiment please use these new addresses: comments appreciated >Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm >Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 19 01:12:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA04878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 May 2000 00:59:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA04868 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 00:59:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-24.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.24]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA21000 for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 16:59:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3923D332.493F7F6B@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 13:25:38 +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: PPs on TDs References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > However, in the Australian code of ethics for TDs, it states that (where > possible) playing directors should defer any ruling on a board that they > have not yet played. > > So I should have awarded a PP against myself under L90B7. Naturally, I > would have appealed my own ruling, since it was made by a self-admitted > incompetent TD. My question is: Do I have to notify myself of my appeal > verbally, or can notification be through UI? > I believe the correct way of sending in such an appeal is by ways of blml. :-) Then we all get to write what we think. Which means that those that disagree will write, and 200 others will silently sit by agreeing. And then you just feel sadder. I believe you acted in the best interest of the tournament. If they allow you to play in it, they should allow you to score the occasional Av+ as well. I hope this cheers you up ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 19 02:12:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA04877 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 May 2000 00:59:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA04867 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 00:59:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-24.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.24]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA20986 for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 16:59:31 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3923D1D7.2398043A@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 13:19:51 +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: Antwerp Mixed Pairs References: <200005171515.LAA05644@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: Herman De Wael > > It is not my habit to throw penalties around for failure to > > correctly play according to the guidecard. > > Shouldn't this be a matter of SO policy rather than TD habit? > Being the member of the District Board directly responsible for the tournaments, I would quallify as SO as well as TD. > The ACBL _Duplicate Decisions_ is vague. "Any error in procedure > (failure to count cards, playing the wrong board)" is "subject to > penalty," but I don't see guidelines on when a penalty should in fact > be given. > > > Now I simply have to rule this board > > unplayable for pairs 8 and 18, award Average+ to both, and, > > according to L90B7, give a procedural penalty to the pairs > > involved, 13 and 4. > > It seems strange to let issuance of a PP depend on whether or not the > bidding in the replay happens to go the same way it did the first > time. The offense is the same either way. > It does seem strange, indeed. > Perhaps the PP should go only to the pair who *started the auction* on > a board they had already played. That's what prevented the board from > being played later. That is, of course, if you haven't already given > a PP simply for playing the wrong boards. > Yes, perhaps I should have. Wouldn't have made a difference, that was also the winning pair. > Do other SO's have guidelines for these situations? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 19 03:12:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA04900 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 May 2000 01:03:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (root@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA04895 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 01:03:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA14099 for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 11:02:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200005181502.LAA14099@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: PPs on TDs Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 11:02:09 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 18 May 2000 at 13:47, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Last night I was playing Director at my local club. I was called to a >table by a pair who claimed that their opponents had given misinformation. >After questioning the players, I discovered that what had actually occurred >was failure to Alert. I then had to decide if there was any consequent >damage and, if so, what adjusted score to award. > >As a result of this process I became intimately acquainted with the nature >of the deal. So when the board arrived at my table at the next round, I >ruled under L88 that both my side and my opponents would be awarded Ave+. > >However, in the Australian code of ethics for TDs, it states that (where >possible) playing directors should defer any ruling on a board that they >have not yet played. > >So I should have awarded a PP against myself under L90B7. Naturally, I >would have appealed my own ruling, since it was made by a self-admitted >incompetent TD. My question is: Do I have to notify myself of my appeal >verbally, or can notification be through UI? And are you appealing the TD's ruling, or are you using your power as TD to send it to an automatic appeal? And as the chief TD, selecting the appeals committee members is your responsibility. Are you going to risk another PP for breaching the code of ethics again and doing so, despite your obvious conflict of interest, or are you going to risk censure for abrogating that responsibility? And remember, the AC can't overrule you on a point of law, just recommend you reconsider. If they do, what is your decision, based on that same "code of ethics"? Great question, Richard. Should keep us going around in circles for weeks (but then again, what's new about that?) Michael. From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 19 03:12:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA05424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 May 2000 03:12:26 +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 DAA05419 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 03:12:19 +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 NAA00288 for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 13:12:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA12668 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 May 2000 13:12:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 13:12:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200005181712.NAA12668@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Australia LA definition Reply-To: willner@cfa.harvard.edu X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A poster on RGB wrote the following: > Since this Australia, the standard for an LA is an action that one in > four people might find I thought I remembered that the rule in Australia was closer to one in ten or twenty. Could somebody please tell us the correct rule? From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 19 07:12:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA06786 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 May 2000 07:12:24 +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 HAA06772 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 07:12:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.143] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12sXaM-0007u6-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 May 2000 22:12:02 +0100 Message-ID: <002d01bfc10d$e07eb880$8f5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <54EFquAVzUI5Ew4z@blakjak.demon.co.uk><000001bfbf66$86437340$2d8a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.de><200005171537.LAA16220@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Subject: Re: A bit quiet Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 08:07:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 2:04 AM Subject: Re: A bit quiet > > This as I see it is what the EBU did, starting about 15 years ago, when > TD exams, training weekends etc. were set up. The process of education > has now gotten down to the players themselves +=+ Er, risen to +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 19 07:12:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA06787 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 May 2000 07:12:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA06770 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 07:12:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.143] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12sXaJ-0007u6-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 May 2000 22:12:00 +0100 Message-ID: <002b01bfc10d$deed6a20$8f5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <200005171507.LAA05626@cfa183.harvard.edu> <003d01bfc062$195fcce0$0e0b073e@davidburn> Subject: Re: law45C2 Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 07:49:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 1:43 AM Subject: Re: law45C2 > Steve wrote: > > > > From: "David Burn" > ____________ \x/ _______________ > > It's interesting that there seems to be universal agreement on the > > intended meaning, even though there are several different lines of > > reasoning to reach the conclusion. > > Oh, quite so. Everybody knows what the Laws mean. From time to time, > however, it occurs to some of us to wonder why they do not say it. > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ Since there can have been no anticipation of the need to provide subjects for international electronic debate, it must have been to create the need for interpretation - lawyers should never write the law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 19 07:12:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA06785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 May 2000 07:12:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA06771 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 07:12:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.143] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12sXaL-0007u6-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 May 2000 22:12:01 +0100 Message-ID: <002c01bfc10d$dfc616e0$8f5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: Subject: Re: PPs on TDs Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 08:00:33 +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, May 18, 2000 4:47 AM Subject: PPs on TDs > Last night I was playing Director at my local club +=+ It is more fun than playing bridge, they say. +=+ -------- \x/ --------- >. My question is: Do I have to notify myself of my appeal > verbally, or can notification be through UI? > +=+ You should put the question to the Director. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 19 08:52:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA07199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 May 2000 08:52:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA07194 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 08:52:42 +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 SAA14895 for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 18:52:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA13120 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 May 2000 18:52:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 18:52:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200005182252.SAA13120@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A bit quiet Reply-To: willner@cfa.harvard.edu X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > Careless players play Q's under Kings when taking finesses. This > careless player is pitching a H on the DQ (Ace appearing or no). I'm surprised you go that far even at the YC. Don't you think it would be irrational to pitch instead of ruff _when you see the opponent's ace appear_? I would be astonished at your ruling at any venue in North America. It's true that players at the table sometimes play irrationally, but we don't rule claims that way. From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 19 14:49:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA08276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 May 2000 14:49:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from rsc.anu.edu.au (rsc [150.203.35.129]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA08271 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 14:49:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from medvesajt.anu.edu.au (medvesajt.anu.edu.au [150.203.35.241]) by rsc.anu.edu.au (8.10.0/8.10.0) with SMTP id e4J4nOK17428 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 14:49:25 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 14:49:24 +1000 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@medvesajt.anu.edu.au To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Convention disruption In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 15 May 2000, David Stevenson wrote: > I do not suggest it is *desirable*, but I am sure it is *legal* under > L40D for an SO to make a condition of playing a convention that it is > not forgotten. Thus, forgetting it becomes an offence and can be > penalised under L90. What is more the Australian regulations do tend to > support this. I can't recall the wording of the relevant ABF regulations (they tend to get aired only at national championships) but having been threatened with a PP in a similar situation last year I went and read them, and a TD at an ABF event is able to assess some penalty (a PP I presume) for a pattern of "convention disruption" (not the wording used in the regulations) and to require a modification to the bidding system in extreme cases. The exact wording I don't have, but an isolated case is clearly not subject to TD action. Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 19 15:12:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA08346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 May 2000 15:12:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from new-smtp1.ihug.com.au (root@new-smtp1.ihug.com.au [203.109.250.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA08341 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 15:12:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (p29-max5.mel.ihug.com.au [209.79.140.93]) by new-smtp1.ihug.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA17197 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 15:12:02 +1000 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000519150922.009d3b00@pop.ihug.com.au> X-Sender: lskelso@pop.ihug.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 15:09:22 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Laurie & Sue Kelso Subject: Re: Australia LA definition In-Reply-To: <200005181712.NAA12668@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 13:12 18/05/00 -0400, you wrote: >A poster on RGB wrote the following: >> Since this Australia, the standard for an LA is an action that one in >> four people might find > >I thought I remembered that the rule in Australia was closer to one >in ten or twenty. Could somebody please tell us the correct rule? No, the current Australian position is as stated above, i.e. one and four. Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 19 18:00:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA08780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 May 2000 18:00:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA08775 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 18:00:31 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA26796 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 17:58:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 19 May 2000 17:58:23 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: Convention disruption To: Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 17:56:52 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 19/05/2000 05:56:14 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: "I do not suggest it is *desirable*, but I am sure it is *legal* under L40D for an SO to make a condition of playing a convention that it is not forgotten. Thus, forgetting it becomes an offence and can be penalised under L90. What is more the Australian regulations do tend to support this." Mark Abraham replied: "I can't recall the wording of the relevant ABF regulations (they tend to get aired only at national championships) but having been threatened with a PP in a similar situation last year I went and read them, and a TD at an ABF event is able to assess some penalty (a PP I presume) for a pattern of "convention disruption" (not the wording used in the regulations) and to require a modification to the bidding system in extreme cases. The exact wording I don't have, but an isolated case is clearly not subject to TD action." Coincidentally, the just-released issue of Australian Bridge magazine has a column on this issue by Matthew McManus, sometimes CTD of Australian National Championships, and also President of the Australian Bridge Tournament Directors Association. Matthew McManus wrote: "It has been a practice in some circles to penalise players when they make wrong bids (especially when playing a complex system) on the basis that they should "know their system." This has occurred even when the mistake has not resulted in any damage to the opponents. The practice has always had a tenuous legal basis and a recent interpretation of the relevant laws by the World Bridge Federation Laws Commission has reaffirmed that procedural penalties in such circumstances are not appropriate." "If a player gives an incorrect explanation of his partner's call, then redress for damage may be available under Laws 75 and 40C. However, if the player's explanation is correct (partner has just made the wrong bid), there will generally be no redress for the opponents." [snip] "Players who are regularly getting the system wrong (with the emphasis on "regularly") may be subject to some other action by the director. Generally, the most appropriate would be for the director to require that the pair play a more simple system, where, hopefully, they will make less systemic errors. However, imposing procedural penalties for occasional errors is acting outside the laws." This reminds me of the selection event for the 1976 Australian team, which back then was a week-long Butler Pairs. A recently formed partnership decided to play the arcane New South Wales system. So of course, early on in the event they lost several adjusted scores for misinformation. However, the TD did not require them to play a simpler system. So the pair practised active ethics by announcing to every opponent that there was a strong chance that any explanation would not correspond to partner's hand. What was most amusing was that this pair scored first place! Best wishes Richard Hills richard.hills@immi.gov.au From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 19 18:13:22 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA08822 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 May 2000 18:13:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta01-svc.server.ntlworld.com (mta01-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA08817 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 18:13:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.253.84.7]) by mta01-svc.server.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000519081304.YNGR381.mta01-svc.server.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 09:13:04 +0100 Message-ID: <001301bfc16a$a1c50100$0754fd3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" References: <39226F9C.C95859C@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Antwerp Mixed Pairs Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 09:17:10 +0100 Organization: X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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 ; Yael Yseboodt Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 11:08 AM Subject: Antwerp Mixed Pairs I think this is a very good example of Law 15 in action. It is clearly wrong to implement Law 15A1, and Law 15A2. The outcome of this would be that 2, or maybe 4 pairs would end up gatting scores on more boards than the rest of the field. > However Herman has managed to find a way around this. In order to implement L15A2, he has stopped a pair who were scheduled to play against each other from playing the boards they were scheduled to play on a subsequent round.The result being that all players played the same number of boards. > The lack of mail on this subject makes me think that BLMLers think Herman was right. If this is so, do you think Law 15A should read, either or both of the following L15A1/Law15A2. Anne > Hello blml-ers, > > I have been asked by a competitor of the recent Antwerp > Mixed Pairs to explain a set of rulings I gave. > I want to do this via this forum. > > I copy this to her, so if I expand a bit much of the Laws, > understand that this is for the benefit of a non-TD reader. > > The second session of the Antwerp Mixed Pairs (18 pairs) is > a double Howell. I get called during round 5. > > Pair 13 (the eventual winners) tell me that they have > already played board 1. It turns out they have played it > the round before. > At that time, I also get called at another table, by pair > 13, who are trying to play board 3, which they also > recognise. > > Indeed, pairs 13 and 4 had met during the previous round, > and had played boards 1-4 in stead of 13-16, as they should > have. > > By a sheer coincidence they are now both supposed to play > boards 1-4, simultaneously. > > - Laws interlude - > > Law 15A1 is very clear : since none of the 4 players had > previously played the boards, their scores on boards 1-4 > should count as normal. > > Law 15A2 tells that the Director MAY require both pairs to > play the correct boards against one another later. > > Law 15B says that their opponents cannot play the board and > should get an artificial score. > > Law 8A1 gives the TD the power to instruct the players as to > the proper movement. > > - end interlude - > > It is my habit to always try and save as many boards as > possible. > > In this instance, that proved very simple. Since all 4 > pairs were now unable to play boards 1-4 against their > correct opponents, there was ample time to instruct them to > do otherwise. > > So I told pairs 8 and 18 to now play boards 1-4, which > allowed pairs 13 and 4 to play the correct boards 13-16 that > they should have played in the previous round. > > Note that the Laws award me the power to instruct the > players to play these boards, and they are not allowed to > refuse to do so. > > I don't know if I would have ordered them to play them after > the end of the tournament (which finished after midnight, 36 > boards played in an evening !), but since they had the time > anyway, there was no doubt that I was doing the right thing. > > That is where our present co-reader comes in. Lying second > after the first session, and finishing second overall, they > contest my right to order this mix-up, and complain that > pair 13 now have met pair 4 twice, while qualifying this > pair 4 as a weak one. > > My response to this is that it would be very unfair of me to > not impose the -in my view- correct procedure based on the > names and places of the people involved. If the pairs were > reversed, and pair 4 would have been far stronger, it would > be the eventual winners who might complain that they had to > face them twice, but my ruling should have been the same. > > A second complaint was regarding penalties. > > - Law interlude > > Law 90A tells the TD that he can award Procedural Penalties > for, among others "any offence that inconveniences other > contestants". This certainly falls in that category. > > Law 90B7 says that offenses subject to penalty include > "errors in procedure that require an adjusted score for any > contestant". > > - end interlude > > It is not my habit to throw penalties around for failure to > correctly play according to the guidecard. I have not done > so at that time. > There is certainly no reason for me to award penalties > simply because the pair at fault are lying first, and the > pair lying second asks me to award penalties. I feel I have > to follow my own internal consistency, which does not > include awarding a penalty for this mistake. > > However, you may remember that pairs 13 and 18 had started > the bidding on board 1. When they start playing the board > again, pair 8 start the bidding differently than pair 13 did > the first time. Now I simply have to rule this board > unplayable for pairs 8 and 18, award Average+ to both, and, > according to L90B7, give a procedural penalty to the pairs > involved, 13 and 4. > > I did in fact give a PP of 10%, which is the standard I > always use. > > I don't believe I have done anything wrong, and I don't > invite comments from the readers per se. A non-reply of the > list will also convince my friends, whom I congratulate with > their second place, that my actions were according to the > book, and consistent. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 19 20:04:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA09338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 May 2000 20:04:27 +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 UAA09331 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 20:04:15 +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 12sjdR-000FFh-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 May 2000 10:04:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 23:52:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claim jumping References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David J. Grabiner wrote: >At 1:27 PM +1000 5/17/00, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >>A few years ago, I chaired an appeals committee which ruled on a disputed >>claim. The facts were as follows: >> >>In a Swiss Teams match between average players and some visiting expert >>sharks, an average declarer in 5D claimed, announcing that she was drawing >>trumps. The sharks disputed the claim, because if declarer won the final >>round of trumps in the wrong hand, then there would be no access to the >>other hand's established winners to provide necessary discards. >> >>The Director routinely ruled in favour of the sharks, but advised declarer >>to appeal. The committee unanimously ruled that declarer was of >>sufficiently strong standard that it would be "irrational" for her to lock >>herself in the wrong hand. > >The director should have ruled in declarer's favor if the facts are as >given here. This could well have been an abuse of process by the experts. > >If the director wasn't sure whether the line was rational, and couldn't >determine it, then he might rule in favor of the defenders. > >If this was under the current laws, the director should have appealed the >ruling himself. Otherwise, if the claimer decided not to appeal, the >experts would have unjustly gained points. I don't like that answer. That seems an abuse of process by the Director. If he knows his ruling is wrong he should rule the other way. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK As an experiment please use these new addresses: comments appreciated Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 19 20:04:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA09326 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 May 2000 20:04:01 +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 UAA09319 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 20:03:52 +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 LAA24228 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 11:03:43 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA05667 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 11:03:42 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Fri, 19 May 2000 10:03:41 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 LAA13391 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 11:03:40 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id LAA16156 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 May 2000 11:03:39 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 11:03:39 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200005191003.LAA16156@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Antwerp Mixed Pairs X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > > The lack of mail on this subject makes me think that BLMLers > think Herman was right. > If this is so, do you think Law 15A should read, either or both of the > following L15A1/Law15A2. > Anne > Anne I think it is very wrong to assign any meaning to lack of mail from BLML on given topic. Respondents may be bored, or having an email discussion on another topic, or playing/directing, or getting a life. My experience is that EBU directors do not really believe L15A1. Twice last year I was more-or-less admonished for trying to allow scores from misplayed board to stand. Basically the scoring software can not cope: I needed to enter the scores for the boards against each pair of pairs that should have played one another. The TDics said I should use the word "normally" in L15A1 to say that I do not need to allow the score to stand. Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: 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 May 19 20:05:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA09364 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 May 2000 20:05:00 +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 UAA09340 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 20:04:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12sjda-000FFg-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 May 2000 10:04:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 23:48:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: law45C2 References: <200005162239.SAA28965@cfa183.harvard.edu> <002f01bfbfdc$8b756460$179701d5@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <002f01bfbfdc$8b756460$179701d5@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >Removing the first comma would be a great step in the right direction: > >Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up touching or >nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to >indicate that it has been played. > >but begs the question: what does "maintained in such a position as to >indicate that it has been played" mean, over and above "held face up >touching or nearly touching the table"? After all, per L45A, a played >card is only a card placed face up on the table by the player, which >is covered by the first clause. In what other way can a card be >"maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been >played"? I suppose that if a player sticks the card to his forehead in a joking manner then I could rule it as played under this clause. I think there are other occasions [a bit more sensible] but I cannot remember them now. I still like something which basically says "If he has obviously played it then he has played it" which is the effect of this clause. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK As an experiment please use these new addresses: comments appreciated Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 19 20:12:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA09383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 May 2000 20:05:25 +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 UAA09368 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 20:05:06 +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 12sjdp-000FFf-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 May 2000 10:04:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 00:21:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Australia LA definition References: <200005181712.NAA12668@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200005181712.NAA12668@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >A poster on RGB wrote the following: >> Since this Australia, the standard for an LA is an action that one in >> four people might find > >I thought I remembered that the rule in Australia was closer to one >in ten or twenty. Could somebody please tell us the correct rule? One in four. The general rules are Players of similar ability playing similar methods are considered: an LA is a call or play that: GBritain At least three out of ten would choose Denmark and Sweden More than an insignificant minority would choose ACBL and the Netherlands A number would at least consider seriously Rest of the World At least one out of four would choose These rules have been confirmed to me by readers of this list from Denmark, ACBL, South Africa, Austria, Australia, Wales and England. Other confirmation or otherwise would be appreciated. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK As an experiment please use these new addresses: comments appreciated Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 19 20:41:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA09507 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 May 2000 20:41:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from neptun.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 ESMTP id UAA09502 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 20:41:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uniduesseldorf.de (Isis215.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.215]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0FUS00BA7YXXAQ@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 May 2000 12:39:35 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 12:39:33 +0200 From: Richard Bley Subject: RE: Australia LA definition In-reply-to: To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <000201bfc17e$857460e0$d78a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.de> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >I thought I remembered that the rule in Australia was closer to one > >in ten or twenty. Could somebody please tell us the correct rule? > > One in four. > > The general rules are > > > Players of similar ability playing similar methods are > considered: an > LA is a call or play that: > > GBritain > At least three out of ten would choose > > Denmark and Sweden > More than an insignificant minority would choose > > ACBL and the Netherlands > A number would at least consider seriously > > Rest of the World > At least one out of four would choose > Another one: Germany generally three out of four: no ther LA. But: If there are more LA, but no 75% action, and this Alternative becomes more attractive because of the UI of pard, this action is a use of UI. Difference: If there are two possible actions -> NO difference But if there are more actions possible, then the quota could be quite less than 25% for a LA. Oh well, Richard > > These rules have been confirmed to me by readers of this list from > Denmark, ACBL, South Africa, Austria, Australia, Wales and England. > > Other confirmation or otherwise would be appreciated. > > -- > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > > As an experiment please use these new addresses: comments > appreciated > Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm > From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 19 23:12:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA09924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 May 2000 22:30:42 +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 WAA09919 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 22:30:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from comarch.pl (pcciborowski.comarch.pl [195.116.125.138]) by omicron.comarch.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26FCD5C04C for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 14:26:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39253314.530B82C6@comarch.pl> Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 14:27:00 +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: PPs on TDs References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk richard.hills@immi.gov.au pressed the following keys: > > Last night I was playing Director at my local club. I was called to a > table by a pair who claimed that their opponents had given misinformation. > After questioning the players, I discovered that what had actually occurred > was failure to Alert. I then had to decide if there was any consequent > damage and, if so, what adjusted score to award. > > As a result of this process I became intimately acquainted with the nature > of the deal. So when the board arrived at my table at the next round, I > ruled under L88 that both my side and my opponents would be awarded Ave+. What was the movement? If it was Mitchell or Howell and you were the stationary pair (recommended for the playing TD) then you could easily see that you'll be playing this deal and you could postpone your ruling until the next round. If it was Howell and you were the moving pair then it was more difficult to see but again I think the best thing a playing TD can do is to postpone his ruling until he plays the deal himself. -- *********************************************************************** - One school believes that high taxes are most profitable for the poor as there is more money in the budget for social purposes. The other one claims that low taxes are better for the poor as the rich ones can keep more money for investments that give work to the unemployed ones etc. Which side does your party support? - Both of these schools are right but we reject both viewpoints. ( from a TV debate before the elections in a certain European country ) Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 19 23:45:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA10378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 May 2000 23:45:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe33.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.90]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA10373 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 23:45:46 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 7796 invoked by uid 65534); 19 May 2000 13:45:08 -0000 Message-ID: <20000519134508.7795.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.13.88] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <39226F9C.C95859C@village.uunet.be> <001301bfc16a$a1c50100$0754fd3e@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: Antwerp Mixed Pairs Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 08:46:06 -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: anne_jones To: BLML Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 3:17 AM Subject: Re: Antwerp Mixed Pairs > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws ; Yael Yseboodt > > Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 11:08 AM > Subject: Antwerp Mixed Pairs > > I think this is a very good example of Law 15 in action. > It is clearly wrong to implement Law 15A1, and Law 15A2. > The outcome of this would be that 2, or maybe 4 pairs would > end up gatting scores on more boards than the rest of the field. > > > However Herman has managed to find a way around this. > In order to implement L15A2, he has stopped a pair who were > scheduled to play against each other from playing the boards > they were scheduled to play on a subsequent round.The result being > that all players played the same number of boards. > > > The lack of mail on this subject makes me think that BLMLers > think Herman was right. > If this is so, do you think Law 15A should read, either or both of the > following L15A1/Law15A2. > Anne I am not inclined to accept that the words of 15A1 and 15A2 make, in and of themselves, application of one incompatible with concurrent application of the other, unlikely perhaps, but not incompatible. The situation Herman presented made it possible to achieve the number of comparisons originally planned for each board, albeit not between all of the planned contestants. For instance, a late contestant shows up. 8A1 provides the director the mechanism to change the original plan and add a table. The director's function is to do so in as fair as way as possible. The players were available, albeit not to play as originally planned, but available. It sounds like Herman handled the state of affairs with competence. I note that Herman stated that there were two stationary tables, so by necessity that means the movement was unbalanced to begin with. I believe that an unbalanced movement was the objection, wasn't it. Btw, when a balanced movement is an objective I can think of no good reason to have two stationaries in this movement [The handicapped pair gets its own table to the side and when their opponents get to the table they pick up the boards and take themselves to the handicapped pair to play. ] But I would hardly think that Herman would employ an unbalanced movement in the contest : ). cheers Roger Pewick Houston, Texas From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 20 00:53:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA10698 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 May 2000 00:53:44 +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 AAA10677 for ; Sat, 20 May 2000 00:49:23 +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 12so5H-000LDj-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 May 2000 14:49:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 15:15:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Australia LA definition References: <000201bfc17e$857460e0$d78a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.de> In-Reply-To: <000201bfc17e$857460e0$d78a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Bley wrote: >> >I thought I remembered that the rule in Australia was closer to one >> >in ten or twenty. Could somebody please tell us the correct rule? >> >> One in four. >> >> The general rules are >> >> >> Players of similar ability playing similar methods are >> considered: an >> LA is a call or play that: >> >> GBritain >> At least three out of ten would choose >> >> Denmark and Sweden >> More than an insignificant minority would choose >> >> ACBL and the Netherlands >> A number would at least consider seriously >> >> Rest of the World >> At least one out of four would choose >> >Another one: >Germany generally three out of four: no ther LA. >But: >If there are more LA, but no 75% action, and this Alternative becomes >more attractive because of the UI of pard, this action is a use of UI. > >Difference: >If there are two possible actions -> NO difference >But if there are more actions possible, then the quota could be quite >less than 25% for a LA. I approve of this being put in writing. I am sure it is correct, and when I am training TDs I point out that the 30% rule only really works for two-possibility cases. Someone has just asked me of a case where there are four equally likely possibilities: I told him that is four LAs. It would really be better to apply L16 without using percentages. But I think guidelines are always needed. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK As an experiment please use these new addresses: comments appreciated Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 20 01:05:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA10756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 May 2000 01:05:06 +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 BAA10744 for ; Sat, 20 May 2000 01:04:43 +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 12soK0-000Gkj-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 May 2000 15:04:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 16:02:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Antwerp Mixed Pairs References: <200005191003.LAA16156@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200005191003.LAA16156@tempest.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <200005191003.LAA16156@tempest.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes > >> > >> The lack of mail on this subject makes me think that BLMLers >> think Herman was right. >> If this is so, do you think Law 15A should read, either or both of the >> following L15A1/Law15A2. >> Anne >> > >Anne > >I think it is very wrong to assign any meaning to lack of mail from BLML >on given topic. Respondents may be bored, or having an email discussion >on another topic, or playing/directing, or getting a life. > >My experience is that EBU directors do not really believe L15A1. Twice >last year I was more-or-less admonished for trying to allow scores from >misplayed board to stand. Basically the scoring software can not cope: >I needed to enter the scores for the boards against each pair of pairs >that should have played one another. Of course I allow the scores to stand. Haworth's program allows for it, so does the YC one. Even if it doesn't you can sort it out with adjustments. The easy solution is to amend the pair numbers to the ones who played it and amend the ones later on the computer traveller to be the pairs who can't play it when they should and award an ArtAss. cheers john > >The TDics said I should use the word "normally" in L15A1 to say that I do >not need to allow the score to stand. Ridiculous interpretation. What is normal? "Normal". the law says it *is* allowed, so it is "normal" to allow it. cheers john > >Robin > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 20 01:22:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA10223 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 May 2000 23:28:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA10212 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 23:28:08 +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 12smol-000Nqh-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 May 2000 13:27:57 +0000 Message-ID: <3dgWjbADwRJ5EwCJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 11:48:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A bit quiet References: <200005182252.SAA13120@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200005182252.SAA13120@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: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> Careless players play Q's under Kings when taking finesses. This >> careless player is pitching a H on the DQ (Ace appearing or no). >I'm surprised you go that far even at the YC. Don't you think it would >be irrational to pitch instead of ruff _when you see the opponent's ace >appear_? I would be astonished at your ruling at any venue in North >America. It's true that players at the table sometimes play >irrationally, but we don't rule claims that way. I do not agree with John's ruling or approach. I really think that despite certain people on this list who do not like the approach to claims that we should follow the general interpretation in all cases that are clear enough. There is no doubt that certain plays are not foisted on claimers despite the fact that they happen in real life from time to time. If the basis was what happens in real life from time to time then we would rule all claims on the basis that claimer revokes. We don't. ---------- Michael Farebrother wrote: >P.S. South is tight in 4S with the following layout (trumps are gone): > >-- >AQx >Qx >x > >Tx >KJxx >-- >-- > >And claims, "Diamond Q pitching a heart". *East* then shows the DA and >calls the director. Any objections to 4S=? The correct ruling is 4S=. We rule on the basis of not considering irrational plays. Case law and training in England [and I presume everywhere] shows us that not over-ruffing when a card believed to be a winner is covered by a higher card [presumably forgotten] is considered irrational. > Any objections to 4S-1 if >there was any way to play the hearts wrong (i.e. if they hadn't been >solid in any way)? The correct ruling is 4S-1. We allow declarer to over-ruff, but with more than one line left, at least one failing, we allow the defence a trick. > Any objections to 4S-1 if *West* had held the DA? The correct ruling is 4S-1. Declarer's line of discarding a heart [unnecessarily, it is true] on an apparent winner is not irrational. >I'm pretty certain I'm on solid ground here, but this has raised quite a >stink among the "favoured regulars" at the club...mdf There is no question about these. If I were to include them in my TD courses it would be at he lowest level, which is always a good test for how obvious the answer is. The Panel TDs, ie the top level, get all the questions that BLML can't decide. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK As an experiment please use these new addresses: comments appreciated Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 20 01:26:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA10832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 May 2000 01:26:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA10827 for ; Sat, 20 May 2000 01:26:38 +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 12sjdY-000FFi-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 May 2000 10:04:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 23:54:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: PPs on TDs References: <3923D332.493F7F6B@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3923D332.493F7F6B@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: >richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >> >> >> However, in the Australian code of ethics for TDs, it states that (where >> possible) playing directors should defer any ruling on a board that they >> have not yet played. >> >> So I should have awarded a PP against myself under L90B7. Naturally, I >> would have appealed my own ruling, since it was made by a self-admitted >> incompetent TD. My question is: Do I have to notify myself of my appeal >> verbally, or can notification be through UI? >> > >I believe the correct way of sending in such an appeal is by >ways of blml. :-) > >Then we all get to write what we think. > >Which means that those that disagree will write, and 200 >others will silently sit by agreeing. I think you added a zero by accident .... :) -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK As an experiment please use these new addresses: comments appreciated Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 20 02:12:14 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA10213 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 May 2000 23:28:13 +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 XAA10205 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 23:28:01 +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 12smoc-000Nq6-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 May 2000 13:27:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 12:22:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Antwerp Mixed Pairs References: <39226F9C.C95859C@village.uunet.be> <20000517142842.61730.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000517142842.61730.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: >The 5 table Howell that I am familiar with joins the movements at T3 and >shows boards 13-16 starting on T4 . At R4 they will be at T1 and at R5 will >be at BYE stand. Fine. Boards 1-4 at R4 will be on the BYE stand and >during R5 will be on the BYE stand. Were 4 and 13 really supposed to play >1-4 during R5? There are many, many Howell movements for all numbers of tables over three. I don't suppose Herman was using an ACBL one. ----------- Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Herman De Wael >> It is not my habit to throw penalties around for failure to >> correctly play according to the guidecard. >Shouldn't this be a matter of SO policy rather than TD habit? Perhaps it is. But situations tend to differ, and the approach throughout most of the world is to give the TD latitude to deal with cases. Certainly the EBU approach is that too many PPs gains little but leads to less enjoyment. >The ACBL _Duplicate Decisions_ is vague. "Any error in procedure >(failure to count cards, playing the wrong board)" is "subject to >penalty," but I don't see guidelines on when a penalty should in fact >be given. See! The ACBL agrees with leaving it to the TD's judgement. --------- anne_jones wrote: >From: John (MadDog) Probst >> Having re-assembled all the boards and players onto the right tables I >> now started some serious board sharing (you get more flexibility later >> on in the movement) and we wound up with everyone playing all the rounds >> except for one table that had to sit out the last round as there were >> just no boards left they both hadn't already played. I fined absolutely >> everyone, including Wendy for holding the pair up. >And yourself for not making sure everyone got it right?:-) >Seriously, I have had movements go wrong, I have had relays played out >of order, I have saved a movement by having lots of sharing of boards. I >know >what you are saying, but I'll bet that in this rehashed movement, you went >round looking for boards that had not been played, and did not make people >play an opponent twice, if there were other opps that had not been played. We are not talking of that situation: we are talking of a situation where the choice is not playing or playing oppos twice. >> I don't suppose this movement had as much balance and fairness in it as >> one would like, but at least everyone got a game. Scheps is now banned >> from being responsible for the relay boards and the Ukranians have >> returned to the Ukraine, so I don't suppose we'll use that movement >> again. The worst part was scoring it. The particular movement was not >> in the YC computer library, so I had to edit in every last sorry detail >> of the movement before I could score up. >Yes - it's great fun, but Herman was running a 2 session competition, and >the >law allows for this mistake, and advocates an art adj. This is what I >believe >Herman should have done. The Laws are completely silent [as they should be] on movements. The Laws do not "advocate an ArtAS" rather than playing another pair another board. That is solely for the TD's judgement. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK As an experiment please use these new addresses: comments appreciated Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 20 02:55:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA11341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 May 2000 02:55:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA11336 for ; Sat, 20 May 2000 02:55:29 +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 MAA00908 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 12:55:16 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 12:50:33 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Claim jumping Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:52 PM +0100 5/18/00, David Stevenson wrote: >David J. Grabiner wrote: [disputed claim ruling] >>>The Director routinely ruled in favour of the sharks, but advised declarer >>>to appeal. The committee unanimously ruled that declarer was of >>>sufficiently strong standard that it would be "irrational" for her to lock >>>herself in the wrong hand. >>If the director wasn't sure whether the line was rational, and couldn't >>determine it, then he might rule in favor of the defenders. >>If this was under the current laws, the director should have appealed the >>ruling himself. Otherwise, if the claimer decided not to appeal, the >>experts would have unjustly gained points. > I don't like that answer. That seems an abuse of process by the >Director. If he knows his ruling is wrong he should rule the other way. If the director *knows* his ruling is wrong, he should rule the other way; this is an occasional problem in UI cases in which the director believes it is his duty to rule for the non-offenders even when the bid is clear-cut. However, if the director isn't sure, particularly when unjust enrichment or abuse of process is possible, he should probably take the ruling to committee himself. From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 20 03:10:35 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA10224 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 May 2000 23:28:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA10204 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 23:28:01 +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 12smoc-000Nq5-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 May 2000 13:27:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 12:22:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Antwerp Mixed Pairs References: <39226F9C.C95859C@village.uunet.be> <001301bfc16a$a1c50100$0754fd3e@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <001301bfc16a$a1c50100$0754fd3e@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk anne_jones wrote: >From: Herman De Wael >> Law 15A1 is very clear : since none of the 4 players had >> previously played the boards, their scores on boards 1-4 >> should count as normal. >> >Yes. And this is what you did. Law 15A refers to the current round. >That round is no longer current. >> >> Law 15A2 tells that the Director MAY require both pairs to >> play the correct boards against one another later. >> >I believe you should only apply Law 15A2 if you are unable to apply >Law 15A1. I do not believe it is correct to do both. Where does it say that in the Laws? It does not, and it seems to put an unnecessary stranglehold on the TD. >> Law 15B says that their opponents cannot play the board and >> should get an artificial score. >> >This round is no longer the current round refered to in Law 15A. >On this round the opponents at the table cannot play the boards >as they have played them before. This is a Law 12 C1 ruling. What has that got to do with anything? It just means that pairs that cannot play the board will not play it. [s] >> In this instance, that proved very simple. Since all 4 >> pairs were now unable to play boards 1-4 against their >> correct opponents, there was ample time to instruct them to >> do otherwise. >> >But at the cost of playing the same pair twice. The two >non offending pairs should be getting A+ and their opps A or A- >depending on the degree of fault. There is nothing in the laws to stop you playing a pair twice. >> So I told pairs 8 and 18 to now play boards 1-4, which >> allowed pairs 13 and 4 to play the correct boards 13-16 that >> they should have played in the previous round. >> >> Note that the Laws award me the power to instruct the >> players to play these boards, and they are not allowed to >> refuse to do so. >> >Correct. I am sure you advised them of their right of Appeal. >> >> I don't know if I would have ordered them to play them after >> the end of the tournament (which finished after midnight, 36 >> boards played in an evening !), but since they had the time >> anyway, there was no doubt that I was doing the right thing. >> >Don't agree. I really think you should consider the approach taught to EBU TDs [and by me, to WBU TDs] that players have paid an entry fee to play bridge, not to sit in the bar getting averages. Herman had a choice here between letting players sit around, or play boards. There is no doubt his actions were correct. ------ anne_jones wrote: >From: Herman De Wael >I think this is a very good example of Law 15 in action. >It is clearly wrong to implement Law 15A1, and Law 15A2. >The outcome of this would be that 2, or maybe 4 pairs would >end up gatting scores on more boards than the rest of the field. This is wrong. Pairs played boards not designated for them to play. L15A1 says that the scores stand, and Herman let the scores stand. What is wrong with that? L15A2 says that the TD may require the pairs to play the correct boards against each other later. Herman required the pairs to play the correct boards against each during the next round. What is wrong with that? >However Herman has managed to find a way around this. >In order to implement L15A2, he has stopped a pair who were >scheduled to play against each other from playing the boards >they were scheduled to play on a subsequent round. ... when they would not have been able to play them, so he has stopped them as required. Herman got the right number of boards played. You would have cancelled the play of eight boards. What for? Perfect balance? But perfect balance was already destroyed: the moment the pairs played the wrong boards they destroyed perfect balance. People play their entry fees to play bridge. There is no doubt that Herman's solution was [a] legal, and [b] sensible, and [c] correct >The result being >that all players played the same number of boards. What is wrong with that? >The lack of mail on this subject makes me think that BLMLers >think Herman was right. >If this is so, do you think Law 15A should read, either or both of the >following L15A1/Law15A2. I have read them, and they support Herman's actions. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK As an experiment please use these new addresses: comments appreciated Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 20 03:58:46 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA11590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 May 2000 03:58:46 +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 DAA11585 for ; Sat, 20 May 2000 03:58:38 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 17495 invoked by uid 65534); 19 May 2000 17:58:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20000519175800.17494.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.13.66] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <200005182252.SAA13120@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3dgWjbADwRJ5EwCJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: A bit quiet Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 12:59:02 -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 Stevenson To: Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 5:48 AM Subject: Re: A bit quiet > Steve Willner wrote: > >> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > >> Careless players play Q's under Kings when taking finesses. This > >> careless player is pitching a H on the DQ (Ace appearing or no). > > >I'm surprised you go that far even at the YC. Don't you think it would > >be irrational to pitch instead of ruff _when you see the opponent's ace > >appear_? I would be astonished at your ruling at any venue in North > >America. It's true that players at the table sometimes play > >irrationally, but we don't rule claims that way. > > I do not agree with John's ruling or approach. > > I really think that despite certain people on this list who do not > like the approach to claims that we should follow the general > interpretation in all cases that are clear enough. There is no doubt > that certain plays are not foisted on claimers despite the fact that > they happen in real life from time to time. > > If the basis was what happens in real life from time to time then we > would rule all claims on the basis that claimer revokes. We don't. > > ---------- > > Michael Farebrother wrote: > > >P.S. South is tight in 4S with the following layout (trumps are gone): > > > >-- > >AQx > >Qx > >x > > > >Tx > >KJxx > >-- > >-- > > > >And claims, "Diamond Q pitching a heart". *East* then shows the DA and > >calls the director. Any objections to 4S=? > > The correct ruling is 4S=. We rule on the basis of not considering > irrational plays. Case law and training in England [and I presume > everywhere] shows us that not over-ruffing when a card believed to be a > winner is covered by a higher card [presumably forgotten] is considered > irrational. > I think that when the law says that irrational plays will not be foisted upon claimers for the parts of the claim that are unstated it is odd that it be extended to the part of the claim that says how it is to be done. iirc the claim was to pitch a heart on the diamond queen. South had a heart to pitch and it would not be illegal to do so. L45C4a has some interesting things to say about the most basic premise upon which claims are based. And I think there is a case to believe that a player that gives evidence that with a 4 card heart suit with the top four honors to him is worth only 3 tricks while his alternative is to believe that the DQ is good while the ace is still out, in David's view must be given a wide latitude in what he is capable of. The claimer has proven himself to be of the class who would not pay attention to what RHO plays and I would prefer to not have a law that makes me prove in public he is an idiot . If the claim had been for the rest of the tricks and nothing about how he was going to do it, it makes perfect sense to adjudicate all the tricks. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas > > Any objections to 4S-1 if > >there was any way to play the hearts wrong (i.e. if they hadn't been > >solid in any way)? > > The correct ruling is 4S-1. We allow declarer to over-ruff, but with > more than one line left, at least one failing, we allow the defence a > trick. > > > Any objections to 4S-1 if *West* had held the DA? > > The correct ruling is 4S-1. Declarer's line of discarding a heart > [unnecessarily, it is true] on an apparent winner is not irrational. > >I'm pretty certain I'm on solid ground here, but this has raised quite a > >stink among the "favoured regulars" at the club...mdf > > There is no question about these. If I were to include them in my TD > courses it would be at he lowest level, which is always a good test for > how obvious the answer is. The Panel TDs, ie the top level, get all the > questions that BLML can't decide. > > > -- > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > As an experiment please use these new addresses: comments appreciated > Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm > From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 20 05:24:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA11982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 May 2000 05:24:08 +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 FAA11977 for ; Sat, 20 May 2000 05:23:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-001kslawrP243.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.5]) by gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA06603 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 12:23:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <200005191422290370.00C6F7F1@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <20000519175800.17494.qmail@hotmail.com> References: <200005182252.SAA13120@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3dgWjbADwRJ5EwCJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <20000519175800.17494.