From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 1 00:59:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA06997 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 00:59:18 +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 AAA06992 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 00:59:10 +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 HAA19573; Wed, 31 May 2000 07:55:20 -0700 Message-Id: <200005311455.HAA19573@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 "Wed, 31 May 2000 07:36:53 PDT." <000e01bfcac2$3c86da00$a1291dc2@rabbit> Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 07:55:17 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thomas Dehn wrote: > 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. I agree with Thomas here---I don't think this case falls under the letter of Law 70D. I just want to make sure people realize that I was suggesting what the Law *should* be, not questioning how the above hand would be ruled under the current Laws. IMHO, the current Laws are unclear about this; they say little about what effect the claimer's statement is supposed to have on the director's "as equitabl[e] as possible" decision. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 1 01:11:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07081 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 01:11:02 +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 BAA07075 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 01:10:53 +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 IAA19917; Wed, 31 May 2000 08:07:03 -0700 Message-Id: <200005311507.IAA19917@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: entitled to explanation? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 29 May 2000 21:49:18 PDT." Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 08:07:04 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henk wrote: > So, if there is a finite probability that these players have this > agreement, then I'm going to rule against NS. Hmmm . . . I took several math classes in college, and could someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't zero finite? I thought it was, but if things have changed and zero is now infinite, I'd like to know. :) :) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 1 01:14:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA06842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 00:31:32 +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 AAA06812 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 00:31:14 +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 12x9WB-000NRj-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 31 May 2000 15:30:53 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 14:01:08 +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> <$dNbydBE8EN5Ewyv@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000e01bfcac2$3c86da00$a1291dc2@rabbit> In-Reply-To: <000e01bfcac2$3c86da00$a1291dc2@rabbit> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thomas Dehn wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> 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. But there is no way that it is "normal" for a poor player to do so once the ace appears. -- 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 Jun 1 01:36:49 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 01:36:49 +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 BAA07195 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 01:36:41 +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 IAA20452; Wed, 31 May 2000 08:32:51 -0700 Message-Id: <200005311532.IAA20452@mailhub.irvine.com> To: BLML CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Insufficient agreement In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 29 May 2000 10:21:11 PDT." <39322877.94BEC677@eduhi.at> Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 08:32:52 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Petrus wrote: > 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). No, 3C down 3 would have been -500, not -150. Well, maybe not, but IMHO South should have risked a double. Partner has a strong notrump, and there's a good chance that 2S is the wrong spot anyway, so if doubling is wrong, it might be converting a bottom into a bottom anyway. East-West shouldn't complain about the result at all. They weren't -450 in 4S, they weren't -500 in 3C, and they weren't -1400 in 1NT doubled. > 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. I agree with you there. > 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? It seems to me that you have to find out, before you make a ruling, whether 2S would be conventional in the auction 1NT-x-pass-2S (if there had been no irregularity). If the CC or system notes aren't there, you'll have to ask. You simply have to know in order to apply L27B2 properly. Once you find out, you can then explain that South must make a legal bid and North will be required to pass for the remainder of the auction. > - If there was misinformation, was it absurd for E to believe that S had > clubs? I wouldn't call it "absurd". "Moronic" would be more my style. As you already pointed out, North was barred so South had to be bidding naturally. > How likely is an auction ending n 3 or 4 spades (doubled) afte a > 3C-call by E? In the given situation, where N is required to pass throughout, I don't think it's likely they'd end in spades. As I explained above, I think South should double. > - Was I right in returning the auction to S when 2S was alerted? Considering you made an error in not explaining the entire insufficient bid law in the first place, I think you did the best you could to recover. Since South's bid could have been based on his misunderstanding of the Laws, due to your error, I think it's only fair to give South another chance, and stand ready to award an adjusted score using L82C if someone is damaged. (But no one was damaged here.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 1 02:02:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA07514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 02:02:49 +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 CAA07509 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 02:02:41 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 55877 invoked for bounce); 31 May 2000 16:02:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.41.41) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 31 May 2000 16:02:33 -0000 Message-ID: <001601bfcb19$c4a48340$29291dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <200005261544.IAA06253@mailhub.irvine.com><025501bfc8dc$72af13a0$ee391dc2@rabbit><$dNbydBE8EN5Ewyv@blakjak.demon.co.uk><000e01bfcac2$3c86da00$a1291dc2@rabbit> Subject: Re: A bit quiet Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 18:03:29 +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: > >David Stevenson wrote: > > >> 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. > > But there is no way that it is "normal" for a poor player to do so > once the ace appears. Yes, but the stated line does not have to be a normal line. Only unstated lines have to be normal, L70E. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 1 02:14:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA06844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 00:31:34 +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 AAA06811 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 00:31:14 +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 12x9WB-000NRk-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 31 May 2000 15:30:54 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 14:02:51 +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: <20000531055717.59247.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000531055717.59247.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 >>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? Wrong Law. If you have UI *from partner* then L73C requires you to bend over backwards not to use it. If you have UI from elsewhere then L16B requires you to call the TD and tell him. -- 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 Jun 1 02:49:04 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA07773 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 02:49:04 +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 CAA07767 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 02:48:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA22038; Wed, 31 May 2000 09:44:59 -0700 Message-Id: <200005311644.JAA22038@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Law 70D (was: A bit quiet) In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 31 May 2000 14:01:08 PDT." Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 09:44:59 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My example: > > >> 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. David Stevenson wrote: > Thomas Dehn wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > > >> 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. The point here is that "discarding a heart on the DK" is an *old* line, not a new line, since it's the line claimer originally stated. The counter-argument is that the claimer originally said all his diamonds were winners, and that statement is part of the old line; and that since it's been proven false, there is no "old" line any more and all possible lines of play are "new" lines at this point. Both arguments have merit. > But there is no way that it is "normal" for a poor player to do so > once the ace appears. My first thought about this line of reasoning is that L70D doesn't apply at all, because it only applies when the *claimer* is trying to substitute a new line for the original one. "The Director shall not accept *from* *claimer* any successful line..." Also, the title is "Claimer Proposes New Line of Play". This makes it seem that in the example we're discussing, where (we assume) the players have left it up to the TD to make the correct ruling and are not trying to argue on their own behalf, L70D doesn't apply. I suppose L70D could be stretched to apply in other cases, where the TD is trying to determine whether a new line should be assumed even if the claimer didn't propose it. But then there would be no definition of *when* L70D would apply. Under what conditions would the TD be allowed to consider (on his own initiative) a different line not "embraced in the original claim statement"? Only if the original claim statement is proven to be an impossibility (a "winner" turns out not to be a winner, or declarer can't cash all his winners due to entry shortage)? That seems to be a reasonable approach, but I don't think it's embraced in the current wording of L70D. * * * * One thing that crossed my mind, though, that's relevant to the original problem: > >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=? Law 70D says: The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful. But I believe that there's a hidden implication, (a) The Director *may* accept from claimer a successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if no *normal* lines of play would be less successful (or if there are no other normal lines of play), because if the intent were simply to prevent the director from accepting any "new lines" regardless, L70D would not have the extra language it does. If we accept this, then it's clear that, in a case such as Michael's, the TD is not required to force declarer to stick to his original line if it proves to be irrational. If we judge that pitching a heart on the DQ is irrational once the ace shows up, then the statement (a) allows declarer to propose a new line---ruffing the ace and cashing good hearts---and it allows the TD to accept this new line and award declarer the rest of the tricks, because all alternative lines are irrational. This is a counter-argument that I missed when some people were arguing we should require declarer to pitch the heart. Of course, I'd still prefer that, instead of relying on hidden implications such as this, that we reword the Laws to just say what we mean. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 1 03:06:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA07888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 03:06:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f56.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.56]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA07883 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 03:05:58 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 50551 invoked by uid 0); 31 May 2000 17:05:21 -0000 Message-ID: <20000531170521.50550.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.22 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 31 May 2000 10:05:20 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.22] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: entitled to explanation? Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 10:05:20 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Adam Beneschan >Henk wrote: > > > So, if there is a finite probability that these players have this > > agreement, then I'm going to rule against NS. > >Hmmm . . . I took several math classes in college, and could someone >please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't zero finite? I thought it >was, but if things have changed and zero is now infinite, I'd like to >know. > >:) :) Zero is finite. But what if the chances of action X are defined as happening 1 in every Y situations? Now Y must be bounded. Probabilities can be ratios rather than percentages, at least in colloquial English if not in mathematics. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 1 03:30:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA08040 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 03:30:10 +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 DAA08034 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 03:30:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA22860; Wed, 31 May 2000 10:26:09 -0700 Message-Id: <200005311726.KAA22860@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Extraneous UI question Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 10:26:10 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A few weeks ago, I posted a problem that was part of another, longer, thread. I didn't get any responses, so I'm guessing that most BLMLers thought my question was rhetorical and was just part of the larger argument. But I'm still interested in the answer. In a matchpoint event, you and your partner hold perfect fitting hands that will make 12 or 13 tricks in spades depending on how you guess the trump queen; nevertheless, because the perfect fit is hard to diagnose, 90% of the field stops in 4S. You bid to 6S. After the opening lead, but before any other cards have been played, you hear UI from a loudmouth at the next table that tells you clearly where the queen of trumps is. You call the Director. Assuming no substitute is available to play the hand, what score should the Director assign to each side? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 1 03:32:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA06845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 00:31:34 +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 AAA06818 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 00:31:17 +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 12x9WL-000NRk-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 31 May 2000 15:30:59 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 14:10:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: False claim at Bournemouth References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B604@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B604@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. wrote: > > >> >> 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? I do not agree that an active ethics player does not want this trick. What he does not want is to get it *unfairly*. If the hand had been played out then it is quite likely he would have got this trick. What about a weighted score rather than split? That seems more reasonable. -- 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 Jun 1 04:33:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA07983 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 03:19:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f239.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.239]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA07978 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 03:19:24 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 56029 invoked by uid 0); 31 May 2000 17:18:46 -0000 Message-ID: <20000531171846.56028.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.22 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 31 May 2000 10:18:46 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.22] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: False claim at Bournemouth Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 10:18:46 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Kooijman, A." > > 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? Which way does the splitscore work? -trick/-trick or +trick/+trick? I don't like the sound of either idea. After a situation like this, I wouldn't want to be the initial acquiescing player who receives the trick later. I know that I would have played a trump and it didn't matter which one. You say that the claimer doesn't want the trick. I don't want the trick. Must either or both of us feel bad in the name of ethics? -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 1 04:48:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA06848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 00:31:35 +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 AAA06815 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 00:31:16 +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 12x9WK-000NRi-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 31 May 2000 15:30:57 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 14:07:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: False claim at Bournemouth References: <1.5.4.32.20000531050021.0081ba74@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.20000531050021.0081ba74@mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henry Sun wrote: >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. As others have pointed out, it is unlikely it will be adjusted. But I was interested in what declarer is required to do. >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. -- 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 Jun 1 05:21:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA06847 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 00:31:35 +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 AAA06814 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 00:31:16 +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 12x9WK-000NRj-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 31 May 2000 15:30:56 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 14:04:42 +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: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101B3C1@xion.spase.nl> <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310CF@xion.spase.nl> In-Reply-To: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310CF@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot wrote: >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. It is not up to you to judge as a player what the TD can and cannot do. L16B says "... the Director should be notified forthwith, ..." so notify him. Don't try to do his job for him. -- 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 Jun 1 05:35:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA08211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 03:57:53 +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 DAA08200 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 03:57:38 +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 NAA03765 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 13:57:27 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: 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: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 13:53:15 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: What should a player do upon finding a sorted hand? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:37 AM +0100 5/31/00, David Stevenson wrote: >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 board, 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. But call the TD when? I have UI as soon as I pick up a sorted hand, since most ACBL players don't sort; I would guess that 1/3 of all my sorted hands are pass-outs. I don't think it is correct to call the TD in this situation, particularly since the situation gives UI to the other players. If, as dealer, I call the TD to report a sorted hand and probable pass-out, all four players can now expect me to have a balanced 8-12 HCP. I called the TD when I saw dummy. (The TD told me to play on, and the UI turned out to be correct but immaterial.) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 1 06:14:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA06849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 00:31:36 +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 AAA06828 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 00:31:20 +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 12x9WB-000NRi-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 31 May 2000 15:30:53 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 13:59:26 +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: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >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. Since I wrote this I have seen another article where you have about a 12 count, sorted, and there are three passes. Yes, this is very unfortunate, and it does show that an unsorted hand increases the chances it was passed out last time. Actually, it might be worse in third hand. I think it is very important to shuffle after a pass-out, unless you normally sort. -- 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 Jun 1 06:41:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA08932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 06:41:29 +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 GAA08927 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 06:41:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4ir.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.18.91]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA01180; Wed, 31 May 2000 16:41:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <007d01bfcb40$fc4837c0$5b12f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 16:44:14 -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 trust that this is not a 5 or 7 hand but a 6 or 7. Equity would seem to give declarer 6 making 7, defenders giving up six just made. But I don't know that we can get there legally...lawbook not at hand but aren't we required to to and artadj score? Even if an artass score is permitted, can we get to 12b2 (I think) to allow the split? in haste, but interested Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: Adam Beneschan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: adam@irvine.com Date: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 1:36 PM Subject: Extraneous UI question > >A few weeks ago, I posted a problem that was part of another, longer, >thread. I didn't get any responses, so I'm guessing that most BLMLers >thought my question was rhetorical and was just part of the larger >argument. But I'm still interested in the answer. > >In a matchpoint event, you and your partner hold perfect fitting hands >that will make 12 or 13 tricks in spades depending on how you guess >the trump queen; nevertheless, because the perfect fit is hard to >diagnose, 90% of the field stops in 4S. You bid to 6S. After the >opening lead, but before any other cards have been played, you hear UI >from a loudmouth at the next table that tells you clearly where the >queen of trumps is. You call the Director. Assuming no substitute is >available to play the hand, what score should the Director assign to >each side? > > -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 1 08:30:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA09932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 08:30:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA09926 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 08:30:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.2]) by swarm.mosquitonet.com (8.9.1/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA15312 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 14:30:20 -0800 Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 14:30:20 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question In-Reply-To: <007d01bfcb40$fc4837c0$5b12f7a5@oemcomputer> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 31 May 2000, Craig Senior wrote: > I trust that this is not a 5 or 7 hand but a 6 or 7. Equity would seem to > give declarer 6 making 7, defenders giving up six just made. But I don't > know that we can get there legally...lawbook not at hand but aren't we > required to to and artadj score? Even if an artass score is permitted, can > we get to 12b2 (I think) to allow the split? I agree that equity seems to be +1010/-980. I don't however see a way to go directly to an assigned adjusted score. Going by the letter of the law is looks like our first stop along the way is A+/A+, both sides non-offending. Since however declarer was already guaranteed a near-top even for +980, I think I now go to L12A1 (The director may award an assigned adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation of law commited by an opponent) and give declarer back the near-top he had already earned in the bidding before the loudmouth prevented him from playing it out. I can find no basis for taking away the defenders' A+ despite the fact that the best they would have done absent the UI was -980. So, I judge whether picking up the queen was likely absent the UI, and award 1010/A+ if so, 980/A+ if not. The loudmouth gets a lecture and a sizable fine. Have we finally found a situation where we LEGALLY give "table result or A+, whichever is better"?!? Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 1 08:53:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA10033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 08:53:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA10028 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 08:53:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.215] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12xHMM-000B5X-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 31 May 2000 23:53:10 +0100 Message-ID: <008001bfcb53$32d35ce0$d75408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B604@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <20000531125641.87974.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: False claim at Bournemouth Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 23:51:33 +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 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 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? +=+ I would want any revised law to be quite specific as to the Director's required action. As to a split score, I am opposed in principle to scores of any kind which do not provide a single result that is enjoyed by both sides at the table. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 1 09:31:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA10189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 09:31:02 +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 JAA10184 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 09:30:54 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 70624 invoked for bounce); 31 May 2000 23:30:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.41.215) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 31 May 2000 23:30:45 -0000 Message-ID: <000f01bfcb58$62389860$d7291dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <200005311726.KAA22860@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 01:31:40 +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: > A few weeks ago, I posted a problem that was part of another, longer, > thread. I didn't get any responses, so I'm guessing that most BLMLers > thought my question was rhetorical and was just part of the larger > argument. But I'm still interested in the answer. > > In a matchpoint event, you and your partner hold perfect fitting hands > that will make 12 or 13 tricks in spades depending on how you guess > the trump queen; nevertheless, because the perfect fit is hard to > diagnose, 90% of the field stops in 4S. You bid to 6S. After the > opening lead, but before any other cards have been played, you hear UI > from a loudmouth at the next table that tells you clearly where the > queen of trumps is. You call the Director. Assuming no substitute is > available to play the hand, what score should the Director assign to > each side? First the easy part: the loudmouth receives a standard 20% PP. For the complicated part of the problem, I assume that 16 B1 etc. can't be applied. Thus 16 B3 comes into action. In theory, I should thus award an _artificial_ adjusted score. Applying 12 C1 seems to be absurd, because the bidding was not influenced by the extraneous information. The definitions section reads: 1. An artificial adjusted score is one awarded in lieu of a result because no result can be obtained or estimated for a particular deal (e.g., when an irregularity prevents play of a deal). In this deal, I can estimate the result of the deal. I thus adjust the score the following way, not exactly covered by 12 C1 ;-): Declarer receives 60% of the score of 6S+1 plus 40% of the score of 6S=, defender 40% of 6S+1 plus 60% of 6S=. (I might change the percentages if declarer can get AI which helps locating the queen). The other reasonable answer is the assign 6S+1 for declarer and to 6S= for defenders. Awarding A+/A+ is so far from equity that I would not consider it. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 1 10:02:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA10326 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 10:02:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.121]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA10321 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 10:01:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.19] (d18182a13.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.19]) by mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA20952 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 19:55:29 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20000531170521.50550.qmail@hotmail.com> References: <20000531170521.50550.qmail@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 19:52:43 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: entitled to explanation? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >"Todd Zimnoch" wrote: > >Probabilities can be ratios rather than percentages, at least in >colloquial English if not in mathematics. A percentage _is_ a ratio. By definition. Percent means, literally, per hundred. 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/AwUBOTWn6r2UW3au93vOEQJGgwCg8qM80ar1NLfm40shxrT66oXPwAQAoKim 2HZiy5GhiM6xBkBYtncrfQ6n =2s8m -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 1 10:09:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA10371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 10:09:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (mailout3-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.168]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA10365 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 10:09:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.19] (d18182a13.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.19]) by mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA04221 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 20:01:27 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B604@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B604@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 20:01:53 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: RE: False claim at Bournemouth Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 12:28 PM +0200 5/31/00, Kooijman, A. wrote: >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? As DWS (I think it was he) pointed out, the ethical player does want the trick, if he can get it fairly. It is the TD's job to determine what is fair. I don't see why an ethical player should be unhappy if the TD decides it's fair for him to get this trick. Or is unhappiness a required consequence of being ethical? :-) 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/AwUBOTWpmb2UW3au93vOEQIk7wCgy4qWyt+k9m2FOa00OCfQ0l4ZDTwAoOTm Vo+esRLAJ2HOPTxW+LRlufvh =HwJl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 1 10:38:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA10472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 10:38:46 +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 KAA10466 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 10:38:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-33qtk0e.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.208.14]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA02828 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 20:38:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000601005105.0081f218@mindspring.com> X-Sender: htcs@mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 17:51:05 -0700 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Henry Sun Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:26 AM 5/31/00 PDT, you wrote: >In a matchpoint event, you and your partner hold perfect fitting hands >that will make 12 or 13 tricks in spades depending on how you guess >the trump queen; nevertheless, because the perfect fit is hard to >diagnose, 90% of the field stops in 4S. You bid to 6S. After the >opening lead, but before any other cards have been played, you hear UI >from a loudmouth at the next table that tells you clearly where the >queen of trumps is. You call the Director. Assuming no substitute is >available to play the hand, what score should the Director assign to >each side? > > -- Adam i have a vague recollection from old bridge worlds that this would be an opportune place for ave+ to both sides, but i can't find the issue and hence do not know which, if any, laws are involved. at the very least, it does seem equitable in that it is the loudmouth at another table that created the situation. one might be tempted to assign debit points to said offender if allowed under the laws. henry sun > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 1 11:17:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA10677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 11:17:57 +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 LAA10671 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 11:17:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from cs.elte.hu (modem1.math-inst.hu [193.224.79.151]) by renyi.hu (8.8.8/8.8.8/3s) with ESMTP id DAA08371 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 03:17:28 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3935CA62.9BF5DB60@cs.elte.hu> Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 04:28:50 +0200 From: "Hegedűs Lászlo" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i486) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge lows Subject: a "silent" alert problem Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A week ago I wrote a message to this list about the problem when one's alert is not detected by one of his opponents. I got some personal questions from you so I tell: I'm a close to 28 years old hungarian bridge player. I prefer if you call me László (or rather Laci as nickname) not Hegedűs, cos in Hungary names are in reverse order :) I told, I'm not on the Br-low list. A year ago I was on for a week, but there were too many messages for my 33Mhz computer with few of free spaces and with an analog telephone line. Maybe once later... So i ask you again to send your aswers straigtht to me (or to both the list and me). Thank you answering my question. I recieved the messages wich was not sent me András Boóc was so kind to forward me tham. I see, the main responsibility is the alerting player's to ensure the alert was noticed. But if the alert is absolutely clear and some player does not attend, it can be his responsibility. Well, I still cannot see what can we call insufficient attention, and when can we say that the alerting procedure was correct. This can be the problem in the situation below. And of course in a real party i cannot say that the bottom of EW was caused only bye the fact, that one of them does not realized the alert, as in the theoretical problem. W/- Matchpoint pairs AKJT2 J86 KJ53 K 963 Q7 K432 AT95 T9876 Q2 2 J9743 854 Q7 A4 AQT865 W N E S p 1C* 1H* 2C 4H DBL p p p Result: 1100 (top for NS, the other scores were mostly 450 with some 420,430,460,480 and -50) North's 1C was artifical 16+ HCP. South's alert was realized by East and wasn't by West. East's 1H is natural 5+ on natural 1C, but conventional (showing 0-14 points, quasibalanced hand with a 5card minor suit and 3 or 4 hearts as the better Major) against strong club opening. Of course, West did not alert on it. West was sitting at the table concentrating the game during the whole bidding, none of the other players noticed he would be doing anything else. They thought, he noticed the alert. (Sure, East guessed the problem, after his partner missed alerting on 1H). South alerted on absolutely the normal and usual way, as the players does it in the other 3719 party of this tournament: with a big movement made the alert card tremble (which was fixed to the bidding box). It seemed correct and normal for both North and East. When after the bidding EW called the TD south told, that he had not watched if West had or had not realized the alert, he had not thought he should have. I cannot guess why West did not realize South's alert. How would you decide? Greetings -- Hegedűs László (or László Hegedűs extra Hungariam) mailto:hegelaci@cs.elte.hu http://www.cs.elte.hu/~hegelaci http://www.cs.elte.hu/~hegelaci/bridge/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 1 17:16:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA13363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 17:16:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA13358 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 17:16:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.139] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12xPCq-000GUd-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 08:15:52 +0100 Message-ID: <001d01bfcb99$6d25eca0$8b5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B604@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: False claim at Bournemouth Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 08:03:08 +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 ------------- \x/ ------------- > As DWS (I think it was he) pointed out, the ethical player does want > the trick, if he can get it fairly. It is the TD's job to determine > what is fair. I don't see why an ethical player should be unhappy if > the TD decides it's fair for him to get this trick. Or is unhappiness > a required consequence of being ethical? :-) > +=+ I see the question DWS asked was "what is declarer required to do?". He is not required to do anything not imposed upon him by Law, so anyone who suggests an answer to the question must cite the Law in support of the opinion. Two quotes: Law 72A : "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws". Code of Practice: "A player who has conformed to the laws and regulations is not subject to criticism". Until the law changes we must deprecate attempts to put pressure on players to do more than the law requires in pursuit of some vision of perfect bliss; let us be content to play the game as the laws prescribe and if the Law is inadequate change it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 1 17:48:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA13443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 17:48:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA13431 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 17:48:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-198.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.198]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA19931 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 09:47:56 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3934EE82.84493869@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 12:50:42 +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 David Stevenson wrote: > > > > >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. > Yes David, but meanwhile, the current trick has not finished. And my partner still has to play to it. And he could be influenced by my showing of my hand. What Law are you going to apply on this? L16? or L57A? > -- > 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 ~ -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 1 17:48:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA13437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 17:48:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA13430 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 17:48:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-198.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.198]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA19927 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 09:47:54 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3934EDD3.F8624D1E@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 12:47:47 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: A bit quiet References: <200005261544.IAA06253@mailhub.irvine.com> <025501bfc8dc$72af13a0$ee391dc2@rabbit> <39324ECC.10DE442C@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk (I am not replying to Thomas's "devil's advocate" - I have not studied the actual case well enough to do so) But there is something interesting in what : "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 agree that this happens. But I don't believe the claim laws are written in such a way that it matters. 1) The footnote talks of careless play. This can be interpreted in two ways. It is careless "play" to drop a king under an ace. It is careless "line of play" to forget to unblock Kx under AQJx. Maybe the laws don't make the distinction, but I believe the directors do. Otherwise all claims should be resolved with claimer revoking. 2) In it's one spelt-out case, the laws (L70C3) do allow a claimer to notice that there has been a ruff. Why not this Ace ? > 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. > I do not believe that you can rule it merely careless to not notice the Ace. I believe that should, as a rule, be classed as irrational. > 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 Thu Jun 1 17:48:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA13447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 17:48:25 +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 RAA13432 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 17:48:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-198.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.198]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA19936 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 09:47:58 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3934EF08.F83E8DB1@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 12:52:56 +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: 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 "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > Is that the same John Probst who scourned me for allowing play to continue a little while in the Belgian Pairs ? > -- > 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 Thu Jun 1 20:06:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA13805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 20:06:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f296.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.236.174]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA13800 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 20:06:51 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 71674 invoked by uid 0); 1 Jun 2000 10:06:13 -0000 Message-ID: <20000601100613.71673.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.219 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 01 Jun 2000 03:06:13 PDT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: False claim at Bournemouth Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 03:06:13 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Someone wrote: > > > 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 > What a mad idea. The idea of TDs sprinkling bonus matchpoints like confetti whenever they (subjectively) deem that 'something nice' has happened is the most abject load of old codswallop I've ever seen suggested on this list. It might also be worth rembering that one man's 'active ethics' are another man's pain in the neck: Active ethics are, as far as I read the situation, totally subjective. They also give a spurious position of superior morality to practicioners. The laws of bridge require that you follow the laws. The guidelines of sponsoring organisations require that you follow those guidelines. The concept of active ethics is as misguided as that of 'zero tolerance', another weapon placed into the arms of the self-righteous. On another newsgroup I saw a posting where some pompous idiot announced that he was just of to a congress/national/whatever and that there was going to be a sign on his table saying it was a 'zero tolerance' table. This man completely missed the point that by doing this he was infringing his own self-dictated rules. If I ever come across such a sign, it's not just going to be a zero tolerance table, it's going to be a zero opponents table as well. Sorry to wander off the point, but all this pseudo-politically correct self-serving bullshine always gets me going. Back to nursey and my medication, now... ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 1 20:49:53 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA13888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 20:49:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA13878 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 20:49:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12xSXW-000Idb-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 10:49:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 04:20:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: a "silent" alert problem References: <3935CA62.9BF5DB60@cs.elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <3935CA62.9BF5DB60@cs.elte.hu> 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 UAA13882 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Posted + emailed Hegeds Lszlo wrote: >A week ago I wrote a message to this list about the problem when one's >alert is not detected by one of his opponents. > >I got some personal questions from you so I tell: I'm a close to 28 >years old hungarian bridge player. I prefer if you call me László (or >rather Laci as nickname) not Hegedűs, cos in Hungary names are in >reverse order :) Hi Laci! >I told, I'm not on the Br-low list. A year ago I was on for a week, but >there were too many messages for my 33Mhz computer with few of free >spaces and with an analog telephone line. Maybe once later... >So i ask you again to send your aswers straigtht to me (or to both the >list and me). I tried before, and the message bounced. I shall copy this one as well. >Thank you answering my question. I recieved the messages wich was not >sent me András Boóc was so kind to forward me tham. I see, the main >responsibility is the alerting player's to ensure the alert was noticed. >But if the alert is absolutely clear and some player does not attend, it >can be his responsibility. Well, I still cannot see what can we call >insufficient attention, and when can we say that the alerting procedure >was correct. Please, Andras, make sure Laci gets this post. Much of a Director's job is using his skill and judgement to decide what happened, so it is up to him to decide whether the alert was fair by asking all the players. >This can be the problem in the situation below. And of course in a real >party i cannot say that the bottom of EW was caused only bye the fact, >that one of them does not realized the alert, as in the theoretical >problem. > >W/- Matchpoint pairs > > AKJT2 > J86 > KJ53 > K >963 Q7 >K432 AT95 >T9876 Q2 >2 J9743 > 854 > Q7 > A4 > AQT865 > >W N E S >p 1C* 1H* 2C >4H DBL p p >p > >Result: 1100 (top for NS, the other scores were mostly 450 with some >420,430,460,480 and -50) > >North's 1C was artifical 16+ HCP. South's alert was realized by East and >wasn't by West. >East's 1H is natural 5+ on natural 1C, but conventional (showing 0-14 >points, quasibalanced hand with a 5card minor suit and 3 or 4 hearts as >the better Major) against strong club opening. Of course, West did not >alert on it. > >West was sitting at the table concentrating the game during the whole >bidding, none of the other players noticed he would be doing anything >else. They thought, he noticed the alert. (Sure, East guessed the >problem, after his partner missed alerting on 1H). > >South alerted on absolutely the normal and usual way, as the players >does it in the other 3719 party of this tournament: with a big movement >made the alert card tremble (which was fixed to the bidding box). Those alert strips are a nuisance. It is much better to take them out of the box. Alerts are not missed if the card is put in the middle of the table on the board. > It >seemed correct and normal for both North and East. When after the >bidding EW called the TD south told, that he had not watched if West had >or had not realized the alert, he had not thought he should have. > >I cannot guess why West did not realize South's alert. > >How would you decide? I have to judge whether the alert was adequate. It sounds as though it was using those strips: if so the result stands. If not, adjust to 4S making. -- 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 Jun 1 20:50:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA13894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 20:50:00 +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 UAA13887 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 20:49:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12xSXW-000Ida-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 10:49:27 +0000 Message-ID: <8BfUU8CuSdN5EwjW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 04:12:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question References: <200005311726.KAA22860@mailhub.irvine.com> <000f01bfcb58$62389860$d7291dc2@rabbit> In-Reply-To: <000f01bfcb58$62389860$d7291dc2@rabbit> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thomas Dehn wrote: >Adam wrote: >> A few weeks ago, I posted a problem that was part of another, longer, >> thread. I didn't get any responses, so I'm guessing that most BLMLers >> thought my question was rhetorical and was just part of the larger >> argument. But I'm still interested in the answer. >> >> In a matchpoint event, you and your partner hold perfect fitting hands >> that will make 12 or 13 tricks in spades depending on how you guess >> the trump queen; nevertheless, because the perfect fit is hard to >> diagnose, 90% of the field stops in 4S. You bid to 6S. After the >> opening lead, but before any other cards have been played, you hear UI >> from a loudmouth at the next table that tells you clearly where the >> queen of trumps is. You call the Director. Assuming no substitute is >> available to play the hand, what score should the Director assign to >> each side? > >First the easy part: the loudmouth receives a standard 20% PP. > > >For the complicated part of the problem, >I assume that 16 B1 etc. can't be applied. >Thus 16 B3 comes into action. In theory, I should >thus award an _artificial_ adjusted score. > >Applying 12 C1 seems to be absurd, because the bidding >was not influenced by the extraneous information. It is not up to you as a TD to ignore the lawmakers in this situation. They have told you to use L12C1 so use it. >The definitions section reads: >1. An artificial adjusted score is one awarded in lieu >of a result because no result can be obtained or >estimated for a particular deal >(e.g., when an irregularity prevents play of a deal). > >In this deal, I can estimate the result of the deal. >I thus adjust the score the following way, not exactly covered >by 12 C1 ;-): Not covered. Where does exactly come into it? I like your approach, but it isn't legal. >The other reasonable answer is the assign 6S+1 for declarer >and to 6S= for defenders. Awarding A+/A+ is so far from >equity that I would not consider it. It is not your job to change the Law. Just give A+/A+ and moan at the lawmakers. -- 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 Jun 1 20:49:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA13889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 20:49:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA13877 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 20:49:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12xSXW-000IdZ-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 10:49:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 04:09:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question References: <007d01bfcb40$fc4837c0$5b12f7a5@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote: > >On Wed, 31 May 2000, Craig Senior wrote: > >> I trust that this is not a 5 or 7 hand but a 6 or 7. Equity would seem to >> give declarer 6 making 7, defenders giving up six just made. But I don't >> know that we can get there legally...lawbook not at hand but aren't we >> required to to and artadj score? Even if an artass score is permitted, can >> we get to 12b2 (I think) to allow the split? > >I agree that equity seems to be +1010/-980. I don't however see a way to >go directly to an assigned adjusted score. Going by the letter of the law >is looks like our first stop along the way is A+/A+, both sides >non-offending. > >Since however declarer was already guaranteed a near-top even for +980, I >think I now go to L12A1 (The director may award an assigned adjusted score >when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to the >non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation of law >commited by an opponent) and give declarer back the near-top he had >already earned in the bidding before the loudmouth prevented him from >playing it out. What violation was committed by an opponent? It was committed by someone at another table. L12A1 does not apply. >Have we finally found a situation where we LEGALLY give "table result or >A+, whichever is better"?!? No, sorry, A+/A+. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 1 21:23:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA14031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 21:23:42 +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 VAA14026 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 21:23:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from comarch.pl (pcciborowski.comarch.pl [195.116.125.138]) by omicron.comarch.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 791605C034 for ; Thu, 01 Jun 2000 13:22:52 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3936480E.4048B340@comarch.pl> Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 13:25:02 +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: False claim at Bournemouth References: <20000601100613.71673.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Norman Scorbie wrote: > > > They do. Like a procedural penalty might be given as a warning a bonus > >could > > > be given as a compliment. > > > > >Which Law please ? > > > > >Anne > > > > What a mad idea. The idea of TDs sprinkling bonus matchpoints like > confetti [SNIP] Someone is crazy here. Do we really need to put a smiley after _any_ sentence that is meant to be amusing? It looks that we'll end up with e-mails like: .... I must say I'm astonished that anyone might treat Ton's opening shot seriously about TD giving compliments seriously. Time to die... -- *********************************************************************** - One school believes that high taxes are most profitable for the poor as there is more money in the budget for social purposes. The other one claims that low taxes are better for the poor as the rich ones can keep more money for investments that give work to the unemployed ones etc. Which side does your party support? - Both of these schools are right but we reject both viewpoints. ( from a TV debate before the elections in a certain European country ) Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 1 22:36:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA14310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 22:36:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f214.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.214]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA14305 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 22:36:01 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 7417 invoked by uid 0); 1 Jun 2000 12:35:21 -0000 Message-ID: <20000601123521.7416.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.219 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 01 Jun 2000 05:35:21 PDT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: False claim at Bournemouth Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 05:35:21 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Konrad Ciborowski >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Subject: Re: False claim at Bournemouth >Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 13:25:02 +0200 > >Norman Scorbie wrote: > > > > They do. Like a procedural penalty might be given as a warning a >bonus > > >could > > > > be given as a compliment. > > > > > > >Which Law please ? > > > > > > >Anne > > > > > > > What a mad idea. The idea of TDs sprinkling bonus matchpoints like > >confetti [SNIP] > > Someone is crazy here. Do we really need to put a smiley >after _any_ sentence that is meant to be amusing? It looks >that we'll end up with e-mails like: .... > I must say I'm astonished that anyone might treat Ton's >opening shot seriously about TD giving compliments seriously. >Time to die... > Looked to me like Anne Jones believed it, and that's good enough for me... ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 1 23:14:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA14241 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 22:21:20 +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 WAA14225 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 22:21:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-124.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.124]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA00118 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 14:20:54 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3936211B.FC7B4F08@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 10:38:51 +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: False claim at Bournemouth References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B604@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > What about a weighted score rather than split? That seems more > reasonable. > How about a score like : claimer gets 30% of 4Sp+1 and 70% of 4Sp. defender gets 20% of 4Sp and 80% of 4Sp+1. I don't mind, but I feel we are going a bit far here. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 2 00:21:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA14239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 22:21:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA14224 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 22:21:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-124.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.124]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA00111 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 14:20:52 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <393620B5.9B932C5D@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 10:37:09 +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: False claim at Bournemouth References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B604@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <20000531125641.87974.qmail@hotmail.com> <008001bfcb53$32d35ce0$d75408c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > From: Kooijman, A. > > > > > 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? > I agree with that suggestion. > +=+ I would want any revised law to be quite specific > as to the Director's required action. As to a split score, > I am opposed in principle to scores of any kind which > do not provide a single result that is enjoyed by both > sides at the table. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I am wondering, Grattan, why ? Bridge has long since ceased to be a game where we play our opponents at the same table, and become a game where we play against others at another table. This North has made a false claim and should not be rewarded for it. This East has acquiesced too easily and should suffer from it. So I repeat, Grattan, what is your fundamental objection. If it has anything to do with scoring, don't worry. We (I) can deal with a lot more than any director could throw at us (me). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 2 00:30:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA14240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 22:21:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA14226 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 22:21:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-124.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.124]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA00122 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 14:20:56 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <393624D7.4BC2346E@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 10:54:47 +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: Extraneous UI question References: <200005311726.KAA22860@mailhub.irvine.com> <000f01bfcb58$62389860$d7291dc2@rabbit> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thomas Dehn wrote: > > Adam wrote: > > A few weeks ago, I posted a problem that was part of another, longer, > > thread. I didn't get any responses, so I'm guessing that most BLMLers > > thought my question was rhetorical and was just part of the larger > > argument. But I'm still interested in the answer. > > > > In a matchpoint event, you and your partner hold perfect fitting hands > > that will make 12 or 13 tricks in spades depending on how you guess > > the trump queen; nevertheless, because the perfect fit is hard to > > diagnose, 90% of the field stops in 4S. You bid to 6S. After the > > opening lead, but before any other cards have been played, you hear UI > > from a loudmouth at the next table that tells you clearly where the > > queen of trumps is. You call the Director. Assuming no substitute is > > available to play the hand, what score should the Director assign to > > each side? > > First the easy part: the loudmouth receives a standard 20% PP. > > For the complicated part of the problem, > I assume that 16 B1 etc. can't be applied. > Thus 16 B3 comes into action. In theory, I should > thus award an _artificial_ adjusted score. > Not _in theory_. You must award an ArtAS. No way about it. Unless you decide that the information does not interfere with normal play. > Applying 12 C1 seems to be absurd, because the bidding > was not influenced by the extraneous information. > The definitions section reads: > 1. An artificial adjusted score is one awarded in lieu > of a result because no result can be obtained or > estimated for a particular deal > (e.g., when an irregularity prevents play of a deal). > > In this deal, I can estimate the result of the deal. > I thus adjust the score the following way, not exactly covered > by 12 C1 ;-): > > Declarer receives 60% of the score of 6S+1 plus 40% of the > score of 6S=, defender 40% of 6S+1 plus 60% of 6S=. > (I might change the percentages if declarer can get AI > which helps locating the queen). > I like it, but it's not what L16C says ! > The other reasonable answer is the assign 6S+1 for declarer > and to 6S= for defenders. Awarding A+/A+ is so far from > equity that I would not consider it. > > Thomas There is one other possibility. Awarding 6S= to both sides. Telling them : if you don't find the queen, then the play has not been affected by the UI. But I can hear objections from defenders from here to Moscow ! So A+/A+ it is. And a large fine in the form of a night of drinks from the shouters to the 6Sp bidders. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 2 00:45:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA14818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 00:45:13 +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 AAA14809 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 00:45:05 +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 12xWDI-000Jx1-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 14:44:50 +0000 Message-ID: <2dZZyUAWnkN5EwT+@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 12:32:38 +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> <3934EE82.84493869@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3934EE82.84493869@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: >Yes David, but meanwhile, the current trick has not >finished. >And my partner still has to play to it. >And he could be influenced by my showing of my hand. > >What Law are you going to apply on this? L16? or L57A? I can see a case for a variety of Laws, but since I am going to give declarer a trick, does it really matter too much by which route? -- 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 Jun 2 00:45:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA14820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 00:45:16 +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 AAA14810 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 00:45:06 +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 12xWDI-000Jx2-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 14:44:51 +0000 Message-ID: <898bqZAAukN5EwxY@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 12:39:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: False claim at Bournemouth References: <20000601100613.71673.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000601100613.71673.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Norman Scorbie wrote: >What a mad idea. The idea of TDs sprinkling bonus matchpoints like confetti >whenever they (subjectively) deem that 'something nice' has happened is the >most abject load of old codswallop I've ever seen suggested on this list. >It might also be worth rembering that one man's 'active ethics' are another >man's pain in the neck: Active ethics are, as far as I read the situation, >totally subjective. They also give a spurious position of superior morality >to practicioners. If you check up what "Active Ethics" really means, it is basically an attempt to persuade people to follow the ethical Laws. It does not really go further, and is a cosmetic approach. >The laws of bridge require that you follow the laws. The guidelines of >sponsoring organisations require that you follow those guidelines. The >concept of active ethics is as misguided as that of 'zero tolerance', >another weapon placed into the arms of the self-righteous. The same thing applies to "Zero Tolerance", which is merely an effort to make players and Directors aware of the disciplinary Laws. Admittedly it goes slightly further in setting penalties. In the EBU where Zero Tolerance does not apply, the EBU L&EC has twice indicated that TDs should use their disciplinary powers more. The minutes being published at this moment will show that they are repeating this advice more forcefully: I hope we shall not need ZT here but awareness amongst players and TDs is required. > On another >newsgroup I saw a posting where some pompous idiot announced that he was >just of to a congress/national/whatever and that there was going to be a >sign on his table saying it was a 'zero tolerance' table. This man >completely missed the point that by doing this he was infringing his own >self-dictated rules. If I ever come across such a sign, it's not just going >to be a zero tolerance table, it's going to be a zero opponents table as >well. I would get it straight off his table and give him a lecture on ethics if I was the TD called to look at his sign. -- 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 Jun 2 01:14:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA14860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 00:48:32 +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 AAA14855 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 00:48:23 +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 HAA12013; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 07:44:34 -0700 Message-Id: <200006011444.HAA12013@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Ruling please: L68/L57 ???? In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 31 May 2000 12:50:42 PDT." <3934EE82.84493869@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 07:44:34 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > > > >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. > > > > Yes David, but meanwhile, the current trick has not > finished. > And my partner still has to play to it. Wait a minute. *If* we rule that a claim has occurred, play ceases, and partner will not have to play to the trick. (There's no rule against claiming while a trick is in progress; in fact, it happens all the time.) Therefore, your statement: > And he could be influenced by my showing of my hand. is not true, since partner no longer has any decision to make. Partner's "play" to the current trick is now dictated wholly by the director, applying Law 70. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 2 01:32:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA14282 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 22:28:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy-4.cais.net (stmpy-4.cais.net [205.252.14.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA14277 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 22:28:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-4.cais.net (8.10.1/8.9.3) with SMTP id e51CSV364182 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 08:28:32 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000601083351.006e9298@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 08:33:51 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question In-Reply-To: <8BfUU8CuSdN5EwjW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <000f01bfcb58$62389860$d7291dc2@rabbit> <200005311726.KAA22860@mailhub.irvine.com> <000f01bfcb58$62389860$d7291dc2@rabbit> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:12 AM 6/1/00 +0100, David wrote: >Thomas Dehn wrote: >>Adam wrote: >>> A few weeks ago, I posted a problem that was part of another, longer, >>> thread. I didn't get any responses, so I'm guessing that most BLMLers >>> thought my question was rhetorical and was just part of the larger >>> argument. But I'm still interested in the answer. >>> >>> In a matchpoint event, you and your partner hold perfect fitting hands >>> that will make 12 or 13 tricks in spades depending on how you guess >>> the trump queen; nevertheless, because the perfect fit is hard to >>> diagnose, 90% of the field stops in 4S. You bid to 6S. After the >>> opening lead, but before any other cards have been played, you hear UI >>> from a loudmouth at the next table that tells you clearly where the >>> queen of trumps is. You call the Director. Assuming no substitute is >>> available to play the hand, what score should the Director assign to >>> each side? >> >>First the easy part: the loudmouth receives a standard 20% PP. >> >> >>For the complicated part of the problem, >>I assume that 16 B1 etc. can't be applied. >>Thus 16 B3 comes into action. In theory, I should >>thus award an _artificial_ adjusted score. >> >>Applying 12 C1 seems to be absurd, because the bidding >>was not influenced by the extraneous information. > > It is not up to you as a TD to ignore the lawmakers in this situation. >They have told you to use L12C1 so use it. > >>The definitions section reads: >>1. An artificial adjusted score is one awarded in lieu >>of a result because no result can be obtained or >>estimated for a particular deal >>(e.g., when an irregularity prevents play of a deal). >> >>In this deal, I can estimate the result of the deal. >>I thus adjust the score the following way, not exactly covered >>by 12 C1 ;-): > > Not covered. Where does exactly come into it? > > I like your approach, but it isn't legal. > >>The other reasonable answer is the assign 6S+1 for declarer >>and to 6S= for defenders. Awarding A+/A+ is so far from >>equity that I would not consider it. > > It is not your job to change the Law. Just give A+/A+ and moan at the >lawmakers. It might be a bit of a stretch, but I think we could give the players a more "equitable" score here. L12A2 requires A+/A+ only "if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board". I'd be sorely tempted to rule that, given that declarer has UI as to the location of the SQ, the board could be played normally provided declarer demonstrably does not use the UI, i.e. loses to the SQ. That would allow me to rule +980/-980, which feels right, as declarer at least gets what his side earned in the bidding before there was any UI that could have affected the action to that point. 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 Jun 2 02:33:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA15037 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 01:40:11 +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 BAA15032 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 01:40:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12xX4Z-000G12-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 16:39:51 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 16:02:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: a "silent" alert problem References: <3935CA62.9BF5DB60@cs.elte.hu> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id BAA15033 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >Posted + emailed > >Hegeds Lszlo wrote: >>A week ago I wrote a message to this list about the problem when one's >>alert is not detected by one of his opponents. >> >>I got some personal questions from you so I tell: I'm a close to 28 >>years old hungarian bridge player. I prefer if you call me László (or >>rather Laci as nickname) not Hegedűs, cos in Hungary names are in >>reverse order :) > > Hi Laci! > >>I told, I'm not on the Br-low list. A year ago I was on for a week, but >>there were too many messages for my 33Mhz computer with few of free >>spaces and with an analog telephone line. Maybe once later... >>So i ask you again to send your aswers straigtht to me (or to both the >>list and me). > > I tried before, and the message bounced. I shall copy this one as >well. The copy to Laci duly bounced again, so if Andras is able to send him copies, please 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 Fri Jun 2 03:26:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA15589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 03:26:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA15579 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 03:26:25 +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 12xYjX-0006lb-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 17:26:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 18:08:32 +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> <3934EDD3.F8624D1E@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3934EDD3.F8624D1E@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3934EDD3.F8624D1E@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >(I am not replying to Thomas's "devil's advocate" - I have >not studied the actual case well enough to do so) > >But there is something interesting in what : > >"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 agree that this happens. >But I don't believe the claim laws are written in such a way >that it matters. ok, I'm convinced. I'll let players "change their mind" in future. Does this mean that Herman has brought me round to his way of thinking? The Heavens forfend. cheers john 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 Jun 2 03:26:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA15590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 03:26:36 +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 DAA15581 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 03:26:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12xYjX-000BeB-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 17:26:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 18:11:32 +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> <3934EF08.F83E8DB1@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3934EF08.F83E8DB1@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3934EF08.F83E8DB1@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >> >> > >> > >> 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 >> > >> > >Is that the same John Probst who scourned me for allowing >play to continue a little while in the Belgian Pairs ? Receiving purported UI from a sorted hand is different from hearing M. Grandebouche declaiming "Play for the drop, mec". Each case on its merits Herman, and you need to be there to decide. 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 Jun 2 03:38:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA15639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 03:38:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from ms1.freezone.co.uk (IDENT:root@ms1.purplenet.co.uk [212.1.130.118]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA15634 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 03:37:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (ppp-1-137.cvx1.telinco.net [212.1.136.137]) by ms1.freezone.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA25517 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 18:37:23 +0100 Message-ID: <000d01bfcbef$f607ecc0$898801d4@default> From: "magda thain" To: References: <392D582B.5CC84340@eduhi.at> <002801bfc6f3$9735c7e0$6055fd3e@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: "silent" alert Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 18:35:26 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I do not see why we should close our ears to the thought. I would imagine the skills of writers on blml could find a text to add something to the laws. It might say that a player giving information to an opponent during a hand (for example by alerting) should make sure that his opponent is aware of the communication. mt To: Sent: Friday, May 26, 2000 11:45 AM Subject: Re: "silent" alert > anne_jones wrote: > >From: David Stevenson > >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. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 2 04:22:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA15787 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 04:22:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA15780 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 04:22:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp181-71.worldonline.nl [195.241.181.71]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 981C036B78; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 20:22:58 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004201bfcbf6$5565ee00$e6b4f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , Subject: Re: False claim at Bournemouth Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 20:22:10 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Subject: RE: False claim at Bournemouth >> >> > I (ton) 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? >+=+ I would want any revised law to be quite specific >as to the Director's required action. As to a split score, >I am opposed in principle to scores of any kind which >do not provide a single result that is enjoyed by both >sides at the table. ~ Grattan ~ += Somewhere in your library there must be a 2-liner saying that principles are indispensable in a religious world, but that arguments should reign the more rational world. If we agree that bridge is no religion and is played along more or less rational lines I like to invite you to reconsider your opinion. And tell me also how in the (bridge)world law 12C2/3 ever were created? We give splitscores all the time! ton From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 2 04:33:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA15911 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 04:33:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA15906 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 04:33:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp180-181.worldonline.nl [195.241.180.181]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 712E236BDF; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 20:33:45 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004701bfcbf7$d6a8a380$e6b4f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Norman Scorbie" , Subject: Re: False claim at Bournemouth Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 20:33:00 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Norman's reaction reads like a zero tolerance if not minus tolerance one. But of course my English was poor, as ever. Saying that the bonus could be given as a compliment, I meant: in the form of a compliment. For me it was possible to read it like that, since I compared it with a procedural penalty being a warning (no penalty points included either). Should I apologize for provoking such a reaction? Sorry Norman. ton -----Original Message----- From: Norman Scorbie To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, June 01, 2000 12:28 PM Subject: Re: False claim at Bournemouth > >Someone wrote: > >> > > 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 >> > >What a mad idea. The idea of TDs sprinkling bonus matchpoints like confetti >whenever they (subjectively) deem that 'something nice' has happened is the >most abject load of old codswallop I've ever seen suggested on this list. >It might also be worth rembering that one man's 'active ethics' are another >man's pain in the neck: Active ethics are, as far as I read the situation, >totally subjective. They also give a spurious position of superior morality >to practicioners. >The laws of bridge require that you follow the laws. The guidelines of >sponsoring organisations require that you follow those guidelines. The >concept of active ethics is as misguided as that of 'zero tolerance', >another weapon placed into the arms of the self-righteous. On another >newsgroup I saw a posting where some pompous idiot announced that he was >just of to a congress/national/whatever and that there was going to be a >sign on his table saying it was a 'zero tolerance' table. This man >completely missed the point that by doing this he was infringing his own >self-dictated rules. If I ever come across such a sign, it's not just going >to be a zero tolerance table, it's going to be a zero opponents table as >well. >Sorry to wander off the point, but all this pseudo-politically correct >self-serving bullshine always gets me going. >Back to nursey and my medication, now... >________________________________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 2 05:10:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA16030 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 05:10:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA16025 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 05:10:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.2]) by swarm.mosquitonet.com (8.9.1/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA02157 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 11:10:02 -0800 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 11:10:02 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk y On Thu, 1 Jun 2000, David Stevenson wrote: [snip] > > What violation was committed by an opponent? It was committed by > someone at another table. L12A1 does not apply. > > No, sorry, A+/A+. As I recall, there was discussion of who was an opponent and who wasn't once before, in regard to whose convention card one was allowed to inspect, and there was mild to moderate dissatisfaction with all of the possible interpretations of the definition. (The strict reading suggested that only the other pair at your own table was an opponent in a pairs game, but that both halves of the other team were in a team game, if memory serves.) To be honest I didn't even remember that this had been discussed when I wrote my previous post; it didn't occur to me that the people at the other table might not be called "opponents." Anyway, let me take another stab at it then, if you won't let me use 12A1. How about if I try L88 instead? ( In a pair or individual event, when a non-offending contestant is required to take an artificial adjusted score through no fault or choice of his own, such contestant shall be awarded a minimum of 60% of the matchpoints available to him on that board, or the percentage of matchpoints he earned on boards actually played during the session if that percentage was greater than 60%.) It says "a minimum of." Now, I admit I have never seen more than the minimum specified by law given to anyone. But what if I want to give an artificial score of 90%/60%? Am I not still within the legal definition of "A+/A+"? (Let me say up front I don't particularly LIKE this solution, but I don't see an obstacle to it in the laws.) Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 2 05:14:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA15982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 04:52:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f64.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.64]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA15976 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 04:52:17 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 99246 invoked by uid 0); 1 Jun 2000 18:51:36 -0000 Message-ID: <20000601185136.99245.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.18 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 01 Jun 2000 11:51:36 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.18] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: UI Source Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 11:51:36 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I lost the post that I wanted to reply to, however. UI comes from partner and you're expected to handle the situation yourself. UI comes from a third party and you're expected to call the director. Why the difference? -Todd (I still think the director should always be called.) ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 2 06:30:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA16265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 06:30:56 +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 GAA16259 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 06:30:47 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id VAA22173 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 21:30:08 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 21:30 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: RE: False claim at Bournemouth 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: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B604@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> "Kooijman, A." wrote: > An active ethics obeying > player doesn't want this extra trick, so why enforcing him to feel > unhappy? > Even actively ethical players are willing to gain from an opponents mistake. If I make a claim in good faith and opponents acquiesce I am very happy to benefit - as long as a normal play exists to justify it. The position was: -- 7 T T 765 4 -- K3 -- -- -- -- -- Q K8 -- But perhaps might have been: -- 7 T T 75 4 -- K3 K- -- -- -- 6 Q 8 -- Where a high ruff is essential. Without some knowledge of the previous play it is impossible to determine whether the spade discard is "normal". Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 2 06:49:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA16330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 06:49:19 +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 GAA16325 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 06:49:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.96] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12xbtm-000CU7-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 21:49:02 +0100 Message-ID: <001a01bfcc0b$06fe5120$605408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B604@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <20000531125641.87974.qmail@hotmail.com> <008001bfcb53$32d35ce0$d75408c3@dodona> <393620B5.9B932C5D@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: False claim at Bournemouth Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 18:51:53 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 9:37 AM Subject: Re: False claim at Bournemouth > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > +=+ I would want any revised law to be quite specific > > as to the Director's required action. As to a split score, > > I am opposed in principle to scores of any kind which > > do not provide a single result that is enjoyed by both > > sides at the table. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > I am wondering, Grattan, why ? > > Bridge has long since ceased to be a game where we play our > opponents at the same table, and become a game where we play > against others at another table. > +=+ What we compare against other tables is the result we get one pair against the other at our table; that result should be a table result. IMO. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 2 06:56:51 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA16368 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 06:56:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA16363 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 06:56:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (vp233-36.worldonline.nl [195.241.233.36]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 6302036BB4 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 22:57:17 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001e01bfcc0c$25929320$24e9f1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Subject: pass out of rotation, screens in use Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 22:58:30 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001B_01BFCC1C.E7F66B20" 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 Dit is een meerdelig bericht in MIME-indeling. ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01BFCC1C.E7F66B20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The following case occurred at a major Dutch teams event (ArboNed) = today: (screen in use) dealer South S : K J 5 EW vuln. \ H : A K 7 2 \ D : K 2 \ C : K Q 9 7 \=20 S : A Q T 9 4 2 \ N S : 7 H : T 3 W \ E H : J 9 8 =20 D : 9 8 5 \ D : A J T 7 4 C : A 5 S \ C : T 8 6 3 =20 \ S : 8 6 3 \ H : Q 6 5 4 \ D : Q 4 3 \=20 C : J 4 2 \ Bidding: W N E S pass 2D*) pass dbl. pass pass =20 2S dbl. pass pass pass *) weak in one minor suit, or strong in one minor suit,=20 or 24-25 NT hand. The case:=20 East passed out of rotation, and pushed the tray to the other half of = the table. The TD (me) was summoned and there the trouble began: Dutch screen regulations are a faithful translation of the international = ones, of which I currently have no text at hand (and I was too tired to = check David's site for the text). Anyway, under those screen regulations = South is barred from accepting East's pass, and the tray is returned to = NE. However, as East was the sole offender, penalties (as prescribed in = this case by L30) remain in force. I made East take back his pass, and = told him that he had to pass when next it was his turn to call. =3D=3D=3D> Question 1 : 2D pass pass (by East) doesn't make sense in = the bidding system of EW. Would you consider imposing lead penalties, if = EW end up defending the hand, as described in L30B1, or not ? North doubled, and now East made his obligatory pass. I went to the = other side of the screen, and told West that the withdrawn pass by East = was UI to her (South and West had both admitted having seen the pass out = of rotation).=20 =3D=3D=3D> Question 2 : should TD tell West (Offending side) that the = pass by East was required by L30 ? =3D=3D=3D> Question 3 : should TD tell South (Non-offender) that the = pass by East was required by L30 ? Of course, any comment not directly in reply to one of my three = questions is welcome as well ! =20 Jac (Jac Fuchs) ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01BFCC1C.E7F66B20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The following case = occurred at a major=20 Dutch teams event (ArboNed) today:
         (screen in=20 use)
dealer=20 South           &n= bsp;  =20 S : K J 5
EW=20 vuln.           =20 \       H : A K 7 = 2
         &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;      =20 \    D : K 2
         &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;         =20 \ C : K Q 9 7
          &nbs= p;            = ;           =20 \
S =20 :  A Q T 9 4 = 2          =20 \  = N            S=20 :  7
H  :  T=20 3            =         =20 W  \    E        = H=20 :  J 9 8  
D =20 :  9 8=20 5            =             &= nbsp; =20 \           D :  = A J T 7=20 4
C =20 :  A=20 5            =             &= nbsp; =20 S   \        C :  T 8 = 6=20 3  
         &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;            =   =20 \
         &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;=20 S : 8 6 3    \
         &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;=20 H : Q 6 5 4   \
         &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;=20 D : Q 4 3         \=20
         &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;=20 C : J 4=20 2            =  =20 \
Bidding:
  =20 W        =20 N        =20 E          =20 S
         &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;      =20 pass
2D*)         = ;          =20 pass
         &nb= sp;    =20 dbl.       = pass     =20 pass    
2S         &= nbsp;=20 dbl.      =20 pass      pass
pass
*) weak in one minor suit, or = strong in one=20 minor suit,
    or 24-25 NT = hand.
The=20 case: 
East passed=20 out of rotation, and pushed the tray to the other half of the=20 table.
The TD (me)=20 was summoned and there the trouble began:
Dutch screen=20 regulations are a faithful translation of the international ones, of = which I=20 currently have no text at hand (and I was too tired to check David's = site for=20 the text). Anyway, under those screen regulations South is barred from = accepting=20 East's pass, and the tray is returned to NE. However, as East was the = sole=20 offender, penalties (as prescribed in this case by L30) remain in force. = I made=20 East take back his pass, and told him that he had to pass when next it = was his=20 turn to call.
=3D=3D=3D> =20 Question 1 : 2D  pass  pass (by East) doesn't make sense in = the=20 bidding system of EW. Would you consider imposing lead penalties, if EW = end up=20 defending the hand, as described in L30B1, or not = ?
North=20 doubled, and now East made his obligatory pass. I went to the other side = of the=20 screen, and told West that the withdrawn pass by East was UI to her = (South and=20 West had both admitted having seen the pass out of rotation).=20
=3D=3D=3D> =20 Question 2 : should TD tell West (Offending side) that the pass by East = was=20 required by L30 ?
=3D=3D=3D> =20 Question 3 : should TD tell South (Non-offender) that the pass by East = was=20 required by L30 ?