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.10.03.02 (3) Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 14:22:29 -0500 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A bit quiet Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >I think that when the law says that irrational plays will not be foisted >upon claimers for the parts of the claim that are unstated it is odd that it >be extended to the part of the claim that says how it is to be done. iirc >the claim was to pitch a heart on the diamond queen. South had a heart to >pitch and it would not be illegal to do so. L45C4a has some interesting >things to say about the most basic premise upon which claims are based. This is what struck me. Once declarer has said "pitching a heart on the diamond queen" he has designated both as cards he intends to play and must play both, n'est-ce pas? If declarer, however, had been less definite, saying "I can pitch a heart on the diamond queen", I don't think I'd treat the (lowest) heart as a played card. In that case I'd rule 4S=. Am I seeing a false distinction here? Best regards, From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 20 06:03:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA12195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 May 2000 06:03:38 +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 GAA12190 for ; Sat, 20 May 2000 06:03:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id QAA23117 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 16:03:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA20113 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 May 2000 16:03:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 16:03:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200005192003.QAA20113@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A bit quiet Reply-To: willner@cfa.harvard.edu X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Brian Baresch" > This is what struck me. Once declarer has said "pitching a heart on the > diamond queen" he has designated both as cards he intends to play and must > play both, n'est-ce pas? After a claim, play ceases. There are no "played cards." If the claim is disputed, the TD judges it, taking into account the claim statement and the lie of the cards. If play had continued, i.e. if there had been no claim, then you would have an issue of played cards. You would judge it according to L45C (probably L45C4). > If declarer, however, had been less definite, saying "I can pitch a heart > on the diamond queen", I don't think I'd treat the (lowest) heart as a > played card. In that case I'd rule 4S=. > > Am I seeing a false distinction here? I think so. If you are going to judge a claim differently based on a very subtle variation in the claim statement, then a) you are asking for difficult judgments because the two sides, indeed all four players, are bound to disagree on the exact words used, b) you are demanding that your players craft very precise language for their claim statements, and c) IMHO you are not following the laws, which disallow irrational play (whatever that is!) after a claim. From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 20 06:08:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA12230 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 May 2000 06:08:26 +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 GAA12225 for ; Sat, 20 May 2000 06:08:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4ai.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.17.82]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA32146; Fri, 19 May 2000 16:08:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <004901bfc1ce$4f605400$5211f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Brian Baresch" , Subject: Re: A bit quiet Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 16:10:38 -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 I don't think so. The implication is clear that he was expecting the diamond queen to be a winner. Therefore the claim line breaks down at the point the ace appears in RHO's hand and we must adjudicate. Now irrational action is out...and this to my judgement is far worse than careless or inferior not to trump...the ace would be a wakeup call. Craig -----Original Message----- From: Brian Baresch To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, May 19, 2000 3:41 PM Subject: Re: A bit quiet >>I think that when the law says that irrational plays will not be foisted >>upon claimers for the parts of the claim that are unstated it is odd that >it >>be extended to the part of the claim that says how it is to be done. iirc >>the claim was to pitch a heart on the diamond queen. South had a heart to >>pitch and it would not be illegal to do so. L45C4a has some interesting >>things to say about the most basic premise upon which claims are based. > >This is what struck me. Once declarer has said "pitching a heart on the >diamond queen" he has designated both as cards he intends to play and must >play both, n'est-ce pas? > >If declarer, however, had been less definite, saying "I can pitch a heart >on the diamond queen", I don't think I'd treat the (lowest) heart as a >played card. In that case I'd rule 4S=. > >Am I seeing a false distinction here? > >Best regards, > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 20 06:12:29 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA12254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 May 2000 06:12:29 +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 GAA12248 for ; Sat, 20 May 2000 06:12:16 +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 NAA21314; Fri, 19 May 2000 13:11:49 -0700 Message-Id: <200005192011.NAA21314@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "blml" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Forgotten winner (was: A bit quiet---but isn't any more) In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 19 May 2000 12:59:02 PDT." <20000519175800.17494.qmail@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 13:11:49 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger wrote: > I think that when the law says that irrational plays will not be foisted > upon claimers for the parts of the claim that are unstated it is odd that it > be extended to the part of the claim that says how it is to be done. iirc > the claim was to pitch a heart on the diamond queen. South had a heart to > pitch and it would not be illegal to do so. L45C4a has some interesting > things to say about the most basic premise upon which claims are based. Not really. Law 45C4a applies during play; but when a claim occurs, play ceases, and the principles that govern the lines of play we think *could* have happened if play continued after a claim, are different from the rules that pertain to play while it is actually going on. So L45C4a doesn't apply. By the way, if you look in the Laws, you will not find anything that requires strict adherence to declarer's claim statement when adjudicating a claim. Nor do I think it should be there. I believe the Fundamental Principle, fuzzily stated, is that we imagine the different ways the play might have gone if it had been played out, and give claimer the worst result of the ones we imagine. In doing so, we assume declarer will follow the line he said he would take, but if something surprising pops up (a winner or a trump he forgot the opponents had, e.g.), we assume that declarer would have switched horses if the surprise made the original plan irrational. This Fundamental Principle doesn't really allow us to force declarer to adhere strictly to a claim statement in cases like this. > And I think there is a case to believe that a player that gives evidence > that with a 4 card heart suit with the top four honors to him is worth only > 3 tricks while his alternative is to believe that the DQ is good while the > ace is still out, in David's view must be given a wide latitude in what he > is capable of. The claimer has proven himself to be of the class who would > not pay attention to what RHO plays and I would prefer to not have a law > that makes me prove in public he is an idiot . There may be some players who don't pay attention to what their opponents are playing. However, I believe that one of the basic premises of Laws 69-71 is that we don't take such things into consideration when determining what is "normal" or "irrational". Really, if we allowed this kind of logic in, there would be no reason whatsoever to consider *any* line of play irrational. Declarer has AQ3 opposite K42? There might be some players who would be careless enough to play the ace, forget they've done so, then play the king from dummy trying to win the trick. So we have to consider this to be a "normal" play. Or someone might pull the wrong card out of their hand and discard their ace on won of dummy's winners when they meant to discard a touching...er, adjacent card in another suit. Or someone might revoke (as David pointed out). If we were to proceed along these lines, there would be no reason whatsoever for the word "normal" to appear in Laws 69-71; we could just remove the word and use the Burn Rule to adjudicate claims. However, the word "normal" was put in there for a reason, and I strongly believe that the people who went to the trouble of including that word intended not to consider hypothetical lines where declarers failed to notice a winner they had forgotten the defense still had. Then again, I'd be happier if this were spelled out in the Laws. The Laws' lack of specificity about even the most basic principles we're to follow when adjudicating claims has caused an enormous amount of argument on BLML. Fortunately, it doesn't seem to cause a problem in real life, since even the worst bridge lawyers don't seem interesting in using Law 70 to gain a trick they never, ever would have gotten at the table, as is the case with Michael's example. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 20 08:08:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA12675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 May 2000 08:08:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net (goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA12669 for ; Sat, 20 May 2000 08:08:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-001kslawrP007.dialsprint.net [158.252.181.15]) by goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA03938 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 15:08:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <200005191706540260.015D80B0@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <200005192003.QAA20113@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200005192003.QAA20113@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.10.03.02 (3) Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 17:06:54 -0500 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A bit quiet Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >After a claim, play ceases. There are no "played cards." If the claim >is disputed, the TD judges it, taking into account the claim statement >and the lie of the cards. > >If play had continued, i.e. if there had been no claim, then you would >have an issue of played cards. You would judge it according to L45C >(probably L45C4). This makes sense. Thanks! Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading If u cn rd ths, itn tyg h myxbl cd. From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 20 09:28:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA12947 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 May 2000 09:28:07 +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 JAA12941 for ; Sat, 20 May 2000 09:27:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.10] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12swBH-000HZm-00; Sat, 20 May 2000 00:27:47 +0100 Message-ID: <002d01bfc1ea$027085e0$0a5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <200005192011.NAA21314@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: Forgotten winner (was: A bit quiet---but isn't any more) Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 23:00:56 +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: blml Cc: Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 9:11 PM Subject: Re: Forgotten winner (was: A bit quiet---but isn't any more) -------------- \x/ --------------- > > By the way, if you look in the Laws, you will not find > anything that requires strict adherence to declarer's > claim statement when adjudicating a claim. -------------- \x/ -------------------- +=+ This statement makes it sound as though the Director is judging the outcome of the hand with all possibilities available to him. In fact what he is doing is to adjudicate a claim on the basis of the claimer's stated line of play and the opponents' objections to this. The only circumstances in which the TD may introduce lines of play which are not embraced in the claimer's statement of clarification or the objections are when (70D) the claimer seeks to introduce such a line and in the special cases specified in 70E. Otherwise he is simply to adjudicate between the claimer's proposed method of securing his claimed result and the objections raised by the opponents, with attention to the possible relevance of 70C. He does so as equitably as he can but awarding anything which he considers doubtful in favour of the opponents. Anything irrational proposed by the opponents fails the test of equity (but if I have understood aright the possibly irrational play in this instance was not proposed by the opponents, so it is presumably a case of the claimer suggesting a line of play not embraced in the original clarification. In that case he is only allowed his more successful line if to continue with the original line or any other unsuccessful line is seen to be irrational as the hand develops). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 20 09:33:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA12994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 May 2000 09:33:14 +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 JAA12989 for ; Sat, 20 May 2000 09:33:04 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 45467 invoked for bounce); 19 May 2000 23:32:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.57.185) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 19 May 2000 23:32:46 -0000 Message-ID: <000301bfc1eb$3b232ea0$b9391dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <200005182252.SAA13120@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3dgWjbADwRJ5EwCJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: A bit quiet Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 01:37:20 +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 David Stevenson wrote: > Michael Farebrother wrote: > > >P.S. South is tight in 4S with the following layout (trumps are gone): > > > >-- > >AQx > >Qx > >x > > > >Tx > >KJxx > >-- > >-- > > > >And claims, "Diamond Q pitching a heart". *East* then shows the DA and > >calls the director. Any objections to 4S=? > > The correct ruling is 4S=. We rule on the basis of not considering > irrational plays. Case law and training in England [and I presume > everywhere] shows us that not over-ruffing when a card believed to be a > winner is covered by a higher card [presumably forgotten] is considered > irrational. It is irrational, but it is consistent with the claim statement "DQ pitching a heart". Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 20 10:11:32 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA13158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 May 2000 10:11:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe18.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.122]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA13153 for ; Sat, 20 May 2000 10:11:23 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 41910 invoked by uid 65534); 20 May 2000 00:10:44 -0000 Message-ID: <20000520001044.41909.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [38.31.97.252] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <200005192011.NAA21314@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: Forgotten winner (was: A bit quiet---but isn't any more) Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 18:56:58 -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: Adam Beneschan To: blml Cc: Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 3:11 PM Subject: Re: Forgotten winner (was: A bit quiet---but isn't any more) > > Roger wrote: > > > I think that when the law says that irrational plays will not be foisted > > upon claimers for the parts of the claim that are unstated it is odd that it > > be extended to the part of the claim that says how it is to be done. iirc > > the claim was to pitch a heart on the diamond queen. South had a heart to > > pitch and it would not be illegal to do so. L45C4a has some interesting > > things to say about the most basic premise upon which claims are based. > > Not really. Law 45C4a applies during play; but when a claim occurs, > play ceases, and the principles that govern the lines of play we think > *could* have happened if play continued after a claim, are different > from the rules that pertain to play while it is actually going on. So > L45C4a doesn't apply. > > By the way, if you look in the Laws, you will not find anything that > requires strict adherence to declarer's claim statement when > adjudicating a claim. Nor do I think it should be there. I believe > the Fundamental Principle, fuzzily stated, is that we imagine the > different ways the play might have gone if it had been played out, and > give claimer the worst result of the ones we imagine. In doing so, we > assume declarer will follow the line he said he would take, but if > something surprising pops up (a winner or a trump he forgot the > opponents had, e.g.), we assume that declarer would have switched > horses if the surprise made the original plan irrational. This > Fundamental Principle doesn't really allow us to force declarer to > adhere strictly to a claim statement in cases like this. > > > And I think there is a case to believe that a player that gives evidence > > that with a 4 card heart suit with the top four honors to him is worth only > > 3 tricks while his alternative is to believe that the DQ is good while the > > ace is still out, in David's view must be given a wide latitude in what he > > is capable of. The claimer has proven himself to be of the class who would > > not pay attention to what RHO plays and I would prefer to not have a law > > that makes me prove in public he is an idiot . > > There may be some players who don't pay attention to what their > opponents are playing. However, I believe that one of the basic > premises of Laws 69-71 is that we don't take such things into > consideration when determining what is "normal" or "irrational". > > Really, if we allowed this kind of logic in, there would be no reason > whatsoever to consider *any* line of play irrational. Declarer has > AQ3 opposite K42? There might be some players who would be careless > enough to play the ace, forget they've done so, then play the king > from dummy trying to win the trick. So we have to consider this to be > a "normal" play. Or someone might pull the wrong card out of their > hand and discard their ace on won of dummy's winners when they meant > to discard a touching...er, adjacent card in another suit. Or someone > might revoke (as David pointed out). If we were to proceed along > these lines, there would be no reason whatsoever for the word "normal" > to appear in Laws 69-71; we could just remove the word and use the > Burn Rule to adjudicate claims. However, the word "normal" was put in > there for a reason, and I strongly believe that the people who went to > the trouble of including that word intended not to consider > hypothetical lines where declarers failed to notice a winner they had > forgotten the defense still had. What players do count or it does not. The game aint worth playing if it does not count. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas > Then again, I'd be happier if this were spelled out in the Laws. The > Laws' lack of specificity about even the most basic principles we're > to follow when adjudicating claims has caused an enormous amount of > argument on BLML. Fortunately, it doesn't seem to cause a problem in > real life, since even the worst bridge lawyers don't seem interesting > in using Law 70 to gain a trick they never, ever would have gotten at > the table, as is the case with Michael's example. > > -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 20 10:46:30 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA13336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 May 2000 10:46:30 +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 KAA13329 for ; Sat, 20 May 2000 10:46:22 +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 RAA26941; Fri, 19 May 2000 17:45:58 -0700 Message-Id: <200005200045.RAA26941@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "blml" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Forgotten winner (was: A bit quiet---but isn't any more) In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 19 May 2000 23:00:56 PDT." <002d01bfc1ea$027085e0$0a5408c3@dodona> Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 17:45:59 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > > By the way, if you look in the Laws, you will not find > > anything that requires strict adherence to declarer's > > claim statement when adjudicating a claim. > -------------- \x/ -------------------- > +=+ This statement makes it sound as though the > Director is judging the outcome of the hand with > all possibilities available to him. > In fact what he is doing is to adjudicate a > claim on the basis of the claimer's stated line of > play and the opponents' objections to this. > The only circumstances in which the TD may > introduce lines of play which are not embraced > in the claimer's statement of clarification or the > objections are when (70D) the claimer seeks > to introduce such a line and in the special > cases specified in 70E. Otherwise he is simply > to adjudicate between the claimer's proposed > method of securing his claimed result and the > objections raised by the opponents, with > attention to the possible relevance of 70C. He > does so as equitably as he can but awarding > anything which he considers doubtful in favour > of the opponents. . . . Where in the Laws does it say all this? In Michael's case, Laws 70C, 70D, and 70E are inapplicable. That leaves us with just 70A and 70B to deal with the contested claim. Those two Laws give us these instructions for dealing with it: The Director requires the claimer to repeat his clarification statement. The Director requires all hands to be face. The Director hears the opponents' objections. The Director then adjudicates the result as equitably as possible. That's all! The last statement (from L70A) is very broad and gives the Director no guidance at all; it doesn't give any principles or guidelines as to what is considered equitable. There's nothing that even says that the Director has to pay attention to claimer's statement at all; and I see nothing in the Laws that says we have to obey claimer's statement, or how far we have to obey it. If someone playing at notrump lays down this hand: K3 KQJ54 -- 2 AQ5 A 63 43 and says "I'm going to take my three spades and then my five hearts", and the opponents object, the Director *could* rule that a player of his caliber would have realized the need to unblock the suit and play the tricks in the correct order, and that therefore the most equitable result is to accept declarer's claim. Of course, no Director would rule that way in the real world, and if he did he would be justly vilified up and down on BLML. However, the point is that I can see nothing in the Laws that would make this an illegal ruling, since there's nothing that defines what is supposed to be an "equitable" ruling, or what criteria we use to determine what is an "equitable" result. The criteria we use are pretty much all in our heads, as far as I can see. You're saying that "The only circumstances in which the TD may introduce lines of play which are not embraced in the claimer's statement of clarification or the objections are . . .", but what is this based on? Not the Laws, which seem to say nothing about whether the results have to be embraced by the clarification statement. What, then? SO regulations? Binding WBFLC interpretations? Unwritten rules? Sacred Tradition? Our own opinions about what's equitable? Some combination of the above? If it's one of the first two, someone will have to point me to where the claim rules are clarified. But I suspect that our own opinions are coming into play here, and we can't all agree on what the equitable result is in a simple case that David thinks belongs in the lowest level of a TD course. Even though there aren't many appeals involving contested claims, I'm afraid this problem is going to bite us in the butt one of these days. I'm beginning to believe that Law 70 is unacceptably lacking in specifics and needs some major surgery. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 20 11:05:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA13402 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 May 2000 11:05:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA13397 for ; Sat, 20 May 2000 11:05:15 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.9.) id p.3b.51bce8a (8231); Fri, 19 May 2000 21:04:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3b.51bce8a.26573e9f@aol.com> Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 21:04:31 EDT Subject: K. Short Vacation To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: gester@globalnet.co.uk, Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Off to the Keys for 4 days. Fishing, reading, wine, and loafing. Sure is getting to be a habit! Thank God! See y'all Wednesday night. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 20 16:33:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA14069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 May 2000 16:33:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA14064 for ; Sat, 20 May 2000 16:33:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.134] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12t2ob-000Mlm-00; Sat, 20 May 2000 07:32:50 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01bfc225$632f83a0$865908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <200005200045.RAA26941@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: Forgotten winner (was: A bit quiet---but isn't any more) Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 07:32:29 +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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: blml Cc: Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2000 1:45 AM Subject: Re: Forgotten winner (was: A bit quiet---but isn't any more) > The Director then adjudicates the result as equitably as possible. > > That's all! The last statement (from L70A) is very broad and gives > the Director no guidance at all; > > +=+ Adam seems to have left out the very last words of 70A in order that he may introduce something that is not in 70B, 70C, 70D or 70E. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 20 17:40:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA14153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 May 2000 17:40:52 +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 SMTP id RAA14148 for ; Sat, 20 May 2000 17:40:38 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 3110 invoked from network); 20 May 2000 07:39:50 -0000 Received: from petrus2.konvent (HELO eduhi.at) (192.168.1.116) by michael.gym with SMTP; 20 May 2000 07:39:50 -0000 Message-ID: <3926415D.62BD1C06@eduhi.at> Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 09:40:13 +0200 From: Petrus Schuster OSB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [de] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Ruling please: L68/L57 ???? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In our National Teams Championships, the following situation arose at trick 12 in 4H: (dummy) - - J 9 - K - - - K Q8 - T 4 - - Declarer lead his last trump, C8 from W, C9 from dummy. E sank into deep meditation. At this point W showed his CQ. Upon enquiry, he said he had mistakenly thought Souths last card to be a club and wanted to claim trick 13. Should the TD apply L57 nonetheless? If not, should he rule the discard of SK a careless but not irrational play, reasoning that someone who has to think in this position is unsure of the count (which is, of course, available) and may well discard the wrong king? EW are aspiring juniors. Would an AC rule differently? cheers, Petrus. From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 20 21:42:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA14622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 May 2000 21:42:15 +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 VAA14617 for ; Sat, 20 May 2000 21:42:06 +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 12t7dk-0004tS-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 20 May 2000 11:41:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 04:27:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Forgotten winner (was: A bit quiet---but isn't any more) References: <200005192011.NAA21314@mailhub.irvine.com> <20000520001044.41909.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000520001044.41909.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <20000520001044.41909.qmail@hotmail.com>, Roger Pewick writes snip > >What players do count or it does not. The game aint worth playing if it >does not count. > >Roger Pewick >Houston, Texas > >> Then again, I'd be happier if this were spelled out in the Laws. The >> Laws' lack of specificity about even the most basic principles we're >> to follow when adjudicating claims has caused an enormous amount of >> argument on BLML. Fortunately, it doesn't seem to cause a problem in >> real life, since even the worst bridge lawyers don't seem interesting >> in using Law 70 to gain a trick they never, ever would have gotten at >> the table, as is the case with Michael's example. >> >> -- Adam > > the problem is that players *do* lead towards AQ and play the Q under the King. This is evidence of carelessness. Pitching a winner on a loser is careless, not irrational. I don't mind ruling (in EBU events) that the player can "change his mind" but I bet if he'd played it out, at least some of the time, he'd have thrown a heart on the DQ, because he'd already got it detached from his hand and wasn't watching. This is *carelessness* not *irrationality* and my test for bum claims is fairly stringent. I had one tonight: declarer claims at trick 12 holding J8 trump when RHO is on lead with a blank card and the trump 9. RHO had doubled for penalties and LHO had doubled for takeout. No-one had shown out. I ruled one trick to the oppo. Declarer agreed he'd been sloppy and thought I was probably right. Robin (who happened to be playing in the game) agreed with me. I actually think that it is less likely for the oppo to get a trick in this position than the one originally posted. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 21 17:12:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA17826 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 May 2000 17:12:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from hunter2.int.kiev.ua (hunter2.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA17821 for ; Sun, 21 May 2000 17:12:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from marina (ppp09.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.109]) by hunter2.int.kiev.ua (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA21972 for ; Sun, 21 May 2000 10:17:23 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <001301bfc2f4$671e21e0$6d047bc3@marina> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: Subject: Is overtrick wild? Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 10:13:21 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" 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 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by hunter2.int.kiev.ua id KAA21972 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id RAA17822 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi All! I was asked by my friend from Russia to ask you for your opinion about an incident that had happened recently. Teams. NS - Candidates to National Team EW - Advantage Pair NS Vulnerable S K8È H ôJÈÈ D ÈÈÈÈ C ÈÈ S ô9ÈÈ S Q H ÈÈ H K10ÈÈ D ôJ9 D KQÈÈÈÈ C KÈÈÈ C ÈÈ S ÷10ÈÈÈ H äÈÈ D = C ôä÷10È N E S W P P 1S 1NT* 2C** 2D 4S P... *W's 1NT was balanced, 12-15, not alerted. **N's 2C was Drury with fit, alerted. There were no questions during the bidding and play. The lead was the Ace of Diamonds. Declarer ruffed. 2th trick. Declarer played small spade won by West with the Ace! (E played Queen). 3th trick. W played Jack of Diamonds, E played small, Declarer ruffed. 4th trick. Declarer played 10 of Club won by West with the King. 5th trick. W played small Diamonds, East played the King, Declarer ruffed. 6th trick. Declarer played a small heart, the Jack from dummy, E won with the King. 7th trick. E played Diamond, Declarer ruffed, West discarded a heart. Declarer went 1 off. At the end of the hand Declarer called the TD and claimed that: "- He would not have finessed the HK for overtrick if 1NT had been allerted; - He had the winning line for 10 tricks in the 6th trick. Continuing the Clubs while W follows the suit and discarding the Hearts would give him 4 trumps in hand, 2 trumps in dummy, Ace of Hearts and 3 in Clubs. Finessing the HK would be necessary if E had less then 4 Clubs. But after E had not alerted the 1NT, Declarer assumed that E held 16-18. W showed SQ, DK, eventually DQ, so East must have had HK." There was no doubt that alerting rules required an alert. The completely standard meaning of natural 1NT is 16-18. The partnership on NS may reasonably be expected not to understand weak 1 NT meaning. Questions: 1. Declarer did not ask the meaning of the 1NT while he could do it without putting his side's interests at risk. Is it annulled the right to redress for a NOS? (Remark - there are no SO's regulations in question, for instance sush as EBU Orange Book #5.5.1) 2 If answer on first question is Yes, what about AjS for OS? 3. Whenever answer on first question is Yes or No, is Declerar's play for overtrick "evidently irrational, wild or gambling"? 4. What is your rulling? Please your decision. Cheers Sergey From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 22 02:25:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA19125 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 02:25:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f211.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.211]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA19120 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 02:25:37 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 18731 invoked by uid 0); 21 May 2000 16:24:59 -0000 Message-ID: <20000521162459.18730.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 172.141.83.2 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sun, 21 May 2000 09:24:59 PDT X-Originating-IP: [172.141.83.2] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Is overtrick wild? Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 09:24:59 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk For those without cyrillic mappings... K8x AJxx xxxx xx A9xx Q xx K10xx AJ9 KQxxxx Kxxx xx J10xxx Qxx - AQJ10x [snip] >The lead was the Ace of Diamonds. Declarer ruffed. >2th trick. Declarer played small spade won by West with the Ace! (E played >Queen). >3th trick. W played Jack of Diamonds, E played small, Declarer ruffed. >4th trick. Declarer played 10 of Club won by West with the King. >5th trick. W played small Diamonds, East played the King, Declarer ruffed. >6th trick. Declarer played a small heart, the Jack from dummy, E won with >the King. >7th trick. E played Diamond, Declarer ruffed, West discarded a heart. > >Declarer went 1 off. > >At the end of the hand Declarer called the TD and claimed that: >"- He would not have finessed the HK for overtrick if 1NT had been >allerted; >- He had the winning line for 10 tricks in the 6th trick. Continuing the >Clubs while W follows the suit and discarding the Hearts would give him 4 >trumps in hand, 2 trumps in dummy, Ace of Hearts and 3 in Clubs. Finessing >the HK would be necessary if E had less then 4 Clubs. But after E had not >alerted the 1NT, Declarer assumed that E held 16-18. W showed SQ, DK, >eventually DQ, so East must have had HK." > >There was no doubt that alerting rules required an alert. The completely >standard meaning of natural 1NT is 16-18. The partnership on NS may >reasonably be expected not to understand weak 1 NT meaning. > >Questions: > >1. Declarer did not ask the meaning of the 1NT while he could do it without >putting his side's interests at risk. Is it annulled the right to redress >for a NOS? (Remark - there are no SO's regulations in question, for >instance >sush as EBU Orange Book #5.5.1) > >2 If answer on first question is Yes, what about AjS for OS? > >3. Whenever answer on first question is Yes or No, is Declerar's play for >overtrick "evidently irrational, wild or gambling"? > >4. What is your rulling? > >Please your decision. > >Cheers Sergey > > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 22 03:15:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA19273 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 03:15:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from cgomboc.drotposta.hu (cgomboc.drotposta.hu [212.108.226.84]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA19268 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 03:15:19 +1000 (EST) From: Martaandras@uze.net Received: from agomboc.drotposta.hu ([212.108.226.81] helo=LOCALHOST) by cgomboc.drotposta.hu with smtp (Exim 3.12 #1) id 12tZJ9-0005s1-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 May 2000 19:14:32 +0200 Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 19:08:36 +0100 (MET DST) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Another problem from Germany Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id DAA19269 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear colleagues all over the world, my friend, Jeff Easterson from Germany supplied me another problem to share with you. Screens are used and the bidding was the following. S W N E P 1 NT P P 2 H When N and E pulled the tray through the opening in the screen they apparently did not pull it far enough. At least neither of them saw the 2 H bid and assumed S had passed. Thus they assumed the bidding had ended and and they did not place pass cards on the tray. S and W knew the contract was 2 H by S and waited for the tap on the screen expecting to have W make the opening lead, and N's cards revealed as dummy on the other side. W faced (unfortunately) his lead and tapped the screen. The screen was raised and they discovered that E had faced all his cards and N had faced an opening lead as well. The TD is called. One defender had faced his hand and there were 2 faced up opening leads, one by the proper leader the other by the actual dummy. Your decision? Thanks. Andras Booc martaandras@uze.net From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 22 05:16:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA19621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 05:16:46 +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 FAA19613 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 05:16:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm11d02.IAE.nl [212.61.1.131]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id C033720F14 for ; Sun, 21 May 2000 21:16:25 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <001b01bfc359$01ffa4e0$83013dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: Subject: double ace of clubs Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 20:47:52 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0010_01BFC365.D57CC3A0" 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_0010_01BFC365.D57CC3A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dummy spreads his hand with the ace of spades mistakenly on top of four = clubs. sA c10 8 6 4. A defender says: "I have the ace of clubs as well" and faces his hand on = the table. How would you rule? ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01BFC365.D57CC3A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dummy spreads his hand with the ace of = spades=20 mistakenly on top of four clubs.
sA c10 8 6 4.
A defender says: "I have the ace of = clubs as well"=20 and faces his hand on the table.
How would you = rule?
------=_NextPart_000_0010_01BFC365.D57CC3A0-- From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 22 05:16:49 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA19625 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 05:16:49 +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 FAA19616 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 05:16:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm11d02.IAE.nl [212.61.1.131]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id DE50420F22 for ; Sun, 21 May 2000 21:16:26 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <001c01bfc359$029e55e0$83013dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: Subject: a two tricks claim Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 21:15:11 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0018_01BFC369.A5E824A0" 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_0018_01BFC369.A5E824A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 5 - A 7 3 - 10 - - - J 8 4 K - 10 6 3 - - Q 5 2 J The contract is notrump. The declarer after winning the 9th trick = says:"I claim another two tricks: J of clubs and the ace of diamonds" and the players show their remaining cards. It now appears that the king = is caught. East says two tricks are two tricks and the TD is summoned. = He decides that declarer gets three tricks but north asks for a fourth = trick because west is squeezed. How would you rule? ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01BFC369.A5E824A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
       =20     5
       =20     -
        A = 7=20 3
       =20     -
 
10        =             = -
-       =20              =20 -
J 8 4    =    =20         K
-       =20             10 6 = 3
 
       =20     -
       =20     -
        Q = 5=20 2
       =20     J
 
The contract is notrump. The declarer = after winning=20 the 9th trick says:"I claim another two tricks: J of clubs and = the ace=20 of diamonds"
and the players show their remaining = cards. It now=20 appears that the king is caught. East says two tricks are two tricks and = the TD=20 is summoned. He decides that declarer gets three tricks but north asks = for a=20 fourth trick because west is squeezed.
How would you = rule?
------=_NextPart_000_0018_01BFC369.A5E824A0-- From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 22 07:25:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA19967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 07:25:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA19962 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 07:25:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from office.ripe.net (office.ripe.net [193.0.1.97]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA07582; Sun, 21 May 2000 23:25:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by office.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA06952; Sun, 21 May 2000 23:25:11 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: office.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 23:25:11 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Ben Schelen cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: double ace of clubs In-Reply-To: <001b01bfc359$01ffa4e0$83013dd4@default> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 21 May 2000, Ben Schelen wrote: > Dummy spreads his hand with the ace of spades mistakenly on top of > four clubs. sA c10 8 6 4. A defender says: "I have the ace of clubs as > well" and faces his hand on the table. How would you rule? 13 penalty cards Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A man can take a train and never reach his destination. (Kerouac, well before RFC2780). From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 22 07:30:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA20004 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 07:30:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA19999 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 07:30:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from office.ripe.net (office.ripe.net [193.0.1.97]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA08293; Sun, 21 May 2000 23:29:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by office.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA07098; Sun, 21 May 2000 23:29:36 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: office.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 23:29:36 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Ben Schelen cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: a two tricks claim In-Reply-To: <001c01bfc359$029e55e0$83013dd4@default> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 21 May 2000, Ben Schelen wrote: > 5 > - > A 7 3 > - > > 10 - > - - > J 8 4 K > - 10 6 3 > > - > - > Q 5 2 > J > > The contract is notrump. The declarer after winning the 9th trick > says:"I claim another two tricks: J of clubs and the ace of diamonds" > and the players show their remaining cards. It now appears that the > king is caught. East says two tricks are two tricks and the TD is > summoned. He decides that declarer gets three tricks but north asks > for a fourth trick because west is squeezed. How would you rule? 3 tricks, it looks as if declarer has lost count of the hand, so the 10th trick might go: CJ, ST, S5, C3. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A man can take a train and never reach his destination. (Kerouac, well before RFC2780). From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 22 09:46:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA20358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 09:46:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA20353 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 09:46:15 +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 12tfQ2-000I1f-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 May 2000 23:46:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 00:45:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: a two tricks claim References: <001c01bfc359$029e55e0$83013dd4@default> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes >On Sun, 21 May 2000, Ben Schelen wrote: > >> 5 >> - >> A 7 3 >> - >> >> 10 - >> - - >> J 8 4 K >> - 10 6 3 >> >> - >> - >> Q 5 2 >> J >> >> The contract is notrump. The declarer after winning the 9th trick >> says:"I claim another two tricks: J of clubs and the ace of diamonds" >> and the players show their remaining cards. It now appears that the >> king is caught. East says two tricks are two tricks and the TD is >> summoned. He decides that declarer gets three tricks but north asks >> for a fourth trick because west is squeezed. How would you rule? > >3 tricks, it looks as if declarer has lost count of the hand, so the 10th >trick might go: CJ, ST, S5, C3. > >Henk > I concur. John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 22 11:11:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA20565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 11:11:09 +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 LAA20560 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 11:11:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from [199.172.230.210] by stormy.ibl.bm (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-65377U14500L13000S0V35) with SMTP id bm for ; Sun, 21 May 2000 22:10:43 -0300 Date: 21 May 2000 22:13:45 -0300 Message-ID: <-1253175276jrhind@ibl.bm> From: Jack Rhind Subject: Re: double ace of clubs To: 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 LAA20561 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ah, the old Ace of clubs with the spades trick. I see 13 penalty cards here. regards, Jack Rhind *************************************************************** ##### # # ####### # # # ### # ### ### #### # # # # # # # ##### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ##### # ### # # ### ### # # # ## Voice: (441) 297-TECH Fax: (441) 293-4421 Jack A. Rhind (441) 293-0282 *************************************************************** On Sunday, May 21, 2000, Ben Schelen wrote: > >Dummy spreads his hand with the ace of spades mistakenly on top of four clubs. >sA c10 8 6 4. >A defender says: "I have the ace of clubs as well" and faces his hand on the table. >How would you rule? From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 22 11:11:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA20573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 11:11:34 +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 LAA20568 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 11:11:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from [199.172.230.210] by stormy.ibl.bm (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-65377U14500L13000S0V35) with SMTP id bm for ; Sun, 21 May 2000 22:11:17 -0300 Date: 21 May 2000 22:14:19 -0300 Message-ID: <-1253175242jrhind@ibl.bm> From: Jack Rhind Subject: Re: a two tricks claim To: 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="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id LAA20569 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I would award three tricks but not 4. There are to many variables as to what cards declarer will discard from dummy to be able to award all the tricks. I am making declarer first play the Jack of Clubs, since he first mentioned that card. He therefore has to immediately make a decision about what to discard even though West discards in from of him. If West discards a spade, I have no indication that declarer remembers the spade position. regards, Jack Rhind *************************************************************** ##### # # ####### # # # ### # ### ### #### # # # # # # # ##### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ##### # ### # # ### ### # # # ## Voice: (441) 297-TECH Fax: (441) 293-4421 Jack A. Rhind (441) 293-0282 *************************************************************** On Sunday, May 21, 2000, Ben Schelen wrote: > >            5 >            - >        A 7 3 >            - >  >10                    - >-                      - >J 8 4                K >-                    10 6 3 >  >            - >            - >        Q 5 2 >            J >  >The contract is notrump. The declarer after winning the 9th >trick says:"I claim another two tricks: J of clubs and the ace of diamonds" >and the players show their remaining cards. It now appears that >the king is caught. East says two tricks are two tricks and the >TD is summoned. He decides that declarer gets three tricks but >north asks for a fourth trick because west is squeezed. >How would you rule? From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 22 11:36:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA20671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 11:36:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA20655 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 11:36:06 +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 12th8D-000FFb-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 May 2000 01:35:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 02:21:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A bit quiet References: <200005182252.SAA13120@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3dgWjbADwRJ5EwCJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000301bfc1eb$3b232ea0$b9391dc2@rabbit> In-Reply-To: <000301bfc1eb$3b232ea0$b9391dc2@rabbit> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thomas Dehn wrote: >It is irrational, but it is consistent with the claim statement >"DQ pitching a heart". Absolutely true, so we do not hold him to it in our ruling. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK As an experiment please use these new addresses: comments appreciated Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 22 11:36:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA20672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 11:36:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA20660 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 11:36:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12th8I-000KUq-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 May 2000 01:35:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 02:27:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Antwerp Mixed Pairs References: <200005191003.LAA16156@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article <200005191003.LAA16156@tempest.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker > writes >>My experience is that EBU directors do not really believe L15A1. Twice >>last year I was more-or-less admonished for trying to allow scores from >>misplayed board to stand. Basically the scoring software can not cope: >>I needed to enter the scores for the boards against each pair of pairs >>that should have played one another. >Of course I allow the scores to stand. Haworth's program allows for it, >so does the YC one. Even if it doesn't you can sort it out with >adjustments. The easy solution is to amend the pair numbers to the ones >who played it and amend the ones later on the computer traveller to be >the pairs who can't play it when they should and award an ArtAss. If the EBU program does not allow for it then the TD will just have to sort it out by hand and make manual adjustments. The players should not be suffering because of the deficiencies of the EBU software. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK As an experiment please use these new addresses: comments appreciated Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 22 11:36:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA20656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 11:36:12 +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 LAA20649 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 11:36:02 +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 12th8D-00017v-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 May 2000 01:35:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 02:20:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Forgotten winner (was: A bit quiet---but isn't any more) References: <200005200045.RAA26941@mailhub.irvine.com> <000b01bfc225$632f83a0$865908c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <000b01bfc225$632f83a0$865908c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >From: Adam Beneschan >> The Director then adjudicates the result as equitably as possible. >> >> That's all! The last statement (from L70A) is very broad and gives >> the Director no guidance at all; > >+=+ Adam seems to have left out the very last words >of 70A in order that he may introduce something that >is not in 70B, 70C, 70D or 70E. No, he has included the first words of L70A so that he may. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK As an experiment please use these new addresses: comments appreciated Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 22 11:36:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA20648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 11:36:04 +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 LAA20640 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 11:35:54 +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 12th7z-00018S-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 May 2000 01:35:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 02:14:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A bit quiet References: <200005182252.SAA13120@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3dgWjbADwRJ5EwCJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <20000519175800.17494.qmail@hotmail.com> <200005191422290370.00C6F7F1@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <200005191422290370.00C6F7F1@mail.earthlink.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Brian Baresch wrote: >>I think that when the law says that irrational plays will not be foisted >>upon claimers for the parts of the claim that are unstated it is odd that >it >>be extended to the part of the claim that says how it is to be done. iirc >>the claim was to pitch a heart on the diamond queen. South had a heart to >>pitch and it would not be illegal to do so. L45C4a has some interesting >>things to say about the most basic premise upon which claims are based. > >This is what struck me. Once declarer has said "pitching a heart on the >diamond queen" he has designated both as cards he intends to play and must >play both, n'est-ce pas? > >If declarer, however, had been less definite, saying "I can pitch a heart >on the diamond queen", I don't think I'd treat the (lowest) heart as a >played card. In that case I'd rule 4S=. > >Am I seeing a false distinction here? Yes. In one case you have a claim statement that cannot be followed and in the other case you have a claim statement that cannot be followed. Part of the claim statement is the number of tricks. When a player is intending to discard as part of taking all the remaining tricks then he is not forced to continue with a busted claim statement. I know that people on this list do not like the fact that we do not hold declarer to irrational plays. Such a view is against the Laws of the game and bad for the game. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK As an experiment please use these new addresses: comments appreciated Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 22 11:36:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA20670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 11:36:18 +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 LAA20653 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 11:36:06 +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 12th8D-00017w-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 May 2000 01:35:51 +0000 Message-ID: <$0iEJ$AExIK5Ewpo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 02:24:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claim jumping References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David J. Grabiner wrote: >However, if the director isn't sure, particularly when unjust enrichment or >abuse of process is possible, he should probably take the ruling to >committee himself. Abuse of process is usually possible, but extremely unlikely as a rule. But what is unjust enrichment? If a TD is not particularly certain about his ruling he can tell the players so. But I do not approve of him taking a ruling to appeal except in very special circumstances. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK As an experiment please use these new addresses: comments appreciated Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 22 13:23:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA20998 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 13:23:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA20993 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 13:23:25 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA08549 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 13:21:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 22 May 2000 13:21:15 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: Claim jumping/forgotten winner To: Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 13:19:40 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 22/05/2000 01:19:04 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: "I don't mind ruling (in EBU events) that the player can "change his mind" but I bet if he'd played it out, at least some of the time, he'd have thrown a heart on the DQ, because he'd already got it detached from his hand and wasn't watching. This is *carelessness* not *irrationality* and my test for bum claims is fairly stringent." I wrote: "In a Swiss Teams match between average players and some visiting expert sharks, an average declarer in 5D claimed, announcing that she was drawing trumps. The sharks disputed the claim, because if declarer won the final round of trumps in the wrong hand, then there would be no access to the other hand's established winners to provide necessary discards. The Director routinely ruled in favour of the sharks ..." In the case I posted, presumably the TD was applying L70D and footnote 20 in the same spirit as John (MadDog) Probst - who suggests that there is less irrationality in elite EBU events. I have democratic objections to the words "for the class of player involved" in footnote 20, which encourages sharks to contest claims, and discourages average players from making claims. I suggest that these words are omitted from the next edition of the Laws. Best wishes Richard Hills richard.hills@immi.gov.au From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 22 13:34:13 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA20751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 11:55:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta01-svc.server.ntlworld.com (mta01-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA20744 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 11:54:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.253.84.64]) by mta01-svc.server.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000522015433.GWWO381.mta01-svc.server.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 02:54:33 +0100 Message-ID: <001501bfc391$410fec20$4054fd3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" References: <39226F9C.C95859C@village.uunet.be> <001301bfc16a$a1c50100$0754fd3e@vnmvhhid> <20000519134508.7795.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Antwerp Mixed Pairs Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 02:58:40 +0100 Organization: X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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: Roger Pewick To: blml Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 2:46 PM Subject: Re: Antwerp Mixed Pairs > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: anne_jones > To: BLML > Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 3:17 AM > Subject: Re: Antwerp Mixed Pairs > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Herman De Wael > > To: Bridge Laws ; Yael Yseboodt > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 11:08 AM > > Subject: Antwerp Mixed Pairs > > > > I think this is a very good example of Law 15 in action. > > It is clearly wrong to implement Law 15A1, and Law 15A2. > > The outcome of this would be that 2, or maybe 4 pairs would > > end up gatting scores on more boards than the rest of the field. > > > > > However Herman has managed to find a way around this. > > In order to implement L15A2, he has stopped a pair who were > > scheduled to play against each other from playing the boards > > they were scheduled to play on a subsequent round.The result being > > that all players played the same number of boards. > > > > > The lack of mail on this subject makes me think that BLMLers > > think Herman was right. > > If this is so, do you think Law 15A should read, either or both of the > > following L15A1/Law15A2. > > Anne > > I am not inclined to accept that the words of 15A1 and 15A2 make, in and of > themselves, application of one incompatible with concurrent application of > the other, unlikely perhaps, but not incompatible. The situation Herman > presented made it possible to achieve the number of comparisons originally > planned for each board, albeit not between all of the planned contestants. > For instance, a late contestant shows up. 8A1 provides the director the > mechanism to change the original plan and add a table. The director's > function is to do so in as fair as way as possible. > > The players were available, albeit not to play as originally planned, but > available. It sounds like Herman handled the state of affairs with > competence. > > I note that Herman stated that there were two stationary tables, so by > necessity that means the movement was unbalanced to begin with. I believe > that an unbalanced movement was the objection, wasn't it. Btw, when a > balanced movement is an objective I can think of no good reason to have two > stationaries in this movement [The handicapped pair gets its own table to > the side and when their opponents get to the table they pick up the boards > and take themselves to the handicapped pair to play. ] But I would hardly > think that Herman would employ an unbalanced movement in the contest : ). > I'm sure you're right. This would have been a 2 sess event where there was a mitchell in the first session, and a double Howell in the second. All the pairs would have been scheduled to play each other once. It is not completely balanced as each pair avoids one set of boards. At least that is how I think it was. As DWS says "there is no Law that says a pair cannot play each other a second time", and "player come to play bridge not get ArtAss while sitting in the bar". However, in t his instance I would not have done what Herman did, but I think I defend his right to do it. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 22 14:02:05 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA21085 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 14:02:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.60]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA21080 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 14:01:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-58-215-206.s460.tnt2.lnhdc.md.dialup.rcn.com ([208.58.215.206] helo=erols) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #3) id 12tjPR-0006Vs-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 May 2000 00:01:44 -0400 Message-ID: <000f01bfc3a2$70674e80$020aa8c0@com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <391AE2D6.C5BBFEAD@village.uunet.be><200005101936.PAA04839@cfa183.harvard.edu><8L77XsAzjiG5Ewqx@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <391AE2D6.C5BBFEAD@village.uunet.be><7wJK5IC+NJH5EwQV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <004301bfbf9d$60670c40$020aa8c0@com> Subject: Re: L16B in action Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 00:01:32 -0400 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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 10:17 PM Subject: Re: L16B in action > Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "David Stevenson" > >To: > >Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 7:27 PM > >Subject: Re: L16B in action > > > > > >> David J. Grabiner wrote: > > > >> > > >> >And what if a player or the TD discovers later that the information was > >> >consequential? > >> > > >> >Example: the C2 is left face up in the East hand by the previous pair, > >and > >> >the other players see it. The TD checks the hand records and decides > >that > >> >the C2 is inconsequential in East's hand of 8 K864 9752 7542. South > >> >declares 4S. West leads KA of spades, and East discards the C4 on the > >> >second spade. E-W are playing odd-even discards. Because he has seen > >the > >> >C2, West knows that the C4 is not East's lowest even club, and switches > >to > >> >a heart to beat the contract. > >> > > >> >Do you now adjust? And if so, do you adjust to A+/A+, or to +50/+420? > >> > >> I expect you adjust to +50/+420. Which Law? L82C, I expect: after > >> all, I made a mistake, didn't I? > >> > > > >I may be missing something here. L82C does not specify whether the adjusted > >score is artificial or assigned. Accordingly, I would go back and assign the > >score that would have occurred in the absence of my error. A bridge score > >without applying 16A1 or 16A2 is not possible if the UI was correctly judged > >by the TD to be consequential. There's no way to know what would have > >happened had the TD appointed a substitute, so all that's left is 16B3, or > >A+/A+, as the most likely result of a correct original ruling. Is there a > >reason not to rule this? > > A result was obtained at the table, and thus the Laws tell you to > assign a score not to give an artificial one. > I'm not at all sure that it is this clear, although I'm certainly willing to be convinced. > I really think that your example is a good one to show what is wrong > with this illegal method. If a sub had been appointed then the probable > results were NS+420, NS-50. We treat each side as non-offending per > L82C, so we give N/S NS+420, E/W NS-50. What is difficult about that? > We're allowing E/W a score that they obtained by making a play that was suggested by UI? That seems to be a pretty big difficulty to me. I agree with your general principle, but I believe you have applied it to the wrong problem. Everything that follows is IMO: First, let's look at L82C: "C. Director's Error If the Director has given a ruling that he or the Chief Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, considering both sides as non-offending for that purpose." First, we have to try and rectify the error. If no rectification is possible, then we adjust the score. So, the first question is whether or not a rectification will allow a normal score, that is, a score that would have been obtained had L16B been correctly applied. It's too late to change positions or to appoint a substitute, so these rectifications won't work. However, 16B3 specifies an artificial score, which 12A1 tells us is A+ for both sides, and that's a perfectly normal score for this particular situation. Does this rectification correct the TD error? Yes. So, we are rectifying by belatedly applying 16B3, as the first clause in 82C tells us to do. We are not rectifying under L12C2. You suggest allowing the score that could have been obtained under 16B2. However, does this mean that a 16B2 adjustment must have been possible at the time of the TD error? Suppose that there were no substitutes available, so that 16B3 would have been the only adjustment possible if it had been applied at the correct time. Do we now adjust these cases to A+, while assigning a score to the cases where a substitute might have been found? However, getting to the real reason I'm not going to give out that -50, the only way that it could have been obtained in the example given was through possible use of UI. The original irregularity was the presence of the extraneous UI. However, to get that result, the defender had to take an action that was suggested by the UI, which is a separate infraction. If we allow the -50, we are in effect giving player's the free use of UI once play continues. That's my main objection to your adjustment. While everything else here is fairly trivial, it's going to take some heavy persuading for me let a player keep a score obtained in violation of 16A. This problem would not normally occur in a game where I was directing, as I would be hovering at the table to stop play and award A+ as soon as I saw that the UI could be used, even if I originally thought it would be inconsequential. However, if I'm called away from the table, and don't get back in time to halt play, do I now have to assign a score instead of A+? I like to rule a bit more consistently than that. > You say "There's no way to know what would have happened ..." which > seems to be the most common reason quoted for the illegal A+/A- score, > but L12C2 does *not* ask you to determine "what would have happened", > just to decide the most likely/at all probable scores. > No, I'm assigning A+/A+ under L12C1because that is what L82C/L16B3 tells me I should have done earlier. L16B3 does not allow for a L12C2 adjustment. > It *really* is not difficult to assign in these circumstances. > The board should not have been played. It is indeed not difficult to cancel it, and restore the normal result. > -- > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > As an experiment please use these new addresses: comments appreciated > Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm Hirsch Davis Rockville, MD USA From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 22 19:57:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA21664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 19:57:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f174.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.174]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA21659 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 19:57:03 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 88912 invoked by uid 0); 22 May 2000 09:56:24 -0000 Message-ID: <20000522095624.88911.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.219 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 22 May 2000 02:56:23 PDT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Forgotten winner (was: A bit quiet---but isn't any more) Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 02:56:23 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: >I had one tonight: > >declarer claims at trick 12 holding J8 trump when RHO is on lead with a >blank card and the trump 9. RHO had doubled for penalties and LHO had >doubled for takeout. No-one had shown out. I ruled one trick to the >oppo. Declarer agreed he'd been sloppy and thought I was probably >right. I think you're probably wrong. Consider the choices when RHO leads a plain card: a) Declarer knows the nine of trumps is out. He has to play the eight. b) Declarer knows there is one trump out, but not what it is. He has to play the eight, in case it's the nine. If it's lower than the eight, it doesn't matter which he plays, but he has to play the eight in case it does matter. c) Declarer doesn't know there is a trump out. RHO leads. He plays the card nearest his thumb. It is the eight. d) Declarer doesn't know there is a trump out. RHO leads. He plays the card furthest from his thumb. He plays the jack. Whilst one can't ascribe a percentage value to each of these actions, it does seem to me that the eight is favourite by a long chalk, even if declarer thinks that the eight and the jack are equals. I would suggest, therefore, that opponents, and people sitting the same way (assuming this is pairs) should not benefit in this situation.* *Doublespeak for "Declarer gets away with it this time" ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 22 22:12:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA22061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 22:02:52 +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 WAA22044 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 22:02:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-211.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.211]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA13411 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 14:02:15 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <392919D0.A181D4E1@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 13:28:16 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: a two tricks claim References: <001c01bfc359$029e55e0$83013dd4@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > > >3 tricks, it looks as if declarer has lost count of the hand, so the 10th > >trick might go: CJ, ST, S5, C3. > > > >Henk > > > I concur. John > -- Me too. See, John, we do agree on claims sometimes ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 22 22:47:26 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA22300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 22:47:26 +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 WAA22289 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 22:47:15 +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 12trbt-0001x7-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 May 2000 13:47:06 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 13:21:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Forgotten winner (was: A bit quiet---but isn't any more) References: <20000522095624.88911.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000522095624.88911.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Norman Scorbie wrote: >John Probst wrote: >>I had one tonight: >> >>declarer claims at trick 12 holding J8 trump when RHO is on lead with a >>blank card and the trump 9. RHO had doubled for penalties and LHO had >>doubled for takeout. No-one had shown out. I ruled one trick to the >>oppo. Declarer agreed he'd been sloppy and thought I was probably >>right. >I think you're probably wrong. Consider the choices when RHO leads a plain >card: > >a) Declarer knows the nine of trumps is out. He has to play the eight. >b) Declarer knows there is one trump out, but not what it is. He has to play >the eight, in case it's the nine. If it's lower than the eight, it doesn't >matter which he plays, but he has to play the eight in case it does matter. >c) Declarer doesn't know there is a trump out. RHO leads. He plays the card >nearest his thumb. It is the eight. >d) Declarer doesn't know there is a trump out. RHO leads. He plays the card >furthest from his thumb. He plays the jack. > >Whilst one can't ascribe a percentage value to each of these actions, it >does seem to me that the eight is favourite by a long chalk, even if >declarer thinks that the eight and the jack are equals. > >I would suggest, therefore, that opponents, and people sitting the same way >(assuming this is pairs) should not benefit in this situation.* Why? What are we doing? We are ruling in situations as we are required, yes? Now, first of all, one of the psychological ploys in use in NAmerica is to pretend to worry about "protecting the field". It is primarily a method that players who should really be forced to live in cages use as a justification for their actions when they are asking for rulings that no normal human would ask for. It has no basis in Law. The Laws do not take account of the effect at other tables. Such effects are trivial at best, and part of the normal ebb and flow of luck in the game. No TD should be considering this in any way when deciding what the correct ruling is. If he does then he is not doing his job correctly. So when we rule in John's case, we do not consider the rest of the field. If you do not agree with this perhaps you could show me a Law that suggests we should. Now, let us consider the benefit to "the opponents", the current NAmerican windfall argument [almost taking over from "protecting the field" in popularity]. You are playing a hand. Your opponents reach a position where, if they had played it out, one of a number of things would have happened, some better for you, some not so good. If some action of your opponents means that the board is not played out in the normal and fair fashion, either because they claim, or because they infract, then your chance at getting a good score may be lost. As a result rulings tend to be biased in your direction: biased by the letter of the Law. That is correct. Why should you not benefit? You *might* have been going to get a good score anyway: that chance has been removed, and no-one will ever know whether it would have happened. So to not give you a good score in such circumstances and say you do not deserve a windfall is not fair on you. Should we therefore always give the non-offenders or non-claimers in the various circumstances a good score? No, what we should do is to rule as the Laws require, and not put in additional little rules of our own about "windfalls" or "protecting the field". so let us just decide John's case on the Laws. >*Doublespeak for "Declarer gets away with it this time" Hardly a reasonable basis for ruling. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 22 22:47:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA22298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 22:47:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA22288 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 22:47:13 +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 12trbl-0001wv-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 May 2000 13:47:02 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 13:30:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claim jumping/forgotten winner References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard wrote: >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >"I don't mind ruling (in EBU events) that the player can "change his mind" >but I bet if he'd played it out, at least some of the time, he'd have >thrown a heart on the DQ, because he'd already got it detached from his >hand and wasn't watching. This is *carelessness* not *irrationality* and >my test for bum claims is fairly stringent." >I wrote: > >"In a Swiss Teams match between average players and some visiting expert >sharks, an average declarer in 5D claimed, announcing that she was drawing >trumps. The sharks disputed the claim, because if declarer won the final >round of trumps in the wrong hand, then there would be no access to the >other hand's established winners to provide necessary discards. The >Director routinely ruled in favour of the sharks ..." > >In the case I posted, presumably the TD was applying L70D and footnote 20 >in the same spirit as John (MadDog) Probst - who suggests that there is >less irrationality in elite EBU events. I have democratic objections to >the words "for the class of player involved" in footnote 20, which >encourages sharks to contest claims, and discourages average players from >making claims. I suggest that these words are omitted from the next >edition of the Laws. John is not talking of elite EBU events. He is talking of EBU events. Unlike the approach we see here and on RGB about the application of Laws in some countries, we make every effort to apply the Laws fairly at various levels of the game, and we train our TDs so to do. The reason for his choice of wording is that John knowingly and deliberately chooses to apply different standards to some of his applications of Law to YC rulings from EBU rulings. This does not mean that the EBU events are better than the YC ones, just that he believes that he has the right to assume different interpretations with different SOs [sponsoring organisations]. I find your interpretation of the footnote very strange. There are situations where it is an interpretation that benefits the better player, true, but there are also situations where the opposite applies. If you take the words away then it is difficult to see how you are going to rule. Is it normal play for a complete beginner to execute a trump squeeze? How are you going to rule on a claim including a trump squeeze if you do not consider the class of player? Are you going to assume that Hamman cannot execute one or that a beginner can? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 22 23:12:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA22062 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 22:02:53 +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 WAA22049 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 22:02:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-211.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.211]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA13439 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 14:02:18 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39291C44.E98792C2@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 13:38:44 +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: How harsh on claiming ? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I played in the most prestigious tournament in Belgium over the weekend. (They did not need me as director - so I played) Really prestigious. I mean, a Polish pair first, a Belgian second, Hackett-Hackett third, Van Eyck-Zhao fourth and Verbeek-Van Zwol fifth. I'm in four spades redoubled (don't ask) with the following cards : K86 AKQ6 K765 QT Q975432 T3 T9 72 LHO starts with the Aces of Diamonds and Clubs and then strangely leads another diamond. I cash three top hearts, pitching my second club, and saying, "I'm not really counting on this", since RHO had shown 5 hearts. LHO ruffs with the Jack, and I now claim saying "and the Ace of trumps". (ie down one) LHO shows me the ace and the ten of spades as well. He does not contest my claim, nor do I believe he could, but how harsh would people like John judge this ? BTW, -400 still earnt me 15% on the deal ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 22 23:23:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA22031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 22:02:28 +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 WAA22021 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 22:02:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-211.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.211]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA13273 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 14:02:00 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39291469.55621FDE@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 13:05:13 +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: Antwerp Mixed Pairs References: <39226F9C.C95859C@village.uunet.be> <001301bfc16a$a1c50100$0754fd3e@vnmvhhid> <20000519134508.7795.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: > > > I note that Herman stated that there were two stationary tables, so by I don't believe I ever stated anything of the sort. In fact, all 17 pairs had to move on every round but one. > necessity that means the movement was unbalanced to begin with. I No it wasn't. And even stationary tables don't make a movement unbalanced, as it is quite customary to arrow-switch for stationary pairs. > believe > that an unbalanced movement was the objection, wasn't it. Btw, when a > balanced movement is an objective I can think of no good reason to have two > stationaries in this movement [The handicapped pair gets its own table to > the side and when their opponents get to the table they pick up the boards > and take themselves to the handicapped pair to play. ] But I would hardly > think that Herman would employ an unbalanced movement in the contest : ). > I'm using the swedish book and I am fairly confident that they get these things as good as possible. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 22 23:48:21 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA22508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 23:48:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f103.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.103]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA22503 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 23:48:13 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 72783 invoked by uid 0); 22 May 2000 13:47:33 -0000 Message-ID: <20000522134733.72782.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.219 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 22 May 2000 06:47:33 PDT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Forgotten winner (was: A bit quiet---but isn't any more) Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 06:47:33 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson >Reply-To: David Stevenson >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Subject: Re: Forgotten winner (was: A bit quiet---but isn't any more) >Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 13:21:53 +0100 > >Norman Scorbie wrote: > >John Probst wrote: > > >>I had one tonight: > >> > >>declarer claims at trick 12 holding J8 trump when RHO is on lead with a > >>blank card and the trump 9. RHO had doubled for penalties and LHO had > >>doubled for takeout. No-one had shown out. I ruled one trick to the > >>oppo. Declarer agreed he'd been sloppy and thought I was probably > >>right. > > >I think you're probably wrong. Consider the choices when RHO leads a >plain > >card: > > > >a) Declarer knows the nine of trumps is out. He has to play the eight. > >b) Declarer knows there is one trump out, but not what it is. He has to >play > >the eight, in case it's the nine. If it's lower than the eight, it >doesn't > >matter which he plays, but he has to play the eight in case it does >matter. > >c) Declarer doesn't know there is a trump out. RHO leads. He plays the >card > >nearest his thumb. It is the eight. > >d) Declarer doesn't know there is a trump out. RHO leads. He plays the >card > >furthest from his thumb. He plays the jack. > > > >Whilst one can't ascribe a percentage value to each of these actions, it > >does seem to me that the eight is favourite by a long chalk, even if > >declarer thinks that the eight and the jack are equals. > > > >I would suggest, therefore, that opponents, and people sitting the same >way > >(assuming this is pairs) should not benefit in this situation.* > > Why? > > What are we doing? We are ruling in situations as we are required, >yes? > > Now, first of all, one of the psychological ploys in use in NAmerica >is to pretend to worry about "protecting the field". It is primarily a >method that players who should really be forced to live in cages use as >a justification for their actions when they are asking for rulings that >no normal human would ask for. It has no basis in Law. The Laws do not >take account of the effect at other tables. Such effects are trivial at >best, and part of the normal ebb and flow of luck in the game. No TD >should be considering this in any way when deciding what the correct >ruling is. If he does then he is not doing his job correctly. > > So when we rule in John's case, we do not consider the rest of the >field. If you do not agree with this perhaps you could show me a Law >that suggests we should. > > Now, let us consider the benefit to "the opponents", the current >NAmerican windfall argument [almost taking over from "protecting the >field" in popularity]. You are playing a hand. Your opponents reach a >position where, if they had played it out, one of a number of things >would have happened, some better for you, some not so good. If some >action of your opponents means that the board is not played out in the >normal and fair fashion, either because they claim, or because they >infract, then your chance at getting a good score may be lost. As a >result rulings tend to be biased in your direction: biased by the letter >of the Law. That is correct. Why should you not benefit? You *might* >have been going to get a good score anyway: that chance has been >removed, and no-one will ever know whether it would have happened. So >to not give you a good score in such circumstances and say you do not >deserve a windfall is not fair on you. > > Should we therefore always give the non-offenders or non-claimers in >the various circumstances a good score? No, what we should do is to >rule as the Laws require, and not put in additional little rules of our >own about "windfalls" or "protecting the field". > > so let us just decide John's case on the Laws. > > >*Doublespeak for "Declarer gets away with it this time" > > Hardly a reasonable basis for ruling. > My hypothesis was not to ensure that opponents and the rest of the field did not benefit. Their non-benefit was the result of the hypothesis. Not the same thing at all. ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 23 00:12:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA22187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 22:30:49 +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 WAA22181 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 22:30:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Mon, 22 May 2000 14:30:08 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id OAA17951; Mon, 22 May 2000 14:13:54 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'John Probst'" , Subject: RE: Forgotten winner (was: A bit quiet---but isn't any more) Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 14:13:18 +0200 Message-ID: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310C1@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: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101B30C@xion.spase.nl> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >I had one tonight: > >declarer claims at trick 12 holding J8 trump when RHO is on lead with a >blank card and the trump 9. RHO had doubled for penalties and LHO had >doubled for takeout. No-one had shown out. I ruled one trick to the >oppo. Declarer agreed he'd been sloppy and thought I was probably >right. Robin (who happened to be playing in the game) agreed with me. >I actually think that it is less likely for the oppo to get a trick in >this position than the one originally posted. Agreed. If declarer forgot that there was a trump out, he could ruff RHO's blank card high, since to him it doesn't matter. And since declarer admitted that he had been sloppy, I see no reason to think otherwise. One trick for the defence. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 23 00:37:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA22041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 22:02:41 +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 WAA22032 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 22:02:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-211.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.211]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA13351 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 14:02:08 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <392916E6.31033C21@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 13:15:50 +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: Forgotten winner (was: A bit quiet---but isn't any more) References: <200005192011.NAA21314@mailhub.irvine.com> <20000520001044.41909.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > I had one tonight: > > declarer claims at trick 12 holding J8 trump when RHO is on lead with a > blank card and the trump 9. RHO had doubled for penalties and LHO had > doubled for takeout. No-one had shown out. I ruled one trick to the > oppo. Declarer agreed he'd been sloppy and thought I was probably > right. Robin (who happened to be playing in the game) agreed with me. > I actually think that it is less likely for the oppo to get a trick in > this position than the one originally posted. > The fact that the players agreed with you just means that you are highly regarded as a TD, not that you are right ! I don't believe this is right. If I see it correctly, you ruled that it would be possible for declarer to ruff with the Jack in stead of the eight ? Seems very careless to me, bordering on the irrational. IMO over the border. > cheers john > -- > John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947 > 451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou > London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk > +44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 23 00:42:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA22643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 00:42:01 +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 AAA22633 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 00:41:51 +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 12ttOl-0002CD-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 May 2000 15:41:40 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 15:32:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Antwerp Mixed Pairs References: <39226F9C.C95859C@village.uunet.be> <001301bfc16a$a1c50100$0754fd3e@vnmvhhid> <20000519134508.7795.qmail@hotmail.com> <39291469.55621FDE@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <39291469.55621FDE@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <39291469.55621FDE@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Roger Pewick wrote: >> >> >> I note that Herman stated that there were two stationary tables, so by > >I don't believe I ever stated anything of the sort. In >fact, all 17 pairs had to move on every round but one. > >> necessity that means the movement was unbalanced to begin with. I >No it wasn't. And even stationary tables don't make a >movement unbalanced, as it is quite customary to >arrow-switch for stationary pairs. > >> believe >> that an unbalanced movement was the objection, wasn't it. Btw, when a >> balanced movement is an objective I can think of no good reason to have two >> stationaries in this movement [The handicapped pair gets its own table to >> the side and when their opponents get to the table they pick up the boards >> and take themselves to the handicapped pair to play. ] But I would hardly >> think that Herman would employ an unbalanced movement in the contest : ). >> > >I'm using the swedish book and I am fairly confident that >they get these things as good as possible. > If it were an all play all (or close to it), I'd agree. The EBU movement book and the Swedish one are in pretty close agreement in these situations. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 23 00:42:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA22644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 00:42:01 +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 AAA22634 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 00:41:52 +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 12ttOl-0002CE-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 May 2000 15:41:42 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 15:39:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: How harsh on claiming ? References: <39291C44.E98792C2@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <39291C44.E98792C2@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <39291C44.E98792C2@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >I played in the most prestigious tournament in Belgium over >the weekend. > >(They did not need me as director - so I played) > >Really prestigious. > >I mean, a Polish pair first, a Belgian second, >Hackett-Hackett third, Van Eyck-Zhao fourth and Verbeek-Van >Zwol fifth. > >I'm in four spades redoubled (don't ask) with the following >cards : > > K86 > AKQ6 > K765 > QT > > Q975432 > T3 > T9 > 72 > >LHO starts with the Aces of Diamonds and Clubs and then >strangely leads another diamond. I cash three top hearts, >pitching my second club, and saying, "I'm not really >counting on this", since RHO had shown 5 hearts. > >LHO ruffs with the Jack, and I now claim saying "and the Ace >of trumps". >(ie down one) In this case you've shown awareness of the trump suit, and I'd allow the claim. cheers john > >LHO shows me the ace and the ten of spades as well. >He does not contest my claim, nor do I believe he could, but >how harsh would people like John judge this ? > >BTW, -400 still earnt me 15% on the deal ! -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 23 00:45:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA22060 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 22:02:50 +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 WAA22038 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 22:02:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-211.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.211]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA13392 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 14:02:12 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3929194F.42E5ED91@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 13:26:07 +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: Another problem from Germany References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martaandras@uze.net wrote: > > Dear colleagues all over the world, my friend, Jeff Easterson from Germany > supplied me another problem to share with you. > > Screens are used and the bidding was the following. > S W N E > P 1 NT P P > 2 H > > When N and E pulled the tray through the opening in the screen they apparently did not > pull it far enough. At least neither of them saw the 2 H bid and assumed S had passed. > Thus they assumed the bidding had ended and and they did not place pass cards on the tray. > S and W knew the contract was 2 H by S and waited for the tap on the screen expecting to have W > make the opening lead, and N's cards revealed as dummy on the other side. W faced (unfortunately) > his lead and tapped the screen. The screen was raised and they discovered that E had faced all his > cards and N had faced an opening lead as well. > The TD is called. One defender had faced his hand and there were 2 faced up opening leads, one by > the proper leader the other by the actual dummy. > Your decision? > Too difficult. Next board. Av- to both sides. I'm kidding. No in fact I am not. I believe the players, all four of them, would realise that what I am doing is saving them valuable time and effort. They would accept my offer to cancel the board and rule it unplayable. I could try and offer the technically correct ruling, but I won't. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 23 01:12:51 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA22056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 22:02:47 +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 WAA22034 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 22:02:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-211.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.211]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA13372 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 14:02:10 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3929181C.CEA0F82B@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 13:21:00 +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: Forgotten winner (was: A bit quiet---but isn't any more) References: <200005200045.RAA26941@mailhub.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > That's all! The last statement (from L70A) is very broad and gives > the Director no guidance at all; it doesn't give any principles or > guidelines as to what is considered equitable. There's nothing that > even says that the Director has to pay attention to claimer's > statement at all; and I see nothing in the Laws that says we have to > obey claimer's statement, or how far we have to obey it. If someone > playing at notrump lays down this hand: > > K3 > KQJ54 > -- > 2 > > AQ5 > A > 63 > 43 > > and says "I'm going to take my three spades and then my five hearts", Yet again an example that will only confuse the average blml'er. This kind of thing never happens. What does happen is that declarer will say "I'm taking three spades and five hearts". (without the word "then" as in the original) We have often said that in such a statement, the order of the naming of the suits does not indicate the order of the playing of them. Not "for" claimer, but neither "against" him. It can be deemed irrational (depending on level of play, but it would be very strange to hear a claim from someone who does not recognise this simple blockage) to suggest that declarer can fail to play this correctly. Which is why the example is confusing, and not educational at all. If a declarer, in real life, were to say : > and says "I'm going to take my three spades and THEN my five hearts", I would rule that he is crazy and not allow the claim. But this simply won't happen, so there is no need to discuss this. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 23 01:46:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA22245 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 22:40:02 +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 WAA22239 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 22:39:51 +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 IAA02822 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 08:37:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000522084331.006d6a1c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 08:43:31 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Ruling please: L68/L57 ???? In-Reply-To: <3926415D.62BD1C06@eduhi.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:40 AM 5/20/00 +0200, Petrus wrote: >In our National Teams Championships, the following situation arose at >trick 12 in 4H: > (dummy) > - > - > J > 9 >- K >- - >- K >Q8 - > T > 4 > - > - > >Declarer lead his last trump, C8 from W, C9 from dummy. E sank into deep >meditation. >At this point W showed his CQ. >Upon enquiry, he said he had mistakenly thought Souths last card to be a >club and wanted to claim trick 13. >Should the TD apply L57 nonetheless? >If not, should he rule the discard of SK a careless but not irrational >play, reasoning that someone who has to think in this position is unsure >of the count (which is, of course, available) and may well discard the >wrong king? EW are aspiring juniors. Would an AC rule differently? I do not believe L57 should be applied. The CQ was not a premature lead or play; it was an attempt to claim the last trick (I have no reason to disbelieve W's statement that this was his intention). So we are left to decide whether it would be irrational for E to discard the SK. My inclination is to allow E to discard the DK if S has previously shown out of diamonds, but not otherwise. Failing to reconstruct the count by inference, even if it is clearly available, is careless but not irrational, while failing to notice someone showing out of a suit (even if it takes some thought to mentally replay the hand) is irrational. This may not be explicitly stated in the laws, but I see L70E as providing a guiding principle for this situation by analogy. 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 May 23 02:50:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA23101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 02:50:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from cgomboc.drotposta.hu (cgomboc.drotposta.hu [212.108.226.84]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA23095 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 02:50:29 +1000 (EST) From: Martaandras@uze.net Received: from agomboc.drotposta.hu ([212.108.226.81] helo=LOCALHOST) by cgomboc.drotposta.hu with smtp (Exim 3.12 #1) id 12tvOj-0005o7-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 May 2000 18:49:46 +0200 Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 17:31:56 +0100 (MET DST) To: BLML Subject: Re: Ruling please: L68/L57 ???? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id CAA23096 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I do not believe L 57 is applicable here as when W showing the CQ meant he was going to take the last trick with it (obviously he had to play it to the next trick as it was the last one but I do not think we have to apply L57 mechanically). It seems for me like a claim for the last trick. In this case L70 A is applied as a general principle. Therefore we have to decide whether to discard the S K is careless but not irrational. What East could deduct from the C Q is that declarer last card is not a club. The previous tricks could help us: assuming declarer in the earlier part of the play ruffed a diamond I would certainly decide the last trick for E-W. So it would be useful to be aware of the previous sequence of the play. Andras Booc martaandras@uze.net Petrus Schuster OSB 2000.05.20. 09:40:13 +2h-kor írta: > In our National Teams Championships, the following situation arose at > trick 12 in 4H: > (dummy) > - > - > J > 9 > - K > - - > - K > Q8 - > T > 4 > - > - > > Declarer lead his last trump, C8 from W, C9 from dummy. E sank into deep > meditation. > At this point W showed his CQ. > Upon enquiry, he said he had mistakenly thought Souths last card to be a > club and wanted to claim trick 13. > Should the TD apply L57 nonetheless? > If not, should he rule the discard of SK a careless but not irrational > play, reasoning that someone who has to think in this position is unsure > of the count (which is, of course, available) and may well discard the > wrong king? EW are aspiring juniors. Would an AC rule differently? > > cheers, Petrus. From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 23 02:57:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA23125 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 02:57:20 +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 CAA23120 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 02:57:11 +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 JAA21818; Mon, 22 May 2000 09:56:52 -0700 Message-Id: <200005221656.JAA21818@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Is overtrick wild? In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 21 May 2000 09:24:59 PDT." <20000521162459.18730.qmail@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 09:56:52 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Todd wrote: > For those without cyrillic mappings... > > K8x > AJxx > xxxx > xx > > A9xx Q > xx K10xx > AJ9 KQxxxx > Kxxx xx > > J10xxx > Qxx > - > AQJ10x > Thanks, Todd. This is how the original showed up on my screen: S K8\310 H \364J\310\310 D \310\310\310\310 C \310\310 S \3649\310\310 S Q H \310\310 H K10\310\310 D \364J9 D KQ\310\310\310\310 C K\310\310\310 C \310\310 S \36710\310\310\310 H \344\310\310 D = C \364\344\36710\310 Hopefully that will be enough to scare people into making sure they use universally-understood character sets in their posts. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 23 03:37:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA23237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 03:37:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [207.213.113.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA23232 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 03:37:39 +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 KAA22523; Mon, 22 May 2000 10:37:17 -0700 Message-Id: <200005221737.KAA22523@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: double ace of clubs In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 21 May 2000 23:25:11 PDT." Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 10:37:17 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henk wrote: > On Sun, 21 May 2000, Ben Schelen wrote: > > > Dummy spreads his hand with the ace of spades mistakenly on top of > > four clubs. sA c10 8 6 4. A defender says: "I have the ace of clubs as > > well" and faces his hand on the table. How would you rule? > > 13 penalty cards Sounds right to me. Obviously, a defender in this situation should call the director, and not face his hand until director tells him to do so. A more interesting question would be: Suppose the defender did properly call the director, and when the director came, the defender explained that it was a bogus deck because there are two aces of clubs in it. Everyone else then realizes that dummy had his ace of spades misplaced. Dummy, of course, has violated Law 41D. The defender has now told everyone that the ace of clubs is in his hand. Questions: (1) Is defender's ace of clubs a penalty card? (2) If so, could the director adjust the score later? Does the defender's eyesight enter into it? That is, might the director rule that a defender with good eyesight has brought the problem on himself due to carelessness, while one with poor eyesight was blameless in assuming there was a problem with the deck? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 23 03:51:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA23279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 03:51:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from cgomboc.drotposta.hu (cgomboc.drotposta.hu [212.108.226.84]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA23274 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 03:51:09 +1000 (EST) From: Martaandras@uze.net Received: from agomboc.drotposta.hu ([212.108.226.81] helo=LOCALHOST) by cgomboc.drotposta.hu with smtp (Exim 3.12 #1) id 12twLS-0003FL-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 May 2000 19:50:26 +0200 Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 19:53:53 +0100 (MET DST) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Ruling please: L68/L57 ???? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id DAA23275 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I do not believe L 57 is applicable here as when W showing the CQ meant he was going to take the last trick with it (obviously he had to play it to the next trick as it was the last one but I do not think we have to apply L57 mechanically). It seems for me like a claim for the last trick. In this case L70 A is applied as a general principle. Therefore we have to decide whether to discard the S K is careless but not irrational. What East could deduct from the C Q is that declarer last card is not a club. The previous tricks could help us: assuming declarer in the earlier part of the play ruffed a diamond I would certainly decide the last trick for E-W. So it would be useful to be aware of the previous sequence of the play. > Andras Booc martaandras@uze.net > > Petrus Schuster OSB 2000.05.20. 09:40:13 +2h-kor írta: > > > In our National Teams Championships, the following situation arose at > > trick 12 in 4H: > > (dummy) > > - > > - > > J > > 9 > > - K > > - - > > - K > > Q8 - > > T > > 4 > > - > > - > > > > Declarer lead his last trump, C8 from W, C9 from dummy. E sank into deep > > meditation. > > At this point W showed his CQ. > > Upon enquiry, he said he had mistakenly thought Souths last card to be a > > club and wanted to claim trick 13. > > Should the TD apply L57 nonetheless? > > If not, should he rule the discard of SK a careless but not irrational > > play, reasoning that someone who has to think in this position is unsure > > of the count (which is, of course, available) and may well discard the > > wrong king? EW are aspiring juniors. Would an AC rule differently? > > > > cheers, Petrus. From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 23 04:04:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA23321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 04:04:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from cgomboc.drotposta.hu (cgomboc.drotposta.hu [212.108.226.84]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA23315 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 04:03:56 +1000 (EST) From: Martaandras@uze.net Received: from agomboc.drotposta.hu ([212.108.226.81] helo=LOCALHOST) by cgomboc.drotposta.hu with smtp (Exim 3.12 #1) id 12twXq-0004Cp-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 May 2000 20:03:14 +0200 Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 20:04:17 +0100 (MET DST) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Ruling please: L68/L57 ???? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id EAA23317 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I do not believe L 57 is applicable here as when W showing the CQ meant he was going to take the last trick with it (obviously he had to play it to the next trick as it was the last one but I do not think we have to apply L57 mechanically). It seems for me like a claim for the last trick. In this case L70 A is applied as a general principle. Therefore we have to decide whether to discard the S K is careless but not irrational. What East could deduct from the C Q is that declarer last card is not a club. The previous tricks could help us: assuming declarer in the earlier part of the play ruffed a diamond I would certainly decide the last trick for E-W. So it would be useful to be aware of the previous sequence of the play. Andras Booc martaandras@uze.net > > Petrus Schuster OSB 2000.05.20. 09:40:13 +2h-kor írta: > > > > > In our National Teams Championships, the following situation arose at > > > trick 12 in 4H: > > > (dummy) > > > - > > > - > > > J > > > 9 > > > - K > > > - - > > > - K > > > Q8 - > > > T > > > 4 > > > - > > > - > > > > > > Declarer lead his last trump, C8 from W, C9 from dummy. E sank into deep > > > meditation. > > > At this point W showed his CQ. > > > Upon enquiry, he said he had mistakenly thought Souths last card to be a > > > club and wanted to claim trick 13. > > > Should the TD apply L57 nonetheless? > > > If not, should he rule the discard of SK a careless but not irrational > > > play, reasoning that someone who has to think in this position is unsure > > > of the count (which is, of course, available) and may well discard the > > > wrong king? EW are aspiring juniors. Would an AC rule differently? > > > > > > cheers, Petrus. From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 23 04:24:52 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA23210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 03:25:49 +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 DAA23205 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 03:25:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA22295; Mon, 22 May 2000 10:25:11 -0700 Message-Id: <200005221725.KAA22295@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Is overtrick wild? In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 21 May 2000 10:13:21 PDT." <001301bfc2f4$671e21e0$6d047bc3@marina> Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 10:25:11 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sergey Kapustin wrote: > Hi All! > > I was asked by my friend from Russia to ask you for your opinion about an > incident that had happened recently. > > Teams. > NS - Candidates to National Team > EW - Advantage Pair > NS Vulnerable > > > K8x > AJxx > xxxx > xx > > A9xx Q > xx K10xx > AJ9 KQxxxx > Kxxx xx > > J10xxx > Qxx > - > AQJ10x > > N E S W > P P 1S 1NT* > 2C** 2D 4S P... > > *W's 1NT was balanced, 12-15, not alerted. > **N's 2C was Drury with fit, alerted. > > There were no questions during the bidding and play. > > The lead was the Ace of Diamonds. Declarer ruffed. > 2th trick. Declarer played small spade won by West with the Ace! (E played > Queen). > 3th trick. W played Jack of Diamonds, E played small, Declarer ruffed. > 4th trick. Declarer played 10 of Club won by West with the King. > 5th trick. W played small Diamonds, East played the King, Declarer ruffed. > 6th trick. Declarer played a small heart, the Jack from dummy, E won with > the King. > 7th trick. E played Diamond, Declarer ruffed, West discarded a heart. > > Declarer went 1 off. > > At the end of the hand Declarer called the TD and claimed that: > "- He would not have finessed the HK for overtrick if 1NT had been allerted; > - He had the winning line for 10 tricks in the 6th trick. Continuing the > Clubs while W follows the suit and discarding the Hearts would give him 4 > trumps in hand, 2 trumps in dummy, Ace of Hearts and 3 in Clubs. Finessing > the HK would be necessary if E had less then 4 Clubs. But after E had not > alerted the 1NT, Declarer assumed that E held 16-18. W showed SQ, DK, > eventually DQ, so East must have had HK." > > There was no doubt that alerting rules required an alert. The completely > standard meaning of natural 1NT is 16-18. The partnership on NS may > reasonably be expected not to understand weak 1 NT meaning. > > Questions: > > 1. Declarer did not ask the meaning of the 1NT while he could do it without > putting his side's interests at risk. Is it annulled the right to redress > for a NOS? (Remark - there are no SO's regulations in question, for instance > sush as EBU Orange Book #5.5.1) No, it's not annulled. If a call isn't alerted, the opponents have the right to assume that the call has a non-alertable meaning. Any other approach would make the alert system meaningless. > 2 If answer on first question is Yes, what about AjS for OS? > > 3. Whenever answer on first question is Yes or No, is Declerar's play for > overtrick "evidently irrational, wild or gambling"? Definitely not. After the first 5 tricks, West has 9xx xx --- xxx. If West had had instead 9xx Kx --- xxx, declarer's play would have netted the overtrick; if West had had a different distribution, such as 9xx Kxx --- xx, I think declarer is right that the finesse would have been necessary for the contract (based on about 20 seconds of analysis). However, in a similar situation where a careful analysis proves that the finesse gains nothing, my answer would still be the same. If a misexplanation has made it a bridge certainty that a certain opponent has a card, then declarer has every right to play that opponent for that card, even if declarer could, by putting in a couple minutes of extra thought, find a line that produced the same result without depending on which opponent had the card. Declarer should not be penalized for failing to consider alternative possibilities when the opponents' explanations have made those "possibilities" not worth considering. > 4. What is your rulling? Adjust to +620/-620. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 23 06:29:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA23807 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 06:29:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from hunter2.int.kiev.ua (hunter2.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA23802 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 06:29:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from marina (ppp03.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.103]) by hunter2.int.kiev.ua (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA25684 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 23:34:02 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <014101bfc42c$d95821a0$6c047bc3@marina> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: Subject: Re: Is overtrick wild? Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 23:30:40 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi again! Excuse me please for my unreadable last post. I received the diagram of hands from Russia and didn't check character sets :( Thanks Todd and Adam for correcting my mistakes. Henceforward I will try to be more attentive henceforward. I hope that presented problem will be interesting and it will indemnify the inconveniences I made to dear BLML members. Cheers Sergey From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 23 08:10:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA24037 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 08:10:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta01-svc.server.ntlworld.com (mta01-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA24032 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 08:10:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.253.89.49]) by mta01-svc.server.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000522221030.JXTE381.mta01-svc.server.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 23:10:30 +0100 Message-ID: <001301bfc43b$26585160$3159fd3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" References: <3929194F.42E5ED91@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Another problem from Germany Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 23:14:26 +0100 Organization: X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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, May 22, 2000 12:26 PM Subject: Re: Another problem from Germany > Martaandras@uze.net wrote: > > > > Dear colleagues all over the world, my friend, Jeff Easterson from Germany > > supplied me another problem to share with you. > > > > Screens are used and the bidding was the following. > > S W N E > > P 1 NT P P > > 2 H > > > > When N and E pulled the tray through the opening in the screen they apparently did not > > pull it far enough. At least neither of them saw the 2 H bid and assumed S had passed. > > Thus they assumed the bidding had ended and and they did not place pass cards on the tray. > > S and W knew the contract was 2 H by S and waited for the tap on the screen expecting to have W > > make the opening lead, and N's cards revealed as dummy on the other side. W faced (unfortunately) > > his lead and tapped the screen. The screen was raised and they discovered that E had faced all his > > cards and N had faced an opening lead as well. > > The TD is called. One defender had faced his hand and there were 2 faced up opening leads, one by > > the proper leader the other by the actual dummy. > > Your decision? > > > > Too difficult. > > Next board. > > Av- to both sides. > > I'm kidding. > No in fact I am not. > I believe the players, all four of them, would realise that > what I am doing is saving them valuable time and effort. > They would accept my offer to cancel the board and rule it > unplayable. > > I could try and offer the technically correct ruling, but I > won't. > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Is this the same Herman DE WAEL who made me play against Hackett twice, because he thought I would rather play bridge than get a 60% (or even 40%)score? (Antwerp Mixed Pairs) Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 23 08:38:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA24129 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 08:38:09 +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 IAA24124 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 08:38:02 +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 12u0pV-000CDU-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 May 2000 22:37:46 +0000 Message-ID: <8$67KwAHkWK5Ewpy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 18:06:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Forgotten winner (was: A bit quiet---but isn't any more) References: <20000522134733.72782.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000522134733.72782.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Norman Scorbie wrote: >My hypothesis was not to ensure that opponents and the rest of the field did >not benefit. Their non-benefit was the result of the hypothesis. Not the >same thing at all. Well, I read this statement differently, especially considering the word "should": >> >I would suggest, therefore, that opponents, and people sitting the same >>way >> >(assuming this is pairs) should not benefit in this situation.* Sorry if I misunderstood, but what I wrote stands anyway - even if not in answer to your post. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 23 09:04:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA24197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 09:04:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe20.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.124]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA24189 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 09:04:43 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 14388 invoked by uid 65534); 22 May 2000 23:04:03 -0000 Message-ID: <20000522230403.14387.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [38.12.169.213] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <3926415D.62BD1C06@eduhi.at> Subject: Re: Ruling please: L68/L57 ???? Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 18:05:06 -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 L45C1 says something that may be thought innocuous: A defender's card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face must be played to the current trick (if the defender has already made a legal play to the current trick, see Law 45E). The card must be played to the current trick. Now since a card has already been played the second one is a penalty card. Now, L57A: When a defender .. plays out of turn before his partner has played, (penalty) the card so led or played becomes a penalty card, and declarer selects one of the following options. He may: So what has happened? Offender has [a] played in turn and then [b] POOT but before partner has played to the current trick. The law is clear. Declarer has three options, including the specifying a suit to play to the current trick by the partner. Cheers Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: Petrus Schuster OSB To: BLML Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2000 2:40 AM Subject: Ruling please: L68/L57 ???? > In our National Teams Championships, the following situation arose at > trick 12 in 4H: > (dummy) > - > - > J > 9 > - K > - - > - K > Q8 - > T > 4 > - > - > > Declarer lead his last trump, C8 from W, C9 from dummy. E sank into deep > meditation. > At this point W showed his CQ. > Upon enquiry, he said he had mistakenly thought Souths last card to be a > club and wanted to claim trick 13. > Should the TD apply L57 nonetheless? > If not, should he rule the discard of SK a careless but not irrational > play, reasoning that someone who has to think in this position is unsure > of the count (which is, of course, available) and may well discard the > wrong king? EW are aspiring juniors. Would an AC rule differently? > > cheers, Petrus. > From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 23 10:10:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA24405 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 10:10:21 +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 KAA24398 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 10:10:13 +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 RAA30067; Mon, 22 May 2000 17:09:50 -0700 Message-Id: <200005230009.RAA30067@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "blml" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Ruling please: L68/L57 ???? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 22 May 2000 18:05:06 PDT." <20000522230403.14387.qmail@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 17:09:51 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: > L45C1 says something that may be thought innocuous: > > A defender's card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its > face must be played to the current trick (if the defender has already made a > legal play to the current trick, see Law 45E). Yeah, but Law 68A says that a contestant claims when he shows his cards, and this applies even if the contestant has only one card left. So either Law (45C1 or 68A) could apply, and you can't apply both (if L68A applies, play ceases, so the whole bit about penalty cards becomes irrelevant). It's left up to the TD to decide which one is the appropriate Law to apply. The context seems to make it clear that L68A is more appropriate, and that's how the group seems to feel about it too. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 23 10:11:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA24421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 10:11:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA24415 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 10:11:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.184] (dhcp165-184.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.184]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA03923; Mon, 22 May 2000 20:11:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20000522230403.14387.qmail@hotmail.com> References: <3926415D.62BD1C06@eduhi.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 20:09:39 -0400 To: "Roger Pewick" , "blml" From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Ruling please: L68/L57 ???? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 6:05 PM -0500 5/22/00, Roger Pewick wrote: >From: Petrus Schuster OSB >> In our National Teams Championships, the following situation arose at >> trick 12 in 4H: >> (dummy) >> - >> - >> J >> 9 >> - K >> - - >> - K >> Q8 - >> T >> 4 >> - >> - >> >> Declarer lead his last trump, C8 from W, C9 from dummy. E sank into deep >> meditation. >> At this point W showed his CQ. >> Upon enquiry, he said he had mistakenly thought Souths last card to be a >> club and wanted to claim trick 13. >> Should the TD apply L57 nonetheless? >> If not, should he rule the discard of SK a careless but not irrational >> play, reasoning that someone who has to think in this position is unsure >> of the count (which is, of course, available) and may well discard the >> wrong king? EW are aspiring juniors. Would an AC rule differently? >L45C1 says something that may be thought innocuous: > >A defender's card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its >face must be played to the current trick (if the defender has already made a >legal play to the current trick, see Law 45E). However, this is in conflict with L68A: Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. A contestant also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim). L45C1 cannot bar a defender from claiming; L68 allows a defender to claim with a trick in progress as long as he claims or concedes at least one subsequent trick. The reason that we have a problem here is that West claimed the thirteenth trick; normally, if West had claimed at the twelfth trick, he would have shown two cards, clearly not intending to play them both. I would rule that L68 takes precedence, assuming I was convinced that West intended to claim the thirteenth trick. Thus, if it is not normal for East to keep the DK (say, because South showed out of diamonds), then East gets the thirteenth trick. From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 23 10:28:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA24514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 10:28:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep3-orange.clear.net.nz (fep3-orange.clear.net.nz [203.97.32.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA24509 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 10:27:58 +1000 (EST) Resent-From: derekmalloch@zfree.co.nz Received: from zfree.co.nz (fep8.clear.net.nz [203.97.32.8]) by fep3-orange.clear.net.nz (1.5/1.6) with SMTP id MAA20509; Tue, 23 May 2000 12:27:52 +1200 (NZST) Resent-Message-Id: <200005230027.MAA20509@fep3-orange.clear.net.nz> Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au (octavia.anu.edu.au [150.203.5.35]) by mx2.clear.net.nz (1.5/1.27) with ESMTP id HAA11506; Tue, 23 May 2000 07:03:09 +1200 (NZST) Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA23321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 04:04:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from cgomboc.drotposta.hu (cgomboc.drotposta.hu [212.108.226.84]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA23315 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 04:03:56 +1000 (EST) From: "Derek Malloch" Received: from agomboc.drotposta.hu ([212.108.226.81] helo=LOCALHOST) by cgomboc.drotposta.hu with smtp (Exim 3.12 #1) id 12twXq-0004Cp-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 May 2000 20:03:14 +0200 Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 20:04:17 +0100 (MET DST) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id EAA23317 Subject: Re: Ruling please: L68/L57 ???? Resent-to: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Resent-date: Tue, 23 May 2000 12:26:18 +1300 Message-id: <3929d02a.2bbb.0@zfree.co.nz> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk If my memory serves me correctly the last part of law 57 states that there is no penalty where declarer has played from both hands. Does this apply here , then rule according the claims laws . Correct or not? Cheers ****** Forwarded Message Follows ******* I do not believe L 57 is applicable here as when W showing the CQ meant he was going to take the last trick with it (obviously he had to play it to the next trick as it was the last one but I do not think we have to apply L57 mechanically). It seems for me like a claim for the last trick. In this case L70 A is applied as a general principle. Therefore we have to decide whether to discard the S K is careless but not irrational. What East could deduct from the C Q is that declarer last card is not a club. The previous tricks could help us: assuming declarer in the earlier part of the play ruffed a diamond I would certainly decide the last trick for E-W. So it would be useful to be aware of the previous sequence of the play. Andras Booc martaandras@uze.net > > Petrus Schuster OSB 2000.05.20. 