Of course, any comment not directly in reply to = one of my=20 three questions is welcome as well !
 
Jac
(Jac=20 Fuchs)
------=_NextPart_000_001B_01BFCC1C.E7F66B20-- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 2 08:44:49 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA16562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 08:44:49 +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 IAA16557 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 08:44:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.181] (dhcp165-181.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.181]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA07414; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 18:44:32 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 18:44:04 -0400 To: "BLML" , "Jac Fuchs" From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: pass out of rotation, screens in use Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Jac Fuchs" wrote this; I am re-formatting for legibility: (General note: include carriage returns in your diagrams, and do not use proportional fonts.) The following case occurred at a major Dutch teams event (ArboNed) today: (screen in use) dealer South S : K J 5 EW vuln. H : A K 7 2 D : K 2 C : K Q 9 7 S : A Q T 9 4 2 \N S : 7 H : T 3 W \ E H : J 9 8 D : 9 8 5 S\ D : A J T 7 4 C : A 5 C : T 8 6 3 S : 8 6 3 H : Q 6 5 4 D : Q 4 3 C : J 4 2 Attempted reconstruction of the bidding: W N E S pass 2D*) dbl pass pass 2S dbl pass pass pass *) weak in one minor suit, or strong in one minor suit, or 24-25 NT hand. (Weak in a major suit, I assume) >The case: East passed out of rotation, and pushed the tray to the other >half >of the table. The TD (me) was summoned and there the trouble began: Dutch >screen regulations are a faithful translation of the international ones, of >which I currently have no text at hand (and I was too tired to check David's >site for the text). Anyway, under those screen regulations South is barred >from accepting East's pass, and the tray is returned to NE. However, as East >was the sole offender, penalties (as prescribed in this case by L30) >remain in >force. I made East take back his pass, and told him that he had to pass when >next it was his turn to call. > ===> Question 1 : 2D pass pass (by East) doesn't make sense in the >bidding system of EW. Would you consider imposing lead penalties, if EW >end up >defending the hand, as described in L30B1, or not? The pass out of rotation was not a convention; it just showed a weak hand. The enforced pass did not have "a much different meaning", as it was forced and showed an intention to play in the contract. >North doubled, and now >East made his obligatory pass. I went to the other side of the screen, and >told West that the withdrawn pass by East was UI to her (South and West had >both admitted having seen the pass out of rotation). This is correct. >===> Question 2 : should TD tell West (Offending side) that the pass by >East >was required by L30 ? >===> Question 3 : should TD tell South (Non-offender) that the pass by East >was required by L30 ? Yes for both. West is entitled to know the penalty for an infraction before he takes any action; he is already aware of the infraction since he has seen the pass out of turn. West then would have bid 2S rather than 2D. If you failed to notify West at the proper time, then L82C applies. I don't know the N-S methods; the actual auction and +200 is likely, but South might bid 3H raised to 4H (or 2NT followed by 3H playing Lebensohl, which North would pass), and take only eight tricks because East gets two heart ruffs. If North could bid 3NT, that contract is also down one on the normal diamond lead; 2NT makes. Thus it is likely that N-S would be +200, but also likely that they would be -50 or -100, depending on their methods. Award +200 to N-S, +50 or +100 to E-W, the most favorable scores that are likely, as appropriate for non-offenders. If the event is a KO, average the IMP scores (L86B), so that if the other table was -50 to N/S and you split +200/+50, then E-W get -3 IMPs. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 2 09:25:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA16664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 09:25:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA16659 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 09:25:18 +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 12xeKp-000Ppg-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 23:25:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 00:23:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: False claim at Bournemouth References: <004701bfcbf7$d6a8a380$e6b4f1c3@kooijman> In-Reply-To: <004701bfcbf7$d6a8a380$e6b4f1c3@kooijman> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <004701bfcbf7$d6a8a380$e6b4f1c3@kooijman>, ton kooijman writes >Norman's reaction reads like a zero tolerance if not minus tolerance one. >But of course my English was poor, as ever. > >Saying that the bonus could be given as a compliment, I meant: in the form >of a compliment. For me it was possible to read it like that, since I >compared it with a procedural penalty being a warning (no penalty points >included either). Should I apologize for provoking such a reaction? Sorry >Norman. > >ton On occasion I have announced, along with the results, "and tonights winner of the ethics prize is xxx, who went for 1100 on hand nn because (s)he thought (s)he had no option". This looks like bonus points to me, and it certainly goes down well with xxx for being singled out as an ethical player. cheers john >>> > >>> > They do. Like a procedural penalty might be given as a warning a bonus >>>could >>> > be given as a compliment. >>> > -- 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 Jun 2 09:38:20 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA16693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 09:38:20 +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 JAA16687 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 09:38:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12xeXK-0004fG-0W for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 00:38:02 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 00:36:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: pass out of rotation, screens in use 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 J. Grabiner writes >"Jac Fuchs" wrote this; I am re-formatting for >legibility: > >(General note: include carriage returns in your diagrams, and do not use >proportional fonts.) > > The following case occurred at a major Dutch teams event (ArboNed) >today: > >(screen in use) >dealer South S : K J 5 EW vuln. > H : A K 7 2 > D : K 2 > C : K Q 9 7 >S : A Q T 9 4 2 \N S : 7 >H : T 3 W \ E H : J 9 8 >D : 9 8 5 S\ D : A J T 7 4 >C : A 5 C : T 8 6 3 > S : 8 6 3 > H : Q 6 5 4 > D : Q 4 3 > C : J 4 2 > >Attempted reconstruction of the bidding: > >W |N E |S I've put the screens in the auction > | |pass 2D*) | pass | pass eventually cancelled see below > |dbl pass |pass pass required by Law by East >2S |dbl pass |pass >pass > >*) weak in one minor suit, or strong in one minor suit, or 24-25 NT >hand. > >(Weak in a major suit, I assume) > >>The case: East passed out of rotation, and pushed the tray to the other >>half >>of the table. The TD (me) was summoned and there the trouble began: Dutch >>screen regulations are a faithful translation of the international ones, of >>which I currently have no text at hand (and I was too tired to check David's >>site for the text). Anyway, under those screen regulations South is barred >>from accepting East's pass, and the tray is returned to NE. However, as East >>was the sole offender, penalties (as prescribed in this case by L30) >>remain in >>force. I made East take back his pass, and told him that he had to pass when >>next it was his turn to call. > >> ===> Question 1 : 2D pass pass (by East) doesn't make sense in the >>bidding system of EW. Would you consider imposing lead penalties, if EW >>end up >>defending the hand, as described in L30B1, or not? > >The pass out of rotation was not a convention; it just showed a weak hand. >The enforced pass did not have "a much different meaning", as it was forced >and showed an intention to play in the contract. > >>North doubled, and now >>East made his obligatory pass. I went to the other side of the screen, and >>told West that the withdrawn pass by East was UI to her (South and West had >>both admitted having seen the pass out of rotation). > >This is correct. > >>===> Question 2 : should TD tell West (Offending side) that the pass by >>East >>was required by L30 ? >>===> Question 3 : should TD tell South (Non-offender) that the pass by East >>was required by L30 ? > >Yes for both. West is entitled to know the penalty for an infraction >before he takes any action; he is already aware of the infraction since he >has seen the pass out of turn. > >West then would have bid 2S rather than 2D. If you failed to notify West >at the proper time, then L82C applies. I don't know the N-S methods; the >actual auction and +200 is likely, but South might bid 3H raised to 4H (or >2NT followed by 3H playing Lebensohl, which North would pass), and take >only eight tricks because East gets two heart ruffs. If North could bid >3NT, that contract is also down one on the normal diamond lead; 2NT makes. > >Thus it is likely that N-S would be +200, but also likely that they would >be -50 or -100, depending on their methods. Award +200 to N-S, +50 or +100 >to E-W, the most favorable scores that are likely, as appropriate for >non-offenders. If the event is a KO, average the IMP scores (L86B), so that >if the other table was -50 to N/S and you split +200/+50, then E-W get -3 >IMPs. > > > -- 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 Jun 2 09:41:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA16710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 09:41:44 +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 JAA16705 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 09:41:37 +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 QAA21638; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 16:37:44 -0700 Message-Id: <200006012337.QAA21638@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "BLML" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: pass out of rotation, screens in use In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 01 Jun 2000 18:44:04 PDT." Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 16:37:45 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > "Jac Fuchs" wrote this; I am re-formatting for > legibility: > > (General note: include carriage returns in your diagrams, and do not use > proportional fonts.) > > The following case occurred at a major Dutch teams event (ArboNed) > today: > > (screen in use) > dealer South S : K J 5 EW vuln. > H : A K 7 2 > D : K 2 > C : K Q 9 7 > S : A Q T 9 4 2 \N S : 7 > H : T 3 W \ E H : J 9 8 > D : 9 8 5 S\ D : A J T 7 4 > C : A 5 C : T 8 6 3 > S : 8 6 3 > H : Q 6 5 4 > D : Q 4 3 > C : J 4 2 > > Attempted reconstruction of the bidding: > > W N E S > pass > 2D*) dbl pass pass > 2S dbl pass pass > pass > > *) weak in one minor suit, or strong in one minor suit, or 24-25 NT > hand. > > (Weak in a major suit, I assume) I think we need clarification on *which* pass was out of rotation. It looks to me from the original post that South passed, West bid 2D, then East passed out of rotation; but the original was badly formatted enough so that it's hard to tell for sure. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 2 10:12:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA16770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 10:12:33 +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 KAA16765 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 10:12:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA22227; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 17:08:35 -0700 Message-Id: <200006020008.RAA22227@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 01 Jun 2000 04:12:46 PDT." <8BfUU8CuSdN5EwjW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 17:08:38 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > >> In a matchpoint event, you and your partner hold perfect fitting hands > >> that will make 12 or 13 tricks in spades depending on how you guess > >> the trump queen; nevertheless, because the perfect fit is hard to > >> diagnose, 90% of the field stops in 4S. You bid to 6S. After the > >> opening lead, but before any other cards have been played, you hear UI > >> from a loudmouth at the next table that tells you clearly where the > >> queen of trumps is. You call the Director. Assuming no substitute is > >> available to play the hand, what score should the Director assign to > >> each side? > It is not your job to change the Law. Just give A+/A+ and moan at the > lawmakers. Well, this isn't really moaning; but if you put a coffee mug over your mouth and read it loudly, it might sound like moaning. Anyway, here's a humble proposal for a Law change. I added a sentence to 16B3, but the rest of the Law is unchanged. LAW 16 - UNAUTHORISED INFORMATION 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. However, if the unauthorized information is about a board the recipient of the information is currently playing, and if the Director judges that awarding an artificial adjusted score is likely to damage either side, the Director may assign an adjusted score instead, treating both sides as non-offending for the purpose of Law 12C2. This is a first draft, and there might be problems with the definitions. My intent is that this last clause should take effect only if the stuff that's already happened on the board, before the UI was received, was going to give one side an unusually good result. But my intent is to let an ArtAS be awarded when nothing special has yet happened on the board, so that we can't yet tell whether the result was going to be good or bad or average. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 2 12:29:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA17105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 12:29:10 +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 MAA17087 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 12:28:56 +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 12xhCE-0006DZ-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 03:28:29 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 22:48:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: pass out of rotation, screens in use References: <001e01bfcc0c$25929320$24e9f1c3@default> In-Reply-To: <001e01bfcc0c$25929320$24e9f1c3@default> 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 MAA17091 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jac Fuchs wrote: > The following case occurred at a major Dutch teams event (ArboNed) > today: >          (screen in use) > dealer South               S : K J 5 > EW vuln.            \       H : A K 7 2 >                              \    D : K 2 >                                 \ C : K Q 9 7 >                                    \ > S  :  A Q T 9 4 2           \  N            S :  7 > H  :  T 3                     W  \    E        H :  J 9 8   > D  :  9 8 5                           \           D :  A J T 7 4 > C  :  A 5                           S   \        C :  T 8 6 3   >                                                  \ >                                    S : 8 6 3    \ >                                    H : Q 6 5 4   \ >                                    D : Q 4 3         \ >                                    C : J 4 2              \ > Bidding: >    W         N         E           S >                                          pass > 2D*)                    pass >                dbl.       pass      pass     > 2S           dbl.       pass      pass > pass Everybody: if you want answers to questions, *please* use a proper text-based email. Usenet is not HTML based. -- 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 Jun 2 12:29:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA17103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 12:29:09 +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 MAA17089 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 12:28:56 +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 12xhCE-0006Dm-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 03:28:30 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 22:45:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote: >y > >On Thu, 1 Jun 2000, David Stevenson wrote: >[snip] >> >> What violation was committed by an opponent? It was committed by >> someone at another table. L12A1 does not apply. >> >> No, sorry, A+/A+. > >As I recall, there was discussion of who was an opponent and who wasn't >once before, in regard to whose convention card one was allowed to >inspect, and there was mild to moderate dissatisfaction with all of the >possible interpretations of the definition. (The strict reading suggested >that only the other pair at your own table was an opponent in a pairs >game, but that both halves of the other team were in a team game, if >memory serves.) To be honest I didn't even remember that this had been >discussed when I wrote my previous post; it didn't occur to me that the >people at the other table might not be called "opponents." > >Anyway, let me take another stab at it then, if you won't let me use 12A1. > >How about if I try L88 instead? ( In a pair or individual event, when a >non-offending contestant is required to take an artificial adjusted score >through no fault or choice of >his own, such contestant shall be awarded a minimum of 60% of the >matchpoints available to him on that board, or the percentage of >matchpoints he earned on boards actually played during the session if that >percentage was greater than 60%.) > >It says "a minimum of." Now, I admit I have never seen more than the >minimum specified by law given to anyone. But what if I want to give an >artificial score of 90%/60%? Am I not still within the legal definition of >"A+/A+"? > >(Let me say up front I don't particularly LIKE this solution, but I don't >see an obstacle to it in the laws.) You actually believe the Laws mean this? This is not a puzzle. How can we get around the Laws to get the result we want? Of course, I would like to assign in this particular case. But to mangle the Laws in the way you suggest will be good in this case and cause so much heartache in so many other cases. Furthermore, as people know perfectly well, that is not the way we give ArtASs. I know that some of the wording in the Laws has a level of ambiguity, but do you really think that the purpose of BLML is to confuse all the TDs throughout the world who are struggling already with adjusted scores by trying to find some abstruse meaning because it helps in one strange case? We are trying to run a game, not get through a maze. -- 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 Jun 2 12:29:09 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA17104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 12:29:09 +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 MAA17088 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 12:28:56 +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 12xhCJ-0006Db-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 03:28:37 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 23:01:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Usenet Bridge Abbreviations MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn BTW By the way C WBF Laws Committee C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from OKBridge] FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn IIRC If I remember correctly IMHO In my humble opinion [included under protest] IMO In my opinion LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NG Newsgroup NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side NP No problem OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OKBD OKBridge discussion group OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side OTOH On the other hand POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn [or] POOT Play-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural penalty RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] r.g.b. rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] rgbo rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from OKBridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RotG Rub-of-the-green RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for Unacceptable Behaviour] Hand diagrams: ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3Ha 3H alerted Emails only: FFTQFTE Feel free to quote from this email The above may also be found on my Bridgepage. -- 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 Jun 2 12:49:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA17185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 12:49:48 +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 MAA17180 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 12:49:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-1054met.dsl.mindspring.com [64.82.89.221]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA29011 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 22:49:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000601224927.0132209c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 22:49:27 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question In-Reply-To: <200005311726.KAA22860@mailhub.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:26 AM 5/31/2000 PDT, Adam wrote: > >A few weeks ago, I posted a problem that was part of another, longer, >thread. I didn't get any responses, so I'm guessing that most BLMLers >thought my question was rhetorical and was just part of the larger >argument. But I'm still interested in the answer. > >In a matchpoint event, you and your partner hold perfect fitting hands >that will make 12 or 13 tricks in spades depending on how you guess >the trump queen; nevertheless, because the perfect fit is hard to >diagnose, 90% of the field stops in 4S. You bid to 6S. After the >opening lead, but before any other cards have been played, you hear UI >from a loudmouth at the next table that tells you clearly where the >queen of trumps is. You call the Director. Assuming no substitute is >available to play the hand, what score should the Director assign to >each side? Although it seems grossly inequitable to do so, I can't seem to get around the plain language of L16B3, which requires the awarding of an artificial adjusted score when the other two remedies are unavailable, which in this case means 60% to both sides. This seems to me to be an oversight in the Laws; perhaps the language of 16B3 should present the TD with more options, e.g., "...the director shall award an assigned score, if this can be determined reasonably, and an artificial adjusted score otherwise, with both parties considered as non-offending." Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 2 13:05:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA17254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 13:05:37 +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 NAA17249 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 13:05:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-1054met.dsl.mindspring.com [64.82.89.221]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA27451 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 23:05:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000601230519.01325b9c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 23:05:19 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000601083351.006e9298@pop.cais.com> References: <8BfUU8CuSdN5EwjW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000f01bfcb58$62389860$d7291dc2@rabbit> <200005311726.KAA22860@mailhub.irvine.com> <000f01bfcb58$62389860$d7291dc2@rabbit> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:33 AM 6/1/2000 -0400, Eric wrote: >It might be a bit of a stretch, but I think we could give the players a >more "equitable" score here. L12A2 requires A+/A+ only "if no >rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board". I'd >be sorely tempted to rule that, given that declarer has UI as to the >location of the SQ, the board could be played normally provided declarer >demonstrably does not use the UI, i.e. loses to the SQ. That would allow >me to rule +980/-980, which feels right, as declarer at least gets what his >side earned in the bidding before there was any UI that could have affected >the action to that point. I think your usually careful analysis of legal issues has been betrayed on this occasion by your sense of equity (which I think we all share). L12A2 _does not_ require A+/A+ "only if" no rectification can be made; rather the lack of such available rectification is merely one sufficient condition under which an adjusted score is appropriate. The complete language is: "The Director may award an adjusted score (or scores), either on his own initiative or on the application of any player, but only when these Laws empower him to do so, or: 1. Laws Provide No Indemnity The Director may award an assigned adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation of law committed by an opponent. 2. Normal Play of the Board is Impossible The Director may award an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board (see Law 88). 3. Incorrect Penalty Has Been Paid The Director may award an adjusted score if an incorrect penalty has been paid. " That is, the purpose of 12A is to define in general terms the conditions under which the TD may adjust the score at all, whether via artificial adjusted score or assigned score. Clearly the condition of the "Laws empower him to do so" is satisfied in this case, via L16B3, and that is the complete and entire relevance of L12A to the matter at hand. I agree with David. As unfair as it seems, the only legal adjustment is A+/A+. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 2 13:14:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA17283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 13:14:33 +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 NAA17277 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 13:14:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-1054met.dsl.mindspring.com [64.82.89.221]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA02375 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 23:14:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000601231413.01323e3c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 23:14:13 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:10 AM 6/1/2000 -0800, Gordon wrote: >Anyway, let me take another stab at it then, if you won't let me use 12A1. > >How about if I try L88 instead? ( In a pair or individual event, when a >non-offending contestant is required to take an artificial adjusted score >through no fault or choice of >his own, such contestant shall be awarded a minimum of 60% of the >matchpoints available to him on that board, or the percentage of >matchpoints he earned on boards actually played during the session if that >percentage was greater than 60%.) > >It says "a minimum of." Now, I admit I have never seen more than the >minimum specified by law given to anyone. But what if I want to give an >artificial score of 90%/60%? Am I not still within the legal definition of >"A+/A+"? > >(Let me say up front I don't particularly LIKE this solution, but I don't >see an obstacle to it in the laws.) Because you don't _want_ to see it. Yes, L88 uses the phrase "a minimum of", but what the minimum refers to is the average score on the other boards played during that session. If a pair happens to have a 90% game aside from the board in question, then for them 90% is a legal artificial score. But to twist the language to somehow read as applying to minimum of 60% and the expected outcome (absent the UI) on the actual board itself is a deliberate misreading. I am not unsympathetic to your evident discomfort with the effect of the Laws in this instance, but I really think we are better off applying the Laws consistently and faithfully, even when the result feels inequitable, than we are in trying to twist the language to arrive at a more equitable solution. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 2 13:30:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA17320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 13:30:26 +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 NAA17315 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 13:30:20 +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 NAA10097 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 13:27:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 02 Jun 2000 13:27:58 +0000 (EST) Subject: Procedural bonuses (was False claim at Bournemouth) To: Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 13:26:51 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 02/06/2000 01:25:42 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a New Zealand National Pairs championship, well-known international Ishmael Del'Monte and his partner had apparently won the event when the final scores were posted. After the correction period had expired, the TDs noticed a clerical error (Del'Monte-partner had been given +120 instead of -120). If this error had been discovered earlier, first and second place would have been interchanged. Ishmael and his partner refused to win on a technicality, and petitioned the SO to have their score reduced. Its Solomonic decision was to declare the two partnerships equal first. Ishmael's father, Curly Del'Monte, had previously donated a trophy for sportsmanship. Father and son were proud when Ishmael's action saw his name engraved there. Such *procedural bonuses* by SOs, TDs, and players is the way to improve bridge. I am firmly opposed to the use of PPs - except where unavoidable (repeat offenders). Education and good example are much better than the chain-gang with whip. Best wishes Richard Hills richard.hills@immi.gov.au From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 2 22:05:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA18740 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 22:05:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from dynamite.com.au (m1.dynamite.com.au [203.17.154.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA18734 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 22:04:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from bridge (isp684.canb.dynamite.com.au [202.139.70.176]) by dynamite.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA11795; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 22:04:51 +1000 Message-ID: <003701bfcc89$d3b05dc0$5d468bca@dynamite.com.au> From: "Canberra Bridge Club" To: "Bridge Laws" , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <200006011444.HAA12013@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: Ruling please: L68/L57 ???? Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 21:56:53 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 ----- Original Message ----- From: Adam Beneschan To: Bridge Laws Cc: Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 12:44 AM Subject: Re: Ruling please: L68/L57 ???? > > Herman wrote: > > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >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. > > > > > > > Yes David, but meanwhile, the current trick has not > > finished. > > And my partner still has to play to it. > > Wait a minute. *If* we rule that a claim has occurred, play ceases, > and partner will not have to play to the trick. (There's no rule > against claiming while a trick is in progress; in fact, it happens all > the time.) Therefore, your statement: > > > And he could be influenced by my showing of my hand. > > is not true, since partner no longer has any decision to make. > Partner's "play" to the current trick is now dictated wholly by the > director, applying Law 70. > > -- Adam > I don't believe that L57 applies ( It refers to a card prematurely played to the current trick (this did not happen here) or a premature lead by a defender ( the defender had no intention of leading to the next trick). L68 is also inappropriate as there is only one card to be contributed from each player and a claim is superfluous. However the defender has exposed their final card giving partner UI. If L49 EXPOSURE OF A DEFENDER'S CARDS is applied then this card becomes a major penalty-card and L50D1 states that information from facing of the penalty card is unauthorised for partner. This will allow the East defender to make their discard to trick 12. The UI in this case is of absolutely no use to the East defender as their partner has exposed a card in the suit which gives no clue to solving their discard problem. Sean Mullamphy From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 2 23:29:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA18992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 23:29:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA18976 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 23:29:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-79.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.79]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA00687 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 15:29:31 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <393790E2.D15DA786@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 12:48:02 +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> <3934EE82.84493869@village.uunet.be> <2dZZyUAWnkN5EwT+@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >Yes David, but meanwhile, the current trick has not > >finished. > >And my partner still has to play to it. > >And he could be influenced by my showing of my hand. > > > >What Law are you going to apply on this? L16? or L57A? > > I can see a case for a variety of Laws, but since I am going to give > declarer a trick, does it really matter too much by which route? > Of course it does, here on blml. Because if in this case the result of applying any of the possible laws is one trick, I am certain there will be cases where by L57A you can gain a trick that you cannot by L16, and (or probably not) vice versa. If you say it is not a POOT, then L57A cannot apply. I agree with you. So it's probably just a claim, play ceases, and partner does not have to play any more. With his cards being played by the director in the least successfull, yet normal manner. So L68 it is, then ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 2 23:29:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA18994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 23:29:57 +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 XAA18977 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 23:29:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-79.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.79]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA00693 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 15:29:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <393791ED.99B08302@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 12:52:29 +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: What should a player do upon finding a sorted hand? References: <3.0.6.32.20000529214944.00879210@mail.wcnet.org> <3934EF08.F83E8DB1@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > In article <3934EF08.F83E8DB1@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael > writes > >"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > > >> 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 > >> > > >> > > > >Is that the same John Probst who scourned me for allowing > >play to continue a little while in the Belgian Pairs ? > > Receiving purported UI from a sorted hand is different from hearing M. > Grandebouche declaiming "Play for the drop, mec". Each case on its > merits Herman, and you need to be there to decide. > > cheers john > -- Ah no John, sorry. I was under the impression that you lambasted me for allowing play to continue, regardless of the merits of the case. Now you are saying that it is up to the director to decide whether or not he allows play to continue. You cannot have it both ways, John. Either you never let any play continue, or you allow so in order to see if play will become affected. I allow you to criticize my decision at that table, but I was under the impression you were criticizing the principle I employed. And yet you are using exactly the same principle - wait until deciding whether it could influence. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 2 23:30:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA19005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 23:30:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA18996 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 23:29:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-79.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.79]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA00721 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 15:29:42 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <393793F4.8D3132F3@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 13:01:08 +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: Extraneous UI question References: <200006020008.RAA22227@mailhub.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > Well, this isn't really moaning; but if you put a coffee mug over your > mouth and read it loudly, it might sound like moaning. Anyway, here's > a humble proposal for a Law change. I added a sentence to 16B3, but > the rest of the Law is unchanged. > > LAW 16 - UNAUTHORISED INFORMATION > > 3. Award an Adjusted Score > forthwith award an artificial adjusted score. However, if the > unauthorized information is about a board the recipient of the > information is currently playing, and if the Director judges that > awarding an artificial adjusted score is likely to damage either side, > the Director may assign an adjusted score instead, treating both sides > as non-offending for the purpose of Law 12C2. > > This is a first draft, and there might be problems with the > definitions. My intent is that this last clause should take effect > only if the stuff that's already happened on the board, before the UI > was received, was going to give one side an unusually good result. > But my intent is to let an ArtAS be awarded when nothing special has > yet happened on the board, so that we can't yet tell whether the > result was going to be good or bad or average. > A clause like that also exists in some regulations for pairs championships, where the TD is given the power to stop a board in progress, in case of late play. There too, the TD can award an adjusted score rather than A+. Perhaps it would be better to put the wording somewhere else then, probably near L12C1. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 2 23:29:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA18993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 23:29:57 +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 XAA18978 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 23:29:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-79.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.79]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA00697; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 15:29:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39379231.30667BA5@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 12:53:37 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan Endicott , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: False claim at Bournemouth References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B604@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <20000531125641.87974.qmail@hotmail.com> <008001bfcb53$32d35ce0$d75408c3@dodona> <393620B5.9B932C5D@village.uunet.be> <001a01bfcc0b$06fe5120$605408c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Grattan Endicott ===================================== > "Il faut qu'une porte soit ouverte ou fermee." > (de Musset) > oo+++oooo+++++++oooo+++oo > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 9:37 AM > Subject: Re: False claim at Bournemouth > > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > > > > +=+ I would want any revised law to be quite specific > > > as to the Director's required action. As to a split score, > > > I am opposed in principle to scores of any kind which > > > do not provide a single result that is enjoyed by both > > > sides at the table. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > I am wondering, Grattan, why ? > > > > Bridge has long since ceased to be a game where we play our > > opponents at the same table, and become a game where we play > > against others at another table. > > > +=+ What we compare against other tables > is the result we get one pair against the other > at our table; that result should be a table > result. IMO. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I really don't see why this should be so. IMO. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 3 00:15:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA19085 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 23:37:43 +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 XAA19073 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 23:37:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12xrdT-0007zV-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 14:37:16 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 13:18:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam. References: <3931bf71.2efa.0@zfree.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <3931bf71.2efa.0@zfree.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Derek Malloch wrote: > >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. Let us remember that the fact that the card were next to each other is information *FROM THE TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR* who elicited it unnecessarily. -- 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 Sat Jun 3 00:55:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA19360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 00:55:28 +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 AAA19355 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 00:55:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA02680; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 07:51:29 -0700 Message-Id: <200006021451.HAA02680@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Ruling please: L68/L57 ???? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 02 Jun 2000 21:56:53 PDT." <003701bfcc89$d3b05dc0$5d468bca@dynamite.com.au> Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 07:51:29 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sean Mullamphy wrote: > I don't believe that L57 applies ( It refers to a card prematurely played to > the current trick (this did not happen here) or a premature lead by a > defender ( the defender had no intention of leading to the next trick). L68 > is also inappropriate as there is only one card to be contributed from each > player and a claim is superfluous. Not correct. A claim *would* be superfluous if Trick 12 had been completed. But in the actual case, Trick 12's ownership had been determined but the trick was *not* completed---East was still thinking about what to discard. At that point, West tried to speed things up by claiming the last trick. If his claim had been a good one, it would have saved time and everyone would have been happy, especially East. So a claim at this point is *not* superfluous. Hope this clarifies things. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 3 01:15:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA19106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 23:38:02 +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 XAA19098 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 23:37:51 +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 12xrdZ-0007zl-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 14:37:27 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 13:14:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson 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 Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >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... Well, I for one consider this to be completely the wrong answer. You have ignored the wording of L58B. -- 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 Sat Jun 3 01:41:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA19511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 01:41:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA19506 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 01:41:47 +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 12xtZm-0005O4-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 15:41:37 +0000 Message-ID: <2$D4rOAbE9N5EwhU@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 16:22:03 +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> <3934EF08.F83E8DB1@village.uunet.be> <393791ED.99B08302@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <393791ED.99B08302@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <393791ED.99B08302@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 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 >> >> > >> >> >> > snip > >And yet you are using exactly the same principle - wait >until deciding whether it could influence. > I don't recall my comment here, but I'm pretty sure I'd be following the ideas I'm propounding below. the sorted hand is a different problem from a 'wire'. If a player says "I know the hand can make six because I overheard something" I think you have to award averages (+/-, whatever). If a player says he overheard "Well the passout means we can eat Belgian chocolates and drink Belgian coffee for 10 minutes" we do the same. But a sorted hand is at best a suggestion of a number of possibilities, and is not a reason to cancel play. In Scotland, when I've played there, the players will say "I have a sorted hand" without even bothering to call the TD. This seems about right to me. If a player says to me "I know xxx about this hand, what can I do?", I'll say "In your opinion does it make the hand unplayable?" If the player says No, then I'll tell him to play it and call me back if he realises it has become unplayable. Holding a sorted hand doesn't even get close to this one. 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 Jun 3 01:47:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA19551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 01:47:27 +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 BAA19545 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 01:47:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12xtfB-000DeH-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 15:47:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 14:58:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Ruling please: L68/L57 ???? References: <200006011444.HAA12013@mailhub.irvine.com> <003701bfcc89$d3b05dc0$5d468bca@dynamite.com.au> In-Reply-To: <003701bfcc89$d3b05dc0$5d468bca@dynamite.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sean wrote: >I don't believe that L57 applies ( It refers to a card prematurely played to >the current trick (this did not happen here) or a premature lead by a >defender ( the defender had no intention of leading to the next trick). L68 >is also inappropriate as there is only one card to be contributed from each >player and a claim is superfluous. However the defender has exposed their >final card giving partner UI. >If L49 EXPOSURE OF A DEFENDER'S CARDS is applied then this card becomes a >major penalty-card and L50D1 states that information from facing of the >penalty card is unauthorised for partner. >This will allow the East defender to make their discard to trick 12. >The UI in this case is of absolutely no use to the East defender as their >partner has exposed a card in the suit which gives no clue to solving their >discard problem. As I remember the original hand the crux of it is that it does solve his discard problem. -- 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 Sat Jun 3 01:48:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA19574 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 01:48:32 +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 BAA19569 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 01:48:25 +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 12xtgE-000DnJ-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 15:48:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 16:46:48 +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 , David Stevenson writes >Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > >>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... > > Well, I for one consider this to be completely the wrong answer. So did I, If the lead is accepted the OLOOTer chooses which to play. > > You have ignored the wording of L58B. > -- 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 Jun 3 01:52:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA19590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 01:52:35 +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 BAA19585 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 01:52:26 +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 12xtk8-0003js-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 15:52:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 16:51:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam. References: <3931bf71.2efa.0@zfree.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 >Derek Malloch wrote: >> >>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. > > Let us remember that the fact that the card were next to each other is >information *FROM THE TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR* who elicited it >unnecessarily. > But the lead of a heart in this auction is *obviously* a singleton, even if it wasn't lead with the left hand. That is UI. and that UI precludes play of HAx when West gets the lead. 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 Jun 3 02:15:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA19095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 23:37:51 +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 XAA19087 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 23:37:37 +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 12xrdZ-0007zj-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 14:37:23 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 13:12:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... References: <20000529035559.14794.qmail@hotmail.com> <39322B45.5DD589@eduhi.at> In-Reply-To: <39322B45.5DD589@eduhi.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: >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. Does not L50D1 tell us that anything about MPCs is unauthorised except that they must be played if the suit is led? -- 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 Sat Jun 3 02:36:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA19086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 23:37:43 +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 XAA19072 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 23:37:27 +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 12xrdQ-0007zT-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 14:37:13 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 13:17:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson 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 Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >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. Any TD who asks should be marked down. it is a question that *must not* be asked. In 5 minutes, you expect the TD to *start* his answer right, and your given answer starts wrong. When a player leads or plays two cards then the TD *never* asks which one he intended. Read L58B2. -- 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 Sat Jun 3 03:22:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA19967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 03:22:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f102.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.102]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA19962 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 03:22:37 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 43787 invoked by uid 0); 2 Jun 2000 17:21:58 -0000 Message-ID: <20000602172158.43786.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.18 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 02 Jun 2000 10:21:58 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.18] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 10:21:58 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson >Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > >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. > > Any TD who asks should be marked down. it is a question that *must >not* be asked. > > In 5 minutes, you expect the TD to *start* his answer right, and your >given answer starts wrong. When a player leads or plays two cards then >the TD *never* asks which one he intended. Read L58B2. Are you complaining that the defender will say, "I intended to lead the H8, but because of the penalty card restrictions, I will lead the CQ instead?" L58B2 asks the player to choose the lead. What the player intends to lead right now is somewhat important, otherwise he'll be paralyzed trying to choose a lead. If the given answer is incorrect, then what is the correct answer? -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 3 03:23:55 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA19113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 23:38:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA19097 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 23:37:50 +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 12xrdZ-0007zk-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 14:37:26 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 13:07:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson 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 Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > >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). L58B2: the player gets a choice of which card he proposes to lead. His original intention is irrelevant, so a Director who asks what he intended to do has made a *serious* error. L50B: if he chooses the H8, then the CQ becomes a major penalty card, but if he chooses the CQ, then the H8 becomes a minor penalty card. The card he proposes to play becomes an opening lead out of turn, and declarer is offered the normal five options - but there are complications! Option 1: Accept card led, dummy goes down now, no complications. Option 2: Accept card led, put own hand down as dummy, no complications. Option 3: Lead reverts to LHO, card led treated as penalty card: now *BOTH* cards are *MAJOR* penalty cards, now apply three options to other card: Option 3A: Forbid lead of other suit for as long as retains lead, that card gets picked up. Option 3B: Require lead of other suit, that card gets picked up. Option 3C: Lead what he likes, that card remains as major penalty card. Option 4: Lead reverts to LHO, require lead of suit led out of turn, that card gets picked up, no complications. Option 5: Lead reverts to LHO, forbid lead of suit led out of turn for as long as retains lead, that card gets picked up, now apply three options to other card *IF AND ONLY IF* that other card is CQ: Option 5A: Forbid club lead for as long as retains lead, CQ gets picked up. Option 5B: Require club lead, CQ gets picked up. Option 5C: Lead what he likes except H, CQ remains as major penalty card. Notes: If there is a minor penalty card that will also have to be explained. If there is a major penalty card then all ramifications have to be explained. When choice has been made Director must explain UI based on withdrawn cards. Option 5B is silly - Option 3B and require club lead is far better - but it is not the job of the Director to tell the players so. How did I do? Not in five minutes, I fear! >2. After the correct answer, south forbids club _and_ diamond lead. How does he forbid a diamond lead? Judging by T1, I presume that this is Option 5A, he forbade a heart and club 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? I presume I did not ask which card he originally intended to lead. If I did then I am considering whether to split the score under L82C. This is a very close one. The original possible lead of the H8 is UI, but are there any LAs to a heart switch? Declarer has no diamond losers, could he have a club loser? Suppose declarer is KQJxx ?xx Ax xxx In that case a heart switch is required! Try again: KQJxx ?x Ax xxxx If declarer has the HK then a club switch is too late. Partner needs the HK [or the SK] and a doubleton heart for the club switch to be right. It is possible. What about the D3 at T1? That suggests a club? OK, I think a club switch is just about an LA [though a heart switch looks favourite] so I adjust to 4S+1. Even part 2 seems unfair for a TD exam because in my view there is no correct answer: it is too close to call. Still, it was a practical exam: so long as you get full marks *both* for adjusting and not adjusting dependent on how you do it I suppose it is fair enough. Now, what have I missed? time to read the other replies. Five minutes !!!!!! -- 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 Sat Jun 3 03:51:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA20097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 03:51:40 +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 DAA20092 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 03:51:32 +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 NAA08108; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 13:51:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <2$D4rOAbE9N5EwhU@probst.demon.co.uk> References: <393791ED.99B08302@village.uunet.be> <3.0.6.32.20000529214944.00879210@mail.wcnet.org> <3934EF08.F83E8DB1@village.uunet.be> <393791ED.99B08302@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 13:49:40 -0400 To: "John Probst" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: What should a player do upon finding a sorted hand? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 4:22 PM +0100 6/2/00, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >the sorted hand is a different problem from a 'wire'. If a player says >"I know the hand can make six because I overheard something" I think you >have to award averages (+/-, whatever). If a player says he overheard >"Well the passout means we can eat Belgian chocolates and drink Belgian >coffee for 10 minutes" we do the same. But a sorted hand is at best a >suggestion of a number of possibilities, and is not a reason to cancel >play. The problem is the same as with other UI which can have multiple meanings. It may happen because of other factors that you can later determine what the UI probably meant. I would guess that about 1/3 of the sorted hands I get are pass-outs. But when I held a sorted Axxx xx Axxx Kxx at the club last night, and three passes came to me, the probability that the deal was passed out at the last table is about 90%. (I wouldn't pass that hand in fourth seat, but some players at the club believe that you need 13 points to open.) >If a player says to me "I know xxx about this hand, what can I do?", >I'll say "In your opinion does it make the hand unplayable?" If the >player says No, then I'll tell him to play it and call me back if he >realises it has become unplayable. Holding a sorted hand doesn't even >get close to this one. That's probably a reasonable action here. I opened 1D, and wound up declaring 2D, which I could play safe for down one or try to make and risk -100. It was a three-table game, and I expected one of the other tables to have passed it out, so I had UI suggesting that I play to make. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 3 04:15:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA19989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 03:26:23 +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 DAA19984 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 03:26:11 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 9374 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2000 17:24:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.204.60) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 2 Jun 2000 17:24:54 -0000 Message-ID: <3937EF23.B1B767C0@inter.net.il> Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 20:30:11 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: D-BLML list - the clever friends - May 2000 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear all H-BLML (human....) and D-BLML member Here is the 20th release of the almost new famous club !!!! The list will be updated and publish every 24th , and 24.8 will be announced as the List's day (Kushi's birth day). The list will include lovely dogs who go on their existence at Rainbow Bridge , thinking about their lovely human friends. D-BLML - DOGS' blml LIST (cats) Linda Trent - Panda , Gus (none) Dany Haimovich - Kushi (9) Jan Kamras - Koushi (none) Irv Kostal - Molly (3) Craig Senior - Patches , Rusty , (10) Nutmeg , Lucky Adam Beneschan - Steffi (1) Eric Landau - Wendell (4) Bill Seagraves - Zoe {RB-5/1999} (none) Jack Kryst - Darci (2) Demeter Manning - Katrina (2) Jan Peter Pals - Turbo (none) Anne Jones - Penny {RB-3/1999} (none) Fearghal O'Boyle - Topsy (none) Louis Arnon - Mooky (4) Roger Pewick - Louie (none) Phillip Mendelshon- Visa , Mr. Peabody (none) Eric Favager - Sophie, Sundance-Sunny (6) Larry Bennett - Rosie , Rattie (none) His Excellency the sausage KUSHI - an 9 years old black duckel - is the administrator of the new D-BLML. SHOBO ( The Siamese Chief cat here) helps him too and will be responsible for the intergalactic relations with QUANGO - the Fabulous C-BLML chaircat ,and Nanky Poo.. Please be kind and send the data to update it. Dany From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 3 04:32:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA20270 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 04:32:45 +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 EAA20265 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 04:32:37 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA19635 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 14:31:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200006021831.OAA19635@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: The Creation of Pets (fwd) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 14:31:59 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry for the "noise" (non-bridge) bandwidth here, but for some reason, this article made me think of the BLML crew. :-) Enjoy! -Ted. > From: Annechat@aol.com > Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 22:13:12 EDT > > The Creation of Pets > > A newly discovered chapter in the Book of Genesis has provided the answer to > "Where do pets come from?" > > Adam said, "Lord, when I was in the garden, you walked with me every > day. Now I do not see you anymore. I am lonesome here and it is difficult > for me to remember how much you love me." > > And God said, "No problem! I will create a companion for you that will be > with you forever, and will be a reflection of my love for you, so that you > will love me even when you cannot see me. Regardless of how selfish or > childish or unlovable you may be, this new companion will accept you as > you are, and will love you as I do, in spite of yourself." > > And God created a new animal to be a companion for Adam. > > And it was a good animal. > > And God was pleased. > > And the new animal was pleased to be with Adam and he wagged his tail. > And Adam said, "Lord, I have already named all the animals in the Kingdom and > I cannot think of a name for this new animal." And God said, "No problem! > Because I have created this new animal to be a reflection of my love for you, > his name will be a reflection of my own name, and you will call him DOG." > > And Dog lived with Adam and was a companion to him and loved him. > > And Adam was comforted. > > And God was pleased. > > And Dog was content and wagged his tail. > > After a while, it came to pass that Adam's guardian angel came to the > Lord and said, "Lord, Adam has become filled with pride. He struts and > preens like a peacock, and he believes he is worthy of adoration. Dog > has indeed taught him that he is loved, but perhaps too well." And the > Lord said, "No problem! I will create for him a companion who will be with > him forever, who will see him as he is. The companion will remind him of > his limitations, so he will know that he is not always worthy of adoration." > > And God created CAT to be a companion to Adam. > > And Cat would not obey Adam. > > And when Adam gazed into Cat's eyes, he was reminded that he was not > the supreme being. > > And Adam learned humility. > > And God was pleased. > > And Adam was greatly improved. > > And Dog was happy. > > And Cat didn't give a shit one way or the other. > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 3 04:58:08 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA20351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 04:58:08 +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 EAA20346 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 04:57:59 +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 LAA06882; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 11:54:09 -0700 Message-Id: <200006021854.LAA06882@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 02 Jun 2000 13:07:21 PDT." Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 11:54:10 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > > >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). > > L58B2: the player gets a choice of which card he proposes to lead. > His original intention is irrelevant, so a Director who asks what he > intended to do has made a *serious* error. > > L50B: if he chooses the H8, then the CQ becomes a major penalty card, > but if he chooses the CQ, then the H8 becomes a minor penalty card. > > The card he proposes to play becomes an opening lead out of turn, and > declarer is offered the normal five options - but there are > complications! > > Option 1: Accept card led, dummy goes down now, no complications. > Option 2: Accept card led, put own hand down as dummy, no > complications. > Option 3: Lead reverts to LHO, card led treated as penalty card: now > *BOTH* cards are *MAJOR* penalty cards, now apply three options to other > card: But doesn't Law 51B2 apply? I did a search and noticed that "51" didn't appear anywhere in your response. It appears that if the lead reverts to LHO, then Law 51B2 applies, and declarer's options are: (a) Require a club or heart lead; East picks up the card in the specified suit. (b) Forbid clubs, forbid hearts, or forbid both clubs and hearts; East picks up the card(s) in the forbidden suits. The result seems to be a little different from what you said, if I understood you correctly. You seem to say that if East chooses the club lead, West may forbid a club lead but doesn't have the option to forbid a heart: > Option 5: Lead reverts to LHO, forbid lead of suit led out of turn for > as long as retains lead, that card gets picked up, now apply three > options to other card *IF AND ONLY IF* that other card is CQ: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Option 5A: Forbid club lead for as long as retains lead, CQ gets > picked up. > Option 5B: Require club lead, CQ gets picked up. > Option 5C: Lead what he likes except H, CQ remains as major penalty > card. I don't see a reason why the two cards would be treated differently, since Law 50B says that once the lead reverts to RHO, both of East's cards become major penalty cards (and remain major penalty cards throughout the hand) regardless of what lead he chose. Anyway, L51 doesn't treat them differently. Aside from this (i.e. if you delete the clause I highlighted above), it appears that L51 leads you to the same result you got to, but in a less roundabout way, and using a path you might be able to take in under five minutes. I haven't followed this thread up until now, so my apologies if this issue has already been addressed. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 3 05:36:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA20444 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 05:36:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA20438 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 05:36:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.110] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12xxF4-000G6p-00; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 20:36:27 +0100 Message-ID: <005501bfccca$0e079020$6e5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" Cc: References: Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 20:35:30 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 1:17 PM > > Any TD who asks should be marked down. it is a question that *must > not* be asked. > > In 5 minutes, you expect the TD to *start* his answer right, and your > given answer starts wrong. When a player leads or plays two cards then > the TD *never* asks which one he intended. Read L58B2. > +=+ David, Don't you think there is something a bit odd about this? I mean, the Dutch of all people. We ought maybe to look a bit deeper for what has triggered the oddity. Do you think it possible there is something slightly quaint in the Dutch translation of the law book? After all, we would expect the Dutch to be particularly attentive to this kind of thing, and they must be able to see the risks of communicating something to the player's partner if the Director asks an irrelevant question. So what is there with this, I wonder? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 3 05:36:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA20449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 05:36:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA20441 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 05:36:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.110] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12xxF6-000G6p-00; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 20:36:28 +0100 Message-ID: <005601bfccca$0ef105c0$6e5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" Cc: References: <004201bfcbf6$5565ee00$e6b4f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: False claim at Bournemouth Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 20:37:04 +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 > >+=+ I would want any revised law to be quite specific > >as to the Director's required action. As to a split score, > >I am opposed in principle to scores of any kind which > >do not provide a single result that is enjoyed by both > >sides at the table. ~ Grattan ~ += > > > Somewhere in your library there must be a 2-liner saying that principles are > indispensable in a religious world, but that arguments should reign the more > rational world. If we agree that bridge is no religion and is played along > more or less rational lines I like to invite you to reconsider your opinion. > And tell me also how in the (bridge)world law 12C2/3 ever were created? We > give splitscores all the time! > > ton > +=+ Well, now, this is easily done. 12C3 (originally as a footnote) was the price of Europe's acquiescence in the 12C2 that it disliked intensely. 12C3 was the path by which Europe could continue to make what it regarded as fairer score adjustments, not burdened with the rigidity of 12C2. This much I know because I was the negotiator with Kaplan on behalf of Europe. He wanted his precious 12C2, Europe said 'only if you accord us the means to give less harsh decisions and to avoid giving different scores to the two sides at the table'. I have been steadfastly against split scores since that time, consistently maintaining the position that Europe took up. The EBL had no time then for 12C2 and that is my position now. It would be a betrayal of the principles which the EBL had me defend if I were to go back on that. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 3 06:13:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA20600 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 06:13:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.118]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA20593 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 06:13:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.39] (d18182a27.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.39]) by mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA22381 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 16:05:57 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <001e01bfcc0c$25929320$24e9f1c3@default> Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 16:03:52 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: pass out of rotation, screens in use Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 David Stevenson wrote: >Usenet is not HTML based. I agree with your comments. One problem I had with the message in question is that, while Eudora reads html just fine, font size=3 comes out really tiny. My eyesight being what it is... :-) BTW, email isn't HTML based either - and this is a mailing list. Nothing to do with Usenet. :-) 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/AwUBOTgVar2UW3au93vOEQILDwCfetGua0xCR6EtmYiZBrfhUGRlYvQAn1m2 6OAkYQKYbi4OLUjBYP3QUdwo =Ork7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 3 06:13:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA20605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 06:13:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (mailout3-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.168]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA20598 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 06:13:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.39] (d18182a27.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.39]) by mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA22404 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 16:06:10 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 16:05:41 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Usenet Bridge Abbreviations Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 11:01 PM +0100 6/1/00, David Stevenson wrote: >3Ha 3H alerted > >Emails only: > >FFTQFTE Feel free to quote from this email Okay. :-) I've also seen 3H! for 3H alerted. 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/AwUBOTgVb72UW3au93vOEQJpHwCfWvRD56ejNsrosqlWF4S+SApZBtYAoPY2 JfflQWLrJpK2JeS+JdBuI19s =r0AL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 3 06:15:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA20508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 05:47:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA20503 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 05:47:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.186] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12xxPe-000GIA-00; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 20:47:23 +0100 Message-ID: <006801bfcccb$94b0b7e0$6e5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Todd Zimnoch" , References: <20000602172158.43786.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 20:48:09 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 6:21 PM Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... +------------- \x/ ------------+ > Are you complaining that the defender will say, "I intended to lead the > H8, but because of the penalty card restrictions, I will lead the CQ > instead?" L58B2 asks the player to choose the lead. What the player > intends to lead right now is somewhat important, otherwise he'll be > paralyzed trying to choose a lead. > > If the given answer is incorrect, then what is the correct answer? > +=+ All the Director wishes to know is which of the two cards the player elects to play. No reasons, not whether it is the one he originally intended. Before the player chooses his card the Director must explain to him his options and how the law will apply. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 3 06:23:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA20657 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 06:23:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.121]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA20652 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 06:23:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.39] (d18182a27.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.39]) by mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA25153 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 16:17:01 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <3931bf71.2efa.0@zfree.co.nz> Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 16:13:16 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 1:18 PM +0100 6/2/00, David Stevenson wrote: >Let us remember that the fact that the card were next to each other is >information *FROM THE TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR* who elicited it >unnecessarily. Perhaps. Perhaps not. Could it not have been: TD: what happened? Player: I meant to play the H8, but I accidently pulled the CQ instead, and the H8, which was next to it, fell out. This seems like gratuitous info from the player, rather than unnecessary elicitation by the TD. At least, it does 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/AwUBOTgXrL2UW3au93vOEQIrigCfQVpCE5BUjOkH4izv//mAuv/gax8AoJtl qf8SKGhhq4nnHBb/WyA/TU23 =0UCt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 3 06:45:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA20704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 06:45:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA20699 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 06:45:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (vp213-156.worldonline.nl [195.241.213.156]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 8CF2D36B3C for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 22:45:53 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000901bfccd3$b9de90c0$9cd5f1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: pass out of rotation, screens in use Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 22:47:09 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >Jac Fuchs wrote: > Everybody: if you want answers to questions, *please* use a proper >text-based email. Usenet is not HTML based. I do apologise, especially because you did point this out to me before ... Jac From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 3 07:15:11 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA20770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 07:08:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA20762 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 07:08:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (vp213-156.worldonline.nl [195.241.213.156]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 2384F36B96; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 23:08:45 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001c01bfccd6$eb681dc0$9cd5f1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "David J. Grabiner" Cc: "BLML" Subject: Re: pass out of rotation, screens in use Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 23:10:00 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: >"Jac Fuchs" wrote this; I am re-formatting for >legibility: > Thank you for reconstructing the mail, and please accept my apologies. >(General note: include carriage returns in your diagrams, and do not use >proportional fonts.) > > The following case occurred at a major Dutch teams event (ArboNed) >today: > >(screen in use) >dealer South S : K J 5 EW vuln. > H : A K 7 2 > D : K 2 > C : K Q 9 7 >S : A Q T 9 4 2 \N S : 7 >H : T 3 W \ E H : J 9 8 >D : 9 8 5 S\ D : A J T 7 4 >C : A 5 C : T 8 6 3 > S : 8 6 3 > H : Q 6 5 4 > D : Q 4 3 > C : J 4 2 > >Attempted reconstruction of the bidding: > >W N E S > pass >2D*) dbl pass pass >2S dbl pass pass >pass Your reconstruction is OK > >*) weak in one minor suit, or strong in one minor suit, or 24-25 NT >hand. > >(Weak in a major suit, I assume) Indeed. > >>The case: East passed out of rotation, and pushed the tray to the other >>half >>of the table. The TD (me) was summoned and there the trouble began: Dutch >>screen regulations are a faithful translation of the international ones, of >>which I currently have no text at hand (and I was too tired to check David's >>site for the text). Anyway, under those screen regulations South is barred >>from accepting East's pass, and the tray is returned to NE. However, as East >>was the sole offender, penalties (as prescribed in this case by L30) >>remain in >>force. I made East take back his pass, and told him that he had to pass when >>next it was his turn to call. > >> ===> Question 1 : 2D pass pass (by East) doesn't make sense in the >>bidding system of EW. Would you consider imposing lead penalties, if EW >>end up >>defending the hand, as described in L30B1, or not? > >The pass out of rotation was not a convention; it just showed a weak hand. >The enforced pass did not have "a much different meaning", as it was forced >and showed an intention to play in the contract. I did tell the players I would not impose any lead penalties, so there we agree, but I do not see the meaning of the enforced pass has anything to do with it. > >>North doubled, and now >>East made his obligatory pass. I went to the other side of the screen, and >>told West that the withdrawn pass by East was UI to her (South and West had >>both admitted having seen the pass out of rotation). > >This is correct. > >>===> Question 2 : should TD tell West (Offending side) that the pass by >>East was required by L30 ? >>===> Question 3 : should TD tell South (Non-offender) that the pass by East >>was required by L30 ? > >Yes for both. West is entitled to know the penalty for an infraction >before he takes any action; he is already aware of the infraction since he >has seen the pass out of turn. I have been told there has been a case involving the Dutch National team where one player changed his call under L25B, and was told he could not top average minus, whereas his partner was deliberately left in the dark about this. Later, some authority confirmed that the TD had done well by not informing offender's partner. Maybe Ton can tell us whether this story is true or not. > >West then would have bid 2S rather than 2D. I fail to follow this: West had already bid 2D *before* the infraction, and bid 2S after the infraction. > If you failed to notify West >at the proper time, then L82C applies. I don't know the N-S methods; the >actual auction and +200 is likely, but South might bid 3H raised to 4H (or >2NT followed by 3H playing Lebensohl, which North would pass), and take >only eight tricks because East gets two heart ruffs. If North could bid >3NT, that contract is also down one on the normal diamond lead; 2NT makes. >Thus it is likely that N-S would be +200, but also likely that they would >be -50 or -100, depending on their methods. Award +200 to N-S, +50 or +100 >to E-W, the most favorable scores that are likely, as appropriate for >non-offenders. If the event is a KO, average the IMP scores (L86B), so that >if the other table was -50 to N/S and you split +200/+50, then E-W get -3 >IMPs. > The event was a knock-out event. NS did score +200 for 2S! -1. Jac From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 3 07:26:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA20812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 07:26:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA20807 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 07:26:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (vp213-156.worldonline.nl [195.241.213.156]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id B14CC36BBB for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 23:26:37 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004201bfccd9$6a8da320$9cd5f1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Subject: pass out of rotation, screens in use - RETRY Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 23:27:51 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am sorry for the mess and confusion I caused. Here is this case again, as reformatted by David Grabiner, but with the correct bidding ... I hope it will fare better this time. The following case occurred at a major Dutch knockout teams event (ArboNed) today: (well, yesterday by now ...) (screen in use) dealer South S : K J 5 EW vuln. H : A K 7 2 D : K 2 C : K Q 9 7 S : A Q T 9 4 2 \N S : 7 H : T 3 W \ E H : J 9 8 D : 9 8 5 S\ D : A J T 7 4 C : A 5 C : T 8 6 3 S : 8 6 3 H : Q 6 5 4 D : Q 4 3 C : J 4 2 W N E S pass 2D*) pass dbl pass pass 2S dbl pass pass pass *) weak in one major suit, or strong in one minor suit, or 24-25 NT hand. The case: East passed out of rotation, and pushed the tray to the other half of the table. The TD (me) was summoned and there the trouble began: Dutch screen regulations are a faithful translation of the international ones, of which I currently have no text at hand (and I was too tired to check David's site for the text). Anyway, under those screen regulations South is barred from accepting East's pass, and the tray is returned to NE. However, as East was the sole offender, penalties (as prescribed in this case by L30) remain in force. I made East take back his pass, and told him that he had to pass when next it was his turn to call. ===> Question 1 : 2D pass pass (by East) doesn't make sense in the bidding system of EW. Would you consider imposing lead penalties, if EW end up defending the hand, as described in L30B1, or not ? North doubled, and now East made his obligatory pass. I went to the other side of the screen, and told West that the withdrawn pass by East was UI to her (South and West had both admitted having seen the pass out of rotation). ===> Question 2 : should TD tell West (Offending side) that the pass by East was required by L30 ? ===> Question 3 : should TD tell South (Non-offender) that the pass by East was required by L30 ? Of course, any comment not directly in reply to one of my three questions is welcome as well ! Jac (Jac Fuchs) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 3 07:41:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA20858 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 07:41:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f99.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.149.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA20852 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 07:40:53 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 68805 invoked by uid 0); 2 Jun 2000 21:40:14 -0000 Message-ID: <20000602214014.68804.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 12.75.42.15 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 02 Jun 2000 14:40:14 PDT X-Originating-IP: [12.75.42.15] From: "Angela B" To: elandau@cais.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 14:40:14 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Eric Landau >To: Bridge Laws Discussion List >Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question >Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 08:33:51 -0400 > >It might be a bit of a stretch, but I think we could give the players a >more "equitable" score here. L12A2 requires A+/A+ only "if no >rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board". I'd >be sorely tempted to rule that, given that declarer has UI as to the >location of the SQ, the board could be played normally provided declarer >demonstrably does not use the UI, i.e. loses to the SQ. That would allow >me to rule +980/-980, which feels right, as declarer at least gets what his >side earned in the bidding before there was any UI that could have affected >the action to that point. > I think Eric is right on here. Law 16B3 and Law 12C2. For the loudmouth a heavy dose of Laws 90A. ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 3 07:53:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA20879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 07:53:01 +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 HAA20874 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 07:52:52 +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 RAA17548; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 17:52:40 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001c01bfccd6$eb681dc0$9cd5f1c3@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 17:37:13 -0400 To: "Jac Fuchs" From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: pass out of rotation, screens in use Cc: "BLML" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:10 PM +0200 6/2/00, Jac Fuchs wrote: > David Grabiner wrote: >>Attempted reconstruction of the bidding: >>W N E S >> pass >>2D*) dbl pass pass >>2S dbl pass pass >>pass > >Your reconstruction is OK >> >>*) weak in one minor suit, or strong in one minor suit, or 24-25 NT >>hand. >> >>(Weak in a major suit, I assume) > >Indeed. >>>The case: East passed out of rotation, and pushed the tray to the other >>>half of the table. I couldn't tell from the original statement when East had passed out of turn; I thought it was before anyone bid. I now understand thatthat East passed out of turn after West's 2D. >>> ===> Question 1 : 2D pass pass (by East) doesn't make sense in the >>>bidding system of EW. Would you consider imposing lead penalties, if EW >>>end up >>>defending the hand, as described in L30B1, or not? >> >>The pass out of rotation was not a convention; it just showed a weak hand. >>The enforced pass did not have "a much different meaning", as it was forced >>and showed an intention to play in the contract. >I did tell the players I would not impose any lead penalties, so there we >agree, but I do not see the meaning of the enforced pass has anything to do >with it. The lead penalty applies if a call is not repeated, or is repeated with a much different meaning. I don't think that happened here. East's pass was not intended as a pass over the 2D opening, so it does not convey any unusual information. >>>===> Question 2 : should TD tell West (Offending side) that the pass by >>>East was required by L30 ? >>>===> Question 3 : should TD tell South (Non-offender) that the pass by >East >>>was required by L30 ? >> >>Yes for both. West is entitled to know the penalty for an infraction >>before he takes any action; he is already aware of the infraction since he >>has seen the pass out of turn. >>West then would have bid 2S rather than 2D. >I fail to follow this: West had already bid 2D *before* the infraction, and >bid 2S after the infraction. This was my error. West should still be informed, so that he may bid 3S unilaterally knowing that East is unable to raise. However, I don't think he was damaged by not being informed here. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 3 08:15:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA20930 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 08:04:12 +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 IAA20925 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 08:04:01 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 29645 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2000 22:03:18 -0000 Received: from petrus2.konvent (HELO eduhi.at) (192.168.1.116) by michael.gym with SMTP; 2 Jun 2000 22:03:18 -0000 Message-ID: <39382F42.EB552F97@eduhi.at> Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 00:03:46 +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: Ruling please: L68/L57 ???? References: <200006011444.HAA12013@mailhub.irvine.com> <003701bfcc89$d3b05dc0$5d468bca@dynamite.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson schrieb: > > As I remember the original hand the crux of it is that it does solve > his discard problem. > Not really: the position was trick 12 in 4H: (dummy) - - J 9 - K - - - K Q8 - T 4 - - Declarer played H4 - C8 - DJ - THINK cheers Petrus From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 3 09:07:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA20795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 07:15:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f283.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.62]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA20790 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 07:15:12 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 7563 invoked by uid 0); 2 Jun 2000 21:14:33 -0000 Message-ID: <20000602211433.7562.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.22 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 02 Jun 2000 14:14:33 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.22] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 14:14:33 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Grattan Endicott" >----- Original Message ----- >From: Todd Zimnoch >To: >Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 6:21 PM >Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... > >+------------- \x/ ------------+ > > > > Are you complaining that the defender will say, "I intended to lead >the > > H8, but because of the penalty card restrictions, I will lead the CQ > > instead?" L58B2 asks the player to choose the lead. What the player > > intends to lead right now is somewhat important, otherwise he'll be > > paralyzed trying to choose a lead. > > > > If the given answer is incorrect, then what is the correct answer? > > >+=+ All the Director wishes to know is which of the two cards >the player elects to play. No reasons, not whether it is the one >he originally intended. Before the player chooses his card the >Director must explain to him his options and how the law will >apply. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ So it wouldn't make a difference if the player had answered, "I thought to play the H8 then changed my mind to CQ?" -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 3 09:22:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21128 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 09:22:42 +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 JAA21123 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 09:22:34 +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 12y0lk-000Fg9-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 23:22:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 17:59:59 +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 , David Stevenson writes > > > Any TD who asks should be marked down. it is a question that *must >not* be asked. > > In 5 minutes, you expect the TD to *start* his answer right, and your >given answer starts wrong. When a player leads or plays two cards then >the TD *never* asks which one he intended. Read L58B2. > the only interesting aspect is that you need to explain the difference between MPC and mPC if he's got one honour and one not honour, so he can decide which sort of penalty card he'll keep. 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 Jun 3 11:10:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA21291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 11:10:00 +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 LAA21286 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 11:09:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.247] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12y2RZ-000LdU-00; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 02:09:41 +0100 Message-ID: <001901bfccf8$9c40a060$f75908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Todd Zimnoch" , References: <20000602211433.7562.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 02:09:36 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 10:14 PM Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... > >From: "Grattan Endicott" > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: Todd Zimnoch > >To: > >Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 6:21 PM > >Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... > > > >+------------- \x/ ------------+ > > > > > > > Are you complaining that the defender will say, "I intended to lead > >the > > > H8, but because of the penalty card restrictions, I will lead the CQ > > > instead?" L58B2 asks the player to choose the lead. What the player > > > intends to lead right now is somewhat important, otherwise he'll be > > > paralyzed trying to choose a lead. > > > > > > If the given answer is incorrect, then what is the correct answer? > > > > >+=+ All the Director wishes to know is which of the two cards > >the player elects to play. No reasons, not whether it is the one > >he originally intended. Before the player chooses his card the > >Director must explain to him his options and how the law will > >apply. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > So it wouldn't make a difference if the player had answered, "I thought > to play the H8 then changed my mind to CQ?" > > -Todd +=+ The Director is doing his best to get the player to make his choice without giving UI to partner. If the player says this he may have told partner something he is not entitled to know; there may be UI. The Director will have to keep his wits about him. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 3 15:44:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA21758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 15:44:56 +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 PAA21753 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 15:44:46 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 98382 invoked for bounce); 3 Jun 2000 05:44:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.41.117) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 3 Jun 2000 05:44:33 -0000 Message-ID: <008401bfcd1e$ef2426a0$75291dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: Cc: References: <200005311644.JAA22038@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: Law 70D (was: A bit quiet) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 07:45:19 +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: > My example: > > > > >> 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. > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > Thomas Dehn wrote: > > >David Stevenson wrote: > > > > >> 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. > > The point here is that "discarding a heart on the DK" is an *old* > line, not a new line, since it's the line claimer originally stated. > The counter-argument is that the claimer originally said all his > diamonds were winners, and that statement is part of the old line; and > that since it's been proven false, there is no "old" line any more and > all possible lines of play are "new" lines at this point. Both > arguments have merit. I did take care to formulate my version of the claim statement in a way that claimer does not claim that his diamonds are winners. When the TD asks him to clarify his line, he will state "RHO is out of hearts und thus has to lead a club". > > But there is no way that it is "normal" for a poor player to do so > > once the ace appears. > > My first thought about this line of reasoning is that L70D doesn't > apply at all, because it only applies when the *claimer* is trying to > substitute a new line for the original one. "The Director shall not > accept *from* *claimer* any successful line..." Also, the title is > "Claimer Proposes New Line of Play". mmm. Do you want to argue that no law states that the TD has to accept claimer's (clarified) stated line if it is successful but irrational? Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 3 18:48:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA22119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 18:48:32 +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 SAA22114 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 18:48:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-220.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.220]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA25045 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 10:48:10 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3938BB2A.E41F8718@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 10:00:42 +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: What should a player do upon finding a sorted hand? References: <3.0.6.32.20000529214944.00879210@mail.wcnet.org> <3934EF08.F83E8DB1@village.uunet.be> <393791ED.99B08302@village.uunet.be> <2$D4rOAbE9N5EwhU@probst.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > In article <393791ED.99B08302@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael > writes > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > > snip > > > >And yet you are using exactly the same principle - wait > >until deciding whether it could influence. > > > I don't recall my comment here, but I'm pretty sure I'd be following the > ideas I'm propounding below. > > the sorted hand is a different problem from a 'wire'. If a player says > "I know the hand can make six because I overheard something" I think you > have to award averages (+/-, whatever). If a player says he overheard > "Well the passout means we can eat Belgian chocolates and drink Belgian > coffee for 10 minutes" we do the same. But a sorted hand is at best a > suggestion of a number of possibilities, and is not a reason to cancel > play. > > In Scotland, when I've played there, the players will say "I have a > sorted hand" without even bothering to call the TD. This seems about > right to me. > > If a player says to me "I know xxx about this hand, what can I do?", > I'll say "In your opinion does it make the hand unplayable?" If the > player says No, then I'll tell him to play it and call me back if he > realises it has become unplayable. Holding a sorted hand doesn't even > get close to this one. > > cheers john > -- Well John, all I am saying is that you have deferred your judgment as to whether the hand becomes unplayable until some later moment. You have not followed L16B3 to the letter : you have not "forthwith" awarded an adjusted score, as you (or if not you, quite a number on this list) suggest we should do. Now I believe that this is the correct procedure, and I have also followed it in the case at the Belgian championships. If you are now saying that you would not have done so in that case, then I allow you this difference of opinion. I thought you had been stating that it was wrong, ever, to allow play to continue in order to find out if the play is influenced. If that was not your position, then I apologize to you personally, my friend. At least it was the prosition of some others on this list. They are wrong, IMMHO. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 3 18:55:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA22142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 18:55:18 +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 SAA22137 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 18:55:07 +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 MAA24027 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 12:00:25 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <003101bfcd39$ddd95120$6c047bc3@marina> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: References: <20000602214014.68804.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 11:57:05 +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 From: Angela B Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question > > > > >From: Eric Landau > > > > > >It might be a bit of a stretch, but I think we could give the players a > >more "equitable" score here. L12A2 requires A+/A+ only "if no > >rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board". I'd > >be sorely tempted to rule that, given that declarer has UI as to the > >location of the SQ, the board could be played normally provided declarer > >demonstrably does not use the UI, i.e. loses to the SQ. That would allow > >me to rule +980/-980, which feels right, as declarer at least gets what his > >side earned in the bidding before there was any UI that could have affected > >the action to that point. > > > > > I think Eric is right on here. Law 16B3 and Law 12C2. For the loudmouth a > heavy dose of Laws 90A. I think No. L1B3 - ... an artificial adjusted score... L12C2 - ... an assigned adjusted score... So L16B3 and L12C2 are inapplicable together. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 3 19:47:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA22272 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 19:47:31 +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 TAA22266 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 19:47:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.117.193] (helo=davidburn) by neodymium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #16) id 12yAWK-0002Hr-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 03 Jun 2000 10:47:09 +0100 Message-ID: <002101bfcd40$58d7c540$c175073e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 10:03:37 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > In article , David Stevenson > writes > > > > > > Any TD who asks should be marked down. it is a question that *must > >not* be asked. > > > > In 5 minutes, you expect the TD to *start* his answer right, and your > >given answer starts wrong. When a player leads or plays two cards then > >the TD *never* asks which one he intended. Read L58B2. > > > the only interesting aspect is that you need to explain the difference > between MPC and mPC if he's got one honour and one not honour, so he can > decide which sort of penalty card he'll keep. It seems to me that a minor penalty card is only a card accidentally exposed by a defender. Any card deliberately exposed must become either a played card or a major penalty card. Read L50B2 (I think - I don't have the law book with me at present). If a player deliberately exposes H8 and accidentally exposes CQ simultaneously, then chooses to play CQ, it seems to me that following the above principle, H8 must become a major penalty card - it was not exposed accidentally. For this reason, it *is* important for the Director to ascertain which of the two cards was exposed deliberately, and which by accident. I have read L58B2, and I see nothing in it to support the notion that it overrides L50B2. To simplify the point somewhat - eliminating extraneous considerations such as whether the lead was in turn and whether either exposed card is an honour: if a player leads D2 and accidentally exposes D3, then if he elects to lead D2, D3 becomes a minor penalty card; but if he changes his lead to D3, then D2 is a major penalty card. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 3 21:22:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA22546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 21:22:45 +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 VAA22541 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 21:22:35 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 60746 invoked for bounce); 3 Jun 2000 11:22:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.42.31) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 3 Jun 2000 11:22:22 -0000 Message-ID: <000301bfcd4e$20a9b800$1f2a1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <200005311726.KAA22860@mailhub.irvine.com><000f01bfcb58$62389860$d7291dc2@rabbit> <8BfUU8CuSdN5EwjW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 13:23:06 +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: > >> A few weeks ago, I posted a problem that was part of another, longer, > >> thread. I didn't get any responses, so I'm guessing that most BLMLers > >> thought my question was rhetorical and was just part of the larger > >> argument. But I'm still interested in the answer. > >> > >> In a matchpoint event, you and your partner hold perfect fitting hands > >> that will make 12 or 13 tricks in spades depending on how you guess > >> the trump queen; nevertheless, because the perfect fit is hard to > >> diagnose, 90% of the field stops in 4S. You bid to 6S. After the > >> opening lead, but before any other cards have been played, you hear UI > >> from a loudmouth at the next table that tells you clearly where the > >> queen of trumps is. You call the Director. Assuming no substitute is > >> available to play the hand, what score should the Director assign to > >> each side? > > > >For the complicated part of the problem, > >I assume that 16 B1 etc. can't be applied. > >Thus 16 B3 comes into action. In theory, I should > >thus award an _artificial_ adjusted score. > > > >Applying 12 C1 seems to be absurd, because the bidding > >was not influenced by the extraneous information. > > It is not up to you as a TD to ignore the lawmakers in this situation. > They have told you to use L12C1 so use it. This, of course, is the correct interpretation of the letter of the law. We here have an obvious flaw in the wording of the current law. Other parts, for example 12 A1 and the definitions section indicate that *reducing* a NO's score by awarding A+ is not intended by the lawmakers. > >The definitions section reads: > >1. An artificial adjusted score is one awarded in lieu > >of a result because no result can be obtained or > >estimated for a particular deal > >(e.g., when an irregularity prevents play of a deal). > > > >In this deal, I can estimate the result of the deal. > >I thus adjust the score the following way, not exactly covered > >by 12 C1 ;-): > > Not covered. Where does exactly come into it? There is a contradiction between "... because no result can be estimated" and the "we *always* award A+/A+ in such situations" of 12 C1. > I like your approach, but it isn't legal. I agree is close to the border of illegality, probably more on the illegal side. Apart from the law change Adam already has suggested, what would be the pros and cons for a law change which provides either the TD or the AC with the right to assign an assigned adjusted score in cases where application of the law clearly does not restore equity (such like this one)? [Some ACs have been doing such things in the past, IMHO with only little basis in the current law.] Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 4 00:48:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA23086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 00:48:32 +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 AAA23081 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 00:48:23 +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 QAA06999; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 16:47:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by office.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA28615; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 16:47:44 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: office.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 16:47:44 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Ed Reppert cc: Bridge Laws 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 Fri, 2 Jun 2000, Ed Reppert wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > At 1:18 PM +0100 6/2/00, David Stevenson wrote: > >Let us remember that the fact that the card were next to each other is > >information *FROM THE TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR* who elicited it > >unnecessarily. > > Perhaps. Perhaps not. Could it not have been: > > TD: what happened? > Player: I meant to play the H8, but I accidently pulled the CQ > instead, and the H8, which was next to it, fell out. The player was told to say: "I thought it was my lead and accidentally pulled 2 adjacent cards from my hand." (Not that I can see how one can ever pull 2 non-adjacent cards from a hand in one single movement). > This seems like gratuitous info from the player, rather than > unnecessary elicitation by the TD. At least, it does to me. :-) Yes, 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 Sun Jun 4 05:04:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA24045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 05:04:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA24040 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 05:03:57 +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 PAA26612 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 15:03:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA00099 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 15:03:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 15:03:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200006031903.PAA00099@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: double ace of clubs Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >> >> 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: David Stevenson > Dummy is an *offender*, not a non-offender. He failed to put his > cards down as the Law requires. Correct. > 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! But a PP is not the right way to rectify the situation. A PP should only be given if the infraction is repeated or otherwise aggravated. If a PP is given for these reasons, it should be a standard fine: 10% of a top in the EBU, 25% of a top in the ACBL. The amount should not depend on the result of play. > 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. No problem there; the board will be played out with 13 penalty cards. Declarer will quite likely win some extra tricks. > 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. Quite right, but we can certainly adjust for the initial infraction under L41D, L12A1, and L12C2. The question is what score to adjust to. For the NOS -- the defenders -- I think exposing 13 cards was irrational, and thus they receive no adjustment. East's action has "broken the connection," i.e. the damage wasn't caused by dummy's infraction but by East's own irrational act. For the OS -- the declaring side -- things are a little harder. Declarer was not entitled to know the location of the ace of clubs, but he was virtually certain to find it out once dummy put the cards down wrong. Moreover, the side is not allowed to benefit even indirectly from dummy's infraction. I think the proper score is the least favorable that is "at all probable" with normal play and no penalty cards. A plausible alternative is to give declarer the benefit of the penalty cards but NOT the benefit of knowing the location of the club ace. (This may be hard to analyze! Maybe just give declarer a trick less than actually won if the C-A seems to make any difference, e.g. if there was a throwin. But I really think "no penalty cards" is the right answer.) The overall situation is very much akin to the one in which declarer's side uses UI to bid an unmakeable slam, but then the defenders revoke to let it make. The ruling should be along the same lines. In the end, David and I may agree on the final score if not on how we reached it. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 4 06:11:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA24177 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 06:11:16 +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 GAA24172 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 06:11:08 +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 12yKG1-000FqD-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 20:10:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 19:11:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... References: <002101bfcd40$58d7c540$c175073e@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <002101bfcd40$58d7c540$c175073e@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <002101bfcd40$58d7c540$c175073e@davidburn>, David Burn writes > Read L50B2 (I think - I >don't have the law book with me at present). 50B not 50B2, but its the right law > >If a player deliberately exposes H8 and accidentally exposes CQ >simultaneously, then chooses to play CQ, it seems to me that following >the above principle, H8 must become a major penalty card - it was not >exposed accidentally. For this reason, it *is* important for the >Director to ascertain which of the two cards was exposed deliberately, >and which by accident. I have read L58B2, and I see nothing in it to >support the notion that it overrides L50B2. > 58B2 says the other card becomes a penalty card. It does not say it becomes a MAJOR penalty card. We then use Law 50 to determine that when a player plays a card accidentally then it may be a minor penalty card. I prefer my interpretation. cheers john >To simplify the point somewhat - eliminating extraneous considerations >such as whether the lead was in turn and whether either exposed card >is an honour: if a player leads D2 and accidentally exposes D3, then >if he elects to lead D2, D3 becomes a minor penalty card; but if he >changes his lead to D3, then D2 is a major penalty card. Nope > >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 Sun Jun 4 06:51:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA24319 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 06:51:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA24314 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 06:51:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.65] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12yKsn-000BSZ-00; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 21:51:01 +0100 Message-ID: <002e01bfcd9d$a42c7600$415408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Thomas Dehn" Cc: References: <200005311726.KAA22860@mailhub.irvine.com><000f01bfcb58$62389860$d7291dc2@rabbit> <8BfUU8CuSdN5EwjW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000301bfcd4e$20a9b800$1f2a1dc2@rabbit> Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 21:50:52 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2000 12:23 PM Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question > David Stevenson wrote: > > Thomas Dehn wrote: > > >Adam wrote: ------------------- \x/ ----------------- > > >> In a matchpoint event, you and your partner hold perfect fitting hands > > >> that will make 12 or 13 tricks in spades depending on how you guess > > >> the trump queen; nevertheless, because the perfect fit is hard to > > >> diagnose, 90% of the field stops in 4S. You bid to 6S. After the > > >> opening lead, but before any other cards have been played, you hear UI > > >> from a loudmouth at the next table that tells you clearly where the > > >> queen of trumps is. You call the Director. Assuming no substitute is > > >> available to play the hand, what score should the Director assign to > > >> each side? > > > > > >For the complicated part of the problem, > > >I assume that 16 B1 etc. can't be applied. > > >Thus 16 B3 comes into action. In theory, I should > > >thus award an _artificial_ adjusted score. > > > > > >Applying 12 C1 seems to be absurd, because the bidding > > >was not influenced by the extraneous information. > > > > It is not up to you as a TD to ignore the lawmakers in this situation. > > They have told you to use L12C1 so use it. > > This, of course, is the correct interpretation of the > letter of the law. > > We here have an obvious flaw in the wording of the > current law. Other parts, for example 12 A1 and the definitions > section indicate that *reducing* a NO's score by awarding > A+ is not intended by the lawmakers. > +=+ Hmmm....... interesting............ this thread seems to be based upon the assumption that Ave+ will be 60%. Why would this be? Is not Ave+ "at least 60%" ?? What understanding has the Director as to when he should judge more than 60% appropriate? There is nothing I can recall in the Law Book to say that he awards greater than 60% only when the non-offender's session percentage is over 60%. What Law 88 establishes is that a non- offending player is to receive no less than 60% or his session percentage, whichever is the greater; there is no upper limit in the Law that I recall, the discretion lying with the Director. I think that when the Director finds cause to award more than 60% he has power to do so. ~~ Grattan ~~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 4 09:46:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA24731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 09:46:25 +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 JAA24726 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 09:46:17 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 75876 invoked for bounce); 3 Jun 2000 23:46:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.41.254) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 3 Jun 2000 23:46:08 -0000 Message-ID: <001c01bfcdb6$088a8160$fe291dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <200005311726.KAA22860@mailhub.irvine.com><000f01bfcb58$62389860$d7291dc2@rabbit> <8BfUU8CuSdN5EwjW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000301bfcd4e$20a9b800$1f2a1dc2@rabbit> <002e01bfcd9d$a42c7600$415408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 01:46:47 +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 Grattan wrote: > > We here have an obvious flaw in the wording of the > > current law. Other parts, for example 12 A1 and the definitions > > section indicate that *reducing* a NO's score by awarding > > A+ is not intended by the lawmakers. > > > +=+ Hmmm....... interesting............ this thread seems to be > based upon the assumption that Ave+ will be 60%. Why > would this be? Is not Ave+ "at least 60%" ?? > What understanding has the Director as to when he > should judge more than 60% appropriate? There is nothing > I can recall in the Law Book to say that he awards greater > than 60% only when the non-offender's session percentage > is over 60%. What Law 88 establishes is that a non- > offending player is to receive no less than 60% or his > session percentage, whichever is the greater; there is no > upper limit in the Law that I recall, the discretion lying > with the Director. I think that when the Director finds > cause to award more than 60% he has power to do so. Hmmm. I searched and I did not find anything either which limits average plus in the law. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 4 19:39:49 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA26162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 19:39:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from new-smtp2.ihug.com.au (root@new-smtp2.ihug.com.au [203.109.250.28]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA26156 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 19:39:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (p48-max10.mel.ihug.com.au [216.100.144.112]) by new-smtp2.ihug.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA06704; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 19:39:05 +1000 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000604193522.00941950@pop.ihug.com.au> X-Sender: lskelso@pop.ihug.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 19:35:22 +1000 To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Thomas Dehn" From: Laurie Kelso Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question Cc: In-Reply-To: <002e01bfcd9d$a42c7600$415408c3@dodona> References: <200005311726.KAA22860@mailhub.irvine.com> <000f01bfcb58$62389860$d7291dc2@rabbit> <8BfUU8CuSdN5EwjW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000301bfcd4e$20a9b800$1f2a1dc2@rabbit> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 21:50 3/06/00 +0100, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >Grattan Endicott===================================== >"I have always suspected that the reading is right >which requires many words to prove it wrong, and >the emendation wrong which cannot without so >much labour appear to be right." (Dr Samuel Johnson) > oo+++oooo+++++++oooo+++oo > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Thomas Dehn >To: >Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2000 12:23 PM >Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question > > >> David Stevenson wrote: >> > Thomas Dehn wrote: >> > >Adam wrote: >------------------- \x/ ----------------- >> > >> In a matchpoint event, you and your partner hold perfect fitting >hands >> > >> that will make 12 or 13 tricks in spades depending on how you guess >> > >> the trump queen; nevertheless, because the perfect fit is hard to >> > >> diagnose, 90% of the field stops in 4S. You bid to 6S. After the >> > >> opening lead, but before any other cards have been played, you hear >UI >> > >> from a loudmouth at the next table that tells you clearly where the >> > >> queen of trumps is. You call the Director. Assuming no substitute >is >> > >> available to play the hand, what score should the Director assign to >> > >> each side? >> > > >> > >For the complicated part of the problem, >> > >I assume that 16 B1 etc. can't be applied. >> > >Thus 16 B3 comes into action. In theory, I should >> > >thus award an _artificial_ adjusted score. >> > > >> > >Applying 12 C1 seems to be absurd, because the bidding >> > >was not influenced by the extraneous information. >> > >> > It is not up to you as a TD to ignore the lawmakers in this situation. >> > They have told you to use L12C1 so use it. >> >> This, of course, is the correct interpretation of the >> letter of the law. >> >> We here have an obvious flaw in the wording of the >> current law. Other parts, for example 12 A1 and the definitions >> section indicate that *reducing* a NO's score by awarding >> A+ is not intended by the lawmakers. >> >+=+ Hmmm....... interesting............ this thread seems to be >based upon the assumption that Ave+ will be 60%. Why >would this be? Is not Ave+ "at least 60%" ?? > What understanding has the Director as to when he >should judge more than 60% appropriate? There is nothing >I can recall in the Law Book to say that he awards greater >than 60% only when the non-offender's session percentage >is over 60%. What Law 88 establishes is that a non- >offending player is to receive no less than 60% or his >session percentage, whichever is the greater; there is no >upper limit in the Law that I recall, the discretion lying >with the Director. I think that when the Director finds >cause to award more than 60% he has power to do so. > ~~ Grattan ~~ +=+ While I can accept that average plus can be more than 60% in a Pairs setting. What can we make of a similar occurence in a Teams setting? Law 86 seems to specify exactly +3 IMPs. So does 16B3 limit the size of the adjustment for IMP scoring? Laurie (In Australia) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 4 19:38:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA26150 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 19:38:05 +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 TAA26145 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 19:37:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from marina (ppp06.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.106]) by hunter2.int.kiev.ua (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA14847 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 12:43:16 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <008601bfce09$04262720$6a047bc3@marina> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: References: <200005311726.KAA22860@mailhub.irvine.com><000f01bfcb58$62389860$d7291dc2@rabbit> <8BfUU8CuSdN5EwjW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000301bfcd4e$20a9b800$1f2a1dc2@rabbit> <002e01bfcd9d$a42c7600$415408c3@dodona> <001c01bfcdb6$088a8160$fe291dc2@rabbit> Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 12:25:10 +0300 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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thomas wrote > Grattan wrote >>: > > >> In a matchpoint event, you and your partner hold perfect fitting hands > > >> that will make 12 or 13 tricks in spades depending on how you guess > > >> the trump queen; nevertheless, because the perfect fit is hard to > > >> diagnose, 90% of the field stops in 4S. You bid to 6S. After the > > >> opening lead, but before any other cards have been played, you hear UI > > >> from a loudmouth at the next table that tells you clearly where the > > >> queen of trumps is. You call the Director. Assuming no substitute is > > >> available to play the hand, what score should the Director assign to > > >> each side? > > > We here have an obvious flaw in the wording of the > > > current law. Other parts, for example 12 A1 and the definitions > > > section indicate that *reducing* a NO's score by awarding > > > A+ is not intended by the lawmakers. > > > > > +=+ Hmmm....... interesting............ this thread seems to be > > based upon the assumption that Ave+ will be 60%. Why > > would this be? Is not Ave+ "at least 60%" ?? > > What understanding has the Director as to when he > > should judge more than 60% appropriate? There is nothing > > I can recall in the Law Book to say that he awards greater > > than 60% only when the non-offender's session percentage > > is over 60%. What Law 88 establishes is that a non- > > offending player is to receive no less than 60% or his > > session percentage, whichever is the greater; there is no > > upper limit in the Law that I recall, the discretion lying > > with the Director. I think that when the Director finds > > cause to award more than 60% he has power to do so. > > > Hmmm. I searched and I did not find anything either > which limits average plus in the law. > > L88: "...a minimum of 60% of the matchpoints available to him on that board...". It seems that available_to_him_on_that_board limits average plus. On the board in question without the infraction there are only 10% of the matchpoints available to the first NOS and there are 90% of the matchpoints available to the second NOS. If I am right the Av+ for the first NOS in this case is the percentage of matchpoints NOS earned on boards actually played during the session because that percentage was greater than 6(six)%. Why isn't it true? Sergey From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 4 20:00:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA26220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 20:00:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA26214 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 20:00:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.21] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12yXCR-000JAz-00; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 11:00:07 +0100 Message-ID: <001401bfce0b$e13e93c0$155908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Laurie Kelso" , "Thomas Dehn" Cc: References: <200005311726.KAA22860@mailhub.irvine.com><000f01bfcb58$62389860$d7291dc2@rabbit><8BfUU8CuSdN5EwjW@blakjak.demon.co.uk><000301bfcd4e$20a9b800$1f2a1dc2@rabbit> <3.0.6.32.20000604193522.00941950@pop.ihug.com.au> Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 11:00:04 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Grattan Endicott ; Thomas Dehn Cc: Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2000 10:35 AM Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question ------------- \x/ -------------- > > While I can accept that average plus can be more than 60% in a Pairs > setting. What can we make of a similar occurrence in a Teams setting? Law > 86 seems to specify exactly +3 IMPs. So does 16B3 limit the size of the > adjustment for IMP scoring? > +=+ Aha! I was waiting for this question! I deliberately said nothing in my last message. Someone said that Law 12C1 was faulty. My view is that the weakness in the law on artificial adjustments is in Law 86A. I would suggest this Law ought to be saying that when awarding an artificial adjusted score in team play the Director is to treat 10% of a board in matchpoint play as equivalent to +/- 3 imps. I have not done any working on it but I have the thought that for extensions beyond 60/40 the scale should be tapered by reference to the tapering of the graduation of the imp scale in Law 78B. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 4 20:21:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA26265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 20:21:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA26260 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 20:21:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.146] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12yXWJ-000JPU-00; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 11:20:39 +0100 Message-ID: <002501bfce0e$bf75dde0$155908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Sergey Kapustin" Cc: References: <200005311726.KAA22860@mailhub.irvine.com><000f01bfcb58$62389860$d7291dc2@rabbit> <8BfUU8CuSdN5EwjW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000301bfcd4e$20a9b800$1f2a1dc2@rabbit> <002e01bfcd9d$a42c7600$415408c3@dodona> <001c01bfcdb6$088a8160$fe291dc2@rabbit> <008601bfce09$04262720$6a047bc3@marina> Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 11:20:30 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2000 10:25 AM Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question > > Thomas wrote > > > Grattan wrote >>: > > L88: "...a minimum of 60% of the matchpoints available to him on that > board...". > > It seems that available_to_him_on_that_board limits average plus. > > On the board in question without the infraction there are only 10% of the > matchpoints available to the first NOS and there are 90% of the matchpoints > available to the second NOS. > > If I am right the Av+ for the first NOS in this case is the percentage of > matchpoints NOS earned on boards actually played during the session because > that percentage was greater than 6(six)%. > > Why isn't it true? +=+ No result was obtained on the board. At the time the board was suspended the first NOS still had 100% of the matchpoints available to them on the board - many a slip twixt cup and lip. The second NOS could have thrown away all the advantage of their successful auction. So the law awards the first NOS a minimum of 60%. Remember this is artificial; we are not pretending to assess a result on the board. We are compensating for the loss of opportunity to obtain a result through no fault of their own. Looking at the stated facts and wondering where I would place myself in an appeals committee, I am inclined to think of 60% for the first NOS and the mean of 12 tricks and 13 tricks for the second; potentially reassessing the latter if there is anything in the action prior to suspension of the board (or that must become apparent before he chooses) that might cause the declarer to incline to finesse one opponent rather than the other; but I do not expect everyone will agree with this! ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 5 01:24:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA27007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 01:24:54 +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 BAA27001 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 01:24:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from marina (ppp04.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.104]) by hunter2.int.kiev.ua (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA19804 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 18:30:03 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <00ac01bfce39$74bc04c0$6d047bc3@marina> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 18:27:53 +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 Grattan Endicott wrote < Sergey Kapustin >> > > L88: "...a minimum of 60% of the matchpoints available to him on that > > board...". > > > > It seems that available_to_him_on_that_board limits average plus. > > > > On the board in question without the infraction there are only 10% of the > > matchpoints available to the first NOS and there are 90% of the > matchpoints > > available to the second NOS. > > > > If I am right the Av+ for the first NOS in this case is the percentage of > > matchpoints NOS earned on boards actually played during the session > because > > that percentage was greater than 6(six)%. > > > > Why isn't it true? > +=+ No result was obtained on the board. At the time the board was > suspended the first NOS still had 100% of the matchpoints > available to them on the board - many a slip twixt cup and lip. > The second NOS could have thrown away all the advantage of > their successful auction. So the law awards the first NOS a > minimum of 60%. Remember this is artificial; we are not > pretending to assess a result on the board. We are compensating > for the loss of opportunity to obtain a result through no > fault of their own. But at the time the board in question was suspended the result could have be estimated, couldn't it? If we are not pretending to assess a result on the board, then what is lowmakers' intention of "available_to_him_on_that_board"? Is it always 100%? > +=+ Looking at the stated facts and wondering where I would place > myself in an appeals committee, I am inclined to think of 60% > for the first NOS and the mean of 12 tricks and 13 tricks for the > second; potentially reassessing the latter if there is anything in > the action prior to suspension of the board (or that must > become apparent before he chooses) that might cause the > declarer to incline to finesse one opponent rather than the > other; but I do not expect everyone will agree with this! > ~ Grattan ~ > +=+ As to me, I am searching for reason to agree with this. "The mean of 12 tricks and 13 tricks" - Does it mean that the relevant Low is L12C3? But according to the L12c3 an AC may vary an assigned adjusted score, not an artificial. I see the conflict: Definition - artificial adjusted score is one awarded in lieu of a result because no result can be obtained or estimated. L16B3 - award an artificial adjusted score. On board in question a result can be estimated, so it isn't the artificial adjusted score, but under to L16B3 TD/AC must award the artificial adjusted score. Sergey From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 5 09:41:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA28375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 09:41:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA28363 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 09:40:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.117] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12yk0M-0009nx-00; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 00:40:31 +0100 Message-ID: <000501bfce7e$7d33a140$755908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Sergey Kapustin" , References: <00ac01bfce39$74bc04c0$6d047bc3@marina> Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 00:40:41 +0100 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 Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2000 4:27 PM Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question --------------- \x/ ------------- > > But at the time the board in question was suspended the result could have be > estimated, couldn't it? If we are not pretending to assess a result on the > board, then what is lowmakers' intention of > "available_to_him_on_that_board"? Is it always 100%? > +=+ Yes. But depending upon the number of comparisons 100% is a varying figure between one competition and another when stated as matchpoints. The law simply means the number of matchpoints for a top on the board whatever this may be. The matchpoints are available when the board is put on the table. +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 5 09:41:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA28386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 09:41:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA28379 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 09:41:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.117] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12yk0L-0009nx-00; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 00:40:29 +0100 Message-ID: <000401bfce7e$7c37dc20$755908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Sergey Kapustin" , References: <00ac01bfce39$74bc04c0$6d047bc3@marina> Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 00:35:33 +0100 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 Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2000 4:27 PM Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question ------------ \x/ ----------------- > > "The mean of 12 tricks and 13 tricks" - Does it mean that the relevant Low > is L12C3? But according to the L12c3 an AC may vary an assigned adjusted > score, not an artificial. > +=+ Not at all. I am thinking what artificial adjusted score I might award, as Director or on an appeal of a Director's ruling. Having established that under the laws this may be more than 60%, I am looking at the circumstances here and taking the view that they justify more than 60% for the second NOS. For the first NOS I cannot by law give less than 60% (or their better session percentage) so that is what I will give them; for them the fact that you can estimate that they will probably (but *not* certainly) get a worse score than 50% does not affect the award they must receive. This is purely a L12C1/L88 situation. +=+ > > I see the conflict: > Definition - artificial adjusted score is one awarded in lieu of a result > because no result can be obtained or estimated. > L16B3 - award an artificial adjusted score. > On board in question a result can be estimated, > +=+ but it is only an expectation and there is no certainty to it; the opponents can mess up their result and they have been given no chance to do so. +=+ > > so it isn't the artificial > adjusted score, > +=+ It has to be. An estimated result is not a result obtained on the board +=+ > > but under to L16B3 TD/AC must award > the artificial adjusted > score. +=+ Because no result has been obtained on the board. What you think would probably happen may condition a view to give one side more than 60% but it provides no ground for giving a side less than 60% because the Director does not have power to give less. +=+ > > Sergey From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 5 12:47:25 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA28823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 12:47:25 +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 MAA28807 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 12:47:11 +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 12ymul-000GB5-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 02:46:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 01:48:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... References: <200006021854.LAA06882@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200006021854.LAA06882@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >> > >> >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). >> >> L58B2: the player gets a choice of which card he proposes to lead. >> His original intention is irrelevant, so a Director who asks what he >> intended to do has made a *serious* error. >> >> L50B: if he chooses the H8, then the CQ becomes a major penalty card, >> but if he chooses the CQ, then the H8 becomes a minor penalty card. >> >> The card he proposes to play becomes an opening lead out of turn, and >> declarer is offered the normal five options - but there are >> complications! >> >> Option 1: Accept card led, dummy goes down now, no complications. >> Option 2: Accept card led, put own hand down as dummy, no >> complications. >> Option 3: Lead reverts to LHO, card led treated as penalty card: now >> *BOTH* cards are *MAJOR* penalty cards, now apply three options to other >> card: > >But doesn't Law 51B2 apply? I did a search and noticed that "51" >didn't appear anywhere in your response. It appears that if the lead >reverts to LHO, then Law 51B2 applies, and declarer's options are: > >(a) Require a club or heart lead; East picks up the card in the > specified suit. > >(b) Forbid clubs, forbid hearts, or forbid both clubs and hearts; > East picks up the card(s) in the forbidden suits. > >The result seems to be a little different from what you said, if I >understood you correctly. You seem to say that if East chooses the >club lead, West may forbid a club lead but doesn't have the option to >forbid a heart: > >> Option 5: Lead reverts to LHO, forbid lead of suit led out of turn for >> as long as retains lead, that card gets picked up, now apply three >> options to other card *IF AND ONLY IF* that other card is CQ: > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >> Option 5A: Forbid club lead for as long as retains lead, CQ gets >> picked up. >> Option 5B: Require club lead, CQ gets picked up. >> Option 5C: Lead what he likes except H, CQ remains as major penalty >> card. > >I don't see a reason why the two cards would be treated differently, >since Law 50B says that once the lead reverts to RHO, both of East's >cards become major penalty cards (and remain major penalty cards >throughout the hand) regardless of what lead he chose. Anyway, L51 >doesn't treat them differently. Aside from this (i.e. if you delete >the clause I highlighted above), it appears that L51 leads you to the >same result you got to, but in a less roundabout way, and using a path >you might be able to take in under five minutes. > >I haven't followed this thread up until now, so my apologies if this >issue has already been addressed. Let me see if I can follow what you say. In the critical case where RHO opts to lead the CQ, the Hx is an mPC. Declarer now has choices: one of those choices is to keep the CQ as an MPC. Now what you are saying is that while declarer cannot ask for a heart lead because he cannot force the lead of the suit in which someone has an mPC, he can say he wants the CQ as an MPC: this makes the Hx an MPC as well: then he changes the option he asks for and asks for a heart lead? No, it won't wash. It may be to declarer's advantage to make one choice, and then change it for another, but it is not legal. What is true is that L51B applies to a later trick. If declarer opts for the CQ as an MPC, making the Hx an MPC as well, then he can require either a club or heart lead at T2 if LHO is still on lead and neither MPC has been played. -- 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 Jun 5 12:47:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA28843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 12:47:41 +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 MAA28829 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 12:47:30 +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 12ymv1-0007hv-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 02:47:13 +0000 Message-ID: <$Dv0UkAh3vO5Ew6j@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 02:09:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question References: <200005311726.KAA22860@mailhub.irvine.com> <000f01bfcb58$62389860$d7291dc2@rabbit> <8BfUU8CuSdN5EwjW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000301bfcd4e$20a9b800$1f2a1dc2@rabbit> <002e01bfcd9d$a42c7600$415408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <002e01bfcd9d$a42c7600$415408c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ Hmmm....... interesting............ this thread seems to be >based upon the assumption that Ave+ will be 60%. Why >would this be? Is not Ave+ "at least 60%" ?? It may be in part that people assume what their training and other information tells them. Certainly we are trained that A+ is 60% or more if the session average is greater than 60%, no other possibility. > What understanding has the Director as to when he >should judge more than 60% appropriate? There is nothing >I can recall in the Law Book to say that he awards greater >than 60% only when the non-offender's session percentage >is over 60%. What Law 88 establishes is that a non- >offending player is to receive no less than 60% or his >session percentage, whichever is the greater; there is no >upper limit in the Law that I recall, the discretion lying >with the Director. I think that when the Director finds >cause to award more than 60% he has power to do so. So, assuming this is correct - and I agree the letter of the Law supports it - when are we going to give greater than 60%? Well, what is Grattan suggesting in the example case? He suggests they get roughly what they might have got on average between the two likely results, in other words he is *assigning* a score [admittedly a weighted one]. And that is what we do not do in L12C1. We give an artificial score - and Grattan's suggestion is not an artificial score, it is an assigned one. So when else could we award an artificial one in excess of 60%? Well, you could do so under regulations from the SO. They would be legal. If a pair loses three boards in a round there could be a regulation that they get 70% for the third one rather than 60%: that would be legal under the wording of L12C1 and L88. But I am unconvinced that the wording of those Laws is to permit the TD to use his judgement to assign a score and call it artificial. -- 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 Jun 5 12:47:37 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA28838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 12:47:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA28824 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 12:47:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12ymuu-000GB5-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 02:47:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 01:57:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question References: <200005311726.KAA22860@mailhub.irvine.com> <000f01bfcb58$62389860$d7291dc2@rabbit> <8BfUU8CuSdN5EwjW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000301bfcd4e$20a9b800$1f2a1dc2@rabbit> In-Reply-To: <000301bfcd4e$20a9b800$1f2a1dc2@rabbit> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thomas Dehn wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> Thomas Dehn wrote: >> >Adam wrote: >> >> A few weeks ago, I posted a problem that was part of another, longer, >> >> thread. I didn't get any responses, so I'm guessing that most BLMLers >> >> thought my question was rhetorical and was just part of the larger >> >> argument. But I'm still interested in the answer. >> >> >> >> In a matchpoint event, you and your partner hold perfect fitting hands >> >> that will make 12 or 13 tricks in spades depending on how you guess >> >> the trump queen; nevertheless, because the perfect fit is hard to >> >> diagnose, 90% of the field stops in 4S. You bid to 6S. After the >> >> opening lead, but before any other cards have been played, you hear UI >> >> from a loudmouth at the next table that tells you clearly where the >> >> queen of trumps is. You call the Director. Assuming no substitute is >> >> available to play the hand, what score should the Director assign to >> >> each side? >> > >> >For the complicated part of the problem, >> >I assume that 16 B1 etc. can't be applied. >> >Thus 16 B3 comes into action. In theory, I should >> >thus award an _artificial_ adjusted score. >> > >> >Applying 12 C1 seems to be absurd, because the bidding >> >was not influenced by the extraneous information. >> >> It is not up to you as a TD to ignore the lawmakers in this situation. >> They have told you to use L12C1 so use it. > >This, of course, is the correct interpretation of the >letter of the law. > >We here have an obvious flaw in the wording of the >current law. Other parts, for example 12 A1 and the definitions >section indicate that *reducing* a NO's score by awarding >A+ is not intended by the lawmakers. > >> >The definitions section reads: >> >1. An artificial adjusted score is one awarded in lieu >> >of a result because no result can be obtained or >> >estimated for a particular deal >> >(e.g., when an irregularity prevents play of a deal). >> > >> >In this deal, I can estimate the result of the deal. >> >I thus adjust the score the following way, not exactly covered >> >by 12 C1 ;-): >> >> Not covered. Where does exactly come into it? > >There is a contradiction between "... because no result can be estimated" >and the "we *always* award A+/A+ in such situations" of 12 C1. > >> I like your approach, but it isn't legal. > >I agree is close to the border of illegality, >probably more on the illegal side. > >Apart from the law change Adam already has suggested, >what would be the pros and cons for a law change >which provides either the TD or the AC with the right >to assign an assigned adjusted score in cases where >application of the law clearly does not restore equity >(such like this one)? >[Some ACs have been doing such things in the past, >IMHO with only little basis in the current law.] I am for it. But, as I have mentioned a few times, I think we confuse several of our readers, by continually mixing threads between what the correct ruling is, and what it should be. Of course I would like to be able to give what feels like a fairer result, but when we are discussing what we should do I think it helpful in the first instance if we decide what to do under the 1997 Laws. BTW, what large duplicate bridge competition held this year was *not* run under the 1997 Laws? -- 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 Jun 5 12:47:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA28842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 12:47:38 +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 MAA28826 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 12:47:28 +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 12ymuu-0007hu-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 02:47:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 01:51:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... References: <20000602172158.43786.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000602172158.43786.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 >>Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >> >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. >> >> Any TD who asks should be marked down. it is a question that *must >>not* be asked. >> >> In 5 minutes, you expect the TD to *start* his answer right, and your >>given answer starts wrong. When a player leads or plays two cards then >>the TD *never* asks which one he intended. Read L58B2. > > Are you complaining that the defender will say, "I intended to lead the >H8, but because of the penalty card restrictions, I will lead the CQ >instead?" L58B2 asks the player to choose the lead. What the player >intends to lead right now is somewhat important, otherwise he'll be >paralyzed trying to choose a lead. I agree, what he intends to lead now is important: what he intended to lead originally is not so should not be asked. > If the given answer is incorrect, then what is the correct answer? Fairly obviously, the answer I gave is what I believe the correct answer to be. -- 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 Jun 5 13:15:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA28822 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 12:47:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA28804 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 12:47:07 +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 12ymul-0007hv-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 02:46:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 20:23:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam. References: <3931bf71.2efa.0@zfree.co.nz> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: >Hash: SHA1 > >At 1:18 PM +0100 6/2/00, David Stevenson wrote: >>Let us remember that the fact that the card were next to each other is >>information *FROM THE TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR* who elicited it >>unnecessarily. > >Perhaps. Perhaps not. Could it not have been: > >TD: what happened? >Player: I meant to play the H8, but I accidently pulled the CQ >instead, and the H8, which was next to it, fell out. > >This seems like gratuitous info from the player, rather than >unnecessary elicitation by the TD. At least, it does to me. :-) Sure. But I merely answered the question, not a different one. If the TD does not ask a question in a way designed to elicit something he does not need to know, and the player proffers it anyway, then it is UI to pd and nothing to do with the TD. True. -- 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 Jun 5 13:19:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA28944 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 13:19:18 +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 NAA28939 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 13:19:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from grabiner (dialup-20-146-bg.wcnet.org [205.133.172.146]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id XAA02294 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 23:18:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000604231428.0088fba0@mail.wcnet.org> X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 23:14:28 -0400 To: From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question In-Reply-To: <002e01bfcd9d$a42c7600$415408c3@dodona> References: <200005311726.KAA22860@mailhub.irvine.com> <000f01bfcb58$62389860$d7291dc2@rabbit> <8BfUU8CuSdN5EwjW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000301bfcd4e$20a9b800$1f2a1dc2@rabbit> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:50 PM 6/3/00 +0100, Grattan Endicott wrote: > What understanding has the Director as to when he >should judge more than 60% appropriate? There is nothing >I can recall in the Law Book to say that he awards greater >than 60% only when the non-offender's session percentage >is over 60%. What Law 88 establishes is that a non- >offending player is to receive no less than 60% or his >session percentage, whichever is the greater; there is no >upper limit in the Law that I recall, the discretion lying >with the Director. I think that when the Director finds >cause to award more than 60% he has power to do so. The law also allows the SO to give other rules. For example, if a team wins a Swiss match by forfeit, it is matched as if it won by 3 IMPs; however, its final score is the greatest of (a) a win by 3 IMPs, (b) its average in the matches it played, (c) the complement of the average in the matches the forfeiting team played. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 5 14:15:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA29011 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 13:36:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA29005 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 13:36:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.2]) by swarm.mosquitonet.com (8.9.1/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA32714 for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 19:36:20 -0800 Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 19:36:20 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Worldwide pairs scoring In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, David Stevenson wrote: [snip] > > BTW, what large duplicate bridge competition held this year was *not* > run under the 1997 Laws? I assume David refers to the just-concluded Worldwide Simultaneous Pairs, for which the scoring software is not equipped to cope with split or weighted scores. (We had one at our club, NS-200/EW+100, which ACBLscore could handle just fine, but which the Ecats program recorded as -200/+200.) It would seem that, L78D notwithstanding, use of a scoring method which prohibits the proper use of L12C is contrary to the laws. I see from the web page for the Worldwide game that there have been a dozen previous BBL multi-site events scored the same way, so presumably there has been a lot more than one large event that ran afoul of the laws. Or wasn't this what you had in mind, DWS? If not, I still think it is worthy of attention, and is one of a few rather major complaints I have with how this years's worldwide game was set up, which I have every intention of letting the proper officials know about in a letter. GRB From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 5 14:16:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA28821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 12:47:22 +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 MAA28803 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 12:47:07 +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 12ymuk-0007hu-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 02:46:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 20:21:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam. References: <3931bf71.2efa.0@zfree.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 >>Derek Malloch wrote: >>> >>>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. >> >> Let us remember that the fact that the card were next to each other is >>information *FROM THE TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR* who elicited it >>unnecessarily. >> >But the lead of a heart in this auction is *obviously* a singleton, even >if it wasn't lead with the left hand. That is UI. and that UI precludes >play of HAx when West gets the lead. cheers john Oh yes? That is not in my Law book. You are on lead with KQJTx Axx xx xxx against 3NT and pd makes UI available that suggests a spade lead: are you precluded [that's London English, innit?] from a spade lead? This is a complex hand, and you want to find the information out and then rule according to the laws. Come to think of it, the same applies to non-complex hands! -- 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 Jun 5 19:52:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA29793 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 19:52:22 +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 TAA29784 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 19:50:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from comarch.pl (pcciborowski.comarch.pl [195.116.125.138]) by omicron.comarch.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD9925C026 for ; Mon, 05 Jun 2000 11:49:22 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <393B796D.CFAA1EA@comarch.pl> Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 11:57:01 +0200 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Worldwide pairs scoring References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote: > > On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, David Stevenson wrote: > [snip] > > > > BTW, what large duplicate bridge competition held this year was *not* > > run under the 1997 Laws? > IIRC there is a team event in England with table results _not converted_ to IMPs (so nv 4S= vs. 4S-1 is 470 points). I don't recall the name of the event (though I read about it in IPBM once); perhaps someone from the island can help :)) -- *********************************************************************** - One school believes that high taxes are most profitable for the poor as there is more money in the budget for social purposes. The other one claims that low taxes are better for the poor as the rich ones can keep more money for investments that give work to the unemployed ones etc. Which side does your party support? - Both of these schools are right but we reject both viewpoints. ( from a TV debate before the elections in a certain European country ) Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 5 20:10:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA29858 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 20:10:33 +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 UAA29852 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 20:10:26 +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 MAA21982; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 12:07:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA01075; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 12:07:45 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 12:07:43 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Konrad Ciborowski cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Worldwide pairs scoring In-Reply-To: <393B796D.CFAA1EA@comarch.pl> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Gordon Bower wrote: > > > > On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, David Stevenson wrote: > > [snip] > > > > > > BTW, what large duplicate bridge competition held this year was *not* > > > run under the 1997 Laws? > IIRC there is a team event in England with table results > _not converted_ to IMPs (so nv 4S= vs. 4S-1 is 470 points). > I don't recall the name of the event (though I read about > it in IPBM once); perhaps someone from the island can help :)) Total point scoring is discussed in 78C and one can always allow it using 78D. 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 Jun 5 22:01:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA00238 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 22:01:52 +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 WAA00233 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 22:01:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 14:00:58 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id NAA30210 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 13:46:34 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: What should a player do upon finding a sorted hand? Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 13:46:00 +0200 Message-ID: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310D3@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: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101B3EA@xion.spase.nl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >> >>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. > > It is not up to you to judge as a player what the TD can and cannot >do. L16B says "... the Director should be notified forthwith, ..." so >notify him. Don't try to do his job for him. Then you can only cancel the deal. You pick up a sorted hand and summon the TD, as you are required to do. But by merely doing so, you tell everybody at the table that you have a sorted hand which might have been passed around before, as it is virtually the only reason you can summon the TD for before the auction has started (apart from a wrong number of cards). We then have the interesting situation that the Laws *require* you to give UI to the table. So whether the hand indeed has been passed around or not, TD can only cancel the deal, because UI has been given about your hand by merely summoning the TD. Is it then not better to wait until after play and summon the TD afterward? It will still be a difficult job for the TD, but at least the other players don't get any information from you. Don't get me wrong, I realize that the Laws require me to summon the TD immediately, but I think that it would be better in this case to delay that. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 6 01:05:13 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA00835 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 01:05:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA00829 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 01:05:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA27881; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 08:01:09 -0700 Message-Id: <200006051501.IAA27881@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 05 Jun 2000 01:48:59 PDT." Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 08:01:09 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Let me see if I can follow what you say. In the critical case where > RHO opts to lead the CQ, the Hx is an mPC. Declarer now has choices: > one of those choices is to keep the CQ as an MPC. Declarer's choices *first* are to accept the lead, put his own hand down as dummy, or reject the lead. The last option is Law 54D, "Declarer Refuses Opening Lead." 54D says that Law 56 applies. Law 56 says, "When declarer requires a defender to retract his faced lead out of turn, the card illegally led becomes a major penalty card, and Law 50D applies." At that point, the CQ becomes a MPC; the H8 became an mPC at the point East chose to lead the CQ. So now East has two penalty cards. Law 50B says: "when one defender has two or more penalty cards, all such cards become major penalty cards." So the H8 is now a *major* penalty card. > Now what you are saying is that while declarer cannot ask for a heart > lead because he cannot force the lead of the suit in which someone has > an mPC, he can say he wants the CQ as an MPC: this makes the Hx an MPC > as well: then he changes the option he asks for and asks for a heart > lead? > > No, it won't wash. It may be to declarer's advantage to make one > choice, and then change it for another, but it is not legal. Are you sure you're not responding to someone else's post? I don't recall saying anything vaguely like what you're saying I said. I certainly never said that declarer can't ask for a heart lead. Here's what I said declarer's options are: # (a) Require a club or heart lead; East picks up the card in the # specified suit. # # (b) Forbid clubs, forbid hearts, or forbid both clubs and hearts; # East picks up the card(s) in the forbidden suits. So yes, I did say declarer can ask for a heart lead. All I was trying to say is this: at the point declarer refuses the lead, the offender now has two major penalty cards; since the two cards are both MPC's, there's no legal reason why it would make any difference which card East decided to lead. (I.e., director must still ask East which card he proposes to lead, but his choice becomes irrelevant unless declarer accepts the lead or puts his own hand down as dummy.) I bring this up because of your statement: >> Option 5: Lead reverts to LHO, forbid lead of suit led out of turn for >> as long as retains lead, that card gets picked up, now apply three >> options to other card *IF AND ONLY IF* that other card is CQ: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Since the two penalty cards are equivalent at that point (both major), there's no legal reason why any law should apply if the other card is the CQ, but not apply if it's the H8. That situation can't exist logically (once declarer decides to make the lead revert to LHO). > What is true is that L51B applies to a later trick. Nothing in Law 51 says it doesn't apply to trick one. The way the Laws are written appears to be this: Law 50D applies when there is one major penalty card, and Law 51 applies when there is more than one penalty card. Law 50D applies when the MPC is a refused opening lead (Law 56 says so). So why shouldn't Law 51 also apply to a refused opening lead (i.e. when there are two penalty cards, one of which is a refused opening lead)? [Or is it your theory that we can't apply Law 51 because Law 56 tells us specifically to apply Law 50D? I doubt that was the intent of the lawmakers. L51 is more or less an extension of L50D, so I don't see any reason why we can't apply it in a case where it clearly applies.] > If declarer opts > for the CQ as an MPC, making the Hx an MPC as well, then he can require > either a club or heart lead at T2 if LHO is still on lead and neither > MPC has been played. Of course we agree on this; I think you must have grossly misunderstood what I was saying. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 6 02:41:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA01365 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 02:41:11 +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 CAA01359 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 02:41:04 +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 12yzvk-000BIl-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 17:40:53 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 11:53:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Worldwide pairs scoring References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote: > > >On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, David Stevenson wrote: >[snip] >> >> BTW, what large duplicate bridge competition held this year was *not* >> run under the 1997 Laws? > >I assume David refers to the just-concluded Worldwide Simultaneous Pairs, >for which the scoring software is not equipped to cope with split or >weighted scores. (We had one at our club, NS-200/EW+100, which ACBLscore >could handle just fine, but which the Ecats program recorded as >-200/+200.) It would seem that, L78D notwithstanding, use of a scoring >method which prohibits the proper use of L12C is contrary to the laws. > >I see from the web page for the Worldwide game that there have been a >dozen previous BBL multi-site events scored the same way, so presumably >there has been a lot more than one large event that ran afoul of the laws. > >Or wasn't this what you had in mind, DWS? If not, I still think it is >worthy of attention, and is one of a few rather major complaints I have >with how this years's worldwide game was set up, which I have every >intention of letting the proper officials know about in a letter. Right competition, but I had a far simpler answer. The letters to organisers [in England anyway] said the World-wide Pairs was played under the 1987 Laws. -- 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 Jun 6 02:50:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA01434 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 02:50:55 +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 CAA01428 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 02:50:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from comarch.pl (pcciborowski.comarch.pl [195.116.125.138]) by omicron.comarch.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 557875C037 for ; Mon, 05 Jun 2000 18:50:07 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <393BDC0B.CDFA3D42@comarch.pl> Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 18:57:47 +0200 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Worldwide pairs scoring References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" wrote: > > On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > > Gordon Bower wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, David Stevenson wrote: > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > BTW, what large duplicate bridge competition held this year was *not* > > > > run under the 1997 Laws? > > > IIRC there is a team event in England with table results > > _not converted_ to IMPs (so nv 4S= vs. 4S-1 is 470 points). > > I don't recall the name of the event (though I read about > > it in IPBM once); perhaps someone from the island can help :)) > > Total point scoring is discussed in 78C and one can always allow it using > 78D. > True, indeed. Thanks. -- *********************************************************************** - One school believes that high taxes are most profitable for the poor as there is more money in the budget for social purposes. The other one claims that low taxes are better for the poor as the rich ones can keep more money for investments that give work to the unemployed ones etc. Which side does your party support? - Both of these schools are right but we reject both viewpoints. ( from a TV debate before the elections in a certain European country ) Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 6 03:10:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA01482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 03:10:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA01477 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 03:09:56 +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 12z0Ne-000Dor-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 17:09:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 18:03:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam. References: <3931bf71.2efa.0@zfree.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 >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>In article , David Stevenson >> writes >>>Derek Malloch wrote: >>>> >>>>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. >>> >>> Let us remember that the fact that the card were next to each other is >>>information *FROM THE TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR* who elicited it >>>unnecessarily. >>> >>But the lead of a heart in this auction is *obviously* a singleton, even >>if it wasn't lead with the left hand. That is UI. and that UI precludes >>play of HAx when West gets the lead. cheers john > > Oh yes? That is not in my Law book. In the case as originally given, I'd rule that there is UI even if the OLOOTer hadn't flickered, said nothing, and the TD was competent enough not to ask. The fact that the CQ and the H8 are on the table is indication that partner was thinking of leading one of them. If he was thinking of leading the CQ then my defence is not clear. If he was thinking of leading the H8 it was because he wants a ruff. On balance partner wants a H ruff. Are there alternatives? yes. I'm still sticking with 4S + 1. cheers john > > You are on lead with > > KQJTx > Axx > xx > xxx > >against 3NT and pd makes UI available that suggests a spade lead: are >you precluded [that's London English, innit?] from a spade lead? > > This is a complex hand, and you want to find the information out and >then rule according to the laws. > > Come to think of it, the same applies to non-complex hands! > -- 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 Jun 6 04:26:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA01734 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 04:26:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA01728 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 04:26:51 +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 LAA31103; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 11:23:01 -0700 Message-Id: <200006051823.LAA31103@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam. In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 05 Jun 2000 18:03:47 PDT." Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 11:23:02 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: > >>But the lead of a heart in this auction is *obviously* a singleton, even > >>if it wasn't lead with the left hand. That is UI. and that UI precludes > >>play of HAx when West gets the lead. cheers john > > > > Oh yes? That is not in my Law book. > > In the case as originally given, I'd rule that there is UI even if the > OLOOTer hadn't flickered, said nothing, and the TD was competent enough > not to ask. The fact that the CQ and the H8 are on the table is > indication that partner was thinking of leading one of them. If he was > thinking of leading the CQ then my defence is not clear. If he was > thinking of leading the H8 it was because he wants a ruff. On balance > partner wants a H ruff. Are there alternatives? yes. Well, of course there are alternatives. Since the HA was led at trick 3, at that point there were 10 alternatives to leading this card. But are any of those 10 cards *logical* alternatives? That's a more difficult question. I tried constructing a hand (from West's point of view) where another defense would work better than the heart shift, but I couldn't find one. I'll admit that I didn't spend a whole lot of time on it. > I'm still sticking with 4S + 1. If West is a good player, good enough to figure out that the HA may gain and (I believe) couldn't lose, I think I'd let the table result stand. (Or if enough comparable players are available that I can give the hand to, I'd ask them how what they'd consider are the LA's.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 6 05:15:22 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA01936 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 05:15:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe4.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA01931 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 05:15:12 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 5207 invoked by uid 65534); 5 Jun 2000 19:14:34 -0000 Message-ID: <20000605191434.5206.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [38.27.214.76] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <200006051501.IAA27881@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: The Making of a mPC [was From the Dutch TD exam...] Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 14:15:45 -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 When I responded to the original thread I spent almost all my effort in dealing with a poorly worded problem statement. I finally concluded that the offender's statement about the H8 was his L58B2 election of card proposed to be played. Given it was the problem statement it was the only thing to go on. It did bother me and as the thread developed it became more clear what bothered me: A player exposes two cards to a trick. I do not like it that L58B2 treats the infraction as if it did not happen. It ought to be the TD's job to ascertain what happened and THEN apply the remedy. That is to say, find out which card the contestant played by telling him to assert the card [no rigmarole just yet about the ramifications as this merely establishes the facts]. Theoretically, the offender should conduct himself so as to not make it evident that he has changed his play. But surely it ought not be the infractor's choice as to controlling what kind of PCs he can create. Telling him that if he elects the H8 it may become a MPC and if he elects the CQ then the H8 might become a mPC in the event the POOT is refused is irrelevant as to what card the infractor played. The designation of Major or Minor PC should be determined by what was done during the infraction, not what will be done. This concept of giving an infractor two bites of the apple to the NOS's one bite makes me nauseous. My opinion of the mPC is that it is a concept that encourages players to be mindless and sloppy by trivializing a serious infraction. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: Adam Beneschan To: Cc: Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 10:01 AM Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > Let me see if I can follow what you say. In the critical case where > > RHO opts to lead the CQ, the Hx is an mPC. Declarer now has choices: > > one of those choices is to keep the CQ as an MPC. > > Declarer's choices *first* are to accept the lead, put his own hand > down as dummy, or reject the lead. The last option is Law 54D, > "Declarer Refuses Opening Lead." 54D says that Law 56 applies. > > Law 56 says, "When declarer requires a defender to retract his faced > lead out of turn, the card illegally led becomes a major penalty card, > and Law 50D applies." > > At that point, the CQ becomes a MPC; the H8 became an mPC at the point > East chose to lead the CQ. So now East has two penalty cards. Law > 50B says: "when one defender has two or more penalty cards, all such > cards become major penalty cards." So the H8 is now a *major* penalty > card. > > > Now what you are saying is that while declarer cannot ask for a heart > > lead because he cannot force the lead of the suit in which someone has > > an mPC, he can say he wants the CQ as an MPC: this makes the Hx an MPC > > as well: then he changes the option he asks for and asks for a heart > > lead? > > > > No, it won't wash. It may be to declarer's advantage to make one > > choice, and then change it for another, but it is not legal. > > Are you sure you're not responding to someone else's post? I don't > recall saying anything vaguely like what you're saying I said. I > certainly never said that declarer can't ask for a heart lead. Here's > what I said declarer's options are: > > # (a) Require a club or heart lead; East picks up the card in the > # specified suit. > # > # (b) Forbid clubs, forbid hearts, or forbid both clubs and hearts; > # East picks up the card(s) in the forbidden suits. > > So yes, I did say declarer can ask for a heart lead. > > All I was trying to say is this: at the point declarer refuses the > lead, the offender now has two major penalty cards; since the two > cards are both MPC's, there's no legal reason why it would make any > difference which card East decided to lead. (I.e., director must > still ask East which card he proposes to lead, but his choice becomes > irrelevant unless declarer accepts the lead or puts his own hand down > as dummy.) I bring this up because of your statement: > > >> Option 5: Lead reverts to LHO, forbid lead of suit led out of turn for > >> as long as retains lead, that card gets picked up, now apply three > >> options to other card *IF AND ONLY IF* that other card is CQ: > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Since the two penalty cards are equivalent at that point (both major), > there's no legal reason why any law should apply if the other card is > the CQ, but not apply if it's the H8. That situation can't exist > logically (once declarer decides to make the lead revert to LHO). > > > > What is true is that L51B applies to a later trick. > > Nothing in Law 51 says it doesn't apply to trick one. > > The way the Laws are written appears to be this: Law 50D applies when > there is one major penalty card, and Law 51 applies when there is more > than one penalty card. Law 50D applies when the MPC is a refused > opening lead (Law 56 says so). So why shouldn't Law 51 also apply to > a refused opening lead (i.e. when there are two penalty cards, one of > which is a refused opening lead)? > > [Or is it your theory that we can't apply Law 51 because Law 56 tells > us specifically to apply Law 50D? I doubt that was the intent of the > lawmakers. L51 is more or less an extension of L50D, so I don't see > any reason why we can't apply it in a case where it clearly applies.] > > If declarer opts > > for the CQ as an MPC, making the Hx an MPC as well, then he can require > > either a club or heart lead at T2 if LHO is still on lead and neither > > MPC has been played. > > Of course we agree on this; I think you must have grossly > misunderstood what I was saying. > > -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 6 08:54:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA02520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 08:54:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA02515 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 08:54:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.29] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12z5ko-000IXY-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 23:53:54 +0100 Message-ID: <001701bfcf41$25bb02a0$1d5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200005311726.KAA22860@mailhub.irvine.com><000f01bfcb58$62389860$d7291dc2@rabbit><8BfUU8CuSdN5EwjW@blakjak.demon.co.uk><000301bfcd4e$20a9b800$1f2a1dc2@rabbit><002e01bfcd9d$a42c7600$415408c3@dodona> <$Dv0UkAh3vO5Ew6j@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 23:54:26 +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, June 05, 2000 2:09 AM Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question ---------------- \x/ -------------------- > It may be in part that people assume what their training and other > information tells them. Certainly we are trained that A+ is 60% or more > if the session average is greater than 60%, no other possibility. > +=+ Well, maybe the training is wrong. There is nothing in the Laws to say this is the *only* circumstance; the laws merely say that it is one circumstance and do not rule out that there may be others. Actually I doubt that any such statement has ever been made in training; the positive requirement in Law 88 will have been addressed, but I think it bold to suggest that the question of whether there may be any other possible circumstance has been truly considered. +=+ > > And that is what we do not do in L12C1. We give an artificial score - > and Grattan's suggestion is not an artificial score, it is an assigned > one. > +=+ Any score awarded when no result has been obtained at the table is 'artificial'. And I see no upward limitation on what an artificial score may be. If 12 tricks is worth 36 match points and 13 tricks is worth 48 match points, and I say I am awarding the player 42 match points, that is an artificial adjusted score. What is desirable is for the pundit to get out a strong magnifying glass, rinse the preconception from each eye and read the law book. If it is argued I have no power to make the award, please explain to me where and how *the law*denies me. ~~Grattan~~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 6 09:03:50 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA02541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 09:03:50 +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 JAA02535 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 09:03:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12z5u6-000Eab-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 00:03:31 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 18:23:42 +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: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101B3EA@xion.spase.nl> <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310D3@xion.spase.nl> In-Reply-To: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310D3@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 Stevenson wrote: >>> >>>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. >> >> It is not up to you to judge as a player what the TD can and cannot >>do. L16B says "... the Director should be notified forthwith, ..." so >>notify him. Don't try to do his job for him. > >Then you can only cancel the deal. You pick up a sorted hand and summon >the TD, as you are required to do. But by merely doing so, you tell >everybody at the table that you have a sorted hand which might have >been passed around before, as it is virtually the only reason you can >summon the TD for before the auction has started (apart from a wrong >number of cards). We then have the interesting situation that the Laws >*require* you to give UI to the table. So whether the hand indeed has >been passed around or not, TD can only cancel the deal, because UI >has been given about your hand by merely summoning the TD. Is it then >not better to wait until after play and summon the TD afterward? It >will still be a difficult job for the TD, but at least the other players >don't get any information from you. >Don't get me wrong, I realize that the Laws require me to summon the >TD immediately, but I think that it would be better in this case >to delay that. If I were the player I would not say anything to the TD when he arrived except "Please may I speak to you privately". Now, I can think of a number of reasons why I might want to speak to him privately - for example because the plonker at the next table has just said something unfortunate. If the TD decides to let me play it then I expect him to come back to the table and say "This player has received some unauthorised information about the hand he is about to play. I have decided to ...." Really, I cannot see the presumption that calling the TD means a sorted hand - and most TDs will not require me to say so in front of the table. I still think you should let the TD do his job. I remember a girl, a friend of mine at University, saying one day to a group of us "I do not feel very well. I think I shall go to the doctor and get him to prescribe some [whatever it was] for me." I wondered then, and still do, why people do not let the authority make the decision. Another typical one from my rail newsgroup: "There is no point telling the conductor of the train if someone is smoking illegally - what can he do?" The answer is that it does not matter: you tell him, and he does whatever seems fit. Similarly, the Laws require you to tell the TD in a UI from other sources case: don't assume what the TD can and cannot do: tell him [as far as possible without increasing the UI] and then let him do whatever he sees fit. -- 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 Jun 6 09:12:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA02566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 09:12:18 +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 JAA02561 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 09:12:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12z62H-0002pq-0W for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 00:11:57 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 00:10:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... References: <200006051501.IAA27881@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200006051501.IAA27881@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <200006051501.IAA27881@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Let me see if I can follow what you say. In the critical case where >> RHO opts to lead the CQ, the Hx is an mPC. Declarer now has choices: >> one of those choices is to keep the CQ as an MPC. > >Declarer's choices *first* are to accept the lead, put his own hand >down as dummy, or reject the lead. The last option is Law 54D, >"Declarer Refuses Opening Lead." 54D says that Law 56 applies. I've just thought of something here. Can declarer find out which card the OLOOTer proposes to lead before deciding whether to accept it. I think not, as my understanding is that he accepts or rejects the lead in the knowledge that OLOOTer has a choice. 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 Jun 6 09:45:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA02688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 09:45:45 +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 JAA02683 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 09:45:37 +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 QAA24284 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 16:45:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gateway.tandem.com (4.20/4.11) id AA21305; 5 Jun 0 16:44:14 -0700 Date: 5 Jun 0 16:42:00 -0700 Message-Id: <200006051644.AA21305@gateway.tandem.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What should a player do upon finding a sorted hand? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hmmm. Makes my habit of shuffling my hand after I've counted the cards (as well as when I'm putting it back into the board) look a little better. Regards, WWFiv (Wally Farley) Los Gatos, CA From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 6 10:39:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA02952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 10:39:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA02945 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 10:39:39 +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 12z7Op-00067W-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 01:39:19 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 01:23:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: The Making of a mPC [was From the Dutch TD exam...] References: <200006051501.IAA27881@mailhub.irvine.com> <20000605191434.5206.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000605191434.5206.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: > >When I responded to the original thread I spent almost all my effort in >dealing with a poorly worded problem statement. I finally concluded that >the offender's statement about the H8 was his L58B2 election of card >proposed to be played. Given it was the problem statement it was the only >thing to go on. It did bother me and as the thread developed it became more >clear what bothered me: > >A player exposes two cards to a trick. I do not like it that L58B2 treats >the infraction as if it did not happen. It ought to be the TD's job to >ascertain what happened and THEN apply the remedy. That is to say, find out >which card the contestant played by telling him to assert the card [no >rigmarole just yet about the ramifications as this merely establishes the >facts]. Theoretically, the offender should conduct himself so as to not make >it evident that he has changed his play. > >But surely it ought not be the infractor's choice as to controlling what >kind of PCs he can create. Telling him that if he elects the H8 it may >become a MPC and if he elects the CQ then the H8 might become a mPC in the >event the POOT is refused is irrelevant as to what card the infractor >played. The designation of Major or Minor PC should be determined by what >was done during the infraction, not what will be done. This concept of >giving an infractor two bites of the apple to the NOS's one bite makes me >nauseous. Oh, come on, Roger! What is wrong with trying to reduce the effects of the infraction? It is *not* two bites of the apple to the NOS's one bite! The player has committed an infraction and he will pay a certain amount, and that amount is what the lawmakers say so and not what your stomach does! Suppose a player revokes: the TD is called, and explains the Law: that player [and his partner if he is a defender] have a perfect right to try to make it a one-trick penalty rather than a two-trick one. >My opinion of the mPC is that it is a concept that encourages players to be >mindless and sloppy by trivializing a serious infraction. So? mPCs exist, so when we rule, sometimes we rule as an mPC. -- 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 Jun 6 10:39:43 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA02947 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 10:39:43 +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 KAA02941 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 10:39:33 +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 12z7Os-00067c-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 01:39:23 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 01:16:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... References: <200006051501.IAA27881@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200006051501.IAA27881@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >Of course we agree on this; I think you must have grossly >misunderstood what I was saying. I very much doubt that I have misunderstood you. You are saying that at T1 declarer may ban a H or C lead, and I am saying that is not so. I may be wrong, of course [and I shall go through it again], but I do not think I have misunderstood. The basic difference in our approach to this problem is that you are saying that declarer makes a decision, and if he decides not to accept the lead he then makes another decision: I am saying that we tell declarer all his options and ramifications [see L9B2] and then he makes a single decision. OK, let's clear all the quotes out of the way, and start again. LHO leads a CQ and a Hx simultaneously. Following what I have understood [and I shall come back later to the views of Burn and others that the original intent does matter] we have the following Laws: L58B2. RHO designates the card he proposes to play. The other card becomes a penalty card. L50B. If that designated card is the CQ the Hx becomes an mPC: if that designated card is the Hx the CQ becomes an MPC. L54A. Declarer may decide to become dummy, the designated card is accepted as the lead, and the remaining card stays as an mPC [Hx] or MPC [CQ]. L54B. Declarer may decide to accept the lead and play the hand, the designated card is accepted as the lead, and the remaining card stays as an mPC [Hx] or MPC [CQ]. L54D. If he refuses the lead then L56 applies. L56. At this moment the Law says that the card illegally led becomes an MPC and L50D applies. This is the crux of the problem. Is this a sequential thing? Does the ruling mean that you apply this Law and wait for its effects, or is this just part of the overall ruling? Adam [and I have received an email from someone else supporting Adam] thinks the former - I have assumed the latter [though I might be persuadable]. If you treat it as an occurrence as Adam does then there are two PCs on the table, and when you have two PCs they both become MPCs. That is Adam's main point. So let us see what happens. Case [a]: we have two MPCs: this will happen if RHO designated the Hx, since the CQ became an MPC then: alternatively it will happen if RHO designated the CQ and if you accept Adam's argument. Case [b]: we have an MPC and an mPC just for argument's sake until the decision is made: this will happen if RHO designated the CQ and if you do not accept Adam's argument. Case [a]: L51B2A. Declarer may require a H lead or a C lead: if he does so then the card of that suit gets picked up. L51B2B. Declarer may forbid a H lead or a C lead or both for as long as LHO retains the lead: if he does so then the card of that suit or suits gets picked up. L50A. Otherwise the MPCs are left face upwards on the table, and .... L50D1. .... they must be played at the first legal opportunity, subject to .... L51A. .... if either can be played, declarer designates which, and .... L50D2. .... declarer can have his requirement to lead or forbidding the lead at any stage later in the hand if LHO gets on lead and the MPCs are still on the table. Case [b]: L51B2A. Declarer may require a C lead [not a H lead, since the H will be an mPC]: if he does so then the CQ gets picked up. L51B2B. Declarer may forbid a C lead [not a H lead, since the H will be an mPC] for as long as LHO retains the lead: if he does so then the CQ gets picked up. L50A. Otherwise the PCs are left face upwards on the table, and .... L50B. .... since there are two of them they both become MPCs, and .... L50D1. .... they must be played at the first legal opportunity, subject to .... L51A. .... if either can be played, declarer designates which, and .... L50D2. .... declarer can have his requirement to lead or forbidding the lead at any stage later in the hand if LHO gets on lead and the MPCs are still on the table. So there we are: do the both become MPCs when L56 applies? -- 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 Jun 6 13:59:12 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA03323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 13:59:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe42.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA03318 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 13:58:58 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 74876 invoked by uid 65534); 6 Jun 2000 03:58:02 -0000 Message-ID: <20000606035802.74875.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [166.62.93.18] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <200006051501.IAA27881@mailhub.irvine.com><20000605191434.5206.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: The Making of a mPC [was From the Dutch TD exam...] Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 22:59:15 -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: Monday, June 05, 2000 7:23 PM Subject: The Making of a mPC [was From the Dutch TD exam...] > Roger Pewick wrote: > > > >When I responded to the original thread I spent almost all my effort in > >dealing with a poorly worded problem statement. I finally concluded that > >the offender's statement about the H8 was his L58B2 election of card > >proposed to be played. Given it was the problem statement it was the only > >thing to go on. It did bother me and as the thread developed it became more > >clear what bothered me: > > > >A player exposes two cards to a trick. I do not like it that L58B2 treats > >the infraction as if it did not happen. It ought to be the TD's job to > >ascertain what happened and THEN apply the remedy. That is to say, find out > >which card the contestant played by telling him to assert the card [no > >rigmarole just yet about the ramifications as this merely establishes the > >facts]. Theoretically, the offender should conduct himself so as to not make > >it evident that he has changed his play. > > > >But surely it ought not be the infractor's choice as to controlling what > >kind of PCs he can create. Telling him that if he elects the H8 it may > >become a MPC and if he elects the CQ then the H8 might become a mPC in the > >event the POOT is refused is irrelevant as to what card the infractor > >played. The designation of Major or Minor PC should be determined by what > >was done during the infraction, not what will be done. This concept of > >giving an infractor two bites of the apple to the NOS's one bite makes me > >nauseous. > > Oh, come on, Roger! What is wrong with trying to reduce the effects > of the infraction? It is *not* two bites of the apple to the NOS's one > bite! The player has committed an infraction and he will pay a certain > amount, and that amount is what the lawmakers say so and not what your > stomach does! We are talking here of making available to partner extraneous information in an illegal way. I have made it clear that my viewpoint is not that found in the 97 lawbook, but what the lawbook ought to say. As related as POOT and revokes may or may not be, the analogy presented is not comparable. > Suppose a player revokes: the TD is called, and explains the Law: that > player [and his partner if he is a defender] have a perfect right to try > to make it a one-trick penalty rather than a two-trick one. > > >My opinion of the mPC is that it is a concept that encourages players to be > >mindless and sloppy by trivializing a serious infraction. > > So? mPCs exist, so when we rule, sometimes we rule as an mPC. First the player could have gotten it right by not exposing cards while it was not his turn. Second, the player who exposes cards who was intending his lead to be one of them may decide later that it would be better to change it to the other. But the law gives the player the right to think it over as if he were exposing the two cards for the first time to work out what which of the two cards he will 'expose' first. So. Why should a player who was not supposed to expose any cards OOT get more rights for exposing 2 cards than if he exposed but one? Well, he should not and ought not. But L58B2 provides for it. The UI from the knowledge of but a single card can be extremely revealing especially considering when no cards are supposed to be exposed at that time. Tack on the UI of an additional card and a significant portion of the unseen cards might be distilled. But, the UI of a card combined with knowledge that partner wanted to play it can be compelling. Yet value is seen in giving the offender the best likelihood to minimize the impact of the penalty coming at him? I find it incredulous. The value to seek is to encourage playing one card in turn. Telling him that he gets to consider all these other things sends the wrong message. I contend that it is counterproductive to spend time explaining to the offender the ramifications of the alternative as presented in L58B2 before he designates. If he had only played one card the law does not give him the right to change it to a different card. I contend that it is counterproductive to allow time for the offender to consider the ramifications of the alternative as presented in L58B2. Presumably in this case he had already considered what bridge lead he was going to make when he led. He has already done his leading. Also, the player has demonstrated little regard for doing what is expected and has not earned such a benefit. What seems right is that the card that was intended to be played should stand and there is no good value in taking time for the offender to work out whether to change it. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 6 14:22:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA03383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:22:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from carbon (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA03378 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:22:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.74.14] (helo=D457300) by carbon with smtp (Exim 3.03 #16) id 12zAsM-0001z6-00; Tue, 06 Jun 2000 05:22:02 +0100 Message-ID: <001701bfcf6e$d2fb4ce0$0e4a01d5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <200006051501.IAA27881@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 05:22:25 +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 DWS wrote: > OK, let's clear all the quotes out of the way, and start again. LHO > leads a CQ and a Hx simultaneously. Following what I have understood > [and I shall come back later to the views of Burn and others that the > original intent does matter] How much later? There is, as far as I can see, no reference to what I said in your message. > L50B. If that designated card is the CQ the Hx becomes an mPC: if that > designated card is the Hx the CQ becomes an MPC. But that is not what L50B says. It says: A single card below the rank of an honour and exposed inadvertently (as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally) becomes a minor penalty card. Any card of honour rank, or any card exposed through deliberate play (as in leading out of turn, or in revoking and then correcting) becomes a major penalty card. Now, if the player intended to lead H8 and accidentally exposed HQ simultaneously, then H8 was not a card exposed inadvertently - the player meant to expose it. I do not think that the player may be given the option to say: "Because I now mean to lead CQ, H8 is a card that should be considered inadvertently exposed - since I now mean to lead CQ, I never meant to lead H8." David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 6 20:41:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA04159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 20:41:36 +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 UAA04144 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 20:41:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-253.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.253]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA04069 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 12:41:13 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <393CD2D0.AAA4851F@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 12:30:40 +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: The Making of a mPC [was From the Dutch TD exam...] References: <200006051501.IAA27881@mailhub.irvine.com> <20000605191434.5206.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: > > When I responded to the original thread I spent almost all my effort in > dealing with a poorly worded problem statement. I finally concluded that > the offender's statement about the H8 was his L58B2 election of card > proposed to be played. Given it was the problem statement it was the only > thing to go on. It did bother me and as the thread developed it became more > clear what bothered me: > > A player exposes two cards to a trick. I do not like it that L58B2 treats > the infraction as if it did not happen. It ought to be the TD's job to > ascertain what happened and THEN apply the remedy. That is to say, find out > which card the contestant played by telling him to assert the card [no > rigmarole just yet about the ramifications as this merely establishes the > facts]. Theoretically, the offender should conduct himself so as to not make > it evident that he has changed his play. > > But surely it ought not be the infractor's choice as to controlling what > kind of PCs he can create. Telling him that if he elects the H8 it may > become a MPC and if he elects the CQ then the H8 might become a mPC in the > event the POOT is refused is irrelevant as to what card the infractor > played. The designation of Major or Minor PC should be determined by what > was done during the infraction, not what will be done. This concept of > giving an infractor two bites of the apple to the NOS's one bite makes me > nauseous. > > My opinion of the mPC is that it is a concept that encourages players to be > mindless and sloppy by trivializing a serious infraction. > > Roger Pewick > Houston, Texas > I concur with what Roger says. We should not forget that L58B2 simply says "penalty card". it does not say whether the other becomes a minor or a major penalty card. Nor should we forget that the definition of "minor" in L50B has three elements : "only one", "not an honour" and "inadvertent". Thus if a player plays the CQ and the H8 drops, the H8 can become a mPC. But when he plays the H8 and the CQ drops, the H8 will always be a MPC. Thus it is always important, when 2 cards are visible on the table, to determine which card leader wanted to play ! There is one other question. Suppose the second case. The CQ drops accidentally. The H8 was played deliberately. Does L58B2 allow leader to designate the CQ ? I believe it does, but leader should realise the H8 becomes a MPC. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 6 20:41:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA04157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 20:41:35 +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 UAA04142 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 20:41:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-253.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.253]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA04064 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 12:41:11 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <393CCE12.994289C9@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 12:10:26 +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: From the Dutch TD exam... References: <200006051501.IAA27881@mailhub.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I concur completely with David's analysis, and I choose : David Stevenson wrote: > > > L56. At this moment the Law says that the card illegally led becomes > an MPC and L50D applies. This is the crux of the problem. Is this a > sequential thing? Does the ruling mean that you apply this Law and wait > for its effects, or is this just part of the overall ruling? Adam [and > I have received an email from someone else supporting Adam] thinks the > former - I have assumed the latter [though I might be persuadable]. > It is part of the overall ruling. You give declarer all these options, including the two MPC's. So I don't really understand the question. > If you treat it as an occurrence as Adam does then there are two PCs > on the table, and when you have two PCs they both become MPCs. That is > Adam's main point. So let us see what happens. Case [a]: we have two > MPCs: this will happen if RHO designated the Hx, since the CQ became an > MPC then: alternatively it will happen if RHO designated the CQ and if > you accept Adam's argument. Case [b]: we have an MPC and an mPC just > for argument's sake until the decision is made: this will happen if RHO > designated the CQ and if you do not accept Adam's argument. > I vote for case [a] > > So there we are: do the both become MPCs when L56 applies? > Yes they do. The Hx is a mPC if and only if the leader elects the Club as his lead, and declarer accepts that lead. Otherwise, there are always two MPCs. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 6 20:41:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA04158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 20:41:35 +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 UAA04143 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 20:41:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-253.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.253]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA04074 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 12:41:15 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <393CD3BE.76B7AA9E@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 12:34:38 +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: Worldwide pairs scoring References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > Right competition, but I had a far simpler answer. The letters to > organisers [in England anyway] said the World-wide Pairs was played > under the 1987 Laws. > I noticed it too. It happens sometimes. The recent Carta Mundi tournament had again copied the regulations from last year (when the mistake was also noticed), and still contained reference to the 1987 Laws. The joy of computers ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 6 21:01:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA04288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 21:01:35 +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 VAA04283 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 21:01:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 13:00:57 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id MAA04272 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 12:24:11 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'BLML'" Subject: RE: Birds in their little nests should agree. Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 12:23:18 +0200 Message-ID: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310D7@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: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101B0B5@xion.spase.nl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >Brethren, >I appreciate that heated discussion ensues >from many of our deliberations, and that is >healthy, good for the game, and sometimes >productive. >The continual sniping and flaming that is going >on at the moment is none of these things. >Tease if you must, but to denigrate in such a >flamboyant way is neither gentlemanly nor is >it likely to afford respect for your opinions on >other matters. > (\ /) > ( \ _ / ) > ( \( )/ ) > ( / \ ) > ( / \/ \ ) > / \ > ( ) > Anne I agree with you completely. I am the first to admit that there are far better players and TDs around here than I am; nevertheless, if I have a statement, which happens to be false, I expect an honest explanation why I am wrong, and not messages which seem to say something like "Because people who are better than you say so". -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 7 01:12:33 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA04993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 01:12:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA04988 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 01:12:22 +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 IAA20356; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 08:08:32 -0700 Message-Id: <200006061508.IAA20356@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 06 Jun 2000 01:16:18 PDT." Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 08:08:32 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > >Of course we agree on this; I think you must have grossly > >misunderstood what I was saying. > > I very much doubt that I have misunderstood you. You are saying that > at T1 declarer may ban a H or C lead, and I am saying that is not > so. Oh, if that's what you're saying, then I guess I grossly misunderstood you. I didn't gather that from your previous posts. > I may be wrong, of course [and I shall go through it again], but I do not > think I have misunderstood. > > The basic difference in our approach to this problem is that you are > saying that declarer makes a decision, and if he decides not to accept > the lead he then makes another decision: I am saying that we tell > declarer all his options and ramifications [see L9B2] and then he makes > a single decision. [snip] > L56. At this moment the Law says that the card illegally led becomes > an MPC and L50D applies. This is the crux of the problem. Is this a > sequential thing? Does the ruling mean that you apply this Law and wait > for its effects, or is this just part of the overall ruling? Adam [and > I have received an email from someone else supporting Adam] thinks the > former - I have assumed the latter [though I might be persuadable]. [snip] It seems to me that there are two separate problems here, and we must be careful to avoid confusing them: (1) Do we assume this is a sequential thing for the purposes of determining what the ramifications of the Laws are (i.e. determining whether H8 is a major or minor penalty card)? (2) Do we assume this is a sequential thing for the purposes of explaining to declarer what his options are? I don't think the answer to these two questions has to be the same. I believe the answer to (1) is clearly "yes". It's hard for me to imagine that the Laws could be applied any other way, particularly when Law 56 uses the word "becomes", a word that really doesn't make sense unless one is talking about a sequence of events. But answering "yes" to question (1) does *not* imply that we must ask declarer two separate questions. After East selects a lead, we can still tell declarer what all his options will be all at once, and what all the potential ramifications will be. The potential ramifications will have been determined by applying the Laws sequentially, but we don't need to wait until declarer selects an option before we make this determination. (In fact, Dutch directors will have already determined what the potential ramifications are when they take the Dutch TD exam!) Assuming East has decided to lead the CQ, we tell declarer: "You may choose to accept the lead, in which case the H8 will remain as a mPC; you may spread your hand as dummy and let your partner botch the play, in which case the H8 will remain as a mPC; you may require West to lead a heart or club, in which case East picks up the heart or club respectively and the other card remains a MPC; you may forbid a heart or club lead from West as long as he retains the lead, in which case East picks up the heart or club respectively and the other card remains a MPC; you may forbid West to lead both hearts and clubs for as long as he retains the lead, in which case East picks up both cards; or you may let West lead anything he likes, in which case both of East's cards remain penalty cards, and when he gets the lead you may designate which of his cards he is to lead." We then explain the difference between a mPC and a MPC and the ramifications. Then we explain that we've used up the entire round explaining declarer's options and he'll have to take a late play. :) The point here is that answering "yes" to question (1) does not require us to violate L9B. So our desire to explain declarer's options all at once, which I think is the right way to do things, really isn't relevant to the question of whether the Laws should be applied in order. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 7 02:17:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA05325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 02:17:04 +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 CAA05320 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 02:16:57 +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 RAA16807; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 17:16:47 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA14107; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 17:16:47 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Tue, 06 Jun 2000 16:16:46 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 RAA05100; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 17:16:45 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id RAA07981; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 17:16:45 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 17:16:45 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200006061616.RAA07981@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... Cc: adam@irvine.com X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam wrote: > > Assuming East has decided to lead the CQ, we tell declarer: "You may > choose to accept the lead, in which case the H8 will remain as a mPC; > you may spread your hand as dummy and let your partner botch the play, > in which case the H8 will remain as a mPC; you may require West to > lead a heart or club, in which case East picks up the heart or club > respectively and the other card remains a MPC; you may forbid a heart > or club lead from West as long as he retains the lead, in which case > East picks up the heart or club respectively and the other card > remains a MPC; you may forbid West to lead both hearts and clubs for > as long as he retains the lead, in which case East picks up both > cards; or you may let West lead anything he likes, in which case both > of East's cards remain penalty cards, and when he gets the lead you > may designate which of his cards he is to lead." We then explain the > difference between a mPC and a MPC and the ramifications. And then we explain that West must not use UI from the major or minor penalty cards in playing/leading to this or subsequent tricks, and what it means for a card which West can see face up on the table to be unauthorised. (i.e., it is authorised that East must play a MPC but not that he holds it or that he attempted to lead it!) > Then we explain that we've used up the entire round explaining > declarer's options and he'll have to take a late play. :) > Indeed. 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 Wed Jun 7 03:08:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA05467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 03:08:10 +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 DAA05462 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 03:08:01 +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 12zMpJ-000H5H-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 18:07:42 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:50:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... References: <200006051501.IAA27881@mailhub.irvine.com> <001701bfcf6e$d2fb4ce0$0e4a01d5@D457300> In-Reply-To: <001701bfcf6e$d2fb4ce0$0e4a01d5@D457300> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >DWS wrote: > >> OK, let's clear all the quotes out of the way, and start again. >LHO >> leads a CQ and a Hx simultaneously. Following what I have >understood >> [and I shall come back later to the views of Burn and others that >the >> original intent does matter] > >How much later? There is, as far as I can see, no reference to what I >said in your message. When I get round to it. I neither suggested nor meant that I was going to say anything in the same posting. -- 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 Jun 7 03:09:19 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA05476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 03:09:19 +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 DAA05471 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 03:09:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12zMpP-000H5P-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 18:07:48 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:49:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: The Making of a mPC [was From the Dutch TD exam...] References: <200006051501.IAA27881@mailhub.irvine.com> <20000605191434.5206.qmail@hotmail.com> <20000606035802.74875.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000606035802.74875.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: David Stevenson >To: >Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 7:23 PM >Subject: The Making of a mPC [was From the Dutch TD exam...] > > >> Roger Pewick wrote: >> > >> >When I responded to the original thread I spent almost all my effort in >> >dealing with a poorly worded problem statement. I finally concluded that >> >the offender's statement about the H8 was his L58B2 election of card >> >proposed to be played. Given it was the problem statement it was the >only >> >thing to go on. It did bother me and as the thread developed it became >more >> >clear what bothered me: >> > >> >A player exposes two cards to a trick. I do not like it that L58B2 >treats >> >the infraction as if it did not happen. It ought to be the TD's job to >> >ascertain what happened and THEN apply the remedy. That is to say, find >out >> >which card the contestant played by telling him to assert the card [no >> >rigmarole just yet about the ramifications as this merely establishes the >> >facts]. Theoretically, the offender should conduct himself so as to not >make >> >it evident that he has changed his play. >> > >> >But surely it ought not be the infractor's choice as to controlling what >> >kind of PCs he can create. Telling him that if he elects the H8 it may >> >become a MPC and if he elects the CQ then the H8 might become a mPC in >the >> >event the POOT is refused is irrelevant as to what card the infractor >> >played. The designation of Major or Minor PC should be determined by what >> >was done during the infraction, not what will be done. This concept of >> >giving an infractor two bites of the apple to the NOS's one bite makes me >> >nauseous. >> >> Oh, come on, Roger! What is wrong with trying to reduce the effects >> of the infraction? It is *not* two bites of the apple to the NOS's one >> bite! The player has committed an infraction and he will pay a certain >> amount, and that amount is what the lawmakers say so and not what your >> stomach does! > >We are talking here of making available to partner extraneous information in >an illegal way. I have made it clear that my viewpoint is not that found in >the 97 lawbook, but what the lawbook ought to say. As related as POOT and >revokes may or may not be, the analogy presented is not comparable. > >> Suppose a player revokes: the TD is called, and explains the Law: that >> player [and his partner if he is a defender] have a perfect right to try >> to make it a one-trick penalty rather than a two-trick one. >> >> >My opinion of the mPC is that it is a concept that encourages players to >be >> >mindless and sloppy by trivializing a serious infraction. >> >> So? mPCs exist, so when we rule, sometimes we rule as an mPC. > >First the player could have gotten it right by not exposing cards while it >was not his turn. >Second, the player who exposes cards who was intending his lead to be one of >them may decide later that it would be better to change it to the other. > >But the law gives the player the right to think it over as if he were >exposing the two cards for the first time to work out what which of the two >cards he will 'expose' first. > >So. Why should a player who was not supposed to expose any cards OOT get >more rights for exposing 2 cards than if he exposed but one? Well, he >should not and ought not. But L58B2 provides for it. > >The UI from the knowledge of but a single card can be extremely revealing >especially considering when no cards are supposed to be exposed at that >time. Tack on the UI of an additional card and a significant portion of the >unseen cards might be distilled. But, the UI of a card combined with >knowledge that partner wanted to play it can be compelling. > >Yet value is seen in giving the offender the best likelihood to minimize >the impact of the penalty coming at him? I find it incredulous. > >The value to seek is to encourage playing one card in turn. Telling him >that he gets to consider all these other things sends the wrong message. > >I contend that it is counterproductive to spend time explaining to the >offender the ramifications of the alternative as presented in L58B2 before >he designates. If he had only played one card the law does not give him the >right to change it to a different card. > >I contend that it is counterproductive to allow time for the offender to >consider the ramifications of the alternative as presented in L58B2. >Presumably in this case he had already considered what bridge lead he was >going to make when he led. He has already done his leading. Also, the >player has demonstrated little regard for doing what is expected and has not >earned such a benefit. How unbearable. People do make mistakes, you know, we all do, unless you happen to be perfect. Making a mistake is not showing little regard for the game. OK, so you want to play a game according to some other set of rules in a dislikeable atmosphere. So be it. Fortunately it is not Bridge, where we tend to have some tolerance. -- 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 Jun 7 07:03:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA06197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 07:03:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA06192 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 07:02:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id RAA01037 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 17:02:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA28792 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 17:02:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 17:02:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200006062102.RAA28792@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: a "silent" alert problem X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Those alert strips are a nuisance. It is much better to take them out > of the box. Alerts are not missed if the card is put in the middle of > the table on the board. In the ACBL, the correct procedure with the alert strips is to tap the strip and also say 'alert' out loud (or make one of the various required announcements). This procedure works reasonably well when players can be bothered to use it, and I recommend it to SO's who prefer or are stuck with the alert strips. Otherwise, I agree with David's answer. It is a (difficult) judgment ruling for the TD to determine whether or not the alert was adequate. The SO's exact regulations would most likely be important. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 7 09:41:25 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA06550 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 09:41:25 +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 JAA06544 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 09:41:17 +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 TAA27801 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 19:41:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006062341.TAA27801@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <200006061508.IAA20356@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200006061508.IAA20356@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 19:41:18 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 6 June 2000 at 8:08, Adam Beneschan wrote: > DWS: >> L56. At this moment the Law says that the card illegally led becomes >> an MPC and L50D applies. This is the crux of the problem. Is this a >> sequential thing? Does the ruling mean that you apply this Law and wait >> for its effects, or is this just part of the overall ruling? Adam [and >> I have received an email from someone else supporting Adam] thinks the >> former - I have assumed the latter [though I might be persuadable]. > When I actually reread L50D, a couple of years ago, and realized that "the standard 5 options" were in fact, only 3 - You can accept the lead and put hand down, accept the lead and see dummy before playing from hand, or refuse the lead, at which point you have the 3 options you always have when leader's pd has a MPC on the table - a light turned on in my head, mostly because I hadn't realized that the "last 3" options were in fact relevant whenever there's an MPC. Since then, I've given the "standard 5 options" as: "You can accept the lead or reject the lead. If you accept the lead, you can 1) put your hand down as dummy and let your partner play it, or 2) see dummy before playing from your hand. If you reject the lead, becomes a MPC, and you therefore have the following 3 options, (enumerate 3), 4), and 5) as above) If you choose to let LHO lead whatever she wants, and she is subsequently on lead and the MPC is still on the table, you will have those last 3 options again." I truly wonder how many players realize that after an OLOOT, they can allow any lead, then, when they see dummy, do the force/refuse *at trick 2* provided LHO has kept the lead. I would expect less than 1%, and it's a useful trick to know - when deciding what to play to T1. I also wonder how many players realize that MPC's restrict the opps' actions more than "I have to play it at first opportunity." Why am I going on like this? Probably because I'm too tired to think clearly, but seriously, because this line of argument lends itself to the "sequential" school. Here's the logic: The options available to declarer after an OLOOT: - Spread his hand as dummy (L54A) - Accept the lead, see dummy, play from hand (L54B) (interesting sidenote - the way the Laws are worded, if declarer accepts the lead, this is what must happen; he can't "accept" and then invoke L54A, he must simply spread his hand. No practical difference, but pedantically amusing). - Refuse the lead (L54D) This invokes L56, which creates the MPC and invokes L50D. L50D gives declarer the standard 3 options available to him whenever leader's pd has a MPC. So, because declarer has his L50D options because there's a MPC on the table, the L50B transmuting of the mPC into a second MPC should, IMHO and according to this logic, also occur, because there's a mPC and a MPC on the table. In other words, I believe that "the standard 5 options" is a legal fiction that happens to match what the Laws say in 99.something% of cases. Because it's "universally" correct, however, we poor TD's are misled by it in the rare instance where it doesn't match. However, that still won't stop me from starting my OLOOT spiel with "You have the standard 5 options. Do you know them, or do you wish them explained to you?" (the spiel above is used when the answer to that question is "explain, please" or "5?" or "Oh my" or...) I usually end my presence at the table with a short "The ACBL recommends that OL be made face down, and accompanied by 'questions, partner?' In my experience, the most common question is 'Why (/the h---/ the f---) are you leading, Michael?'" (what's in the parentheses depends on what game I'm directing, and whether I know all the players present personally, and whether I'm in the bar at the time). This usually elicits a chuckle or two, helps calm down the table, and with luck trains another person into avoiding OLOOTs. I even did that to the Club Owner last week (a former Czech internationalist) :-). >It seems to me that there are two separate problems here, and we must >be careful to avoid confusing them: > >(1) Do we assume this is a sequential thing for the purposes of > determining what the ramifications of the Laws are (i.e. > determining whether H8 is a major or minor penalty card)? > >(2) Do we assume this is a sequential thing for the purposes of > explaining to declarer what his options are? In this case, as you can see, I believe (1) is true. However, I believe that everyone should have, as well as is possible, the entirety of the ramifications of the decision they are about to make available to them before getting them to make any decision. So while my explanation may be sequential, I will not require declarer or OLOOTer to decide anything before they know all the possibilities. Oh, and if you think I would have got this one right at the table (I will now, of course)...but I expect I would have been close. >But answering "yes" to question (1) does *not* imply that we must ask >declarer two separate questions. After East selects a lead, we can >still tell declarer what all his options will be all at once, and what >all the potential ramifications will be. The potential ramifications >will have been determined by applying the Laws sequentially, but we >don't need to wait until declarer selects an option before we make >this determination. > I believe (if you take the british approach to L50B, so that East must choose which of the two cards he "led" was in fact his "lead"), that we must tell both declarer and OLOOTer what all the options will be all at once, *before* East selects a lead. Just because she's the offender, doesn't mean that she loses the benefit of informed decision. >The point here is that answering "yes" to question (1) does not >require us to violate L9B. So our desire to explain declarer's >options all at once, which I think is the right way to do things, >really isn't relevant to the question of whether the Laws should be >applied in order. > I agree with the logic, with the caveat above. Hope any of this makes sense. Michael. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 7 10:53:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA06724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:53:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA06719 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:53:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.79] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 12zU5w-0008Wx-00; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 01:53:20 +0100 Message-ID: <000601bfd01b$002e6c40$4f5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: "William Schoder" , "Grattan Endicott" Subject: Artificiality Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 08:35:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:53:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12zV24-000Enz-0W for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 02:53:25 +0100 Message-ID: <8$M+TTA9oSP5EwAb@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 17:43:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... References: <200006051501.IAA27881@mailhub.irvine.com> <001701bfcf6e$d2fb4ce0$0e4a01d5@D457300> In-Reply-To: <001701bfcf6e$d2fb4ce0$0e4a01d5@D457300> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <001701bfcf6e$d2fb4ce0$0e4a01d5@D457300>, David Burn writes > >Now, if the player intended to lead H8 and accidentally exposed HQ >simultaneously, then H8 was not a card exposed inadvertently - the >player meant to expose it. I do not think that the player may be given >the option to say: "Because I now mean to lead CQ, H8 is a card that >should be considered inadvertently exposed - since I now mean to lead >CQ, I never meant to lead H8." You are not reading Law 58B2, David. It is crystal clear. cheers john > >David Burn >London, England > > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 7 11:53:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA06861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:53:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA06855 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:53:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12zV2A-000Eo2-0W for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 02:53:31 +0100 Message-ID: <0$J8DOApnSP5Ewh8@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 17:42:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: The Making of a mPC [was From the Dutch TD exam...] References: <200006051501.IAA27881@mailhub.irvine.com> <20000605191434.5206.qmail@hotmail.com> <393CD2D0.AAA4851F@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <393CD2D0.AAA4851F@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <393CD2D0.AAA4851F@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes snip >> >> My opinion of the mPC is that it is a concept that encourages players to be >> mindless and sloppy by trivializing a serious infraction. >> >> Roger Pewick >> Houston, Texas >> > >I concur with what Roger says. > >We should not forget that L58B2 simply says "penalty card". >it does not say whether the other becomes a minor or a major >penalty card. > >Nor should we forget that the definition of "minor" in L50B >has three elements : "only one", "not an honour" and >"inadvertent". > >Thus if a player plays the CQ and the H8 drops, the H8 can >become a mPC. But when he plays the H8 and the CQ drops, the >H8 will always be a MPC. > >Thus it is always important, when 2 cards are visible on the >table, to determine which card leader wanted to play ! > >There is one other question. > >Suppose the second case. The CQ drops accidentally. The H8 >was played deliberately. Does L58B2 allow leader to >designate the CQ ? I believe it does, but leader should >realise the H8 becomes a MPC. > IMNSVHO LOOTer's intention is irrelevant. He has two cards face up on the table, he chooses one of them. L58B2 is completely clear on this. After he has selected one we decide what sort of penalty card the other one is. Law 50B is perfectly clear on this. It is an abuse of English to try to foist any other interpretation on the Law than this one. We do not ask his intent. There is nothing in the Laws that requires us to do so. I'd hate to think that we're going to get another ecole De Wael out of this thread. 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 Jun 7 16:48:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA08121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 16:48:48 +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 QAA08116 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 16:48:42 +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 QAA29609 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 16:46:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 07 Jun 2000 16:46:15 +0000 (EST) Subject: Law 74A To: Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 16:45:22 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 07/06/2000 04:43:57 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Although as a general rule I believe that use of PPs by TDs should be *very* sparingly used, when it comes to a breach of L74A the imposition of a PP should be swift and certain. Best wishes Richard Hills richard.hills@immi.gov.au From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 7 17:25:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA08171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 17:25:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from carbon (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA08166 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 17:25:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.33.235] (helo=D457300) by carbon with smtp (Exim 3.03 #16) id 12zaD7-0000ZI-00; Wed, 07 Jun 2000 08:25:09 +0100 Message-ID: <000001bfd051$925d9c40$eb21073e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" , "John Probst" References: <200006051501.IAA27881@mailhub.irvine.com><001701bfcf6e$d2fb4ce0$0e4a01d5@D457300> <8$M+TTA9oSP5EwAb@probst.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 08:23:33 +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 John Probst wrote: > In article <001701bfcf6e$d2fb4ce0$0e4a01d5@D457300>, David Burn > writes > > > >Now, if the player intended to lead H8 and accidentally exposed HQ > >simultaneously, then H8 was not a card exposed inadvertently - the > >player meant to expose it. I do not think that the player may be given > >the option to say: "Because I now mean to lead CQ, H8 is a card that > >should be considered inadvertently exposed - since I now mean to lead > >CQ, I never meant to lead H8." > > You are not reading Law 58B2, David. It is crystal clear. I can read as well as anyone. L58B2 says: If more than one card is visible, the player designates the card he proposes to play; when he is a defender, each other card exposed becomes a penalty card (see Law 50). L58B2 does not say, in any way at all, what kind of penalty card "each other card" becomes. That is why it has a reference to L50 in it, which does describe what kind of penalty card an exposed but not played card becomes. And L50B2 makes it "crystal clear" that a card a player intended to expose, but which for some reason is not now a card he plays, becomes a major penalty card: A single card below the rank of an honour and exposed inadvertently (as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally) becomes a minor penalty card. Any card of honour rank, or any card exposed through deliberate play (as in leading out of turn, or in revoking and then correcting) becomes a major penalty card. The H8 was exposed through deliberate play as in leading out of turn. It is a card the player intended to lead; it is not a card exposed inadvertently as in playing two cards to a trick (the CQ is that card). This is really so obvious that I am amazed there can be any doubt about it. Of course, it renders all the other elaborate arguments about the status of H8 irrelevant, and makes it quite plain that the intention of the player not only matters, but is crucial. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 7 19:32:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA08393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 19:32:00 +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 TAA08388 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 19:31:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:30:54 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id LAA10782 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:02:43 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: From the Dutch TD exam... Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:01:39 +0200 Message-ID: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310DB@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: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101B475@xion.spase.nl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >The H8 was exposed through deliberate play as in leading out of turn. >It is a card the player intended to lead; it is not a card exposed >inadvertently as in playing two cards to a trick (the CQ is that >card). This is really so obvious that I am amazed there can be any >doubt about it. Of course, it renders all the other elaborate >arguments about the status of H8 irrelevant, and makes it quite plain >that the intention of the player not only matters, but is crucial. You are not supposed to know that the H8 is the intended card to play - the candidate at the table sees the CQ and the H8 being exposed, and learns that East thought that he must lead and accidentally pulled two adjacent cards. Only if the candidate probes deeper, East will reveal that he intended to lead the H8, but, as told before, the candidate should not ask that question. Maybe L58B2 should explicitly state that if someone exposes two or more cards at the same time, he must indicate which card to play, and any other card is treated as accidentally dropped, and thus becomes a minor penalty card if it is one card below honour rank, and a major one otherwise. At least, it is how we apparently interpret L58B2. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 7 20:03:54 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA08461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 20:03:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA08456 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 20:03:42 +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 12zcgH-000BiT-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:03:29 +0100 Message-ID: <0i8ptRAKkbP5EwRg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 03:52:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... References: <200006061508.IAA20356@mailhub.irvine.com> <200006062341.TAA27801@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> In-Reply-To: <200006062341.TAA27801@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: >On 6 June 2000 at 8:08, Adam Beneschan wrote: >> >DWS: >>> L56. At this moment the Law says that the card illegally led becomes >>> an MPC and L50D applies. This is the crux of the problem. Is this a >>> sequential thing? Does the ruling mean that you apply this Law and wait >>> for its effects, or is this just part of the overall ruling? Adam [and >>> I have received an email from someone else supporting Adam] thinks the >>> former - I have assumed the latter [though I might be persuadable]. >> >When I actually reread L50D, a couple of years ago, and realized >that "the standard 5 options" were in fact, only 3 - You can accept the >lead and put hand down, accept the lead and see dummy before playing >from hand, or refuse the lead, at which point you have the 3 options you >always have when leader's pd has a MPC on the table - a light turned on >in my head, mostly because I hadn't realized that the "last 3" options >were in fact relevant whenever there's an MPC. That is noted on the standard piece of paper given concerning OLOOTS to all Club TDs on training courses in England. >Since then, I've given the "standard 5 options" as: "You can accept the >lead or reject the lead. If you accept the lead, you can 1) put your >hand down as dummy and let your partner play it, or 2) see dummy before >playing from your hand. If you reject the lead, becomes a MPC, >and you therefore have the following 3 options, (enumerate 3), 4), and >5) as above) If you choose to let LHO lead whatever she wants, and she >is subsequently on lead and the MPC is still on the table, you will have >those last 3 options again." An interesting wording, and a good one if it is understood. The problem with OLOOTs is that it is very difficult to explain them, which is why most TD's standard spiel cuts a few corners. >I truly wonder how many players realize that after an OLOOT, they can >allow any lead, then, when they see dummy, do the force/refuse *at trick >2* provided LHO has kept the lead. I would expect less than 1%, and >it's a useful trick to know - when deciding what to play to T1. Maybe so. Theoretically, the players should be told, but I have my doubts as to the practicality of this. Of course, once they have decided to keep the card as an MPC then it is routine to explain that they will get further options later. > I also >wonder how many players realize that MPC's restrict the opps' actions >more than "I have to play it at first opportunity." Every player, I trust, since the TD will *always* point this out. >Why am I going on like this? Probably because I'm too tired to think >clearly, but seriously, because this line of argument lends itself to >the "sequential" school. > >Here's the logic: The options available to declarer after an OLOOT: >- Spread his hand as dummy (L54A) >- Accept the lead, see dummy, play from hand (L54B) (interesting >sidenote - the way the Laws are worded, if declarer accepts the lead, >this is what must happen; he can't "accept" and then invoke L54A, he >must simply spread his hand. No practical difference, but pedantically >amusing). Historical, I believe. Declarer used to be told he could not accept the lead intentionally, but it was in practice accepted if he spread [or began to] his hand accidentally. So, when this was changed, they changed it to giving him the right to spread his hand intentionally. >- Refuse the lead (L54D) This invokes L56, which creates the MPC and >invokes L50D. > >L50D gives declarer the standard 3 options available to him whenever >leader's pd has a MPC. > >So, because declarer has his L50D options because there's a MPC on the >table, the L50B transmuting of the mPC into a second MPC should, IMHO >and according to this logic, also occur, because there's a mPC and a MPC >on the table. > >In other words, I believe that "the standard 5 options" is a >legal fiction that happens to match what the Laws say in 99.something% >of cases. Because it's "universally" correct, however, we poor TD's are >misled by it in the rare instance where it doesn't match. However, that >still won't stop me from starting my OLOOT spiel with "You have the >standard 5 options. Do you know them, or do you wish them explained to >you?" I dislike this intensely. If a player says he knows them then the chances are about 40% that he does, and his opponents have a *right* to hear them as well. You are required to tell them all the options every time, and I really recommend that you do so. Failure would be completely automatic on an EBU Club TD course if you did not. > (the spiel above is used when the answer to that question is >"explain, please" or "5?" or "Oh my" or...) > >I usually end my presence at the table with a short "The ACBL recommends >that OL be made face down, and accompanied by 'questions, partner?' Recommends? > In >my experience, the most common question is 'Why (/the h---/ >the f---) are you leading, Michael?'" (what's in the parentheses depends >on what game I'm directing, and whether I know all the players >present personally, and whether I'm in the bar at the time). This >usually elicits a chuckle or two, helps calm down the table, and with >luck trains another person into avoiding OLOOTs. I even did that to the >Club Owner last week (a former Czech internationalist) :-). > >>It seems to me that there are two separate problems here, and we must >>be careful to avoid confusing them: >> >>(1) Do we assume this is a sequential thing for the purposes of >> determining what the ramifications of the Laws are (i.e. >> determining whether H8 is a major or minor penalty card)? >> >>(2) Do we assume this is a sequential thing for the purposes of >> explaining to declarer what his options are? > >In this case, as you can see, I believe (1) is true. However, I believe >that everyone should have, as well as is possible, the entirety of the >ramifications of the decision they are about to make available to them >before getting them to make any decision. So while my explanation may >be sequential, I will not require declarer or OLOOTer to decide anything >before they know all the possibilities. Of course not, and I am surprised that my words were interpreted this way. Presumably I did not explain myself fully. When there is an infraction both sides [not just declarer] have an absolute right to know the options available, and this must be explained to them. Until this has been done, no action may be taken by either side. After their various options have been explained in this case - and not before - the TD will want to know what RHO proposes to lead. Then he will want to know what declarer will do. At this point declarer will choose. Despite the long straggle through the Laws, declarer will choose one path, and I do not think it obvious that the one path he chooses should be considered as anything but instantaneously applied, so I do not think it obvious that it involves two PCs at once if the choice is that one gets picked up. >Oh, and if you think I would have got this one right at the table (I >will now, of course)...but I expect I would have been close. This sort of ruling is a lot easier at the table. >>But answering "yes" to question (1) does *not* imply that we must ask >>declarer two separate questions. After East selects a lead, we can >>still tell declarer what all his options will be all at once, and what >>all the potential ramifications will be. The potential ramifications >>will have been determined by applying the Laws sequentially, but we >>don't need to wait until declarer selects an option before we make >>this determination. >> >I believe (if you take the british approach to L50B, so that East must >choose which of the two cards he "led" was in fact his "lead"), that we >must tell both declarer and OLOOTer what all the options will be all at >once, *before* East selects a lead. Just because she's the offender, >doesn't mean that she loses the benefit of informed decision. This is obviously true. >>The point here is that answering "yes" to question (1) does not >>require us to violate L9B. So our desire to explain declarer's >>options all at once, which I think is the right way to do things, >>really isn't relevant to the question of whether the Laws should be >>applied in order. >> >I agree with the logic, with the caveat above. Unfortunately I believe that while the premises are unarguable, the conclusion does not necessarily follow. -- 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 Jun 7 20:57:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA08568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 20:57:22 +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 UAA08563 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 20:57:14 +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 MAA14740; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 12:56:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by kantoor.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA06729; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 12:56:31 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: kantoor.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 12:56:30 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Martin Sinot cc: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: From the Dutch TD exam... In-Reply-To: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310DB@xion.spase.nl> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, Martin Sinot wrote: > David Burn wrote: > >The H8 was exposed through deliberate play as in leading out of turn. > >It is a card the player intended to lead; it is not a card exposed > >inadvertently as in playing two cards to a trick (the CQ is that > >card). This is really so obvious that I am amazed there can be any > >doubt about it. Of course, it renders all the other elaborate > >arguments about the status of H8 irrelevant, and makes it quite plain > >that the intention of the player not only matters, but is crucial. > > You are not supposed to know that the H8 is the intended card to > play - the candidate at the table sees the CQ and the H8 being > exposed, and learns that East thought that he must lead and > accidentally pulled two adjacent cards. Only if the candidate probes > deeper, East will reveal that he intended to lead the H8, but, as > told before, the candidate should not ask that question. > > Maybe L58B2 should explicitly state that if someone exposes two or > more cards at the same time, he must indicate which card to play, > and any other card is treated as accidentally dropped, and thus > becomes a minor penalty card if it is one card below honour rank, > and a major one otherwise. At least, it is how we apparently > interpret L58B2. Accidentally dropped to me means something like pulling 1 card and find out that another card sticked to that one and dropped on the table. That is not what happened here: east pulled a card from his hand with the intention of making an opening lead, he then didn't look if he pulled the right card or enough cards, nor made the opening lead face down. Instead, he just put them on the table, so the other players saw something like: /----------\ | H H | | 8 8 | | /----------\ | | C C | | | Q Q | | | | .... 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 Jun 7 22:53:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA09047 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 22:53:59 +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 WAA09041 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 22:53:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.49.54] (helo=D457300) by tantalum with smtp (Exim 3.03 #16) id 12zfL0-00019d-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 07 Jun 2000 13:53:39 +0100 Message-ID: <000901bfd07f$76494300$3631073e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws'" References: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310DB@xion.spase.nl> Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:54:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot wrote: > David Burn wrote: > > >The H8 was exposed through deliberate play as in leading out of turn. > >It is a card the player intended to lead; it is not a card exposed > >inadvertently as in playing two cards to a trick (the CQ is that > >card). This is really so obvious that I am amazed there can be any > >doubt about it. Of course, it renders all the other elaborate > >arguments about the status of H8 irrelevant, and makes it quite plain > >that the intention of the player not only matters, but is crucial. > > You are not supposed to know that the H8 is the intended card to > play - the candidate at the table sees the CQ and the H8 being > exposed, and learns that East thought that he must lead and > accidentally pulled two adjacent cards. Only if the candidate probes > deeper, East will reveal that he intended to lead the H8, but, as > told before, the candidate should not ask that question. > > Maybe L58B2 should explicitly state that if someone exposes two or > more cards at the same time, he must indicate which card to play, > and any other card is treated as accidentally dropped, and thus > becomes a minor penalty card if it is one card below honour rank, > and a major one otherwise. At least, it is how we apparently > interpret L58B2. It's not how I interpret it, nor can I see anything in the wording of it which would justify this interpretation. Nowhere in L58B2, or anywhere else, is the suggestion that cards exposed other than the played card are "treated as accidentally dropped". Unless you are in the habit of making all your opening leads without looking at your hand (and mine would certainly improve if I did just that), then East did not "accidentally pull two adjacent cards". He deliberately pulled one of them - the one he intended to lead - and he accidentally pulled the other one. He now has the choice of which one he will play (rather mystifyingly, in my view, but that is the Law). But that does not alter the status of the card he intended to lead in the first place from being a card deliberately exposed to being a card accidentally exposed. The player deliberately exposed H8, and accidentally exposed CQ. L50B (apologies for previous references to the non-existent L50B2) says quite clearly that a card deliberately exposed must become a major penalty card if it does not become a played card. That is what should happen to H8, and that is why it is important for the Director to ascertain which card was deliberately exposed and which accidentally exposed. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 7 23:00:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA09090 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 23:00:58 +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 XAA09085 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 23:00:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 15:00:38 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id OAA12567 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:55:08 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: From the Dutch TD exam... Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:52:55 +0200 Message-ID: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310DC@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: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101B478@xion.spase.nl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >Accidentally dropped to me means something like pulling 1 card and find >out that another card sticked to that one and dropped on the table. That >is not what happened here: east pulled a card from his hand with the >intention of making an opening lead, he then didn't look if he pulled the >right card or enough cards, nor made the opening lead face down. >Instead, he just put them on the table, so the other players saw something >like: > > /----------\ > | H H | > | 8 8 | > | /----------\ > | | C C | > | | Q Q | > | | | > .... I agree with you. I was only suggesting that we act as if that card had accidentally been dropped, since it was clearly not offender's intention to play both cards at the same time. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 7 23:02:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA09108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 23:02:01 +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 XAA09101 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 23:01:51 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 10804 invoked from network); 7 Jun 2000 13:01:08 -0000 Received: from petrus2.konvent (HELO eduhi.at) (192.168.1.116) by michael.gym with SMTP; 7 Jun 2000 13:01:08 -0000 Message-ID: <393E47B2.16CD130@eduhi.at> Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 15:01:38 +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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" schrieb: > Accidentally dropped to me means something like pulling 1 card and find > out that another card sticked to that one and dropped on the table. That > is not what happened here: east pulled a card from his hand with the > intention of making an opening lead, he then didn't look if he pulled the > right card or enough cards, nor made the opening lead face down. > Instead, he just put them on the table, so the other players saw something > like: > > /----------\ > | H H | > | 8 8 | > | /----------\ > | | C C | > | | Q Q | > | | | > .... > To me, this is one possibility encompassed by "accidentally", as opposed to "intentionally". Nothing makes me think this player *meant* to lead two cards out of turn. Petrus From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 8 00:28:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA09514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 00:28:38 +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 AAA09509 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 00:28:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-15-91.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.15.91]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA06614 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 16:28:19 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <393E216F.D6D1481@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 12:18:23 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: The Making of a mPC [was From the Dutch TD exam...] References: <200006051501.IAA27881@mailhub.irvine.com> <20000605191434.5206.qmail@hotmail.com> <393CD2D0.AAA4851F@village.uunet.be> <0$J8DOApnSP5Ewh8@probst.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > > >Suppose the second case. The CQ drops accidentally. The H8 > >was played deliberately. Does L58B2 allow leader to > >designate the CQ ? I believe it does, but leader should > >realise the H8 becomes a MPC. > > > IMNSVHO LOOTer's intention is irrelevant. He has two cards face up on > the table, he chooses one of them. L58B2 is completely clear on this. > After he has selected one we decide what sort of penalty card the other > one is. Law 50B is perfectly clear on this. It is an abuse of English > to try to foist any other interpretation on the Law than this one. > > We do not ask his intent. There is nothing in the Laws that requires us > to do so. I'd hate to think that we're going to get another ecole De > Wael out of this thread. cheers john I would like so, because it would for once have two David's on board. The players' intent does not matter for L58B2, but it does matter for L50B !!! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 8 00:33:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA09537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 00:33:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA09532 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 00:33:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12zgtG-0002JL-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:33:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:43:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 74A References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard wrote: >Although as a general rule I believe that use of PPs by TDs should be >*very* sparingly used, when it comes to a breach of L74A the imposition of >a PP should be swift and certain. Probably a DP rather than a PP. But I do not really agree. Breaking this Law is very much a matter of degree. If you are feeling grumpy, and when your oppos sit down you fail to say "Good evening", but leave it to your pd who greets them then I refuse to believe that either a DP or a PP is in order. I do believe that the TD should be very ready to issue a penalty when the breach of L74A is severe. The English L&EC has just issued minutes that stress again this point. -- 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 Jun 8 02:02:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA10012 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 02:02:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt7-he.global.net.uk (cobalt7-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.167]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA10007 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 02:02:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from paes11a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.123.175] helo=pacific) by cobalt7-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12zaKj-0005hy-00; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 08:33:01 +0100 Message-ID: <001901bfd099$9c6b13a0$af7b93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: Subject: Re: Law 74A Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 17:00:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott > But I do not really agree. Breaking this Law is very much a matter of > degree. If you are feeling grumpy, and when your oppos sit down you > fail to say "Good evening", but leave it to your pd who greets them then > I refuse to believe that either a DP or a PP is in order. > > I do believe that the TD should be very ready to issue a penalty when > the breach of L74A is severe. The English L&EC has just issued minutes > that stress again this point. > +=+ I think to merit any kind of penalty the discourtesy has to be one of commission not of omission. Taciturnity is not a crime though a friendly manner is desirable. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 8 02:24:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA10098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 02:24:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from carbon (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA10091 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 02:24:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.55.33] (helo=D457300) by carbon with smtp (Exim 3.03 #16) id 12zicX-0000c6-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 07 Jun 2000 17:23:58 +0100 Message-ID: <000501bfd09c$d7ad5600$2137073e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200006051501.IAA27881@mailhub.irvine.com> <20000605191434.5206.qmail@hotmail.com> <393CD2D0.AAA4851F@village.uunet.be> <0$J8DOApnSP5Ewh8@probst.demon.co.uk> <393E216F.D6D1481@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: The Making of a mPC [was From the Dutch TD exam...] Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 17:24:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk HdW wrote: > "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > > > > > >Suppose the second case. The CQ drops accidentally. The H8 > > >was played deliberately. Does L58B2 allow leader to > > >designate the CQ ? I believe it does, but leader should > > >realise the H8 becomes a MPC. > > > > > IMNSVHO LOOTer's intention is irrelevant. He has two cards face up on > > the table, he chooses one of them. L58B2 is completely clear on this. > > After he has selected one we decide what sort of penalty card the other > > one is. Law 50B is perfectly clear on this. It is an abuse of English > > to try to foist any other interpretation on the Law than this one. Nobody is trying to do any such thing. But it is an abuse of logic, language and reason to do what you seem to want us to do, which is in effect this: A player has put two cards on the table. He has put one of them there by accident, the other one on purpose. Notwithstanding this, we rule as if he had put them both there by accident, despite there being nothing in the rules to tell us to do this. For some unfathomable reason, people seem to have reached the conclusion that just because the player has exposed two cards when he shouldn't have exposed any at all, both of those cards have the same status. They do not. One of them was played deliberately, the other by accident. Law 50B distinguishes between deliberately and accidentally exposed cards. > > We do not ask his intent. There is nothing in the Laws that requires us > > to do so. I'd hate to think that we're going to get another ecole De > > Wael out of this thread. Yes, there is. L58 says that the card not played becomes a penalty card. In order to determine what kind of penalty card, we need to know whether it was exposed deliberately or by accident. To do this, we need to know the intention of the player. There is no question of an ecole d' anybody, unless it be one that teaches elementary English and logic to those sorely in need of instruction. > I would like so, because it would for once have two David's > on board. Certainly it would have my support. I have not seen the views of any other David. > The players' intent does not matter for L58B2, but it does > matter for L50B !!! Well said, that man. Someone buy him a beer. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 8 04:16:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA10308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 03:19:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from t21mta02-app.talk21.com (mta02.talk21.com [62.172.192.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA10303 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 03:18:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from davicaltd ([62.7.177.48]) by t21mta02-app.talk21.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000607171708.GWCP16508.t21mta02-app.talk21.com@davicaltd> for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:17:08 +0100 Message-ID: <005a01bfd0a4$796c0700$30b1073e@davicaltd> From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Fw: From the Dutch TD exam... Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:07:40 +0100 Organization: Davica Ltd MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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: > >In other words, I believe that "the standard 5 options" is a > >legal fiction that happens to match what the Laws say in 99.something% > >of cases. Because it's "universally" correct, however, we poor TD's are > >misled by it in the rare instance where it doesn't match. However, that > >still won't stop me from starting my OLOOT spiel with "You have the > >standard 5 options. Do you know them, or do you wish them explained to > >you?" > > I dislike this intensely. If a player says he knows them then the > chances are about 40% that he does, and his opponents have a *right* to > hear them as well. You are required to tell them all the options every > time, and I really recommend that you do so. > > Failure would be completely automatic on an EBU Club TD course if you > did not. > ###### Have you ever tutored an EBU Club TD course? I have tutored a great many and I can assure you that, whilst anyone who does the above would lose quite a few marks, failure would be far from automatic. Since the marking schedule for the assessment, ie. the 'C' course, is preset, this should be true for all tutors. ##### From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 8 05:05:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA10355 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 03:25:10 +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 DAA10344 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 03:25:00 +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 12zjZM-0001m1-0X for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:24:45 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:19:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law 74A 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 >Richard wrote: >>Although as a general rule I believe that use of PPs by TDs should be >>*very* sparingly used, when it comes to a breach of L74A the imposition of >>a PP should be swift and certain. > > Probably a DP rather than a PP. > > But I do not really agree. Breaking this Law is very much a matter of >degree. If you are feeling grumpy, and when your oppos sit down you >fail to say "Good evening", but leave it to your pd who greets them then >I refuse to believe that either a DP or a PP is in order. > > I do believe that the TD should be very ready to issue a penalty when >the breach of L74A is severe. The English L&EC has just issued minutes >that stress again this point. > In my TD career I have expelled 4 players from games. Twice for Gross discourtesy and a failure to apologise when asked to do so. Once when a player said (regarding a UI ruling I'd made) "I don't need to cheat to get a good result even if the opponents do" after I'd ruled against his side, together with a failure to withdraw the staement when asked, and finally once for physical abuse (hair pulling). I've also had an "away from the table" incident, but the player himself sensibly informed me he'd not return to the card-room, before I ejected him. Otherwise I don't think I've ever given a DP, because I've always accepted that a prompt, ready and sincere apology is sufficient for most cases. The non-offenders will usually accept such. Of course violence is another matter. 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 Jun 8 05:16:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA10354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 03:25:10 +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 DAA10343 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 03:24:57 +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 12zjZN-0001m0-0X for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:24:45 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:09:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... References: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310DB@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 > > /----------\ > | H H | > | 8 8 | > | /----------\ > | | C C | > | | Q Q | > | | | > .... > perhaps he saw: /----------\ | C C | | Q Q | | /----------\ | | H H | | | 8 8 | | | | .... the intent is not relevant. Neither the position of the cards. In respect of "playing a card" a card is "played" by, so to speak, putting it on the table. The card I intended to put on the table could easily have been a different one. Suppose I hold may cards face down towards dummy and say "Pick one". I pull that card and another face up on the table. Intent is *irrelevant*. The cards *are* *played*. I will now have to choose one and then I'll use Law 50 to sort out what to do with the other. cheers john > >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). > -- 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 Jun 8 05:38:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA10889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 05:38:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA10883 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 05:38:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (vp227-187.worldonline.nl [195.241.227.187]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 3801B36C5B for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 21:37:46 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <014b01bfd0b8$3590b8a0$bbe3f1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Subject: End of L68B Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 21:40:16 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A claim case posted on the Dutch equivalent of BLML made me wonder about the interpretation of the end of L68B again. Did BLML ever discuss this item before ? 1) East - West are defending; East concedes all tricks. West objects immediately. The end of L68B says no concession has occurred. Do we play on because there is neither claim nor concession outstanding ? 2) East - West are defending; East claims some tricks, thus conceding the remainder. West objects immediately. The end of L68B says no concession has occurred. Does play cease (because there still is a claim) ? Thanks, Jac From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 8 06:01:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA10314 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 03:19:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from t21mta02-app.talk21.com (mta02.talk21.com [62.172.192.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA10309 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 03:19:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from davicaltd ([62.7.177.48]) by t21mta02-app.talk21.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000607171727.GWEE16508.t21mta02-app.talk21.com@davicaltd> for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:17:27 +0100 Message-ID: <005b01bfd0a4$850b7dc0$30b1073e@davicaltd> From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Fw: From the Dutch TD exam... Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:18:11 +0100 Organization: Davica Ltd MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > John Probst wrote: > > > > In article <001701bfcf6e$d2fb4ce0$0e4a01d5@D457300>, David Burn > > writes > > > > > >Now, if the player intended to lead H8 and accidentally exposed HQ > > >simultaneously, then H8 was not a card exposed inadvertently - the > > >player meant to expose it. I do not think that the player may be > given > > >the option to say: "Because I now mean to lead CQ, H8 is a card > that > > >should be considered inadvertently exposed - since I now mean to > lead > > >CQ, I never meant to lead H8." > > > > You are not reading Law 58B2, David. It is crystal clear. > > I can read as well as anyone. L58B2 says: > > If more than one card is visible, the player designates the card he > proposes to play; when he is a defender, each other card exposed > becomes a penalty card (see Law 50). > > L58B2 does not say, in any way at all, what kind of penalty card "each > other card" becomes. That is why it has a reference to L50 in it, > which does describe what kind of penalty card an exposed but not > played card becomes. And L50B2 makes it "crystal clear" that a card a > player intended to expose, but which for some reason is not now a card > he plays, becomes a major penalty card: > > A single card below the rank of an honour and exposed inadvertently > (as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card > accidentally) becomes a minor penalty card. Any card of honour rank, > or any card exposed through deliberate play (as in leading out of > turn, or in revoking and then correcting) becomes a major penalty > card. > > The H8 was exposed through deliberate play as in leading out of turn. > It is a card the player intended to lead; it is not a card exposed > inadvertently as in playing two cards to a trick (the CQ is that > card). This is really so obvious that I am amazed there can be any > doubt about it. Of course, it renders all the other elaborate > arguments about the status of H8 irrelevant, and makes it quite plain > that the intention of the player not only matters, but is crucial. > > David Burn > London, England ##### I have not bothered to comment on this thread before but I too am amazed that anyone could disagree with the view that David Burn has put forward. IMO it is crucial to know the intention of the OLOOTer. In particular, if declarer is considering accepting the OLOOT then knowledge of the status of the second card (MPC Vs mPC) might significantly influence the decision. Equally, the decision of the OLOOTer regarding which card to play might well depend on the status of the remaining card. Of course, until TDs become equipped with ESP or mind scanners, we will have to ask the OLOOTer what they intended and, since the subsequent ruling will reveal their intention to anyone who knows the Laws, we might as well ask in front of the remaining players and then warn the offenders partner about the use of UI. PS Now John Probst has two Davids on board! #### From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 8 06:20:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA11007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 06:20:53 +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 GAA11002; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 06:20:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from [199.172.253.33] by stormy.ibl.bm (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-65377U14500L13000S0V35) with SMTP id bm; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 17:20:32 -0300 Date: 07 Jun 2000 17:18:09 -0700 Message-ID: <-1251724210jrhind@ibl.bm> From: Jack Rhind Subject: Re: End of L68B To: BLML , Jac Fuchs , 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 GAB11003 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wednesday, June 7, 2000, Jac Fuchs wrote: >A claim case posted on the Dutch equivalent of BLML made me wonder about the >interpretation of the end of L68B again. Did BLML ever discuss this item >before ? > >1) East - West are defending; East concedes all tricks. West objects >immediately. >The end of L68B says no concession has occurred. Do we play on because there >is neither claim nor concession outstanding ? In both cases I believe play should cease and the director should be summoned to the table. There has been unauthorized information from West to East. The director should award East/West only the tricks that they are certain to win. No tricks should be awarded that depend upon East finding a particular lead. East is not allowed to be awakened by West's request to play on. >2) East - West are defending; East claims some tricks, thus conceding the >remainder. West objects immediately. The end of L68B says no concession has >occurred. Does play cease (because there still is a claim) ? I stand to be corrected, but I believe that the same situation occurs here as in 1 above. The director should adjudicate the claim to tricks and award as required, but should not allow East/West to have any tricks from the concession unless they are tricks that cannot be lost. >Thanks, > >Jac > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 8 09:46:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA11494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 09:46:12 +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 JAA11487 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 09:46:01 +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 12zpW5-000FDP-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 00:45:46 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 16:15:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... References: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310DB@xion.spase.nl> 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 Wed, 7 Jun 2000, Martin Sinot wrote: >> David Burn wrote: > >> >The H8 was exposed through deliberate play as in leading out of turn. >> >It is a card the player intended to lead; it is not a card exposed >> >inadvertently as in playing two cards to a trick (the CQ is that >> >card). This is really so obvious that I am amazed there can be any >> >doubt about it. Of course, it renders all the other elaborate >> >arguments about the status of H8 irrelevant, and makes it quite plain >> >that the intention of the player not only matters, but is crucial. >> >> You are not supposed to know that the H8 is the intended card to >> play - the candidate at the table sees the CQ and the H8 being >> exposed, and learns that East thought that he must lead and >> accidentally pulled two adjacent cards. Only if the candidate probes >> deeper, East will reveal that he intended to lead the H8, but, as >> told before, the candidate should not ask that question. >> >> Maybe L58B2 should explicitly state that if someone exposes two or >> more cards at the same time, he must indicate which card to play, >> and any other card is treated as accidentally dropped, and thus >> becomes a minor penalty card if it is one card below honour rank, >> and a major one otherwise. At least, it is how we apparently >> interpret L58B2. > >Accidentally dropped to me means something like pulling 1 card and find >out that another card sticked to that one and dropped on the table. That >is not what happened here: east pulled a card from his hand with the >intention of making an opening lead, he then didn't look if he pulled the >right card or enough cards, nor made the opening lead face down. >Instead, he just put them on the table, so the other players saw something >like: > > /----------\ > | H H | > | 8 8 | > | /----------\ > | | C C | > | | Q Q | > | | | > .... This is one of the two examples quoted in the laws as a method of getting an mPC, so there can be no doubt that playing two cards inadvertently can result in an mPC. -- 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 Jun 8 13:18:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:34:14 +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 MAA11951 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:33:58 +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 12zs8R-000GAE-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 03:33:33 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 01:37:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: End of L68B References: <014b01bfd0b8$3590b8a0$bbe3f1c3@default> In-Reply-To: <014b01bfd0b8$3590b8a0$bbe3f1c3@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jac Fuchs wrote: >A claim case posted on the Dutch equivalent of BLML made me wonder about the >interpretation of the end of L68B again. Did BLML ever discuss this item >before ? > >1) East - West are defending; East concedes all tricks. West objects >immediately. >The end of L68B says no concession has occurred. Do we play on because there >is neither claim nor concession outstanding ? Yes. >2) East - West are defending; East claims some tricks, thus conceding the >remainder. West objects immediately. The end of L68B says no concession has >occurred. Does play cease (because there still is a claim) ? Yes. We have discussed it at length, and this seemed the only reasonable conclusion. -- 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 Jun 8 14:04:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:34:11 +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 MAA11949 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:33:58 +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 12zs8Q-000GAD-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 03:33:32 +0100 Message-ID: <1Hv5UtAHquP5EwD$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 01:36:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: From the Dutch TD exam... References: <005b01bfd0a4$850b7dc0$30b1073e@davicaltd> In-Reply-To: <005b01bfd0a4$850b7dc0$30b1073e@davicaltd> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: >##### I have not bothered to comment on this thread before but I too am >amazed that anyone could disagree with the view that David Burn has put >forward. IMO it is crucial to know the intention of the OLOOTer. In >particular, if declarer is considering accepting the OLOOT then knowledge of >the status of the second card (MPC Vs mPC) might significantly influence the >decision. This is not relevant. If we are deciding the status of the card on a different basis then there is no need to find out for this purpose. The argument for not finding out has been that the status of the card does not depend on it. Of course it would be fantastic to ask someone to make a decision without the relevant facts but we are not doing that - we have been arguing about what is relevant. -- 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 Jun 8 14:18:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:34:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA11952 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:34:00 +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 12zs8T-000GAB-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 03:33:35 +0100 Message-ID: <8H87klALhuP5EwiW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 01:26:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 74A References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard wrote: >Although as a general rule I believe that use of PPs by TDs should be >*very* sparingly used, when it comes to a breach of L74A the imposition of >a PP should be swift and certain. From the Corwen Trophy, an English inter-County pairs. W N E S 1H 3D X P P P Before doubling, East asked the style of jump overcalls. He was told Weak. He then doubled, which was not alerted. In England that makes it a penalty double. He intended it as a penalty double, holding D AQTx. His partner understood it as a penalty double, and passed it, holding D x. I was called at the end. The CC says Double of any overcall is Sputnik. When I asked, they said they had an agreement that they play Sputnik through 2S, and had not filled in the card very well. I saw no reason to disbelieve them. They both understood it to be penalties. Of course, if the overcaller had claimed to have made a dubious overcall because of the CC, then ..... But he made no such claim. I said there seemed no reason to adjust the score. Dummy said "I am not saying anything about this pair, but a pair might ask and double for penalties, and not ask and double for takeout." Both opponents got very upset very quickly. What do you think I should have done? -- 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 Jun 8 14:53:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:34:14 +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 MAA11948 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:33:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12zs8Q-000GAC-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 03:33:32 +0100 Message-ID: <5Xk6grAqnuP5Ewj8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 01:33:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: From the Dutch TD exam... References: <005a01bfd0a4$796c0700$30b1073e@davicaltd> In-Reply-To: <005a01bfd0a4$796c0700$30b1073e@davicaltd> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: >DWS wrote: > >> >In other words, I believe that "the standard 5 options" is a >> >legal fiction that happens to match what the Laws say in 99.something% >> >of cases. Because it's "universally" correct, however, we poor TD's are >> >misled by it in the rare instance where it doesn't match. However, that >> >still won't stop me from starting my OLOOT spiel with "You have the >> >standard 5 options. Do you know them, or do you wish them explained to >> >you?" >> >> I dislike this intensely. If a player says he knows them then the >> chances are about 40% that he does, and his opponents have a *right* to >> hear them as well. You are required to tell them all the options every >> time, and I really recommend that you do so. >> >> Failure would be completely automatic on an EBU Club TD course if you >> did not. >> > > >###### Have you ever tutored an EBU Club TD course? I have tutored a great >many and I can assure you that, whilst anyone who does the above would lose >quite a few marks, failure would be far from automatic. Since the marking >schedule for the assessment, ie. the 'C' course, is preset, this should be >true for all tutors. ##### Yes, I have tutored a club TD course. Thankyou for the question. I see it no longer states that people need to get a reasonable score on each part of the course: it did say that at one time. I suppose, then, it is an exaggeration to say that the 25 marks the student is going to lose on this one will make him fail. I am willing to bet a very large amount that no student would pass who loses that much on this question. -- 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 Jun 8 15:02:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:34:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA11950 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:33:58 +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 12zs8R-000GAF-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 03:33:33 +0100 Message-ID: <3HD5U2A3uuP5EwCh@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 01:41:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: End of L68B References: <-1251724210jrhind@ibl.bm> In-Reply-To: <-1251724210jrhind@ibl.bm> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jack Rhind wrote: >On Wednesday, June 7, 2000, Jac Fuchs wrote: >>A claim case posted on the Dutch equivalent of BLML made me wonder about the >>interpretation of the end of L68B again. Did BLML ever discuss this item >>before ? >> >>1) East - West are defending; East concedes all tricks. West objects >>immediately. >>The end of L68B says no concession has occurred. Do we play on because there >>is neither claim nor concession outstanding ? > >In both cases I believe play should cease and the director should be summoned to >the table. >There has been unauthorized information from West to East. That, of course, is no reason to stop the play. UI cases are dealt with by adjustment if necessary at the end of the hand. >The director should award East/West only the tricks that they are certain to >win. Why? why not let play continue. There is no Law to permit the TD to stop the board. >No tricks should be awarded that depend upon East finding a particular lead. >East is not allowed to be awakened by West's request to play on. This is all UI stuff, and certainly to be checked carefully by the TD. He would also do well to read and explain L73C before letting play continue. >>2) East - West are defending; East claims some tricks, thus conceding the >>remainder. West objects immediately. The end of L68B says no concession has >>occurred. Does play cease (because there still is a claim) ? > >I stand to be corrected, but I believe that the same situation occurs here as in >1 above. >The director should adjudicate the claim to tricks and award as required, but >should not allow >East/West to have any tricks from the concession unless they are tricks that >cannot be lost. Now, of course, you have a claim to deal with, and do so in the normal way. However, I see no reason to use a much harsher standard than normal. -- 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 Jun 8 16:36:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA12451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:36:50 +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 QAA12446 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:36:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.6.189] (helo=D457300) by tantalum with smtp (Exim 3.03 #16) id 12zvvY-0006d1-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 08 Jun 2000 07:36:29 +0100 Message-ID: <001301bfd113$f041ef60$bd06073e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C0050045469010310DB@xion.spase.nl> Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 07:36:53 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > >Accidentally dropped to me means something like pulling 1 card and find > >out that another card sticked to that one and dropped on the table. That > >is not what happened here: east pulled a card from his hand with the > >intention of making an opening lead, he then didn't look if he pulled the > >right card or enough cards, nor made the opening lead face down. > >Instead, he just put them on the table, so the other players saw something > >like: > > > > /----------\ > > | H H | > > | 8 8 | > > | /----------\ > > | | C C | > > | | Q Q | > > | | | > > .... > > This is one of the two examples quoted in the laws as a method of > getting an mPC, so there can be no doubt that playing two cards > inadvertently can result in an mPC. Of course it can. No one has suggested otherwise. If I play the two of diamonds and the three of diamonds sticks to the face of it and falls on the table simultaneously, then the three of diamonds may become a minor penalty card. The three was exposed by accident, the two on purpose. This means that if I choose to play the two, the three is a mPC; if on the other hand I choose to play the three, the two is a MPC. Henk's suggestion about "what happened here" appears to me to be at the root of the confusion: his view seems to me to be that East played *both* his cards by accident. Now, if that really were the case, I would not quarrel with the notion that H8 became a mPC. If in reaching for the four of diamonds, I accidentally drop both the two and the three on the table, then whichever one I don't choose to play becomes a mPC. But the problem statement clearly indicated that East had intended to play the eight of hearts. I repeat: no card that a player deliberately exposed can ever become a minor penalty card. So says Law 50B, in language that I would have thought wholly incapable of misconstruction until I read Probst and Stevenson on the matter. Therefore, when a card is exposed that does not become a played card, the Director has a duty to discover whether that card was exposed by accident or on purpose. I cannot deduce from the content of any of his messages whether DWS agrees with this statement or not. In the past, he has said that a trainee Director should be marked down for asking whether a card that is to become a penalty card was deliberately or accidentally exposed; this is simply wrong in terms of what the words say. But following my experience with Law 26A, I would not be in the least surprised to learn that this is another area in which the official interpretation of the Laws is in direct opposition to the words of the Laws themselves. No wonder TDs need all these training courses. I suggest that much time and effort would be saved by making Lesson One "Forgetting How to Read". David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 8 16:45:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA12475 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:45:12 +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 QAA12470 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:45:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.6.189] (helo=D457300) by neodymium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #16) id 12zw3j-00003Q-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 08 Jun 2000 07:44:55 +0100 Message-ID: <001901bfd115$1def3e80$bd06073e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <005b01bfd0a4$850b7dc0$30b1073e@davicaltd> <1Hv5UtAHquP5EwD$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Fw: From the Dutch TD exam... Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 07:45:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > David Martin wrote: > > >##### I have not bothered to comment on this thread before but I too am > >amazed that anyone could disagree with the view that David Burn has put > >forward. IMO it is crucial to know the intention of the OLOOTer. In > >particular, if declarer is considering accepting the OLOOT then knowledge of > >the status of the second card (MPC Vs mPC) might significantly influence the > >decision. > > This is not relevant. If we are deciding the status of the card on a > different basis then there is no need to find out for this purpose. Yes, but we aren't. There is absolutely no legal justification for deciding the status of an exposed card on any other basis than whether it was exposed by accident or on purpose. Despite your assertion that you would return to this elementary point when you "got round to it", I cannot deduce your view on it from anything you have written. Do you still assert that a card face up on the table that a player intended to put face up on the table can become a minor penalty card? > The argument for not finding out has been that the status of the card > does not depend on it. This is a use of the word "argument" with which I am not familiar. There has been an assertion that the status of the card does not depend on it, but there have been assertions that the Earth is flat and that the moon is made of green cheese. > Of course it would be fantastic to ask someone > to make a decision without the relevant facts but we are not doing that > - we have been arguing about what is relevant. So we have. Words fail me. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 8 20:11:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA12829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 20:11:58 +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 UAA12822 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 20:11:49 +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 LAA01797; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 11:11:39 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA14572; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 11:11:38 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Thu, 08 Jun 2000 10:11:38 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 LAA10401; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 11:11:37 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id LAA14660; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 11:11:36 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 11:11:36 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200006081011.LAA14660@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, dburn@btinternet.com Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DavidB wrote: > If in reaching > for the four of diamonds, I accidentally drop both the two and the > three on the table, then whichever one I don't choose to play becomes > a mPC. But the problem statement clearly indicated that East had > intended to play the eight of hearts. If you intended to play neither card, then you have not played a card. So if it was not your turn to lead/play, this is not a lead/play out of turn. And this is not L58B but L49. Both cards are penalty cards, so both are major, and declarer gets to decide which card is to be played. 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 Thu Jun 8 21:16:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA13097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 21:16:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA13082 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 21:16:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-3.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.3]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA02909 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:16:26 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <393F7E4B.22477722@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 13:06:51 +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: Fw: From the Dutch TD exam... References: <005b01bfd0a4$850b7dc0$30b1073e@davicaltd> <1Hv5UtAHquP5EwD$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > David Martin wrote: > > >##### I have not bothered to comment on this thread before but I too am > >amazed that anyone could disagree with the view that David Burn has put > >forward. IMO it is crucial to know the intention of the OLOOTer. In > >particular, if declarer is considering accepting the OLOOT then knowledge of > >the status of the second card (MPC Vs mPC) might significantly influence the > >decision. > > This is not relevant. If we are deciding the status of the card on a > different basis then there is no need to find out for this purpose. > > The argument for not finding out has been that the status of the card > does not depend on it. Of course it would be fantastic to ask someone > to make a decision without the relevant facts but we are not doing that > - we have been arguing about what is relevant. > I apologise to David for putting him in one school with David and me. Luckily David has rescued me, so there are two Davids in my boat. Now David, (and now I am talking to Mr Stevenson), how come you continue to disagree with us ? A player plays the H8 (deliberately), and the C7 drops with it (accidentally). Don't you agree that if he elects to play the C7 in that trick, the H8 becomes a Major PC ? So that if you explain to him his options, you should tell him that ? So that you need to know, when all you see is two cards on the table, what happened ? Suppose they call you, and the C7 is on the table. Don't you need to know how it got there (deliberate or not) so that you can decide if it is a mPC or a LOOT and MPC ? What's the difference in the case above ? Sorry to continue a point, but I find it so totally straightforward that I was convinced you (DWS) would be on our side. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 8 21:16:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA13096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 21:16:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA13081 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 21:16:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-3.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.3]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA02892 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:16:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <393F7BE9.F32EB04A@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 12:56:41 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: The Making of a mPC [was From the Dutch TD exam...] References: <200006051501.IAA27881@mailhub.irvine.com> <20000605191434.5206.qmail@hotmail.com> <393CD2D0.AAA4851F@village.uunet.be> <0$J8DOApnSP5Ewh8@probst.demon.co.uk> <393E216F.D6D1481@village.uunet.be> <000501bfd09c$d7ad5600$2137073e@D457300> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > HdW wrote: > > > > The players' intent does not matter for L58B2, but it does > > matter for L50B !!! > > Well said, that man. Someone buy him a beer. > I'll be in London the last week of this month. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 8 21:16:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA13098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 21:16:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA13083 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 21:16:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-3.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.3]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA02923 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:16:28 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <393F7F33.7F39CF97@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 13:10:43 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: End of L68B References: <014b01bfd0b8$3590b8a0$bbe3f1c3@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Jac Fuchs wrote: > > > >1) East - West are defending; East concedes all tricks. West objects > >immediately. > >The end of L68B says no concession has occurred. Do we play on because there > >is neither claim nor concession outstanding ? > > Yes. > I concur. > >2) East - West are defending; East claims some tricks, thus conceding the > >remainder. West objects immediately. The end of L68B says no concession has > >occurred. Does play cease (because there still is a claim) ? > > Yes. > > We have discussed it at length, and this seemed the only reasonable > conclusion. > Are you sure, David ?. Have you read the question correctly ? I believe the answer should be "no" : play continues also in this case. It is silly to say that there has been a concession with a claim, and only the concession is cancelled but the claim is not. There can be no claims without concession for the remainder, nor vice versa. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 8 22:12:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA13322 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 22:12:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy-5.cais.net (stmpy-5.cais.net [205.252.14.75]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA13315 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 22:12:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-5.cais.net (8.10.1/8.9.3) with SMTP id e58CCIL56671 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 08:12:20 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000608081338.006fd5c0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 08:13:38 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Law 74A In-Reply-To: <8H87klALhuP5EwiW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:26 AM 6/8/00 +0100, David wrote: > Dummy said "I am not saying anything about this pair, but a pair might >ask and double for penalties, and not ask and double for takeout." > > Both opponents got very upset very quickly. What do you think I >should have done? Knowing nothing, I'd request (well, order, actually) dummy to apologize to the opponents -- if he tells me that he specifically stated that he wasn't talking about this particular pair, I'll tell him that if he didn't really mean to cause offence he should be all the more apologetic for having done so -- and deliver a heavy DP (possibly throw him out) if he refuses. But I could do something very different depending on my knowledge of and prior experience with the players involved. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 8 23:01:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA13562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 23:01:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from uucp.nl.uu.net (uucp.nl.uu.net [193.79.237.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA13557 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 23:01:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:00:58 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id OAA20090 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 14:45:09 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: From the Dutch TD exam... Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 14:44:50 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: >DavidB wrote: >> If in reaching >> for the four of diamonds, I accidentally drop both the two and the >> three on the table, then whichever one I don't choose to play becomes >> a mPC. But the problem statement clearly indicated that East had >> intended to play the eight of hearts. > >If you intended to play neither card, then you have not played a card. >So if it was not your turn to lead/play, this is not a lead/play out of >turn. And this is not L58B but L49. Both cards are penalty cards, so >both are major, and declarer gets to decide which card is to be played. If it was not your turn, then you are right. But if it was your turn, then L58B applies. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 8 23:32:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA13383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 22:29:47 +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 WAA13378 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 22:29:39 +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 NAA07383; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:29:30 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA29746; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:29:28 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Thu, 08 Jun 2000 12:29:28 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 NAA10586; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:29:27 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id NAA14711; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:29:26 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:29:26 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200006081229.NAA14711@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, hermandw@village.uunet.be Subject: Re: End of L68B X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > > >2) East - West are defending; East claims some tricks, thus conceding the > > >remainder. West objects immediately. The end of L68B says no concession has > > >occurred. Does play cease (because there still is a claim) ? > > > > Yes. > > > > We have discussed it at length, and this seemed the only reasonable > > conclusion. > > > > Are you sure, David ?. > > Have you read the question correctly ? > > I believe the answer should be "no" : play continues also in > this case. > It is silly to say that there has been a concession with a > claim, and only the concession is cancelled but the claim is > not. There can be no claims without concession for the > remainder, nor vice versa. I think David has remembered the conclusion of the previous discussion correctly. But then I agreed with that conclusion! [on a different thread] > I'll be in London the last week of this month. ... and all "London" TDs start looking desparately for events to direct in Scotland. :-) 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 Jun 9 00:18:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA13769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 00:06:48 +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 AAA13751 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 00:06:32 +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 1302wp-000D1z-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:06:16 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:45:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: The Making of a mPC [was From the Dutch TD exam...] References: <200006051501.IAA27881@mailhub.irvine.com> <20000605191434.5206.qmail@hotmail.com> <393CD2D0.AAA4851F@village.uunet.be> <0$J8DOApnSP5Ewh8@probst.demon.co.uk> <393E216F.D6D1481@village.uunet.be> <000501bfd09c$d7ad5600$2137073e@D457300> <393F7BE9.F32EB04A@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <393F7BE9.F32EB04A@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <393F7BE9.F32EB04A@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >David Burn wrote: >> >> HdW wrote: >> >> >> > The players' intent does not matter for L58B2, but it does >> > matter for L50B !!! >> >> Well said, that man. Someone buy him a beer. >> > >I'll be in London the last week of this month. > You won't get any HdW school rulings here Herman :)) chs 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 Jun 9 01:21:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA13992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 01:21:12 +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 BAA13986 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 01:21:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.172.20] (helo=D457300) by tantalum with smtp (Exim 3.03 #16) id 130473-0002Xj-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 08 Jun 2000 16:20:53 +0100 Message-ID: <000d01bfd15d$327ed5c0$14ac01d5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:21:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Martin Sinot To: Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 1:44 PM Subject: RE: From the Dutch TD exam... > Robin Barker wrote: > > >DavidB wrote: > >> If in reaching > >> for the four of diamonds, I accidentally drop both the two and the > >> three on the table, then whichever one I don't choose to play becomes > >> a mPC. But the problem statement clearly indicated that East had > >> intended to play the eight of hearts. > > > >If you intended to play neither card, then you have not played a card. > >So if it was not your turn to lead/play, this is not a lead/play out of > >turn. And this is not L58B but L49. Both cards are penalty cards, so > >both are major, and declarer gets to decide which card is to be played. > > If it was not your turn, then you are right. But if it was your turn, > then L58B applies. I'm not sure about this - maybe my example wasn't a good one. If you drop two cards neither of which you intended to play, then you have not "led or played" any of them, so it seems to me that L58B2 doesn't apply and, as Robin says, L49 does. But I am not certain of what ruling ought to be given in this situation. Suppose you as TD are called to a table where a player whose turn it is to play has the two and three of diamonds face up in front of him. "How did those get there?" you might enquire. "I dropped them by mistake", he will tell you. "I didn't mean to play either of them - I was trying to play some other card altogether." Would you: (a) compel him to designate which of the two and three of diamonds he now wants to play, and have the other as a penalty card (and if so, what kind?); or (b) allow him to play the card he intended to play, and have both diamonds as (major) penalty cards? David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 9 01:51:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA13771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 00:06:49 +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 AAA13752 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 00:06:32 +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 1302wp-000D21-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:06:16 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 14:54:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam. References: <3931bf71.2efa.0@zfree.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 >> >>TD: what happened? >>Player: I meant to play the H8, but I accidently pulled the CQ >>instead, and the H8, which was next to it, fell out. >> >>This seems like gratuitous info from the player, rather than >>unnecessary elicitation by the TD. At least, it does to me. :-) > > If in an attempt to play a card from my hand (when it properly is my turn to play) two cards end up on the table, then my intent on leading either is irrelevant (see below), I've played two cards and I'm going to have to choose which one to play now and make the best of a bad job. I'm already in enough trouble [the fact I twice lead from the wrong hand last night against DALB is probably adequate evidence to prove I've no idea what I'm doing - but we'll let that pass, although DALB managed to have a trump suit of x vs AQT8xxx for one loser in a making slam, which we'll also let pass]. [[Really enjoyable match btw DALB, hope you win the final]] The crux of the matter L50B seems to make it clear that 'deliberate play' in this context is such as correcting a revoke or leading out of turn, and not particularly in being ham-fisted when it properly is ones turn to play, which is covered by the ... as in playing two cards to a trick ... clause. I can see this argument for "Was one of them played deliberately?" but the way that L50B is structured does not strongly convince me that it applies to the first bit of L50B. I'm pretty sure we're all now arguing simply the contention of the previous paragraph and L58B2 is not part of the discussion. 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 Jun 9 01:55:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA14129 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 01:55:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from precision.math.ntu.edu.tw (precision.math.ntu.edu.tw [140.112.50.235]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA14124 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 01:55:22 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by precision.math.ntu.edu.tw (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA01592; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 23:53:45 +0800 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 23:53:45 +0800 Message-Id: <200006081553.XAA01592@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: btu@moscito.org In-reply-to: <3.0.1.32.20000608081338.006fd5c0@pop.cais.com> (message from Eric Landau on Thu, 08 Jun 2000 08:13:38 -0400) Subject: Re: Law 74A References: <3.0.1.32.20000608081338.006fd5c0@pop.cais.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk # From: Eric Landau # At 01:26 AM 6/8/00 +0100, David wrote: # > Dummy said "I am not saying anything about this pair, but a pair # > might ask and double for penalties, and not ask and double for # > takeout." Both opponents got very upset very quickly. What do # > you think I should have done? # # Knowing nothing, I'd request (order) dummy to apologize ... Actually I once ran into a situation in which an opponent asked about an alerted bid -- it was a transfer -- and bid the transferred suit as takeout. 3 BOARDS LATER, in a similar situation, I decided to psych a transfer in a similar situation and he bid WITHOUT PAUSE FOR THOUGHT, AFTER MY PARTNER ALERTED, showing a long, strong natural suit in the best possible way. I made a very pointed remark before summoning the director, and he got really nasty. How would you gents have acted? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 9 02:16:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA13770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 00:06:48 +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 AAA13749 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 00:06:32 +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 1302wp-000D20-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:06:16 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 14:51:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law 74A References: <8H87klALhuP5EwiW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <8H87klALhuP5EwiW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <8H87klALhuP5EwiW@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >Richard wrote: >>Although as a general rule I believe that use of PPs by TDs should be >>*very* sparingly used, when it comes to a breach of L74A the imposition of >>a PP should be swift and certain. > > From the Corwen Trophy, an English inter-County pairs. > > W N E S > 1H 3D X P > P P > > Before doubling, East asked the style of jump overcalls. He was told >Weak. He then doubled, which was not alerted. In England that makes it >a penalty double. He intended it as a penalty double, holding D AQTx. >His partner understood it as a penalty double, and passed it, holding >D x. > > I was called at the end. The CC says Double of any overcall is >Sputnik. When I asked, they said they had an agreement that they play >Sputnik through 2S, and had not filled in the card very well. > > I saw no reason to disbelieve them. They both understood it to be >penalties. Of course, if the overcaller had claimed to have made a >dubious overcall because of the CC, then ..... But he made no such >claim. I said there seemed no reason to adjust the score. > > Dummy said "I am not saying anything about this pair, but a pair might >ask and double for penalties, and not ask and double for takeout." > > Both opponents got very upset very quickly. What do you think I >should have done? > "I *really* don't need that sort of comment in this game. You cannot make that sort of statement without creating bad feeling. Let me judge to make the rulings please. [Pause] Now (to the doubling side) make sure your cc is correct because you're creating a real problem for your opponents. I'll be much more likely to adjust in future whenever this sort of sequence comes up and your cc doesn't agree with your explanation" This usually fetches a "sorry director" and everyone calms down again. One may need to prod a "sorry" out of dummy, but I usually succeed. 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 Jun 9 02:42:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA14436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 02:42:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA14429 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 02:41:56 +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 RAA17112 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 17:41:48 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA27451 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 17:41:47 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Thu, 08 Jun 2000 16:41:46 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 RAA11162 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 17:41:45 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id RAA14828 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 17:41:45 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 17:41:45 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200006081641.RAA14828@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: cards exposed at defenders turn to play; was Re: From the Dutch TD exam... X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > Suppose you as TD are called to a table where a player whose turn it > is to play has the two and three of diamonds face up in front of him. > "How did those get there?" you might enquire. "I dropped them by > mistake", he will tell you. "I didn't mean to play either of them - I > was trying to play some other card altogether." Would you: (a) compel > him to designate which of the two and three of diamonds he now wants > to play, and have the other as a penalty card (and if so, what kind?); > or (b) allow him to play the card he intended to play, and have both > diamonds as (major) penalty cards? I would add another option, and compare with the case of one card dropped. Q1. You (as TD) are called to a table where a player whose turn it is to play has the two and three of diamonds face up in front of him. "How did those get there?" you might enquire. "I dropped them by mistake", he will tell you. "I didn't mean to play either of them - I was trying to play some other card altogether." Would you: (a) compel him to designate which of the two and three of diamonds he now wants to play; or (b) allow him to play the card he intended to play; or (c) allow declarer to designate which is to be played at that turn? and what happens to the remaining unplayed exposed card or cards? Q2. You (as TD) are called to a table where a player whose turn it is to play has the two of diamonds face up in front of him. "How did that get there?" you might enquire. "I dropped it by mistake", he will tell you. "I didn't mean to play that card - I was trying to play some other card altogether." Would you: (a) compel him to play the two of diamonds; or (b) allow him to play the card he intended to play; or (c) allow him to play any card (including the two of diamonds) except another diamond below the rank of an honour? and what happens to the remaining unplayed exposed card, if any? 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 Jun 9 02:45:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA13772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 00:06:49 +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 AAA13750 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 00:06:33 +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 1302wp-000D22-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:06:17 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 15:03:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Fw: From the Dutch TD exam... References: <005a01bfd0a4$796c0700$30b1073e@davicaltd> <5Xk6grAqnuP5Ewj8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <5Xk6grAqnuP5Ewj8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <5Xk6grAqnuP5Ewj8@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >> >>> >In other words, I believe that "the standard 5 options" is a >>> >legal fiction that happens to match what the Laws say in 99.something% >>> >of cases. snip >>> >>> Failure would be completely automatic on an EBU Club TD course if you >>> did not. >>> snip > I am willing >to bet a very large amount that no student would pass who loses that >much on this question. > I'm still working on this speech which I've given at least once a day for the last five years. We have discussed it a number of times here and I'm now fairly happy I've got one that works. "You can accept the lead out of turn if you want to, in which case you can make either hand dummy before a card is played to the trick in proper rotation. If you don't want the lead then you can say to LHO 'Lead a plum, or Do not lead a plum' If you do that then the card will be picked up and RHO does not have to play it. If you say 'Do not lead a plum' then LHO can't lead a plum until they've lost the lead - so LHO can't for example cash an Ace and then lead a plum. Finally you can keep the card as a penalty card which will have to be played as soon as legally possible and LHO can lead anything. While the plum is still on the table and LHO is on lead you still have the option to say "Lead a plum or Do not lead a plum' and the card gets picked up. So .. 5 options. Accept the lead, either hand as dummy; Lead or don't lead a plum, card picked up; Lead anything, penalty card. I'll wait here until we get rid of the penalty card" The summary at the end *really* does the bizz. If the card is picked up, I tell LHO "You're not 'allowed' to know partner has that card or deduce anything from it, and I still have an option to adjust the result". This works ok. If the card remains as a penalty card I tell LHO "Although you know partner is going to have to play this card as soon as he can, you must be careful not to base your defence on the fact he's got it. You also can't make a lead while it's still a penalty card until declarer decides what to do". This bit doesn't work very well and I'm still rephrasing it. 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 Jun 9 03:39:53 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA14607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 03:39:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA14602 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 03:39:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA07744; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:35:58 -0700 Message-Id: <200006081735.KAA07744@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 08 Jun 2000 16:21:17 PDT." <000d01bfd15d$327ed5c0$14ac01d5@D457300> Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 10:35:59 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > Robin Barker wrote: > > > > >DavidB wrote: > > >> If in > reaching > > >> for the four of diamonds, I accidentally drop both the two and > the > > >> three on the table, then whichever one I don't choose to play > becomes > > >> a mPC. But the problem statement clearly indicated that East had > > >> intended to play the eight of hearts. > > > > > >If you intended to play neither card, then you have not played a > card. > > >So if it was not your turn to lead/play, this is not a lead/play > out of > > >turn. And this is not L58B but L49. Both cards are penalty cards, > so > > >both are major, and declarer gets to decide which card is to be > played. > > > > If it was not your turn, then you are right. But if it was your > turn, > > then L58B applies. > > I'm not sure about this - maybe my example wasn't a good one. If you > drop two cards neither of which you intended to play, then you have > not "led or played" any of them, so it seems to me that L58B2 doesn't > apply and, as Robin says, L49 does. But I am not certain of what > ruling ought to be given in this situation. > > Suppose you as TD are called to a table where a player whose turn it > is to play has the two and three of diamonds face up in front of him. > "How did those get there?" you might enquire. "I dropped them by > mistake", he will tell you. "I didn't mean to play either of them - I > was trying to play some other card altogether." Would you: (a) compel > him to designate which of the two and three of diamonds he now wants > to play, and have the other as a penalty card (and if so, what kind?); > or (b) allow him to play the card he intended to play, and have both > diamonds as (major) penalty cards? Let me ask a question: Suppose a player, in reaching for a card, drops just one other card, and the dropped card is an honor that could be legally played to the trick. Is the defender required to play that card, or does the defender play the card he intended to play and leave the honor card as a major penalty card? I can't quite figure out from the Laws. L45C1 says "A defender's card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face must be played to the current trick"; however, the card was dropped, not held, so this law doesn't apply. So then L49 applies, and the card becomes a penalty card. Law 50B says it's a major penalty card. Now, 50D1 says that when a defender with a major penalty card is to play, the major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity. In the case I described, there was no penalty card when the offender's turn to play began, but it's still offender's turn to play and now there's a penalty card. Do we: (1) interpret 50D1 as saying that *this* is now defender's first legal opportunity to play the penalty card, and therefore he must play it now? Or do we (2) interpret 50D1 to mean that since there was no penalty card when it became offender's turn to play to the trick, the Law doesn't apply to this trick, but applies to the *next* legal opportunity to play the dropped card (if it's still a penalty card by then)? Seriously, I don't know the answer to this, although it seems like a simple question. If, in my example, we let defender play the card he intended, then that means we're following interpretation (2). In that case, the answer to DB's question is (b). If, in my example, we require defender to play the dropped honor, then we're following interpretation (1). If we follow this interpretation, then in DB's example, both the two and three of diamonds are major penalty cards, which means 50D1 takes effect immediately, and *declarer* designates which card is to be played. DB's answer (a), in which defender is required to designate either the diamond two or three, doesn't seem to apply in any case. (L58B does not apply in any event because the defender did not *play* the two cards.) This interpretation has the interesting effect that when defender plays two cards simultaneously, the defender designates the card to be played, but when defender *drops* two cards instead, the declarer designates the card! Obviously, this is not a penalty when the two cards are the two and three of diamonds; but the situation is different when one of the dropped cards is more significant than the other. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 9 03:56:22 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA13261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 22:04:13 +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 WAA13256 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 22:04:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 14:03:31 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id NAA19619 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:56:37 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: From the Dutch TD exam... Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:56:32 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <60EA64ABD4E9D311868C00500454690101B48D@xion.spase.nl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >Of course it can. No one has suggested otherwise. If I play the two of >diamonds and the three of diamonds sticks to the face of it and falls >on the table simultaneously, then the three of diamonds may become a >minor penalty card. The three was exposed by accident, the two on >purpose. This means that if I choose to play the two, the three is a >mPC; if on the other hand I choose to play the three, the two is a >MPC. > >Henk's suggestion about "what happened here" appears to me to be at >the root of the confusion: his view seems to me to be that East played >*both* his cards by accident. Now, if that really were the case, I >would not quarrel with the notion that H8 became a mPC. If in reaching >for the four of diamonds, I accidentally drop both the two and the >three on the table, then whichever one I don't choose to play becomes >a mPC. But the problem statement clearly indicated that East had >intended to play the eight of hearts. > >I repeat: no card that a player deliberately exposed can ever become a >minor penalty card. So says Law 50B, in language that I would have >thought wholly incapable of misconstruction until I read Probst and >Stevenson on the matter. Therefore, when a card is exposed that does >not become a played card, the Director has a duty to discover whether >that card was exposed by accident or on purpose. I cannot deduce from >the content of any of his messages whether DWS agrees with this >statement or not. In the past, he has said that a trainee Director >should be marked down for asking whether a card that is to become a >penalty card was deliberately or accidentally exposed; this is simply >wrong in terms of what the words say. But following my experience with >Law 26A, I would not be in the least surprised to learn that this is >another area in which the official interpretation of the Laws is in >direct opposition to the words of the Laws themselves. No wonder TDs >need all these training courses. I suggest that much time and effort >would be saved by making Lesson One "Forgetting How to Read". > >David Burn >London, England Well, it seems we cannot agree on this one. As a simple local TD, I would simply say: I see two cards exposed. I do not ask which card East wanted to lead. Assuming South accepted the OLOOT, I go to L58B2, and ask East which card he wants to play. The other one becomes a penalty card. What kind of penalty card? Now I go to L50B, in which playing two cards in a trick is explicitly mentioned as an example of accidental exposure of cards. Neither in L58B2 nor in the example in L50B is mentioned that the TD should find out which card East originally intended to play. There is, however, something to be said for your interpretation (although I disagree with it): A card deliberately played is by L50B a major penalty card, hence the TD must find out what the offender intended to lead, which will then always become a major penalty card if he chooses to lead the other card. It is a logical reasoning, but I see a number of problems with this approach: 1) TD must find out offender's intentions (actually, he only needs to do this if offender plays two cards of which at least one is not an honour - in other cases the other card is always a major penalty card). Now I propose an East player who happens to know the rules very well. Would he not always state that he intended to play the card he actually chose to play? How is the TD going to find out? 2) Assume the TD in the previous example did find out what East intended to lead. Now West has a problem. Normally, he cannot see for sure which of the two cards his partner intended to lead. But now the TD designates H8 either as a major or minor penalty card. From that designation, West can deduce whether East wanted to lead the H8 or not. So it is not even necessary that the TD takes East from the table to ask about his intentions - they become clear to West as soon as the TD states his judgement. So apart from the UI from seeing the cards, West now also gets additional UI from the kind of penalty imposed. With the "simple" approach, in which the TD does not ask about Easts intentions, the penalty given by the TD does not in itself pass UI, since any remaining cards after East made his choice are always treated the same way. I have a (small) point of attention for the Lawmakers: In L58B2, as well as in a few other Laws, it is stated that an exposed card of a defender becomes a penalty card, without specifying what kind of penalty card is meant. I suspect that these are relics from the past, from before the time that a difference was made between major and minor penalty cards. I suggest in each of these cases to specify explicitly the type of penalty card meant. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 9 04:06:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA14694 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 04:06:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA14689 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 04:06:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA08299; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 11:02:40 -0700 Message-Id: <200006081802.LAA08299@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Law 74A In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 08 Jun 2000 23:53:45 PDT." <200006081553.XAA01592@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw> Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 11:02:40 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk btu@moscito.org wrote: > # From: Eric Landau > # At 01:26 AM 6/8/00 +0100, David wrote: > # > Dummy said "I am not saying anything about this pair, but a pair > # > might ask and double for penalties, and not ask and double for > # > takeout." Both opponents got very upset very quickly. What do > # > you think I should have done? > # > # Knowing nothing, I'd request (order) dummy to apologize ... > > Actually I once ran into a situation in which an opponent asked about > an alerted bid -- it was a transfer -- and bid the transferred suit as > takeout. 3 BOARDS LATER, in a similar situation, I decided to psych a > transfer in a similar situation and he bid WITHOUT PAUSE FOR THOUGHT, > AFTER MY PARTNER ALERTED, showing a long, strong natural suit in the > best possible way. I made a very pointed remark before summoning the > director, and he got really nasty. How would you gents have acted? I hope you don't mean by your last question that Anne Jones' opinions are unwelcome! Also, if "how would you have acted" means what would I have done if I were in your shoes here, I would have called the director, making an extra effort to make sure I'm polite about it. I believe that making a "very pointed remark" before calling the Director is a huge no-no. If you're asking us to agree with you that it's understandable to make remarks such as this when there's "obviously" something funny going on, you will not get any sympathy from BLML. My apologies if I misunderstood your question. Anyway, more information is needed. Did the opponent's partner field the situation? In other words, does it seem that he [*] "knew" the first bid was takeout and the second was natural? If not, there's no damage. If so, there are two possible explanations: (1) The situations, although "similar", are dissimilar enough that the opponents have different agreements about what the bid means. (2) Opponent's partner was acting on UI. I suppose there are other possibilities, such as table action by you that would have made it obvious to both opponents that you were psyching, but any other such explanations have to be extremely remote. Obviously, the TD would have to get more information before deciding whether (1) or (2) was the case. But if they can't convince me that their agreements are different in the two situations, I guess I'd have to rule that a violation occurred on the second board. However, failure to ask a question the second time should not be considered suspicious in and of itself. If the opponents have an alerted auction on one board, and I ask for an explanation, and then on the next board the opponents have the exact same auction and alert it again, I probably wouldn't bother to ask again against most opponents, since I now "know" what it means from the first board. (If it turns out they have different agreements depending on the vulnerability, then I've just screwed up.) -- Adam [*] The English language still has the rule that "he" can refer to either a male or a female, but it has no such rule about "gent". The same applies to the mutant language with a vague resemblance to English that we speak on our side of the Atlantic. Just in case some of you thought I was being hypocritical. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 9 04:35:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA14857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 04:35:45 +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 EAA14851 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 04:35:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.181] (dhcp165-181.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.181]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA03046; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 14:35:23 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200006081641.RAA14828@tempest.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 14:34:16 -0400 To: Robin Barker , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: cards exposed at defenders turn to play; was Re: From the Dutch TD exam... Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 5:41 PM +0100 6/8/00, Robin Barker wrote: >I would add another option, and compare with the case of one card dropped. > >Q1. >You (as TD) are called to a table where a player whose turn it >is to play has the two and three of diamonds face up in front of him. >"How did those get there?" you might enquire. >"I dropped them by mistake", he will tell you. "I didn't mean to play >either of them - I was trying to play some other card altogether." > >Would you: >(a) compel him to designate which of the two and three of diamonds > he now wants to play; >or >(b) allow him to play the card he intended to play; >or >(c) allow declarer to designate which is to be played at that turn? > >and what happens to the remaining unplayed exposed card or cards? The ruling is as in (c). L49: When defender exposes a card except in the normal course of play, it becomes a penalty card. Since there are two penalty cards, they are major. L51A allows declarer to choose which one must be played, and the other one remains a major penalty card. The statement that nreither card was an intended play is UI to his partner. > >Q2. >You (as TD) are called to a table where a player whose turn it >is to play has the two of diamonds face up in front of him. >"How did that get there?" you might enquire. >"I dropped it by mistake", he will tell you. "I didn't mean to play >that card - I was trying to play some other card altogether." > >Would you: >(a) compel him to play the two of diamonds; >or >(b) allow him to play the card he intended to play; >or >(c) allow him to play any card (including the two of diamonds) except > another diamond below the rank of an honour? > >and what happens to the remaining unplayed exposed card, if any? Here, the D2 is a minor penalty card, assuming that I accept the player's claim that he dropped the card by mistake. L49 requires that it be a penalty card and the ruling is thus as in (c). The D2 remains on the table as a minor penalty card if it is not played, and the statement that the D2 was not the intended card is UI if the D2 is played. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 9 07:14:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA15305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 07:14:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA15300 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 07:14:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (vp208-156.worldonline.nl [195.241.208.156]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 0993036D12 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 23:14:27 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <005001bfd18e$e2dc1aa0$9cd0f1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 23:16:47 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >Henk's suggestion about "what happened here" appears to me to be at >the root of the confusion: his view seems to me to be that East played >*both* his cards by accident. Now, if that really were the case, I >would not quarrel with the notion that H8 became a mPC. If in reaching >for the four of diamonds, I accidentally drop both the two and the >three on the table, then whichever one I don't choose to play becomes >a mPC. But the problem statement clearly indicated that East had >intended to play the eight of hearts. > >I repeat: no card that a player deliberately exposed can ever become a >minor penalty card. So says Law 50B, in language that I would have >thought wholly incapable of misconstruction until I read Probst and >Stevenson on the matter. This thread has been an exchange of yes and nos, at a rate which would have made any contribution of mine out of date immediately. However, as the thread goes on and on, I think the time has come to voice my support for every word David Burn has said and is saying on this matter. Jac From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 9 09:01:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA15594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 09:01:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.118]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA15588 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 09:01:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.148] (d185fc994.