09:40:13 +2h-kor írta: > > > > > In our National Teams Championships, the following situation arose at > > > trick 12 in 4H: > > > (dummy) > > > - > > > - > > > J > > > 9 > > > - K > > > - - > > > - K > > > Q8 - > > > T > > > 4 > > > - > > > - > > > > > > Declarer lead his last trump, C8 from W, C9 from dummy. E sank into deep > > > meditation. > > > At this point W showed his CQ. > > > Upon enquiry, he said he had mistakenly thought Souths last card to be a > > > club and wanted to claim trick 13. > > > Should the TD apply L57 nonetheless? > > > If not, should he rule the discard of SK a careless but not irrational > > > play, reasoning that someone who has to think in this position is unsure > > > of the count (which is, of course, available) and may well discard the > > > wrong king? EW are aspiring juniors. Would an AC rule differently? > > > > > > cheers, Petrus. From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 23 11:12:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA24663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 11:10:35 +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 LAA24646 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 11:10:20 +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 12u3Cr-000K4f-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 May 2000 02:10:03 +0100 Message-ID: <1ViZAOBlycK5EwKT@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 01:11:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: a two tricks claim References: <001c01bfc359$029e55e0$83013dd4@default> <392919D0.A181D4E1@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <392919D0.A181D4E1@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: >"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >> >> > >> >3 tricks, it looks as if declarer has lost count of the hand, so the 10th >> >trick might go: CJ, ST, S5, C3. >> > >> >Henk >> > >> I concur. John >> -- > >Me too. > >See, John, we do agree on claims sometimes ! I am worried - and I am sure you all know why! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 23 12:14:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA24868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 12:14:18 +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 MAA24859 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 12:12:46 +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 12u4BM-000NiT-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 May 2000 03:12:33 +0100 Message-ID: <7EHKU3BwydK5EwbS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 02:19:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Ruling please: L68/L57 ???? References: <3926415D.62BD1C06@eduhi.at> <20000522230403.14387.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000522230403.14387.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: >L45C1 says something that may be thought innocuous: > >A defender's card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its >face must be played to the current trick (if the defender has already made a >legal play to the current trick, see Law 45E). > >The card must be played to the current trick. Now since a card has already >been played the second one is a penalty card. > >Now, L57A: > >When a defender .. plays out of turn before his partner has played, >(penalty) the card so led or played becomes a penalty card, and declarer >selects one of the following options. He may: > >So what has happened? Offender has [a] played in turn and then [b] POOT but >before partner has played to the current trick. > >The law is clear. Declarer has three options, including the specifying a >suit to play to the current trick by the partner. The Law is certainly clear, unless you try to mangle it to say something that was not said. >A defender's card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its >face must be played to the current trick (if the defender has already made a >legal play to the current trick, see Law 45E). Well, the defender has already made a legal play to the current trick, so let us look at L45E. This says it is a penalty card, which is not a lot of use at T13. You cannot invoke L57 because it does not apply. The defender did not play out of turn to T12 nor did he lead to T13. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 23 12:21:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA24666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 11:10:35 +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 LAA24645 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 11:10:20 +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 12u3Cr-000K4e-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 May 2000 02:10:03 +0100 Message-ID: <21SZIKBnwcK5EwJA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 01:09:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: double ace of clubs References: <001b01bfc359$01ffa4e0$83013dd4@default> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >On Sun, 21 May 2000, Ben Schelen wrote: > >> Dummy spreads his hand with the ace of spades mistakenly on top of >> four clubs. sA c10 8 6 4. A defender says: "I have the ace of clubs as >> well" and faces his hand on the table. How would you rule? > >13 penalty cards Correct. A well deserved penalty. But! Dummy is at fault, and is now gaining: I think a PP for dummy as well. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 23 12:24:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA24901 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 12:24:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from rsc.anu.edu.au (rsc [150.203.35.129]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA24896 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 12:24:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from medvesajt.anu.edu.au (medvesajt.anu.edu.au [150.203.35.241]) by rsc.anu.edu.au (8.10.0/8.10.0) with SMTP id e4N2OCK00936 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 12:24:12 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 12:24:10 +1000 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@medvesajt.anu.edu.au To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: double ace of clubs In-Reply-To: <200005221737.KAA22523@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 22 May 2000, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Henk wrote: > > > On Sun, 21 May 2000, Ben Schelen wrote: > > > > > Dummy spreads his hand with the ace of spades mistakenly on top of > > > four clubs. sA c10 8 6 4. A defender says: "I have the ace of clubs as > > > well" and faces his hand on the table. How would you rule? > > > > 13 penalty cards > > Sounds right to me. Obviously, a defender in this situation should > call the director, and not face his hand until director tells him to > do so. > > A more interesting question would be: Suppose the defender did > properly call the director, and when the director came, the defender > explained that it was a bogus deck because there are two aces of clubs > in it. Everyone else then realizes that dummy had his ace of spades > misplaced. Dummy, of course, has violated Law 41D. The defender has > now told everyone that the ace of clubs is in his hand. Questions: > > (1) Is defender's ace of clubs a penalty card? No. Dummy's inability to sort his hand is a clear infraction of L41D and the defence should not be penalised as a consequence. However the defender should call the director without making any specific comment... the director can see if there's a problem and if so rectify it in such a way to preserve the rights of the non-offenders (adjusted score if necessary). Saying "there are two aces of clubs" or worse, tabling one's hand, breaks the causality between dummy's infraction and the resulting damage (declarer picking the hand correctly, or the 13 penalty cards). > (2) If so, could the director adjust the score later? Does the > defender's eyesight enter into it? That is, might the director > rule that a defender with good eyesight has brought the problem on > himself due to carelessness, while one with poor eyesight was > blameless in assuming there was a problem with the deck? Possibly, but I wouldn't do this unless the defender really was as blind as a bat. Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 23 12:26:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA24664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 11:10:35 +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 LAA24643 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 11:10:19 +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 12u3Cr-000K4c-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 May 2000 02:10:02 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 00:52:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Ruling please: L68/L57 ???? References: <3926415D.62BD1C06@eduhi.at> In-Reply-To: <3926415D.62BD1C06@eduhi.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: >In our National Teams Championships, the following situation arose at >trick 12 in 4H: > (dummy) > - > - > J > 9 >- K >- - >- K >Q8 - > T > 4 > - > - > >Declarer lead his last trump, C8 from W, C9 from dummy. E sank into deep >meditation. >At this point W showed his CQ. >Upon enquiry, he said he had mistakenly thought Souths last card to be a >club and wanted to claim trick 13. >Should the TD apply L57 nonetheless? As others have pointed out this is not a L57 case. >If not, should he rule the discard of SK a careless but not irrational >play, reasoning that someone who has to think in this position is unsure >of the count (which is, of course, available) and may well discard the >wrong king? EW are aspiring juniors. Would an AC rule differently? If East is taking all this time to think it is hard to believe that to play either card is irrational so I give declarer the last trick, whether I am TD or AC. But I really do wonder whether this is a claim: perhaps it is just an unfortunate action by West facing a card and providing UI to partner. No matter, the effect is the same - I would assign the last trick to declarer if East fails in his obligations under L73C. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 23 13:12:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA24933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 12:29:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA24926 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 12:29:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-58-215-89.s343.tnt2.lnhdc.md.dialup.rcn.com ([208.58.215.89] helo=erols) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #3) id 12u4RP-0003lg-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 May 2000 22:29:08 -0400 Message-ID: <002501bfc45e$abf085e0$020aa8c0@com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: Subject: Re: Another problem from Germany Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 22:28:59 -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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2000 2:08 PM Subject: Another problem from Germany > Dear colleagues all over the world, my friend, Jeff Easterson from Germany > supplied me another problem to share with you. > > Screens are used and the bidding was the following. > S W N E > P 1 NT P P > 2 H > > When N and E pulled the tray through the opening in the screen they apparently did not > pull it far enough. At least neither of them saw the 2 H bid and assumed S had passed. > Thus they assumed the bidding had ended and and they did not place pass cards on the tray. > S and W knew the contract was 2 H by S and waited for the tap on the screen expecting to have W > make the opening lead, and N's cards revealed as dummy on the other side. W faced (unfortunately) > his lead and tapped the screen. The screen was raised and they discovered that E had faced all his > cards and N had faced an opening lead as well. > The TD is called. One defender had faced his hand and there were 2 faced up opening leads, one by > the proper leader the other by the actual dummy. > Your decision? > > Thanks. > > Andras Booc > martaandras@uze.net > Surely, since W and S were screenmates, there was at least a pass by W before his lead. So, the auction would be: P-1NT-P-P 2H-P (Please correct me if W decided to lead without a final pass) This doesn't end the auction, so there is no opening lead yet, nor is there a dummy. It's still the auction period, and there are two premature leads, as well as multiple exposed cards by the third hand. L24 states that the partners of these players must each pass at their next turn to call. It's N's call, and since S has exposed no cards, N can bid as he wishes. The next three players have enforced passes, so the call by N will be the final contract (or 2H will be if N chooses to pass). (If W had not passed before leading, he would have an enforced pass after 2H, and would be allowed to bid if N chose not to pass). All exposed cards remain on the table. If 2H is the final contract, the lead by W stands, and the entire E hand is considered major penalty cards. If N makes a bid, the lead by W is out of turn and N will have L54 options. Once again, the E hand is 13 penalty cards. (Somebody out there might wish to contend that spreading the hand by E contains at least one opening lead by the proper hand, in which case there are simultaneous leads. IMO spreading 13 cards is not an opening lead) Hirsch Davis Rockville, MD USA From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 23 13:27:03 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA24667 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 11:10:38 +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 LAA24644 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 11:10:19 +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 12u3Cr-000K4d-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 May 2000 02:10:02 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 01:05:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Is overtrick wild? References: <001301bfc2f4$671e21e0$6d047bc3@marina> <200005221725.KAA22295@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200005221725.KAA22295@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > >Sergey Kapustin wrote: > >> Hi All! >> >> I was asked by my friend from Russia to ask you for your opinion about an >> incident that had happened recently. >> >> Teams. >> NS - Candidates to National Team >> EW - Advantage Pair >> NS Vulnerable >> > >> K8x >> AJxx >> xxxx >> xx >> >> A9xx Q >> xx K10xx >> AJ9 KQxxxx >> Kxxx xx >> >> J10xxx >> Qxx >> - >> AQJ10x >> >> N E S W >> P P 1S 1NT* >> 2C** 2D 4S P... >> >> *W's 1NT was balanced, 12-15, not alerted. >> **N's 2C was Drury with fit, alerted. >> >> There were no questions during the bidding and play. >> >> The lead was the Ace of Diamonds. Declarer ruffed. >> 2th trick. Declarer played small spade won by West with the Ace! (E played >> Queen). >> 3th trick. W played Jack of Diamonds, E played small, Declarer ruffed. >> 4th trick. Declarer played 10 of Club won by West with the King. >> 5th trick. W played small Diamonds, East played the King, Declarer ruffed. >> 6th trick. Declarer played a small heart, the Jack from dummy, E won with >> the King. >> 7th trick. E played Diamond, Declarer ruffed, West discarded a heart. >> >> Declarer went 1 off. >> >> At the end of the hand Declarer called the TD and claimed that: >> "- He would not have finessed the HK for overtrick if 1NT had been allerted; >> - He had the winning line for 10 tricks in the 6th trick. Continuing the >> Clubs while W follows the suit and discarding the Hearts would give him 4 >> trumps in hand, 2 trumps in dummy, Ace of Hearts and 3 in Clubs. Finessing >> the HK would be necessary if E had less then 4 Clubs. But after E had not >> alerted the 1NT, Declarer assumed that E held 16-18. W showed SQ, DK, >> eventually DQ, so East must have had HK." >> >> There was no doubt that alerting rules required an alert. The completely >> standard meaning of natural 1NT is 16-18. The partnership on NS may >> reasonably be expected not to understand weak 1 NT meaning. >> >> Questions: >> >> 1. Declarer did not ask the meaning of the 1NT while he could do it without >> putting his side's interests at risk. Is it annulled the right to redress >> for a NOS? (Remark - there are no SO's regulations in question, for instance >> sush as EBU Orange Book #5.5.1) > >No, it's not annulled. If a call isn't alerted, the opponents have the >right to assume that the call has a non-alertable meaning. Any other >approach would make the alert system meaningless. Well, thanks, Adam, that has put the EBU firmly in its place with its completely meaningless alerting system. Oh, and the ACBL as well: Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves. We do not want Bridge Lawyers getting adjustments in situations where they know perfectly well what is going on. It is reaonable to adjust when someone is damaged by failure to alert, but not when they are not actually damaged by a failure to alert but pretend they are. Thus both the ACBL and EBU have regulations to the effect. I do not think they need them: I think that damge needds to be consequent on the MI [the failure to alert] and this is not the case where a player knows the failure to alert is probably a mistake nad can protect himself. Do not misunderstand, I am not saying it applies here: it doesn't. declarer has no reason to suspect a non-standard 1NT. But the principle is acceptable. >> 2 If answer on first question is Yes, what about AjS for OS? >> >> 3. Whenever answer on first question is Yes or No, is Declerar's play for >> overtrick "evidently irrational, wild or gambling"? > >Definitely not. After the first 5 tricks, West has 9xx xx --- xxx. >If West had had instead 9xx Kx --- xxx, declarer's play would have >netted the overtrick; if West had had a different distribution, such >as 9xx Kxx --- xx, I think declarer is right that the finesse would >have been necessary for the contract (based on about 20 seconds of >analysis). > >However, in a similar situation where a careful analysis proves that >the finesse gains nothing, my answer would still be the same. If a >misexplanation has made it a bridge certainty that a certain opponent >has a card, then declarer has every right to play that opponent for >that card, even if declarer could, by putting in a couple minutes of >extra thought, find a line that produced the same result without >depending on which opponent had the card. Declarer should not be >penalized for failing to consider alternative possibilities when the >opponents' explanations have made those "possibilities" not worth >considering. > >> 4. What is your rulling? > >Adjust to +620/-620. Apart from the matter of principle, I agree with Adam throughout. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 23 13:27:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA25106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 13:27:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA25100 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 13:27:41 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA22958 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 13:25:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 23 May 2000 13:25:26 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: Claim jumping/forgotten winner To: Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 13:23:48 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 23/05/2000 01:23:15 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: "I find your interpretation of the footnote very strange. There are situations where it is an interpretation that benefits the better player, true, but there are also situations where the opposite applies." "If you take the words away then it is difficult to see how you are going to rule. Is it normal play for a complete beginner to execute a trump squeeze? How are you going to rule on a claim including a trump squeeze if you do not consider the class of player? Are you going to assume that Hamman cannot execute one or that a beginner can?" If the Rueful Rabbit made a claim, and in specifically stating his line of play demonstrated how he was making the rest of the tricks on a trump squeeze, then I would of course allow R.R.'s claim. But if Timothy the Toucan had miscounted his top tricks and simply stated "claiming the rest", then I would not allow T.T. to stumble into the trump squeeze, and would disallow the claim. *However*, if Hamman merely announced "claiming the rest", I would would give him his contract under the current Laws. "For the class of player involved" missing a trump squeeze would be "irrational". It is ridiculous that whether an *incomplete* claim is allowed depends upon what the TD and AC estimate as the calibre of the player concerned. Best wishes Richard Hills richard.hills@immi.gov.au From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 23 14:19:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA25236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 14:19:46 +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 OAA25230 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 14:19:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com ([24.92.226.81]) by mailhop1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 00:15:55 -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 ; Tue, 23 May 2000 00:18:41 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <39291C44.E98792C2@village.uunet.be> References: <39291C44.E98792C2@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 00:12:38 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: How harsh on claiming ? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 1:38 PM +0200 5/22/00, Herman De Wael wrote: >LHO ruffs with the Jack, and I now claim saying "and the Ace >of trumps". >(ie down one) > >LHO shows me the ace and the ten of spades as well. >He does not contest my claim, nor do I believe he could, but >how harsh would people like John judge this ? Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how it's possible for you to lose the 10 of spades, unless you play both the K and Q under LHO's Ace. On that basis, I think any TD who rules down 2 on this one is nuts. :-) 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/AwUBOSoGz72UW3au93vOEQIQmQCgiCQSLUTuR8z3BJvzYXqrsr+4KccAnA6r XJ/IQnhPher4sG8W+4+HRmdu =E0Uo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 23 17:26:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA25795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 17:26:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA25786 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 17:24:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA03058; Tue, 23 May 2000 09:22:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA06549; Tue, 23 May 2000 09:22:31 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 09:22:31 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: David Stevenson cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: double ace of clubs In-Reply-To: <21SZIKBnwcK5EwJA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 23 May 2000, David Stevenson wrote: > Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > >On Sun, 21 May 2000, Ben Schelen wrote: > > > >> Dummy spreads his hand with the ace of spades mistakenly on top of > >> four clubs. sA c10 8 6 4. A defender says: "I have the ace of clubs as > >> well" and faces his hand on the table. How would you rule? > > > >13 penalty cards > > Correct. A well deserved penalty. > > But! Dummy is at fault, and is now gaining: I think a PP for dummy as > well. I can see an argument for adjusting the score of the non-offenders to the normal number of tricks made in their contract, but I don't think that you should penalize them any further. This is a innocent mistake, that is usually corrected without causing any problems. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A man can take a train and never reach his destination. (Kerouac, well before RFC2780). From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 23 20:11:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA26352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 20:11:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from apicra.wanadoo.fr (smtp-rt-3.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.155]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA26347 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 20:11:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from mahonia.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.58) by apicra.wanadoo.fr; 23 May 2000 12:11:33 +0200 Received: from cllubintplord (193.250.107.93) by mahonia.wanadoo.fr; 23 May 2000 12:11:31 +0200 Message-ID: <014e01bfc49f$af4bfc60$786bfac1@cllubintplord> From: "olivier beauvillain" To: "Liste Arbitrage" Subject: Tr: L88 and concurrence of players Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 12:14:29 +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 5.00.2615.200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello every body! As a "newcomer" on the list, I started to resd everything you answered on this topic. I just want to say something that you forgot. In the Laws Book, we have 93 laws, and you spoke of laws 12C1, 12C2, 88 and 89. Law 89 "Penalties in individual event" says that "But the Director, in awarding adjusted scores, shall not assess procedural penalty points against the offender's partner, if, in the Director's opinion, he is in no way responsible for the violation." So, what is a "procedural penalty"? Let's look the next law, 90 : "Procedural penalties" B7 "Errors in Procedure" errors in procedure (such as failure to count cards in one's hand...) that require an adjusted score for any contestant. So I think now we got it! North didn't count cards. He made an procedural offence and we have to give adjusted score. West count his cards, found 12, made no infraction (no bid), had not the time to call the Director before North's bid : he is not offendind player. According to Laws : North is offending player, he gets 40%, Est is by no way offending, he gets a clear 60+%, South is offending side, but not offending player. In my mind he is "in no way responsible for the violation" so he gets 60+% according to Law 89, West made no offense (he count his carrds) and refusing to play the hand is not an offense, so he gets 60+%. May be as long as Director says the hand is playable the Law can be changed so that a player is not allowed to refuse to play and get a 60+%. They must play and after, if they think they are damaged, they can appeal. But that is another discussion! Thanks to Claude Dadoun for his help. Beest regards O.Beauvillain > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Sergey Kapustin (by way of Edouard Beauvillain > ) > To: olivier beauvillain > Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 6:44 PM > Subject: L88 and concurrence of players > > > > Hi All! > > > > In the pair tournament I, as a TD, was called by the dealer (N) who had 14 > > cards and bided 1S. W (who really had 12 cards) was still counting his > cards > > face down. > > The 14th card was a small club (c5). According to the L13 I deemed that > the > > deal could be corrected and played normally with the concurrence of all > four > > players. But the W did not give a consent. Ok, there is no problem with > L13. > > I shall award. But under L88 I deemed that non-offending contestant is > > required to take an artificial adjusted score through his own choice, so > he > > shall not be awarded a minimum of 60% and I adjusted NOS - 50%, OS - 40%. > > Am I right? > > Suppose it was an individual event, is it correct to adjust N-40%, S-40%, > > E-60%,W-50%? > > > > And a common question about the L88 - when the Low requires "concurrence > of > > all four players" and TD shall award because there are no such > concurrences, > > is Av+ need not be granted to NOS? > > > > Best wishes > > Sergey > > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 23 22:19:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA26831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 22:19:15 +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 WAA26821 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 22:19:04 +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 IAA12386 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 08:17:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000523082301.006ae40c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 08:23:01 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Claim jumping/forgotten winner In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:30 PM 5/22/00 +0100, David wrote: > If you take the words away then it is difficult to see how you are >going to rule. Is it normal play for a complete beginner to execute a >trump squeeze? How are you going to rule on a claim including a trump >squeeze if you do not consider the class of player? Are you going to >assume that Hamman cannot execute one or that a beginner can? Going by the dictionary, it may be "normal" for Mr. Hamman to execute a trump squeeze, but going by the footnote, it is not "normal" for anyone, including Mr. Hamman, to do so. For a complete beginner it is "dictionary-normal" to miss the squeeze. For Mr. Hamman, it is "dictionary-abnormal", but the footnote tells us that to miss the squeeze, which would undoubtedly be extremely careless or decidedly inferior for a player of Mr. Hamman's class, is to be considered "normal" for the purpose of applying L69-71. I have a hard time understanding how we can even consider the possibility that missing a trump squeeze is irrational -- for anyone -- when we can't even agree that attempting to take five tricks with AKQJ2 by starting with the 2 is irrational. If anyone, including Mr. Hamman, claims tricks that require a trump squeeze without making any mention of the need for a squeeze, they do not get the benefit of the presumption that they would find the squeeze. And if anyone, including a complete beginner, makes a claim statement in which he says he will make some number of tricks on a trump squeeze, and is correct, he gets the tricks, albeit we may have to revise our evaluation of the "complete beginner" who made such a claim. In either case, Mr. Hamman should get the same ruling as the complete beginner. It doesn't matter that in Mr. Hamman's case missing the squeeze is "careless or inferior for the class of player involved"; that is what the footnote tells us. To say that ruling against Mr. Hamman in such a case means that we assume that he cannot execute a trump squeeze is as misguided as saying that ruling against him when he chooses a suggested LA in the presence of UI is to say that we assume that he would not have made the same bid without the UI. 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 May 24 01:15:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA27665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 01:15:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [207.213.113.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA27660 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 01:15:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA12404; Tue, 23 May 2000 08:14:47 -0700 Message-Id: <200005231514.IAA12404@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Is overtrick wild? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 23 May 2000 01:05:41 PDT." Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 08:14:48 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > >> 1. Declarer did not ask the meaning of the 1NT while he could do it without > >> putting his side's interests at risk. Is it annulled the right to redress > >> for a NOS? (Remark - there are no SO's regulations in question, for instance > >> sush as EBU Orange Book #5.5.1) > > > >No, it's not annulled. If a call isn't alerted, the opponents have the > >right to assume that the call has a non-alertable meaning. Any other > >approach would make the alert system meaningless. > > Well, thanks, Adam, that has put the EBU firmly in its place with its > completely meaningless alerting system. > > Oh, and the ACBL as well: > > Players who, by experience or expertise, > recognize that their opponents have > neglected to Alert a special agreement > will be expected to protect themselves. Right. I forgot that there are some situations where it's obvious what's going on even without the alert. In fact, I run into such situations very frequently, where opponents don't alert but I know what they're doing anyway (usually because I've looked at their CC beforehand), and I wouldn't dream of trying to ask for an adjustment in those cases. I may have misinterpreted the original question; it sounded to me like "Do you lose the right to redress if you do not ask about a call's meaning when you can do so without putting your side's interest at risk" was about a general principle that applied regardless of what the call was. I think the answer may be "yes" for some calls (e.g. something like 1S-4C, which nobody plays as natural any more), it is clearly *not* true in the general case, and to answer any other way *would* make the alert system meaningless. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 24 02:34:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA28185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 02:34:15 +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 CAA28178 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 02:34:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive506.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.20.6]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA04182 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 12:33:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001401bfc4d5$130c13e0$0614f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "blml" Subject: Re: Ruling please: L68/L57 ???? Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 12:36:39 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: >I would rule that L68 takes precedence, assuming I was convinced that West >intended to claim the thirteenth trick. Thus, if it is not normal for East >to keep the DK (say, because South showed out of diamonds), then East gets >the thirteenth trick. This is a claim. Play has ceased. The claim statement has broken down ("I will win trick 13 with my club queen.) Now we must adjudicate. If there is a non-irrational line on which the claim may fail, it does so. It is not irrational for east to pitch the wrong king. Therefore he pitches the wrong one. I think you inverted your logic on this one. Situations in which it is "not normal" for east to keep the DK are not the issue. It is the "normality" of discarding WRONGLY, including carelessness and inferior play that are operative here. Only when it would be irrational not to keep the DK may he retain in the a claim situation. Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 24 02:40:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA28238 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 02:40:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA28233 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 02:40:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive506.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.20.6]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA08101; Tue, 23 May 2000 12:40:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002901bfc4d5$f74c15a0$0614f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: a two tricks claim Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 12:42:56 -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 I am worried that you are sure we all know anything the same. :-) Craig -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, May 22, 2000 9:20 PM Subject: Re: a two tricks claim >Herman De Wael wrote: >>"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >>> >>> > >>> >3 tricks, it looks as if declarer has lost count of the hand, so the 10th >>> >trick might go: CJ, ST, S5, C3. >>> > >>> >Henk >>> > >>> I concur. John >>> -- >> >>Me too. >> >>See, John, we do agree on claims sometimes ! > > I am worried - and I am sure you all know why! > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 24 02:58:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA28313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 02:58:58 +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 CAA28308 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 02:58:47 +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 12uI0e-0001EI-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 May 2000 16:58:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 12:30:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claim jumping/forgotten winner References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > >"I find your interpretation of the footnote very strange. There are >situations where it is an interpretation that benefits the better >player, true, but there are also situations where the opposite applies." > > "If you take the words away then it is difficult to see how you are >going to rule. Is it normal play for a complete beginner to execute a >trump squeeze? How are you going to rule on a claim including a trump >squeeze if you do not consider the class of player? Are you going to >assume that Hamman cannot execute one or that a beginner can?" > >If the Rueful Rabbit made a claim, and in specifically stating his line of >play demonstrated how he was making the rest of the tricks on a trump >squeeze, then I would of course allow R.R.'s claim. But if Timothy the >Toucan had miscounted his top tricks and simply stated "claiming the rest", >then I would not allow T.T. to stumble into the trump squeeze, and would >disallow the claim. > >*However*, if Hamman merely announced "claiming the rest", I would would >give him his contract under the current Laws. "For the class of player >involved" missing a trump squeeze would be "irrational". > >It is ridiculous that whether an *incomplete* claim is allowed depends upon >what the TD and AC estimate as the calibre of the player concerned. No, it isn't. It is not the aim of the Laws, and many of us are happy with it, for deficiencies in a claim statement where the player knew what he was doing but explained it badly. To suggest this approach is ridiculous is to put a level of harshness into claiming which is justifiably absent. If a player forgets an outstanding trump, then he should lose a trick [...]. If a player remembers it is outstanding, everyone knows this, and everyone knows he is going to draw it, then there is no reason to penalise the player for forgetting to mention it. We want to penalise for busted claims, not for busted claim statements. Thus you treat each case with this in mind. Hamman does not mention a trump squeeze, perhaps he will forget it, perhaps it is careless, do not give it to him. But if it falls into his lap without preparation and the position will become elementary, give it to him. TT does not mention it, and reaches the position where it is obvious and proved. Do we give it to him? No, because there is every chance he will not do it. We do not want ruling on claims to be a war between the TD and the player. If you believe *this* player cannot go wrong even by being careless, why should you not give him the claim? If you believe *this* player can go wrong by being careless, why should you give him the claim? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 24 02:59:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA28326 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 02:59:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA28321 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 02:59:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12uI0n-000Emj-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 May 2000 16:58:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 12:22:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: double ace of clubs References: <21SZIKBnwcK5EwJA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >On Tue, 23 May 2000, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >> >On Sun, 21 May 2000, Ben Schelen wrote: >> > >> >> Dummy spreads his hand with the ace of spades mistakenly on top of >> >> four clubs. sA c10 8 6 4. A defender says: "I have the ace of clubs as >> >> well" and faces his hand on the table. How would you rule? >> > >> >13 penalty cards >> >> Correct. A well deserved penalty. >> >> But! Dummy is at fault, and is now gaining: I think a PP for dummy as >> well. > >I can see an argument for adjusting the score of the non-offenders to the >normal number of tricks made in their contract, but I don't think that you >should penalize them any further. This is a innocent mistake, that is >usually corrected without causing any problems. Dummy is an *offender*, not a non-offender. He failed to put his cards down as the Law requires. His partner is playing it with 13 penalty cards. I don't think "penalising him any further" quite describes this scenario! The first offending side have been given an enormous bonus, probably three tricks or so, and a little PP will not harm them too much! Or are you referring to the player who put his cards face up on the table as a non-offender? Well, you said 13 penalty cards, and I agreed: where is the problem. As for adjusting, under what Law are we adjusting anything? L12B forbids us to adjust because we think 13 penalty cards is too generous/stringent. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 24 04:02:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA28535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 04:02:14 +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 EAA28529 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 04:02:05 +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 LAA15260; Tue, 23 May 2000 11:01:44 -0700 Message-Id: <200005231801.LAA15260@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: double ace of clubs In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 23 May 2000 12:24:10 PDT." Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 11:01:45 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mark Abraham wrote: > On Mon, 22 May 2000, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > A more interesting question would be: Suppose the defender did > > properly call the director, and when the director came, the defender > > explained that it was a bogus deck because there are two aces of clubs > > in it. Everyone else then realizes that dummy had his ace of spades > > misplaced. Dummy, of course, has violated Law 41D. The defender has > > now told everyone that the ace of clubs is in his hand. Questions: > > > > (1) Is defender's ace of clubs a penalty card? > > No. Dummy's inability to sort his hand is a clear infraction of L41D and > the defence should not be penalised as a consequence. However the defender > should call the director without making any specific comment... the > director can see if there's a problem and if so rectify it in such a way > to preserve the rights of the non-offenders (adjusted score if necessary). I don't know if this makes sense. Suppose we *are* playing with a bad deck (it's happened to me), and when dummy comes down I realize that dummy has a card that I also hold in my hand. So of course I call the director, and when the director comes over, she's naturally going to want to know why I called for her. You're saying that I'm not supposed to say anything at all? I have to make the director guess why I called her? OK, so I have to say something. Maybe it would be OK to say "I think we're playing with a bad deck, since dummy has a card that I hold in my hand." But in the actual case, where dummy actually had the ace of spades mixed in with his clubs, once we figured out where dummy made the error, it would be very easy for everyone at the table to figure out what card I was talking about. > Saying "there are two aces of clubs" or worse, tabling one's hand, breaks > the causality between dummy's infraction and the resulting damage > (declarer picking the hand correctly, or the 13 penalty cards). Tabling one's hand is obviously wrong. But the defender who calls the director has to say something, and whatever he says will expose the card. So I don't see how a statement such as that could break causality. After reading David's comments, I suspect the correct answer is that since dummy committed the infraction, the defender's ace of clubs is UI for declarer and AI for defender's partner. But I don't know whether this depends, or should depend, on whether the defender's carelessness (as opposed to poor eyesight) led him to believe there were two club aces in the deck. I haven't yet checked the Laws in regard to this question. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 24 04:21:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA28666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 04:21:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA28659 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 04:21:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from office.ripe.net (office.ripe.net [193.0.1.97]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA22786 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 20:20:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by office.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA24149 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 20:20:30 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: office.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 20:20:30 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: double ace of clubs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk yOn Tue, 23 May 2000, David Stevenson wrote: > Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > >On Tue, 23 May 2000, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > >> >On Sun, 21 May 2000, Ben Schelen wrote: > >> >> Dummy spreads his hand with the ace of spades mistakenly on top of > >> >> four clubs. sA c10 8 6 4. A defender says: "I have the ace of clubs as > >> >> well" and faces his hand on the table. How would you rule? > >> > > >> >13 penalty cards > >> > >> Correct. A well deserved penalty. > >> But! Dummy is at fault, and is now gaining: I think a PP for dummy as > >> well. > >I can see an argument for adjusting the score of the non-offenders to the > >normal number of tricks made in their contract, but I don't think that you > >should penalize them any further. This is a innocent mistake, that is > >usually corrected without causing any problems. > Dummy is an *offender*, not a non-offender. He failed to put his > cards down as the Law requires. Yes, but then you should give a PP every time dummy puts down a missorted hand, not just when an opponent does something silly after the offence. > His partner is playing it with 13 penalty cards. I don't think > "penalising him any further" quite describes this scenario! The first > offending side have been given an enormous bonus, probably three tricks > or so, and a little PP will not harm them too much! Exactly, so I give declarer's side a PP equal to the difference between the normal result and the table result: dummy doesn't benefit from missorting his hand (and perhaps causing the problem) then. Whether you enter this as a split score or score plus PP in the computer is hardly relevant. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A man can take a train and never reach his destination. (Kerouac, well before RFC2780). From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 24 04:28:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA28723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 04:28:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f193.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.193]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA28718 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 04:28:03 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 18928 invoked by uid 0); 23 May 2000 18:27:24 -0000 Message-ID: <20000523182724.18927.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.18 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 23 May 2000 11:27:24 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.18] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim jumping/forgotten winner Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 11:27:24 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson >Richard wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > > > > "If you take the words away then it is difficult to see how you are > >going to rule. Is it normal play for a complete beginner to execute a > >trump squeeze? How are you going to rule on a claim including a trump > >squeeze if you do not consider the class of player? Are you going to > >assume that Hamman cannot execute one or that a beginner can?" I'm going to assume that both are capable of mentioning it and that Hamman is capable of proving it. > >It is ridiculous that whether an *incomplete* claim is allowed depends >upon > >what the TD and AC estimate as the calibre of the player concerned. > > No, it isn't. It is not the aim of the Laws, and many of us are happy >with it, for deficiencies in a claim statement where the player knew >what he was doing but explained it badly. To suggest this approach is >ridiculous is to put a level of harshness into claiming which is >justifiably absent. It's also possible to justify its presence. Different strokes, different folks. In American we attempt to make law blind. What applies to criminal law maybe should or maybe shouldn't apply to bridge, but it's a justifiable philosophy. > If a player forgets an outstanding trump, then he should lose a trick >[...]. If a player remembers it is outstanding, everyone knows this, >and everyone knows he is going to draw it, then there is no reason to >penalise the player for forgetting to mention it. We want to penalise >for busted claims, not for busted claim statements. > > Thus you treat each case with this in mind. Hamman does not mention a >trump squeeze, perhaps he will forget it, perhaps it is careless, do not >give it to him. But if it falls into his lap without preparation and >the position will become elementary, give it to him. TT does not >mention it, and reaches the position where it is obvious and proved. Do >we give it to him? No, because there is every chance he will not do it. > > We do not want ruling on claims to be a war between the TD and the >player. If you believe *this* player cannot go wrong even by being >careless, why should you not give him the claim? If you believe *this* >player can go wrong by being careless, why should you give him the >claim? Why don't you ask to see if the squeeze has already been considered and was the intended line of play? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the success of a squeeze relies on a particular opponent holding particular cards and/or distribution. A player who fails to mention a squeeze when claiming should at least be able to demonstrate how he's proven the squeeze to work given the play of the cards up until the claim. A player who cannot do that may or may not find the squeeze later, but at the point of the claim, he has some misconception about the play of hand. The player should be assumed to make mistakes based on that misconception. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 24 05:13:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA28878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 04:59:34 +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 EAA28871 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 04:59:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12uJtU-000LJy-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 May 2000 18:59:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 18:06:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: a two tricks claim References: <001c01bfc359$029e55e0$83013dd4@default> <392919D0.A181D4E1@village.uunet.be> <1ViZAOBlycK5EwKT@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <1ViZAOBlycK5EwKT@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <1ViZAOBlycK5EwKT@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >Herman De Wael wrote: >>"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >>> >>> > >>> >3 tricks, it looks as if declarer has lost count of the hand, so the 10th >>> >trick might go: CJ, ST, S5, C3. >>> > >>> >Henk >>> > >>> I concur. John >>> -- >> >>Me too. >> >>See, John, we do agree on claims sometimes ! > > I am worried - and I am sure you all know why! > I am pleased to announce the "de Probst" school of rulings. these are rulings which have no basis in Law but look about right. :)) cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 24 05:35:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA29015 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 05:35:12 +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 FAA29010 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 05:35:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive49t.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.17.61]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA26460 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 15:34:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001a01bfc4ee$591e9420$3d11f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Re: Claim jumping/forgotten winner Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 15:37:34 -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: Todd Zimnoch DWS wrote: It is not the aim of the Laws, and many of us are happy >>with it, for deficiencies in a claim statement where the player knew >>what he was doing but explained it badly. To suggest this approach is >>ridiculous is to put a level of harshness into claiming which is >>justifiably absent. Todd Z wrote: > It's also possible to justify its presence. Different strokes, >different folks. In American we attempt to make law blind. What applies to >criminal law maybe should or maybe shouldn't apply to bridge, but it's a >justifiable philosophy. > But ignora factum excusat in American jurisprudence Todd. If a line of play is so blindingly obvious to an expert who gives his opponent credit for enough insight to see it, not realising that his oppo is a sleazy bridge lawyer, he should not be penalised. The law on either side of the pond is not blind by the way...that is justice, not law. We commonly use character witnesses, and impeach witnesses. It is reasonable to be more suspect of a convicted perjurer than Mother Teresa when the question arises about possible prevarication in testimony. Indeed different strokes for different folks DOES apply...experts may be presumed more likely to have seen a fairly clear line even though they may not have spoken it clearly enough in their claim statement. This does not mean that a "lesser" player may not have seen it...it just places a higher burden of proof upon him to convince the TD of that because he has not demonstrated his capabilities publicly as yet to attain the recognition of his expertise. Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 24 09:14:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA29773 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 09:14:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from renyi.hu (root@hexagon.math-inst.hu [193.224.79.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA29768 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 09:14:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from cs.elte.hu (modem0.math-inst.hu [193.224.79.150]) by renyi.hu (8.8.8/8.8.8/3s) with ESMTP id BAA28647 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 01:13:41 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <392B20F3.526D56AE@cs.elte.hu> Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 02:23:15 +0200 From: "Hegedûs Lászlo" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i486) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: "silent" alert Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear members of the bridge-law list In a pairs competition (on wich players use bidding boxes, but do not use screen), North calls a conventional bid, wich is alerted by South. One of the opponents does not realize the alert, but the other one does. This misunderstood causes a total bottom for East-West. Is it the responsibility of the "silent" South or the player who does not realize it? Send your answers directly to me, please, cos I do not read the mailing list. thanx -- Hegedûs László mailto:hegelaci@cs.elte.hu http://www.cs.elte.hu/~hegelaci http://www.cs.elte.hu/~hegelaci/bridge/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 24 12:20:25 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA00518 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 12:20:25 +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 MAA00507 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 12:20:14 +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 12uQm4-0004hS-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 May 2000 03:20:01 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 00:40:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claim jumping/forgotten winner References: <20000523182724.18927.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000523182724.18927.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: >>From: David Stevenson >>Richard wrote: >> >David Stevenson wrote: >> > >> > "If you take the words away then it is difficult to see how you are >> >going to rule. Is it normal play for a complete beginner to execute a >> >trump squeeze? How are you going to rule on a claim including a trump >> >squeeze if you do not consider the class of player? Are you going to >> >assume that Hamman cannot execute one or that a beginner can?" > > I'm going to assume that both are capable of mentioning it and that >Hamman is capable of proving it. > >> >It is ridiculous that whether an *incomplete* claim is allowed depends >>upon >> >what the TD and AC estimate as the calibre of the player concerned. >> >> No, it isn't. It is not the aim of the Laws, and many of us are happy >>with it, for deficiencies in a claim statement where the player knew >>what he was doing but explained it badly. To suggest this approach is >>ridiculous is to put a level of harshness into claiming which is >>justifiably absent. > > It's also possible to justify its presence. Different strokes, >different folks. In American we attempt to make law blind. What applies to >criminal law maybe should or maybe shouldn't apply to bridge, but it's a >justifiable philosophy. Bridge Law should be compared to civil law not criminal law. It has two sides and proof is not required. The desire to make claiming a reasonable process is to speed the game up even in NAmerica. >> If a player forgets an outstanding trump, then he should lose a trick >>[...]. If a player remembers it is outstanding, everyone knows this, >>and everyone knows he is going to draw it, then there is no reason to >>penalise the player for forgetting to mention it. We want to penalise >>for busted claims, not for busted claim statements. >> >> Thus you treat each case with this in mind. Hamman does not mention a >>trump squeeze, perhaps he will forget it, perhaps it is careless, do not >>give it to him. But if it falls into his lap without preparation and >>the position will become elementary, give it to him. TT does not >>mention it, and reaches the position where it is obvious and proved. Do >>we give it to him? No, because there is every chance he will not do it. >> >> We do not want ruling on claims to be a war between the TD and the >>player. If you believe *this* player cannot go wrong even by being >>careless, why should you not give him the claim? If you believe *this* >>player can go wrong by being careless, why should you give him the >>claim? > > Why don't you ask to see if the squeeze has already been considered and >was the intended line of play? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the success of >a squeeze relies on a particular opponent holding particular cards and/or >distribution. A player who fails to mention a squeeze when claiming should >at least be able to demonstrate how he's proven the squeeze to work given >the play of the cards up until the claim. Oh sure, and if you tell Hamman that his claim needs more explanation there is at least 100% chance he will get it right *now*! No, that is not an acceptable method with very rare exceptions. The TD has to rule, not give declarer a second chance. > A player who cannot do that may or may not find the squeeze later, but >at the point of the claim, he has some misconception about the play of hand. > The player should be assumed to make mistakes based on that misconception. As has been mentioned here several times, most of us do not believe this to be true. What we believe is that in many cases it is the claim statement that is wrong not the claim. Thus the player has no misconception about the hand but did not describe his intended line of play adequately. Sure, there are cases as you mention, and I doubt you would dislike the way I rule on them, but I dislike the BL approach: you don't need to be Hamman to play Kx opposite AQx for three tricks, and you do not need to say how for a valid claim. Then you move the goalposts slightly and eventually you reach borderline cases. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 24 12:20:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA00517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 12:20:24 +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 MAA00508 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 12:20:14 +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 12uQm4-0004hQ-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 May 2000 03:20:01 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 00:31:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: double ace of clubs References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >yOn Tue, 23 May 2000, David Stevenson wrote: >> Dummy is an *offender*, not a non-offender. He failed to put his >> cards down as the Law requires. >Yes, but then you should give a PP every time dummy puts down a missorted >hand, not just when an opponent does something silly after the offence. Why should I? The aim of PPs is to get persuade the players to follow the correct procedure, not to upset people and make them give up the game. Thus a small number of PPs are given: we do not want BLs calling the TD for everything that could possibly be an offence so that all their oppos will be penalised a lot by TDs who believe they "should" give PPs every time. So we do not want a situation where every time a dummy is not perfect we issue a PP. That is undesirable. On the other hand we want an occasional PP. How do we do this? Well, with a lot of situations we penalise when it has caused an unfortunate situation and do not otherwise. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 24 14:50:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA00933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 14:50:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from cgomboc.drotposta.hu (cgomboc.drotposta.hu [212.108.226.84]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA00928 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 14:50:35 +1000 (EST) From: Martaandras@uze.net Received: from agomboc.drotposta.hu ([212.108.226.81] helo=LOCALHOST) by cgomboc.drotposta.hu with smtp (Exim 3.12 #1) id 12uT7B-0006oC-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 May 2000 06:49:54 +0200 Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 06:53:22 +0100 (MET DST) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "silent" alert Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id OAA00929 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I believe a player who alertedthe way that at least one of the opponents noticed it fulfilled his obligation. Concentration is a part of the game. "Silent Alert" is wrong expression - it seems silent alert for one player only! When screens are used only one opponent is alerted by one player anyway. Andras Booc martaandras@uze.net > Dear members of the bridge-law list > > In a pairs competition (on wich players use bidding boxes, but do not > use screen), North calls a conventional bid, wich is alerted by South. > One of the opponents does not realize the alert, but the other one does. > This misunderstood causes a total bottom for East-West. > > Is it the responsibility of the "silent" South or the player who does > not realize it? > > Send your answers directly to me, please, cos I do not read the mailing > list. > > thanx From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 24 15:58:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 15:58:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from hunter2.int.kiev.ua (hunter2.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA01173 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 15:57:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from marina (ppp03.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.103]) by hunter2.int.kiev.ua (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA28273; Wed, 24 May 2000 09:02:24 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <001901bfc545$672d4aa0$67047bc3@marina> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: , =?iso-8859-1?B?SGVnZWT7cyBM4XN6bG8=?= References: <392B20F3.526D56AE@cs.elte.hu> Subject: Re: "silent" alert Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 08:59:28 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by hunter2.int.kiev.ua id JAA28273 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id PAA01174 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Hegedûs Lászlo To: Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 3:23 AM Subject: "silent" alert Hegedûs Lászlo wrote > Is it the responsibility of the "silent" South or the player who does > not realize it? WBF GENERAL CONDITIONS OF CONTEST, APRIL 1998, #.9 Alerts and Explanations ... It is the responsibility of the alerting player to alert clearly... # 15 Bidding Boxes # 15.1 General ... It is the responsibility of the alerting player to ensure that his opponents are aware of the Alert... Cheers Sergey From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 24 16:00:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA01195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 16:00:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f205.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.205]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA01190 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 16:00:26 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 31122 invoked by uid 0); 24 May 2000 05:59:36 -0000 Message-ID: <20000524055936.31121.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 152.174.238.154 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 23 May 2000 22:59:36 PDT X-Originating-IP: [152.174.238.154] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim jumping/forgotten winner Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 22:59:36 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Why don't you ask to see if the squeeze has already been considered >and > >was the intended line of play? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the success >of > >a squeeze relies on a particular opponent holding particular cards and/or > >distribution. A player who fails to mention a squeeze when claiming >should > >at least be able to demonstrate how he's proven the squeeze to work given > >the play of the cards up until the claim. > > Oh sure, and if you tell Hamman that his claim needs more explanation >there is at least 100% chance he will get it right *now*! Memories have been known to slip, and claims have been made before the line of play is proveable. > No, that is not an acceptable method with very rare exceptions. The >TD has to rule, not give declarer a second chance. It's not a second chance, it's a yard stick. If they can't prove the squeeze, they don't get it. If they can prove the squeeze, they still might not get it. > > A player who cannot do that may or may not find the squeeze later, >but > >at the point of the claim, he has some misconception about the play of >hand. > > The player should be assumed to make mistakes based on that >misconception. > > As has been mentioned here several times, most of us do not believe >this to be true. What we believe is that in many cases it is the claim >statement that is wrong not the claim. Thus the player has no >misconception about the hand but did not describe his intended line of >play adequately. > > Sure, there are cases as you mention, and I doubt you would dislike >the way I rule on them, but I dislike the BL approach: you don't need to >be Hamman to play Kx opposite AQx for three tricks, and you do not need >to say how for a valid claim. Then you move the goalposts slightly and >eventually you reach borderline cases. Kx opposite AQx is a matter of mechanics of managing your own cards. A squeeze, finesse, and many other lines of play depend on the opponents' card holdings. 70E is pretty clear about playing a particular opponent for a particular card. I also want to hear claimer's explanation for a second reason... I can always use the lesson in card reading. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 24 18:12:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA01460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 18:12:59 +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 SAA01455 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 18:12:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.131.249] (helo=D457300) by ruthenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12uWHJ-0000iv-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 May 2000 09:12:34 +0100 Message-ID: <001601bfc557$e404a700$f98301d5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: double ace of clubs Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 09:13:04 +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 DWS wrote: > Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > >yOn Tue, 23 May 2000, David Stevenson wrote: > > >> Dummy is an *offender*, not a non-offender. He failed to put his > >> cards down as the Law requires. > > >Yes, but then you should give a PP every time dummy puts down a missorted > >hand, not just when an opponent does something silly after the offence. > > Why should I? > > The aim of PPs is to get persuade the players to follow the correct > procedure, not to upset people and make them give up the game. Thus a > small number of PPs are given: we do not want BLs calling the TD for > everything that could possibly be an offence so that all their oppos > will be penalised a lot by TDs who believe they "should" give PPs every > time. > > So we do not want a situation where every time a dummy is not perfect > we issue a PP. That is undesirable. On the other hand we want an > occasional PP. How do we do this? Well, with a lot of situations we > penalise when it has caused an unfortunate situation and do not > otherwise. Who are "we"? Henk and I and a great many other people would, I suspect, prefer an approach where if an offence is subject to penalty, it is subject to penalty whenever and by whomsoever it is committed. Suppose you penalise this player for putting the ace of spades in with his clubs. The next time this player sees an opponent mis-sort his hand as dummy, he is going to expect the infraction to be subject to penalty. When it is not penalised, and when he is referred to as a "bridge lawyer" for expecting it to be penalised, he is - rightly - going to be upset and give up the game, thinking - again rightly - that it is ruled by idiots. There is no infraction of "causing an unfortunate situation" which justifies you in awarding a penalty for one instance of a particular infraction but not another. Penalties are not to be applied at the whim of the tournament director in order to keep the customers in line. They are to be applied consistently, in accordance with the Laws, or not at all. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 24 20:01:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA01718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 20:01:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f27.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA01713 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 20:01:06 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 28314 invoked by uid 0); 24 May 2000 10:00:26 -0000 Message-ID: <20000524100026.28313.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.219 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 24 May 2000 03:00:26 PDT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: double ace of clubs Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 03:00:26 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote >There is no infraction of "causing an unfortunate situation" That's a bit of a shame, really. Perhaps the next time the great and good assemble to revise the laws they might consider the inclusion of such a rule. This would certainly grant more licence to tournament directors. When stuck on any particular ruling, they could always penalise someone for "causing an unfortunate situation". Covers more or less anything, from conveying unauthorised information to spilling tea down someone's trousers. ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 24 20:44:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA01859 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 20:44:04 +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 UAA01854 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 20:43:52 +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 12uYdQ-0007w0-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 May 2000 11:43:36 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 04:31:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: "silent" alert References: <392B20F3.526D56AE@cs.elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <392B20F3.526D56AE@cs.elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Posted + emailed Hegeds Lszlo wrote: >Dear members of the bridge-law list > >In a pairs competition (on wich players use bidding boxes, but do not >use screen), North calls a conventional bid, wich is alerted by South. >One of the opponents does not realize the alert, but the other one does. >This misunderstood causes a total bottom for East-West. > >Is it the responsibility of the "silent" South or the player who does >not realize it? > >Send your answers directly to me, please, cos I do not read the mailing >list. It is the responsibility of the person making the alert to make sure that his opponents are aware of it. This is written in to most alerting regulations, but even if it is not it should be assumed to apply: alerting would be a nonsense if the alerter need not worry whether his opponents have seen the alert. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 24 22:26:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA02186 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 22:26:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA02181 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 22:26:30 +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 12uaEr-00099Q-0U for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 May 2000 13:26:18 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 13:25:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: double ace of clubs References: <001601bfc557$e404a700$f98301d5@D457300> In-Reply-To: <001601bfc557$e404a700$f98301d5@D457300> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <001601bfc557$e404a700$f98301d5@D457300>, David Burn writes > >There is no infraction of "causing an unfortunate situation" which >justifies you in awarding a penalty for one instance of a particular >infraction but not another. Penalties are not to be applied at the >whim of the tournament director in order to keep the customers in >line. They are to be applied consistently, in accordance with the >Laws, or not at all. I'm totally with David here. eg. The EBU has some stupid rule that if a hand is 14-12 and gets caught at the next table nobody gets fined, but if it doesn't get caught, both tables get fined. That is ridiculous. Why should I fine X because Y can't follow proper procedure, and not otherwise? Nah, bastinado for people who fail to follow 7C, just as much as garrotte for people who fail to follow 7B1. Both Laws are "shall" Laws. They should attract the same degree of punishment. > >David Burn >London, England > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 24 22:28:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA02201 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 22:28:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta02-svc.server.ntlworld.com (mta02-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA02196 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 22:28:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.253.85.157]) by mta02-svc.server.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000524132815.HOKW10065.mta02-svc.server.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 13:28:15 +0000 Message-ID: <000701bfc57c$2ead7740$9d55fd3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" References: <20000524100026.28313.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: double ace of clubs Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 13:32:52 +0100 Organization: X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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: Norman Scorbie To: Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 11:00 AM Subject: Re: double ace of clubs > David Burn wrote > > > >There is no infraction of "causing an unfortunate situation" > > That's a bit of a shame, really. Perhaps the next time the great and good > assemble to revise the laws they might consider the inclusion of such a > rule. This would certainly grant more licence to tournament directors. When > stuck on any particular ruling, they could always penalise someone for > "causing an unfortunate situation". Covers more or less anything, from > conveying unauthorised information to spilling tea down someone's trousers. > I think it's already there in Law90.How about applying Law90 to this list. Any writer who causes annoyance to another should be given a PP or 2. These would be added to a signature as are penalty points on a driving licence. We could have an AC to decide whether the complainant is justified in being upset. When two contributors meet, the one with the most PPS buy the drinks. > I think the offence of "causing an unfortunate situation" might be great fun. It would certainly give a lot of chance to argue the meaning of the word "unfortunate" in the context of the law. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 24 22:32:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA02218 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 22:32:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA02213 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 22:31:52 +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 12uaK5-000Old-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 May 2000 12:31:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 13:30:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Claim jumping/forgotten winner References: <20000523182724.18927.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > Sure, there are cases as you mention, and I doubt you would dislike >the way I rule on them, but I dislike the BL approach: you don't need to >be Hamman to play Kx opposite AQx for three tricks, and you do not need >to say how for a valid claim. Then you move the goalposts slightly and >eventually you reach borderline cases. > I have long thought that these discussions are to do with defining just where the goal posts are. They're about here as far as I can tell. Unblocking, Cashing winners | goal posts | Entry Taking proven finesses | | shifting Leading a suit ------------------ squeezes from the top | | AQ9x vs KTxxx high cross ruff | | Devil's coup cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 24 23:59:58 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA02556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 23:59:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA02551 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 23:59:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12ubhB-000LfK-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 May 2000 14:59:38 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 12:09:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: double ace of clubs References: <001601bfc557$e404a700$f98301d5@D457300> In-Reply-To: <001601bfc557$e404a700$f98301d5@D457300> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >DWS wrote: >> Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >> >yOn Tue, 23 May 2000, David Stevenson wrote: >> >> Dummy is an *offender*, not a non-offender. He failed to put >his >> >> cards down as the Law requires. >> >Yes, but then you should give a PP every time dummy puts down a >missorted >> >hand, not just when an opponent does something silly after the >offence. >> Why should I? >> >> The aim of PPs is to get persuade the players to follow the >correct >> procedure, not to upset people and make them give up the game. Thus >a >> small number of PPs are given: we do not want BLs calling the TD for >> everything that could possibly be an offence so that all their oppos >> will be penalised a lot by TDs who believe they "should" give PPs >every >> time. >> >> So we do not want a situation where every time a dummy is not >perfect >> we issue a PP. That is undesirable. On the other hand we want an >> occasional PP. How do we do this? Well, with a lot of situations >we >> penalise when it has caused an unfortunate situation and do not >> otherwise. >Who are "we"? Henk and I and a great many other people would, I >suspect, prefer an approach where if an offence is subject to penalty, >it is subject to penalty whenever and by whomsoever it is committed. >Suppose you penalise this player for putting the ace of spades in with >his clubs. The next time this player sees an opponent mis-sort his >hand as dummy, he is going to expect the infraction to be subject to >penalty. When it is not penalised, and when he is referred to as a >"bridge lawyer" for expecting it to be penalised, he is - rightly - >going to be upset and give up the game, thinking - again rightly - >that it is ruled by idiots. > >There is no infraction of "causing an unfortunate situation" which >justifies you in awarding a penalty for one instance of a particular >infraction but not another. Penalties are not to be applied at the >whim of the tournament director in order to keep the customers in >line. They are to be applied consistently, in accordance with the >Laws, or not at all. The Laws does not actually require them to be given on every occasion, so what is done is in accordance with the Laws. I do not disagree that bridge might be an excellent and popular game if every infraction was penalised and always has been. Unfortunately or fortunately, as one's view is, this is not the case, and a TD who now applies penalties in every single case of an infraction would be upsetting his customers because of their expectations based on experience. On the other hand, not to give them at all eventually would lead certain people to assume that some of the Laws are not worth bothering with, thus TDs take an intermediate line. Of course, it would be better if TDs applied them consistently rather than at their own whim. That is what penalising whenever it causes a difficulty but not otherwise does: it is consistent, and not dependent on the TD's whim. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 25 01:13:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA02817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 May 2000 01:02:49 +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 BAA02810 for ; Thu, 25 May 2000 01:02:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from ex1unintd03.its.it ([151.92.249.147]) by ultra1.its.it (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA02804 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 17:01:51 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by EX1UNINTD03 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 24 May 2000 16:55:30 +0200 Message-ID: From: NARDULLO Ennio To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Double ace of clubs Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 16:54:23 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think that the defender must have 13 penalty cards , but i give to the offender penalty for procedure incorrect. The defender must to call the director . In this case i think to play the hand with AI for defender and UI for the offender. Ing. ENNIO NARDULLO FIAT AUTO IT Information Tecnology di Settore G.C.S.M.P. via Caraglio 84 Tel. ufficio 0116853198 Tel cellulare 0335214898 mailto:ennio.nardullo@consulenti.fiat.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 25 01:25:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA02896 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 May 2000 01:25:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael.gym (gatekeeper.asn-linz.ac.at [193.170.68.253]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA02884 for ; Thu, 25 May 2000 01:25:32 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 16708 invoked from network); 24 May 2000 15:24:54 -0000 Received: from petrus2.konvent (HELO eduhi.at) (192.168.1.116) by michael.gym with SMTP; 24 May 2000 15:24:54 -0000 Message-ID: <392BF45D.468481AD@eduhi.at> Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 17:25:17 +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: double ace of clubs References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" schrieb: > > His partner is playing it with 13 penalty cards. I don't think > > "penalising him any further" quite describes this scenario! The first > > offending side have been given an enormous bonus, probably three tricks > > or so, and a little PP will not harm them too much! > > Exactly, so I give declarer's side a PP equal to the difference between > the normal result and the table result: dummy doesn't benefit from > missorting his hand (and perhaps causing the problem) then. Whether you > enter this as a split score or score plus PP in the computer is hardly > relevant. I must say I don't like this approach. IMO, the size of a PP should depend on the enormity of the infraction, not it's effect on the result. So if I judge the infraction has been inadvertent, I would just give him a warning. Dummy's side has not gained by dummy's infraction, but by defender's. Petrus From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 25 04:20:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA03708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 May 2000 04:20:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from cgomboc.drotposta.hu (cgomboc.drotposta.hu [212.108.226.84]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA03703 for ; Thu, 25 May 2000 04:20:30 +1000 (EST) From: Martaandras@uze.net Received: from agomboc.drotposta.hu ([212.108.226.81] helo=LOCALHOST) by cgomboc.drotposta.hu with smtp (Exim 3.12 #1) id 12ufkt-0001CM-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 May 2000 20:19:44 +0200 Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 20:19:39 +0100 (MET DST) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "silent" alert Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id EAA03704 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Let me ask you how do you interpret all below in practice. Assuming no screensbut bidding boxes are used and your partner makes a conventional bid. How do you alert? What does it mean "to alert clearly"? I believe if one of the opponents observed the alert without any problem it means it was a clear alert. I do not agree that the alerting player should realise whether both of his opponents are following the play with full concentration or just one of them. What is your opinion? Andras Booc martaandras@uze.net "Sergey Kapustin" 2000.05.24. 08:59:28 +3h-kor írta: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Hegedûs Lászlo > To: > Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 3:23 AM > Subject: "silent" alert > > Hegedûs Lászlo wrote > > > Is it the responsibility of the "silent" South or the player who does > > not realize it? > > WBF GENERAL CONDITIONS OF CONTEST, APRIL 1998, > > #.9 Alerts and Explanations > > .... It is the responsibility of the alerting player to alert clearly... > > # 15 Bidding Boxes > # 15.1 General > .... It is the responsibility of the alerting player to ensure that his > opponents are aware of the Alert... > > Cheers Sergey From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 25 07:03:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA05012 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 May 2000 07:03:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp2.a2000.nl (duck.a2000.nl [62.108.1.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA05007 for ; Thu, 25 May 2000 07:03:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 12uiIn-00029W-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 May 2000 23:02:53 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000524230058.00b1b910@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 23:00:58 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: "silent" alert In-Reply-To: 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 HAA05008 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:19 PM 5/24/00 +0100, you wrote: >Let me ask you how do you interpret all below in practice. >Assuming no screensbut bidding boxes are used and your partner >makes a conventional bid. How do you alert? What does it mean >"to alert clearly"? >I believe if one of the opponents observed the alert without any problem >it means it was a clear alert. I do not agree that the alerting player should >realise whether both of his opponents are following the play with full >concentration or just one of them. >What is your opinion? > Our 'wedstrijdreglement' for all competitions is very strict in it: It says: the alerting player needs to be sure that both opponents have noticed the alert regards, anton thus that settles the matter for holland >Andras Booc >martaandras@uze.net >"Sergey Kapustin" 2000.05.24. 08:59:28 +3h-kor írta: > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Hegedûs Lászlo >> To: >> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 3:23 AM >> Subject: "silent" alert >> >> Hegedûs Lászlo wrote >> >> > Is it the responsibility of the "silent" South or the player who does >> > not realize it? >> >> WBF GENERAL CONDITIONS OF CONTEST, APRIL 1998, >> >> #.9 Alerts and Explanations >> >> .... It is the responsibility of the alerting player to alert clearly... >> >> # 15 Bidding Boxes >> # 15.1 General >> .... It is the responsibility of the alerting player to ensure that his >> opponents are aware of the Alert... >> >> Cheers Sergey > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 25 07:05:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA05036 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 May 2000 07:05:49 +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 HAA05031 for ; Thu, 25 May 2000 07:05:42 +1000 (EST) From: FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM Received: from gateway.tandem.com ([130.252.223.221]) by Tandem.com (8.9.3/2.0.1) with SMTP id OAA27710; Wed, 24 May 2000 14:05:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gateway.tandem.com (4.20/4.11) id AA10553; 24 May 0 14:04:16 -0700 Date: 24 May 0 14:02:00 -0700 Message-Id: <200005241404.AA10553@gateway.tandem.com> To: john@probst.demon.co.uk Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim jumping/forgotten winner Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: > I have long thought that these discussions are to do with defining > just where the goal posts are. They're about here as far as I can > tell. > Unblocking, Cashing winners | goal posts | Entry > Taking proven finesses | | shifting > Leading a suit ------------------ squeezes > from the top | | AQ9x vs KTxxx > high cross ruff | | Devil's coup I'd add, on the far side of the goalposts, certain unblocking of winners under winners in order to throw-in an opponent. Not sure where I'd place unmentioned loser-on-loser endplays. Otherwise, I agree with this post. Regards, WWFiv (Wally Farley) Los Gatos, CA {ACBL District 21} From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 25 08:06:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA05214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 May 2000 08:06:21 +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 IAA05209 for ; Thu, 25 May 2000 08:06:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (1Cust34.tnt5.syd2.da.uu.net [63.34.197.34]) by oznet14.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA24687 for ; Thu, 25 May 2000 08:06:08 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000525080418.00800df0@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 08:04:18 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Kaplan quote Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Some years ago, (or it might have been last year), a poster quoted a Kaplan quatrain concerning psychic bids which ended something like ...as long as you psych never!" Not able to locate original, could someone who remembers the full text please repost? Cheers, Tony Sydney From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 25 08:48:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA05334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 May 2000 08:48:18 +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 IAA05329 for ; Thu, 25 May 2000 08:48:10 +1000 (EST) From: FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM Received: from gateway.tandem.com ([130.252.223.221]) by Tandem.com (8.9.3/2.0.1) with SMTP id PAA03307; Wed, 24 May 2000 15:48:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gateway.tandem.com (4.20/4.11) id AA8505; 24 May 0 15:46:45 -0700 Date: 24 May 0 15:43:00 -0700 Message-Id: <200005241546.AA8505@gateway.tandem.com> To: ardelm@ozemail.com.au Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Kaplan quote Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk (posted and e-mailed) It was provided as a letter to the ACBL Bulletin, in response to an article the previous month by (then-)ACBL President Don Oakie, IIRC: "Thanks for the Bulletin's clever Clarification endeavor. It's legal to psych As much as you like As long as you like to psych never." Regards, WWFiv (Wally Farley) Los Gatos, CA {ACBL District 21} From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 25 08:50:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA05354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 May 2000 08:50:33 +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 IAA05349 for ; Thu, 25 May 2000 08:50:24 +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 12ujyf-0007H2-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 May 2000 22:50:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 15:23:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: double ace of clubs References: <001601bfc557$e404a700$f98301d5@D457300> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article <001601bfc557$e404a700$f98301d5@D457300>, David Burn > writes >> >>There is no infraction of "causing an unfortunate situation" which >>justifies you in awarding a penalty for one instance of a particular >>infraction but not another. Penalties are not to be applied at the >>whim of the tournament director in order to keep the customers in >>line. They are to be applied consistently, in accordance with the >>Laws, or not at all. > >I'm totally with David here. eg. The EBU has some stupid rule that if a >hand is 14-12 and gets caught at the next table nobody gets fined, but >if it doesn't get caught, both tables get fined. That is ridiculous. >Why should I fine X because Y can't follow proper procedure, and not >otherwise? The EBU has no such rule. >Nah, bastinado for people who fail to follow 7C, just as much as >garrotte for people who fail to follow 7B1. Both Laws are "shall" Laws. >They should attract the same degree of punishment. Who cares what the lawmakers think or say? What do they know? Why follow the letter of the Law? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 25 09:18:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA05558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 May 2000 09:18:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from gadolinium (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA05549 for ; Thu, 25 May 2000 09:18:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.6.80.165] (helo=D457300) by gadolinium with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12ukPi-0003fR-00; Thu, 25 May 2000 00:18:11 +0100 Message-ID: <000f01bfc5d6$6704bc20$a550063e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: , "Tony Musgrove" References: <3.0.6.32.20000525080418.00800df0@ozemail.com.au> Subject: Re: Kaplan quote Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 00:18:40 +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 Tony Musgrove wrote: > Some years ago, (or it might have been last year), a poster quoted > a Kaplan quatrain concerning psychic bids which ended something like > > ...as long as you psych never!" > > Not able to locate original, could someone who remembers the full > text please repost? This wasn't a quatrain but a limerick; it was written in response to the publication in the ACBL Bulletin of rules governing psychic bids which were nearly as daft as those in the current WBF Code of Practice. It ran: Thanks for the Bulletin's clever Clarification endeavour. It's legal to psyche As much as you like, As long as you like to psyche never. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 25 12:50:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA07871 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 May 2000 12:50:50 +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 MAA07866 for ; Thu, 25 May 2000 12:50:35 +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 12uniz-000Gpy-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 May 2000 02:50:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 03:46:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: double ace of clubs References: <001601bfc557$e404a700$f98301d5@D457300> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>In article <001601bfc557$e404a700$f98301d5@D457300>, David Burn >> writes >>> >>>There is no infraction of "causing an unfortunate situation" which >>>justifies you in awarding a penalty for one instance of a particular >>>infraction but not another. Penalties are not to be applied at the >>>whim of the tournament director in order to keep the customers in >>>line. They are to be applied consistently, in accordance with the >>>Laws, or not at all. >> >>I'm totally with David here. eg. The EBU has some stupid rule that if a >>hand is 14-12 and gets caught at the next table nobody gets fined, but >>if it doesn't get caught, both tables get fined. That is ridiculous. >>Why should I fine X because Y can't follow proper procedure, and not >>otherwise? > > The EBU has no such rule. > Then I've seriously mis-understood what has been explained to me in the past. I'm glad there is no such rule. >>Nah, bastinado for people who fail to follow 7C, just as much as >>garrotte for people who fail to follow 7B1. Both Laws are "shall" Laws. >>They should attract the same degree of punishment. > > Who cares what the lawmakers think or say? What do they know? Why >follow the letter of the Law? > I do not understand this at all. I maintain that there is equal weight in the Laws as written on the act of counting ones cards to check one has 13 (a sensible Law is 7B1) as on the act of restoring ones original 13 cards to the board at the end of play (another sensible Law is 7C). Are you suggesting that the Lawmakers don't mean this? Are you suggesting that the Lawmakers didn't know what they were writing? Are you suggesting I shouldn't follow what the Laws say? clarification welcome, cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 25 14:07:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA08073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 May 2000 14:07:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep2.mail.ozemail.net (fep2.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.122]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA08068 for ; Thu, 25 May 2000 14:07:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (1Cust98.tnt2.syd2.da.uu.net [63.12.1.98]) by fep2.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA01183 for ; Thu, 25 May 2000 14:07:09 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000525140525.007ff8b0@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 14:05:25 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: Claim jumping/forgotten winner In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS: > We do not want ruling on claims to be a war between the TD and the >player. If you believe *this* player cannot go wrong even by being >careless, why should you not give him the claim? If you believe *this* >player can go wrong by being careless, why should you give him the >claim? > Sounds very plausible, but there are cases where the TD does not know the player, e.g. DWS directing in Moscow, Canberra etc. The implication is that the TD's ruling then will depend on someone else's opinion of the player's ability. Cheers, Tony Sydney From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 25 17:27:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA09052 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 May 2000 17:27:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from rsc.anu.edu.au (rsc [150.203.35.129]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA09046 for ; Thu, 25 May 2000 17:27:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from appenzeller.anu.edu.au (appenzeller.anu.edu.au [150.203.35.97]) by rsc.anu.edu.au (8.10.0/8.10.0) with SMTP id e4P7RKK06478 for ; Thu, 25 May 2000 17:27:20 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 17:27:20 +1000 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@appenzeller.anu.edu.au To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: double ace of clubs In-Reply-To: <200005231801.LAA15260@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 23 May 2000, Adam Beneschan wrote: > Mark Abraham wrote: > > > On Mon, 22 May 2000, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > > > A more interesting question would be: Suppose the defender did > > > properly call the director, and when the director came, the defender > > > explained that it was a bogus deck because there are two aces of clubs > > > in it. Everyone else then realizes that dummy had his ace of spades > > > misplaced. Dummy, of course, has violated Law 41D. The defender has > > > now told everyone that the ace of clubs is in his hand. Questions: > > > > > > (1) Is defender's ace of clubs a penalty card? > > > > No. Dummy's inability to sort his hand is a clear infraction of L41D and > > the defence should not be penalised as a consequence. However the defender > > should call the director without making any specific comment... the > > director can see if there's a problem and if so rectify it in such a way > > to preserve the rights of the non-offenders (adjusted score if necessary). > > I don't know if this makes sense. Suppose we *are* playing with a bad > deck (it's happened to me), and when dummy comes down I realize that > dummy has a card that I also hold in my hand. So of course I call the > director, and when the director comes over, she's naturally going to > want to know why I called for her. You're saying that I'm not > supposed to say anything at all? I have to make the director guess > why I called her? > > OK, so I have to say something. Maybe it would be OK to say "I think > we're playing with a bad deck, since dummy has a card that I hold in > my hand." But in the actual case, where dummy actually had the ace of > spades mixed in with his clubs, once we figured out where dummy made > the error, it would be very easy for everyone at the table to figure > out what card I was talking about. By "without making any specific comment" I intended to mean that the defender should indicate the kind of problem they believe has occurred (e.g. "I hold a card that dummy holds" ) without blurting out which card. Not identifying the card is useful in the cases where the defender is mistaken (e.g. having missorted their own hand, or incorrectly observed dummy). Clearly nothing can be done to remove the inference that when dummy is missorted that the player noticing the msisorted card(s) probably holds one of them. Should this inference be UI for the offending side and AI for the non-offenders? If so, under what law do you rule? Mark From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 25 17:30:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA09068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 May 2000 17:30:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from hunter2.int.kiev.ua (hunter2.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA09063 for ; Thu, 25 May 2000 17:30:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from marina (ppp08.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.108]) by hunter2.int.kiev.ua (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA24470; Thu, 25 May 2000 10:34:18 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <002401bfc61b$68e332c0$6c047bc3@marina> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: =?ISO-8859-2?B?SGVnZWT7cyBM4XN6bG8=?= , References: Subject: Re: "silent" alert Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 10:31:19 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Andras Booc wrote: > Let me ask you how do you interpret all below in practice. > Assuming no screensbut bidding boxes are used and your partner > makes a conventional bid. How do you alert? What does it mean > "to alert clearly"? In Ukraine the procedure of alerting is specified as: 1. The player must immediately alert his partner's call he has understood it is conventional (and Low 21 may be apply). 2. He must place the allert_bidding_card face up on the table in front of the opponents. 3. He must immediately turn his the allert_bidding_card face down he has made his call in his turn to call. Cheers Sergey From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 25 19:52:27 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA09568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 May 2000 19:52:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA09563 for ; Thu, 25 May 2000 19:52:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-5-85.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.5.85]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA18004 for ; Thu, 25 May 2000 11:51:48 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <392BB7C3.1EC4F202@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 13:06:43 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Antwerp mixed pairs revisited Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yesterday, I had a phone conversation with Jan Boets, a friend, international TD, national TD in two countries (how many of you can say that ? - yes David, you can), and reader of this list, if not a frequent writer. he had another valid point about my ruling at the mixed pairs, and even if I don't agree with him, I would like to submit it in his name to our distinguished panel. Let's name a few names. Greet was the one who had played the boards a first time. Greet was playing board 1 against Sonja when they notice the mistake. Greet has already played board 1, against Anne, and now has to play boards 13-16, again against Anne. Jan agrees with me that I have the right, by L15A2, that I am allowed to order Greet and Anne to play boards 13-16, and he also agrees that I did the right thing in indeed ordering them to do so. However, Jan says, I cannot simply order Sonja to play the board against (I don't remember off-hand). L15A2 does not apply to them, he says, and of course he is right. He does agree with me that I can order Sonja to play boards 1-4 by my powers of L8A1. I see some legalistic problems in that one as well (proper movement), but when someone agrees with me, I'm not looking to disagree with myself. But remember that there was a board (1) that Greet had started playing against Sonja. Jan maintains that I cannot apply L15C on this one, with regards to Sonja. Since Sonja did not start a "wrong" board, I cannot order her to repeat the call she made previously. She could now simply say that some hand she does not open against Greet, she would open against weaker opponents (she'd be right). I agree with Jan up to this point. Since I cannot force some call on someone who has done nothing wrong, I must allow Sonja to ask not to play the board. (an option not available in L15C - nor in L8A1). According to Jan, I should not even let the board start. Sonja could boldly give away authorized information by changing her opening call, and I could not stop her. I disagree with this : "if any call differs in any way ..." forces me to award the appropriate L12C1 score (in this case Av+ to Sonja) if she does change her call. But Jan's point is this : since there was no "wrong" board, L15C does not apply at all. He has a point surely, but my reply is this : At the moment that an opening lead was face on board one, with the wrong people playing it, the appropriate movement for this board was in effect altered. It now becomes a board that is designated to be played by two other pairs against one another. It is not my action as director that makes this so, it is the unfortunate incident at the other table. I compare this to a mistake in a guide card. When people are playing the "wrong" boards because the TD has made an error in the guide cards, these are still the "wrong" boards, even if the players have done nothing wrong. I would like to suggest (are you listening, Grattan ?), that the following clarifications be brought into the Lawbook. L15C : "Players must repeat" becomes "Players who were at fault must repeat". L15A3 : "The TD may require the normal opponents of both pairs to play the boards against one another." -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 25 20:33:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA09700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 May 2000 20:33:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA09695 for ; Thu, 25 May 2000 20:33:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12uuwo-000J6o-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 May 2000 11:33:03 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 00:28:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: "silent" alert References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Andras wrote: >Let me ask you how do you interpret all below in practice. >Assuming no screensbut bidding boxes are used and your partner >makes a conventional bid. How do you alert? What does it mean >"to alert clearly"? >I believe if one of the opponents observed the alert without any problem >it means it was a clear alert. I do not agree that the alerting player should >realise whether both of his opponents are following the play with full >concentration or just one of them. How do you feel you have alerted someone who has not seen your alert? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 25 21:59:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA10004 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 May 2000 21:59:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.15]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA09998 for ; Thu, 25 May 2000 21:59:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([210.55.47.110]) by mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000525115908.TOUO18042811.mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Thu, 25 May 2000 23:59:08 +1200 Message-ID: <001f01bfc640$45cafa00$6e2f37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <001601bfc557$e404a700$f98301d5@D457300> Subject: Re: double ace of clubs Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 23:56:32 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 DWS wrote > > Who cares what the lawmakers think or say? What do they know? Why > follow the letter of the Law? > Is this serious? Assuming it is ... because in general when a director makes a ruling outside of their own experience all they have to go on is the letter of the law. The law book is readily available (hopefully) but other sources of information and interpretations are not necessarily. Wayne Burrows From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 25 22:18:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA10098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 May 2000 22:18:12 +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 WAA10088 for ; Thu, 25 May 2000 22:18:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA19225 for ; Thu, 25 May 2000 08:16:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000525082213.006dc94c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 08:22:13 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Claim jumping/forgotten winner In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000525140525.007ff8b0@ozemail.com.au> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:05 PM 5/25/00 +1000, Tony wrote: >DWS: > >> We do not want ruling on claims to be a war between the TD and the >>player. If you believe *this* player cannot go wrong even by being >>careless, why should you not give him the claim? If you believe *this* >>player can go wrong by being careless, why should you give him the >>claim? > >Sounds very plausible, but there are cases where the TD does not know >the player, e.g. DWS directing in Moscow, Canberra etc. The implication >is that the TD's ruling then will depend on someone else's opinion of >the player's ability. Moreover, TDs, like the rest of us, often have very definite opinions of some players' levels of skill that others, often more knowledgeable than the TD, would strongly disagree with. TDs should in theory, and must in practice, if they are to avoid causing a great deal of dissension and ill-feeling among their players, be able to make rulings without being required to defend their judgments about the level of ability of the parties 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 Fri May 26 00:10:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA10523 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 00:10:32 +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 AAA10514 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 00:10:24 +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 12uyKx-000CWP-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 May 2000 14:10:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 12:15:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claim jumping/forgotten winner References: <3.0.6.32.20000525140525.007ff8b0@ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000525140525.007ff8b0@ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tony Musgrove wrote: >DWS: >> We do not want ruling on claims to be a war between the TD and the >>player. If you believe *this* player cannot go wrong even by being >>careless, why should you not give him the claim? If you believe *this* >>player can go wrong by being careless, why should you give him the >>claim? >Sounds very plausible, but there are cases where the TD does not know >the player, e.g. DWS directing in Moscow, Canberra etc. The implication >is that the TD's ruling then will depend on someone else's opinion of >the player's ability. Absolutely. Much of a TDs job is getting evidence and assessing it. This is just part of it. You mention Moscow: sadly I have been invited to this year's tournament at fairly short notice and I am unable to go. What a pity! I hope they invite me next year. I am committed to playing at Schipol. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 26 00:10:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA10524 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 00:10:33 +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 AAA10513 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 00:10:24 +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 12uyKx-000CWO-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 May 2000 14:10:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 12:13:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: double ace of clubs References: <001601bfc557$e404a700$f98301d5@D457300> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article , David Stevenson > writes >>John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>>In article <001601bfc557$e404a700$f98301d5@D457300>, David Burn >>> writes >>>> >>>>There is no infraction of "causing an unfortunate situation" which >>>>justifies you in awarding a penalty for one instance of a particular >>>>infraction but not another. Penalties are not to be applied at the >>>>whim of the tournament director in order to keep the customers in >>>>line. They are to be applied consistently, in accordance with the >>>>Laws, or not at all. >>> >>>I'm totally with David here. eg. The EBU has some stupid rule that if a >>>hand is 14-12 and gets caught at the next table nobody gets fined, but >>>if it doesn't get caught, both tables get fined. That is ridiculous. >>>Why should I fine X because Y can't follow proper procedure, and not >>>otherwise? >> >> The EBU has no such rule. >> >Then I've seriously mis-understood what has been explained to me in the >past. I'm glad there is no such rule. > >>>Nah, bastinado for people who fail to follow 7C, just as much as >>>garrotte for people who fail to follow 7B1. Both Laws are "shall" Laws. >>>They should attract the same degree of punishment. >> >> Who cares what the lawmakers think or say? What do they know? Why >>follow the letter of the Law? >> >I do not understand this at all. I maintain that there is equal weight >in the Laws as written on the act of counting ones cards to check one >has 13 (a sensible Law is 7B1) as on the act of restoring ones original >13 cards to the board at the end of play (another sensible Law is 7C). > >Are you suggesting that the Lawmakers don't mean this? Well, they said so, did they not? And you have been trained in that, have you not? The lawmakers said that they were removing the requirement to count the cards before returning them to the board so that the primary responsibility for the number of cards in the hand was given to the receiving player. That is an official WBFLC interpretation. >Are you suggesting that the Lawmakers didn't know what they were >writing? > >Are you suggesting I shouldn't follow what the Laws say? I am suggesting that fining two players equally for failure to count cards when one is told to and the other is not told to is not following the Laws, especially when you know that the WBFLC have made a specific interpretation covering this. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 26 01:41:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA10828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 01:41:08 +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 BAA10823 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 01:41:00 +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 12uzkd-0005D8-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 May 2000 16:40:49 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 15:22:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: double ace of clubs References: <001601bfc557$e404a700$f98301d5@D457300> <001f01bfc640$45cafa00$6e2f37d2@laptop> In-Reply-To: <001f01bfc640$45cafa00$6e2f37d2@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows wrote: >DWS wrote >> >> Who cares what the lawmakers think or say? What do they know? Why >> follow the letter of the Law? >> > >Is this serious? > >Assuming it is ... > >because in general when a director makes a ruling outside of their own >experience all they have to go on is the letter of the law. > >The law book is readily available (hopefully) but other sources of >information and interpretations are not necessarily. It was meant as sarcasm. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 26 01:41:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA10836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 01:41:20 +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 BAA10830 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 01:41:10 +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 12uzkd-0005D9-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 May 2000 16:40:48 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 15:24:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claim jumping/forgotten winner References: <3.0.6.32.20000525140525.007ff8b0@ozemail.com.au> <3.0.1.32.20000525082213.006dc94c@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000525082213.006dc94c@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 02:05 PM 5/25/00 +1000, Tony wrote: > >>DWS: >> >>> We do not want ruling on claims to be a war between the TD and the >>>player. If you believe *this* player cannot go wrong even by being >>>careless, why should you not give him the claim? If you believe *this* >>>player can go wrong by being careless, why should you give him the >>>claim? >> >>Sounds very plausible, but there are cases where the TD does not know >>the player, e.g. DWS directing in Moscow, Canberra etc. The implication >>is that the TD's ruling then will depend on someone else's opinion of >>the player's ability. > >Moreover, TDs, like the rest of us, often have very definite opinions of >some players' levels of skill that others, often more knowledgeable than >the TD, would strongly disagree with. TDs should in theory, and must in >practice, if they are to avoid causing a great deal of dissension and >ill-feeling among their players, be able to make rulings without being >required to defend their judgments about the level of ability of the >parties involved. I am intrigued by this post! What are you suggesting? I often make rulings that involve some idea of the player's ability. Probably two in three judgement rulings does so. Never has anyone argued on the basis you are suggesting! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 26 02:10:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA11121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 02:10:49 +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 CAA11114; Fri, 26 May 2000 02:10:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from [199.172.230.84] by stormy.ibl.bm (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-65377U14500L13000S0V35) with SMTP id bm; Thu, 25 May 2000 13:10:29 -0300 Date: 25 May 2000 13:07:58 -0700 Message-ID: <-1252862422jrhind@ibl.bm> From: Jack Rhind Subject: Re: double ace of clubs To: BLML , , 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 CAB11116 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hmm... Sounds like an interesting idea. What about having classifications based on how many PP's you have accrued. Grand Master..., etc. regards, Jack Rhind On Wednesday, May 24, 2000, anne_jones@ntlworld.com wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Norman Scorbie >To: >Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 11:00 AM >Subject: Re: double ace of clubs > > >> David Burn wrote >> >> >> >There is no infraction of "causing an unfortunate situation" >> >> That's a bit of a shame, really. Perhaps the next time the great and good >> assemble to revise the laws they might consider the inclusion of such a >> rule. This would certainly grant more licence to tournament directors. >When >> stuck on any particular ruling, they could always penalise someone for >> "causing an unfortunate situation". Covers more or less anything, from >> conveying unauthorised information to spilling tea down someone's >trousers. >> >I think it's already there in Law90.How about applying Law90 to this list. >Any >writer who causes annoyance to another should be given a PP or 2. These >would be added to a signature as are penalty points on a driving licence. >We could have an AC to decide whether the complainant is justified in being >upset. >When two contributors meet, the one with the most PPS buy the drinks. >> >I think the offence of "causing an unfortunate situation" might be great >fun. >It would certainly give a lot of chance to argue the meaning of the word >"unfortunate" in the context of the law. >Anne > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 26 02:13:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA11136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 02:13:46 +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 CAA11131 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 02:13:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4o6.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.6]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA11968 for ; Thu, 25 May 2000 12:13:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <007101bfc664$8be170e0$3c13f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Re: Claim jumping/forgotten winner Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 12:16:11 -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 It would be as absurd for a director to suppress his knowledge of the ability of a player/pair as for a player to suppress his knowledge of an opponent's ability. Such politically correct nonsense would be losing bridge...and poor directing. So the TD has to think and use all of his knowledge to apply the laws fairly? Well that's why we get the big bucks. :-)) Shirking our duties in the name of some false and unrealistic egalitarianism is a deriliction of duty. If the TD occasionally errs slightly in doing his best, that is still better than erring egregiously in almost all cases in a misguided attempt at evenhandedness. OF COURSE you take a player's ability into consideration...along with all the other relevant factors. This often works to the advantage of the lesser skilled player. Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, May 25, 2000 11:51 AM Subject: Re: Claim jumping/forgotten winner >Eric Landau wrote: >>At 02:05 PM 5/25/00 +1000, Tony wrote: >> >>>DWS: >>> >>>> We do not want ruling on claims to be a war between the TD and the >>>>player. If you believe *this* player cannot go wrong even by being >>>>careless, why should you not give him the claim? If you believe *this* >>>>player can go wrong by being careless, why should you give him the >>>>claim? >>> >>>Sounds very plausible, but there are cases where the TD does not know >>>the player, e.g. DWS directing in Moscow, Canberra etc. The implication >>>is that the TD's ruling then will depend on someone else's opinion of >>>the player's ability. >> >>Moreover, TDs, like the rest of us, often have very definite opinions of >>some players' levels of skill that others, often more knowledgeable than >>the TD, would strongly disagree with. TDs should in theory, and must in >>practice, if they are to avoid causing a great deal of dissension and >>ill-feeling among their players, be able to make rulings without being >>required to defend their judgments about the level of ability of the >>parties involved. > > I am intrigued by this post! What are you suggesting? I often make >rulings that involve some idea of the player's ability. Probably two in >three judgement rulings does so. Never has anyone argued on the basis >you are suggesting! > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 26 02:43:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA11226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 02:43:51 +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 SMTP id CAA11221 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 02:43:39 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 19756 invoked from network); 25 May 2000 16:43:00 -0000 Received: from petrus2.konvent (HELO eduhi.at) (192.168.1.116) by michael.gym with SMTP; 25 May 2000 16:43:00 -0000 Message-ID: <392D582B.5CC84340@eduhi.at> Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 18:43:23 +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: "silent" alert References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martaandras@uze.net schrieb: > > Let me ask you how do you interpret all below in practice. > Assuming no screensbut bidding boxes are used and your partner > makes a conventional bid. How do you alert? What does it mean > "to alert clearly"? > I believe if one of the opponents observed the alert without any problem > it means it was a clear alert. I do not agree that the alerting player should > realise whether both of his opponents are following the play with full > concentration or just one of them. > What is your opinion? > I can find no legal requirement in the Laws that a player is responsible that his opponents see/hear his calls; only that he makes them in the prescribed manner (L18F). Specifically, the Laws recognize the fact that players sometimes inadvertently call out of turn, misunderstand the auction and so on. I would find it odd to have more stringent requirements for alerts than for calls. I would opt for an objective approach, rather: a call has been properly alerted if both opponents should have seen the alert. IMO, that one player has actually seen it would be strong evidencs for a proper alert. Petrus From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 26 02:59:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA11296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 02:59:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f165.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.165]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA11289 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 02:59:36 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 72979 invoked by uid 0); 25 May 2000 16:58:58 -0000 Message-ID: <20000525165858.72978.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.23 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 25 May 2000 09:58:58 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.23] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: double ace of clubs Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 09:58:58 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Well, they said so, did they not? And you have been trained in that, >have you not? > > The lawmakers said that they were removing the requirement to count >the cards before returning them to the board so that the primary >responsibility for the number of cards in the hand was given to the >receiving player. That is an official WBFLC interpretation. Once again punishing the action based on the result. Putting back 13 cards is a subset of completing the task of putting your original 13 back in the board. You can't ensure the latter without inadvertantly accomplishing the former. > >Are you suggesting that the Lawmakers didn't know what they were > >writing? > > > >Are you suggesting I shouldn't follow what the Laws say? > > I am suggesting that fining two players equally for failure to count >cards when one is told to and the other is not told to is not following >the Laws, especially when you know that the WBFLC have made a specific >interpretation covering this. When a card from player A's hand gets shuffled in with player B's hand, you get a 12-14 board. While this requires two people to make the mistake, player A and B can swap cards, foul the board, and not have the problem noticed until after the session. They should still be accountable and they should still be taking care to replace the cards in the board correctly. Aside question, does anyone ever enforce resorting the hand before restoring it to the board? -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 26 04:08:53 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA11494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 04:08:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from cgomboc.drotposta.hu (cgomboc.drotposta.hu [212.108.226.84]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA11489 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 04:08:41 +1000 (EST) From: Martaandras@uze.net Received: from agomboc.drotposta.hu ([212.108.226.81] helo=LOCALHOST) by cgomboc.drotposta.hu with smtp (Exim 3.12 #1) id 12v231-0005or-00; Thu, 25 May 2000 20:07:55 +0200 Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 07:30:17 +0100 (MET DST) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, =?iso-8859-2?q?Heged=FCs=20L=E1szl=F3?= , =?iso-8859-2?q?Kov=E1cs=20Andr=E1s?= Subject: Re: "silent" alert Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id EAA11490 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry to return to this point again but I still have some unanswered questions. Let's assume you are called to the table (despite I was not there I believe the Hungarian case was something like that as we started to discuss it locally in Hungarian a bit earlier) and can hear the followings. S - following N's artificial bid - made an Alert by touching the bidding box's Alert card a couple of times. E - whose turn was to bid - had no problem to notice it but W - maybe because he did not pay much attention at that time - said he did not observe the Alert and E-W had a bad score on the board (it is clear for the TD that the bad score was the consequence that W did not realise the artificial bid). Now the question: do you decide AUTOMATICALLY against S because he violated the rule " the alerting player needs to be sure that both opponents have noticed the alert" - or if you believe S alerted clearly and W simply did not pay enough attention to the game at that moment you may let the result remain? S may say he was sure that both opponents had a chance to notice his Alert because he did it in a normal way and E DID notice it. I do not think that after each Alert the alerting player should watch their opponents separately carefully whether both of them observed his Alert. Is it the Alerting player's obligation to alert i a way that any "sleeping" opponent is waking up? Other way round: I do not think that a player is entitled for a redress just because he is not concentrating on the game and if you apply this rule automatically it is possible to abuse it. What is your opinion? Thanks. Andras Booc martaandras@uze.net > At 08:19 PM 5/24/00 +0100, you wrote: > >Let me ask you how do you interpret all below in practice. > >Assuming no screensbut bidding boxes are used and your partner > >makes a conventional bid. How do you alert? What does it mean > >"to alert clearly"? > >I believe if one of the opponents observed the alert without any problem > >it means it was a clear alert. I do not agree that the alerting player > should > >realise whether both of his opponents are following the play with full > >concentration or just one of them. > >What is your opinion? > > > > Our 'wedstrijdreglement' for all competitions is very strict in it: > It says: the alerting player needs to be sure that both opponents have > noticed the alert > regards, > anton > thus that settles the matter for holland > > > >Andras Booc > >martaandras@uze.net > >"Sergey Kapustin" 2000.05.24. 