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.148]) by mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA26044 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 18:19:18 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200006081553.XAA01592@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw> References: <3.0.1.32.20000608081338.006fd5c0@pop.cais.com> <200006081553.XAA01592@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw> Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 18:15:24 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Law 74A Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 btu@moscito.org asked: >I made a very pointed remark before summoning the >director, and he got really nasty. How would you gents have acted? Well, I'd have tried not to say anything while summoning the director. :-) When you say "he" got really nasty, do you mean the opponent, or the director? If the former, he's just compounded his error. Don't respond, let the director handle it. If the latter, find a new game. :-) 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/AwUBOUAlpL2UW3au93vOEQJ0AwCfTyr8dYRSJeOR+ziRkQdwtz+/zz4Anihd kpynW02ORE4yl13OnUeNKFwC =aliY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 9 11:07:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA15898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 11:07:15 +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 LAA15873 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 11:06:59 +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 130DFv-000Jnl-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 02:06:41 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 23:39:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: From the Dutch TD exam... References: <005b01bfd0a4$850b7dc0$30b1073e@davicaltd> <1Hv5UtAHquP5EwD$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <393F7E4B.22477722@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <393F7E4B.22477722@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: >> >> David Martin wrote: >> >> >##### I have not bothered to comment on this thread before but I too am >> >amazed that anyone could disagree with the view that David Burn has put >> >forward. IMO it is crucial to know the intention of the OLOOTer. In >> >particular, if declarer is considering accepting the OLOOT then knowledge of >> >the status of the second card (MPC Vs mPC) might significantly influence the >> >decision. >> >> This is not relevant. If we are deciding the status of the card on a >> different basis then there is no need to find out for this purpose. >> >> The argument for not finding out has been that the status of the card >> does not depend on it. Of course it would be fantastic to ask someone >> to make a decision without the relevant facts but we are not doing that >> - we have been arguing about what is relevant. >> > >I apologise to David for putting him in one school with >David and me. Luckily David has rescued me, so there are two >Davids in my boat. > >Now David, (and now I am talking to Mr Stevenson), how come >you continue to disagree with us ? Oh? When was the last time I disagreed with you on this point? "continue to disagree" is hardly descriptive of the fact that for some time now I have quite deliberately not written a single post answering this question one way or another. -- 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 Jun 9 11:07:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA15897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 11:07:15 +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 LAA15874 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 11:06:59 +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 130DFv-000Jnn-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 02:06:42 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 23:44:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: End of L68B References: <014b01bfd0b8$3590b8a0$bbe3f1c3@default> <393F7F33.7F39CF97@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <393F7F33.7F39CF97@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: >> >> Jac Fuchs wrote: >> > >> >1) East - West are defending; East concedes all tricks. West objects >> >immediately. >> >The end of L68B says no concession has occurred. Do we play on because there >> >is neither claim nor concession outstanding ? >> >> Yes. >> > >I concur. > >> >2) East - West are defending; East claims some tricks, thus conceding the >> >remainder. West objects immediately. The end of L68B says no concession has >> >occurred. Does play cease (because there still is a claim) ? >> >> Yes. >> >> We have discussed it at length, and this seemed the only reasonable >> conclusion. >> > >Are you sure, David ?. > >Have you read the question correctly ? Oh, dear me, no, I was answering some other question entirely. :) >I believe the answer should be "no" : play continues also in >this case. >It is silly to say that there has been a concession with a >claim, and only the concession is cancelled but the claim is >not. There can be no claims without concession for the >remainder, nor vice versa. RTFLB. -- 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 Jun 9 11:07:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA15900 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 11:07:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA15871 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 11:06:59 +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 130DFv-000Jnj-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 02:06:40 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 23:31:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: From the Dutch TD exam... References: <000d01bfd15d$327ed5c0$14ac01d5@D457300> <200006081735.KAA07744@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200006081735.KAA07744@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >Let me ask a question: Suppose a player, in reaching for a card, drops >just one other card, and the dropped card is an honor that could be >legally played to the trick. Is the defender required to play that >card, or does the defender play the card he intended to play and leave >the honor card as a major penalty card? The defender has acquired a PC: since it is an honour it is an MPC: therefore it is required to be played now. > I can't quite figure out from >the Laws. L45C1 says "A defender's card held so that it is possible >for his partner to see its face must be played to the current trick"; >however, the card was dropped, not held, so this law doesn't apply. >So then L49 applies, and the card becomes a penalty card. Law 50B >says it's a major penalty card. Now, 50D1 says that when a defender >with a major penalty card is to play, the major penalty card must be >played at the first legal opportunity. Exactly. >In the case I described, there was no penalty card when the offender's >turn to play began, but it's still offender's turn to play and now >there's a penalty card. Do we: (1) interpret 50D1 as saying that >*this* is now defender's first legal opportunity to play the penalty >card, and therefore he must play it now? Yes. > Or do we (2) interpret 50D1 >to mean that since there was no penalty card when it became offender's >turn to play to the trick, the Law doesn't apply to this trick, but >applies to the *next* legal opportunity to play the dropped card (if >it's still a penalty card by then)? Seriously, I don't know the >answer to this, although it seems like a simple question. But in this case you are interpreting "must be played at the first legal opportunity" to mean "must be played at the second legal opportunity". Surely this is not right. -- 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 Jun 9 11:07:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA15896 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 11:07:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA15872 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 11:06:59 +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 130DFv-000Jnm-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 02:06:41 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 23:41:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 74A References: <3.0.1.32.20000608081338.006fd5c0@pop.cais.com> <200006081553.XAA01592@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw> In-Reply-To: <200006081553.XAA01592@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk wrote: >Actually I once ran into a situation in which an opponent asked about >an alerted bid -- it was a transfer -- and bid the transferred suit as >takeout. 3 BOARDS LATER, in a similar situation, I decided to psych a >transfer in a similar situation and he bid WITHOUT PAUSE FOR THOUGHT, >AFTER MY PARTNER ALERTED, showing a long, strong natural suit in the >best possible way. I made a very pointed remark before summoning the >director, and he got really nasty. How would you gents have acted? As a player, I would have called the Director - but without the pointed remark. As a Director, I would have asked the players for an explanation of their actions. -- 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 Jun 9 11:07:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA15899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 11:07:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA15875 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 11:06:59 +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 130DFu-000Jnk-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 02:06:40 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 23:37:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: From the Dutch TD exam... References: <005b01bfd0a4$850b7dc0$30b1073e@davicaltd> <1Hv5UtAHquP5EwD$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <001901bfd115$1def3e80$bd06073e@D457300> In-Reply-To: <001901bfd115$1def3e80$bd06073e@D457300> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >DWS wrote: > >> David Martin wrote: >> >> >##### I have not bothered to comment on this thread before but I >too am >> >amazed that anyone could disagree with the view that David Burn has >put >> >forward. IMO it is crucial to know the intention of the OLOOTer. >In >> >particular, if declarer is considering accepting the OLOOT then >knowledge of >> >the status of the second card (MPC Vs mPC) might significantly >influence the >> >decision. >> >> This is not relevant. If we are deciding the status of the card >on a >> different basis then there is no need to find out for this purpose. > >Yes, but we aren't. There is absolutely no legal justification for >deciding the status of an exposed card on any other basis than whether >it was exposed by accident or on purpose. As you have said at least twice before. Yes, David, we do know your argument. > Despite your assertion that >you would return to this elementary point when you "got round to it", >I cannot deduce your view on it from anything you have written. Do you >still assert that a card face up on the table that a player intended >to put face up on the table can become a minor penalty card? As you surmise, I have not got round to it, which I shall do in my own good time. >> The argument for not finding out has been that the status of the >card >> does not depend on it. > >This is a use of the word "argument" with which I am not familiar. >There has been an assertion that the status of the card does not >depend on it, but there have been assertions that the Earth is flat >and that the moon is made of green cheese. I am sorry, I did not realise that you did not understand the word argument. One side has put a point of view, and you have disagreed with it with ever increasing attacks of incredulity. Others have also agreed with you. In the English language, that is referred to as an "argument". >> Of course it would be fantastic to ask someone >> to make a decision without the relevant facts but we are not doing >that >> - we have been arguing about what is relevant. >So we have. Words fail me. Good. -- 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 Jun 9 13:37:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA16279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 13:37:34 +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 NAA16274 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 13:37:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.6.90.51] (helo=D457300) by tantalum with smtp (Exim 3.03 #16) id 130Fbf-00078W-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 09 Jun 2000 04:37:16 +0100 Message-ID: <003301bfd1c4$10357fc0$335a063e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <005b01bfd0a4$850b7dc0$30b1073e@davicaltd><1Hv5UtAHquP5EwD$@blakjak.demon.co.uk><001901bfd115$1def3e80$bd06073e@D457300> Subject: Re: Fw: From the Dutch TD exam... Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 04:37:38 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > As you surmise, I have not got round to it, which I shall do in my own > good time. Take as long as you need. We are merely concerned that this reticence, though becoming, is not at all characterisitc. > >So we have. Words fail me. > > Good. I observe that the spirit of fair-mindedness and tolerance that you and others have advocated is alive and well. You will doubtless be relieved to hear that since I am going on holiday for a fortnight, words are going to continue to fail me completely for at least that period of time. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 9 14:32:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA16402 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 14:32:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f59.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.59]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA16397 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 14:32:13 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 81275 invoked by uid 0); 9 Jun 2000 04:31:34 -0000 Message-ID: <20000609043134.81274.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.23 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 08 Jun 2000 21:31:34 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.23] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fw: From the Dutch TD exam... Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 21:31:34 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson > >> The argument for not finding out has been that the status of the > >card > >> does not depend on it. > > > >This is a use of the word "argument" with which I am not familiar. > >There has been an assertion that the status of the card does not > >depend on it, but there have been assertions that the Earth is flat > >and that the moon is made of green cheese. > > I am sorry, I did not realise that you did not understand the word >argument. One side has put a point of view, and you have disagreed with >it with ever increasing attacks of incredulity. Others have also agreed >with you. In the English language, that is referred to as an >"argument". You cannot apply that definition of the word argument to its use in the first sentence above. Stop begging the question! -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 9 18:41:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA17143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 18:41:36 +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 SAA17138 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 18:41:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id KAA20280 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 10:43:23 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Jun 09 10:40:54 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JQEA0KN2TO000DLK@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 10:43:51 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 09 Jun 2000 10:39:38 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 10:43:50 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: End of L68B To: "'Herman De Wael'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B60D@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 There is no doubt in my mind that these cases need to be treated similarly: play continues. ton > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@village.uunet.be] > Verzonden: donderdag 8 juni 2000 13:11 > Aan: Bridge Laws > Onderwerp: Re: End of L68B > > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > Jac Fuchs wrote: > > > > > >1) East - West are defending; East concedes all tricks. > West objects > > >immediately. > > >The end of L68B says no concession has occurred. Do we > play on because there > > >is neither claim nor concession outstanding ? > > > > Yes. > > > > I concur. > > > >2) East - West are defending; East claims some tricks, > thus conceding the > > >remainder. West objects immediately. The end of L68B says > no concession has > > >occurred. Does play cease (because there still is a claim) ? > > > > Yes. > > > > We have discussed it at length, and this seemed the only > reasonable > > conclusion. > > > > Are you sure, David ?. > > Have you read the question correctly ? > > I believe the answer should be "no" : play continues also in > this case. > It is silly to say that there has been a concession with a > claim, and only the concession is cancelled but the claim is > not. There can be no claims without concession for the > remainder, nor vice versa. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 9 20:00:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA17340 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 20:00:03 +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 TAA17334 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 19:59:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from comarch.pl (pcciborowski.comarch.pl [195.116.125.138]) by omicron.comarch.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFFE25C05A; Fri, 09 Jun 2000 11:58:30 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3940C04B.70812B9C@comarch.pl> Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 12:00:43 +0200 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: End of L68B References: <-1251724210jrhind@ibl.bm> <3HD5U2A3uuP5EwCh@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Jack Rhind wrote: > >On Wednesday, June 7, 2000, Jac Fuchs wrote: > >>A claim case posted on the Dutch equivalent of BLML made me wonder about the > >>interpretation of the end of L68B again. Did BLML ever discuss this item > >>before ? > >> > >>1) East - West are defending; East concedes all tricks. West objects > >>immediately. > >>The end of L68B says no concession has occurred. Do we play on because there > >>is neither claim nor concession outstanding ? > > > >In both cases I believe play should cease and the director should be summoned to > >the table. > >There has been unauthorized information from West to East. > > That, of course, is no reason to stop the play. UI cases are dealt > with by adjustment if necessary at the end of the hand. I think that the outcome is going to be worse for EW than in the usual UI case. It is very probable that East will table his hand when making a claim statement. Now if West objets play continues but East cards will be penalty cards. So I guess in most cases West will be better off accepting his partner's claim. -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Jun 9 21:21:37 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA17532 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 21:21:37 +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 VAA17527 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 21:21:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from p49s05a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.117.74] helo=pacific) by cobalt11-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 130Mpb-00053h-00; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 12:20:07 +0100 Message-ID: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Laurie Kelso" Cc: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" , "'Grattan Endicott'" Subject: WBF position on Psychics. Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 12:18:49 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 21:49:40 +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 e59BnOJ97899 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 07:49:26 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000609075051.006f4664@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 07:50:51 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Law 74A In-Reply-To: <200006081553.XAA01592@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw> References: <3.0.1.32.20000608081338.006fd5c0@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.20000608081338.006fd5c0@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:53 PM 6/8/00 +0800, btu wrote: ># From: Eric Landau ># At 01:26 AM 6/8/00 +0100, David wrote: ># > Dummy said "I am not saying anything about this pair, but a pair ># > might ask and double for penalties, and not ask and double for ># > takeout." Both opponents got very upset very quickly. What do ># > you think I should have done? ># ># Knowing nothing, I'd request (order) dummy to apologize ... > >Actually I once ran into a situation in which an opponent asked about >an alerted bid -- it was a transfer -- and bid the transferred suit as >takeout. 3 BOARDS LATER, in a similar situation, I decided to psych a >transfer in a similar situation and he bid WITHOUT PAUSE FOR THOUGHT, >AFTER MY PARTNER ALERTED, showing a long, strong natural suit in the >best possible way. I made a very pointed remark before summoning the >director, and he got really nasty. How would you gents have acted? You "made a very pointed remark" and he "got really nasty". It sounds like you're each going to wind up getting a lecture about letting the TD sort such situations out, and owing each other an apology. I will, of course, look into the facts, and if they indeed turn out to be as you describe, your opponent will receive something between a serious talking-to (if he's a complete novice) and a long disbarment from the club. As always, in these situations, much depends on the TD's knowledge and experience of the players involved. Keep in mind that I direct in the ACBL, which has made it quite clear to its players and TDs that to accuse someone of cheating is just about the most heinous crime in the book short of physical violence, even if everyone else in the room, if polled, would agree that he was in fact cheating. 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 Jun 9 22:31:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA17766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 22:31:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA17761 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 22:31:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.0.ap (resu)) id OAA03291; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 14:33:10 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/%I%.1.ap (mach.test)) id OAA22582; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 14:31:33 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000609143912.00864d10@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 14:39:12 +0200 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: Fw: From the Dutch TD exam... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 14:38:01 +0200 >To: "David Martin" >From: alain gottcheiner >Subject: Re: Fw: From the Dutch TD exam... >In-Reply-To: <005a01bfd0a4$796c0700$30b1073e@davicaltd> > >At 18:07 7/06/00 +0100, you wrote: >>DWS wrote: >> >>> >In other words, I believe that "the standard 5 options" is a >>> >legal fiction that happens to match what the Laws say in 99.something% >>> >of cases. Because it's "universally" correct, however, we poor TD's are >>> >misled by it in the rare instance where it doesn't match. However, that >>> >still won't stop me from starting my OLOOT spiel with "You have the >>> >standard 5 options. Do you know them, or do you wish them explained to >>> >you?" >>> >>> I dislike this intensely. If a player says he knows them then the >>> chances are about 40% that he does, and his opponents have a *right* to >>> hear them as well. You are required to tell them all the options every >>> time, and I really recommend that you do so. > >There is one more point about that one : the offending side are entitled to a complete explanation, because they have the right to know what the non-selected opportunities were. Not that is is important in se -they don't have any choice- , but they are allowed a guess at why did declarer choose such or such option. I mean, declarer is allowed to choose what help him the most, and opponents are allowed to know which options he thought were helping him less. > > A. Gottcheiner Brussels, Belgium From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 9 23:16:33 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA17816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 22:50:34 +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 WAA17807 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 22:50:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-17.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.17]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA12669 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 14:50:11 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3940B353.C47384C4@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 11:05:23 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: cards exposed at defenders turn to play; was Re: From theDutch TD exam... References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "David J. Grabiner" wrote: > > > The ruling is as in (c). > > L49: When defender exposes a card except in the normal course of play, it > becomes a penalty card. > If he drops them while it is not his turn, then they are MPC's. But if it is his turn ? If he shows a second one, while playing one, it is a mPC, the Law says so (L50B explicitely) So if he simply drops two of them, I also believe the second one can become a mPC, after designating the other. Anyway, IMO. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 10 00:16:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA17818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 22:50:36 +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 WAA17806 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 22:50:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-17.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.17]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA12647 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 14:50:09 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3940B289.43C764D1@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 11:02:01 +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: cards exposed at defenders turn to play; was Re: From the Dutch TD exam... References: <200006081641.RAA14828@tempest.npl.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: > > > I would add another option, and compare with the case of one card dropped. > > Q1. > You (as TD) are called to a table where a player whose turn it > is to play has the two and three of diamonds face up in front of him. > "How did those get there?" you might enquire. > "I dropped them by mistake", he will tell you. "I didn't mean to play > either of them - I was trying to play some other card altogether." > > Would you: > (a) compel him to designate which of the two and three of diamonds > he now wants to play; > or > (b) allow him to play the card he intended to play; > or > (c) allow declarer to designate which is to be played at that turn? > (a) L58B2 - he designates > and what happens to the remaining unplayed exposed card or cards? > L50B - the other one becomes a mPC > Q2. > You (as TD) are called to a table where a player whose turn it > is to play has the two of diamonds face up in front of him. > "How did that get there?" you might enquire. > "I dropped it by mistake", he will tell you. "I didn't mean to play > that card - I was trying to play some other card altogether." > > Would you: > (a) compel him to play the two of diamonds; > or > (b) allow him to play the card he intended to play; > or > (c) allow him to play any card (including the two of diamonds) except > another diamond below the rank of an honour? > (c) L50B2 - mPC > and what happens to the remaining unplayed exposed card, if any? > mPC -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 10 01:16:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA18035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 00:06:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA18030 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 00:06:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.0.ap (resu)) id QAA19177; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 16:07:38 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/%I%.1.ap (mach.test)) id QAA16459; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 16:06:00 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000609161340.00859990@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 16:13:40 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello to you all, masters of brain-racking. Please allow a newcover to your newsgroup to asks his first question. How would you rule in the following case ? West East Ax Kxx J9xxx Kxx xxx KJx AK xxxx (Yes, i know West has only 12 cards. Be patient) West opens 1H North Doubles East bids 2D. In his system, this is natural and nonforcing. East thought (wrongly) that it was fit-showing. The EW convention cards mentions that 2C and 3D are artificial encouraging 3/4 raises respectively, other 2/1's and jumps being NF. So This is a case of misbid (no offence). Everyone passes, albeit North is reluctant to do so. Before the lead, East, realizing there was a problem (partner passed what he thought was a n artificial raise), tells the opponents his hand may not be as expected. The director, upon summoning, finds that there was a misbid, period. Now comes the twisty part : as dummy goes down, somebody sees he has only 12 cards. The 13th is quickly found back in the board : it is a diamond ! The play must proceed normally. E/W go down one, for a good score (N/S are cold for 2S). But now let's imagine West had his 13 cards in hand from the beginning. Of course, he won't pass partner's 2D, but rather bid 3D. This would probably net E/W a bad score, since East would now bid 3H, which goes 3 down, doubled at that. So, East has misbid, and may go away with it. West has bid with 12 cards, had a penalty to ay (the contract remains, however bad it may be for him), and it comes out that it served him. Is that just a case of sheer luck ? Would you, as a director, allow E/W to make two errors, that, put together, give them a near-top ? Now consider the following case : West didn't raise East, not because he had only 12 cards, but because he had a diamond sorted with his hearts, thinking he was 2632 while he was 2542. What about that one ? You couldn't rule on the grounds that "he could have known it was to his advantage", could you ? Thank you for your help. (ah, by the way, I was West) Alain Gottcheiner From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 10 01:21:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA17999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 23:51:19 +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 XAA17994 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 23:51:10 +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 130PBb-000J4d-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 14:51:00 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 00:45:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: cards exposed at defenders turn to play; was Re: From the Dutch TD exam... References: <200006081641.RAA14828@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200006081641.RAA14828@tempest.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <200006081641.RAA14828@tempest.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes > >> From: "David Burn" >> Suppose you as TD are called to a table where a player whose turn it >> is to play has the two and three of diamonds face up in front of him. >> "How did those get there?" you might enquire. "I dropped them by >> mistake", he will tell you. "I didn't mean to play either of them - I >> was trying to play some other card altogether." Would you: (a) compel >> him to designate which of the two and three of diamonds he now wants >> to play, and have the other as a penalty card (and if so, what kind?); >> or (b) allow him to play the card he intended to play, and have both >> diamonds as (major) penalty cards? > >I would add another option, and compare with the case of one card dropped. > A single card not of honour rank accidentally dropped is indeed a minor penalty card, and thus a defender does not have to play it even if it is his turn to play (or lead). However I am of the opinion that if more than one card is visible then the defender, per 58B2 must select one of them, and then we apply 50B. This seems logical in that in pulling a card from his hand the D2 falls before the intended card is faced, and equally if they both get exposed at the same time we end up with a minor penalty card. >Q1. >You (as TD) are called to a table where a player whose turn it >is to play has the two and three of diamonds face up in front of him. >"How did those get there?" you might enquire. >"I dropped them by mistake", he will tell you. "I didn't mean to play >either of them - I was trying to play some other card altogether." > >Would you: >(a) compel him to designate which of the two and three of diamonds > he now wants to play; >or Yes, equally if he'd dropped three cards >(b) allow him to play the card he intended to play; >or No >(c) allow declarer to designate which is to be played at that turn? > No >and what happens to the remaining unplayed exposed card or cards? > Apply Law 50B, not enquiring intent > >Q2. >You (as TD) are called to a table where a player whose turn it >is to play has the two of diamonds face up in front of him. >"How did that get there?" you might enquire. >"I dropped it by mistake", he will tell you. "I didn't mean to play >that card - I was trying to play some other card altogether." > >Would you: >(a) compel him to play the two of diamonds; >or No >(b) allow him to play the card he intended to play; >or Yes >(c) allow him to play any card (including the two of diamonds) except > another diamond below the rank of an honour? > No >and what happens to the remaining unplayed exposed card, if any? > Law 50B still not enquiring intent. >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 Jun 10 01:55:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA18366 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 01:55:27 +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 BAA18361 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 01:55:19 +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 QAA25878; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 16:55:09 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA23863; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 16:55:08 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Fri, 09 Jun 2000 15:55:08 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 QAA14058; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 16:55:07 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id QAA05813; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 16:55:06 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 16:55:06 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200006091555.QAA05813@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: cards exposed at defenders turn to play; was Re: From the Dutch TD exam... Cc: john@probst.demon.co.uk X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thank you to David (Grabiner), Herman and John for their answers; if we get more answers I'll summarise. [ John, can you bite the bullet and say MPC/mPC in answer to >and what happens to the remaining unplayed exposed card or cards? we know what the cards are (D2/D3) and the indent (dropped), relevant or not, so we can rule; not just "Apply Law 50B". ] I thought the options were: apply L49 immediately, or apply L45C (and then L58 if applicable) but David Burn provided options which did not fit with either. Herman and John apply different laws depending on whether there are two dropped cards or one. Questions repeated for convenience: Q1. You (as TD) are called to a table where a player whose turn it is to play has the two and three of diamonds face up in front of him. "How did those get there?" you might enquire. "I dropped them by mistake", he will tell you. "I didn't mean to play either of them - I was trying to play some other card altogether." Would you: (a) compel him to designate which of the two and three of diamonds he now wants to play; or (b) allow him to play the card he intended to play; or (c) allow declarer to designate which is to be played at that turn? and what happens to the remaining unplayed exposed card or cards? Q2. You (as TD) are called to a table where a player whose turn it is to play has the two of diamonds face up in front of him. "How did that get there?" you might enquire. "I dropped it by mistake", he will tell you. "I didn't mean to play that card - I was trying to play some other card altogether." Would you: (a) compel him to play the two of diamonds; or (b) allow him to play the card he intended to play; or (c) allow him to play any card (including the two of diamonds) except another diamond below the rank of an honour? and what happens to the remaining unplayed exposed card, if any? As its a quiz for TDs, please quote the numbers of laws you are using. 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 Jun 10 02:40:53 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA18637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 02:40:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA18632 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 02:40:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA32596; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 09:36:49 -0700 Message-Id: <200006091636.JAA32596@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Misbid and 12 cards In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 09 Jun 2000 16:13:40 PDT." <3.0.6.32.20000609161340.00859990@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 09:36:48 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Hello to you all, masters of brain-racking. > > Please allow a newcover to your newsgroup to asks his first question. Welcome to BLML! How many cats and dogs do you have? What are their names? > How would you rule in the following case ? > > West East > > Ax Kxx > J9xxx Kxx > xxx KJx > AK xxxx > > (Yes, i know West has only 12 cards. Be patient) > > West opens 1H > North Doubles > East bids 2D. In his system, this is natural and nonforcing. > East thought (wrongly) that it was fit-showing. The EW convention cards > mentions that 2C and 3D are artificial encouraging 3/4 raises respectively, > other 2/1's and jumps being NF. > So This is a case of misbid (no offence). > Everyone passes, albeit North is reluctant to do so. > Before the lead, East, realizing there was a problem (partner passed what > he thought was a n artificial raise), tells the opponents his hand may not > be as expected. The director, upon summoning, finds that there was a > misbid, period. > > Now comes the twisty part : as dummy goes down, somebody sees he has only > 12 cards. > The 13th is quickly found back in the board : it is a diamond ! > The play must proceed normally. E/W go down one, for a good score (N/S are > cold for 2S). > But now let's imagine West had his 13 cards in hand from the beginning. > Of course, he won't pass partner's 2D, but rather bid 3D. This would > probably net E/W a bad score, since East would now bid 3H, which goes 3 > down, doubled at that. > > So, East has misbid, and may go away with it. West has bid with 12 cards, > had a penalty to ay (the contract remains, however bad it may be for him), > and it comes out that it served him. > > Is that just a case of sheer luck ? This happened to Terence Reese, according to a story I once read. During the auction, Reese and his partner tried for slam but stopped short. Reese was the declarer, and when dummy came down, Reese commented on dummy's interesting distribution: 4-4-2-2. They found the missing card on the floor, and it turned out to be an ace. If dummy had known he had the ace, they would have reached the slam. But the slam would have gone down, as the cards lay. So Reese got lucky this time. Yes, stuff like that happens. Your opponents were just very unlucky. > Would you, as a director, allow E/W to make two errors, that, put together, > give them a near-top ? You have no choice but to do what the Laws tell you to do. Usually it works out to the non-offenders' benefit. Occasionally it doesn't. Both players misbid, one because he forgot the system, the other because he didn't have all his cards. But when an opponent misbids and it happens to work out well, you accept it as a fix and move on to the next hand. If the opponents misbid twice and it happens to work out well for them, you examine what you did today to bring bad luck upon yourself. If the opponents misbid three times and it happens to work out well for them, you take it as a sign from God that you should give up bridge. :) Just kidding, but there's no legal redress for damage from lucky misbids, and that still holds when the misbid occurs because an opponent had a card hidden, or a card mixed in with the wrong suit, or a card on the floor. (This is not an appropriate application of L12A1.) > Now consider the following case : > > West didn't raise East, not because he had only 12 cards, but because he > had a diamond sorted with his hearts, thinking he was 2632 while he was 2542. > What about that one ? > > You couldn't rule on the grounds that "he could have known it was to his > advantage", could you ? Nope. West didn't even commit any irregularity---it's not a violation of any Law to have your cards missorted. The only "could have known"'s that appear in the Law are when a player commits an irregularity and could have known that the penalty would damage the other side (23, 72B1) or when a player makes a remark or hesitation or the like and could have known that it might deceive his opponents (73F2). Neither of those applies here. Hope this helps, -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 10 06:42:13 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA19337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 06:42:13 +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 GAA19332 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 06:42:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive42u.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.94]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA15231 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 16:41:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <005001bfd253$a3622520$5e10f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: Law 74A Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 16:45:23 -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 As Eric notes, the accusation of cheating is an extraordinarily serious one. Many regard it as more serious than actually cheating onesself, which can only gain unfair advantage at a game, whereas the accusation can permanently smear a reputation. The unfair advantage can be remedied; the smear cannot. We once had a pair in our club who played an unusual modified Big Club system. Many of the better players felt that their disclosure of partnership understandings fell somewhat short of full. Eventually the system was barred in lacal clubs because it had too many undefined or multiple option areas that lent themselves to implicit partnership understandings which this pair appeared incapable of revealing adequately. At one unit event, one of the better players had a few more whiskeys that he should, and loudly, publicly and repeatedly accused the pair of being cheats. He was brought before a C&E hearing and given censure and a three month suspension. You just do NOT make an accusation of unethical conduct in a public place. You report a situation to a director (or recorder) but save the "pointed remarks" for the football stadium. Craig -----Original Message----- From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Date: Friday, June 09, 2000 8:02 AM Subject: Re: Law 74A >At 11:53 PM 6/8/00 +0800, btu wrote: > >># From: Eric Landau >># At 01:26 AM 6/8/00 +0100, David wrote: >># > Dummy said "I am not saying anything about this pair, but a pair >># > might ask and double for penalties, and not ask and double for >># > takeout." Both opponents got very upset very quickly. What do >># > you think I should have done? >># >># Knowing nothing, I'd request (order) dummy to apologize ... >> >>Actually I once ran into a situation in which an opponent asked about >>an alerted bid -- it was a transfer -- and bid the transferred suit as >>takeout. 3 BOARDS LATER, in a similar situation, I decided to psych a >>transfer in a similar situation and he bid WITHOUT PAUSE FOR THOUGHT, >>AFTER MY PARTNER ALERTED, showing a long, strong natural suit in the >>best possible way. I made a very pointed remark before summoning the >>director, and he got really nasty. How would you gents have acted? > >You "made a very pointed remark" and he "got really nasty". It sounds like >you're each going to wind up getting a lecture about letting the TD sort >such situations out, and owing each other an apology. I will, of course, >look into the facts, and if they indeed turn out to be as you describe, >your opponent will receive something between a serious talking-to (if he's >a complete novice) and a long disbarment from the club. As always, in >these situations, much depends on the TD's knowledge and experience of the >players involved. > >Keep in mind that I direct in the ACBL, which has made it quite clear to >its players and TDs that to accuse someone of cheating is just about the >most heinous crime in the book short of physical violence, even if everyone >else in the room, if polled, would agree that he was in fact cheating. > > >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 Jun 10 06:39:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA19330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 06:39:51 +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 GAA19325 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 06:39:42 +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 e59KdXJ24619 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 16:39:33 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000609164103.006d68e0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 16:41:03 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000609161340.00859990@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:13 PM 6/9/00 +0200, alain wrote: >How would you rule in the following case ? > > West East > > Ax Kxx > J9xxx Kxx > xxx KJx > AK xxxx > >(Yes, i know West has only 12 cards. Be patient) > >West opens 1H >North Doubles >East bids 2D. In his system, this is natural and nonforcing. >East thought (wrongly) that it was fit-showing. The EW convention cards >mentions that 2C and 3D are artificial encouraging 3/4 raises respectively, >other 2/1's and jumps being NF. >So This is a case of misbid (no offence). >Everyone passes, albeit North is reluctant to do so. >Before the lead, East, realizing there was a problem (partner passed what >he thought was a n artificial raise), tells the opponents his hand may not >be as expected. The director, upon summoning, finds that there was a >misbid, period. > >Now comes the twisty part : as dummy goes down, somebody sees he has only >12 cards. >The 13th is quickly found back in the board : it is a diamond ! >The play must proceed normally. E/W go down one, for a good score (N/S are >cold for 2S). >But now let's imagine West had his 13 cards in hand from the beginning. >Of course, he won't pass partner's 2D, but rather bid 3D. This would >probably net E/W a bad score, since East would now bid 3H, which goes 3 >down, doubled at that. > >So, East has misbid, and may go away with it. West has bid with 12 cards, >had a penalty to ay (the contract remains, however bad it may be for him), >and it comes out that it served him. > >Is that just a case of sheer luck ? Yes. >Would you, as a director, allow E/W to make two errors, that, put together, >give them a near-top ? Yes. >Now consider the following case : > >West didn't raise East, not because he had only 12 cards, but because he >had a diamond sorted with his hearts, thinking he was 2632 while he was 2542. >What about that one ? No difference. >You couldn't rule on the grounds that "he could have known it was to his >advantage", could you ? I don't know if I "could", but I wouldn't consider it. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 10 06:56:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA19394 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 06:56:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA19389 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 06:56:24 +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 QAA00770; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 16:56:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA17241; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 16:56:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 16:56:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200006092056.QAA17241@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Misbid and 12 cards Cc: adam@irvine.com X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > it's not a violation > of any Law to have your cards missorted. While I agree with everything Adam wrote, it might be worth injecting a small qualification. The TD need not necessarily believe a player's statement that he had his cards missorted. In general there is no way to verify it. Thus in some different case than the ones Alain raised, where the misbid "looks like" a fielded psyche or a concealed partnership understanding, "having the cards missorted" would not prevent the normal adjustment. This quibble is probably not of much practical importance. I'd guess that John Probst, who directs a lot, might see a case like the one I describe once a decade or so. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 10 16:23:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA20558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 16:23:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA20553 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 16:23:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.174] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 130efy-000LSn-00; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 07:23:23 +0100 Message-ID: <001d01bfd2a4$9cdc0e40$ae5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , Cc: References: <200006092056.QAA17241@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Misbid and 12 cards Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 07:23:38 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 9:56 PM Subject: Re: Misbid and 12 cards > > From: Adam Beneschan > > it's not a violation > > of any Law to have your cards missorted. > > While I agree with everything Adam wrote, > --------- \x/ ----------- > This quibble is probably not of much practical importance. I'd guess > that John Probst, who directs a lot, might see a case like the one I > describe once a decade or so. > +=+ Be careful. At the Young Chelsea B.C. they count decades in minutes, not years :-)) and 'Young' is an attitude of mind. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 10 23:23:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA21227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 23:23:28 +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 XAA21222 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 23:23:20 +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 130lEE-000HAx-0U for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 14:23:10 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 02:15:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: cards exposed at defenders turn to play; was Re: From the Dutch TD exam... References: <200006091555.QAA05813@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200006091555.QAA05813@tempest.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <200006091555.QAA05813@tempest.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes >Thank you to David (Grabiner), Herman and John for their answers; >if we get more answers I'll summarise. > >[ John, can you bite the bullet and say MPC/mPC in answer to > >and what happens to the remaining unplayed exposed card or cards? > we know what the cards are (D2/D3) and the indent (dropped), > relevant or not, so we can rule; not just "Apply Law 50B". ] mPC's both -- 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 Jun 11 04:16:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA22080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 03:19:41 +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 DAA22075 for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 03:19:28 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 21722 invoked from network); 10 Jun 2000 17:18:06 -0000 Received: from mizra-11-14.access.net.il (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.11.14) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 10 Jun 2000 17:18:06 -0000 Message-ID: <394279A8.4999BE10@inter.net.il> Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 20:23:52 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: alain gottcheiner CC: Bridge Law List Subject: Re: References: <3.0.6.32.20000609161340.00859990@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Welcome to the "...brain TDs' list " Alain Their is nothing to do about this situation . Only if the TD arrives at a firm conclusion that the 12 cards hand influenced East's decision , he can " award" a PP to East , who didn't count the cards..... By the way , please inform us if you have any cats or dogs , if yes their names. Dany alain gottcheiner wrote: > Hello to you all, masters of brain-racking. > > Please allow a newcover to your newsgroup to asks his first question. > > How would you rule in the following case ? > > West East > > Ax Kxx > J9xxx Kxx > xxx KJx > AK xxxx > > (Yes, i know West has only 12 cards. Be patient) > > West opens 1H > North Doubles > East bids 2D. In his system, this is natural and nonforcing. > East thought (wrongly) that it was fit-showing. The EW convention cards > mentions that 2C and 3D are artificial encouraging 3/4 raises respectively, > other 2/1's and jumps being NF. > So This is a case of misbid (no offence). > Everyone passes, albeit North is reluctant to do so. > Before the lead, East, realizing there was a problem (partner passed what > he thought was a n artificial raise), tells the opponents his hand may not > be as expected. The director, upon summoning, finds that there was a > misbid, period. > > Now comes the twisty part : as dummy goes down, somebody sees he has only > 12 cards. > The 13th is quickly found back in the board : it is a diamond ! > The play must proceed normally. E/W go down one, for a good score (N/S are > cold for 2S). > But now let's imagine West had his 13 cards in hand from the beginning. > Of course, he won't pass partner's 2D, but rather bid 3D. This would > probably net E/W a bad score, since East would now bid 3H, which goes 3 > down, doubled at that. > > So, East has misbid, and may go away with it. West has bid with 12 cards, > had a penalty to ay (the contract remains, however bad it may be for him), > and it comes out that it served him. > > Is that just a case of sheer luck ? > Would you, as a director, allow E/W to make two errors, that, put together, > give them a near-top ? > > Now consider the following case : > > West didn't raise East, not because he had only 12 cards, but because he > had a diamond sorted with his hearts, thinking he was 2632 while he was 2542. > What about that one ? > > You couldn't rule on the grounds that "he could have known it was to his > advantage", could you ? > > Thank you for your help. > > (ah, by the way, I was West) > > Alain Gottcheiner From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 11 04:17:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA22247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 04:17:59 +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 EAA22242 for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 04:17:50 +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 130lc2-000PHU-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 13:47:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 14:41:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Misbid and 12 cards References: <200006092056.QAA17241@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001d01bfd2a4$9cdc0e40$ae5908c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <001d01bfd2a4$9cdc0e40$ae5908c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <001d01bfd2a4$9cdc0e40$ae5908c3@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott===================================== >"He who is not a bird should not build >his nest over abysses." - Nietzsche. >*********************************************** >----- Original Message ----- >From: Steve Willner >To: >Cc: >Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 9:56 PM >Subject: Re: Misbid and 12 cards > > >> > From: Adam Beneschan >> > it's not a violation >> > of any Law to have your cards missorted. >> >> While I agree with everything Adam wrote, >> >--------- \x/ ----------- >> This quibble is probably not of much practical importance. I'd guess >> that John Probst, who directs a lot, might see a case like the one I >> describe once a decade or so. >> >+=+ Be careful. At the Young Chelsea B.C. they count decades >in minutes, not years :-)) and 'Young' is an attitude of mind. >~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > At the YC I see a red psyche about once a year. It is almost always both players operating on the same hand. I have absolutely no problem with the ethics involved and just award 60/30. The players are relaxed about this too, as the level of self-policing is pretty high. It might well be something like this one Kxxx xx xx Kxxx Axxxx xx xx QJxxx 1D 1H 1S (1S is obvious at this stage) 2Ca AP 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 Jun 11 06:12:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA22598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 06:12:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from t21mta00-app.talk21.com (mta00.talk21.com [62.172.192.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA22593 for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 06:12:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from davicaltd ([62.7.177.21]) by t21mta00-app.talk21.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000610201051.CNDM18397.t21mta00-app.talk21.com@davicaltd> for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 21:10:51 +0100 Message-ID: <00a701bfd318$33e3b4a0$15b1073e@davicaltd> From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Fw: cards exposed at defenders turn to play; was Re: From the Dutch TD exam... Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 21:11:32 +0100 Organization: Davica Ltd MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 Robin wrote: > Questions repeated for convenience: > > Q1. > You (as TD) are called to a table where a player whose turn it > is to play has the two and three of diamonds face up in front of him. > "How did those get there?" you might enquire. > "I dropped them by mistake", he will tell you. "I didn't mean to play > either of them - I was trying to play some other card altogether." > > Would you: > (a) compel him to designate which of the two and three of diamonds > he now wants to play; > or > (b) allow him to play the card he intended to play; > or > (c) allow declarer to designate which is to be played at that turn? > > and what happens to the remaining unplayed exposed card or cards? > I would rule as in (c) using L49, L50B & L50D(1) and the remaining cards are MPCs. > > Q2. > You (as TD) are called to a table where a player whose turn it > is to play has the two of diamonds face up in front of him. > "How did that get there?" you might enquire. > "I dropped it by mistake", he will tell you. "I didn't mean to play > that card - I was trying to play some other card altogether." > > Would you: > (a) compel him to play the two of diamonds; > or > (b) allow him to play the card he intended to play; > or > (c) allow him to play any card (including the two of diamonds) except > another diamond below the rank of an honour? > > and what happens to the remaining unplayed exposed card, if any? > I would rule as in (c) using L49, L50B & L50C. The remaining card is a mPC. > > As its a quiz for TDs, please quote the numbers of laws you are using. > > 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 Sun Jun 11 06:12:07 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA22592 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 06:12:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from t21mta00-app.talk21.com (mta00.talk21.com [62.172.192.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA22587 for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 06:11:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from davicaltd ([62.7.177.21]) by t21mta00-app.talk21.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000610201042.CNCZ18397.t21mta00-app.talk21.com@davicaltd> for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 21:10:42 +0100 Message-ID: <00a601bfd318$2e95ac60$15b1073e@davicaltd> From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Fw: Fw: From the Dutch TD exam... Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 20:43:42 +0100 Organization: Davica Ltd MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 wrote: > >###### Have you ever tutored an EBU Club TD course? I have tutored a great > >many and I can assure you that, whilst anyone who does the above would lose > >quite a few marks, failure would be far from automatic. Since the marking > >schedule for the assessment, ie. the 'C' course, is preset, this should be > >true for all tutors. ##### DWS replied: > > Yes, I have tutored a club TD course. Thankyou for the question. > > I see it no longer states that people need to get a reasonable score > on each part of the course: it did say that at one time. > > I suppose, then, it is an exaggeration to say that the 25 marks the > student is going to lose on this one will make him fail. I am willing > to bet a very large amount that no student would pass who loses that > much on this question. > ###### It may have been some time since you took one of these courses but the more recent marking schemes clearly support the philosophy that we are looking for reasons to pass and not for reasons to fail. The idea that someone who has invested time and money attending at least two or three previous courses, has no doubt also spent a fair amount of their spare time in personal study and is probably extremely nervous now, should be failed for a single mistake during the assessment is plainly ridiculous and clearly not what is intended. We are not testing SAS recruits, nuclear weapons missileers, atomic power plant controllers or airline pilots - all of whom are routinely failed for a single error. The current tutor guide clearly states that candidates who go down the wrong path should be given a reasonable period of time in which to realise their mistake and correct themselves otherwise the tutor should put them on the right path. The guide specifically states that whilst the candidate will loose all marks related to the initial part of the problem, they should be given credit for all subsequently correct points. Thus, in the case quoted above, the correct response of the tutor would be to ask the candidate to answer as though the tutor new nothing of the options. The candidate could then potentially earn all of the marks for correctly identifying and explaining each of the five options together with the marks for warning declarer against consulting with partner, the marks for warning declarer not to choose prematurely before hearing all five options and the marks available for explaining that it is perfectly ethical for declarer to choose the option that is most favourable to their side. [BTW - JOHN PROBST might note that these last three points were not included in his standard speech recently presented to us!] Afterwards, the tutor should explain to the candidate that a number of the tutor's discretionary marks were lost because of the initial response and that the candidate should ensure that in future the options are always explained in full. This approach to marking has certainly been in place for the last three or four years and is the reason why the 'C' course is advertised as providing a learning opportunity as well as formal testing. ####### From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 11 16:59:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA24032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 16:59:03 +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 QAA24027 for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 16:58:52 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 21854 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2000 06:58:13 -0000 Received: from petrus2.konvent (HELO eduhi.at) (192.168.1.116) by michael.gym with SMTP; 11 Jun 2000 06:58:13 -0000 Message-ID: <394338A5.40FD0737@eduhi.at> Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 08:58:45 +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: cards exposed at defenders turn to play; was Re: From the Dutch TD exam... References: <200006091555.QAA05813@tempest.npl.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker schrieb: > > Thank you to David (Grabiner), Herman and John for their answers; > if we get more answers I'll summarise. > I thought the options were: apply L49 immediately, or apply L45C (and > then L58 if applicable) but David Burn provided options which did not > fit with either. Herman and John apply different laws depending on > whether there are two dropped cards or one. > > Questions repeated for convenience: > > Q1. > You (as TD) are called to a table where a player whose turn it > is to play has the two and three of diamonds face up in front of him. > "How did those get there?" you might enquire. > "I dropped them by mistake", he will tell you. "I didn't mean to play > either of them - I was trying to play some other card altogether." > > Would you: > (a) compel him to designate which of the two and three of diamonds > he now wants to play; > or > (b) allow him to play the card he intended to play; > or > (c) allow declarer to designate which is to be played at that turn? > > and what happens to the remaining unplayed exposed card or cards? (a) I read "a defender's card" in L45C1 to include the plural; applying L58B2 he has to select his play from among the D3 and D2; his statement is UI to partner ans AI to declarer; the other card becomes a mPC (L49/L50B: because of the wording of L50B, it is IMO a presumption of law that playing two cards to a trick is an inadvertant play). > > Q2. > You (as TD) are called to a table where a player whose turn it > is to play has the two of diamonds face up in front of him. > "How did that get there?" you might enquire. > "I dropped it by mistake", he will tell you. "I didn't mean to play > that card - I was trying to play some other card altogether." > > Would you: > (a) compel him to play the two of diamonds; > or > (b) allow him to play the card he intended to play; > or > (c) allow him to play any card (including the two of diamonds) except > another diamond below the rank of an honour? > > and what happens to the remaining unplayed exposed card, if any? > (a) again: L45C1. Petrus From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 11 20:16:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA24388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 20:16:00 +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 UAA24383 for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 20:15:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.178] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 1314mM-00038A-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 11:15:43 +0100 Message-ID: <002001bfd38e$3d295940$b25408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "BLML" References: <200006091555.QAA05813@tempest.npl.co.uk> <394338A5.40FD0737@eduhi.at> Subject: Re: cards exposed at defenders turn to play; was Re: From the Dutch TD exam... Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 11:16:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: BLML Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2000 7:58 AM Subject: Re: cards exposed at defenders turn to play; was Re: From the Dutch TD exam... > Robin Barker schrieb: > > > > Thank you to David (Grabiner), Herman and John for their answers; > > if we get more answers I'll summarise. > > > I thought the options were: apply L49 immediately, or apply L45C (and > > then L58 if applicable) but David Burn provided options which did not > > fit with either. Herman and John apply different laws depending on > > whether there are two dropped cards or one. > > +=+ It is clear enough from 50B that a card dropped accidentally (whenever) is a card inadvertently exposed. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 12 07:56:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA26227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 07:56:06 +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 HAA26222 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 07:55:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 131Fhp-000Nuo-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 22:55:45 +0100 Message-ID: <2O$mX0BaqSQ5Ew7g@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 18:34:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: .. References: <3.0.6.32.20000609161340.00859990@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000609161340.00859990@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner wrote: >Hello to you all, masters of brain-racking. > >Please allow a newcover to your newsgroup to asks his first question. Hi - welcome! Do you have any cats? >How would you rule in the following case ? > > West East > > Ax Kxx > J9xxx Kxx > xxx KJx > AK xxxx > >(Yes, i know West has only 12 cards. Be patient) You should not have given clues! Only about one in ten of your readers would have noticed! >West opens 1H >North Doubles >East bids 2D. In his system, this is natural and nonforcing. >East thought (wrongly) that it was fit-showing. The EW convention cards >mentions that 2C and 3D are artificial encouraging 3/4 raises respectively, >other 2/1's and jumps being NF. >So This is a case of misbid (no offence). >Everyone passes, albeit North is reluctant to do so. >Before the lead, East, realizing there was a problem (partner passed what >he thought was a n artificial raise), tells the opponents his hand may not >be as expected. The director, upon summoning, finds that there was a >misbid, period. > >Now comes the twisty part : as dummy goes down, somebody sees he has only >12 cards. >The 13th is quickly found back in the board : it is a diamond ! >The play must proceed normally. E/W go down one, for a good score (N/S are >cold for 2S). >But now let's imagine West had his 13 cards in hand from the beginning. >Of course, he won't pass partner's 2D, but rather bid 3D. This would >probably net E/W a bad score, since East would now bid 3H, which goes 3 >down, doubled at that. > >So, East has misbid, and may go away with it. West has bid with 12 cards, >had a penalty to ay (the contract remains, however bad it may be for him), >and it comes out that it served him. > >Is that just a case of sheer luck ? >Would you, as a director, allow E/W to make two errors, that, put together, >give them a near-top ? Why not? I cannot find a Law to suggest otherwise. >Now consider the following case : > >West didn't raise East, not because he had only 12 cards, but because he >had a diamond sorted with his hearts, thinking he was 2632 while he was 2542. >What about that one ? > >You couldn't rule on the grounds that "he could have known it was to his >advantage", could you ? No, certainly not, because I don't believe it to be the case. Furthermore, West committed no infraction. >Thank you for your help. > >(ah, by the way, I was West) I bet you were ruled against! :) -- 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 Jun 12 10:37:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA26566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:37:56 +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 KAA26558 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:37:44 +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 131IER-000L7K-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 00:37:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 23:46:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: End of L68B References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B60D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B60D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. wrote: >There is no doubt in my mind that these cases need to be treated similarly: >play continues. How do you reconcile this with the Law that says Play Ceases when there is a claim? >> David Stevenson wrote: >> > >> > Jac Fuchs wrote: >> > > >> > >1) East - West are defending; East concedes all tricks. >> West objects >> > >immediately. >> > >The end of L68B says no concession has occurred. Do we >> play on because there >> > >is neither claim nor concession outstanding ? >> > >> > Yes. >> > >> >> I concur. >> >> > >2) East - West are defending; East claims some tricks, >> thus conceding the >> > >remainder. West objects immediately. The end of L68B says >> no concession has >> > >occurred. Does play cease (because there still is a claim) ? >> > >> > Yes. >> > >> > We have discussed it at length, and this seemed the only >> reasonable >> > conclusion. >> > >> >> Are you sure, David ?. >> >> Have you read the question correctly ? >> >> I believe the answer should be "no" : play continues also in >> this case. >> It is silly to say that there has been a concession with a >> claim, and only the concession is cancelled but the claim is >> not. There can be no claims without concession for the >> remainder, nor vice versa. >> >> -- >> Herman DE WAEL >> Antwerpen Belgium >> http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html >> >> -- 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 Jun 12 10:38:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA26577 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:38:06 +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 KAA26560 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:37:50 +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 131IER-000L7L-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 00:37:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 00:13:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >6. Any psychic that may be described as "routine even >obligatory" is clearly a matter of understanding and is illegal >if unannounced unless the regulating authority/sponsoring >organization will deem it a "commonly accepted" use of the >call (see Law 40A). I do not see this. If a matter is not a partnership understanding it does not need a statement from any regulating authority to make that so. For example, if partner opens 1S third in hand at green it is a matter of general bridge knowledge that this is more likely to be psychic than a second in hand 1S at red. That is so whether the RA deems it so or not. >7. The Code of Practice has not created anything fresh in Law. >It merely draws attention to the effect of the law as it exists. It >has left the judgemental questions where they should remain, >with Directors and ACs. One thing that seems clear from general discussions is that while this may be your opinion, Grattan, it is not a generally held one. -- 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 Jun 12 10:38:05 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA26576 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:38:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA26561 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:37:51 +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 131IES-000L7M-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 00:37:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 00:20:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: From the Dutch TD exam... References: <00a601bfd318$2e95ac60$15b1073e@davicaltd> In-Reply-To: <00a601bfd318$2e95ac60$15b1073e@davicaltd> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: > >I wrote: > >> >###### Have you ever tutored an EBU Club TD course? I have tutored a >great >> >many and I can assure you that, whilst anyone who does the above would >lose >> >quite a few marks, failure would be far from automatic. Since the >marking >> >schedule for the assessment, ie. the 'C' course, is preset, this should >be >> >true for all tutors. ##### > >DWS replied: > >> >> Yes, I have tutored a club TD course. Thankyou for the question. >> >> I see it no longer states that people need to get a reasonable score >> on each part of the course: it did say that at one time. >> >> I suppose, then, it is an exaggeration to say that the 25 marks the >> student is going to lose on this one will make him fail. I am willing >> to bet a very large amount that no student would pass who loses that >> much on this question. >> > >###### It may have been some time since you took one of these courses but >the more recent marking schemes clearly support the philosophy that we are >looking for reasons to pass and not for reasons to fail. The idea that >someone who has invested time and money attending at least two or three >previous courses, has no doubt also spent a fair amount of their spare time >in personal study and is probably extremely nervous now, should be failed >for a single mistake during the assessment is plainly ridiculous and clearly >not what is intended. We are not testing SAS recruits, nuclear weapons >missileers, atomic power plant controllers or airline pilots - all of whom >are routinely failed for a single error. The current tutor guide clearly >states that candidates who go down the wrong path should be given a >reasonable period of time in which to realise their mistake and correct >themselves otherwise the tutor should put them on the right path. The guide >specifically states that whilst the candidate will loose all marks related >to the initial part of the problem, they should be given credit for all >subsequently correct points. Thus, in the case quoted above, the correct >response of the tutor would be to ask the candidate to answer as though the >tutor new nothing of the options. The candidate could then potentially earn >all of the marks for correctly identifying and explaining each of the five >options together with the marks for warning declarer against consulting with >partner, the marks for warning declarer not to choose prematurely before >hearing all five options and the marks available for explaining that it is >perfectly ethical for declarer to choose the option that is most favourable >to their side. [BTW - JOHN PROBST might note that these last three points >were not included in his standard speech recently presented to us!] >Afterwards, the tutor should explain to the candidate that a number of the >tutor's discretionary marks were lost because of the initial response and >that the candidate should ensure that in future the options are always >explained in full. This approach to marking has certainly been in place for >the last three or four years and is the reason why the 'C' course is >advertised as providing a learning opportunity as well as formal testing. >####### Thankyou for the lesson. I see what you are talking about now. you are saying that the way we gave the C course over the years has been changed to a new C course, with the same aims, the same effects, the same style of marking. Very interesting. I still contend that if a person really is going to ignore all his training he is not entirely suitable to pass exams. Of course if he gets most of it right there is no problem. I really cannot see why you are quoting long situations that seem irrelevant to the present case. I still contend that despite your claims of how it has changed - though the changes are not clear to me - that a TD that will not do what they are told on the A course is not necessarily going to pass, nor should do so. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 12 19:20:13 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA27565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:20:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA27557 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:20:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp180-152.worldonline.nl [195.241.180.152]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 00E9A36B27; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:20:39 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002001bfd44f$3b676540$98b4f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: End of L68B Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:58:31 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, June 12, 2000 3:03 AM Subject: Re: End of L68B >Kooijman, A. wrote: >>There is no doubt in my mind that these cases need to be treated similarly: >>play continues. > > How do you reconcile this with the Law that says Play Ceases when >there is a claim? Law 68B tells us that a claim and concession are equally treated: a claim or concession for a number of tricks is a concession or claim for the remainder. With 4 tricks still to play a concession of four tricks is a claim for zero tricks etc.etc. Isn't law 68B clear then? If a defender concedes a number of tricks and his partner objects there is no concession (so no claim either). Which means that 68D is not applicable. 'Any' concession does not incude a concession that is considered not to be one (and claim of the remainder). So play continues under the instruction of the TD: UI etc.etc. To be honest: I really do not understand the confusion created on this subject, but for the sake of this discussion group. We have an example which always causes a lot of discussion, because my pupils want to demonstrate their playing abilities. AQT 7 K5 J74 862 East to lead with 12 clubs and a side 7 still in play in NT. Now west concedes the last 3 trick and east immediately objects. TD orders that play continues, telling west that he is not allowed to use the information that partner seems to think to win at least a trick. The dispute of course is whether the TD allows EW a trick when west now plays the club K. My pupils say that playing the K is automatic, and I tell them that it isn't and therefore I give an AS based on 3 tricks to NS. (No, not a 1NT 15-17 opening in south and only have shown 14 points so west figured out that the club J needs to be there) ton > >>> David Stevenson wrote: >>> > >>> > Jac Fuchs wrote: >>> > > >>> > >1) East - West are defending; East concedes all tricks. >>> West objects >>> > >immediately. >>> > >The end of L68B says no concession has occurred. Do we >>> play on because there >>> > >is neither claim nor concession outstanding ? >>> > >>> > Yes. >>> > >>> >>> I concur. >>> >>> > >2) East - West are defending; East claims some tricks, >>> thus conceding the >>> > >remainder. West objects immediately. The end of L68B says >>> no concession has >>> > >occurred. Does play cease (because there still is a claim) ? >>> > >>> > Yes. >>> > >>> > We have discussed it at length, and this seemed the only >>> reasonable >>> > conclusion. >>> > >>> >>> Are you sure, David ?. >>> >>> Have you read the question correctly ? >>> >>> I believe the answer should be "no" : play continues also in >>> this case. >>> It is silly to say that there has been a concession with a >>> claim, and only the concession is cancelled but the claim is >>> not. There can be no claims without concession for the >>> remainder, nor vice versa. >>> >>> -- >>> Herman DE WAEL >>> Antwerpen Belgium >>> http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html >>> >>> > >-- >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 Jun 12 19:20:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA27570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:20:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA27563 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:20:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp180-152.worldonline.nl [195.241.180.152]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 2AA5E36B30; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:20:41 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002101bfd44f$41e206a0$98b4f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:17:41 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan says: >>7. The Code of Practice has not created anything fresh in Law. >>It merely draws attention to the effect of the law as it exists. It >>has left the judgemental questions where they should remain, >>with Directors and ACs. > > One thing that seems clear from general discussions is that while this >may be your opinion, Grattan, it is not a generally held one. > >-- >David Stevenson I do not know where we need this statement for, but as far as I remember the C of P David is right here. We opened the possibility to have the TD using 12C on an experimental base and changed for example the regulations when screens are used. There might be more examples to give. To be clear: I don't see any procedural objections for this , but let us describe it as it is. ton From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 12 21:59:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA27911 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:59:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA27904 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:58:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-40.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.40]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA03411 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:58:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3944CFFA.56EC5255@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:56:42 +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: .. References: <3.0.6.32.20000609161340.00859990@pop.ulb.ac.be> <2O$mX0BaqSQ5Ew7g@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > alain gottcheiner wrote: > >Hello to you all, masters of brain-racking. > > > >Please allow a newcover to your newsgroup to asks his first question. > > Hi - welcome! Do you have any cats? > Allow me to introduce you two ... David, this is Alain, a fellow Belgian (if not Flemish) TD, who is as mad about cricket as I am. Alain, this is David, and I am certain you will learn more about him as you continue to read this list. If you two ever meet (or have you already ?), you will at first think you are looking in a mirror. Indeed, when I took a few friends to London last year, I described David as the one who looks like Alain. My friends recognised David immediately. I am certain that Alain is a valuable addition to our little list. He is a very fine player as well (Belgian second division). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 13 00:32:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA28369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:32:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt3-he.global.net.uk (cobalt3-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.163]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA28364 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:32:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from p8as03a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.99.139] helo=pacific) by cobalt3-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 131VET-0000im-00; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 07:30:30 -0700 Message-ID: <000d01bfd47a$cf5c6220$8b6393c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bill Schoder" Cc: "paul endicott" , "'Grattan Endicott'" , "BLML" , "anna" Subject: absentee Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:29:40 +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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:43:45 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 6020 invoked from network); 12 Jun 2000 14:43:06 -0000 Received: from lax-ts6-h1-54-102.ispmodems.net (HELO oemcomputer) ([209.162.54.102]) (envelope-sender ) by mail005.mail.onemain.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 12 Jun 2000 14:43:05 -0000 Message-ID: <000f01bfd47c$9f04fa40$6636a2d1@oemcomputer> From: "jim merzon" To: Subject: Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 07:43:48 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000C_01BFD441.F1B384E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.0810.800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.0810.800 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01BFD441.F1B384E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable please unsubscribe me. i've sent several requests, in several formats, = but no results. thanks ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01BFD441.F1B384E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
please unsubscribe me.  i've sent several = requests, in=20 several formats, but no results.
 
thanks
------=_NextPart_000_000C_01BFD441.F1B384E0-- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 13 00:48:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA28451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:48:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk (cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk [195.147.248.165]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA28445 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:48:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from pads03a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.99.174] helo=pacific) by cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 1317Bt-0003jc-00; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 13:50:14 +0100 Message-ID: <001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific> Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:40:53 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: 12 June 2000 00:13 Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. > > >7. The Code of Practice has not created anything fresh in Law. > >It merely draws attention to the effect of the law as it exists. It > >has left the judgemental questions where they should remain, > >with Directors and ACs. > > One thing that seems clear from general discussions is that > while this > may be your opinion, Grattan, it is not a generally held one. > +=+ The 'Lausanne Group' does not pretend to any power to change law. It was called together under the auspices of the WBF President to advise appeals committees how they should apply the present law. If anyone thinks the law changed by what the WBF has published to all subordinate organizations, either they fail to understand what the Code says or they have failed to read the law carefully. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 13 00:56:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA28515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:56:46 +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 AAA28507 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:56:35 +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 KAA21966 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:56:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA19535 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:56:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:56:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200006121456.KAA19535@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: End of L68B X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "ton kooijman" > Law 68B tells us that a claim and concession are equally treated: Not quite; there is one important exception. "...if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred." *There is no corresponding statement about a claim.* > a claim or > concession for a number of tricks is a concession or claim for the > remainder. With 4 tricks still to play a concession of four tricks is a > claim for zero tricks etc.etc. No, sorry, I don't buy it. If a claim refers to all the remaining tricks, there is no concession. If a concession refers to all the remaining tricks, there is no claim. If either refers to some but not all the remaining tricks, then and only then do both a claim and concession exist. > Isn't law 68B clear then? If a defender concedes a number of tricks and his > partner objects there is no concession (so no claim either). Which means > that 68D is not applicable. Yes. There never was a claim, and the concession is deemed in law not to exist. Play proceeds (although it may be affected by UI). On a side note, if a contestant shows his cards during discussion of a concession, L68A tells us to treat that action as a claim. > 'Any' concession does not incude a concession > that is considered not to be one (and claim of the remainder). So play > continues under the instruction of the TD: UI etc.etc. > > To be honest: I really do not understand the confusion created on this > subject, but for the sake of this discussion group. Me either. The Law seems simple enough. Note the contrast if there had been a claim as well as a concession. The claim *is not* cancelled, and L68D applies. The concession, however, *is* cancelled. A claim without a concession is a claim of all the tricks, and the TD adjudicates. (Chances are the claiming side will not end up with all the tricks, but "claim of all tricks" is the legal position the TD starts from.) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 13 01:07:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA28567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 01:07:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA28562 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 01:07:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA17850; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 08:03:16 -0700 Message-Id: <200006121503.IAA17850@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: From the Dutch TD exam... In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 10 Jun 2000 20:43:42 PDT." <00a601bfd318$2e95ac60$15b1073e@davicaltd> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 08:03:16 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: > We are not testing SAS recruits, nuclear weapons > missileers, atomic power plant controllers or airline pilots - all of whom > are routinely failed for a single error. Forgive my Yankee ignorance, but what's SAS? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 13 03:03:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA28996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:03:26 +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 DAA28991 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:03:07 +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 131Xc0-000DJX-0U for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:02:57 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 05:10:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: From the Dutch TD exam... References: <00a601bfd318$2e95ac60$15b1073e@davicaltd> In-Reply-To: <00a601bfd318$2e95ac60$15b1073e@davicaltd> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <00a601bfd318$2e95ac60$15b1073e@davicaltd>, David Martin writes snip >together with the marks for warning declarer against consulting with >partner, the marks for warning declarer not to choose prematurely before >hearing all five options and the marks available for explaining that it is >perfectly ethical for declarer to choose the option that is most favourable >to their side. [BTW - JOHN PROBST might note that these last three points >were not included in his standard speech recently presented to us!] I catch those if I need to. It's not part of the speech. If someone tries to choose, I stop them, if they look at their partner not me I tell them they can't consult and if they look puzzled I take them trough it again. The chance that someone who doesn't know the 5 options will be able to work out what is best for heir side is exactly 20% btw. It's pointless telling them unless it is clear they aren't sure whether they should be kind to their oppo or not. I'd deduct marks from anyone who doesn't get the game under way in 45 seconds after arriving at the table. The TD's other duties include keeping the game going. a 90 second speech is stupidity and will be incomprehensible, mine *only just* works and is probably too long. -- 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 Jun 13 03:10:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA29024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:10:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f116.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.116]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA29019 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:10:24 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 34235 invoked by uid 0); 12 Jun 2000 17:09:47 -0000 Message-ID: <20000612170947.34234.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.18 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:09:47 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.18] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:09:47 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Grattan Endicott" >----- Original Message ----- >From: David Stevenson > > >7. The Code of Practice has not created anything fresh in Law. > > >It merely draws attention to the effect of the law as it exists. It > > >has left the judgemental questions where they should remain, > > >with Directors and ACs. > > > > One thing that seems clear from general discussions is that > > while this > > may be your opinion, Grattan, it is not a generally held one. > > >+=+ The 'Lausanne Group' does not pretend to any >power to change law. It was called together under >the auspices of the WBF President to advise appeals >committees how they should apply the present law. >If anyone thinks the law changed by what the WBF has >published to all subordinate organizations, either they >fail to understand what the Code says or they have >failed to read the law carefully. > ~ Grattan ~ There is this repeatedly-used, bold assumption that the laws are lucid and concrete as written. A careful reading of the law will not put anyone in the position of an authority on the matter. For example, Law 16 is ruled almost entirely by regulations and there's the nebulous "intent of the lawmakers" to consider. Only if the Code of Practice offered no interpretation nor opinion on the law could it not affect the laws' use. So correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't "demonstrably suggested" the invention of the Lausanne Group? At the very least, this idea is not expressed in the 97 laws. It is mentioned in the CoP and it's a non-trivial change to the laws. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 13 03:48:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA29157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:48:08 +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 DAA29151 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:47:55 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.10.) id i.c6.669546d (4392); Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:46:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:46:50 EDT Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. To: kneebee@hotmail.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 109 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 6/12/00 1:13:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kneebee@hotmail.com writes: > So correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't "demonstrably suggested" the > invention of the Lausanne Group? At the very least, this idea is not > expressed in the 97 laws. It is mentioned in the CoP and it's a non-trivial > > change to the laws. > Be happy to oblige. See Law 16 A and you will find that the words "demonstrably have been suggested" are in the 97 Law book. They were words that were agreed upon and provided by the Honorable Amalya Kearse, a Judge of the US Appeals Court in New York during the revision process and replace the words "reasonably have been suggested" from 1987 and earlier which were felt to be too easy to accomplish. Demonstrable was felt to be more restrictive, resonable was a very board concept, and not in accord with the intent of the promulgators of the Law. Cheers, Kojak Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 13 04:17:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA29073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:23:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f150.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.150]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA29067 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:23:47 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 4670 invoked by uid 0); 12 Jun 2000 17:23:09 -0000 Message-ID: <20000612172309.4669.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.18 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:23:09 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.18] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: From the Dutch TD exam... Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:23:09 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Since I doubt that Scandinavian Airlines is that strict, SAS recruits must mean Special Air Service recruits. It's a British military elite. Similar in prestige to the US Navy Seals, Green Berets, or something like that. -Todd >From: Adam Beneschan >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >CC: adam@irvine.com >Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: From the Dutch TD exam... >Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 08:03:16 PDT > >David Martin wrote: > > > We are not testing SAS recruits, nuclear weapons > > missileers, atomic power plant controllers or airline pilots - all of >whom > > are routinely failed for a single error. > >Forgive my Yankee ignorance, but what's SAS? > > -- Adam ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 13 04:32:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA29351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 04:32:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from t21mta03-app.talk21.com (mta03.talk21.com [62.172.192.172]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA29344 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 04:32:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from davicaltd ([62.7.179.87]) by t21mta03-app.talk21.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000612183254.QLGL6169.t21mta03-app.talk21.com@davicaltd> for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:32:54 +0100 Message-ID: <000201bfd49c$a97a1440$020578d5@davicaltd> From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Fw: Fw: Fw: From the Dutch TD exam... Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:19:30 +0100 Organization: Davica Ltd MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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: > > Thankyou for the lesson. I see what you are talking about now. you > are saying that the way we gave the C course over the years has been > changed to a new C course, with the same aims, the same effects, the > same style of marking. Very interesting. > > I still contend that if a person really is going to ignore all his > training he is not entirely suitable to pass exams. > > Of course if he gets most of it right there is no problem. I really > cannot see why you are quoting long situations that seem irrelevant to > the present case. I still contend that despite your claims of how it > has changed - though the changes are not clear to me - that a TD that > will not do what they are told on the A course is not necessarily going > to pass, nor should do so. > ##### I did not say that it had changed. I am merely telling you of my experience of what it is now and has been over the last few years. Whilst you are welcome to the lesson, my only reason for replying at all was to ensure that any EBU members who are lurking and who might consider going on these courses are not put off by a misleading impression that could have been given by a throw away remark, ie. that a single *error* could lead to *automatic failure*. It is hardly controversial that someone who deliberately does not do what they are told to do should fail. ##### From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 13 04:55:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA29455 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 04:55:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from t21mta02-app.talk21.com (mta02.talk21.com [62.172.192.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA29450 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 04:55:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from davicaltd ([213.120.20.23]) by t21mta02-app.talk21.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000612185354.WKJC16508.t21mta02-app.talk21.com@davicaltd> for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:53:54 +0100 Message-ID: <002901bfd49f$e1337e00$020578d5@davicaltd> From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Fw: Fw: Fw: From the Dutch TD exam... Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:52:28 +0100 Organization: Davica Ltd MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 Adam wrote: > > David Martin wrote: > > > We are not testing SAS recruits, nuclear weapons > > missileers, atomic power plant controllers or airline pilots - all of whom > > are routinely failed for a single error. > > Forgive my Yankee ignorance, but what's SAS? > > -- Adam > ##### SAS = 22nd Special Air Service Regiment. The most highly trained group of soldiers in the British Army (and possibly in the world) who are usually deployed in covert operations behind enemy lines and on counter terrorist operations. The Regiment is so elite that officers will often drop ranks in order to gain access. All recruits have to pass the special six month 'Selection' exercises where no element of failure is tolerated. The exercises include exposure to physical torture and 24 hour, 30 mile forced marches over mountain terrain with 75+ Kg back packs and full military kit. The success rate for 'Selection' is less than 2%. ##### From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 13 05:07:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA29491 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 05:07:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA29485 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 05:07:36 +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 131ZYP-000FlH-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:07:22 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:44:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: From the Dutch TD exam... References: <00a601bfd318$2e95ac60$15b1073e@davicaltd> <200006121503.IAA17850@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200006121503.IAA17850@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > >David Martin wrote: > >> We are not testing SAS recruits, nuclear weapons >> missileers, atomic power plant controllers or airline pilots - all of whom >> are routinely failed for a single error. > >Forgive my Yankee ignorance, but what's SAS? Special Air Service. An army division, naturally. Rather good in terrorist situations. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 13 05:08:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA29505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 05:08:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA29487 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 05:07:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 131ZYP-000FlG-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:07:23 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:42:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific> <001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >From: David Stevenson >> >7. The Code of Practice has not created anything fresh in Law. >> >It merely draws attention to the effect of the law as it exists. It >> >has left the judgemental questions where they should remain, >> >with Directors and ACs. >> >> One thing that seems clear from general discussions is that >> while this >> may be your opinion, Grattan, it is not a generally held one. >+=+ The 'Lausanne Group' does not pretend to any >power to change law. It was called together under >the auspices of the WBF President to advise appeals >committees how they should apply the present law. >If anyone thinks the law changed by what the WBF has >published to all subordinate organizations, either they >fail to understand what the Code says or they have >failed to read the law carefully. Sorry: I should have made my answer more detailed. I do not disagree with the statement "The Code of Practice has not created anything fresh in Law", but with the statement "It merely draws attention to the effect of the law as it exists". It is several people's view that whether there is a Law change or not, the Code's approach to Psyches is a new approach, not necessarily as per the Law, and not a helpful approach. -- 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 Jun 13 05:08:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA29517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 05:08:36 +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 FAA29484 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 05:07:35 +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 131ZYP-000FlI-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:07:21 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:51:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: End of L68B References: <002001bfd44f$3b676540$98b4f1c3@kooijman> In-Reply-To: <002001bfd44f$3b676540$98b4f1c3@kooijman> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ton kooijman wrote: >From: David Stevenson >>Kooijman, A. wrote: >>>There is no doubt in my mind that these cases need to be treated >similarly: >>>play continues. >> How do you reconcile this with the Law that says Play Ceases when >>there is a claim? >Law 68B tells us that a claim and concession are equally treated: a claim or >concession for a number of tricks is a concession or claim for the >remainder. With 4 tricks still to play a concession of four tricks is a >claim for zero tricks etc.etc. >Isn't law 68B clear then? If a defender concedes a number of tricks and his >partner objects there is no concession (so no claim either). Which means >that 68D is not applicable. 'Any' concession does not incude a concession >that is considered not to be one (and claim of the remainder). So play >continues under the instruction of the TD: UI etc.etc. L68B is perfectly clear: when a player concedes some but not all of the remaining tricks then he has claimed the remainder, and there is nothing in L68B about a defender stopping a claim happening by objecting to his partner's concession. It would have been easy enough for the Lawmakers to include this in the Law if it had been what they intended. >To be honest: I really do not understand the confusion created on this >subject, but for the sake of this discussion group. Nor do I. After a claim, play ceases, and that seems simple enough. There are **NO** exceptions to this given by the Law book. -- 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 Jun 13 05:58:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA29676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 05:58:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA29671 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 05:58:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA22684; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:53:32 -0700 Message-Id: <200006121953.MAA22684@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: From the Dutch TD exam... In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:23:09 PDT." <20000612172309.4669.qmail@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:53:33 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Todd wrote: > Since I doubt that Scandinavian Airlines is that strict, Too bad. I think airlines *should* be that strict. I would be in favor of an airline policy that a flight attendant who makes a single error, such as being rude to a passenger or getting my food order wrong or not getting me a pillow within a specified amount of time, would be terminated immediately and required to leave the premises. Now *that* would qualify an airline to honestly call itself The Friendly Skies. :-) smiley for people who mistakenly believe I'm capable of being serious :-) additional smiley for those who think my last comment about my own seriousness was serious Thanks for the info, Todd. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 13 06:00:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA29700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 06:00:17 +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 GAA29695 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 06:00:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 131aMX-0005kb-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:59:09 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000612215400.00b36a50@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:54:00 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: Fw: From the Dutch TD exam... In-Reply-To: <002901bfd49f$e1337e00$020578d5@davicaltd> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:52 PM 6/12/00 +0100, you wrote: >Adam wrote: > >> >> David Martin wrote: >> >> > We are not testing SAS recruits, nuclear weapons >> > missileers, atomic power plant controllers or airline pilots - all of >whom >> > are routinely failed for a single error. >> >> Forgive my Yankee ignorance, but what's SAS? >> >> -- Adam >> > > >##### SAS = 22nd Special Air Service Regiment. The most highly trained >group of soldiers in the British Army (and possibly in the world) who are >usually deployed in covert operations behind enemy lines and on counter >terrorist operations. The Regiment is so elite that officers will often >drop ranks in order to gain access. All recruits have to pass the special >six month 'Selection' exercises where no element of failure is tolerated. >The exercises include exposure to physical torture and 24 hour, 30 mile >forced marches over mountain terrain with 75+ Kg back packs and full >military kit. The success rate for 'Selection' is less than 2%. ##### > > well, that is still better than our success rates for the dutch TD courses from tha A level to full TD (3 year course). We get less than 1% rates. regards, anton Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 13 07:29:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA29970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 07:29:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout2-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.165]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA29965 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 07:29:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.53] (d18182a35.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.53]) by mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA23807 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:22:21 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200006121456.KAA19535@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200006121456.KAA19535@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:27:09 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: End of L68B Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 10:56 AM -0400 6/12/00, Steve Willner wrote: >Yes. There never was a claim, and the concession is deemed in law not >to exist. Play proceeds (although it may be affected by UI). > >On a side note, if a contestant shows his cards during discussion of >a concession, L68A tells us to treat that action as a claim. I was under the impression that in the original scenario, the player who made the statement faced his cards. If he did so, I maintain that's a claim, and play ceases. If he didn't face his cards, then I agree with Steve here. Well, up to a point. :-) If _East_ says "you get three of the remaining five tricks" or words to that effect, and faces his hand, that's a claim (68A applies). If he does not face his hand, and West objects, 68B applies, and play should continue after the TD explains about UI. If, however, _West_ faces his hand, that's five major penalty cards. I suppose play should still continue, but I dunno. :-) 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/AwUBOUVWFr2UW3au93vOEQIH5ACgteupz5Kc1nP81yQKhGaqwYTfcrsAn0le w5WHRFrD/hYHVyMvyFCFkraF =8yX8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 13 07:35:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA00143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 07:35:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout2-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.165]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA00134 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 07:35:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.53] (d18182a35.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.53]) by mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA25232 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:29:03 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200006121953.MAA22684@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200006121953.MAA22684@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:33:30 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: From the Dutch TD exam... Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 12:53 PM -0700 6/12/00, Adam Beneschan wrote: > I would be in >favor of an airline policy that a flight attendant who makes a single >error, such as being rude to a passenger or getting my food order >wrong or not getting me a pillow within a specified amount of time, >would be terminated immediately and required to leave the premises. Would you give him or her a parachute, or require him or her to jump without one? :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBOUVXmr2UW3au93vOEQLFrACghsZhewYhEXVWoytnxIcpuuSz8fMAnjJh 6mJZfbYV8FSAJhEL+0D7DPvd =jbPG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 13 08:21:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA00311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 08:21:38 +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 IAA00306 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 08:21:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id SAA16793 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:21:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA19956 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:21:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:21:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200006122221.SAA19956@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: End of L68B X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Ed Reppert > I was under the impression that in the original scenario, the player > who made the statement faced his cards. If he did so, I maintain > that's a claim, and play ceases. L68A. > If he didn't face his cards, then I > agree with Steve here. Well, up to a point. :-) If _East_ says "you > get three of the remaining five tricks" or words to that effect, and > faces his hand, that's a claim (68A applies). If he says the above, he is *claiming* two tricks. That's a claim whether the cards are faced or not. > If he does not face his > hand, and West objects, 68B applies, and play should continue after > the TD explains about UI. Nope. The *concession* (of three tricks) is cancelled but not the claim. It doesn't matter whether East's cards have been faced or not. An elementary syllogism tells us that a claim without a concession is a claim of all the tricks, and that's where the TD starts. But play ceased as soon as there was a claim. > If, however, _West_ faces his hand, that's > five major penalty cards. I suppose play should still continue, but I > dunno. :-) Nope. First of all, in the specific scenario you give, East has claimed (two tricks, corrected by West's objection to all the tricks), so that's that. Play is over. Now suppose East says "Declarer has the rest," and West immediately says "No he doesn't," and faces his cards. East's concession is cancelled, all right, but under L68A that sure looks to me like a claim by West! (How do you propose to demonstrate that West did not intend to claim?) Play still ceases. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 13 09:14:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA00484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 09:14:18 +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 JAA00474 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 09:14:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.196] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 131dP4-000OR4-00; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:13:59 +0100 Message-ID: <000a01bfd4c4$224ccbc0$c45608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" , "David Stevenson" , References: <002101bfd44f$41e206a0$98b4f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:08:12 +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: Monday, June 12, 2000 10:17 AM Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. > > > Grattan says: > > >>7. The Code of Practice has not created anything fresh in Law. > >>It merely draws attention to the effect of the law as it exists. It > >>has left the judgemental questions where they should remain, > >>with Directors and ACs. > > > > One thing that seems clear from general discussions is that while this > >may be your opinion, Grattan, it is not a generally held one. > > > >-- > >David Stevenson > > > I do not know where we need this statement for, but as far as I remember the > C of P David is right here. > > We opened the possibility to have the TD using 12C on an experimental base > and changed for example the regulations when screens are used. There might > be more examples to give. To be clear: I don't see any procedural objections > for this , but let us describe it as it is. > +=+ Ah, yes, ton - you are right that I should have said clearly that I was addressing the subject of the correspondence - i.e. the position on psychics. It is true that the Laws Committee did not favour the Lausanne Group with the action it had requested in a change of Law 12C3 in Bermuda. In consequence, in order that the purpose of the Lausanne Group should not be thwarted, the Appeals Committee acted within its own powers to determine appeals procedures under Law 80G. As you say, no procedural objections to this have been raised. As for screen procedures, the laws grant the power to regulate and, of course, to vary regulations as seen fit. None of these things has involved changing the law one iota; the WBF has simply used what was there already. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 13 09:14:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA00483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 09:14:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA00472 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 09:14:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.196] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 131dP3-000OR4-00; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:13:57 +0100 Message-ID: <000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" Cc: References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific><001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific> Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:48:06 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott >From: David Stevenson > Sorry: I should have made my answer more detailed. I do not disagree > with the statement "The Code of Practice has not created anything fresh > in Law", but with the statement "It merely draws attention to the effect > of the law as it exists". It is several people's view that whether > there is a Law change or not, the Code's approach to Psyches is a new > approach, not necessarily as per the Law, and not a helpful approach. > +=+ Yes, David, this statement I understand. People have been surprised by the proposition that evidence as to existence of a partnership understanding is not solely to be derived from occurrences subsequent to the psyche. Some have been surprised, in particular, by the statement that if sufficiently fresh in mind a single precedent may be deemed to create an understanding. It is always for the Director and the Appeals Committee, in the end, to judge the facts, but there is nothing new in the state of the law - it always was the case that what the law forbids is *making* the psychic call if an undisclosed partnership agreement exists. On this point the law speaks with clarity. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 13 12:27:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA01212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 12:27:27 +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 MAA01194 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 12:27:16 +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 131gPu-000KVy-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:27:03 +0100 Message-ID: <6EhPNYAysZR5EwC7@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:23:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: Fw: From the Dutch TD exam... References: <000201bfd49c$a97a1440$020578d5@davicaltd> In-Reply-To: <000201bfd49c$a97a1440$020578d5@davicaltd> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <000201bfd49c$a97a1440$020578d5@davicaltd>, David Martin writes >DWS wrote: > >> >> Thankyou for the lesson. I see what you are talking about now. you >> are saying that the way we gave the C course over the years has been >> changed to a new C course, with the same aims, the same effects, the >> same style of marking. Very interesting. Back to L50B. I see nothing to suggest that if I play (in my turn to play) the H8 and the CQ, that my intent is relevant. Let's have a look: Any card [singular] exposed through deliberate play. ... My intent is irrelevant, I exposed *two* cards. Had I exposed only one, my intent is incontrovertible, but I exposed *TWO* cards. There is *nothing* that suggests I have expressed an intention. It was a f*****g accident for g**s sake, and the Laws go to a lot of trouble to cover the case. I'm going to go on ploughing [plowing] my lone furrow. I propose a schule Probst. I don't often go out on a limb as much as this, but I think that my interpretation is equally acceptable to the one proposed by the David (exc. DWS) school, and it certainly works better. 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 Jun 13 12:27:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA01211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 12:27:27 +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 MAA01196 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 12:27:16 +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 131gPu-000KVw-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:27:03 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:03:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: .. References: <3.0.6.32.20000609161340.00859990@pop.ulb.ac.be> <2O$mX0BaqSQ5Ew7g@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3944CFFA.56EC5255@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3944CFFA.56EC5255@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3944CFFA.56EC5255@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> alain gottcheiner wrote: >> >Hello to you all, masters of brain-racking. >> > >> >Please allow a newcover to your newsgroup to asks his first question. >> >> Hi - welcome! Do you have any cats? >> > >Allow me to introduce you two ... > >David, this is Alain, a fellow Belgian (if not Flemish) TD, >who is as mad about cricket as I am. > >Alain, this is David, and I am certain you will learn more >about him as you continue to read this list. > >If you two ever meet (or have you already ?), you will at >first think you are looking in a mirror. > >Indeed, when I took a few friends to London last year, I >described David as the one who looks like Alain. My friends >recognised David immediately. > >I am certain that Alain is a valuable addition to our little >list. >He is a very fine player as well (Belgian second division). > 2 divisions better than David :)) -- 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 Jun 13 12:27:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA01210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 12:27:27 +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 MAA01195 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 12:27:16 +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 131gPu-000KVx-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:27:03 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:05:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: From the Dutch TD exam... References: <20000612172309.4669.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000612172309.4669.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <20000612172309.4669.qmail@hotmail.com>, Todd Zimnoch writes > Since I doubt that Scandinavian Airlines is that strict, SAS recruits >must mean Special Air Service recruits. It's a British military elite. >Similar in prestige to the US Navy Seals, Green Berets, or something like >that. > >-Todd > but, being Brits, considerably better :)) [ducks fusillade of missiles from across the pond] 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 Jun 13 12:45:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA01306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 12:45:29 +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 MAA01301 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 12:45:19 +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 131ghR-000GJ5-0X for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:45:09 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:43:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: From the Dutch TD exam... References: <20000612172309.4669.qmail@hotmail.com> <200006121953.MAA22684@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200006121953.MAA22684@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <200006121953.MAA22684@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >Todd wrote: > >> Since I doubt that Scandinavian Airlines is that strict, > >Too bad. I think airlines *should* be that strict. I would be in >favor of an airline policy that a flight attendant who makes a single >error, such as being rude to a passenger or getting my food order >wrong or not getting me a pillow within a specified amount of time, >would be terminated immediately are you allowing them a parachute? ... cheers john >and required to leave the premises. >Now *that* would qualify an airline to honestly call itself The >Friendly Skies. > >:-) smiley for people who mistakenly believe I'm capable of being > serious > >:-) additional smiley for those who think my last comment about my > own seriousness was serious > >Thanks for the info, Todd. > > -- Adam > -- 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 Jun 13 13:21:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA01448 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 13:21:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA01442 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 13:21:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-1054mnf.dsl.mindspring.com [64.82.90.239]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA04875 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:21:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000612232134.01338964@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:21:34 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. In-Reply-To: <001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific> References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:40 PM 6/12/2000 +0100, Grattan wrote: >+=+ The 'Lausanne Group' does not pretend to any >power to change law. It was called together under >the auspices of the WBF President to advise appeals >committees how they should apply the present law. >If anyone thinks the law changed by what the WBF has >published to all subordinate organizations, either they >fail to understand what the Code says or they have >failed to read the law carefully. Or, just maybe, the Lausanne group has failed in this respect. Or is that simply not possible? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 13 13:36:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA01511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 13:36:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA01505 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 13:36:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-1054mnf.dsl.mindspring.com [64.82.90.239]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA28599 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:36:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000612233637.0133c360@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:36:37 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. In-Reply-To: <000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona> References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific> <001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:48 PM 6/12/2000 +0100, Grattan wrote: >+=+ Yes, David, this statement I understand. People have been >surprised by the proposition that evidence as to existence of >a partnership understanding is not solely to be derived from >occurrences subsequent to the psyche. Some have been >surprised, in particular, by the statement that if sufficiently >fresh in mind a single precedent may be deemed to create >an understanding. It is always for the Director and the >Appeals Committee, in the end, to judge the facts, but there >is nothing new in the state of the law - it always was the >case that what the law forbids is *making* the psychic >call if an undisclosed partnership agreement exists. On this >point the law speaks with clarity. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ You are correct that the law is clear on this point. Where the Law is not quite so clear, or at least where the C o P seems to have muddied the waters, is precisely what is meant by a "partnership understanding." I for one am not surprised that a single prior occurrence, particularly a recent one, may establish the basis for such an understanding. The question is whether such an understanding can (or should) be deemed to exist absent _any_ specific relevant partnership experience. Can _general_ partnership tendencies (especially when made freely available to the opponents) constitute a CPU? Can inferences about partner's approach to the game based on such factors as age, experience level, or apparent sobriety be a legal basis for fielding a psychic bid, or should such a psyche be deemed protected by partnership understanding? If most good players, as in David's example, recognize positions in which psychic bids are more generally more probable, does this give them an unfair (and illegal) advantage against less experienced players who may not be familiar with such positions? The C o P seems right on the verge of saying that a psychic call is illegal virtually any time it is fielded, and like it or not, that is an extension of existing Laws beyond the plain meaning of the text. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 13 14:09:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA01700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:09:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f30.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.30]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA01694 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:08:59 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 33827 invoked by uid 0); 13 Jun 2000 04:08:21 -0000 Message-ID: <20000613040821.33826.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 172.142.252.248 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:08:21 PDT X-Originating-IP: [172.142.252.248] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: Fw: From the Dutch TD exam... Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:08:21 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >Back to L50B. I see nothing to suggest that if I play (in my turn to >play) the H8 and the CQ, that my intent is relevant. > >Let's have a look: > >Any card [singular] exposed through deliberate play. ... > >My intent is irrelevant, I exposed *two* cards. No, there's nothing exclusive about the word any. If the H8 is exposed deliberately, 50B could apply. If the CQ is exposed deliberately, 50B could apply. If both the H8 and the CQ are exposed deliberately, 50B could apply twice. L50B actually lists two cards at once as being inadvertant, but I think that it meant to say that the second card is considered inadvertant and that the intended card should be designated. But, if given the option to switch, is the originally intended card now considered inadvertant? In anycase, the deliberate play thing is there so that when a person plays the wrong card and changes it under 45C4B, the exposed card is a minor penalty card. -Todd >Had I exposed only one, >my intent is incontrovertible, but I exposed *TWO* cards. There is >*nothing* that suggests I have expressed an intention. It was a f*****g >accident for g**s sake, and the Laws go to a lot of trouble to cover the >case. > >I'm going to go on ploughing [plowing] my lone furrow. I propose a >schule Probst. I don't often go out on a limb as much as this, but I >think that my interpretation is equally acceptable to the one proposed >by the David (exc. DWS) school, and it certainly works better. > > 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 ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 13 15:02:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:02:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.121]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA01901 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:02:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.53] (d18182a35.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.53]) by mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA10269; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:55:39 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200006122221.SAA19956@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200006122221.SAA19956@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:54:19 -0400 To: Steve Willner From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: End of L68B Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 6:21 PM -0400 6/12/00, Steve Willner wrote: A bunch of stuff I snipped, because it's given me a headache. :-) I think I'm about to conclude that Law 68 makes no sense at all. :-( I get variously that (1) any statement which asserts that the side making the statement will win _any_ of the remaining tricks is a claim. (2) any statement which concedes the loss of one or more tricks is a concession. (3) a statement can be _both_ a claim and a concession. (4) If a claim is made, play ceases. (5) If a concession is made, and the maker's partner objects, play continues. (4) and (5) are mutually incompatible. Play cannot both cease and continue. So one concludes that a statement _cannot_ be both a claim and a concession. I had always thought that to be the case, anyway, but I thought a statement including both elements would be a claim first and foremost. Now you're saying it's a concession first, and must be dealt with it that light. I don't buy it. Why should Law 68 B take precedence over Law 68 A? (Before you go to the trouble, I'll concede I don't see why 68A should take precedence either. :-) Did the Lawmakers really screw this one up, or what? 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/AwUBOUXATr2UW3au93vOEQIb0wCdFm8wm9++MG/t5U4S8Rq62HUTlD8An3kb FhgUlcel5Milukv+BxWmuR1s =HhN0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 13 17:23:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA02393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:23:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA02388 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:23:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.188] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 131l2R-00068k-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 08:23:07 +0100 Message-ID: <001701bfd508$76f22aa0$bc5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200006121953.MAA22684@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: From the Dutch TD exam... Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 08:12:54 +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: Bridge Laws Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 10:33 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: From the Dutch TD exam... > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > At 12:53 PM -0700 6/12/00, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > I would be in > >favor of an airline policy that a flight attendant who makes a single > >error, such as being rude to a passenger or getting my food order > >wrong or not getting me a pillow within a specified amount of time, > >would be terminated immediately and required to leave the premises. > > Would you give him or her a parachute, or require him or her to jump > without one? :-) > +=+ Well, the pilot could make an unscheduled stop involving a diversion of 900 miles. This kind of thing is well known in the world in which *we* move. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 13 18:01:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA02539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:01:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from uucp.nl.uu.net (uucp.nl.uu.net [193.79.237.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA02534 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:01:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:00:49 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id JAA11314 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 09:44:09 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'BLML'" Subject: RE: cards exposed at defenders turn to play; was Re: From the Dutch TD exam... Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 09:43:49 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: >> >> Q2. >> You (as TD) are called to a table where a player whose turn it >> is to play has the two of diamonds face up in front of him. >> "How did that get there?" you might enquire. >> "I dropped it by mistake", he will tell you. "I didn't mean to play >> that card - I was trying to play some other card altogether." >> >> Would you: >> (a) compel him to play the two of diamonds; >> or >> (b) allow him to play the card he intended to play; >> or >> (c) allow him to play any card (including the two of diamonds) except >> another diamond below the rank of an honour? >> >> and what happens to the remaining unplayed exposed card, if any? >> >(a) again: L45C1. This is the archetype of a minor penalty card - one, accidentally dropped and below honour rank (L50B). According to L50C, offender may play any legal card, but if he wants to play a diamond, it must be either an honour or the two (c). The D2, if it remains on the table, remains a minor penalty card; offender remains subject to L50C; partner must treat D2 as UI and is otherwise not restricted. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 13 18:19:20 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA02469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:46:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA02464 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:46:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.183] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 131lOk-0006ga-00; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 08:46:11 +0100 Message-ID: <001d01bfd50b$afc14a20$bc5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Michael S. Dennis" , References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific><001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific> <3.0.1.32.20000612233637.0133c360@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 08:47:14 +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: Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 4:36 AM Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. > At 11:48 PM 6/12/2000 +0100, Grattan wrote: > >+=+ Yes, David, this statement I understand. People have been > >surprised by the proposition that evidence as to existence of > >a partnership understanding is not solely to be derived from > >occurrences subsequent to the psyche. Some have been > >surprised, in particular, by the statement that if sufficiently > >fresh in mind a single precedent may be deemed to create > >an understanding. It is always for the Director and the > >Appeals Committee, in the end, to judge the facts, but there > >is nothing new in the state of the law - it always was the > >case that what the law forbids is *making* the psychic > >call if an undisclosed partnership agreement exists. On this > >point the law speaks with clarity. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > You are correct that the law is clear on this point. Where the Law is not > quite so clear, or at least where the C o P seems to have muddied the > waters, is precisely what is meant by a "partnership understanding." I for > one am not surprised that a single prior occurrence, particularly a recent > one, may establish the basis for such an understanding. The question is > whether such an understanding can (or should) be deemed to exist absent > _any_ specific relevant partnership experience. Can _general_ partnership > tendencies (especially when made freely available to the opponents) > constitute a CPU? Can inferences about partner's approach to the game based > on such factors as age, experience level, or apparent sobriety be a legal > basis for fielding a psychic bid, or should such a psyche be deemed > protected by partnership understanding? If most good players, as in David's > example, recognize positions in which psychic bids are more generally more > probable, does this give them an unfair (and illegal) advantage against > less experienced players who may not be familiar with such positions? > > The C o P seems right on the verge of saying that a psychic call is illegal > virtually any time it is fielded, and like it or not, that is an extension > of existing Laws beyond the plain meaning of the text. > I +=+ European sources, and particularly British sources, have largely acted on this basis in the past. Some British sources seem to think it a changed practice when the WBF points to other areas of evidence to be considered. But if we look around the world I think we can see that elsewhere trends have been different. My understanding is that the WBF President is keen that the WBF shall lead in the matter, towards common understandings, and I am not surprised if there is some groaning when the lever digs up well rooted concepts in one place and another. +=+ II +=+ As a personal opinion, but reflecting what I believe to be the position of the Lausanne Group, I would say that the areas you question are what should be, and are intended to be, the domain of the Directors and Appeals Committees. The law says something is illegal; the courts decide whether the act of an individual constitutes the illegality that the law has established. We are blocked at the moment in the production of the supporting 'jurisprudence' that the WBF President requests for the CoP (because there is difficulty in obtaining certain contributions), but it will be from this source eventually that it is intended guidance in these matters should come. I have been striving to unblock, and am now utterly impatient and under pressure to get something done. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 13 18:57:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA02699 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:57:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f229.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.229]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA02694 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:57:12 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 62233 invoked by uid 0); 13 Jun 2000 08:56:32 -0000 Message-ID: <20000613085632.62232.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.219 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 01:56:32 PDT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: Fw: From the Dutch TD exam... Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 01:56:32 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: > >I'm going to go on ploughing [plowing] my lone furrow. I propose a >schule Probst. I don't often go out on a limb as much as this, but I >think that my interpretation is equally acceptable to the one proposed >by the David (exc. DWS) school, and it certainly works better. > > cheers john > Quite how bold this assertion of independence is, secure in the knowledge that David Burn has gone on holiday for two weeks, is a matter of opinion... ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 13 20:18:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA02954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 20:18:45 +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 UAA02949 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 20:18:35 +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 131nm0-000Mqa-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 11:18:22 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:54:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: End of L68B References: <200006121456.KAA19535@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: >Hash: SHA1 > >At 10:56 AM -0400 6/12/00, Steve Willner wrote: >>Yes. There never was a claim, and the concession is deemed in law not >>to exist. Play proceeds (although it may be affected by UI). >> >>On a side note, if a contestant shows his cards during discussion of >>a concession, L68A tells us to treat that action as a claim. > >I was under the impression that in the original scenario, the player >who made the statement faced his cards. If he did so, I maintain >that's a claim, and play ceases. If he didn't face his cards, then I >agree with Steve here. Well, up to a point. :-) If _East_ says "you >get three of the remaining five tricks" or words to that effect, and >faces his hand, that's a claim (68A applies). If he does not face his >hand, and West objects, 68B applies, and play should continue after >the TD explains about UI. If, however, _West_ faces his hand, that's >five major penalty cards. I suppose play should still continue, but I >dunno. :-) 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 ....." Perhaps you would like to explain how "you get three of the remaining five tricks" is not a 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 Tue Jun 13 21:22:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA03238 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:22:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA03232 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:22:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.0.ap (resu)) id NAA29249; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 13:23:50 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/%I%.1.ap (mach.test)) id NAA17940; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 13:22:08 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000613132956.008622e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 13:29:56 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: 12 + 2 = 13 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello again, and this time for a more serious case, shown to me by Daniel Gelibter, from Brussels : AKJ xx AKJx Qxx Qxxx AKJxx xx Qxx 1D 2D (IMR) 3NT p West is fortunate enough to get a spade lead, and the jack makes the first trick. He then immadiately shows his cards, stating litterally : "I take all my top tricks. The last two are yours." Well, if he takes all his top tricks, that's only one trick to the opponent. Now, there has been a concession. The board has been scored as E/W 460, and later (but still whitin the legal time for correction) the players realise E/W had in fact 12 top tricks. Director ! The director ruled 12 tricks were duly made, if only for the sake of logic. We discussed it a little between directors and good players [ disconnected sets, E2EG ] and two diametrically opposed arguments were defended : a) any concession of any number of trcks constitutes by the same token a claim for the remainder. West conceded 2 tricks, so he claimed 11. You could only award him more than he claimed if he couldn't lose them, even through very bad play, which isn't the case here (he could take his heart tricks, discarding a diamond from dummy). By the way, a player who can't add up to 12 won't probably be very cautious in the play of the hand ... 11 tricks. b)"I take all my top tricks" was in fact a statement as how he would play the hand. If he does play so, only taking care of not clashing one honor on another one (which we can assume : "inferior, not irrational"), he will make 12 tricks before he will be in a position to let the opponents take any trick. This statement seems sufficient in this case (e.g. ther is no need to unblock a suit), and to stop taking top tricks before 12 are cashed wouldn't fit the statement, so West is entitled to 12 tricks. 12 tricks. How would you rule ? A. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 13 22:17:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA03369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:48:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA03364 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:48:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.0.ap (resu)) id NAA03746; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 13:50:02 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/%I%.1.ap (mach.test)) id NAA03996; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 13:48:20 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000613135608.0083d7f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 13:56:08 +0200 To: "John Probst" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: From the Dutch TD exam... In-Reply-To: References: <00a601bfd318$2e95ac60$15b1073e@davicaltd> <00a601bfd318$2e95ac60$15b1073e@davicaltd> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:10 12/06/00 +0100, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: The chance that someone who doesn't know the 5 options will >be able to work out what is best for heir side is exactly 20% btw. AG : I don't agree. There is an old saying that someone who doesn't know whose lead it is won't know what to lead either, so you should let the lead stay. And, all things being equal, letting partner play the contract is being nice to him (well, at least most partners tend to think so), and being nice to partner is, without any doubt, the best way to help your side. I'm categorical about that one. A. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 14 00:09:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA03934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 00:09:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f234.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.234]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA03929 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 00:09:43 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 7095 invoked by uid 0); 13 Jun 2000 13:41:05 -0000 Message-ID: <20000613134105.7094.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.219 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 06:41:05 PDT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 12 + 2 = 13 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 06:41:05 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: alain gottcheiner >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Subject: 12 + 2 = 13 >Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 13:29:56 +0200 > >Hello again, > >and this time for a more serious case, shown to me by Daniel Gelibter, from >Brussels : > > AKJ xx > AKJx Qxx > Qxxx AKJxx > xx Qxx > > 1D 2D (IMR) > 3NT p > >West is fortunate enough to get a spade lead, and the jack makes the first >trick. >He then immadiately shows his cards, stating litterally : "I take all my >top tricks. The last two are yours." > >Well, if he takes all his top tricks, that's only one trick to the >opponent. > >Now, there has been a concession. The board has been scored as E/W 460, and >later (but still whitin the legal time for correction) the players realise >E/W had in fact 12 top tricks. Director ! > >The director ruled 12 tricks were duly made, if only for the sake of logic. >We discussed it a little between directors and good players >[ disconnected sets, E2EG ] and two diametrically opposed arguments were >defended : > >a) any concession of any number of trcks constitutes by the same token a >claim for the remainder. West conceded 2 tricks, so he claimed 11. You >could only award him more than he claimed if he couldn't lose them, even >through very bad play, which isn't the case here (he could take his heart >tricks, discarding a diamond from dummy). By the way, a player who can't >add up to 12 won't probably be very cautious in the play of the hand ... >11 tricks. > >b)"I take all my top tricks" was in fact a statement as how he would play >the hand. If he does play so, only taking care of not clashing one honor on >another one (which we can assume : "inferior, not irrational"), he will >make 12 tricks before he will be in a position to let the opponents take >any trick. This statement seems sufficient in this case (e.g. ther is no >need to unblock a suit), and to stop taking top tricks before 12 are cashed >wouldn't fit the statement, so West is entitled to 12 tricks. >12 tricks. > >How would you rule ? > > A. How much simpler life would be if a claimer was forced by law just to say what tricks he would take. Here, when the spade jack held the first trick, he would say something along the lines of :"Well, I'll win three spade tricks, then four hearts, and then five diamonds." Everyone would inspect his hand, and agree. The beauty of this is that he doesn't have to know that three plus four plus five equals twelve! As long as someone at the table does... As to the case in hand, under the current laws, I think declarer's statement suggests that he thinks he has eleven tricks. Technically, he hasn't a leg to stand on. Were I his opponent, however, I can't imagine that I'd do anything other after the claim than tell him he's miscounted and that he has twelve tricks after all, and write down -490 in the 'out' column. ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 14 00:42:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA04094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 00:42:51 +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 AAA04089 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 00:42:42 +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 KAA11731 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:42:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA24818 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:42:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:42:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200006131442.KAA24818@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: End of L68B X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Ed Reppert > I get variously that (1) any statement which asserts that the side > making the statement will win _any_ of the remaining tricks is a > claim. (2) any statement which concedes the loss of one or more > tricks is a concession. (3) a statement can be _both_ a claim and a > concession. (4) If a claim is made, play ceases. All just find down to here. > (5) If a concession > is made, and the maker's partner objects, play continues. Only if no claim existed. That must be what you are missing. L68B says the *concession* may be cancelled, but there's nothing about cancelling any claim that may have accompanied the concession. When a claim exists, play ceases (L68D and item 4). > one concludes that a statement _cannot_ be both a claim and a > concession. Of course a statement can be both a claim and a concession. To say otherwise would be in direct contradiction to L68B. There is really nothing very hard here. The only point is that you deal separately with the claim and the concession, *even if they were created by the same statement*. If the concession is cancelled, the legal effect is to make the claim one for all the tricks. (The TD is not obliged in the end to award all the tricks, of course; he simply judges the claim in accordance with L70 as usual.) I'd suggest these issues are good ones for a second-level TD course. All you have to do to get the right answers is read L68 with a bit of care, but the answers seem to surprise some people. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 14 00:49:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA04125 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 00:49:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA04120 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 00:49:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA10687; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 07:45:16 -0700 Message-Id: <200006131445.HAA10687@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: 12 + 2 = 13 In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 13 Jun 2000 13:29:56 PDT." <3.0.6.32.20000613132956.008622e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 07:45:17 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Hello again, > > and this time for a more serious case, shown to me by Daniel Gelibter, from > Brussels : > > AKJ xx > AKJx Qxx > Qxxx AKJxx > xx Qxx > > 1D 2D (IMR) > 3NT p > > West is fortunate enough to get a spade lead, and the jack makes the first > trick. > He then immadiately shows his cards, stating litterally : "I take all my > top tricks. The last two are yours." > > Well, if he takes all his top tricks, that's only one trick to the opponent. > > Now, there has been a concession. The board has been scored as E/W 460, and > later (but still whitin the legal time for correction) the players realise > E/W had in fact 12 top tricks. Director ! > > The director ruled 12 tricks were duly made, if only for the sake of logic. > We discussed it a little between directors and good players > [ disconnected sets, E2EG ] and two diametrically opposed arguments were > defended : > > a) any concession of any number of trcks constitutes by the same token a > claim for the remainder. West conceded 2 tricks, so he claimed 11. You > could only award him more than he claimed if he couldn't lose them, even > through very bad play, which isn't the case here (he could take his heart > tricks, discarding a diamond from dummy). By the way, a player who can't > add up to 12 won't probably be very cautious in the play of the hand ... > 11 tricks. > > b)"I take all my top tricks" was in fact a statement as how he would play > the hand. If he does play so, only taking care of not clashing one honor on > another one (which we can assume : "inferior, not irrational"), he will > make 12 tricks before he will be in a position to let the opponents take > any trick. This statement seems sufficient in this case (e.g. ther is no > need to unblock a suit), and to stop taking top tricks before 12 are cashed > wouldn't fit the statement, so West is entitled to 12 tricks. > 12 tricks. > > How would you rule ? I'd rule 12 tricks. I believe the claim statement is to be followed (except in cases where an opponent plays a card that declarer forgot was still out, or stuff like that), and takes precedence over the number of tricks declarer is claiming. To me, this isn't all that much different from a case where declarer claims "Two tricks" with A32 opposite K104---the TD should give him three if one opponent has QJ doubleton, because that's what would have actually happened. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 14 01:54:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA04342 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 01:54:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from caroubier.wanadoo.fr (smtp-rt-6.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA04337 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 01:54:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from antholoma.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.153) by caroubier.wanadoo.fr; 13 Jun 2000 17:54:23 +0200 Received: from cllubintplord (193.252.19.20) by antholoma.wanadoo.fr; 13 Jun 2000 17:54:09 +0200 Message-ID: <007501bfd550$0e997060$0b10fac1@cllubintplord> From: "olivier beauvillain" To: "Liste Arbitrage" References: <3.0.6.32.20000613132956.008622e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: 12 + 2 = 13 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:57:19 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It's clear for me : 12 tricks Law 68C is OK : You gave a clear explanation : all my top tricks. Law 71 is available. TD must change the score because (first occurence) you "concede", by losing 2 a trick that you won. By saying "I take all top tricks", you "won" 3S+4H+5D=12 Tricks. After, you can only concede one... Bye ----- Original Message ----- From: alain gottcheiner To: Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 1:29 PM Subject: 12 + 2 = 13 > Hello again, > > and this time for a more serious case, shown to me by Daniel Gelibter, from > Brussels : > > AKJ xx > AKJx Qxx > Qxxx AKJxx > xx Qxx > > 1D 2D (IMR) > 3NT p > > West is fortunate enough to get a spade lead, and the jack makes the first > trick. > He then immadiately shows his cards, stating litterally : "I take all my > top tricks. The last two are yours." > > Well, if he takes all his top tricks, that's only one trick to the opponent. > > Now, there has been a concession. The board has been scored as E/W 460, and > later (but still whitin the legal time for correction) the players realise > E/W had in fact 12 top tricks. Director ! > > The director ruled 12 tricks were duly made, if only for the sake of logic. > We discussed it a little between directors and good players > [ disconnected sets, E2EG ] and two diametrically opposed arguments were > defended : > > a) any concession of any number of trcks constitutes by the same token a > claim for the remainder. West conceded 2 tricks, so he claimed 11. You > could only award him more than he claimed if he couldn't lose them, even > through very bad play, which isn't the case here (he could take his heart > tricks, discarding a diamond from dummy). By the way, a player who can't > add up to 12 won't probably be very cautious in the play of the hand ... > 11 tricks. > > b)"I take all my top tricks" was in fact a statement as how he would play > the hand. If he does play so, only taking care of not clashing one honor on > another one (which we can assume : "inferior, not irrational"), he will > make 12 tricks before he will be in a position to let the opponents take > any trick. This statement seems sufficient in this case (e.g. ther is no > need to unblock a suit), and to stop taking top tricks before 12 are cashed > wouldn't fit the statement, so West is entitled to 12 tricks. > 12 tricks. > > How would you rule ? > > A. > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 14 02:01:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA04540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 02:01:40 +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 CAA04535 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 02:01:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:00:51 +0200 Received: from xion.spase.nl (xion.spase.nl [192.168.200.7]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with ESMTP id RAA17136 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:36:54 +0200 Received: by xion.spase.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:36:46 +0200 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: 12 + 2 = 13 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:36:42 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner wrote: >Hello again, > >and this time for a more serious case, shown to me by Daniel Gelibter, from >Brussels : > > AKJ xx > AKJx Qxx > Qxxx AKJxx > xx Qxx > > 1D 2D (IMR) > 3NT p > >West is fortunate enough to get a spade lead, and the jack makes the first >trick. >He then immadiately shows his cards, stating litterally : "I take all my >top tricks. The last two are yours." > >Well, if he takes all his top tricks, that's only one trick to the opponent. > >Now, there has been a concession. The board has been scored as E/W 460, and >later (but still whitin the legal time for correction) the players realise >E/W had in fact 12 top tricks. Director ! > >The director ruled 12 tricks were duly made, if only for the sake of logic. >We discussed it a little between directors and good players >[ disconnected sets, E2EG ] and two diametrically opposed arguments were >defended : > >a) any concession of any number of trcks constitutes by the same token a >claim for the remainder. West conceded 2 tricks, so he claimed 11. You >could only award him more than he claimed if he couldn't lose them, even >through very bad play, which isn't the case here (he could take his heart >tricks, discarding a diamond from dummy). By the way, a player who can't >add up to 12 won't probably be very cautious in the play of the hand ... >11 tricks. > >b)"I take all my top tricks" was in fact a statement as how he would play >the hand. If he does play so, only taking care of not clashing one honor on >another one (which we can assume : "inferior, not irrational"), he will >make 12 tricks before he will be in a position to let the opponents take >any trick. This statement seems sufficient in this case (e.g. ther is no >need to unblock a suit), and to stop taking top tricks before 12 are cashed >wouldn't fit the statement, so West is entitled to 12 tricks. >12 tricks. > >How would you rule ? West conceded two tricks. This concession can be cancelled (L71C) if a player conceded a trick which cannot be lost by any normal play, which includes careless or inferior, but not irrational play. To cash hearts and spades while discarding diamonds would be irrational in my opinion. Therefore declarer gets 12 tricks. But I would advise him to have a quick course of trick counting ;-) -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 14 03:05:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 03:05:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f160.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA04739 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 03:05:06 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 85132 invoked by uid 0); 13 Jun 2000 17:04:29 -0000 Message-ID: <20000613170429.85131.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.23 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:04:28 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.23] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: End of L68B Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:04:28 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Steve Willner > > (5) If a concession > > is made, and the maker's partner objects, play continues. > >Only if no claim existed. That must be what you are missing. L68B >says the *concession* may be cancelled, but there's nothing about >cancelling any claim that may have accompanied the concession. >When a claim exists, play ceases (L68D and item 4). The subtlety here is that there's no statement, "a concession of some number of tricks is a claim of the remainder." It's subtle and I think it's an oversight. One cannot say at trick 8, "I'll give you two more," without having inadvertantly claimed the other 4. If this is the case, the last line of 68B could only apply if you were conceding all of the remaining tricks. (underlying assumption: The wording of the laws leads me to believe that while you can have a concession of 0 tricks, you can't have a claim of 0 tricks.) How's this for an oversight? If the contract is 2S and I've taken 9 tricks, I can still concede 5 (but not 6) tricks according to L71B, which should read, "a player cannot concede tricks already won." But it's covered in L71A, making L71B wholly redundant and the second half of L71A is a subset of the effect of L71C (unless there were a hand that had no rational play). "If I had more time, I'd written a shorter book." -Mark Twain > > one concludes that a statement _cannot_ be both a claim and a > > concession. > >Of course a statement can be both a claim and a concession. To say >otherwise would be in direct contradiction to L68B. > >There is really nothing very hard here. The only point is that you >deal separately with the claim and the concession, *even if they were >created by the same statement*. If the concession is cancelled, The concession is not cancelled. It is never created! You may deal with them seperately later, but it's unclear whether L68B also implies that the statement created no claim either. >the >legal effect is to make the claim one for all the tricks. (The TD is >not obliged in the end to award all the tricks, of course; he simply >judges the claim in accordance with L70 as usual.) So then play would never continue? >I'd suggest these issues are good ones for a second-level TD course. >All you have to do to get the right answers is read L68 with a bit of >care, but the answers seem to surprise some people. Be cautious not to use more care in reading them than was exercised in their creation. :) The claim laws, in particular, are highly unaesthetic. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 14 03:10:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 03:10:36 +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 DAA04774 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 03:10:29 +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 131uCh-0009Sd-0U for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:10:20 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:58:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: 12 + 2 = 13 References: <3.0.6.32.20000613132956.008622e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000613132956.008622e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.6.32.20000613132956.008622e0@pop.ulb.ac.be>, alain gottcheiner writes >Hello again, > >and this time for a more serious case, shown to me by Daniel Gelibter, from >Brussels : > > AKJ xx > AKJx Qxx > Qxxx AKJxx > xx Qxx > > 1D 2D (IMR) > 3NT p > >West is fortunate enough to get a spade lead, and the jack makes the first >trick. >He then immadiately shows his cards, stating litterally : "I take all my >top tricks. The last two are yours." > >Well, if he takes all his top tricks, that's only one trick to the opponent. I'm for ruling 12 tricks. We follow the statement of claim, and discover that only one trick is theirs. 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 Jun 14 05:16:28 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA05315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 05:16:28 +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 FAA05309 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 05:16:19 +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 PAA01007 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:16:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA25101 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:16:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:16:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200006131916.PAA25101@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: End of L68B X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > The subtlety here is that there's no statement, "a concession of some > number of tricks is a claim of the remainder." It's subtle and I think it's > an oversight. I don't think it's needed. Look again at L68A and tell me how there can be a concession of less than all the tricks without also creating a claim. > One cannot say at trick 8, "I'll give you two more," without > having inadvertantly claimed the other 4. Nothing inadvertent about it. If one is suggesting that play be curtailed, it's a claim. > The wording of the laws leads me to believe > that while you can have a concession of 0 tricks, you can't have a claim of > 0 tricks.) Until just now, I would have said you cannot have either a claim or a concession of zero tricks. Now that I've looked at L68A again, I think a claim of zero tricks is possible: "You get the rest." This suggests play be curtailed, hence is a claim. *However*, reading the rest of L68, I believe this is an oversight: an over-inclusive definition of 'claim'. L68A probably needs to exclude a concession of all the tricks. (This is far from the only place where the Laws have trouble with definitions.) I don't at the moment see how a concession of zero tricks is possible. I also don't see that it matters. > How's this for an oversight? If the contract is 2S and I've taken 9 > tricks, I can still concede 5 (but not 6) tricks according to L71B, which > should read, "a player cannot concede tricks already won." But it's covered > in L71A, making L71B wholly redundant and the second half of L71A is a > subset of the effect of L71C (unless there were a hand that had no rational > play). L71 deals with ruling on concessions after they have been made, not deciding whether or not they have been made. I don't understand why 71B is needed given that 71A is present. But you _can_ concede six tricks in your example; whether you concede five or six, the TD should cancel the concession if attention is drawn before the correction period ends. The second half of L71A is not entirely redundant with L71C because of the time period. Or do readers think the first sentence fragment of L71C operates until the correction period ends? If so, what is the purpose of the full sentence? > >There is really nothing very hard here. The only point is that you > >deal separately with the claim and the concession, *even if they were > >created by the same statement*. If the concession is cancelled, > > The concession is not cancelled. It is never created! If you want to quibble over semantics, it would be better to say "The legal position is as if the concession had never occurred." No matter what you call it, the legal position is that no concession remains in effect to be ruled upon. > You may deal > with them seperately later, but it's unclear whether L68B also implies that > the statement created no claim either. If you only read L68B in isolation, it would be unclear. (As a famous lawyer has remarked, it depends on what the definition of 'is' is.) If you read the rest of L68, the result seems pretty clear to me. If a single statement or action by a defender creates both a claim and a concession, partner's objection cancels only the concession. (However, a claim of zero tricks, if such a thing exists, is also cancelled.) Look, folks, step back and take a broad view of L68. It makes a clear distinction between 'claim' and 'concession' and treats them differently. L68B allows a concession but not a claim to "not occur." L68D tells us what happens if either a claim or concession becomes effective. > So then play would never continue? If there is a claim, play never continues. If there is _only_ a concession, and it gets cancelled (or is legally deemed not to have occurred, if you prefer that language), then play continues. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 14 05:50:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA05691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 05:50:20 +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 FAA05685 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 05:50:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4pk.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.52]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA16872; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:49:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <008e01bfd571$110934e0$3413f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "John Probst" , , "alain gottcheiner" Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: From the Dutch TD exam... Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:53:36 -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 Clearly you do not have to suffer the same CHO's I often do. I would think potential tenaces and whether the lead succeeds or fails to attack your perceived weaknesses would be a much greater factor in any decision. In any case, it is obvious WE disagree...and so might the declarer at the table. Just make sure you give him all his options in a form he casn understand...it's up to him to employ HIS bridge judgement on what is best for him. You are the umpire, not the mentor. Do YOUR job and let the declarer exercise his free will as he will, once correctly informed of what the law dictates. Craig -----Original Message----- From: alain gottcheiner To: John Probst ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 8:45 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: From the Dutch TD exam... >At 05:10 12/06/00 +0100, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > The chance that someone who doesn't know the 5 options will >>be able to work out what is best for heir side is exactly 20% btw. > >AG : I don't agree. There is an old saying that someone who doesn't know >whose lead it is won't know what to lead either, so you should let the lead >stay. > >And, all things being equal, letting partner play the contract is being >nice to him (well, at least most partners tend to think so), and being nice >to partner is, without any doubt, the best way to help your side. I'm >categorical about that one. > > A. > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 14 08:11:47 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA06147 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 08:11:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f206.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.206]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA06142 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 08:11:39 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 80345 invoked by uid 0); 13 Jun 2000 22:11:01 -0000 Message-ID: <20000613221101.80344.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.22 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:11:01 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.22] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: End of L68B Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:11:01 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Steve Willner > > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > The subtlety here is that there's no statement, "a concession of >some > > number of tricks is a claim of the remainder." It's subtle and I think >it's > > an oversight. > >I don't think it's needed. Look again at L68A and tell me how there >can be a concession of less than all the tricks without also creating >a claim. I think it is needed. Someone here stated that a concession of some number of tricks is not a claim of the remainder. Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler. > > One cannot say at trick 8, "I'll give you two more," without > > having inadvertantly claimed the other 4. > >Nothing inadvertent about it. If one is suggesting that play be >curtailed, it's a claim. So, one can neither claim nor concede without simulaneously doing both. Do you agree with this statement? It was the lemma I was trying to draw you to. > > The wording of the laws leads me to believe > > that while you can have a concession of 0 tricks, you can't have a claim >of > > 0 tricks.) > >Until just now, I would have said you cannot have either a claim or a >concession of zero tricks. Now that I've looked at L68A again, I think >a claim of zero tricks is possible: "You get the rest." This suggests >play be curtailed, hence is a claim. *However*, reading the rest of >L68, I believe this is an oversight: an over-inclusive definition of >'claim'. L68A probably needs to exclude a concession of all the >tricks. (This is far from the only place where the Laws have trouble >with definitions.) >I don't at the moment see how a concession of zero tricks is possible. >I also don't see that it matters. L68B "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any." That leads me to believe that there's a concession even if the remainder is zero. The reason it matters is that I'm trying to establish an argument that a claim and concession must always be created simultaneously. > > How's this for an oversight? If the contract is 2S and I've taken >9 > > tricks, I can still concede 5 (but not 6) tricks according to L71B, >which > > should read, "a player cannot concede tricks already won." But it's >covered > > in L71A, making L71B wholly redundant and the second half of L71A is a > > subset of the effect of L71C (unless there were a hand that had no >rational > > play). > >L71 deals with ruling on concessions after they have been made, not >deciding whether or not they have been made. I don't understand why >71B is needed given that 71A is present. But you _can_ concede six >tricks in your example; whether you concede five or six, the TD should >cancel the concession if attention is drawn before the correction >period ends. Fine, you cannot successfully concede 6 tricks when TD's attention is timely given to the matter. But at least you agree that 71B is redundant. >The second half of L71A is not entirely redundant with L71C because of >the time period. Or do readers think the first sentence fragment of >L71C operates until the correction period ends? If so, what is the >purpose of the full sentence? True, an oversight on my part. L71C expires before the second half of L71A. I'm not convinced that's a good thing, yet I wouldn't claim it's a bad one either. As far as the first sentence fragment, it's just a poorly written law. > > You may deal > > with them seperately later, but it's unclear whether L68B also implies >that > > the statement created no claim either. > >If you only read L68B in isolation, it would be unclear. (As a famous >lawyer has remarked, it depends on what the definition of 'is' is.) If >you read the rest of L68, the result seems pretty clear to me. If a >single statement or action by a defender creates both a claim and a >concession, partner's objection cancels only the concession. (However, >a claim of zero tricks, if such a thing exists, is also cancelled.) My argument is that a statement always creates both a claim and a concession, unless the statement is a concession of all af the remaining tricks. Play with almost never continue and L68B has only mentioned a necessary condition for calling director to continue play, not the easier-to-state sufficient condition. While I wouldn't be surprized that the wording is unnecessary or off-base, I prefer to think that there's a better method to the madness, specifically that both the claim and concession are voided. >Look, folks, step back and take a broad view of L68. It makes a clear >distinction between 'claim' and 'concession' and treats them >differently. L68B allows a concession but not a claim to "not occur." >L68D tells us what happens if either a claim or concession becomes >effective. Silly distinction. At trick one, I claim 10 spades tricks and concede 3 clubs. Hand and board both have 5530 distribution in that order (yes, void in clubs). There are 8 tricks that are not covered by either a claim or concession. Do you use L70 or L71 to distribute them? > > So then play would never continue? > >If there is a claim, play never continues. If there is _only_ a >concession, and it gets cancelled (or is legally deemed not to have >occurred, if you prefer that language), then play continues. But there's only one case when there's only a concession. That's a concession for all the tricks. Though above you seem to believe that a claim of 0 tricks is allowable, in which case there is never only a concession. You'll always have both and play will never continue after an attempt to concede. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 14 08:28:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA06192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 08:28:41 +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 IAA06186; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 08:28:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from [199.172.230.214] by stormy.ibl.bm (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-65377U14500L13000S0V35) with SMTP id bm; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 19:28:22 -0300 Date: 13 Jun 2000 19:26:05 -0700 Message-ID: <-1251198134jrhind@ibl.bm> From: Jack Rhind Subject: Re: 12 + 2 = 13 To: , John Probst , 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 IAB06188 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tuesday, June 13, 2000, John wrote: >In article <3.0.6.32.20000613132956.008622e0@pop.ulb.ac.be>, alain >gottcheiner writes >>Hello again, >> >>and this time for a more serious case, shown to me by Daniel Gelibter, from >>Brussels : >> >> AKJ xx >> AKJx Qxx >> Qxxx AKJxx >> xx Qxx >> >> 1D 2D (IMR) >> 3NT p >> >>West is fortunate enough to get a spade lead, and the jack makes the first >>trick. >>He then immadiately shows his cards, stating litterally : "I take all my >>top tricks. The last two are yours." >> >>Well, if he takes all his top tricks, that's only one trick to >the opponent. I see no good reason not to award 12 tricks in this case. Pitching diamonds oh either the hearts or spades would be irrational. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 14 08:35:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA06225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 08:35:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA06216 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 08:34:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id SAA08094 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:32:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA25314 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:32:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:32:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200006132232.SAA25314@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: End of L68B X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > So, one can neither claim nor concede without simulaneously doing both. > Do you agree with this statement? It was the lemma I was trying to draw > you to. No, I don't agree. I don't see any need for claims or concessions of zero tricks, in spite of the (slightly) flawed definition of claim in L68A. You seem to have misunderstood my position. Let me try again: Read literally, the text of L68A suggests that a claim of zero tricks is possible. *However*, given the rest of L68, I don't believe that either claims or concessions of zero tricks should be treated as having any real existence. > L68B "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if > any." > > That leads me to believe that there's a concession even if the > remainder is zero. It leads me to believe that if the remainder is zero, there is no concession. > The reason it matters is that I'm trying to establish an > argument that a claim and concession must always be created simultaneously. I don't agree with any such argument. Sometimes the two will be created simultaneously. Other times only one or the other will be created. > But there's only one case when there's only a concession. That's a > concession for all the tricks. Though above you seem to believe that a > claim of 0 tricks is allowable, A misreading -- see above. > in which case there is never only a > concession. You'll always have both and play will never continue after an > attempt to concede. I really don't know where you get this. Let me try for the last time: 1. If a defender concedes but does not claim (and a claim of zero tricks doesn't count), and his partner immediately objects, play continues (subject to L16). 2. If a defender claims one or more tricks, whether or not he also concedes any and whether or not his partner objects to any concession, play is over, and the TD rules per L70. I've explained the reasons for these in previous messages, and I don't think I can make them any clearer. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 14 08:43:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA06251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 08:43:35 +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 IAA06246 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 08:43:27 +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 SAA08247 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:43:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA25327 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:43:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:43:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200006132243.SAA25327@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 12 + 2 = 13 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: alain gottcheiner > AKJ xx > AKJx Qxx > Qxxx AKJxx > xx Qxx > > 1D 2D (IMR) > 3NT p > > West is fortunate enough to get a spade lead, and the jack makes the first > trick. > He then immadiately shows his cards, stating litterally : "I take all my > top tricks. The last two are yours." We can apply some of the previous definitions. This is a claim and a concession. > Now, there has been a concession. The board has been scored as E/W 460, and > later (but still whitin the legal time for correction) the players realise > E/W had in fact 12 top tricks. Director ! This is an interesting point. We have to rule under L71A because the time for L71C has presumably expired. (Again, unless you read the initial sentence fragment without regard to the rest of L71C.) What does it mean to "win" a trick when there has been a claim? > From: "olivier beauvillain" > It's clear for me : 12 tricks > Law 68C is OK : You gave a clear explanation : all my top tricks. This looks right to me. The claim statement was clear and unambiguous, so 12 tricks are won on the basis of the claim. They weren't all played out individually, but that doesn't matter. Imagine that declarer had played the first 12 tricks, then (perhaps because dummy didn't turn the last card) said "You get two." We wouldn't have any trouble then. On a better day, any of the four players at the table might have noticed the discrepancy in the first place. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 14 10:01:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA06511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 10:01:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f67.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.67]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA06506 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 10:01:29 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 76907 invoked by uid 0); 14 Jun 2000 00:00:51 -0000 Message-ID: <20000614000051.76906.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.18 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:00:51 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.18] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: End of L68B Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:00:51 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > So, one can neither claim nor concede without simulaneously doing >both. > > Do you agree with this statement? It was the lemma I was trying to >draw > > you to. > >No, I don't agree. I don't see any need for claims or concessions of >zero tricks, in spite of the (slightly) flawed definition of claim in >L68A. You seem to have misunderstood my position. Let me try again: > >Read literally, the text of L68A suggests that a claim of zero tricks >is possible. *However*, given the rest of L68, I don't believe that >either claims or concessions of zero tricks should be treated as having >any real existence. I assert that L68A is correct and that the rest of L68 is flawed. I don't even believe in the need for a concession to be its own unique concept. > > L68B "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, >if > > any." > > > > That leads me to believe that there's a concession even if the > > remainder is zero. > >It leads me to believe that if the remainder is zero, there is no >concession. I say we flip a coin, ask what was intended, and reword it clearer. It's ultimately unimportant to my argument, however, as I only need the statement that a concession cannot exist without a claim. > > But there's only one case when there's only a concession. That's a > > concession for all the tricks. Though above you seem to believe that a > > claim of 0 tricks is allowable, > >A misreading -- see above. No. You stated that the law is flawed and allows for this situation, even if you interpret and use the law differently. > > in which case there is never only a > > concession. You'll always have both and play will never continue after >an > > attempt to concede. > >I really don't know where you get this. Let me try for the last time: > >1. If a defender concedes but does not claim (and a claim of zero >tricks doesn't count), and his partner immediately objects, play >continues (subject to L16). Happens in exactly one situation. And I quote, "Look again at L68A and tell me how there can be a concession of less than all the tricks without also creating a claim." >2. If a defender claims one or more tricks, whether or not he also >concedes any and whether or not his partner objects to any concession, >play is over, and the TD rules per L70. > >I've explained the reasons for these in previous messages, and I don't >think I can make them any clearer. You're explaining the effect and ignoring the cause. Consider these situations: 1) East says, you'll get the rest. West objects. Play continues. 2) East says, I'll get the ace of trump, you'll get the rest. West objects. Play ceases. 3) South plays a trump, east plays the ace, a card is called from board, west has an unplayed-to-the-current-trick singleton trump when east says, you'll get the rest. West objects. Play does something or another. There really is no reason to rule differently in these three cases. I'm under the impression that you wouldn't rule them the same as situation 2 includes a claim. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 14 12:17:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA06895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:07:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA06884 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:07:35 +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 1322aR-000KFt-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 03:07:25 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 02:29:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: End of L68B References: <20000613170429.85131.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000613170429.85131.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: Steve Willner >>the >>legal effect is to make the claim one for all the tricks. (The TD is >>not obliged in the end to award all the tricks, of course; he simply >>judges the claim in accordance with L70 as usual.) > > So then play would never continue? It would continue if the concession was for all the tricks, because then there is no 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 Jun 14 13:25:49 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:25:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.118]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA07122 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:25:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.53] (d18182a35.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.53]) by mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA15417; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:17:31 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <200006121456.KAA19535@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:18:44 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Claims and Concessions [was: End of L68B] Cc: David Stevenson Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 David Stevenson writes: > Perhaps you would like to explain how "you get three of the remaining >five tricks" is not a claim? I can see, I think, why you inferred the above, but I certainly didn't intend to say that it isn't. I think maybe it's time to start a new thread, or at least for me to attempt to clarify what I perceive as the problem. :-) I will try to specify the Law which I think justifies each point. First, if a player makes a statement referring to the outcome of future tricks, or takes an action which does so {as by intentionally facing his hand), that constitutes either a claim or a concession, or both. [Law 68, in its entirety.] Second, when a claim or concession is made, play ceases. [Law 68 D]. Third, when a concession is made (presumably this includes a claim of some, but not all, of the remaining tricks [Law 68 B] *by a defender*, and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred [Law 68 B again]. Some have maintained that this also voids a concurrent *claim*, but I don't see anywhere the laws say that. Fourth, when no concession has occurred because of an objection by claimer's partner, *and* no claim was made (specifically, when a defender concedes all the remaining tricks) then (after the TD is called, of course) play continues. Side Note: Law 68 specifies that a claim of some fraction of the remaining tricks is a concession of the rest. It does *not* say that a concession of some of the remaining tricks constitutes a claim of the rest. One could argue, I think, that lack of any statement about the rest says "I don't know who gets those, let the TD decide." One could also argue, as David implicitly does above, that it constitutes a claim, even though the laws don't say so. I wonder why the lawmakers found it necessary to specify one case, but not the other, but on balance, I have to say I can't see myself conceding *some* of the remaining tricks unless I intend, implicitly or not, to claim the others. So I guess I have to agree with David here. But I'd be happier if this area were clarified by some kind of statement from the WBF and/or ACBL (in my case) Laws Committee. And hopefully by a clarification in the next issue of the Laws. {Grattan, did you see this part? :} Fifth, when *both* a concession and a claim have occurred, and the (defending) claimer/conceder's partner objects, the concession is cancelled, but the *claim* must still be adjudicated *by the TD*. That is, play does *not* continue. (This, I believe, is the crux of the problem I've been having, and others as well, with this law.) Sixth, when *declarer* claims or concedes, an opponent, but not dummy, may object [Law 68 D]. In this case, the TD applies Law 70 or 71 as appropriate; there is no further play. Dummy may object to an opponent's claim or concession. Seventh, (this should probably have gone earlier) when a defender wishes to concede all the remaining tricks, he should *not* face his hand, so that his cards will not become penalty cards when his partner objects. If he's only conceding some of the remaining tricks, then it doesn't matter if he faces his hand, because the TD will have to adjudicate the result, and his cards won't be PCs. I think that covers it. I hope so. Let me put on my TD hat now. :-) Situation 1: I'm called to a table where declarer has claimed or conceded some or all of the remaining tricks. I decide who gets what tricks, per Law 70 and, perhaps, 71. No further play. Situation 2: A defender has claimed the rest. Same as Situation 1. Situation 3: A defender has claimed some and conceded some tricks. No objection from his partner, dummy or declarer. I need not have been called; the hand is scored as the players have agreed. Situation 4: A defender has claimed some and conceded some tricks. No objection from his partner, but dummy or declarer objects. I decide, as in Situation 1. Situation 5: A defender has claimed some and conceded some tricks. Objection from his partner. I adjudicate as for a claim. The concession, having been cancelled [Law 68 B], is irrelevant. Situation 6: A defender has conceded all the remaining tricks. No objection from his partner. Same as Situation 3. Situation 7: A defender has conceded all the remaining tricks. Objection from his partner. I apply Law 68 B, and inform players of their obligations under Law 16. Any cards faced by either defender become penalty cards, and Laws 50 and 51 apply. Play continues. Have I got it right? Did I cover all the bases? :-) 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/AwUBOUb7LL2UW3au93vOEQKTtACfa3eRHs6hzm7r94oh/x3Bu5g2uosAnj3o H5FwUK02FMbSTPg/lWHisoSp =Ehv6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 14 13:35:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:35:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (mailout3-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.168]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA07165 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:35:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.53] (d18182a35.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.53]) by mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA16774 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:27:18 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000613132956.008622e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20000613132956.008622e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:27:51 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: 12 + 2 = 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 alain gottcheiner wrote: >How would you rule ? Twelve tricks. The statement "I take all my top tricks" when there are 11 of them, plus the spade J already won, conflicts with "you get two tricks". Declarer _does_ have twelve tricks, and it would be irrational, even for me , not to take them before giving up the lead. So I don't think the argument you specify in part (a) in your message will wash. :-) 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/AwUBOUb9Zr2UW3au93vOEQIUlQCgurmCo301+jtbfcalhjgLvFYZrE0Aniyn odk716UmmviXiJzGeWS+C9Wk =b9+u -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 14 13:35:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07176 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:35:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.118]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA07170 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:35:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.53] (d18182a35.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.53]) by mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA16778 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:27:23 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200006131442.KAA24818@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200006131442.KAA24818@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:32:54 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: End of L68B Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Steve Willner writes: >All just find down to here. > >> (5) If a concession >> is made, and the maker's partner objects, play continues. > >Only if no claim existed. That must be what you are missing. L68B >says the *concession* may be cancelled, but there's nothing about >cancelling any claim that may have accompanied the concession. >When a claim exists, play ceases (L68D and item 4). Yeah, that's the conclusion I finally reached. I wrote (and have already sent) a (rather long, I now realize) dissertation on claims and concessions, trying to cover all the bases. I don't _think_ I screwed it up. :-) 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/AwUBOUb9a72UW3au93vOEQKX5wCeNWe/7Ei7aEnxj0iTHsVGveNzfNoAoLpp ddVnCYgicSAKnxu/b8jJZfV5 =bG9O -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 14 13:45:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:45:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (mailout3-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.168]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA07206 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:45:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.53] (d18182a35.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.53]) by mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA18060 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:37:16 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20000613221101.80344.qmail@hotmail.com> References: <20000613221101.80344.qmail@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:39:58 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: End of L68B Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 "Todd Zimnoch" asks Steve Willner: > So, one can neither claim nor concede without simulaneously >doing both. Do you agree with this statement? It was the lemma I >was trying to draw you to. I can't speak for Steve, but I don't agree. A claim or concession of *all* the remaining tricks involves no concurrent concession or claim, as appropriate. 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/AwUBOUb/vL2UW3au93vOEQIz+ACfTUzT6AJ9+txgHn9Klme/VLz/vtUAoKe/ /diJMQDWM9s856N58IhlszVp =pW7U -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 14 19:44:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA08123 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:44:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA08112 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:44:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-224.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.224]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA12089 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:44:25 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3946148D.65769E6@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 13:01:33 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: End of L68B References: <200006122221.SAA19956@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > > > A bunch of stuff I snipped, because it's given me a headache. :-) > > I think I'm about to conclude that Law 68 makes no sense at all. :-( > No you should not conclude that, it's David's interpretation that makes no sense. > I get variously that (1) any statement which asserts that the side > making the statement will win _any_ of the remaining tricks is a > claim. (2) any statement which concedes the loss of one or more > tricks is a concession. (3) a statement can be _both_ a claim and a > concession. (4) If a claim is made, play ceases. (5) If a concession > is made, and the maker's partner objects, play continues. (4) and (5) > are mutually incompatible. Play cannot both cease and continue. So > one concludes that a statement _cannot_ be both a claim and a > concession. I had always thought that to be the case, anyway, but I > thought a statement including both elements would be a claim first > and foremost. Now you're saying it's a concession first, and must be > dealt with it that light. I don't buy it. Why should Law 68 B take > precedence over Law 68 A? (Before you go to the trouble, I'll concede > I don't see why 68A should take precedence either. :-) > > Did the Lawmakers really screw this one up, or what? > No they did not. Every concession is a claim. Every claim is a concession, unless it's a claim for all the tricks. All concessions can be objected to by partner, and play continues. Claims for all tricks are not concessions, so partner cannot object, and play ceases. Easy really. Any other interpretation is just plain silly, and trying to find loopholes in the Laws where there are none. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 14 19:44:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA08121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:44:54 +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 TAA08111 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:44:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-224.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.224]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA12099 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:44:27 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39461668.D81C58EA@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 13:09:28 +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: WBF position on Psychics. References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific><001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific> <000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > , but there > is nothing new in the state of the law - it always was the > case that what the law forbids is *making* the psychic > call if an undisclosed partnership agreement exists. On this > point the law speaks with clarity. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I have never quite understood this method of reasoning. If I make a psychic call (definition as per the Lawbook), and the TD or AC determines that my partner had some more knowledge about the possibility, they are to rule UPU, and this makes the call itself inadmissible. Now I agree that there can be a ruling on incomplete disclosure, and I am all for the full investigation on the psyche, and a possible ruling. What I fail to see is why the only measure that is contemplated is the banning of the call (and thus the rendering of A--). What is the difference with a failure to alert? There too, I have made "any call", without prior announcement, and based on a partnership understanding. Yet the ruling will be a L12C2 (or 3) one. No one has ever suggested that the call be made invalid per L40A. I really don't see the difference between the two. Sorry ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 14 19:44:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA08105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:44:40 +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 TAA08090 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:44:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-224.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.224]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA12031 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:44:12 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <394612B2.C17D74E3@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 12:53:38 +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: End of L68B References: <200006121456.KAA19535@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: "ton kooijman" > > Law 68B tells us that a claim and concession are equally treated: > > Not quite; there is one important exception. "...if a defender > attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately > objects, no concession has occurred." *There is no corresponding > statement about a claim.* > Well, but every claim is a concession (if there are any tricks left). That concession is cancelled. Are you now suggesting we should deal with a claim without a concession ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 14 19:44:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA08103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:44:38 +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 TAA08089 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:44:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-224.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.224]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA12010 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:44:07 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39461255.45E2597F@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 12:52:05 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: End of L68B References: <002001bfd44f$3b676540$98b4f1c3@kooijman> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > L68B is perfectly clear: when a player concedes some but not all of > the remaining tricks then he has claimed the remainder, and there is > nothing in L68B about a defender stopping a claim happening by objecting > to his partner's concession. It would have been easy enough for the > Lawmakers to include this in the Law if it had been what they intended. > Now David, really. RTFLB :-) L68B : "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any" "if a defender attempts to concede ... and his partner immediately objects". So If I claim two tricks out of three, I have conceded one. If my partner objects, play continues. And really this is what the Lawmakers intended. If I claim three tricks out of three, and my partner realises there is something wrong with the claim which can be solved by playing on, he cannot object. In that case really there was no concession (no tricks left to concede), so play cannot go on. That is why the Lawmakers wrote "concession", not "claim". Now I have seen some light : perhaps the original case was concerned with a claim for all tricks ? In that case, you are right David, to keep hammering the point, but you should have done so more clearly. Otherwise, David, you are simply wrong. > >To be honest: I really do not understand the confusion created on this > >subject, but for the sake of this discussion group. > > Nor do I. After a claim, play ceases, and that seems simple enough. > There are **NO** exceptions to this given by the Law book. > > -- > 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 ~ -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 14 19:44:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA08110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:44:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA08104 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:44:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-224.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.224]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA12073 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:44:21 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <394613D9.5E3F9E38@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 12:58:33 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: End of L68B References: <200006122221.SAA19956@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > Nope. The *concession* (of three tricks) is cancelled but not the > claim. It doesn't matter whether East's cards have been faced or > not. An elementary syllogism tells us that a claim without a > concession is a claim of all the tricks, and that's where the TD > starts. But play ceased as soon as there was a claim. > That's just plain silly. Every claim is a concession (L68B) Every concession is a claim (L68A). If I state I give you one heart trick, I mean I want the rest. So every time a defender says something, there is a claim AND a concession (apart from "all's mine"). Since his partner, in your opinion, can only object to the one and not the other, there is absolutely no case possible where play continues. yet the Laws cater for this. Face it, Steve, David, your interpretation is simply WRONG. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 14 21:05:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA08385 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:05:09 +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 VAA08371 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:04:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-174.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.174]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA01206 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:04:43 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3947641B.5BA80E13@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:53:15 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: End of L68B References: <20000613221101.80344.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > > > > So then play would never continue? > > > >If there is a claim, play never continues. If there is _only_ a > >concession, and it gets cancelled (or is legally deemed not to have > >occurred, if you prefer that language), then play continues. > > But there's only one case when there's only a concession. That's a > concession for all the tricks. Though above you seem to believe that a > claim of 0 tricks is allowable, in which case there is never only a > concession. You'll always have both and play will never continue after an > attempt to concede. > I believe this is the crux of the problem. The "normal" case is the one where one defender, usually the one on lead, says something like "I believe the rest are yours". This is the case where we all agree that play should continue. After all, if not in that case, when then ? Now in order to have this one stand up, some people say : "a concession without a claim statement is not a claim". That's just plain silly. The wording "I give you one trick" or "I think I make four tricks" (out of five) should not matter. The intent is the same and the ruling should be as well. Other people (and I believe DWS is in that camp) maintain that a concession of all tricks, which is a claim for zero tricks, is not a claim at all. I believe that this is false. It is a statement to the effect ..., and it is intended to curtail play. L68A says it is a claim. Ergo, also a concession of some tricks should be "objectable" by partnere (that's not a word - I know - but you know what I mean) However David, aren't we yet again discussing the number and sex of angels on a pinhead here ? Have you ever encountered such a case ? I could imagine something like one defender saying "I believe we take all the tricks except the ace of trumps", and the partner stating "no, not even that one". I'm quite certain that in such a case it does not really matter if play continues or not. I'm sure that L16 and L50 are quite sufficient in those cases. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 14 21:05:22 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA08392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:05:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA08387 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:05:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-174.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.174]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA01195 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:04:41 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39475FCD.A17C5BA6@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:34:53 +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: End of L68B References: <200006131916.PAA25101@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > The subtlety here is that there's no statement, "a concession of some > > number of tricks is a claim of the remainder." It's subtle and I think it's > > an oversight. > > I don't think it's needed. Look again at L68A and tell me how there > can be a concession of less than all the tricks without also creating > a claim. > Of course, my point exactly. Then play never can continue. > > One cannot say at trick 8, "I'll give you two more," without > > having inadvertantly claimed the other 4. > > Nothing inadvertent about it. If one is suggesting that play be > curtailed, it's a claim. > > > The wording of the laws leads me to believe > > that while you can have a concession of 0 tricks, you can't have a claim of > > 0 tricks.) > > Until just now, I would have said you cannot have either a claim or a > concession of zero tricks. Now that I've looked at L68A again, I think > a claim of zero tricks is possible: "You get the rest." This suggests > play be curtailed, hence is a claim. *However*, reading the rest of > L68, I believe this is an oversight: an over-inclusive definition of > 'claim'. L68A probably needs to exclude a concession of all the > tricks. (This is far from the only place where the Laws have trouble > with definitions.) > No sorry Steve, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot (higher in your mail) use the definition of a claim (play be curtailed) to say that a concession of some tricks is a claim, and then later say that the definition is too inclusive, and try to make a concession of all tricks not a claim. Either every concession is a claim, or it isn't. In the first case, L68B might just as well be abolished, in the second, you are wrong and play continues even with a partial concession/claim. > I don't at the moment see how a concession of zero tricks is possible. > I also don't see that it matters. > > > How's this for an oversight? If the contract is 2S and I've taken 9 > > tricks, I can still concede 5 (but not 6) tricks according to L71B, which > > should read, "a player cannot concede tricks already won." But it's covered > > in L71A, making L71B wholly redundant and the second half of L71A is a > > subset of the effect of L71C (unless there were a hand that had no rational > > play). > > L71 deals with ruling on concessions after they have been made, not > deciding whether or not they have been made. I don't understand why > 71B is needed given that 71A is present. But you _can_ concede six > tricks in your example; whether you concede five or six, the TD should > cancel the concession if attention is drawn before the correction > period ends. > > The second half of L71A is not entirely redundant with L71C because of > the time period. Or do readers think the first sentence fragment of > L71C operates until the correction period ends? If so, what is the > purpose of the full sentence? > > > >There is really nothing very hard here. The only point is that you > > >deal separately with the claim and the concession, *even if they were > > >created by the same statement*. If the concession is cancelled, > > > > The concession is not cancelled. It is never created! > > If you want to quibble over semantics, it would be better to say "The > legal position is as if the concession had never occurred." No matter > what you call it, the legal position is that no concession remains in > effect to be ruled upon. > > > You may deal > > with them seperately later, but it's unclear whether L68B also implies that > > the statement created no claim either. > > If you only read L68B in isolation, it would be unclear. (As a famous > lawyer has remarked, it depends on what the definition of 'is' is.) If > you read the rest of L68, the result seems pretty clear to me. If a > single statement or action by a defender creates both a claim and a > concession, partner's objection cancels only the concession. (However, > a claim of zero tricks, if such a thing exists, is also cancelled.) > > Look, folks, step back and take a broad view of L68. It makes a clear > distinction between 'claim' and 'concession' and treats them > differently. L68B allows a concession but not a claim to "not occur." > L68D tells us what happens if either a claim or concession becomes > effective. > > > So then play would never continue? > > If there is a claim, play never continues. If there is _only_ a > concession, and it gets cancelled (or is legally deemed not to have > occurred, if you prefer that language), then play continues. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 14 21:05:04 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA08374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:05:04 +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 VAA08367 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:04:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-174.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.174]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA01174 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:04:38 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39475EB1.63F7A66F@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:30:09 +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: Claims and Concessions [was: End of L68B] References: <200006121456.KAA19535@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > David Stevenson writes: > > > Perhaps you would like to explain how "you get three of the remaining > >five tricks" is not a claim? > > I can see, I think, why you inferred the above, but I > certainly didn't intend to say that it isn't. > > I think maybe it's time to start a new thread, or at least for me to > attempt to clarify what I perceive as the problem. :-) I will try to > specify the Law which I think justifies each point. > I agree that it is time to start a new thread, but I don't agree with everything Ed has written here. > First, if a player makes a statement referring to the outcome of > future tricks, or takes an action which does so {as by intentionally > facing his hand), that constitutes either a claim or a concession, or > both. [Law 68, in its entirety.] > Agreed. > Second, when a claim or concession is made, play ceases. [Law 68 D]. > Agreed, barring the exception. > Third, when a concession is made (presumably this includes a claim of > some, but not all, of the remaining tricks [Law 68 B] *by a > defender*, and his partner immediately objects, no concession has > occurred [Law 68 B again]. Some have maintained that this also voids > a concurrent *claim*, but I don't see anywhere the laws say that. > Well, and I shall say this only once : **Either you stipulate that every concession is also a claim. Then, if you argue that the concession is cancelled but the claim isn't, so play can't continue, you have no single possible occurence of play continuing, and L68B has no meaning. That can't be right. So, the claim must also be cancelled. **Or the concession does not entail a claim. Then play needn't cease. Any way, when partner objects, play continues. With the one exception : A claim for all tricks is no concession, so partner cannot ask play to continue. > Fourth, when no concession has occurred because of an objection by > claimer's partner, *and* no claim was made (specifically, when a > defender concedes all the remaining tricks) then (after the TD is > called, of course) play continues. > Well, some might say that this is a claim for zero tricks. Anyway, I fail to believe that L68B was only intended for concessions of all tricks. > Side Note: Law 68 specifies that a claim of some fraction of the > remaining tricks is a concession of the rest. It does *not* say that > a concession of some of the remaining tricks constitutes a claim of > the rest. One could argue, I think, that lack of any statement about > the rest says "I don't know who gets those, let the TD decide." I don't believe that one could argue this. > One > could also argue, as David implicitly does above, that it constitutes > a claim, even though the laws don't say so. I wonder why the > lawmakers found it necessary to specify one case, but not the other, > but on balance, I have to say I can't see myself conceding *some* of > the remaining tricks unless I intend, implicitly or not, to claim the > others. So I guess I have to agree with David here. But I'd be > happier if this area were clarified by some kind of statement from > the WBF and/or ACBL (in my case) Laws Committee. And hopefully by a > clarification in the next issue of the Laws. {Grattan, did you see > this part? :} > I am also on the side of those who believe that saying "you get one trick" means "I claim the others". It's only logical. The intent is the same, and we should not have laws that differentiate according to the exact words spoken. As an analogy, we don't rule that "I take three heart and two spade tricks" specifies the order in which they are played. The intent is that the order does not matter, so we don't read more into the statement than that. > Fifth, when *both* a concession and a claim have occurred, and the > (defending) claimer/conceder's partner objects, the concession is > cancelled, but the *claim* must still be adjudicated *by the TD*. I agree that the claim can be adjudicated. But play first must continue. > That is, play does *not* continue. (This, I believe, is the crux of > the problem I've been having, and others as well, with this law.) > Well, that is no way to read this law. > Sixth, when *declarer* claims or concedes, an opponent, but not > dummy, may object [Law 68 D]. In this case, the TD applies Law 70 or > 71 as appropriate; there is no further play. Dummy may object to an > opponent's claim or concession. > > Seventh, (this should probably have gone earlier) when a defender > wishes to concede all the remaining tricks, he should *not* face his > hand, so that his cards will not become penalty cards when his > partner objects. If he's only conceding some of the remaining tricks, > then it doesn't matter if he faces his hand, because the TD will have > to adjudicate the result, and his cards won't be PCs. > Since this is based on presumptions I don't agree with, I can not agree with this either. > I think that covers it. I hope so. Let me put on my TD hat now. :-) > > Situation 1: I'm called to a table where declarer has claimed or > conceded some or all of the remaining tricks. I decide who gets what > tricks, per Law 70 and, perhaps, 71. No further play. > Of course. > Situation 2: A defender has claimed the rest. Same as Situation 1. > Indeed, no concession. > Situation 3: A defender has claimed some and conceded some tricks. No > objection from his partner, dummy or declarer. I need not have been > called; the hand is scored as the players have agreed. > Of course. > Situation 4: A defender has claimed some and conceded some tricks. No > objection from his partner, but dummy or declarer objects. I decide, > as in Situation 1. > Indeed. Fairly basic, still. > Situation 5: A defender has claimed some and conceded some tricks. > Objection from his partner. I adjudicate as for a claim. The > concession, having been cancelled [Law 68 B], is irrelevant. > Wrong. > Situation 6: A defender has conceded all the remaining tricks. No > objection from his partner. Same as Situation 3. > Basic. > Situation 7: A defender has conceded all the remaining tricks. > Objection from his partner. I apply Law 68 B, and inform players of > their obligations under Law 16. Any cards faced by either defender > become penalty cards, and Laws 50 and 51 apply. Play continues. > Agreed, but this is also true if only some tricks are conceded. > Have I got it right? Did I cover all the bases? :-) > See above. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 14 21:05:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA08386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:05:09 +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 VAA08372 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:04:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-174.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.174]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA01217 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:04:45 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39476604.B307D9DF@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:01:24 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: 12 + 2 = 13 References: <3.0.6.32.20000613132956.008622e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <007501bfd550$0e997060$0b10fac1@cllubintplord> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk olivier beauvillain wrote: > > It's clear for me : 12 tricks > Law 68C is OK : You gave a clear explanation : all my top tricks. > Law 71 is available. TD must change the score because (first occurence) you > "concede", by losing 2 a trick that you won. By saying "I take all top > tricks", you "won" 3S+4H+5D=12 Tricks. After, you can only concede one... > Bye > Everyone gave the same answer : 12 tricks, but not all by the very same reasoning. I am siding with Olivier, who gave (IMO) the best explanation. The concession is cancelled because the tricks have already been "won". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 14 22:58:59 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA08819 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 22:58:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA08814 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 22:58:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([210.55.47.83]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000614125815.NNG12357085.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 00:58:15 +1200 Message-ID: <001701bfd5fb$6c96e840$532f37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific><001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific> <000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona> <39461668.D81C58EA@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 00:23:32 +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 > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > , but there > > is nothing new in the state of the law - it always was the > > case that what the law forbids is *making* the psychic > > call if an undisclosed partnership agreement exists. On this > > point the law speaks with clarity. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Herman wrote > > What is the difference with a failure to alert? There too, > I have made "any call", without prior announcement, and > based on a partnership understanding. Yet the ruling will > be a L12C2 (or 3) one. > > No one has ever suggested that the call be made invalid per > L40A. > > I really don't see the difference between the two. Sorry ! > I don't agree with this and other attacks of psyches. Nevertheless I think the logic at this point is that the undisclosed agreement is illegal in the case of a psyche - it is either a prohibited convention or an agreement to open light opening and such agreements are often subject to regulations. One contradiction I find in this whole argument is that as soon as you say that there is an (implicit) undisclosed agreement then the bid no longer becomes a psyche. That is you cannot argue both that the "psyche" is a part of some undisclosed agreement and that it is a "gross misdescription". The bid is either a psyche or it is part of your agreements it cannot be both. Those who argue against psyches seem to want it to be both. Bluff and counter-bluff are a part of nearly every game. There are two (legitimate) ways to win - Playing well and enticing our opponents to play poorly. I guess the second is really just a variation on the former. A psyche is just one of many ways of enticing your opponents into error. Others are false cards, deliberate overbids or underbids (not gross misstatements). In my opinion to remove or to restrict psyches diminishes the game of Contract Bridge. The laws clearly distinguish between partnership agreement and partnership experience. (L75) "Agreements" need to be disclosed (L75A) in addition "experience" needs to be explained when answering questions (L75C). The Law also distinguishes between special agreements and experience and general bridge knowledge and experience. Special agreements and experience only need to be disclosed while general bridge knowledge need not. It is general bridge knowledge that a player is willingly allowed to violate partnership agreements and understandings (even gross violations - psyches). And it is general bridge knowledge that some situations lend themselves to psyches. In addition Law 75B states that habitual violations of announced agreements "may", but presumably not necessarily "will", create an implicit agreement . Unfortunately Law40 uses a different word "understanding". However I believe this is synonymous with "agreement" or at least more closely aligned with that term. My reason for this is that partner may not agree with nor understand my violations of our agreements and understandings (gross or otherwise). To my mind this is sufficient for those violations not to be agreements and not for them to be understandings. Therefore they do not need to be disclosed nor made available ahead of time. An example that I have used here before although it is not a psyche ( I simply don't psyche often enough) it is a violation of partnership agreement even a habitual one. In NZ 1NT outside the range 11-15 (wholely or in part) needs to be alerted. I regularly play a range of 12-15. I am also a notorious underbidder with balanced hands. So I open 1NT with a large number of balanced 16 counts and pass a number of balanced 12 counts. Nevertheless I don't expect partner to alert my 1NT opening nor do I believe it is required. On the other hand I believe he acts properly when questioned about our range in saying that my effective range is 12-16. It is my personal judgement when to downgrade a 16 count and not a matter for partnership agreement. Law40E acknowledges that the two members of a partnership may play the same system and yet still exercise different judgement. In my experience and opinion most psyches are a matter of personal judgement or style and not based on a partnership agreement or understanding and therefore are not subject to the restrictions of L40 and L75. That is if I open 1S on a small doubleton I would be thinking (for good or ill) that *I* am judging to psyche on this board/situation and not that we have a partnership agreement to psyche here. That is in contrast with when I open 1S with a 13 count and five decent spades when I would be thinking that this hand meets our agreed requirement for a 1S opening. What I dislike is that when a player risks a psyche there seems to be a presumption that that player has done something illegal and that the onus is on that player to establish innocence. In order to establish wrong doing I think that it is not sufficient just to note that we survived this particular auction or that we have psyched once or twice before. Such a regulation is in my opinion at best abitrary and can only lead to bad feeling when a legitimate successful action is penalized. There seems to be a hidden agenda amoung the law and regulation makers to discourage psyches. WBF and National bodies publish regulations restricting psyches (in many ways). In a lot of cases these regulations appear to me to be contrary to a plain reading of the laws. For example my National Body has a regulation prohibiting excessive psyching and defines excessive as more than two psyches per session. This seems to be in direct conflict with Law40A which allows "... any call ..." Finally Psyches are fun. Psyches don't always work. Lets keep psyches as a legitmate part of our game. I for one believe that they are add to the fasination of our great game. :-) Wayne Burrows From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 14 23:23:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA08945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:23:17 +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 XAA08935 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:23:03 +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 132D85-0003xV-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:22:50 +0100 Message-ID: <7ZtVyUAV$1R5Ewj2@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:35:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: End of L68B References: <200006121456.KAA19535@cfa183.harvard.edu> <394612B2.C17D74E3@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <394612B2.C17D74E3@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: > > >Steve Willner wrote: >> >> > From: "ton kooijman" >> > Law 68B tells us that a claim and concession are equally treated: >> >> Not quite; there is one important exception. "...if a defender >> attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately >> objects, no concession has occurred." *There is no corresponding >> statement about a claim.* >> > >Well, but every claim is a concession (if there are any >tricks left). That concession is cancelled. Are you now >suggesting we should deal with a claim without a concession >? Yes. RTFLB. -- 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 Jun 14 23:23:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA08947 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:23:19 +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 XAA08937 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:23:10 +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 132D8F-0003xk-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:23:00 +0100 Message-ID: <4JZV2RAE91R5EwjS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:32:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: End of L68B References: <002001bfd44f$3b676540$98b4f1c3@kooijman> <39461255.45E2597F@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <39461255.45E2597F@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: >> >> >> L68B is perfectly clear: when a player concedes some but not all of >> the remaining tricks then he has claimed the remainder, and there is >> nothing in L68B about a defender stopping a claim happening by objecting >> to his partner's concession. It would have been easy enough for the >> Lawmakers to include this in the Law if it had been what they intended. >> > >Now David, really. RTFLB :-) > >L68B : "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of >the remainder, if any" > >"if a defender attempts to concede ... and his partner >immediately objects". > >So If I claim two tricks out of three, I have conceded one. >If my partner objects, play continues. > >And really this is what the Lawmakers intended. If I claim >three tricks out of three, and my partner realises there is >something wrong with the claim which can be solved by >playing on, he cannot object. In that case really there was >no concession (no tricks left to concede), so play cannot go >on. > >That is why the Lawmakers wrote "concession", not "claim". > >Now I have seen some light : perhaps the original case was >concerned with a claim for all tricks ? In that case, you >are right David, to keep hammering the point, but you should >have done so more clearly. > >Otherwise, David, you are simply wrong. A concession of two tricks out of three is a claim of one trick. After a claim, play ceases. So, Herman, you are just wrong. -- 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 Jun 14 23:55:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA09068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:55:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA09061 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:55:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.0.ap (guppy)) id PAA21221; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 15:54:45 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/%I%.1.ap (mach.test)) id PAA05366; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 15:55:25 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000614160313.00865100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 16:03:13 +0200 To: "Todd Zimnoch" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: End of L68B In-Reply-To: <20000613221101.80344.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 15:11 13/06/00 PDT, Todd Zimnoch wrote: >>From: Steve Willner > > So, one can neither claim nor concede without simulaneously doing both. > Do you agree with this statement? It was the lemma I was trying to draw >you to. AG : the case I brought to you shows the headaches that use of this lemma could cause : since a claim could consist, according to most of the answers, of a line of play *only*, without the specification of a number of tricks, what would the 'complementary number' be ; and what if somebidy claims _n_ tricks and concedes _x_ , with n + x not equal to 13 ? Also, what is the 'complementary number' if a declarer tables, saying 'I will make 10 or 11 tricks, according to the success of the spade finesse' ? To me, this is a perfectly correct claim, with statement of the relevant part of the line of play (I would consider, if any problem arises, that he immediately takes said finesse). But the number of tricks claimed is not univocally known. So, what did he concede ? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 15 00:22:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA09160 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 00:22:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA09155 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 00:22:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.0.ap (guppy)) id QAA25041; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 16:21:08 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/%I%.1.ap (mach.test)) id QAA22565; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 16:21:49 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000614162937.0086c100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 16:29:37 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. In-Reply-To: <39461668.D81C58EA@village.uunet.be> References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific> <001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific> <000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 13:09 13/06/00 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >> , but there >> is nothing new in the state of the law - it always was the >> case that what the law forbids is *making* the psychic >> call if an undisclosed partnership agreement exists. On this >> point the law speaks with clarity. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >If I make a psychic call (definition as per the Lawbook), >and the TD or AC determines that my partner had some more >knowledge about the possibility, they are to rule UPU, and >this makes the call itself inadmissible. AG : another problem might arise : Say my partner and me often psyche 1st in hand opening bids (which we don't - it creates more WOMBAT than good scores). This creates a specific understanding, so I write on my convention card 'frequent psyches of opening'. But some authorities specifically disallow systems where partner is fully aware of the possibility of a psyche, and is prepared to account for it (like original Roth-Stone). For example, if I hold a 4333 16-count, partner opens 1S and I answer a forcing 1NT, and if he sometimes psyches his 1S openings, and if this is the reason why I didn't make another systemic bid (say a Jacoby 2NT), this is very near 'psychic control', which is often disallowed. So, putting 2 and 2 together, it means that, if my partner psyches twice or thrice the same (kind of) bid, we aren't allowed to do it any more. Even if we take all care to disclose everything. Not really what the Lawmaker intended. A. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 15 00:45:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA09249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 00:45:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA09243 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 00:45:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.0.ap (resu)) id QAA01797; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 16:46:52 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/%I%.1.ap (mach.test)) id QAA08751; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 16:45:12 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000614165300.008446c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 16:53:00 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: End of L68B In-Reply-To: <39475FCD.A17C5BA6@village.uunet.be> References: <200006131916.PAA25101@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:34 14/06/00 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > >Either every concession is a claim, or it isn't. AG : sorry for interrupting when not having heard the beginning of your conversation, but you all have overlooked an important fact, a mathematical fact if I dare say. If concessions and claims were the same thing, the Lawmaker wouldn't have taken care to treat them separately. Thus, if you are to respect the spirit of the Laws (don't we all ?), there is some distinction to be made. A. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 15 03:02:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA09760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 03:02:56 +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 DAA09753 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 03:02:47 +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 L0B8A2RB; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:02:38 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-1251120266==_ma============" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <200006121456.KAA19535@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:03:45 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: Claims and Concessions [was: End of L68B] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --============_-1251120266==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Ed Reppert wrote: >Sixth, when *declarer* claims or concedes, an opponent, but not >dummy, may object [Law 68 D]. In this case, the TD applies Law 70 or >71 as appropriate; there is no further play. Dummy may object to an >opponent's claim or concession. > But this is not what 68D says. It says "D. Play Ceases After any claim or concession, play ceases. All play subsequent to a claim or concession shall be voided by the Director. If the claim or concession is acquiesced in, Law 69 applies; if it is disputed by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately to apply Law 70 or Law 71, and no action may be taken pending the Director's arrival. " Surely, this means what it says! "...If it is disputed by any player (dummy included) ..." No limitation on what dummy can dispute. REH Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 --============_-1251120266==_ma============ Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Ed Reppert wrote: >Sixth, when *declarer* claims or concedes, an opponent, but not >dummy, may object [Law 68 D]. In this case, the TD applies Law 70 or >71 as appropriate; there is no further play. Dummy may object to an >opponent's claim or concession. > But this is not what 68D says. It says "TimesD. Play Ceases After any claim or concession, play ceases. All play subsequent to a claim or concession shall be voided by the Director. If the claim or concession is acquiesced in, Law 69 applies; if it is disputed by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately to apply Law 70 or Law 71, and no action may be taken pending the Director's arrival. " Surely, this means what it says! "...If it is disputed by any player (dummy included) ..." No limitation on what dummy can dispute. REH Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 --============_-1251120266==_ma============-- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 15 04:10:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA10154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 04:10:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f8.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA10149 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 04:10:02 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 41762 invoked by uid 0); 14 Jun 2000 18:09:25 -0000 Message-ID: <20000614180925.41761.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.23 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:09:25 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.23] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: End of L68B Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:09:25 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: alain gottcheiner >At 12:34 14/06/00 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >Either every concession is a claim, or it isn't. > >AG : sorry for interrupting when not having heard the beginning of your >conversation, but you all have overlooked an important fact, a mathematical >fact if I dare say. > >If concessions and claims were the same thing, the Lawmaker wouldn't have >taken care to treat them separately. Thus, if you are to respect the >spirit of the Laws (don't we all ?), there is some distinction to be made. The metric for awarding a trick is the same regardless of whether the statement was a claim or a concession. If there'a a normal line of play that fails, you don't get the trick. That is how L70 is ruled and the contrapositive is in L71. Quite frankly, there's nothing unique in L71. L70 specifies guidelines and ultimately leaves the decision up to the director's judgement. I challenge those who say that the concession is cancelled and play ceases to come up with a situation where the eventual ruling is different than if the concession were not cancelled. There is no point to cancelling a concession, maintaining a claim, and then going on as if you would ordinarily have to deliver two rulings but are now reduced to one. Spirit of the Law. I still maintain that the writers did at least try to make the laws as straight forward as possible. If the law makers' intent were that play continues only where there has been an objection to a concession of all the remaining tricks, L68B would read "if a defender attempts to concede all the remaining tricks" rather than "one or more." -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 15 04:16:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA10203 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 04:16:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f278.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.56]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA10198 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 04:16:07 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 88332 invoked by uid 0); 14 Jun 2000 18:15:29 -0000 Message-ID: <20000614181529.88331.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.23 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:15:29 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.23] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Claim laws revisited (or outright rewritten) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:15:29 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk With everything else I think about the current claim laws said, if I were rewriting the claim laws, I would go on the following basis. Biggest changes, you can withdraw your own claim, play could continue after the director's arrival, and there's no such beast as a concession. Comments and hole-punching appreciated. -Todd Part V Claims Law 68 Definition and immediate effects A. Claim defined Any statement or action that suggests a final result for the hand is a claim. Claimer is required to immediately suggest a new result if the previous result is inconsistent with the number of tricks already won or lost on the hand. B. Claim voided If a defender claims and there is an immediate objection to the claim by his partner, the claim has not happened, Law 68D shall not apply, any cards exposed become UI to defenders’ partner rather than penalty cards, and the Director should be summoned forthwith as Law 16 may apply. C. Claim statement A statement expressing how that result will be achieved should accompany a claim. D. Play ceases After a claim, play ceases. If a claim is contested, the Director must be summoned forthwith. Play made between calling for the Director and his arrival are to be voided. E. Board scored If there is no contest to the claim, the board is scored as suggested previously by Law 68A. Law 69 Acquiescence Removed Law 70 Contested claim A. Objective Any player, dummy and claimer included, can contest a claim. When a claim is contested before the start of the next board/round, Law 70B applies. Otherwise, if it is still within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C, Law 70C applies. B. Awarding of tricks Claimer will receive the least number of tricks possible by an opponent’s suggested line-of-play that is not inconsistent with the claim statement. For the purpose of this law, suggested lines-of-play will not be used unless a peer of that player would seriously it consider given the same knowledge about the hand. C. Awarding of tricks Claimer will receive the least of: 1. the number of tricks awarded by the original claim 2. the maximum number of tricks possible by any legal play of the cards D. Abandoning the claim statement The claim statement will be abandoned if it itself is inconsistent with the actual hand. No new claim statement will be accepted and Law 70B will apply with a null claim statement. E. Abuse of contest Any player found to routinely contest claims solely on the hope of being awarded an extra trick by Law 70B may be found in contempt of Law 74B5. A player should sincerely believe that the claimer has some misconception of the hand and will misplay it. Law 71 Concession Canceled Removed ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 15 09:35:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA11050 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 09:35:18 +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 JAA11045 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 09:35:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 132MgQ-0008ft-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:34:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:37:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claims and Concessions [was: End of L68B] References: <200006121456.KAA19535@cfa183.harvard.edu> <39475EB1.63F7A66F@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <39475EB1.63F7A66F@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: >Ed Reppert wrote: >> Fifth, when *both* a concession and a claim have occurred, and the >> (defending) claimer/conceder's partner objects, the concession is >> cancelled, but the *claim* must still be adjudicated *by the TD*. >I agree that the claim can be adjudicated. But play first >must continue. Perhaps you could explain how you reconcile this comment with the Law that says that play ceases after a 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 Thu Jun 15 13:56:17 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA12151 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:56:17 +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 NAA12145 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:56:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-1054l3m.dsl.mindspring.com [64.82.84.118]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA20609 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:55:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000614235439.0133ce30@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:54:39 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. In-Reply-To: <001701bfd5fb$6c96e840$532f37d2@laptop> References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific> <001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific> <000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona> <39461668.D81C58EA@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:23 AM 6/15/2000 +1200, Wayne wrote: >One contradiction I find in this whole argument is that as soon as you say >that there is an (implicit) undisclosed agreement then the bid no longer >becomes a psyche. That is you cannot argue both that the "psyche" is a part >of some undisclosed agreement and that it is a "gross misdescription". The >bid is either a psyche or it is part of your agreements it cannot be both. >Those who argue against psyches seem to want it to be both. No, it is entirely consistent to argue that a psyche is both a "gross misdescription" and part of an undisclosed agreement. If you and your partner have "agreement", even if implicitly derived from prior relevant partnership experience, that a particular bid in a given situation is apt to be psychic, then the information conveyed to the opponents (whether explicitly or inferentially) is a gross misdescription of your hand. The problem is that it is not a misdescription to your partner, who can guess what is happening, having been here before. >There seems to be a hidden agenda amoung the law and regulation makers to >discourage psyches. WBF and National bodies publish regulations restricting >psyches (in many ways). I agree with you that there does seem to be such an agenda, but disagree with your characterization of it as "hidden". It's right out there, at least in the ACBL. I think there are two rather distinct forces driving this attitude. One is the entirely legitimate concern (expounded most eloquently by Grattan) that psychic bidding within a regular partnership can establish implicit partnership agreements that are not shared with the opponents. If your partner knows that you are apt to psyche in a particular situation, and takes care to protect against that possibility, then you have taken unfair advantage of the opponents. A central principle of our game is that bidding methods should be completely open. Perhaps this principle could be discarded, but the result would be a very different game than what we enjoy today. The second factor motivating the hostility toward psychic bidding in many quarters is what I call the LOL factor. Good players understand that psyches are a legitimate tactic, even if many of them choose not to partake. But most players are not good, and almost nothing is more upsetting to the average club player than to be victimized by a successful psyche. This has nothing to do with CPU's or the like. It just isn't fair that someone should mess up their game with a lie (or so they think). It seems like cheating, somehow. I don't know about the state of bridge outside of North America, but the ACBL has reason to be concerned about the health of the game and its long-term prospects for survival, never mind growth. And if psychic bidding is seen as disruptive and discomfitting by the bulk of its members, then you can bet that measures will be taken, and to hell with the Laws. How much of this kind of pressure makes its way to the WBFLC? I really can't say. I certainly take Grattan at his word that he is not personally opposed to psychic bidding per se, and I suppose that the people involved at the highest level of the law-making bodies generally understand and appreciate the proper role of psyches in the game. But I also detect in some of Grattan's comments more generally the whiff of political interplay. It is obvious that the WBFLC is sensitive to the concerns of SO's, and the more restrictive (IMO) approach to the problem of regulating psyches embodied in the CoP may well represent a trade-off in which some deference to the concerns of the SO's is granted in return for the promise of greater uniformity in the application of the Laws. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 15 14:55:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA12573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:55:01 +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 OAA12568 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:54:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([210.55.45.221]) by mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000615045418.UIRF12761555.mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop>; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:54:18 +1200 Message-ID: <045201bfd680$f9e29fc0$b62d37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific><001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific><000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona><39461668.D81C58EA@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.20000614235439.0133ce30@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:19:56 +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 From: "Michael S. Dennis" > At 12:23 AM 6/15/2000 +1200, Wayne wrote: > > >One contradiction I find in this whole argument is that as soon as you say > >that there is an (implicit) undisclosed agreement then the bid no longer > >becomes a psyche. That is you cannot argue both that the "psyche" is a part > >of some undisclosed agreement and that it is a "gross misdescription". The > >bid is either a psyche or it is part of your agreements it cannot be both. > >Those who argue against psyches seem to want it to be both. > > No, it is entirely consistent to argue that a psyche is both a "gross > misdescription" and part of an undisclosed agreement. If you and your > partner have "agreement", even if implicitly derived from prior relevant > partnership experience, that a particular bid in a given situation is apt > to be psychic, then the information conveyed to the opponents (whether > explicitly or inferentially) is a gross misdescription of your hand. The > problem is that it is not a misdescription to your partner, who can guess > what is happening, having been here before. > No. The laws define a "psychic bid" as "A gross misdescription..." thus it is the bid that needs to be a "gross misdescription" of your hand not that the explaination of the bid is a "gross misdescription". The explaination is simply incorrect. These examples may illustrate my point: 1. If I open 1S and it is explained as per our agreement by partner as 13+ with 5+ spades or weak with or without spades then when I turn out to have a balanced 3 count I have not psyched because the bid of 1S is not a gross misdescription (relative to our agreement). 2. With the same agreement as in 1. (even if it has been established only implicitly) if I open 1S but partner omits to give the weak part of the explaination then I still have not psyched (the hand does fit in with our agreements) but there has either been a mistaken explaination or (more seriously) we have a CPU. That is as soon as you establish that we have an agreement or understanding to open 1S with various weak hands then when I open 1S with such a hand that bid is not and can not be in any way misdescription of my hand. Of course such an agreement may be subject to some other regulation. Wayne Burrows From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 15 16:22:07 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA12925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:22:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA12920 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:21:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-1054g3m.dsl.mindspring.com [64.82.64.118]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id CAA20799 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 02:21:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <048001bfd691$fd0db840$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <002001bfd44f$3b676540$98b4f1c3@kooijman> <39461255.45E2597F@village.uunet.be> <4JZV2RAE91R5EwjS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: End of L68B Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 02:21:48 -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: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 6:32 AM Subject: Re: End of L68B > Herman De Wael wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> > >> > >> L68B is perfectly clear: when a player concedes some but not all of > >> the remaining tricks then he has claimed the remainder, and there is > >> nothing in L68B about a defender stopping a claim happening by objecting > >> to his partner's concession. It would have been easy enough for the > >> Lawmakers to include this in the Law if it had been what they intended. > >> > > > >Now David, really. RTFLB :-) > > > >L68B : "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of > >the remainder, if any" > > > >"if a defender attempts to concede ... and his partner > >immediately objects". > > > >So If I claim two tricks out of three, I have conceded one. > >If my partner objects, play continues. > > > >And really this is what the Lawmakers intended. If I claim > >three tricks out of three, and my partner realises there is > >something wrong with the claim which can be solved by > >playing on, he cannot object. In that case really there was > >no concession (no tricks left to concede), so play cannot go > >on. > > > >That is why the Lawmakers wrote "concession", not "claim". > > > >Now I have seen some light : perhaps the original case was > >concerned with a claim for all tricks ? In that case, you > >are right David, to keep hammering the point, but you should > >have done so more clearly. > > > >Otherwise, David, you are simply wrong. > > A concession of two tricks out of three is a claim of one trick. > After a claim, play ceases. So, Herman, you are just wrong. > > -- One thing is clear: 68B could be written much more clearly. However, there are two aspects of it that make me think Herman has the correct ruling. First, the statement "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder" is unnecessary, unless it is intended to indicate that a partial claim is to be treated as a concession for the purposes of 68B. The phrase may be more than a statement of the obvious, it may in fact be a definition that is intended to tell us to handle this situation as a concession rather than a claim. Second, the end of 68B invokes L16, which is only relevant if play is continuing. If the Lawmakers had intended play to stop in all cases except a concession of all tricks, it would have been much simpler to say it outright. Note also that 68B does not refer to 68D. Instead, it describes a very clear sequence of events: A defender attempts to concede one or more tricks, partner objects, the concession is cancelled, and the TD is summoned specifically to apply Law 16, if needed. There is no latitude in this sequence for the TD to suddenly invoke 68D and halt play- the only reason given to summon the TD at all is to apply L16, which can only happen if play is to continue. IMO the whole argument about what is a concession and what is a claim is simply sematic hair splitting that is missing the point. If the TD simply does what 68B tells us he is summoned to do (insure that L16 is properly applied) the ruling is easy. Hirsch Davis Rockville, MD USA From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 15 21:25:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA13930 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:25:28 +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 VAA13906 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:25:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-159.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.159]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA29575 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:24:58 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3948A9A6.BF93FF4F@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:02:14 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: End of L68B References: <002001bfd44f$3b676540$98b4f1c3@kooijman> <39461255.45E2597F@village.uunet.be> <4JZV2RAE91R5EwjS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > > >Otherwise, David, you are simply wrong. > > A concession of two tricks out of three is a claim of one trick. > After a claim, play ceases. So, Herman, you are just wrong. > A concession is cancelled if partner objects. A cancelled concession is no concession. No concession, no claim. So, David, you are just wrong. We can go on for hours like this, we shall never agree. And really, it doesn't matter. This type of case will simply never come up. Have you ever really seen it, David ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 15 21:25:29 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA13931 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:25:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA13907 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:25:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-159.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.159]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA29591 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:25:02 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3948ADD5.E4278736@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:20:05 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific><001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific> <000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona> <39461668.D81C58EA@village.uunet.be> <001701bfd5fb$6c96e840$532f37d2@laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thak you Wayne, for what you wrote : Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > > No one has ever suggested that the call be made invalid per > > L40A. > > > > I don't agree with this and other attacks of psyches. > I hope you were not thinking I was making an attack on psyches, jsut the contrary ! > Nevertheless I think the logic at this point is that the undisclosed > agreement is illegal in the case of a psyche - it is either a prohibited > convention or an agreement to open light opening and such agreements are > often subject to regulations. > That is most people's logic, not mine. > One contradiction I find in this whole argument is that as soon as you say > that there is an (implicit) undisclosed agreement then the bid no longer > becomes a psyche. That is you cannot argue both that the "psyche" is a part > of some undisclosed agreement and that it is a "gross misdescription". The > bid is either a psyche or it is part of your agreements it cannot be both. > Those who argue against psyches seem to want it to be both. > I don't mind if they call it both, as long as they don't deduce from it that it must be prohibited. I can live with an obligation to disclose "psyching" tendencies. I can live with a ruling that goes : Suppose I open 1He, third seat, on 1 HCP. Defenders find out that I don't have 11HCP, and now play me for every missing honour. The TD could rule that if my CC had mentioned that I may well open 1He in third seat with 0-3 HCP, opponents would have defended differently, and he adjusts based on that. I can live with that. I cannot live with a ruling that says that since this means I have a CPU, the bid becomes illegal as such, or that it is a systemic weak opening, which is forbidden. > Bluff and counter-bluff are a part of nearly every game. There are two > (legitimate) ways to win - Playing well and enticing our opponents to play > poorly. I guess the second is really just a variation on the former. A > psyche is just one of many ways of enticing your opponents into error. > Others are false cards, deliberate overbids or underbids (not gross > misstatements). In my opinion to remove or to restrict psyches diminishes > the game of Contract Bridge. > Hear hear ! > The laws clearly distinguish between partnership agreement and partnership > experience. (L75) "Agreements" need to be disclosed (L75A) in addition > "experience" needs to be explained when answering questions (L75C). The Law > also distinguishes between special agreements and experience and general > bridge knowledge and experience. Special agreements and experience only > need to be disclosed while general bridge knowledge need not. It is general > bridge knowledge that a player is willingly allowed to violate partnership > agreements and understandings (even gross violations - psyches). And it is > general bridge knowledge that some situations lend themselves to psyches. > > In addition Law 75B states that habitual violations of announced agreements > "may", but presumably not necessarily "will", create an implicit agreement . > Yes, but that is not my point. What happens when they do ? I believe it creates axactly the same situation as with a failure to alert, or any other misinformation. L12C2. > Unfortunately Law40 uses a different word "understanding". However I > believe this is synonymous with "agreement" or at least more closely aligned > with that term. My reason for this is that partner may not agree with nor > understand my violations of our agreements and understandings (gross or > otherwise). To my mind this is sufficient for those violations not to be > agreements and not for them to be understandings. Therefore they do not > need to be disclosed nor made available ahead of time. > There really needs to be a better understanding of all these terms. > An example that I have used here before although it is not a psyche ( I > simply don't psyche often enough) it is a violation of partnership agreement > even a habitual one. In