08:59:28 +3h-kor írta: > > > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Hegedûs Lászlo > >> To: > >> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 3:23 AM > >> Subject: "silent" alert > >> > >> Hegedûs Lászlo wrote > >> > >> > Is it the responsibility of the "silent" South or the player who does > >> > not realize it? > >> > >> WBF GENERAL CONDITIONS OF CONTEST, APRIL 1998, > >> > >> #.9 Alerts and Explanations > >> > >> .... It is the responsibility of the alerting player to alert clearly.... > >> > >> # 15 Bidding Boxes > >> # 15.1 General > >> .... It is the responsibility of the alerting player to ensure that his > >> opponents are aware of the Alert... > >> > >> Cheers Sergey > > > > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) > Tel: 020 7763175 > 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 > 1053 SB Amsterdam > ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 26 04:21:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA11553 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 04:21:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f279.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.57]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA11548 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 04:21:34 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 50568 invoked by uid 0); 25 May 2000 18:20:56 -0000 Message-ID: <20000525182056.50567.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.18 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 25 May 2000 11:20:56 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.18] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 11:20:56 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Craig Senior" > >It would be as absurd for a director to suppress his knowledge of the >ability of a player/pair as for a player to suppress his knowledge of an >opponent's ability. Why? >Such politically correct nonsense would be losing bridge...and poor >directing. Why? (Do you mean to imply that taking a player's ability into account is winning bridge? Admittedly, I more often accept an invitation to game against weaker opponents than stronger ones, but that isn't the TD's realm.) >So the TD has to think and use all of his >knowledge to apply the laws fairly? Well that's why we get the big bucks. >:-)) Shirking our duties in the name of some false and unrealistic >egalitarianism is a deriliction of duty. If the TD occasionally errs >slightly in doing his best, that is still better than erring egregiously in >almost all cases in a misguided attempt at evenhandedness. OF COURSE you >take a player's ability into consideration...along with all the other >relevant factors. The long E word -- I'm sure that Vonnegut would have a field day with bridge's current state of affairs. (Protecting the field, obtaining bridge results, windfalls/equity) As far as false and unrealisitic, uhm... undesireable possibly, but egalitarianism is extremely simple to achieve. It's sufficient, though not necessary, to remove identity. Having the parties involved write their complaint on a sheet of paper along with the current state of the hand and ship it to a director in Mongolia (or the next room) for a ruling would do the trick. Simple, effective, and it's clear you couldn't care less that it's achievable. It's not as clear why. I fail to see what the player's skill does other than to allow the awarding of favor based on fame. >This often works to the advantage of the lesser skilledplayer. The tacit segue is that this usually works to the advantage of the better-skilled player. I'd prefer the statement to read, "On average, this works to no one's advantage." -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 26 05:14:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA11767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 05:14:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (root@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA11760 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 05:13:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA03012 for ; Thu, 25 May 2000 15:13:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200005251913.PAA03012@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "silent" alert Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <392D582B.5CC84340@eduhi.at> References: <392D582B.5CC84340@eduhi.at> Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 15:13:25 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 25 May 2000 at 18:43, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: >Martaandras@uze.net schrieb: >> >I can find no legal requirement in the Laws that a player is responsible >that his opponents see/hear his calls; only that he makes them in the >prescribed manner (L18F). Specifically, the Laws recognize the fact that >players sometimes inadvertently call out of turn, misunderstand the >auction and so on. >I would find it odd to have more stringent requirements for alerts than >for calls. Well, the SOs could set a regulation that states just this, if I've read everything right. So, if the SO wants to penalize me because I speak softly, and some people don't hear my calls, they are entitled to, provided they've let me know. And the SOs (which definately have the right to require pretty much anything they want when it comes to alerts) have decreed that it is one of the responsibilities you take on when you choose to use an alertable bid that both opponents know when your side makes the bid. Of course, that is all theoretical (what they can, not why they would, which I guess is what you're asking about). The practical reason is that calls come in an expected, well-defined order; if you heard partner call (and the opponents don't object), you can assume that LHO has called, and if you didn't hear/see it, you can ask when it becomes legal and necessary. Alerts, however, do not come in that order; in fact, by their very nature, they must be "unexpected" to be useful. You can't assume that an Alert has been made and you must missed it because of any other action at the table. So, since Alerts are more likely to be irretrievably missed than calls, it does make sense that the SOs provide more stringent requirements for Alerts than calls. On a side note (and I hope this doesn't engender 50 posts, like my last "simple question" did): what happened in the thread a year or so ago where LHO made a hearts call, and partner makes a call that would be alertable over 2H but not 3H (say)? Similarly, when an alerted, but unexplained call (with two, common, alertable meanings) is followed by a double, which means one thing after one of those meanings, but a different thing after (the) other(s)? Did we reach a consensus on what you're allowed to know in order to do your proper job of alerting (resp. explaining), or how you are supposed to do that job? Examples: 1H 1S p xH (the most common usages of both 2H and 3H here are X not alertable in the ACBL) Now X is generic takeout in my partnership over 2H (strong response), but Non-Lead-Directing (and Alertable) over 3H stopper-query. What are "my" requirements and options? 1S 2D 4D! X! Ok, now X is alertable almost independent of what 4D was, but if it's a splinter, it's requesting a club lead, but if it doesn't show diamond shortness, it's Non-Lead-Directing. Partner didn't ask, probably because he remembers this from the last time we played, but I don't. Opener asks the meaning of X. What do "I" do? Michael. From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 26 06:33:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA12075 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 06:33:43 +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 GAA12070 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 06:33:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.184] (dhcp165-184.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.184]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA24916; Thu, 25 May 2000 16:33:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200005251913.PAA03012@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> References: <392D582B.5CC84340@eduhi.at> <392D582B.5CC84340@eduhi.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 16:28:24 -0400 To: blml@farebrother.cx, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: "silent" alert Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 3:13 PM -0400 5/25/00, Michael Farebrother wrote: >On a side note (and I hope this doesn't engender 50 posts, like my last >"simple question" did): what happened in the thread a year or so ago where LHO >made a hearts call, and partner makes a call that would be alertable >over 2H but not 3H (say)? Similarly, when an alerted, but unexplained >call (with two, common, alertable meanings) is followed by a double, >which means one thing after one of those meanings, but a different thing >after (the) other(s)? I think the consensus is that you should alert the potentially alertable call, and ask in order to get the explanation if necessary. Example: !NT 2D! 2H! If 2D is Brozel, showing diamonds and hearts, then 2H is a cue-bid showing four spades and game invitational values. If 2D is DONT, showing diamonds and a major, or Astro, showing spades and a minor, then 2H is natural and non-forcing. The alert serves to warn the opponents that they might need to ask the meaning of the bid. If RHO asks the meaning of 2H, you must ask the meaning of 2D. If RHO doesn't ask and passes, you will need to ask at your turn in any case. You have done nothing wrong here; if 2H turns out to be non-alertable, the opponents are not entitled to assume that it has some particular alertable meaning without asking, and therefore, they cannot be damaged (other than UI in asking for the explanation, which is not likely to be a problem on an auction like this). From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 26 07:13:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA12131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 06:44:08 +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 GAA12114 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 06:43:54 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 71317 invoked for bounce); 25 May 2000 20:43:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.57.4) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 25 May 2000 20:43:39 -0000 Message-ID: <03a801bfc68a$9b70a320$413b1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <200005182252.SAA13120@cfa183.harvard.edu><3dgWjbADwRJ5EwCJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk><000301bfc1eb$3b232ea0$b9391dc2@rabbit> Subject: Re: A bit quiet Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 22:38:20 +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 David Stevenson wrote: > Thomas Dehn wrote: > > >It is irrational, but it is consistent with the claim statement > >"DQ pitching a heart". > > Absolutely true, so we do not hold him to it in our ruling. mmmh, I am not sure I am convinced: Example layout: Dummy: AQ,AKQ8,-,- Hand: x,x,xxx,x Notrumps, hearts have not been played yet, declarer still need five tricks, and is in hand. Claim statement: "Four hearts and the spade ace". At the table, hearts split 5-3, LHO's JT9 of hearts come down, the H K is offside. We will give declarer 5 tricks even though his stated line is irrational... I'm just too lazy to construct a hand where "DQ, pitching a heart" in best rueful rabbit style gains two tricks by an endplay combined with an automatic squeeze, whereas the "normal" cash-your-tricks-from-the-top line fails when all suits split horribly bad. ;-) Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 26 08:15:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA12130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 06:44:07 +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 GAA12115 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 06:43:54 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 71321 invoked for bounce); 25 May 2000 20:43:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.57.4) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 25 May 2000 20:43:40 -0000 Message-ID: <03a901bfc68a$9bcc30a0$413b1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <002501bfc45e$abf085e0$020aa8c0@com> Subject: Re: Another problem from Germany Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 22:47:59 +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 Davis Hirsch wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2000 2:08 PM > Subject: Another problem from Germany > > > > Dear colleagues all over the world, my friend, Jeff Easterson from > Germany > > supplied me another problem to share with you. > > > > Screens are used and the bidding was the following. > > S W N E > > P 1 NT P P > > 2 H > > > > When N and E pulled the tray through the opening in the screen they > apparently did not > > pull it far enough. At least neither of them saw the 2 H bid and assumed S > had passed. > > Thus they assumed the bidding had ended and and they did not place pass > cards on the tray. > > S and W knew the contract was 2 H by S and waited for the tap on the > screen expecting to have W > > make the opening lead, and N's cards revealed as dummy on the other side. > W faced (unfortunately) > > his lead and tapped the screen. The screen was raised and they discovered > that E had faced all his > > cards and N had faced an opening lead as well. > > The TD is called. One defender had faced his hand and there were 2 faced > up opening leads, one by > > the proper leader the other by the actual dummy. > > Your decision? > > Surely, since W and S were screenmates, there was at least a pass by W > before his lead. So, the auction would be: > > P-1NT-P-P > 2H-P (Please correct me if W decided to lead without a final pass) Correct, W passed, and then the tray was pushed to the other side. Thomas, S on this deal (which was one of three deals at his table alone where somebody did not see the full auction). From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 26 08:21:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA12484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 08:21:37 +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 IAA12479 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 08:21:29 +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 PAA25430; Thu, 25 May 2000 15:17:38 -0700 Message-Id: <200005252217.PAA25430@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: A bit quiet In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 25 May 2000 22:38:20 PDT." <03a801bfc68a$9b70a320$413b1dc2@rabbit> Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 15:17:40 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thomas Dehn wrote: > David Stevenson wrote: > > > Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > > >It is irrational, but it is consistent with the claim statement > > >"DQ pitching a heart". > > > > Absolutely true, so we do not hold him to it in our ruling. > > mmmh, I am not sure I am convinced: > > > Example layout: > > > Dummy: > AQ,AKQ8,-,- > > Hand: > x,x,xxx,x > > Notrumps, hearts have not been played yet, declarer still need > five tricks, and is in hand. > > Claim statement: "Four hearts and the spade ace". At the table, hearts split > 5-3, > LHO's JT9 of hearts come down, the H K is offside. > We will give declarer 5 tricks even though his stated > line is irrational... I've been saying for a while that the claim laws (especially L70) are deficient and need to be rewritten, and I've done some thinking about what they should look like, mostly when I have absolutely nothing else to think about or am trying to lull myself to sleep at night. Anyway, I think that what *should* happen is that we hold declarer to his claim statement until something unexpected shows up (e.g. an opponent plays a winner, or a trump, that declarer was sure the opponents no longer had); at that point, we assume that declarer is awake enough to realize he had forgotten something, and we assume that declarer will not necessarily continue with his original plan as stated in his claim, if doing so would be irrational. I think the new and improved claim Laws should include something along those lines. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 26 08:34:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA12533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 08:34:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp2.a2000.nl (duck.a2000.nl [62.108.1.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA12528 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 08:34:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 12v6Co-00010E-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 May 2000 00:34:18 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000526003225.00b747a0@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 00:32:25 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: "silent" alert In-Reply-To: <392D582B.5CC84340@eduhi.at> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:43 PM 5/25/00 +0200, you wrote: >Martaandras@uze.net schrieb: >> >> Let me ask you how do you interpret all below in practice. >> Assuming no screensbut bidding boxes are used and your partner >> makes a conventional bid. How do you alert? What does it mean >> "to alert clearly"? >> I believe if one of the opponents observed the alert without any problem >> it means it was a clear alert. I do not agree that the alerting player should >> realise whether both of his opponents are following the play with full >> concentration or just one of them. >> What is your opinion? >> >I can find no legal requirement in the Laws that a player is responsible >that his opponents see/hear his calls; only that he makes them in the >prescribed manner (L18F). Specifically, the Laws recognize the fact that >players sometimes inadvertently call out of turn, misunderstand the >auction and so on. >I would find it odd to have more stringent requirements for alerts than >for calls. >I would opt for an objective approach, rather: a call has been properly >alerted if both opponents should have seen the alert. IMO, that one >player has actually seen it would be strong evidencs for a proper alert. > sure you cant find it. it is part of regulations of the SO regards, anton >Petrus > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 26 08:37:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA12129 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 06:44:07 +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 GAA12116 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 06:43:54 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 71330 invoked for bounce); 25 May 2000 20:43:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.57.4) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 25 May 2000 20:43:41 -0000 Message-ID: <03aa01bfc68a$9c3a0da0$413b1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3929194F.42E5ED91@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Another problem from Germany Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 22:48:35 +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 Herman wrote:> Martaandras@uze.net wrote: > > > > Dear colleagues all over the world, my friend, Jeff Easterson from Germany > > supplied me another problem to share with you. > > > > Screens are used and the bidding was the following. > > S W N E > > P 1 NT P P > > 2 H > > > > When N and E pulled the tray through the opening in the screen they apparently did not > > pull it far enough. At least neither of them saw the 2 H bid and assumed S had passed. > > Thus they assumed the bidding had ended and and they did not place pass cards on the tray. > > S and W knew the contract was 2 H by S and waited for the tap on the screen expecting to have W > > make the opening lead, and N's cards revealed as dummy on the other side. W faced (unfortunately) > > his lead and tapped the screen. The screen was raised and they discovered that E had faced all his > > cards and N had faced an opening lead as well. > > The TD is called. One defender had faced his hand and there were 2 faced up opening leads, one by > > the proper leader the other by the actual dummy. > > Your decision? > > > > Too difficult. > > Next board. > > Av- to both sides. > > I'm kidding. > No in fact I am not. > I believe the players, all four of them, would realise that > what I am doing is saving them valuable time and effort. > They would accept my offer to cancel the board and rule it > unplayable. I agree with this ruling. Both sides where at fault for making the board effectively unplayable. I disagree with the actual ruling at the table, which was to reshuffle the deck, because I don't see a basis for that one in the law. Actually this did get us in time trouble. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 26 08:37:53 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA12556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 08:37:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp2.a2000.nl (duck.a2000.nl [62.108.1.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA12551 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 08:37:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 12v6G1-00013A-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 May 2000 00:37:37 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000526003544.00b70840@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 00:35:44 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: "silent" alert In-Reply-To: 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 IAA12552 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:30 AM 5/25/00 +0100, you wrote: > >Sorry to return to this point again but I still have some unanswered >questions. >Let's assume you are called to the table (despite I was not there >I believe the Hungarian case was something like that as we started >to discuss it locally in Hungarian a bit earlier) and can hear the >followings. >S - following N's artificial bid - made an Alert by touching the bidding >box's Alert card a couple of times. E - whose turn was to bid - had no problem >to notice it but W - maybe because he did not pay much attention at that time - >said he did not observe the Alert and E-W had a bad score on the board (it is >clear for the TD that the bad score was the consequence that W did not >realise the artificial bid). >Now the question: do you decide AUTOMATICALLY against S because >he violated the rule " the alerting player needs to be sure that both opponents have >noticed the alert" - or if you believe S alerted clearly and W simply did not pay enough >attention to the game at that moment you may let the result remain? >S may say he was sure that both opponents had a chance to notice >his Alert because he did it in a normal way and E DID notice it. I do not think >that after each Alert the alerting player should watch their opponents separately carefully >whether both of them observed his Alert. Is it the Alerting player's obligation to alert i a way >that any "sleeping" opponent is waking up? come on. this should be regulated by the spnsoring organisation. if they didnt do it they were sloppy. thats all. it is not regulated by the laws. If ths so didnyt regulate it then you are in the bushes. and still - as td- will decide against sloppy alerter. regards, anton >Other way round: I do not think that a player is entitled for a redress just because he is >not concentrating on the game and if you apply this rule automatically it is possible to abuse it. > >What is your opinion? > >Thanks. > >Andras Booc >martaandras@uze.net > >> At 08:19 PM 5/24/00 +0100, you wrote: >> >Let me ask you how do you interpret all below in practice. >> >Assuming no screensbut bidding boxes are used and your partner >> >makes a conventional bid. How do you alert? What does it mean >> >"to alert clearly"? >> >I believe if one of the opponents observed the alert without any problem >> >it means it was a clear alert. I do not agree that the alerting player >> should >> >realise whether both of his opponents are following the play with full >> >concentration or just one of them. >> >What is your opinion? >> > >> >> Our 'wedstrijdreglement' for all competitions is very strict in it: >> It says: the alerting player needs to be sure that both opponents have >> noticed the alert >> regards, >> anton >> thus that settles the matter for holland >> >> >> >Andras Booc >> >martaandras@uze.net >> >"Sergey Kapustin" 2000.05.24. 08:59:28 +3h-kor írta: >> > >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: Hegedûs Lászlo >> >> To: >> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 3:23 AM >> >> Subject: "silent" alert >> >> >> >> Hegedûs Lászlo wrote >> >> >> >> > Is it the responsibility of the "silent" South or the player who does >> >> > not realize it? >> >> >> >> WBF GENERAL CONDITIONS OF CONTEST, APRIL 1998, >> >> >> >> #.9 Alerts and Explanations >> >> >> >> .... It is the responsibility of the alerting player to alert clearly.... >> >> >> >> # 15 Bidding Boxes >> >> # 15.1 General >> >> .... It is the responsibility of the alerting player to ensure that his >> >> opponents are aware of the Alert... >> >> >> >> Cheers Sergey >> > >> > >> Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) >> Tel: 020 7763175 >> 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 >> 1053 SB Amsterdam >> ICQ 7835770 > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 26 11:42:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA13175 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 11:42:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA13159 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 11:42:40 +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 12v98r-000Ivq-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 May 2000 01:42:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 23:35:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: "silent" alert References: <392D582B.5CC84340@eduhi.at> In-Reply-To: <392D582B.5CC84340@eduhi.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: >Martaandras@uze.net schrieb: >> >> Let me ask you how do you interpret all below in practice. >> Assuming no screensbut bidding boxes are used and your partner >> makes a conventional bid. How do you alert? What does it mean >> "to alert clearly"? >> I believe if one of the opponents observed the alert without any problem >> it means it was a clear alert. I do not agree that the alerting player should >> realise whether both of his opponents are following the play with full >> concentration or just one of them. >> What is your opinion? >> >I can find no legal requirement in the Laws that a player is responsible >that his opponents see/hear his calls; only that he makes them in the >prescribed manner (L18F). Specifically, the Laws recognize the fact that >players sometimes inadvertently call out of turn, misunderstand the >auction and so on. >I would find it odd to have more stringent requirements for alerts than >for calls. These are not comparable. Suppose you are not attending: when you wake up, you see or hear partner making a call. If the last call you were aware of was your own, you *know* that LHO has called, so you look at the table to see what you have missed [or ask for a review at your turn if using spoken calls]. So if you miss a call, it does not matter. But if you miss an alert you do not know it has happened. Therefore we need more stringent requirements for alerts than calls. You have not alerted your opponents if they are not aware of your alert. Therefore it is a requirement of a player that he makes sure that his opponents are aware of his alert: otherwise he has not alerted them. >I would opt for an objective approach, rather: a call has been properly >alerted if both opponents should have seen the alert. IMO, that one >player has actually seen it would be strong evidencs for a proper alert. No, for the reasons above, that is not satisfactory. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 26 11:42:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA13174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 11:42:52 +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 LAA13158 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 11:42:39 +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 12v98r-00063V-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 May 2000 01:42:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 22:47:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: double ace of clubs References: <20000525165858.72978.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000525165858.72978.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: >> Well, they said so, did they not? And you have been trained in that, >>have you not? >> >> The lawmakers said that they were removing the requirement to count >>the cards before returning them to the board so that the primary >>responsibility for the number of cards in the hand was given to the >>receiving player. That is an official WBFLC interpretation. > > Once again punishing the action based on the result. Putting back 13 >cards is a subset of completing the task of putting your original 13 back in >the board. You can't ensure the latter without inadvertantly accomplishing >the former. No, we are punishing two actions based on their relative importance. >> >Are you suggesting that the Lawmakers didn't know what they were >> >writing? >> > >> >Are you suggesting I shouldn't follow what the Laws say? >> >> I am suggesting that fining two players equally for failure to count >>cards when one is told to and the other is not told to is not following >>the Laws, especially when you know that the WBFLC have made a specific >>interpretation covering this. > > When a card from player A's hand gets shuffled in with player B's hand, >you get a 12-14 board. While this requires two people to make the mistake, >player A and B can swap cards, foul the board, and not have the problem >noticed until after the session. They should still be accountable and they >should still be taking care to replace the cards in the board correctly. I am not saying they are not accountable. But when determining the level of punishment we have a laid-down approach as to level of accountability. > Aside question, does anyone ever enforce resorting the hand before >restoring it to the board? There is no Law or regulation requiring it, so no, I do not suppose people do. Many parts of the world do not seem to have heard of the idea, and fewer people are doing so nowadays in England. On the other hand, many people in England shuffle their hand before returning it to the board. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 26 11:42:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA13176 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 11:42:53 +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 LAA13160 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 11:42:41 +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 12v98r-000Ivw-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 May 2000 01:42:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 00:03:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) References: <20000525182056.50567.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000525182056.50567.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: "Craig Senior" >> >>It would be as absurd for a director to suppress his knowledge of the >>ability of a player/pair as for a player to suppress his knowledge of an >>opponent's ability. > > Why? > >>Such politically correct nonsense would be losing bridge...and poor >>directing. > > Why? (Do you mean to imply that taking a player's ability into account >is winning bridge? Admittedly, I more often accept an invitation to game >against weaker opponents than stronger ones, but that isn't the TD's realm.) No, it is a requirement of some of the Laws of Bridge. The interpretation of an LA depends on the players' peers. Some of the rules about claims, such as what is normal, dpend on the class of player involved. More experienced players tend to be held to a higher standard of ethics because it is assumed they are more knowledgeable. >>So the TD has to think and use all of his >>knowledge to apply the laws fairly? Well that's why we get the big bucks. >>:-)) Shirking our duties in the name of some false and unrealistic >>egalitarianism is a deriliction of duty. If the TD occasionally errs >>slightly in doing his best, that is still better than erring egregiously in >>almost all cases in a misguided attempt at evenhandedness. OF COURSE you >>take a player's ability into consideration...along with all the other >>relevant factors. > > The long E word -- I'm sure that Vonnegut would have a field day with >bridge's current state of affairs. (Protecting the field, obtaining bridge >results, windfalls/equity) As far as false and unrealisitic, uhm... >undesireable possibly, but egalitarianism is extremely simple to achieve. >It's sufficient, though not necessary, to remove identity. Having the >parties involved write their complaint on a sheet of paper along with the >current state of the hand and ship it to a director in Mongolia (or the next >room) for a ruling would do the trick. Simple, effective, and it's clear >you couldn't care less that it's achievable. It's not as clear why. I fail >to see what the player's skill does other than to allow the awarding of >favor based on fame. > >>This often works to the advantage of the lesser skilledplayer. > > The tacit segue is that this usually works to the advantage of the >better-skilled player. I'd prefer the statement to read, "On average, this >works to no one's advantage." You should not read things that are not said. We have seen here and on RGB too often comments about things benefiting the better player, and I believe Craig's remark was no more than refutation of that. On average, rulings do not work to anyone's advantage. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 26 12:04:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA13267 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 12:04:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA13257 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 12:04:32 +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 12v9U5-000MqN-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 May 2000 03:04:22 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 01:12:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Claim jumping/forgotten winner References: <007101bfc664$8be170e0$3c13f7a5@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: <007101bfc664$8be170e0$3c13f7a5@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <007101bfc664$8be170e0$3c13f7a5@oemcomputer>, Craig Senior writes >It would be as absurd for a director to suppress his knowledge of the >ability of a player/pair as for a player to suppress his knowledge of an >opponent's ability. Such politically correct nonsense would be losing >bridge...and poor directing. So the TD has to think and use all of his >knowledge to apply the laws fairly? Well that's why we get the big bucks. >:-)) Shirking our duties in the name of some false and unrealistic >egalitarianism is a deriliction of duty. If the TD occasionally errs >slightly in doing his best, that is still better than erring egregiously in >almost all cases in a misguided attempt at evenhandedness. OF COURSE you >take a player's ability into consideration...along with all the other >relevant factors. This often works to the advantage of the lesser skilled >player. > I concur. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 26 12:04:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA13268 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 12:04:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA13258 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 12:04:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12v9UB-000MqV-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 May 2000 03:04:28 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 01:10:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: double ace of clubs References: <001601bfc557$e404a700$f98301d5@D457300> 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 snip > > The lawmakers said that they were removing the requirement to count >the cards before returning them to the board so that the primary >responsibility for the number of cards in the hand was given to the >receiving player. That is an official WBFLC interpretation. that is perfectly sensible, but the Laws *do not say that*. "shall restore his original thirteen cards" seems pretty clear to me. How else can I know that I've got thirteen unless I count them? > >>Are you suggesting that the Lawmakers didn't know what they were >>writing? >> >>Are you suggesting I shouldn't follow what the Laws say? > > I am suggesting that fining two players equally for failure to count >cards when one is told to and the other is not told to is not following >the Laws, especially when you know that the WBFLC have made a specific >interpretation covering this. > Returning to the original point then. Do we *never* (in EBU Land) fine somebody for failing to follow the correct procedures in Law 7C? cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 26 16:21:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA14156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 16:21:12 +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 QAA14147 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 16:20:15 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 85478 invoked for bounce); 26 May 2000 06:20:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.59.186) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 26 May 2000 06:20:05 -0000 Message-ID: <005801bfc6db$21d4e0c0$ba3b1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: Cc: References: <200005252217.PAA25430@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: A bit quiet Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 08:23:10 +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 Adam wrote: > I've been saying for a while that the claim laws (especially L70) are > deficient and need to be rewritten, and I've done some thinking about > what they should look like, mostly when I have absolutely nothing else > to think about or am trying to lull myself to sleep at night. Anyway, > I think that what *should* happen is that we hold declarer to his > claim statement until something unexpected shows up (e.g. an opponent > plays a winner, or a trump, that declarer was sure the opponents no > longer had); at that point, we assume that declarer is awake enough to > realize he had forgotten something, and we assume that declarer will > not necessarily continue with his original plan as stated in his > claim, if doing so would be irrational. But what to do if something unexpected shows up, and nevertheless following the stated irrational line ("DQ, discarding a heart", and then RHO unexpectedly shows up with the DA) is the only successful line? Just assume RHO's DA is his last D, and he is now endplayed. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 26 20:13:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA14592 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 19:16:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta02-svc.server.ntlworld.com (mta02-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA14587 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 19:15:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.253.91.110]) by mta02-svc.server.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000526101524.QEYD10065.mta02-svc.server.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 10:15:24 +0000 Message-ID: <002801bfc6f3$9735c7e0$6055fd3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" References: <392D582B.5CC84340@eduhi.at> Subject: Re: "silent" alert Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 10:19:41 +0100 Organization: X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 11:35 PM Subject: Re: "silent" alert > Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > >Martaandras@uze.net schrieb: > >> > >> Let me ask you how do you interpret all below in practice. > >> Assuming no screensbut bidding boxes are used and your partner > >> makes a conventional bid. How do you alert? What does it mean > >> "to alert clearly"? > >> I believe if one of the opponents observed the alert without any problem > >> it means it was a clear alert. I do not agree that the alerting player should > >> realise whether both of his opponents are following the play with full > >> concentration or just one of them. > >> What is your opinion? > >> > >I can find no legal requirement in the Laws that a player is responsible > >that his opponents see/hear his calls; only that he makes them in the > >prescribed manner (L18F). Specifically, the Laws recognize the fact that > >players sometimes inadvertently call out of turn, misunderstand the > >auction and so on. > >I would find it odd to have more stringent requirements for alerts than > >for calls. > > These are not comparable. Suppose you are not attending: when you > wake up, you see or hear partner making a call. If the last call you > were aware of was your own, you *know* that LHO has called, so you look > at the table to see what you have missed [or ask for a review at your > turn if using spoken calls]. So if you miss a call, it does not matter. > But if you miss an alert you do not know it has happened. Therefore we > need more stringent requirements for alerts than calls. > That is not a good argument. Law 20B tells us that alerts should be included in the restatement. I believe that the regs for use of screens say that alerts must be acknowledged.Would this be a useful adddition to the FLB? I agree that the alerter is responsible for making sure his alert has been seen but it is entirely possible for a player to see an alert, and then forget that it was made. The alerter should not be responsible for this lapse. Anne > You have not alerted your opponents if they are not aware of your > alert. Therefore it is a requirement of a player that he makes sure > that his opponents are aware of his alert: otherwise he has not alerted > them. > > >I would opt for an objective approach, rather: a call has been properly > >alerted if both opponents should have seen the alert. IMO, that one > >player has actually seen it would be strong evidencs for a proper alert. > > No, for the reasons above, that is not satisfactory. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 26 20:26:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA14842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 20:26:08 +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 UAA14837 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 20:25:55 +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 12vHJI-0006bO-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 May 2000 10:25:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 03:51:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: double ace of clubs References: <001601bfc557$e404a700$f98301d5@D457300> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >Returning to the original point then. Do we *never* (in EBU Land) fine >somebody for failing to follow the correct procedures in Law 7C? Of course we do. We will fine anyone anytime for anything however mundane if either [a] he is doing it frequently or [b] his attitude suggests he is going to continue doing it. But we do fine people more often for some things than for others. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 26 20:36:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA14913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 20:36:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from tantalum (tantalum.btinternet.com [194.73.73.80]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA14906 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 20:36:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.140.15] (helo=D457300) by tantalum with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12vHTa-0003ij-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 May 2000 11:36:22 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01bfc6fe$4f731c40$0f8c01d5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <392D582B.5CC84340@eduhi.at> Subject: Re: "silent" alert Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 11:36:52 +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 DWS wrote: > You have not alerted your opponents if they are not aware of your > alert. Therefore it is a requirement of a player that he makes sure > that his opponents are aware of his alert: otherwise he has not alerted > them. This is all very well, but I am not sure how one is supposed to fulfil this requirement. Am I supposed to alert, and then ask each of my opponents in turn "Did you see that?" and wait for confirmation before proceeding? Given the concern for not slowing the game down that has often been expressed on this list, I imagine this procedure would be considered unacceptable. When screens are in use, players are supposed to place the alert card on the opponent's segment of the bidding tray; he confirms that he has seen the alert by taking it off again. In theory, this is fine, except that on the other side of the screen players can hear the alert card being deposited on the tray and removed, which rather defeats the primary purpose of screens (to prevent the transmission of UI). In practice, of course, nobody does any of this - alerts are made by waving one's hand around in the air. Whenever an argument arises as to whether an alert was noticed or not, it is impossible to provide any kind of objective evidence, which is rather a pity. When alert cards are in use, various people favour various approaches; mine, for example, is to put the card face up more or less in the centre of the table. I remove it once my RHO has made his call. If my LHO's attention is wandering during this process, I have no objective confirmation that he has seen my alert - but it appears reasonable to me to assume that he has. When those very silly bits of blue plastic attached to the bidding box are in use, there is pretty much no way of telling whether an opponent has seen you touch the alert card. People sometimes make great play of flicking the card loudly with their fingers, but this is merely annoying. The sooner all such bidding boxes are taken out and burned in a great bonfire, the better. > >I would opt for an objective approach, rather: a call has been properly > >alerted if both opponents should have seen the alert. IMO, that one > >player has actually seen it would be strong evidencs for a proper alert. > > No, for the reasons above, that is not satisfactory. Of course it is. One's opponents have a duty to pay attention to the game; if one of them misses a properly performed alert that was clearly observed by the other one, that is his fault and not the fault of the alerter. Needless to say, if the sensible rule that all alerts should be followed by questions were adopted, this problem (and many others) would disappear. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 26 20:37:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA14930 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 20:37:22 +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 UAA14925 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 20:37:14 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id LAA28200 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 May 2000 11:36:32 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 11:36 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: "silent" alert To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: David Stevenson wrote: > > Andras wrote: > >Let me ask you how do you interpret all below in practice. > >Assuming no screensbut bidding boxes are used and your partner > >makes a conventional bid. How do you alert? What does it mean > >"to alert clearly"? > >I believe if one of the opponents observed the alert without any > problem > >it means it was a clear alert. I do not agree that the alerting player > should >realise whether both of his opponents are following the play > with full > >concentration or just one of them. > > How do you feel you have alerted someone who has not seen your alert? > Perhaps better (or better promulgated) regulation on the alerting procedure would help. I consider the following actions normal 1. Place Alert card on table 2. Glance left to check if oppo is awake 3. Look right to see if oppo is awake and prepare to answer questions 4. Replace alert card in box. I do not seek, expect (or when receiving an alert give) acknowledgement of the alert. Up until now I had thought I was meeting my obligations. I would not go so far as to say that one opponent seeing the alert means that sufficient care was taken but I would regard it as strong evidence that that was in fact the case. Consider the following post-mortem West: Why on earth did you bid 3C? East: 2H wasn't alerted so I assumed you were showing the black suits. West: Of course it was alerted - why the hell can't you pay attention? East: Well I didn't see it - Director! A slightly nastier situation. West: Why on earth did you bid 3C? East (who saw, but didn't really register, the alert and is somewhat embarrassed at having mixed up his system): Sorry, I didn't notice the alert West: Oh! Well I think that's North's fault - we had better call the director. East, who is not a bad fellow, but has dug himself into a bit of a hole is far to embarrassed to admit the truth now - even to himself. IMO opinion to have to automatically rule against NS in either situation would be a travesty. Tim West-Meads. From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 26 20:40:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA14962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 20:40:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from bci.krakow.pl (raptor.bci.net.pl [195.116.240.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA14956 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 20:40:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from kazimier.itn.com.pl (k33.itn.com.pl [212.244.115.33]) by bci.krakow.pl (8.8.7/8.8.7/bspm1.13+rchk1.13) with SMTP id MAA11815 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 12:40:16 +0200 (MET DST) Reply-To: "Kazimierz Chlobowski" From: "Kazimierz Chlobowski" To: Subject: wrong ruffing Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 12:39:59 +0100 Message-ID: <01bfc707$1f179180$0000a8c0@kazimier.itn.com.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.01.2111 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.01.2111 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At a recent tournament East played the contract Three Clubs in the following board Q74 J108754 Q86 3 J9 AK8532 A9 Q 109742 K3 A962 QJ54 106 K632 AJ5 K1087 The two of hearts was led and taken by the ace as North followed the five. Declarer now plaed the nine of hearth, followed by the ten from North, and supridingly the declarer 'ruffed' with the two of spades (thinking that he played the contract in spades) and grabbed the trick. Opponents did not protest! Now East played the three of spades followed by South's six, dummy's nine and taken by the queen. At that moment called the director and explained the situation. What shall the TD do Kazimierz Chlobowski From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 26 21:13:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA15062 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 20:57:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA15057 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 20:57:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA17392; Fri, 26 May 2000 12:56:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA02453; Fri, 26 May 2000 12:56:50 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 12:56:49 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Kazimierz Chlobowski cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: wrong ruffing In-Reply-To: <01bfc707$1f179180$0000a8c0@kazimier.itn.com.pl> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 26 May 2000, Kazimierz Chlobowski wrote: > At a recent tournament East played the contract Three Clubs in the following > board > Q74 > J108754 > Q86 > 3 > > J9 AK8532 > A9 Q > 109742 K3 > A962 QJ54 > > 106 > K632 > AJ5 > K1087 > > The two of hearts was led and taken by the ace as North followed the five. > Declarer now plaed the nine of hearth, followed by the ten from North, and > supridingly the declarer 'ruffed' with the two of spades (thinking that he > played the contract in spades) and grabbed the trick. Opponents did not > protest! Now East played the three of spades followed by South's six, > dummy's nine and taken by the queen. At that moment called the director and > explained the situation. > What shall the TD do Trick 2 (H9, HT, S2, H3) was won by NS. The S3 was a lead out of turn for trick 3. NS accepted it by playing a card. North won the trick. It's now north's turn to lead to trick 4. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A man can take a train and never reach his destination. (Kerouac, well before RFC2780). From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 26 22:16:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA15336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 22:16:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy-2.cais.net (stmpy-2.cais.net [205.252.14.72]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA15331 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 22:16:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-2.cais.net (8.10.1/8.9.3) with SMTP id e4QCGMK56002 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 08:16:22 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000526082051.006db1e4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 08:20:51 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Claim jumping/forgotten winner In-Reply-To: <007101bfc664$8be170e0$3c13f7a5@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:16 PM 5/25/00 -0400, Craig wrote: >It would be as absurd for a director to suppress his knowledge of the >ability of a player/pair as for a player to suppress his knowledge of an >opponent's ability. Such politically correct nonsense would be losing >bridge...and poor directing. So the TD has to think and use all of his >knowledge to apply the laws fairly? Well that's why we get the big bucks. >:-)) Shirking our duties in the name of some false and unrealistic >egalitarianism is a deriliction of duty. If the TD occasionally errs >slightly in doing his best, that is still better than erring egregiously in >almost all cases in a misguided attempt at evenhandedness. OF COURSE you >take a player's ability into consideration...along with all the other >relevant factors. This often works to the advantage of the lesser skilled >player. OF COURSE you take a player's ability into consideration when the law requires you to do so. The question at hand is whether the footnote to L69-71 imposes such a requirement or not. I believe that the language of the footnote and the practical considerations surrounding its application in practice combine to suggest that it does not. My basic premise is simply that the set of plays which are "careless or inferior" includes rather than excludes that subset of plays which are extraordinarily careless or obviously inferior. I believe that "irrational" means irrational, not careless or inferior enough to cross some arbitrary line that differs from player to player depending on the TD's judgment of each player's ability. 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 May 26 22:45:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA15490 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 22:45:08 +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 WAA15485 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 22:45:00 +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 12vJTt-000NjU-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 May 2000 13:44:49 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 11:45:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: "silent" alert References: <392D582B.5CC84340@eduhi.at> <002801bfc6f3$9735c7e0$6055fd3e@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <002801bfc6f3$9735c7e0$6055fd3e@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk anne_jones wrote: >From: David Stevenson >> These are not comparable. Suppose you are not attending: when you >> wake up, you see or hear partner making a call. If the last call you >> were aware of was your own, you *know* that LHO has called, so you look >> at the table to see what you have missed [or ask for a review at your >> turn if using spoken calls]. So if you miss a call, it does not matter. >> But if you miss an alert you do not know it has happened. Therefore we >> need more stringent requirements for alerts than calls. >That is not a good argument. Law 20B tells us that alerts should be >included in the restatement. How do you know you need a restatement if you were not aware of the alert in the first place? >I believe that the regs for use of screens say that alerts must be >acknowledged.Would this be a useful adddition to the FLB? No. There is no alerting in the Law book. But we need and in most cases have sensible regulations and interpretations thereof. >I agree that the alerter is responsible for making sure his alert has been >seen but it is entirely possible for a player to see an alert, and then >forget >that it was made. The alerter should not be responsible for this lapse. Agreed. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 26 23:07:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA15596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 23:07:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy-1.cais.net (stmpy-1.cais.net [205.252.14.71]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA15591 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 23:06:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-1.cais.net (8.10.1/8.9.3) with SMTP id e4QD6h365296 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 09:06:44 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000526091116.006e3f70@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 09:11:16 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: wrong ruffing In-Reply-To: <01bfc707$1f179180$0000a8c0@kazimier.itn.com.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:39 PM 5/26/00 +0100, Kazimierz wrote: >The two of hearts was led and taken by the ace as North followed the five. >Declarer now plaed the nine of hearth, followed by the ten from North, and >supridingly the declarer 'ruffed' with the two of spades (thinking that he >played the contract in spades) and grabbed the trick. Opponents did not >protest! Now East played the three of spades followed by South's six, >dummy's nine and taken by the queen. At that moment called the director and >explained the situation. >What shall the TD do Transfer trick 2 to the opponents, who in fact won it, and direct that play continue. 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 May 26 23:13:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA15273 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 22:01:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from uucp.nl.uu.net (uucp.nl.uu.net [193.79.237.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA15267 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 22:01:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Fri, 26 May 2000 14:00:46 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id OAA11361 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 14:00:42 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: wrong ruffing Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 14:00:05 +0200 Message-ID: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310C6@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101B389@xion.spase.nl> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kazimierz Chlobowski wrote: >At a recent tournament East played the contract Three Clubs in the following >board > Q74 > J108754 > Q86 > 3 > >J9 AK8532 >A9 Q >109742 K3 >A962 QJ54 > > 106 > K632 > AJ5 > K1087 > >The two of hearts was led and taken by the ace as North followed the five. >Declarer now plaed the nine of hearth, followed by the ten from North, and >supridingly the declarer 'ruffed' with the two of spades (thinking that he >played the contract in spades) and grabbed the trick. Opponents did not >protest! Now East played the three of spades followed by South's six, >dummy's nine and taken by the queen. At that moment called the director and >explained the situation. >What shall the TD do >Kazimierz Chlobowski The second trick obviously belongs to NS. Then, the three of spades is lead out of turn, but South accepts implicitly by following, thereby making East's lead legal (L53A). So the TD assigns the second trick to NS, advises everybody at the table to order some strong coffee :-) and otherwise does nothing. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 27 00:13:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA15472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 22:42:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (mta03-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.43]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA15467 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 22:41:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.253.84.64]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000526124143.WCLN290.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 13:41:43 +0100 Message-ID: <000d01bfc710$619c4a60$4054fd3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" References: <01bfc707$1f179180$0000a8c0@kazimier.itn.com.pl> Subject: Re: wrong ruffing Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 13:46:14 +0100 Organization: X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Kazimierz Chlobowski To: Sent: Friday, May 26, 2000 12:39 PM Subject: wrong ruffing > At a recent tournament East played the contract Three Clubs in the following > board > Q74 > J108754 > Q86 > 3 > > J9 AK8532 > A9 Q > 109742 K3 > A962 QJ54 > > 106 > K632 > AJ5 > K1087 > > The two of hearts was led and taken by the ace as North followed the five. > Declarer now plaed the nine of hearth, followed by the ten from North, and > supridingly the declarer 'ruffed' with the two of spades (thinking that he > played the contract in spades) and grabbed the trick. Opponents did not > protest! Now East played the three of spades followed by South's six, > dummy's nine and taken by the queen. At that moment called the director and > explained the situation. > What shall the TD do > Nothing. North won trick 2. East led to trick 3. South followed. LOOT has been condoned. North has now won trick 3 and is on lead. Declarer is going one off in a contract that is frigid. Unlucky. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 27 00:40:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA15905 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 May 2000 00:40:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from tisch.mail.mindspring.net (tisch.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.157]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA15900 for ; Sat, 27 May 2000 00:40:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4oo.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.24]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA12457 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 10:40:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <003a01bfc720$ab086c00$1813f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Re: double ace of clubs Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 10:42:49 -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 >> Aside question, does anyone ever enforce resorting the hand before >>restoring it to the board? > > There is no Law or regulation requiring it, so no, I do not suppose >people do. Many parts of the world do not seem to have heard of the >idea, and fewer people are doing so nowadays in England. On the other >hand, many people in England shuffle their hand before returning it to >the board. > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ FWIW, I and most of my friends were trained as novices to always shuffle our hands before replacing them in the boards. This was to prevent the next table from getting the information that the hand was either a passout or so interesting that we had to examine it. It also masked the order in which the cards had been played. Short of always resorting this seems the best way to prevent conveying information about the contract or play to the next table. For a long while I had believed this was actually required by the laws. Should it be do you think? Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 27 01:10:00 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA16096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 May 2000 01:10:00 +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 BAA16091 for ; Sat, 27 May 2000 01:09:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4oo.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.24]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA04421 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 11:09:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <004401bfc724$ce476a00$1813f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: Claim jumping/forgotten winner Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 11:12:26 -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 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Date: Friday, May 26, 2000 8:26 AM Subject: Re: Claim jumping/forgotten winner >At 12:16 PM 5/25/00 -0400, Craig wrote: > >>It would be as absurd for a director to suppress his knowledge of the >>ability of a player/pair as for a player to suppress his knowledge of an >>opponent's ability. Such politically correct nonsense would be losing >>bridge...and poor directing. So the TD has to think and use all of his >>knowledge to apply the laws fairly? Well that's why we get the big bucks. >>:-)) Shirking our duties in the name of some false and unrealistic >>egalitarianism is a deriliction of duty. If the TD occasionally errs >>slightly in doing his best, that is still better than erring egregiously in >>almost all cases in a misguided attempt at evenhandedness. OF COURSE you >>take a player's ability into consideration...along with all the other >>relevant factors. This often works to the advantage of the lesser skilled >>player. > >OF COURSE you take a player's ability into consideration when the law >requires you to do so. The question at hand is whether the footnote to >L69-71 imposes such a requirement or not. I believe that the language of >the footnote and the practical considerations surrounding its application >in practice combine to suggest that it does not. > >My basic premise is simply that the set of plays which are "careless or >inferior" includes rather than excludes that subset of plays which are >extraordinarily careless or obviously inferior. I believe that >"irrational" means irrational, not careless or inferior enough to cross >some arbitrary line that differs from player to player depending on the >TD's judgment of each player's ability. > > >Eric Landau elandau@cais.com While we disagree in our interpretation of the footnote, I can see that with your reading your approach would make sense. I take the footnote to mean the same as if it read (somewhat redundantly) "careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational for the class of player involved." I have derived this interpretation from the way in which the laws have commonly been applied and from the disucssions in TBW's "Appeals Committee" series which I took to reflect Kaplan's views on the subject and thereby the intent of the framers. I could be mistaken concerning that intent...but I feel bridge would be poorer were your take on the footnote to prevail in future. Anything that deters legitimate claims I view as bad for bridge. As DWS has pointed out we want good claims even when the claim statements are not as good as they might be. BTW, DWS is correct. I made no implication that experts are favoured by taking ability levels into account. As he correctly pointed out they are held to a higher standard than those who do not know better. I would say the players of more modest skill benefit greatly, as they should, by this intelligent enforement of the laws. Todd was reading something into the remark that was actually quite contrary to its intent. Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 27 01:29:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA15401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 22:29:36 +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 WAA15395 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 22:29:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from comarch.pl (pcciborowski.comarch.pl [195.116.125.138]) by omicron.comarch.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9043D5C03D for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 14:26:45 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <392E6E8F.7E07A49C@comarch.pl> Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 14:31:11 +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: wrong ruffing References: <01bfc707$1f179180$0000a8c0@kazimier.itn.com.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kazimierz Chlobowski pressed the following keys: > > At a recent tournament East played the contract Three Clubs in the following > board > Q74 > J108754 > Q86 > 3 > > J9 AK8532 > A9 Q > 109742 K3 > A962 QJ54 > > 106 > K632 > AJ5 > K1087 > > The two of hearts was led and taken by the ace as North followed the five. > Declarer now plaed the nine of hearth, followed by the ten from North, and > supridingly the declarer 'ruffed' with the two of spades (thinking that he > played the contract in spades) and grabbed the trick. Opponents did not > protest! Now East played the three of spades followed by South's six, > dummy's nine and taken by the queen. At that moment called the director and > explained the situation. > What shall the TD do > Kazimierz Chlobowski Let me introduce all the BLMLers the author of the Polish translation of TFLB. Unless I'm missing something the whole thing looks straightforward L53A case. Declarer's play at trick three was a LOOT accepted by the opponents. The fourth trick was taken by North with the queen so he is on lead at trick 4. So far declarer has taken 1 trick at the opponents 2. North is on lead. -- *********************************************************************** - 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 May 27 01:48:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA16267 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 May 2000 01:48:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [207.213.113.50] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA16262 for ; Sat, 27 May 2000 01:48:06 +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 IAA06253; Fri, 26 May 2000 08:44:16 -0700 Message-Id: <200005261544.IAA06253@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: A bit quiet In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 26 May 2000 08:23:10 PDT." <005801bfc6db$21d4e0c0$ba3b1dc2@rabbit> Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 08:44:16 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thomas Dehn wrote: > Adam wrote: > > I've been saying for a while that the claim laws (especially L70) are > > deficient and need to be rewritten, and I've done some thinking about > > what they should look like, mostly when I have absolutely nothing else > > to think about or am trying to lull myself to sleep at night. Anyway, > > I think that what *should* happen is that we hold declarer to his > > claim statement until something unexpected shows up (e.g. an opponent > > plays a winner, or a trump, that declarer was sure the opponents no > > longer had); at that point, we assume that declarer is awake enough to > > realize he had forgotten something, and we assume that declarer will > > not necessarily continue with his original plan as stated in his > > claim, if doing so would be irrational. > > But what to do if something unexpected shows up, > and nevertheless following the stated irrational line > ("DQ, discarding a heart", and then RHO > unexpectedly shows up with the DA) is the > only successful line? Just assume RHO's DA is his last D, > and he is now endplayed. You mean something like this? 3 73 KQJ A -- -- JT8 -- 5432 A -- JT9762 7654 654 -- -- Spades trumps. With the lead in dummy, declarer claims, saying he'll pitch hearts from hand on dummy's good diamonds. Declarer has forgotten that the diamond ace is still out. Under my ideal rule, we assume that when the ace shows up, declarer is free to abandon his original plan. Thus, if doing so would be considered careless and not irrational, declarer will ruff the diamond but will lose two hearts. Two tricks to the defense. What you seem to be saying is, we should hold declarer to his line and make him pitch a heart on the diamond. RHO will be forced to lead a club. Assuming we consider it irrational to ruff his winner, the result would be one trick to the defense. If the careless declarer had actually played it out, he would lead a diamond expecting it to win; but when the ace unexpectedly showed up, there's a good chance he'd ruff it and concede two hearts, afraid that if he didn't, RHO would have another heart and he'd lose three tricks instead of two. So I'm perfectly happy giving two tricks to the defense after the faulty claim. So why do you think your way is fairer? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 27 01:52:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA16302 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 May 2000 01:52:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe23.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.80]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA16297 for ; Sat, 27 May 2000 01:51:46 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 21042 invoked by uid 65534); 26 May 2000 15:51:08 -0000 Message-ID: <20000526155108.21041.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [38.31.108.173] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "Roger Pewick" , "blml" Subject: Re: Ruling please: L68/L57 ???? Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 10:52:14 -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 In the earlier post below I asserted that L57A applies to T12 even though the list is otherwise unanimous in ruling the CQ to be a claim that supplants play to T12. I point out that the 'claim' did not occur prior to the facing the CQ [in fact the opponents had to drag it out of him] and the laws speak to the occurrence while a trick is in progress. L45C1 says the card is played to the current trick. It follows that exposing the CQ is in fact two infractions [a] it is a POOT and [b] it is a play of more than one card to a trick. These infractions occurred before the 'claim' and should be adjudicated before adjudicating the 'claim'. I believe that the 'interpretation' that play ceases after a claim must refer to, and only to, play to tricks subsequent the incomplete trick. Clearly, there was a trick in progress at the time of the 'claim' and as a claim refers only to T13, there is a need to resolve the incomplete T12. To resolve T12 it is L57A that applies and not L70. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: Roger Pewick To: blml Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 6:05 PM Subject: Re: Ruling please: L68/L57 ???? > L45C1 says something that may be thought innocuous: > > A defender's card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its > face must be played to the current trick (if the defender has already made a > legal play to the current trick, see Law 45E). > > The card must be played to the current trick. Now since a card has already > been played the second one is a penalty card. > > Now, L57A: > > When a defender .. plays out of turn before his partner has played, > (penalty) the card so led or played becomes a penalty card, and declarer > selects one of the following options. He may: > > So what has happened? Offender has [a] played in turn and then [b] POOT but > before partner has played to the current trick. > > The law is clear. Declarer has three options, including the specifying a > suit to play to the current trick by the partner. > > Cheers > > Roger Pewick > Houston, Texas > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Petrus Schuster OSB > To: BLML > Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2000 2:40 AM > Subject: Ruling please: L68/L57 ???? > > > > In our National Teams Championships, the following situation arose at > > trick 12 in 4H: > > (dummy) > > - > > - > > J > > 9 > > - K > > - - > > - K > > Q8 - > > T > > 4 > > - > > - > > > > Declarer lead his last trump, C8 from W, C9 from dummy. E sank into deep > > meditation. > > At this point W showed his CQ. > > Upon enquiry, he said he had mistakenly thought Souths last card to be a > > club and wanted to claim trick 13. > > Should the TD apply L57 nonetheless? > > If not, should he rule the discard of SK a careless but not irrational > > play, reasoning that someone who has to think in this position is unsure > > of the count (which is, of course, available) and may well discard the > > wrong king? EW are aspiring juniors. Would an AC rule differently? > > > > cheers, Petrus. > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 27 01:59:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA15248 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 21:59:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy-3.cais.net (stmpy-3.cais.net [205.252.14.73]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA15243 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 21:59:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-3.cais.net (8.10.1/8.9.3) with SMTP id e4QBxXZ63033 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 07:59:35 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000526080405.006e1450@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 08:04:05 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Claim jumping/forgotten winner In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.20000525082213.006dc94c@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.20000525140525.007ff8b0@ozemail.com.au> <3.0.1.32.20000525082213.006dc94c@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:24 PM 5/25/00 +0100, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >> >>Moreover, TDs, like the rest of us, often have very definite opinions of >>some players' levels of skill that others, often more knowledgeable than >>the TD, would strongly disagree with. TDs should in theory, and must in >>practice, if they are to avoid causing a great deal of dissension and >>ill-feeling among their players, be able to make rulings without being >>required to defend their judgments about the level of ability of the >>parties involved. > > I am intrigued by this post! What are you suggesting? I often make >rulings that involve some idea of the player's ability. Probably two in >three judgement rulings does so. Never has anyone argued on the basis >you are suggesting! Perhaps I'm suggesting that once again we are falling into the trap of interpreting the laws in a manner appropriate for high-level games without regard to how it affects TDs in practice at smaller, lower-level tournaments and clubs. These tend to be situations in which just about everybody knows everybody, everyone has their own opinions about who plays better than whom, and the TD, despite being, perhaps for that evening, in the exalted position of directing the game, is one voice -- one set of opinions -- among the multitude. When the TD has to justify different rulings in essentially similar situations on the grounds that player A is better than player B, it is likely to cause disagreement, with resulting complaints about bias and lack of fairness. I admit that this can't always be avoided, but avoiding it is a good thing when it's possible. Thus the laws should be interpreted, when it is reasonable to do so, in such a way as to make avoiding such judgments easier rather than harder. My reading of the footnote to L69-71 is that it is meant to do just that. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 27 03:36:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA16786 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 May 2000 03:36:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [207.213.113.50] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA16781 for ; Sat, 27 May 2000 03:36:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA07976; Fri, 26 May 2000 10:32:25 -0700 Message-Id: <200005261732.KAA07976@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "blml" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Ruling please: L68/L57 ???? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 26 May 2000 10:52:14 PDT." <20000526155108.21041.qmail@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 10:32:25 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: > In the earlier post below I asserted that L57A applies to T12 even though > the list is otherwise unanimous in ruling the CQ to be a claim that > supplants play to T12. I point out that the 'claim' did not occur prior to > the facing the CQ [in fact the opponents had to drag it out of him] and the > laws speak to the occurrence while a trick is in progress. L45C1 says the > card is played to the current trick. It follows that exposing the CQ is in > fact two infractions [a] it is a POOT and [b] it is a play of more than one > card to a trick. These infractions occurred before the 'claim' and should > be adjudicated before adjudicating the 'claim'. This doesn't make any sense to me. Law 68A says that a contestant claims when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim). No special exception is made for the case where the contestant has just one card. Thus, at the time he faces his only card, Law 68A applies at that point; so does Law 45C1. Both cannot apply, so either we put both Laws in a locked room and see which one comes out alive, or we let the TD decide which one applies. I see nothing in your argument that explains why the L45C1 infraction happened "before" the claim. According to L68A, the claim occurred as soon as he faced his card, *not* when the opponents "dragged" it out of him that he was claiming. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 27 03:55:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA16867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 May 2000 03:55:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f111.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.111]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA16862 for ; Sat, 27 May 2000 03:55:08 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 59927 invoked by uid 0); 26 May 2000 17:54:30 -0000 Message-ID: <20000526175430.59926.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.21 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 26 May 2000 10:54:30 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.21] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "silent" alert Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 10:54:30 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > >I would opt for an objective approach, rather: a call has been >properly > > >alerted if both opponents should have seen the alert. IMO, that one > > >player has actually seen it would be strong evidencs for a proper >alert. > > > > No, for the reasons above, that is not satisfactory. > >Of course it is. One's opponents have a duty to pay attention to the >game; if one of them misses a properly performed alert that was >clearly observed by the other one, that is his fault and not the fault >of the alerter. Needless to say, if the sensible rule that all alerts >should be followed by questions were adopted, this problem (and many >others) would disappear. If all alerts are followed by a question and full disclosure requires an answer to that question, you had might as well turn all alerts into announcements. But then you still have the recognition problem. You'll have to do away with announcements as well. I'm fairly hard of hearing and I very often miss alerts because people speak too softly and they don't bother about the alert card or their bidding box is missing that card entirely. It's never caused me a problem, but maybe I'm compensating for a known problem? -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 27 04:13:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA16730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 May 2000 03:17:30 +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 DAA16724 for ; Sat, 27 May 2000 03:17:18 +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 NAA15090; Fri, 26 May 2000 13:16:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200005261544.IAA06253@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Your message of "Fri, 26 May 2000 08:23:10 PDT." <005801bfc6db$21d4e0c0$ba3b1dc2@rabbit> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 13:15:29 -0400 To: Adam Beneschan , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: A bit quiet Cc: adam@irvine.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 8:44 AM -0700 5/26/00, Adam Beneschan wrote: >> But what to do if something unexpected shows up, >> and nevertheless following the stated irrational line >> ("DQ, discarding a heart", and then RHO >> unexpectedly shows up with the DA) is the >> only successful line? Just assume RHO's DA is his last D, >> and he is now endplayed. >You mean something like this? > > > 3 > 73 > KQJ > A >-- -- >JT8 -- >5432 A >-- JT9762 > 7654 > 654 > -- > -- > > >Spades trumps. With the lead in dummy, declarer claims, saying he'll >pitch hearts from hand on dummy's good diamonds. Declarer has >forgotten that the diamond ace is still out. >Under my ideal rule, we assume that when the ace shows up, declarer is >free to abandon his original plan. Thus, if doing so would be >considered careless and not irrational, declarer will ruff the diamond >but will lose two hearts. Two tricks to the defense. > >What you seem to be saying is, we should hold declarer to his line and >make him pitch a heart on the diamond. RHO will be forced to lead a >club. Assuming we consider it irrational to ruff his winner, the >result would be one trick to the defense. There's a wording issue; declarer said that he would throw hearts on dummy's "good" diamonds. This line of play cannot be continued once it is apparent that the diamonds are not good. Thus, even if you hold declarer to his statement, he still loses two tricks. I don't think it makes sense to have declarer's result depend on whether he said, "I'll throw hearts on the diamonds" or "I'll throw hearts on the good diamonds." In both cases, the fact that declarer thinks the diamonds are good is implicit in his statement. From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 27 16:46:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA18563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 May 2000 16:46:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from gadolinium (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA18558 for ; Sat, 27 May 2000 16:46:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.144.46] (helo=D457300) by gadolinium with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12vaM7-0003iQ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 27 May 2000 07:45:56 +0100 Message-ID: <001501bfc7a7$47f0ea20$2e9001d5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <003a01bfc720$ab086c00$1813f7a5@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: double ace of clubs Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 07:46:24 +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 Craig wrote: > >> Aside question, does anyone ever enforce resorting the hand before > >>restoring it to the board? > > > > There is no Law or regulation requiring it, so no, I do not suppose > >people do. Many parts of the world do not seem to have heard of the > >idea, and fewer people are doing so nowadays in England. On the other > >hand, many people in England shuffle their hand before returning it to > >the board. > FWIW, I and most of my friends were trained as novices to always shuffle our > hands before replacing them in the boards. This was to prevent the next > table from getting the information that the hand was either a passout or so > interesting that we had to examine it. It also masked the order in which the > cards had been played. Short of always resorting this seems the best way to > prevent conveying information about the contract or play to the next table. > For a long while I had believed this was actually required by the laws. > Should it be do you think? Publish it not in the streets of Ashkelon, but at various times it has been alleged that the sorting of hands before returning them to the board has been used as a method of transmitting information in teams matches. The basic idea is that when you see an opponent *not* sort his cards after picking them up, you know something about the deal (for example, that your side can make a slam). The benefit of making it a legal requirement to sort your hand before putting it back in the board would be that you might in the process count your cards (even though it appears that you have no need to do this). However, there would not be very much point in making it a legal requirement, since it would be completely unenforceable. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 27 21:12:53 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA19126 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 May 2000 21:12:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta01-svc.server.ntlworld.com (mta01-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA19120 for ; Sat, 27 May 2000 21:12:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.253.88.105]) by mta01-svc.server.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000527111234.BYPV381.mta01-svc.server.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Sat, 27 May 2000 12:12:34 +0100 Message-ID: <000501bfc7cd$1f72bee0$6958fd3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" References: <003a01bfc720$ab086c00$1813f7a5@oemcomputer> <001501bfc7a7$47f0ea20$2e9001d5@D457300> Subject: Re: double ace of clubs Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 12:16:53 +0100 Organization: X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Burn To: Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2000 7:46 AM Subject: Re: double ace of clubs > Craig wrote: > > > >> Aside question, does anyone ever enforce resorting the hand > before > > >>restoring it to the board? > > > > > > There is no Law or regulation requiring it, so no, I do not > suppose > > >people do. Many parts of the world do not seem to have heard of > the > > >idea, and fewer people are doing so nowadays in England. On the > other > > >hand, many people in England shuffle their hand before returning it > to > > >the board. > > > FWIW, I and most of my friends were trained as novices to always > shuffle our > > hands before replacing them in the boards. This was to prevent the > next > > table from getting the information that the hand was either a > passout or so > > interesting that we had to examine it. It also masked the order in > which the > > cards had been played. Short of always resorting this seems the best > way to > > prevent conveying information about the contract or play to the next > table. > > For a long while I had believed this was actually required by the > laws. > > Should it be do you think? > > Publish it not in the streets of Ashkelon, but at various times it has > been alleged that the sorting of hands before returning them to the > board has been used as a method of transmitting information in teams > matches. The basic idea is that when you see an opponent *not* sort > his cards after picking them up, you know something about the deal > (for example, that your side can make a slam). > > The benefit of making it a legal requirement to sort your hand before > putting it back in the board would be that you might in the process > count your cards (even though it appears that you have no need to do > this). However, there would not be very much point in making it a > legal requirement, since it would be completely unenforceable. > It is sad that we should need to write into the Laws methods of combating cheating. However it is a fact of life that some people do cheat, and the more difficult it is, the better.It could be that as Bridge becomes a more high profile sport, with the associated glory for it's best players, then more may find the attractions of cheating outweigh the chance of being caught.Those that have been caught will no doubt dispel this myth, but until you are caught you can have no concept of how mortifying it will be. I believe we have a duty to protect the honest player in whatever way we can.We do so as far as the use of even accidental UI is concerned, we have Law 16 and we have introduced screens to this end. As far as sorting hands or shuffling hands after play is concerned,there is no doubt that at pairs, one or the other may be desirable. It is not wholly unenforceable, but are we going to go so far as to say, sort your cards, in rank order, from right to left. I think not. I believe a quick shuffle is good, an easy habit to develop, and a method of avoiding embarrassment to the next person to play the board. Teams play is different, and I believe that the advent of the dealing machine has made it much easier for organisers of major events.It is entirely possible, and IMO highly desirable for each table to play the same deal, but not the same physical boards. The sorting of cards after play, such that messages are sent, in the way David describes is no longer possible. I think this is a highly desirable line of progress, and a practice to be adopted. The accuracy of dealing machines, and the skill of the operator is important, but I believe we have reached the stage where accuracy is the norm, and the advantages of such practice far outweigh the disadvantages. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 28 11:45:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA21576 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 May 2000 11:45:21 +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 LAA21567 for ; Sun, 28 May 2000 11:45:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.68] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12vs8V-0009ds-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 28 May 2000 02:45:03 +0100 Message-ID: <000d01bfc846$894f3a40$445408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200005200045.RAA26941@mailhub.irvine.com> <3929181C.CEA0F82B@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Forgotten winner (was: A bit quiet---but isn't any more) Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 06:31:15 +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: Bridge Laws Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 12:21 PM Subject: Re: Forgotten winner (was: A bit quiet---but isn't any more) > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > > > > That's all! The last statement (from L70A) is very broad and gives > > the Director no guidance at all; +=+ But it does specify what the Director's procedure is to be, and extends to him no power to go outside of it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 28 11:45:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA21577 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 May 2000 11:45:22 +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 LAA21566 for ; Sun, 28 May 2000 11:45:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.68] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12vs8S-0009ds-00; Sun, 28 May 2000 02:45:02 +0100 Message-ID: <000c01bfc846$87c58d00$445408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "anne_jones" , "BLML" References: <3929194F.42E5ED91@village.uunet.be> <001301bfc43b$26585160$3159fd3e@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: Another problem from Germany Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 06:28:14 +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, May 22, 2000 11:14 PM Subject: Re: Another problem from Germany ------ \x/ ----- > > They would accept my offer to cancel the board and rule it > > unplayable. > > > > I could try and offer the technically correct ruling, but I > > won't. > > -- > > Herman DE WAEL > > > Is this the same Herman DE WAEL who made me play against > Hackett twice, because he thought I would rather play bridge than > get a 60% (or even 40%)score? (Antwerp Mixed Pairs) > Anne > +=+ Intelligence is the ability to learn +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 29 05:36:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA24406 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 May 2000 05:36:11 +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 FAA24400 for ; Mon, 29 May 2000 05:34:43 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 34332 invoked for bounce); 28 May 2000 19:34:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.57.238) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 28 May 2000 19:34:31 -0000 Message-ID: <025501bfc8dc$72af13a0$ee391dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: Cc: References: <200005261544.IAA06253@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: A bit quiet Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 21:34:41 +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 Adam wrote: > Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > Adam wrote: > > > I've been saying for a while that the claim laws (especially L70) are > > > deficient and need to be rewritten, and I've done some thinking about > > > what they should look like, mostly when I have absolutely nothing else > > > to think about or am trying to lull myself to sleep at night. Anyway, > > > I think that what *should* happen is that we hold declarer to his > > > claim statement until something unexpected shows up (e.g. an opponent > > > plays a winner, or a trump, that declarer was sure the opponents no > > > longer had); at that point, we assume that declarer is awake enough to > > > realize he had forgotten something, and we assume that declarer will > > > not necessarily continue with his original plan as stated in his > > > claim, if doing so would be irrational. > > > > But what to do if something unexpected shows up, > > and nevertheless following the stated irrational line > > ("DQ, discarding a heart", and then RHO > > unexpectedly shows up with the DA) is the > > only successful line? Just assume RHO's DA is his last D, > > and he is now endplayed. > > > You mean something like this? > > > 3 > 73 > KQJ > A > -- -- > JT8 -- > 5432 A > -- JT9762 > 7654 > 654 > -- > -- > > > Spades trumps. With the lead in dummy, declarer claims, saying he'll > pitch hearts from hand on dummy's good diamonds. Declarer has > forgotten that the diamond ace is still out. Not exactly. Something where declarer's stated line is irrational, but can be executed. Say, his statement in the above layout is "I'll pitch the heart four on the diamond king." > Under my ideal rule, we assume that when the ace shows up, declarer is > free to abandon his original plan. Thus, if doing so would be > considered careless and not irrational, declarer will ruff the diamond > but will lose two hearts. Two tricks to the defense. I like this ruling, but I am questioning whether it is in accordance with the laws. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 29 06:04:04 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA24458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 May 2000 06:04:04 +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 GAA24450 for ; Mon, 29 May 2000 06:03:55 +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 12w9Hj-000Khr-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 28 May 2000 20:03:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 13:55:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: "silent" alert References: <392D582B.5CC84340@eduhi.at> <000b01bfc6fe$4f731c40$0f8c01d5@D457300> In-Reply-To: <000b01bfc6fe$4f731c40$0f8c01d5@D457300> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >DWS wrote: > >> You have not alerted your opponents if they are not aware of your >> alert. Therefore it is a requirement of a player that he makes sure >> that his opponents are aware of his alert: otherwise he has not >alerted >> them. > >This is all very well, but I am not sure how one is supposed to fulfil >this requirement. Am I supposed to alert, and then ask each of my >opponents in turn "Did you see that?" and wait for confirmation before >proceeding? Given the concern for not slowing the game down that has >often been expressed on this list, I imagine this procedure would be >considered unacceptable. > >When screens are in use, players are supposed to place the alert card >on the opponent's segment of the bidding tray; he confirms that he has >seen the alert by taking it off again. In theory, this is fine, except >that on the other side of the screen players can hear the alert card >being deposited on the tray and removed, which rather defeats the >primary purpose of screens (to prevent the transmission of UI). In >practice, of course, nobody does any of this - alerts are made by >waving one's hand around in the air. Whenever an argument arises as to >whether an alert was noticed or not, it is impossible to provide any >kind of objective evidence, which is rather a pity. > >When alert cards are in use, various people favour various approaches; >mine, for example, is to put the card face up more or less in the >centre of the table. I remove it once my RHO has made his call. If my >LHO's attention is wandering during this process, I have no objective >confirmation that he has seen my alert - but it appears reasonable to >me to assume that he has. I do the same. >When those very silly bits of blue plastic attached to the bidding box >are in use, there is pretty much no way of telling whether an opponent >has seen you touch the alert card. People sometimes make great play of >flicking the card loudly with their fingers, but this is merely >annoying. The sooner all such bidding boxes are taken out and burned >in a great bonfire, the better. I remove them from the box completely and use them in the normal way. >> >I would opt for an objective approach, rather: a call has been >properly >> >alerted if both opponents should have seen the alert. IMO, that one >> >player has actually seen it would be strong evidencs for a proper >alert. >> >> No, for the reasons above, that is not satisfactory. > >Of course it is. One's opponents have a duty to pay attention to the >game; if one of them misses a properly performed alert that was >clearly observed by the other one, that is his fault and not the fault >of the alerter. Funnily enough, I agree with what you say but I still disagree with the earlier paragraph. Some people seem to think that to alert they need to alert RHO: they put the card where he can see it. I am happy with a properly performed alert, but I do not think that one person seeing an alert is enough to suggest the alert is properly performed. Ah well, each case on its merits. [deleted: sentence starting "Needless to say ..."] :) -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 29 06:04:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA24460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 May 2000 06:04:06 +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 GAA24449 for ; Mon, 29 May 2000 06:03:55 +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 12w9Hi-000KhV-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 28 May 2000 20:03:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 13:57:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: "silent" alert References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> Andras wrote: >> >Let me ask you how do you interpret all below in practice. >> >Assuming no screensbut bidding boxes are used and your partner >> >makes a conventional bid. How do you alert? What does it mean >> >"to alert clearly"? >> >I believe if one of the opponents observed the alert without any >> problem >> >it means it was a clear alert. I do not agree that the alerting player >> should >realise whether both of his opponents are following the play >> with full >> >concentration or just one of them. >> >> How do you feel you have alerted someone who has not seen your alert? >> > >Perhaps better (or better promulgated) regulation on the alerting >procedure would help. I consider the following actions normal > >1. Place Alert card on table >2. Glance left to check if oppo is awake >3. Look right to see if oppo is awake and prepare to answer questions >4. Replace alert card in box. > >I do not seek, expect (or when receiving an alert give) acknowledgement of >the alert. Up until now I had thought I was meeting my obligations. I >would not go so far as to say that one opponent seeing the alert means >that sufficient care was taken but I would regard it as strong evidence >that that was in fact the case. Consider the following post-mortem > >West: Why on earth did you bid 3C? >East: 2H wasn't alerted so I assumed you were showing the black suits. >West: Of course it was alerted - why the hell can't you pay attention? >East: Well I didn't see it - Director! > >A slightly nastier situation. > >West: Why on earth did you bid 3C? >East (who saw, but didn't really register, the alert and is somewhat >embarrassed at having mixed up his system): Sorry, I didn't notice the >alert >West: Oh! Well I think that's North's fault - we had better call the >director. > >East, who is not a bad fellow, but has dug himself into a bit of a hole is >far to embarrassed to admit the truth now - even to himself. > >IMO opinion to have to automatically rule against NS in either >situation would be a travesty. True, but who is suggesting that? People often alert without the care you are suggesting - and often seem to alert RHO only! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 29 07:06:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA24605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 May 2000 07:06:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA24600 for ; Mon, 29 May 2000 07:06:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from kantoor.ripe.net (kantoor.ripe.net [193.0.1.98]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA16225 for ; Sun, 28 May 2000 23:05:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by kantoor.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA25955 for ; Sun, 28 May 2000 23:05:22 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: kantoor.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 23:05:22 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: From the Dutch TD exam... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This hand came up this afternoon in the practical part of the senior TD exam in Holland and proved to be way too hard: almost none of the candidates answered the first part correctly within the 5 minutes available to solve the problem, and after the first few candidates, we decided to skip part 2 for the rest of the afternoon. W/- 9 6 5 Q J T 9 7 K 7 A K 5 A 8 T 7 3 A 5 4 3 8 2 J T 6 5 4 3 T 8 7 4 3 2 Q J 9 K Q J 4 2 K 6 2 A Q 9 8 6 West North East South P 1 H P 1 S P 1 N P 2 C (NMF) P 2 S P 4 S P P P 1. After this auction, EAST leads BOTH the H8 and CQ, that is 2 cards from the wrong side. Now what? (When asked, east will tell you that he intended to lead the H8 but accidentally pulled the card next to it as well). 2. After the correct answer, south forbids club _and_ diamond lead. Play now continues as follows: Trick 1: D2, DK, D3, D8 Trick 2: S5, S3, SJ, SA Trick 3: HA, H7, H8, HK Trick 4: H5, H9, S7, H6 Trick 5: DJ, DQ, S8, D7 Trick 6: H4, HT, ST, H2 Down 2. South calls the TD back and says that he is not very happy with this result. Do you take any further action? Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A man can take a train and never reach his destination. (Kerouac, well before RFC2780). From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 29 10:53:59 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA25106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 May 2000 10:53:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep3-orange.clear.net.nz (fep3-orange.clear.net.nz [203.97.32.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA25101 for ; Mon, 29 May 2000 10:53:52 +1000 (EST) Resent-From: derekmalloch@zfree.co.nz Received: from zfree.co.nz (fep7.clear.net.nz [203.97.32.7]) by fep3-orange.clear.net.nz (1.5/1.6) with SMTP id MAA10307; Mon, 29 May 2000 12:53:46 +1200 (NZST) Resent-Message-Id: <200005290053.MAA10307@fep3-orange.clear.net.nz> Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au (octavia.anu.edu.au [150.203.5.35]) by mx2.clear.net.nz (1.5/1.27) with ESMTP id KAA19691; Mon, 29 May 2000 10:03:05 +1200 (NZST) Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA24605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 May 2000 07:06:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA24600 for ; Mon, 29 May 2000 07:06:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from kantoor.ripe.net (kantoor.ripe.net [193.0.1.98]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA16225 for ; Sun, 28 May 2000 23:05:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by kantoor.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA25955 for ; Sun, 28 May 2000 23:05:22 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: kantoor.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 23:05:22 +0200 (CEST) From: "Derek Malloch" To: Bridge Laws Mailing List MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: From the Dutch TD exam. Resent-to: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Resent-date: Mon, 29 May 2000 12:53:05 +1200 Message-id: <3931bf71.2efa.0@zfree.co.nz> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk West has two significant pieces of information as to partners holding.1 clubs are at least QJ and East has admitted the club queen was next the 8H which he intended to lead . There is no evidence on the auction about south's hearts. I would rule that west has used unauthorised info and adjust to 4H+1. ****** Forwarded Message Follows ******* This hand came up this afternoon in the practical part of the senior TD exam in Holland and proved to be way too hard: almost none of the candidates answered the first part correctly within the 5 minutes available to solve the problem, and after the first few candidates, we decided to skip part 2 for the rest of the afternoon. W/- 9 6 5 Q J T 9 7 K 7 A K 5 A 8 T 7 3 A 5 4 3 8 2 J T 6 5 4 3 T 8 7 4 3 2 Q J 9 K Q J 4 2 K 6 2 A Q 9 8 6 West North East South P 1 H P 1 S P 1 N P 2 C (NMF) P 2 S P 4 S P P P 1. After this auction, EAST leads BOTH the H8 and CQ, that is 2 cards from the wrong side. Now what? (When asked, east will tell you that he intended to lead the H8 but accidentally pulled the card next to it as well). 2. After the correct answer, south forbids club _and_ diamond lead. Play now continues as follows: Trick 1: D2, DK, D3, D8 Trick 2: S5, S3, SJ, SA Trick 3: HA, H7, H8, HK Trick 4: H5, H9, S7, H6 Trick 5: DJ, DQ, S8, D7 Trick 6: H4, HT, ST, H2 Down 2. South calls the TD back and says that he is not very happy with this result. Do you take any further action? Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A man can take a train and never reach his destination. (Kerouac, well before RFC2780). From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 29 13:04:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA25411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 May 2000 13:04:51 +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 NAA25406 for ; Mon, 29 May 2000 13:04:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12wFqz-000OAM-0Y for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 May 2000 04:04:34 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 04:03:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes > >This hand came up this afternoon in the practical part of the senior TD >exam in Holland and proved to be way too hard: almost none of the >candidates answered the first part correctly within the 5 minutes >available to solve the problem, and after the first few candidates, we >decided to skip part 2 for the rest of the afternoon. > > >W/- 9 6 5 > Q J T 9 7 > K 7 > A K 5 >A 8 T 7 3 >A 5 4 3 8 >2 J T 6 5 4 3 >T 8 7 4 3 2 Q J 9 > K Q J 4 2 > K 6 2 > A Q 9 8 > 6 > >West North East South >P 1 H P 1 S >P 1 N P 2 C (NMF) >P 2 S P 4 S >P P P > > >1. After this auction, EAST leads BOTH the H8 and CQ, that is 2 cards from > the wrong side. Now what? Give South the usual options explaining that should the opening lead be accepted then East can lead the CQ and have a minor penalty card, or lead the H8 and have a major penalty card. EBU TDs seem to believe that the intent of the opening lead is not relevant and the player leading has the choice of which to play. If the lead is not accepted we can ban the lead of either or both suits, or insist on the lead of either. In each case all cards in the nominated suit(s) are picked up. Otherwise we can leave them on the deck as major penalty cards, and declarer can exercise his rights later. > > (When asked, east will tell you that he intended to lead the H8 but > accidentally pulled the card next to it as well). > >2. After the correct answer, south forbids club _and_ diamond lead. > Play now continues as follows: > > Trick 1: D2, DK, D3, D8 > Trick 2: S5, S3, SJ, SA > Trick 3: HA, H7, H8, HK > Trick 4: H5, H9, S7, H6 > Trick 5: DJ, DQ, S8, D7 > Trick 6: H4, HT, ST, H2 > > Down 2. > > South calls the TD back and says that he is not very happy with this > result. Do you take any further action? > >Henk > > Yes, West has UI relating the H8 (which given the auction looks like a singleton) and CQ. It would be plausible to continue with a club, or even lead a small H looking for partner's king. I'd be inclined to rule Plus 1. But I'd probably make a couple of phone calls first. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 29 13:56:46 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA25569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 May 2000 13:56:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe19.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.123]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA25564 for ; Mon, 29 May 2000 13:56:39 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 14795 invoked by uid 65534); 29 May 2000 03:55:59 -0000 Message-ID: <20000529035559.14794.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [38.11.201.71] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 22:57:07 -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: Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2000 4:05 PM Subject: From the Dutch TD exam... > > This hand came up this afternoon in the practical part of the senior TD > exam in Holland and proved to be way too hard: almost none of the > candidates answered the first part correctly within the 5 minutes > available to solve the problem, and after the first few candidates, we > decided to skip part 2 for the rest of the afternoon. > > > W/- 9 6 5 > Q J T 9 7 > K 7 > A K 5 > A 8 T 7 3 > A 5 4 3 8 > 2 J T 6 5 4 3 > T 8 7 4 3 2 Q J 9 > K Q J 4 2 > K 6 2 > A Q 9 8 > 6 > > West North East South > P 1 H P 1 S > P 1 N P 2 C (NMF) > P 2 S P 4 S > P P P > > > 1. After this auction, EAST leads BOTH the H8 and CQ, that is 2 cards from > the wrong side. Now what? > > (When asked, east will tell you that he intended to lead the H8 but > accidentally pulled the card next to it as well). > > 2. After the correct answer, south forbids club _and_ diamond lead. > Play now continues as follows: > > Trick 1: D2, DK, D3, D8 > Trick 2: S5, S3, SJ, SA > Trick 3: HA, H7, H8, HK > Trick 4: H5, H9, S7, H6 > Trick 5: DJ, DQ, S8, D7 > Trick 6: H4, HT, ST, H2 > > Down 2. > > South calls the TD back and says that he is not very happy with this > result. Do you take any further action? > > Henk 1. The most important fact is that the heart and club were played simultaneously where the E selected the heart lead [club was inadvertent]. L58B2 the H8 is a OLOOT and the CQ is a MPC. Then L54: The lead may be accepted and dummy viewed before playing from hand. Dummy may become declarer. The lead may be rejected; in that case the H8 is retracted and is now a MPC and the lead reverts to the correct defender subject to the PCs. Also L51: Declarer may require the lead of either PC suit, and the corresponding card is returned to hand. Declarer may forbid the lead of either or both suits, and if does so cards of such suits are returned to hand. Suits not named remain PC. Also L50: Declarer may defer selecting an option and the PC remains so until they are played or returned to hand. 2. Supposedly the TD should have intervened after declarer selected to forbid a diamond lead [and club]. But maybe it was a club and heart lead that was forbidden since declarer did not select an option in the heart suit at T3 as the heart PC was perhaps gone after forbidding it. In that case declarer died at his own hand [note he won the diamond in dummy] and I do not see an adjustment under L16 or L72B1 forthcoming because it is pretty clear that the only hope for taking defensive tricks is by ruffing and the only way to get E in the lead is in the heart suit. What is intriguing is that declarer could have required a club in which case the queen goes back. After losing to the SA, the heart is still a PC and a heart lead can be forbidden, trumps drawn , the HA knocked out with the DK in dummy as the entry to the hearts to make 5. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 29 16:00:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA25746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 May 2000 16:00:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA25741 for ; Mon, 29 May 2000 16:00:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from kantoor.ripe.net (kantoor.ripe.net [193.0.1.98]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA18640 for ; Mon, 29 May 2000 07:59:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by kantoor.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA14450 for ; Mon, 29 May 2000 07:59:52 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: kantoor.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 07:59:52 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 28 May 2000, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: I wrote (late last night): > > This hand came up this afternoon in the practical part of the senior TD > exam in Holland and proved to be way too hard: almost none of the > candidates answered the first part correctly within the 5 minutes > available to solve the problem, and after the first few candidates, we > decided to skip part 2 for the rest of the afternoon. > > > W/- 9 6 5 > Q J T 9 7 > K 7 > A K 5 > A 8 T 7 3 > A 5 4 3 8 > 2 J T 6 5 4 3 > T 8 7 4 3 2 Q J 9 > K Q J 4 2 > K 6 2 > A Q 9 8 > 6 > > West North East South > P 1 H P 1 S > P 1 N P 2 C (NMF) > P 2 S P 4 S > P P P > > > 1. After this auction, EAST leads BOTH the H8 and CQ, that is 2 cards from > the wrong side. Now what? > > (When asked, east will tell you that he intended to lead the H8 but > accidentally pulled the card next to it as well). > > 2. After the correct answer, south forbids club _and_ diamond lead. ^^^^^^^ oops, typo, south forbids both a club and heart lead. > Play now continues as follows: > > Trick 1: D2, DK, D3, D8 > Trick 2: S5, S3, SJ, SA > Trick 3: HA, H7, H8, HK > Trick 4: H5, H9, S7, H6 > Trick 5: DJ, DQ, S8, D7 > Trick 6: H4, HT, ST, H2 > > Down 2. > > South calls the TD back and says that he is not very happy with this > result. Do you take any further action? > > Henk > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net > RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk > Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 > 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 > The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > A man can take a train and never reach his destination. > (Kerouac, well before RFC2780). > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A man can take a train and never reach his destination. (Kerouac, well before RFC2780). From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 29 18:22:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA26096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 May 2000 18:22:00 +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 SMTP id SAA26090 for ; Mon, 29 May 2000 18:21:38 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 15330 invoked from network); 29 May 2000 08:20:45 -0000 Received: from petrus2.konvent (HELO eduhi.at) (192.168.1.116) by michael.gym with SMTP; 29 May 2000 08:20:45 -0000 Message-ID: <39322877.94BEC677@eduhi.at> Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 10:21:11 +0200 From: Petrus Schuster OSB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [de] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Insufficient agreement Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a Mixed Tournament thi weekend, I was called to the following situation: (NS is a casual partnership, EW an established one, with EW the somewhat less mediocre pair.) Board 8 - W - none AJ63 KJ63 T97 QT9 AK 5 Q84 972 AKQ82 J63 Q7 K8742 T86432 AT5 54 J95 W N E S 1NT x P 1S I explained the options and S opted for 2S, adding "That's what I had wanted to bid in the first place." I confess that it hadn't crossed my mind that someone might play 2S as conventional in this situation, so I had omitted the part "if 1S or 2S is conventional...." in my explanation to keep any confusion to a minimum. This I regretted immediately when the auction continued W N E S 2S P alert After N's somewhat belated alert, E asked and was told "transfer to clubs". So I explained what I had omitted to say and why, returned the auction to S and told W that she could change her call if S changed hers. N would have to pass throughout. S decided to stay with 2S and made 10 tricks (refusing the S finesse). After the hand: N berated S for her 2S call, adding "It was you who wanted to play transfers, after all" to which S replied "But not in this situation..." E inspected the traveller and wanted a score adjustment because without the "misinformation" he might have bid 3C for -3 (-150 instead of -170). I told him I was not impressed by this, as it must have been clear to everyone that 2S showed spades when N is required to pass it. But I am not quite happy with the whole thing: - Was 2S conventional after all? Otherwise, it would have affected the ruling on the insufficient 1S, and the auction might have been different. There was no CC to help me decide, and of course no system notes or anything. If I decide, in the light of the NS discussion, that there was no agreement (and therefore, 2S was not conventional), do I have to assign ASs under L82C (it seems to be irrelevant what has caused the TD's error), and if so, which? - If there was misinformation, was it absurd for E to believe that S had clubs? How likely is an auction ending n 3 or 4 spades (doubled) afte a 3C-call by E? - Was I right in returning the auction to S when 2S was alerted? Suggestions for getting out of this mess are welcome. Petrus From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 29 18:33:34 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA26124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 May 2000 18:33:34 +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 SMTP id SAA26119 for ; Mon, 29 May 2000 18:33:22 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 15358 invoked from network); 29 May 2000 08:32:43 -0000 Received: from petrus2.konvent (HELO eduhi.at) (192.168.1.116) by michael.gym with SMTP; 29 May 2000 08:32:43 -0000 Message-ID: <39322B45.5DD589@eduhi.at> Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 10:33:09 +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: From the Dutch TD exam... References: <20000529035559.14794.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick schrieb: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2000 4:05 PM > Subject: From the Dutch TD exam... > > > > > This hand came up this afternoon in the practical part of the senior TD > > exam in Holland and proved to be way too hard: almost none of the > > candidates answered the first part correctly within the 5 minutes > > available to solve the problem, and after the first few candidates, we > > decided to skip part 2 for the rest of the afternoon. > > > > > > W/- 9 6 5 > > Q J T 9 7 > > K 7 > > A K 5 > > A 8 T 7 3 > > A 5 4 3 8 > > 2 J T 6 5 4 3 > > T 8 7 4 3 2 Q J 9 > > K Q J 4 2 > > K 6 2 > > A Q 9 8 > > 6 > > > > West North East South > > P 1 H P 1 S > > P 1 N P 2 C (NMF) > > P 2 S P 4 S > > P P P > > > > > > 1. After this auction, EAST leads BOTH the H8 and CQ, that is 2 cards from > > the wrong side. Now what? > > > > (When asked, east will tell you that he intended to lead the H8 but > > accidentally pulled the card next to it as well). > > > > 2. After the correct answer, south forbids club _and_ diamond lead. > > Play now continues as follows: > > > > Trick 1: D2, DK, D3, D8 > > Trick 2: S5, S3, SJ, SA > > Trick 3: HA, H7, H8, HK > > Trick 4: H5, H9, S7, H6 > > Trick 5: DJ, DQ, S8, D7 > > Trick 6: H4, HT, ST, H2 > > > > Down 2. > > > > South calls the TD back and says that he is not very happy with this > > result. Do you take any further action? > > > > Henk > 1. The most important fact is that the heart and club were played > simultaneously where the E selected the heart lead [club was inadvertent]. > > L58B2 the H8 is a OLOOT and the CQ is a MPC. > > Then L54: > The lead may be accepted and dummy viewed before playing from hand. > Dummy may become declarer. > > The lead may be rejected; in that case the H8 is retracted and is now a MPC > and the lead reverts to the correct defender subject to the PCs. > > Also L51: Declarer may require the lead of either PC suit, and the > corresponding card is returned to hand. > Declarer may forbid the lead of either or both suits, and if does so cards > of such suits are returned to hand. Suits not named remain PC. > > Also L50: Declarer may defer selecting an option and the PC remains so > until they are played or returned to hand. > > 2. Supposedly the TD should have intervened after declarer selected to > forbid a diamond lead [and club]. > > But maybe it was a club and heart lead that was forbidden since declarer > did not select an option in the heart suit at T3 as the heart PC was perhaps > gone after forbidding it. > I agree wih all the above. But I think the hand ends here as far as the TD is concerned. Under L16C, a "play withdrawn... to rectify an infraction" is UI to OS, but both PCs were withdrawn not to rectify an infraction but because declarer exercised his option under L50D2a; therefore, IMO L16 does not apply and the information is authorised so that we need not worry what may or may not have been influenced by H8 or CQ. Score stands. Petrus From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 29 20:01:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA26341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 May 2000 20:01:48 +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 UAA26336 for ; Mon, 29 May 2000 20:01:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Mon, 29 May 2000 12:00:36 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id MAA22785 for ; Mon, 29 May 2000 12:00:27 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'BLML'" Subject: RE: From the Dutch TD exam... Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 12:00:06 +0200 Message-ID: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310C7@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-reply-to: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101B3A8@xion.spase.nl> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: >I agree wih all the above. >But I think the hand ends here as far as the TD is concerned. Under >L16C, a "play withdrawn... to rectify an infraction" is UI to OS, but >both PCs were withdrawn not to rectify an infraction but because >declarer exercised his option under L50D2a; therefore, IMO L16 does not >apply and the information is authorised so that we need not worry what >may or may not have been influenced by H8 or CQ. >Score stands. > >Petrus See L50D1: Partner of offender may use the fact that the major penalty card must be played, but any other information derived from facing the card is unauthorised. So West still must act as if he didn't see the two penalty cards, but as long as they are on the table, he may use the fact that East must play them at the first legal turn. So the TD still may need to adjust the score at the end of the deal, if he judges that West did use the UI from the penalty cards. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 29 21:02:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA26566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 May 2000 21:02:16 +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 VAA26561 for ; Mon, 29 May 2000 21:02:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Mon, 29 May 2000 13:01:43 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id MAA22816 for ; Mon, 29 May 2000 12:13:47 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'BLML'" Subject: RE: Insufficient agreement Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 12:13:29 +0200 Message-ID: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310C8@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-reply-to: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101B3A7@xion.spase.nl> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: >In a Mixed Tournament this weekend, I was called to the following >situation: >(NS is a casual partnership, EW an established one, with EW the somewhat >less mediocre pair.) > >Board 8 - W - none > AJ63 > KJ63 > T97 >QT9 AK 5 >Q84 972 >AKQ82 J63 >Q7 K8742 T86432 > AT5 > 54 > J95 >W N E S >1NT x P 1S > >I explained the options and S opted for 2S, adding "That's what I had >wanted to bid in the first place." I confess that it hadn't crossed my >mind that someone might play 2S as conventional in this situation, so I >had omitted the part "if 1S or 2S is conventional...." in my explanation >to keep any confusion to a minimum. >This I regretted immediately when the auction continued > >W N E S > 2S >P alert > >After N's somewhat belated alert, E asked and was told "transfer to >clubs". So I explained what I had omitted to say and why, returned the >auction to S and told W that she could change her call if S changed >hers. N would have to pass throughout. >S decided to stay with 2S and made 10 tricks (refusing the S finesse). >After the hand: >N berated S for her 2S call, adding "It was you who wanted to play >transfers, after all" to which S replied "But not in this situation..." >E inspected the traveller and wanted a score adjustment because without >the "misinformation" he might have bid 3C for -3 (-150 instead of -170). >I told him I was not impressed by this, as it must have been clear to >everyone that 2S showed spades when N is required to pass it. > >But I am not quite happy with the whole thing: >- Was 2S conventional after all? Otherwise, it would have affected the >ruling on the insufficient 1S, and the auction might have been >different. There was no CC to help me decide, and of course no system >notes or anything. If I decide, in the light of the NS discussion, that >there was no agreement (and therefore, 2S was not conventional), do I >have to assign ASs under L82C (it seems to be irrelevant what has caused >the TD's error), and if so, which? >- If there was misinformation, was it absurd for E to believe that S had >clubs? How likely is an auction ending n 3 or 4 spades (doubled) afte a >3C-call by E? >- Was I right in returning the auction to S when 2S was alerted? > >Suggestions for getting out of this mess are welcome. > >Petrus Are you sure that South didn't grab the wrong bidding card? I get the strong feeling that South indeed wanted to bid 2S and got the wrong card (at least, that is what he himself told). That may be corrected without penalty per L25A. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 29 23:55:45 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA27194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 May 2000 23:55:45 +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 XAA27189 for ; Mon, 29 May 2000 23:55:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d241.iae.nl [212.61.3.241]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id B6FB320F2E for ; Mon, 29 May 2000 15:55:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <011c01bfc975$79b49e60$13033dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: Subject: entitled to explanation? Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 15:54:04 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0119_01BFC986.1D4AB860" 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_0119_01BFC986.1D4AB860 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Club pairs, no convention cards available. Q 10 7 4 A Q 6 4 A K 4 A 10 9 J 6 3 2 =20 10 9 8 2 K J 10 8 3 2 Q J 5 J 9 3 2 8 7 6 5 =20 A K 8 5 7 5 3 9 7 6 KQ 4 W N E S - 1NT pass 2c pass 3 c pass 3NT pass pass pass East requested explanation of 3c; south responded "I do not know." North tried to convey that he has two four-cards major. North and south form a long partnership. Are EW entitled to know what north tried to convey to his partner? Must north explain 3c to the opponents after the final pass? ------=_NextPart_000_0119_01BFC986.1D4AB860 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Club pairs, no convention cards=20 available.
 
       =20             =    =20     Q 10 7 4
          &nbs= p;            = ;     A=20 Q 6 4
       =20             =    =20     A K 4
       =20             =    =20     A 10
9       =20             =    =20            =20       J 6 3 2 
10 9 8 2    =    =20             =    =20         K J
10 8 3=20 2            =             &= nbsp;       Q=20 J 5
J 9 3 2    =    =20             =    =20            8 7 6 5  =
       =20             =     A K=20 8 5
       =20             =     7 5=20 3
       =20             =     9 7=20 6
       =20             =     KQ=20 4
 
    W   =20     N        = E   =20     S
   =20 -          1NT &nb= sp; =20 pass    2c
    = pass    3=20 c      pass    = 3NT
    = pass   =20 pass    pass
 
East requested explanation of 3c; south = responded=20 "I do not know."
North tried to convey that he has two = four-cards=20 major.
North and south form a long=20 partnership.
Are EW entitled to know what north = tried to convey=20 to his partner?
Must north explain 3c to the = opponents=20 after the final pass?
------=_NextPart_000_0119_01BFC986.1D4AB860-- From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 30 01:24:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA27474 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 May 2000 01:24:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (root@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA27467 for ; Tue, 30 May 2000 01:24:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA01533 for ; Mon, 29 May 2000 11:24:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200005291524.LAA01533@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Ruling please: L68/L57 ???? Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <20000526155108.21041.qmail@hotmail.com> References: <20000526155108.21041.qmail@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 11:24:37 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 26 May 2000 at 10:52, "Roger Pewick" wrote: >In the earlier post below I asserted that L57A applies to T12 even though >the list is otherwise unanimous in ruling the CQ to be a claim that >supplants play to T12. I point out that the 'claim' did not occur prior to >the facing the CQ [in fact the opponents had to drag it out of him] and the >laws speak to the occurrence while a trick is in progress. L45C1 says the >card is played to the current trick. It follows that exposing the CQ is in >fact two infractions [a] it is a POOT and [b] it is a play of more than one >card to a trick. These infractions occurred before the 'claim' and should >be adjudicated before adjudicating the 'claim'. I believe that the >'interpretation' that play ceases after a claim must refer to, and only to, >play to tricks subsequent the incomplete trick. > Time: Canadian University Teams Championships, 1997. Place: Hart House, U.Toronto. Hands: immaterial KQJ A immaterial (but I didn't think so) QJT A AT8 xxxx -- x Declarer leads the SA in 1NT, having taken 5 tricks. West plays the spade J, dummy discards, and I go into the tank. West faces her hand (with a little "who, me" innocent smile). So, Roger, 7 penalty cards? 8 cards to this trick? Or is it a claim? If the director was called, I'm certain that partner would have told him that she intended facing her hand as a claim - but not before; she didn't think it was necessary to do so. What's the difference between this situation and the one in T12? Isn't the facing of the card just as unequivocally a claim here as facing 7 cards at T6 was? Michael. From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 30 01:25:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA27483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 May 2000 01:25:51 +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 BAA27478 for ; Tue, 30 May 2000 01:25:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-33qtkj2.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.210.98]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA08121 for ; Mon, 29 May 2000 11:25:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000529153812.0081ea68@mindspring.com> X-Sender: htcs@mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 08:38:12 -0700 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Henry Sun Subject: Re: entitled to explanation? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:54 PM 5/29/00 +0200, you wrote: >Club pairs, no convention cards available. > > Q 10 7 4 > A Q 6 4 > A K 4 > A 10 >9 J 6 3 2 >10 9 8 2 K J >10 8 3 2 Q J 5 >J 9 3 2 8 7 6 5 > A K 8 5 > 7 5 3 > 9 7 6 > KQ 4 > > W N E S > - 1NT pass 2c > pass 3 c pass 3NT > pass pass pass > >East requested explanation of 3c; south responded "I do not know." >North tried to convey that he has two four-cards major. >North and south form a long partnership. >Are EW entitled to know what north tried to convey to his partner? >Must north explain 3c to the opponents after the final pass? as far as i understand things here in the US, east is entitled to know about the NS agreement, either explicit (eg via convention card) or implicit (eg vis partnership experience). so if there is no agreement, which is suggested by south's 3nt rebid as opposed to 4s, then east is entitled to know that ns have no agreement. since north is to be declarer, i do not think (please correct me if i am mistaken) that north has to reveal his hand. if, however, ns do have the agreement that 3c=both majors and south has forgotten this, then north is obliged to reveal that before the opening lead is made. in the absence of a convention card, it would seem difficult to determine whether ns have an agreement which south forgot or north simply made am unsuccessful attempt to create a bid to show both majors. my guess, since 4-4 major 1nt opener's aren't as rare as a unicorn, would be that north was being creative and south didn't catch it. henrysun From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 30 05:21:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA28286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 May 2000 05:21:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.rdc1.az.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.az.home.com [24.1.240.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA28281 for ; Tue, 30 May 2000 05:21:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from cx233303-b.fwlr1.az.home.com ([24.14.16.52]) by mail.rdc1.az.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.00 201-229-116) with SMTP id <20000529192106.RVJL11091.mail.rdc1.az.home.com@cx233303-b.fwlr1.az.home.com>; Mon, 29 May 2000 12:21:06 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20000529122101.0083d100@mail> X-Sender: bridgetoday1@mail X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 12:21:01 -0700 To: "Ben Schelen" , From: Phil Guptill Subject: Re: entitled to explanation? In-Reply-To: <011c01bfc975$79b49e60$13033dd4@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all! If I understand the situation correctly, south, as many of us, might forget a partnership agreement, which is no sin, except perhaps to their partner. :-) If south had remembered the partnership agreement, the de- fenders would have been furnished with that information, and that requirement for full disclosure hasn't changed. The defense is certainly entitled to an explanation of the meaning of the 3C call, after the final pass, and prior to the opening lead. North should provide that explanation. At 03:54 PM 5/29/00 +0200, Ben Schelen wrote: >>>> ArialClub pairs, no convention cards available. Arial Q 10 7 4 A Q 6 4 A K 4 A 10 9 J 6 3 2 10 9 8 2 K J 10 8 3 2 Q J 5 J 9 3 2 8 7 6 5 A K 8 5 7 5 3 9 7 6 KQ 4 Arial W N E S - 1NT pass 2c pass 3 c pass 3NT pass pass pass ArialEast requested explanation of 3c; south responded "I do not know." North tried to convey that he has two four-cards major. North and south form a long partnership. Are EW entitled to know what north tried to convey to his partner? Must north explain 3c to the opponents after the final pass? <<<<<<<< Phil Guptill...aka...bigheart on OKB bridgetoday1@home.com "Sight is a faculty; seeing is an art." From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 30 05:50:05 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA28350 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 May 2000 05:50:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA28345 for ; Tue, 30 May 2000 05:49:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from kantoor.ripe.net (kantoor.ripe.net [193.0.1.98]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA02912 for ; Mon, 29 May 2000 21:49:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by kantoor.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA18379 for ; Mon, 29 May 2000 21:49:18 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: kantoor.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 21:49:18 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: entitled to explanation? In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.20000529153812.0081ea68@mindspring.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 29 May 2000, Henry Sun wrote: > At 03:54 PM 5/29/00 +0200, you wrote: > >Club pairs, no convention cards available. > > > > Q 10 7 4 > > A Q 6 4 > > A K 4 > > A 10 > >9 J 6 3 2 > >10 9 8 2 K J > >10 8 3 2 Q J 5 > >J 9 3 2 8 7 6 5 > > A K 8 5 > > 7 5 3 > > 9 7 6 > > KQ 4 > > > > W N E S > > - 1NT pass 2c > > pass 3 c pass 3NT > > pass pass pass > > > >East requested explanation of 3c; south responded "I do not know." > >North tried to convey that he has two four-cards major. > >North and south form a long partnership. > >Are EW entitled to know what north tried to convey to his partner? > >Must north explain 3c to the opponents after the final pass? > > as far as i understand things here in the US, east is entitled to know > about the NS agreement, either explicit (eg via convention card) or > implicit (eg vis partnership experience). so if there is no agreement, > which is suggested by south's 3nt rebid as opposed to 4s, then east > is entitled to know that ns have no agreement. > > since north is to be declarer, i do not think (please correct me if > i am mistaken) that north has to reveal his hand. if, however, ns > do have the agreement that 3c=both majors and south has forgotten > this, then north is obliged to reveal that before the opening lead > is made. > > in the absence of a convention card, it would seem difficult to determine > whether ns have an agreement which south forgot or north simply made am > unsuccessful attempt to create a bid to show both majors. my guess, > since 4-4 major 1nt opener's aren't as rare as a unicorn, would be > that north was being creative and south didn't catch it. I agree except for the last sentence: I don't believe that an established, long-time partnership has never discussed the responses to Stayman or never had a hand where opener had 2 4-card majors in response to Stayman. Also, NS appear to be playing a NT range that includes 19 hcp, and 1NT as 16-19 with 1NT-2C;2D as 16-17, no major, 2N: 18-19, no major, 3C 18-19 both majors, is a convention that used to have some popularity here (Eindhoven and Amsterdam) some 25 years ago. So, if there is a finite probability that these players have this agreement, then I'm going to rule against NS. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A man can take a train and never reach his destination. (Kerouac, well before RFC2780). From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 30 06:15:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA28428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 May 2000 06:15:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA28423 for ; Tue, 30 May 2000 06:15:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA07737; Mon, 29 May 2000 22:14:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA27964; Mon, 29 May 2000 22:14:17 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 22:14:17 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: "John (MadDog) Probst" cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 29 May 2000, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > In article , > Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes > > > >This hand came up this afternoon in the practical part of the senior TD > >exam in Holland and proved to be way too hard: almost none of the > >candidates answered the first part correctly within the 5 minutes > >available to solve the problem, and after the first few candidates, we > >decided to skip part 2 for the rest of the afternoon. > > > > > >W/- 9 6 5 > > Q J T 9 7 > > K 7 > > A K 5 > >A 8 T 7 3 > >A 5 4 3 8 > >2 J T 6 5 4 3 > >T 8 7 4 3 2 Q J 9 > > K Q J 4 2 > > K 6 2 > > A Q 9 8 > > 6 > > > >West North East South > >P 1 H P 1 S > >P 1 N P 2 C (NMF) > >P 2 S P 4 S > >P P P > > > > > >1. After this auction, EAST leads BOTH the H8 and CQ, that is 2 cards from > > the wrong side. Now what? > > Give South the usual options explaining that should the opening lead be > accepted then East can lead the CQ and have a minor penalty card, or > lead the H8 and have a major penalty card. OK, now south will tell you that he wants to accept 1 of the leads and become dummy, but not the other lead. :-) > EBU TDs seem to believe that > the intent of the opening lead is not relevant and the player leading > has the choice of which to play. Yup, 58B2. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A man can take a train and never reach his destination. (Kerouac, well before RFC2780). From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 30 06:31:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA28477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 May 2000 06:31:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA28470 for ; Tue, 30 May 2000 06:30:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA10775; Mon, 29 May 2000 22:30:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA28074; Mon, 29 May 2000 22:30:21 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 22:30:21 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Martin Sinot cc: "'BLML'" Subject: RE: From the Dutch TD exam... In-Reply-To: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310C7@xion.spase.nl> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 29 May 2000, Martin Sinot wrote: > Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > > >I agree wih all the above. > >But I think the hand ends here as far as the TD is concerned. Under > >L16C, a "play withdrawn... to rectify an infraction" is UI to OS, but > >both PCs were withdrawn not to rectify an infraction but because > >declarer exercised his option under L50D2a; therefore, IMO L16 does not > >apply and the information is authorised so that we need not worry what > >may or may not have been influenced by H8 or CQ. > >Score stands. > > > >Petrus > > See L50D1: Partner of offender may use the fact that the major penalty > card must be played, but any other information derived from facing the > card is unauthorised. So West still must act as if he didn't see the > two penalty cards, but as long as they are on the table, he may use > the fact that East must play them at the first legal turn. Exactly, the point is in east's statement that he intended to pull the H8 and the card next to it also ended up on the table. This suggest that the H8 is the lowest heart, giving east a heart holding of K8 of 8 singleton. In both cases, it is far more attractive to lead the HA and a heart. BTW. Before the exam, we agreed that east (if asked) would admit that he usually sorts his cards red-black-red-black and in order. We'd also give points for candidates who gave answers like "a singleton heart is the only way to defeat the contract". But then the first part of the question proved to be way too hard. Roger posted the correct answer: 58B, H8 OLOOT, CQ MCP, 54 for the OLOOT, 50/51 for the MPC, you woud not believe the answers that the candidates gave... Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A man can take a train and never reach his destination. (Kerouac, well before RFC2780). From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 30 08:19:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA28788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 May 2000 08:19:08 +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 IAA28783 for ; Tue, 30 May 2000 08:19:01 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 5622 invoked by uid 65534); 29 May 2000 22:18:23 -0000 Message-ID: <20000529221823.5621.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [38.12.169.77] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" , References: <20000526155108.21041.qmail@hotmail.com> <200005291524.LAA01533@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Subject: Re: Ruling please: L68/L57 ???? Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 17:19:31 -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: Michael Farebrother To: Sent: Monday, May 29, 2000 10:24 AM Subject: Re: Ruling please: L68/L57 ???? > On 26 May 2000 at 10:52, "Roger Pewick" wrote: > >In the earlier post below I asserted that L57A applies to T12 even though > >the list is otherwise unanimous in ruling the CQ to be a claim that > >supplants play to T12. I point out that the 'claim' did not occur prior to > >the facing the CQ [in fact the opponents had to drag it out of him] and the > >laws speak to the occurrence while a trick is in progress. L45C1 says the > >card is played to the current trick. It follows that exposing the CQ is in > >fact two infractions [a] it is a POOT and [b] it is a play of more than one > >card to a trick. These infractions occurred before the 'claim' and should > >be adjudicated before adjudicating the 'claim'. I believe that the > >'interpretation' that play ceases after a claim must refer to, and only to, > >play to tricks subsequent the incomplete trick. > > > > Time: Canadian University Teams Championships, 1997. > Place: Hart House, U.Toronto. > > Hands: > immaterial > > KQJ > A immaterial (but I didn't think so) > QJT > A AT8 > xxxx > -- > x > > Declarer leads the SA in 1NT, having taken 5 tricks. West plays the > spade J, dummy discards, and I go into the tank. West faces her hand > (with a little "who, me" innocent smile). others have asserted that a POOT can not be a claim. I assert that a POOT is a POOT whether or not it is a claim. I assert that if contested, before the claim is adjudicated that L57 be applied to the current trick. cheers Roger Pewick Houston, Texas > > > So, Roger, 7 penalty cards? 8 cards to this trick? Or is it a claim? > If the director was called, I'm certain that partner would have told him > that she intended facing her hand as a claim - but not before; she > didn't think it was necessary to do so. > > What's the difference between this situation and the one in T12? > Isn't the facing of the card just as unequivocally a claim here as > facing 7 cards at T6 was? > > Michael. > From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 30 09:05:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA28910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 May 2000 09:05:50 +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 JAA28905 for ; Tue, 30 May 2000 09:05:43 +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 12wYbF-000JOI-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 May 2000 23:05:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 00:04:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... References: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310C7@xion.spase.nl> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes > >But then the first part of the question proved to be way too hard. Roger >posted the correct answer: 58B, H8 OLOOT, CQ MCP, 54 for the OLOOT, 50/51 >for the MPC, you woud not believe the answers that the candidates gave... > >Henk I, for one, disagree here. The intent is not relevant. 58B2 applies. cheers john. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 30 10:17:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA29067 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 May 2000 10:17:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (mta03-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.43]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA29061 for ; Tue, 30 May 2000 10:17:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.253.84.9]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000530001725.JQIQ290.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Tue, 30 May 2000 01:17:25 +0100 Message-ID: <000d01bfc9cd$1d342ae0$0954fd3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 01:22:17 +0100 Organization: X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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: Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) To: John (MadDog) Probst Cc: Sent: Monday, May 29, 2000 9:14 PM Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... > On Mon, 29 May 2000, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > > In article , > > Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes > > > > > >This hand came up this afternoon in the practical part of the senior TD > > >exam in Holland and proved to be way too hard: almost none of the > > >candidates answered the first part correctly within the 5 minutes > > >available to solve the problem, and after the first few candidates, we > > >decided to skip part 2 for the rest of the afternoon. > > > > > > > > >W/- 9 6 5 > > > Q J T 9 7 > > > K 7 > > > A K 5 > > >A 8 T 7 3 > > >A 5 4 3 8 > > >2 J T 6 5 4 3 > > >T 8 7 4 3 2 Q J 9 > > > K Q J 4 2 > > > K 6 2 > > > A Q 9 8 > > > 6 > > > > > >West North East South > > >P 1 H P 1 S > > >P 1 N P 2 C (NMF) > > >P 2 S P 4 S > > >P P P > > > > > > > > >1. After this auction, EAST leads BOTH the H8 and CQ, that is 2 cards from > > > the wrong side. Now what? > > > > Give South the usual options explaining that should the opening lead be > > accepted then East can lead the CQ and have a minor penalty card, or > > lead the H8 and have a major penalty card. > > OK, now south will tell you that he wants to accept 1 of the leads and > become dummy, but not the other lead. :-) > > > EBU TDs seem to believe that > > the intent of the opening lead is not relevant and the player leading > > has the choice of which to play. > > Yup, 58B2. > > Henk 58B2 tells us, as John said, that the intention is not relevant. The TD should explain to East that he now has to designate the OL he wishes to chose. East is told that if he chooses H8 then CQ is MPC, if he chooses CQ then H8 is mPC. East should be told the different effect of mPC and MPC on lead penalties if South chooses not to accept the lead. South should not be in the position of saying he would accept one card as lead, but not the other. Assuming that all this was done, and East chose H8, then sure South can demand or prohibit the lead of either a H or C. Now both are picked up. West leads his D as he did. On regaining the lead West is under the pressure of Law 16C. He does have UI, and he is stressed to avoid taking any advantage. Petrus says that he does not think this Law applies.True declarer has exercised his option under Law 50D2a, but this option was to get a card withdrawn because of an infraction. I believe Law 16 does apply, and West has alternative actions available to him. A small H to a singleton HK with E, is a line of defence which absent the UI he may adopt. I would rule 4S + 1. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 30 11:50:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA29296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 May 2000 11:50:44 +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 LAA29291 for ; Tue, 30 May 2000 11:50:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from grabiner (dialup-20-64-bg.wcnet.org [205.133.172.64]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id VAA17999 for ; Mon, 29 May 2000 21:50:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000529214944.00879210@mail.wcnet.org> X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 21:49:44 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: What should a player do upon finding a sorted hand? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This happened to me, and I'm not sure what the correct procedure is. L16B requires a player to call the director when he is in possession of UI from an extraneous source. When is he supposed to do this? I picked up a balanced 11 count in a Swiss teams, already sorted into suits. This suggested that the player at the previous table had forgotten to sort her hand after a pass-out. The auction: E S W N(me) P 1D P 2N! (11-12 HCP) P P P This auction further suggested that the previous board was likely to have been a pass-out rather than a post-mortem; dummy was a hand which could have been passed. When I played the hand, it might have become relevant that West could not hold a 12 count. When am I supposed to call the director in this situation? It's unreasonable to expect every player who finds a sorted hand to call the director. My 2NT bid was automatic, so I actually called the director when dummy came down and I thought it might matter; the director told me to play on. If the game had been BAM rather than IMPs, then it would clearly be unplayable once I knew about the pass-out and saw dummy; I would know that down one would lose the boar, and thus that I needed to make at all costs. From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 30 15:23:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA00412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 May 2000 15:23:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from rsc.anu.edu.au (rsc [150.203.35.129]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA00407 for ; Tue, 30 May 2000 15:23:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from medvesajt.anu.edu.au (medvesajt.anu.edu.au [150.203.35.241]) by rsc.anu.edu.au (8.10.0/8.10.0) with SMTP id e4U5N4K12519 for ; Tue, 30 May 2000 15:23:04 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 15:23:04 +1000 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@medvesajt.anu.edu.au To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: entitled to explanation? In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.20000529122101.0083d100@mail> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 29 May 2000, Phil Guptill wrote: > Hi all! > > > If I understand the situation correctly, south, as many of us, > > might forget a partnership agreement, which is no sin, except > > perhaps to their partner. :-) > Except when a pattern of forgets creates an implicit understanding :) > If south had remembered the partnership agreement, the de- > > fenders would have been furnished with that information, and > > that requirement for full disclosure hasn't changed. > > > The defense is certainly entitled to an explanation of the > > meaning of the 3C call, after the final pass, and prior to > > the opening lead. Er... no. The defence is entitled to an explanation *of the agreement* not of the call. > North should provide that explanation. ... if there is indeed an agreement. Not otherwise. Mark From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 30 16:25:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA00783 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 May 2000 16:25:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA00777 for ; Tue, 30 May 2000 16:25:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from kantoor.ripe.net (kantoor.ripe.net [193.0.1.98]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA11566; Tue, 30 May 2000 08:24:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by kantoor.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA13511; Tue, 30 May 2000 08:24:55 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: kantoor.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 08:24:55 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: "John (MadDog) Probst" cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 30 May 2000, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > In article , > Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes > > > >But then the first part of the question proved to be way too hard. Roger > >posted the correct answer: 58B, H8 OLOOT, CQ MCP, 54 for the OLOOT, 50/51 > >for the MPC, you would not believe the answers that the candidates gave... > > > >Henk > > I, for one, disagree here. The intent is not relevant. 58B2 applies. I think we agree here, but you cannot ask everything in 5 minutes. The exercise was that east, if and when asked, would answer that he wanted to lead the H8 but pulled the CQ as well. Given a choice, he does not want to change his lead, though I agree that 58B2 allows him to lead the CQ as well. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A man can take a train and never reach his destination. (Kerouac, well before RFC2780). From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 30 18:57:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA01297 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 May 2000 18:57:23 +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 SAA01292 for ; Tue, 30 May 2000 18:57:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-5-81.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.5.81]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA03516 for ; Tue, 30 May 2000 10:57:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39325153.1FAF312F@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 13:15:31 +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: Insufficient agreement References: <39322877.94BEC677@eduhi.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'll answer only one question : Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > > - Was I right in returning the auction to S when 2S was alerted? > I believe the correct director's action should be to ask south, off the table, what 1S intended and what 2S would mean. If you only ask South, you would have allowed the auction to continue with 2Sp, and not return it when it is alerted. Of course in a round-about way, you have now told North that 2Sp is natural. That is sad but unavoidable. If he does not understand the implications of you allowing the change to 2Sp, then he will still alert, and he will indeed bid 3Cl. I would rule director's error. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 30 18:57:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA01291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 May 2000 18:57:16 +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 SAA01286 for ; Tue, 30 May 2000 18:57:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-5-81.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.5.81]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA03497 for ; Tue, 30 May 2000 10:56:58 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39324ECC.10DE442C@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 13:04:44 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: A bit quiet References: <200005261544.IAA06253@mailhub.irvine.com> <025501bfc8dc$72af13a0$ee391dc2@rabbit> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > > > You mean something like this? > > > > > > 3 > > 73 > > KQJ > > A > > -- -- > > JT8 -- > > 5432 A > > -- JT9762 > > 7654 > > 654 > > -- > > -- > > > > > > Spades trumps. With the lead in dummy, declarer claims, saying he'll > > pitch hearts from hand on dummy's good diamonds. Declarer has > > forgotten that the diamond ace is still out. > > Not exactly. Something where declarer's stated line is irrational, > but can be executed. Say, his statement in > the above layout is "I'll pitch > the heart four on the diamond king." > No Thomas, you cannot rule any differently as to whether claimer states the exact cards or not. If claimer is under the impression that his diamonds are high, then he will lose a trick if the ace is in fourth seat, but the claim laws state (quite clearly in the case of trumps, by agreement equally clearly otherwise) that a claimer is allowed to notice that something has gone wrong (in this case that the ace appears). He is then allowed to change his line of play to the least successful one of all normal lines. In this case, I presume, ruffing that ace. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 30 19:04:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA01348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 May 2000 19:04:58 +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 TAA01343 for ; Tue, 30 May 2000 19:04:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Tue, 30 May 2000 11:04:32 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id KAA28252 for ; Tue, 30 May 2000 10:36:58 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: What should a player do upon finding a sorted hand? Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 10:36:23 +0200 Message-ID: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310CB@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-reply-to: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101B3B0@xion.spase.nl> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David J. Grabiner wrote: >This happened to me, and I'm not sure what the correct procedure is. > >L16B requires a player to call the director when he is in possession of UI >from an extraneous source. When is he supposed to do this? > >I picked up a balanced 11 count in a Swiss teams, already sorted into >suits. This suggested that the player at the previous table had forgotten >to sort her hand after a pass-out. > >The auction: > >E S W N(me) >P 1D P 2N! (11-12 HCP) >P P P > >This auction further suggested that the previous board was likely to have >been a pass-out rather than a post-mortem; dummy was a hand which could >have been passed. > >When I played the hand, it might have become relevant that West could not >hold a 12 count. > >When am I supposed to call the director in this situation? It's >unreasonable to expect every player who finds a sorted hand to call the >director. My 2NT bid was automatic, so I actually called the director when >dummy came down and I thought it might matter; the director told me to play >on. > >If the game had been BAM rather than IMPs, then it would clearly be >unplayable once I knew about the pass-out and saw dummy; I would know that >down one would lose the boar, and thus that I needed to make at all costs. You should call the TD after play. If you call the TD earlier, you give UI to all people at the table (you have something like 9-11 HCP with a balanced hand, and probably everybody else too). Better play on; at most tell that you want to call the TD after play, without revealing why. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 30 23:33:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA02179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 May 2000 23:33:26 +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 XAA02174 for ; Tue, 30 May 2000 23:33:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from comarch.pl (pcciborowski.comarch.pl [195.116.125.138]) by omicron.comarch.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FB295C027 for ; Tue, 30 May 2000 16:59:52 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3933BB7D.7D64C3F@comarch.pl> Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 15:00:45 +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: What should a player do upon finding a sorted hand? References: <3.0.6.32.20000529214944.00879210@mail.wcnet.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "David J. Grabiner" wrote: > > This happened to me, and I'm not sure what the correct procedure is. > > L16B requires a player to call the director when he is in possession of UI > from an extraneous source. When is he supposed to do this? > > I picked up a balanced 11 count in a Swiss teams, already sorted into > suits. This suggested that the player at the previous table had forgotten > to sort her hand after a pass-out. A similar thing occurred to me six, seven years ago in a league match. I excused myself from the table and told the TD the whole story. The TD listened carefully and then went to the Closed Room to check things out. As Raymond Chandler would put it: what happened next was not the most incredible thing done by a TD in the historyof bridge but it came close. The Director came back, thought a little, and produced a ruling (not for the faint hearted, don't tell later that you haven't been warned): +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ Yes, this hand was passed out in the other room. This information is UI but since you received it from your opponent (who failed to shuffle his cards before returning them to the board) you are free to use it. +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ Still alive? The TD voluntarily telling you (and only you!) the result achieved in the other room is not a phenomenon you can experience every decade. It didn't occur to me (I didn't know much about the Laws at that time) that a right moment to call the men in white has arrived. Instead I went back to the table, opened a weak 1NT on a marginal hand (BAL 11HCP 4333) bought the contract and scored 3IMPs. I didn't mention to anyone later on why I left the table and nobody asked. Nothing to be proud of, to be sure. What is worse, I was convinced that I behaved in a highly ethical and sportsmanlike manner! I'm not sure what a TD is supposed to do in such a case, still waiting for an answer. Since then, however, I avoid this problem by shuffling my hand _before_ looking at it. -- *********************************************************************** - One school believes that high taxes are most profitable for the poor as there is more money in the budget for social purposes. The other one claims that low taxes are better for the poor as the rich ones can keep more money for investments that give work to the unemployed ones etc. Which side does your party support? - Both of these schools are right but we reject both viewpoints. ( from a TV debate before the elections in a certain European country ) Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 31 01:54:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA02664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 01:54:12 +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 BAA02659 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 01:54:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-5-184.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.5.184]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA00631 for ; Tue, 30 May 2000 17:53:55 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39338A45.47E99A9F@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 11:30:45 +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: Ruling please: L68/L57 ???? References: <20000526155108.21041.qmail@hotmail.com> <200005291524.LAA01533@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <20000529221823.5621.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: > > > others have asserted that a POOT can not be a claim. I assert that a POOT > is a POOT whether or not it is a claim. > > I assert that if contested, before the claim is adjudicated that L57 be > applied to the current trick. > Indeed. first a POOT, then a claim. But it is a claim. And probably a good one, but first apply L57 as well. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 31 02:33:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA02947 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 02:33:33 +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 CAA02942 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 02:33:25 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 35865 invoked for bounce); 30 May 2000 16:33:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.57.30) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 30 May 2000 16:33:15 -0000 Message-ID: <00b401bfca54$e3ad1ce0$1e391dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <200005261544.IAA06253@mailhub.irvine.com> <025501bfc8dc$72af13a0$ee391dc2@rabbit> <39324ECC.10DE442C@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: A bit quiet Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 18:33:14 +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 I continue playing devil's advocate ;-) Herman De Wael wrote > Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > You mean something like this? > > > > > > > > > 3 > > > 73 > > > KQJ > > > A > > > -- -- > > > JT8 -- > > > 5432 A > > > -- JT9762 > > > 7654 > > > 654 > > > -- > > > -- > > > > > > > > > Spades trumps. With the lead in dummy, declarer claims, saying he'll > > > pitch hearts from hand on dummy's good diamonds. Declarer has > > > forgotten that the diamond ace is still out. > > > > Not exactly. Something where declarer's stated line is irrational, > > but can be executed. Say, his statement in > > the above layout is "I'll pitch > > the heart four on the diamond king." > > > > No Thomas, you cannot rule any differently as to whether > claimer states the exact cards or not. Law 70 D. The successful line is contained in claimer's statement. Heck, the claimer did state the only successful line ;-). > If claimer is under the impression that his diamonds are > high, then he will lose a trick if the ace is in fourth > seat, but the claim laws state (quite clearly in the case of > trumps, by agreement equally clearly otherwise) that a > claimer is allowed to notice that something has gone wrong > (in this case that the ace appears). I disagree in this case. The claimer's stated line does not break down, albeit very likely not for the reasons the claimer had in mind. He can discard the H4 on the DK whether E plays the DA or not. > He is then allowed to > change his line of play to the least successful one of all > normal lines. In this case, I presume, ruffing that ace. Ok, we resolve any doubtful points against claimer, but I am still not convinced that this particular ruling is covered by the law. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 31 02:59:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA03016 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 02:59:29 +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 CAA03010 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 02:59:21 +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 12wpMF-000Fz9-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 May 2000 16:59:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 04:24:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: What should a player do upon finding a sorted hand? References: <3.0.6.32.20000529214944.00879210@mail.wcnet.org> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000529214944.00879210@mail.wcnet.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.6.32.20000529214944.00879210@mail.wcnet.org>, David J. Grabiner writes >This happened to me, and I'm not sure what the correct procedure is. > >L16B requires a player to call the director when he is in possession of UI >from an extraneous source. When is he supposed to do this? > >I picked up a balanced 11 count in a Swiss teams, already sorted into >suits. This suggested that the player at the previous table had forgotten >to sort her hand after a pass-out. > >The auction: > >E S W N(me) >P 1D P 2N! (11-12 HCP) >P P P > >This auction further suggested that the previous board was likely to have >been a pass-out rather than a post-mortem; dummy was a hand which could >have been passed. > >When I played the hand, it might have become relevant that West could not >hold a 12 count. > >When am I supposed to call the director in this situation? It's >unreasonable to expect every player who finds a sorted hand to call the >director. My 2NT bid was automatic, so I actually called the director when >dummy came down and I thought it might matter; the director told me to play >on. > >If the game had been BAM rather than IMPs, then it would clearly be >unplayable once I knew about the pass-out and saw dummy; I would know that >down one would lose the boar, and thus that I needed to make at all costs. > > I have had a player come up to me in a pairs event where all day she had been receiving shuffled hands and now had a sorted one, and I told her to play the hand, trying not to use any UI which she thought she may have gained. Not sure it's legal, but I thought that it has to be played before I can rule. After all the hand may *not* have been passed out at the previous table ( just a Trick 1 claim) cheers john > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 31 07:23:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA03888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 07:23:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from rbdc.rbdc.com (rbdc.rbdc.com [199.171.83.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA03883 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 07:23:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from y626h.com (pm0-29.rbdc.com [199.171.83.170]) by rbdc.rbdc.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA04494 for ; Tue, 30 May 2000 17:22:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.0.20000530171301.00a89810@rbdc.com> X-Sender: wflory@rbdc.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 17:22:56 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Walt Flory Subject: Unusual opening style call for a prealert? In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000529214944.00879210@mail.wcnet.org> <3.0.6.32.20000529214944.00879210@mail.wcnet.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_22423377==_.ALT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --=====================_22423377==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed I have recently been experimenting with openings based on: 1. Two and a half quick tricks, and 2. Two length points (minimum distribution for this is a five card suit or three four card suits) Any hand not meeting either the above requirements and not a 15-17 NT or better is passed. ______ Questions: 1. Is this style unusual enough to call for a prealert in the ACBL? Elsewhere in the world? 2, Can anyone tell me where this style originated? Do you know of any books in or out of print that have to do with this? ______ Thanks, Walt Walt Flory wflory@alumni.wfu.edu wflory on OKBridge --=====================_22423377==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" I have recently been experimenting with openings based on:
    1. Two and a half quick tricks, and
    2. Two length points (minimum distribution for this is a five card suit or three four card suits)

Any hand not meeting either the above requirements and not a 15-17 NT or better is passed.
______

Questions:
    1. Is this style unusual enough to call for a prealert in the ACBL? Elsewhere in the world?
    2, Can anyone tell me where this style originated? Do you know of any books in or out of print that have to do with this?
______

Thanks,

Walt

Walt Flory
wflory@alumni.wfu.edu
wflory on OKBridge
 --=====================_22423377==_.ALT-- From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 31 08:05:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA04013 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 08:05:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA04008 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 08:05:34 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id IAA26318 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 08:03:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 31 May 2000 08:03:14 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: What should a player do upon finding a sorted hand? To: Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 08:02:10 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 31/05/2000 08:00:59 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk L16B lists the categories for which extraneous information is unauthorised. Finding your cards sorted is not mentioned, so I would rule such information authorised. Of course, as in all cases of AI, you use it at your own risk. A sorted hand might mean: a) passed out; b) claimed at trick one; c) a post-mortem; or, d) a famous Australian player held your cards at the previous table - he always sorts his cards before returning them to the slot. Best wishes Richard Hills richard.hills@immi.gov.au From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 31 09:46:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA04284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 09:46:09 +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 JAA04273 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 09:46:00 +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 12wvhi-000Ll3-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 May 2000 23:45:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 18:24:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: A bit quiet References: <200005261544.IAA06253@mailhub.irvine.com> <025501bfc8dc$72af13a0$ee391dc2@rabbit> <39324ECC.10DE442C@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <39324ECC.10DE442C@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <39324ECC.10DE442C@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes > >No Thomas, you cannot rule any differently as to whether >claimer states the exact cards or not. > >If claimer is under the impression that his diamonds are >high, then he will lose a trick if the ace is in fourth >seat, but the claim laws state (quite clearly in the case of >trumps, by agreement equally clearly otherwise) that a >claimer is allowed to notice that something has gone wrong >(in this case that the ace appears). He is then allowed to >change his line of play to the least successful one of all >normal lines. In this case, I presume, ruffing that ace. > My concern here is that players do make grossly inferior plays, because they lead the Q from dummy and play from hand without reflection on the card played from RHO. My experience is that perhaps as many as one in ten declarers (with the mind set expressed by the claim) would discard the heart before noticing the DQ had been bested. I personally put the claim under careless rather than irrational. In the EBU I'd rule a mind-change was allowed. At the YC I'd probably not. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 31 09:46:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA04283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 09:46:09 +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 JAA04274 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 09:46:00 +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 12wvhi-000Ll4-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 May 2000 23:45:46 +0000 Message-ID: <+nB6NeARIFN5EwhG@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 00:43:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: another easy one :)) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Japanese ladies game, competent declarer and dummy, *weak* defenders Declarer's RHO leads a diamond winner when there is one diamond left in dummy. Before declarer plays dummy places the diamond in the played position so that dummy looks void. Declarer now plays a diamond and her LHO ruffs higher than dummy. Now LHO says (loose translation) "oh I thought dummy was void". 1) Does L45D apply? the defender played after dummy's card was played 2) If not, should I apply L72B1? ... could have known ... 3) Does the class of player make a difference? ... would be likely ... cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 31 10:14:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA04421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 10:13:15 +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 KAA04392 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 10:12:58 +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 12ww7m-00001u-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 31 May 2000 01:12:43 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 00:56:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: False claim at Bournemouth MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Contract 2H, played very slowly. Four tricks lost. -- 7 T T 765 4 -- K3 -- -- -- -- -- Q K8 -- Declarer leads the CT from dummy and then claims, telling East it does not matter whether she ruffs high or low, he will make two tricks either way. East and West agree with the claim. After the session is over, during dinner, declarer suddenly realises that if East discards on the CT she will take the last two tricks. The Correction Period is not over [EBU event, start of next session]. What is declarer required to do? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 31 10:32:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA04508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 10:32:17 +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 KAA04501 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 10:32:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12wwQR-000HFU-0Y for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 31 May 2000 01:32:00 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 01:31:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: False claim at Bournemouth References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > Contract 2H, played very slowly. Four tricks lost. > > -- > 7 > T > T > 765 4 > -- K3 > -- -- > -- -- > -- > Q > K8 > -- > > Declarer leads the CT from dummy and then claims, telling East it does >not matter whether she ruffs high or low, he will make two tricks either >way. East and West agree with the claim. > > After the session is over, during dinner, declarer suddenly realises >that if East discards on the CT she will take the last two tricks. The >Correction Period is not over [EBU event, start of next session]. > > What is declarer required to do? > Best thing to do is finish her pudding, have a large brandy and go back to enjoy the next session. L71A. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 31 11:07:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA04417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 10:13:10 +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 KAA04389 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 10:12:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12ww7f-00001t-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 31 May 2000 01:12:38 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 00:15:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Ruling please: L68/L57 ???? References: <20000526155108.21041.qmail@hotmail.com> <200005291524.LAA01533@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <20000529221823.5621.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000529221823.5621.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: >others have asserted that a POOT can not be a claim. I assert that a POOT >is a POOT whether or not it is a claim. > >I assert that if contested, before the claim is adjudicated that L57 be >applied to the current trick. You seem to have ignored the example given, not to mention a million examples of case Law. If I put my hand on the table then I have claimed [unless I demonstrably did not mean to claim]. You are saying that, unless it is my turn to play, I have played out of turn? That is not a tenable position. I know one card is a special case but either a claim is a POOT or it isn't - and we know it isn't. Whether the actual event was a POOT or a claim is a matter for the TD to decide - but it sure is not both. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 31 11:19:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA04420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 10:13:15 +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 KAA04394 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 10:12:58 +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 12ww7k-00001r-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 31 May 2000 01:12:41 +0100 Message-ID: <$dNbydBE8EN5Ewyv@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 00:30:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A bit quiet References: <200005261544.IAA06253@mailhub.irvine.com> <025501bfc8dc$72af13a0$ee391dc2@rabbit> In-Reply-To: <025501bfc8dc$72af13a0$ee391dc2@rabbit> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thomas Dehn wrote: >Adam wrote: >> You mean something like this? >> >> >> 3 >> 73 >> KQJ >> A >> -- -- >> JT8 -- >> 5432 A >> -- JT9762 >> 7654 >> 654 >> -- >> -- >> >> >> Spades trumps. With the lead in dummy, declarer claims, saying he'll >> pitch hearts from hand on dummy's good diamonds. Declarer has >> forgotten that the diamond ace is still out. >Not exactly. Something where declarer's stated line is irrational, >but can be executed. Say, his statement in >the above layout is "I'll pitch >the heart four on the diamond king." >> Under my ideal rule, we assume that when the ace shows up, declarer is >> free to abandon his original plan. Thus, if doing so would be >> considered careless and not irrational, declarer will ruff the diamond >> but will lose two hearts. Two tricks to the defense. >I like this ruling, but I am questioning >whether it is in accordance with the laws. L70D. Seems routine. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 31 11:34:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA04649 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 11:34:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (pbilink.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA04644 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 11:34:16 +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 SAA04555; Tue, 30 May 2000 18:30:25 -0700 Message-Id: <200005310130.SAA04555@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: False claim at Bournemouth In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 31 May 2000 00:56:41 PDT." Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 18:30:27 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Contract 2H, played very slowly. Four tricks lost. > > -- > 7 > T > T > 765 4 > -- K3 > -- -- > -- -- > -- > Q > K8 > -- > > Declarer leads the CT from dummy and then claims, telling East it does > not matter whether she ruffs high or low, he will make two tricks either > way. East and West agree with the claim. > > After the session is over, during dinner, declarer suddenly realises > that if East discards on the CT she will take the last two tricks. The > Correction Period is not over [EBU event, start of next session]. > > What is declarer required to do? Probably nothing. L69B appears to require the contestant who acquiesced to take the initiative in withdrawing the acquiescence. This means that the claimer isn't legally required to do anything. On a different hand, if there's a chance that the Director would change the score under L69B, an ethical claimer *might* want to inform the opponents so that they can take the appropriate action. I'm not certain whether one is morally required to do so or not. If L69B applies, then I'd probably do something, because I'd feel I got the score for a trick that I didn't actually get. However, this doesn't apply to this hand, since it's completely clear that the conditions of L69B do not apply (i.e. the defense's second trick *could* be lost by "normal" play of the remaining cards). -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 31 12:13:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA04422 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 10:13:16 +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 KAA04396 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 10:12:58 +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 12ww7k-00001s-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 31 May 2000 01:12:42 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 00:37:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What should a player do upon finding a sorted hand? References: <3.0.6.32.20000529214944.00879210@mail.wcnet.org> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000529214944.00879210@mail.wcnet.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David J. Grabiner wrote: >This happened to me, and I'm not sure what the correct procedure is. > >L16B requires a player to call the director when he is in possession of UI >from an extraneous source. When is he supposed to do this? > >I picked up a balanced 11 count in a Swiss teams, already sorted into >suits. This suggested that the player at the previous table had forgotten >to sort her hand after a pass-out. > >The auction: > >E S W N(me) >P 1D P 2N! (11-12 HCP) >P P P > >This auction further suggested that the previous board was likely to have >been a pass-out rather than a post-mortem; dummy was a hand which could >have been passed. > >When I played the hand, it might have become relevant that West could not >hold a 12 count. > >When am I supposed to call the director in this situation? It's >unreasonable to expect every player who finds a sorted hand to call the >director. My 2NT bid was automatic, so I actually called the director when >dummy came down and I thought it might matter; the director told me to play >on. > >If the game had been BAM rather than IMPs, then it would clearly be >unplayable once I knew about the pass-out and saw dummy; I would know that >down one would lose the boar, and thus that I needed to make at all costs. This seems incredibly simple: you believed you were in possession of UI. So call the TD and tell him. You might have been wrong? True, you might, but so? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 31 12:13:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA04418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 10:13:12 +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 KAA04388 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 10:12:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12ww7f-00001u-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 31 May 2000 01:12:38 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 00:18:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: double ace of clubs References: <003a01bfc720$ab086c00$1813f7a5@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: <003a01bfc720$ab086c00$1813f7a5@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > >>> Aside question, does anyone ever enforce resorting the hand before >>>restoring it to the board? >> >> There is no Law or regulation requiring it, so no, I do not suppose >>people do. Many parts of the world do not seem to have heard of the >>idea, and fewer people are doing so nowadays in England. On the other >>hand, many people in England shuffle their hand before returning it to >>the board. >> >>-- >>David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > > >FWIW, I and most of my friends were trained as novices to always shuffle our >hands before replacing them in the boards. This was to prevent the next >table from getting the information that the hand was either a passout or so >interesting that we had to examine it. It also masked the order in which the >cards had been played. Short of always resorting this seems the best way to >prevent conveying information about the contract or play to the next table. >For a long while I had believed this was actually required by the laws. >Should it be do you think? Many players sort their hand as a courtesy to the next table, and I would hate a Law that made that illegal. But I would support a Law that said you had to change the order of your cards before returning them to the board, thus permitting either sorting or shuffling. Someone will say that it is bad to sort odd hands because you know something happened. Theoretically true, though I cannot imagine how the next person will use the info: I think that complaint comes from dreamland. Still, I can see how it might be thought desirable to be consistent whether you sort or shuffle. I sort when I am not tired, shuffle otherwise. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 31 13:07:52 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA04419 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 10:13:15 +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 KAA04387 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 10:12:54 +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 12ww7f-00001v-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 31 May 2000 01:12:37 +0100 Message-ID: <6dVaybBk4EN5EwyF@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 00:26:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claim jumping/forgotten winner References: <3.0.1.32.20000525082213.006dc94c@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.20000525140525.007ff8b0@ozemail.com.au> <3.0.1.32.20000525082213.006dc94c@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.20000526080405.006e1450@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000526080405.006e1450@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 03:24 PM 5/25/00 +0100, David wrote: > >>Eric Landau wrote: >>> >>>Moreover, TDs, like the rest of us, often have very definite opinions of >>>some players' levels of skill that others, often more knowledgeable than >>>the TD, would strongly disagree with. TDs should in theory, and must in >>>practice, if they are to avoid causing a great deal of dissension and >>>ill-feeling among their players, be able to make rulings without being >>>required to defend their judgments about the level of ability of the >>>parties involved. >> >> I am intrigued by this post! What are you suggesting? I often make >>rulings that involve some idea of the player's ability. Probably two in >>three judgement rulings does so. Never has anyone argued on the basis >>you are suggesting! > >Perhaps I'm suggesting that once again we are falling into the trap of >interpreting the laws in a manner appropriate for high-level games without >regard to how it affects TDs in practice at smaller, lower-level >tournaments and clubs. These tend to be situations in which just about >everybody knows everybody, everyone has their own opinions about who plays >better than whom, and the TD, despite being, perhaps for that evening, in >the exalted position of directing the game, is one voice -- one set of >opinions -- among the multitude. When the TD has to justify different >rulings in essentially similar situations on the grounds that player A is >better than player B, it is likely to cause disagreement, with resulting >complaints about bias and lack of fairness. I admit that this can't always >be avoided, but avoiding it is a good thing when it's possible. Thus the >laws should be interpreted, when it is reasonable to do so, in such a way >as to make avoiding such judgments easier rather than harder. > >My reading of the footnote to L69-71 is that it is meant to do just that. I am still puzzled. When would anyone know I had decided this way? What am I meant to do, upset the players deliberately? Supposing that one of the poorer players produces a claim. I make a certain judgement, partially because I believe that a certain play is normal for this level of player. You are not suggesting I say so? "I am ruling this as ten tricks. If you weren't an idiot, I would give you eleven tricks." I still do not see how I am going to be held accountable for upsetting people by my assessment of their level unless I am ruling with a level of tactlessness which even I am not capable of. What I actually say is: "I am ruling this as ten tricks because I consider this a normal play within the definitions of normal in the law book." Or something simpler and shorter, perhaps. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 31 13:16:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA04678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 11:35:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA04667 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 11:35:19 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA21274 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 11:32:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 31 May 2000 11:32:59 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: False claim at Bournemouth To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 11:31:54 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 31/05/2000 11:30:44 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Declarer is *required* to do nothing under the current laws. A sportsmanlike declarer would inform the opponents, who could then apply for redress under L69B. The TD would then have to decide whether East ruffing in the critical position is "irrational". Given that the nature of the original claim and acquiescence was predicated on East ruffing, as TD I would rule that play merely "careless or inferior" and let the claim stand. I would also give a procedural bonus to declarer for active ethics :-) Best wishes Richard Hills richard.hills@immi.gov.au David Stevenson @octavia.anu.edu.au on 31/05/2000 09:56:41 Please respond to David Stevenson Sent by: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au cc: Subject: False claim at Bournemouth Contract 2H, played very slowly. Four tricks lost. -- 7 T T 765 4 -- K3 -- -- -- -- -- Q K8 -- Declarer leads the CT from dummy and then claims, telling East it does not matter whether she ruffs high or low, he will make two tricks either way. East and West agree with the claim. After the session is over, during dinner, declarer suddenly realises that if East discards on the CT she will take the last two tricks. The Correction Period is not over [EBU event, start of next session]. What is declarer required to do? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 31 14:47:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA05170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 14:47:59 +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 OAA05165 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 14:47:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-2iniooq.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.99.26]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA25159 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 00:47:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000531050021.0081ba74@mindspring.com> X-Sender: htcs@mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 22:00:21 -0700 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Henry Sun Subject: Re: False claim at Bournemouth Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:56 AM 5/31/00 +0100, you wrote: > > Contract 2H, played very slowly. Four tricks lost. > > -- > 7 > T > T > 765 4 > -- K3 > -- -- > -- -- > -- > Q > K8 > -- > > Declarer leads the CT from dummy and then claims, telling East it does >not matter whether she ruffs high or low, he will make two tricks either >way. East and West agree with the claim. > > After the session is over, during dinner, declarer suddenly realises >that if East discards on the CT she will take the last two tricks. The >Correction Period is not over [EBU event, start of next session]. > > What is declarer required to do? in the acbl, under the rubric of active ethics, declarer would be expected to inform the chief tournament director about the situation and have the result adjusted to down 1. i don't have the foggiest notion of whether that would be legal or not, and since the acbl has historically concerned itself less with rules and more with other things, it wouldn't surprise me if this view of active ethics is contrary to some law. henrysun From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 31 15:36:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA05253 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 15:36:17 +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 PAA05248 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 15:36:09 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 39625 invoked for bounce); 31 May 2000 05:35:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.41.161) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 31 May 2000 05:35:58 -0000 Message-ID: <000e01bfcac2$3c86da00$a1291dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <200005261544.IAA06253@mailhub.irvine.com><025501bfc8dc$72af13a0$ee391dc2@rabbit> <$dNbydBE8EN5Ewyv@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: A bit quiet Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 07:36:53 +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 David Stevenson wrote: > Thomas Dehn wrote: > >Adam wrote: > > >> You mean something like this? > >> > >> > >> 3 > >> 73 > >> KQJ > >> A > >> -- -- > >> JT8 -- > >> 5432 A > >> -- JT9762 > >> 7654 > >> 654 > >> -- > >> -- > >> > >> > >> Spades trumps. With the lead in dummy, declarer claims, saying he'll > >> pitch hearts from hand on dummy's good diamonds. Declarer has > >> forgotten that the diamond ace is still out. > > >Not exactly. Something where declarer's stated line is irrational, > >but can be executed. Say, his statement in > >the above layout is "I'll pitch > >the heart four on the diamond king." > > >> Under my ideal rule, we assume that when the ace shows up, declarer is > >> free to abandon his original plan. Thus, if doing so would be > >> considered careless and not irrational, declarer will ruff the diamond > >> but will lose two hearts. Two tricks to the defense. > > >I like this ruling, but I am questioning > >whether it is in accordance with the laws. > > L70D. Seems routine. I don't think so. L70D is exactly that law which supports letting this claim through, because rueful rabbit's stated line "discard a heart on the DK" is successful. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 31 15:54:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA05299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 15:54:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from rsc.anu.edu.au (rsc [150.203.35.129]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA05294 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 15:54:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from medvesajt.anu.edu.au (medvesajt.anu.edu.au [150.203.35.241]) by rsc.anu.edu.au (8.10.0/8.10.0) with SMTP id e4V5sAK03772 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 15:54:10 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 15:54:09 +1000 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@medvesajt.anu.edu.au To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: False claim at Bournemouth In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.20000531050021.0081ba74@mindspring.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > i don't have the foggiest notion of whether that would be legal or not, > and since the acbl has historically concerned itself less with rules and > more with other things, it wouldn't surprise me if this view of active > ethics is contrary to some law. Yup it is. L69B says that only a trick that could not be lost by any "normal" play of the cards cannot be conceded. Normal of course, "includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational." It would be careless to ruff but the original acquiescence suggests that ruffing would not be irrational. Mark From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 31 15:58:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA05327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 15:58:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f14.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA05321 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 15:57:55 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 59248 invoked by uid 0); 31 May 2000 05:57:17 -0000 Message-ID: <20000531055717.59247.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 172.155.89.56 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 30 May 2000 22:57:16 PDT X-Originating-IP: [172.155.89.56] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What should a player do upon finding a sorted hand? Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 22:57:16 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson >David J. Grabiner wrote: > >If the game had been BAM rather than IMPs, then it would clearly be > >unplayable once I knew about the pass-out and saw dummy; I would know >that > >down one would lose the boar, and thus that I needed to make at all >costs. > > This seems incredibly simple: you believed you were in possession of >UI. So call the TD and tell him. > > You might have been wrong? True, you might, but so? What happened to bending over backwards to not use the UI and then calling it a day? As for the bad claim example, I'd apologize to the opponent that 2 tricks could have been made in the 3 card end position. I'll explain why when asked, but opponent may not care, may have already noticed, or may want to figure it out alone. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 31 19:01:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA05681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 19:01:59 +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 TAA05676 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 19:01:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Wed, 31 May 2000 11:01:36 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id KAA03108 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 10:52:16 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: What should a player do upon finding a sorted hand? Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 10:51:27 +0200 Message-ID: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310CF@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101B3C1@xion.spase.nl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >L16B lists the categories for which extraneous information is unauthorised. >Finding your cards sorted is not mentioned, so I would rule such >information authorised. Of course, as in all cases of AI, you use it at >your own risk. A sorted hand might mean: > >a) passed out; > >b) claimed at trick one; > >c) a post-mortem; or, > >d) a famous Australian player held your cards at the previous table - he >always sorts his cards before returning them to the slot. > >Best wishes > >Richard Hills >richard.hills@immi.gov.au Not quite. L16 states that information from legal calls and plays, as well as information from behaviour of opponents is authorized, and any other information is unauthorized. L16B defines what to do if you get UI from other sources than partner, and gives a few examples of such UI. But UI from external sources is not limited to the given examples; and finding the cards sorted might be an indication that the previous table passed out. In our club it most certainly is - nobody sorts their cards after play, but many forget to shuffle. I would be careful, though, by not calling the TD too soon, but wait until after play. TD cannot do anything while play has not finished, but you do tell everybody that the previous table might have a pass-out. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 31 19:31:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA05777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 19:31:25 +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 TAA05771 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 19:31:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Wed, 31 May 2000 11:30:55 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id LAA03167 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 11:02:52 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Subject: RE: False claim at Bournemouth Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 11:02:04 +0200 Message-ID: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310D0@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101B3CB@xion.spase.nl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Declarer is *required* to do nothing under the current laws. > >A sportsmanlike declarer would inform the opponents, who could then apply >for redress under L69B. The TD would then have to decide whether East >ruffing in the critical position is "irrational". Given that the nature of >the original claim and acquiescence was predicated on East ruffing, as TD I >would rule that play merely "careless or inferior" and let the claim stand. > >I would also give a procedural bonus to declarer for active ethics :-) > >Best wishes > >Richard Hills >richard.hills@immi.gov.au I agree. I'm afraid, though, that current rules do not provide procedural bonuses for active ethics ;-) -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 31 19:31:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA05772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 19:31:18 +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 TAA05766 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 19:31:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Wed, 31 May 2000 11:30:56 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id LAA03182 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 11:07:46 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: False claim at Bournemouth Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 11:06:57 +0200 Message-ID: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310D1@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) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101B3C6@xion.spase.nl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >Best thing to do is finish her pudding, have a large brandy and go back >to enjoy the next session. L71A. cheers john L71A applies to concessions. This is not a concession, but an acquiescence in claim. I agree with the pudding and the brandy, though (well, maybe not the brandy; it's bad for your concentration ;-) ) -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 31 20:26:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA05918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 20:26:15 +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 UAA05912 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 20:26:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id MAA28425 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 12:27:59 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed May 31 12:25:50 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JQ1T15ZWM60005N2@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 31 May 2000 12:28:27 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 31 May 2000 12:24:23 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 12:28:26 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: False claim at Bournemouth To: "'Martin Sinot'" , "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B604@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > I agree. I'm afraid, though, that current rules do not > provide procedural > bonuses for active ethics ;-) They do. Like a procedural penalty might be given as a warning a bonus could be given as a compliment. I am more and more convinced that the laws are too friendly to claimers in case of a careless acquiescing side. What about a splitscore when the new laws take over? An active ethics obeying player doesn't want this extra trick, so why enforcing him to feel unhappy? ton > -- > Martin Sinot > Nijmegen > martin@spase.nl > From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 31 21:45:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA06095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 21:45:11 +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 VAA06090 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 21:45:03 +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 12x6va-000BQ6-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 31 May 2000 12:44:51 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 01:51:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A bit quiet References: <200005261544.IAA06253@mailhub.irvine.com> <025501bfc8dc$72af13a0$ee391dc2@rabbit> <39324ECC.10DE442C@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article <39324ECC.10DE442C@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael > writes >> >>No Thomas, you cannot rule any differently as to whether >>claimer states the exact cards or not. >> >>If claimer is under the impression that his diamonds are >>high, then he will lose a trick if the ace is in fourth >>seat, but the claim laws state (quite clearly in the case of >>trumps, by agreement equally clearly otherwise) that a >>claimer is allowed to notice that something has gone wrong >>(in this case that the ace appears). He is then allowed to >>change his line of play to the least successful one of all >>normal lines. In this case, I presume, ruffing that ace. >> >My concern here is that players do make grossly inferior plays, because >they lead the Q from dummy and play from hand without reflection on the >card played from RHO. My experience is that perhaps as many as one in >ten declarers (with the mind set expressed by the claim) would discard >the heart before noticing the DQ had been bested. I personally put the >claim under careless rather than irrational. In the EBU I'd rule a >mind-change was allowed. At the YC I'd probably not. The trouble with this approach is that we have agreed again and again that players do make irrational plays [consider a revoke: is that a rational play?]. But the Laws tell us to rule on claims in a particular way that does not include forcing irrational plays. I am not happy with the approach that TDs expect to put themselves above the dictates of the interpretations handed down to them because they do not agree with them. If you play a spade towards AQ in dummy and LHO plays the king then it is irrational to play the queen, but [a] People do it! [b] If someone calls for hte queen he is not allowed to change it. However, we would not make someone play it in a claim scenario because the Laws say we do not force them to do irrational plays. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 31 22:10:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA06188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 22:10:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta02-svc.server.ntlworld.com (mta02-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA06182 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 22:10:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.253.91.247]) by mta02-svc.server.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000531130936.JROJ10065.mta02-svc.server.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 13:09:36 +0000 Message-ID: <001d01bfcaf9$d11efe40$f75bfd3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B604@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: False claim at Bournemouth Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 13:14:48 +0100 Organization: X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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: Kooijman, A. To: 'Martin Sinot' ; Bridge Laws (E-mail) Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 11:28 AM Subject: RE: False claim at Bournemouth > > > > > > I agree. I'm afraid, though, that current rules do not > > provide procedural > > bonuses for active ethics ;-) > > They do. Like a procedural penalty might be given as a warning a bonus could > be given as a compliment. > Which Law please ? > Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 31 22:57:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA06337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 22:57:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe36.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.93]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA06332 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 22:57:21 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 87975 invoked by uid 65534); 31 May 2000 12:56:41 -0000 Message-ID: <20000531125641.87974.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [38.11.201.160] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B604@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: False claim at Bournemouth Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 07:57:50 -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: Kooijman, A. To: 'Martin Sinot' ; Bridge Laws (E-mail) Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 5:28 AM Subject: RE: False claim at Bournemouth > > I agree. I'm afraid, though, that current rules do not > > provide procedural > > bonuses for active ethics ;-) > > They do. Like a procedural penalty might be given as a warning a bonus could > be given as a compliment. > > I am more and more convinced that the laws are too friendly to claimers in > case of a careless acquiescing side. What about a splitscore when the new > laws take over? An active ethics obeying > player doesn't want this extra trick, so why enforcing him to feel unhappy? > > ton I do think that there is difficulty with claim procedures and that it lies somewhere within the idea that players cannot rely on what they do counting towards the outcome. And the modest suggestion of Ton feels warm and fuzzy but it also is an expansion of that principle. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas > > Martin Sinot > > Nijmegen > > martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 31 23:18:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA06449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 23:18:57 +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 XAA06443 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 23:18:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from comarch.pl (pcciborowski.comarch.pl [195.116.125.138]) by omicron.comarch.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCF865C047 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 15:17:57 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <393510C1.7F05CA53@comarch.pl> Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 15:16:49 +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: What should a player do upon finding a sorted hand? References: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310CF@xion.spase.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot pressed the following keys: > > I would be careful, though, by not calling the TD too soon, but wait > until after play. TD cannot do anything while play has not finished, > but you do tell everybody that the previous table might have a pass-out. L16B: ...the Director should be notified forthwith... Forthwith means immediately so that's what you have to do if you want to follow the Law. And you don't have to announce "My hand is sorted!" - just excuse yourself from table and talk to the Director. Anyway he should probably cancel the board; if your hand is sorted the other players' hands are likely to be sorted as well. -- *********************************************************************** - 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 May 31 23:58:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA06641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 23:58:54 +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 XAA06636 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 23:58:46 +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 JAA03323; Wed, 31 May 2000 09:58:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA149601514; Wed, 31 May 2000 09:58:34 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 09:58:20 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: another easy one :)) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, john@probst.demon.co.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id XAA06637 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Objet : another easy one :)) Japanese ladies game, competent declarer and dummy, *weak* defenders Declarer's RHO leads a diamond winner when there is one diamond left in dummy. Before declarer plays dummy places the diamond in the played position so that dummy looks void. Declarer now plays a diamond and her LHO ruffs higher than dummy. Now LHO says (loose translation) "oh I thought dummy was void". 1) Does L45D apply? the defender played after dummy's card was played ______________________________________________________________________ IMHO yes. Law 45D says "...a defender may withdraw (without penalty) a card played after the error...(card misplayed by dummy) but before attention was drawn to it." Here, LHO ruffs "higher than dummy" "after the error" (D misplayed by dummy) and then drew attention to it. She can change his card and the high trump first played becomes UI to declarer (16C2). Laval Du Breuil Quebec City ______________________________________________________________________ 2) If not, should I apply L72B1? ... could have known ... 3) Does the class of player make a difference? ... would be likely ... cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk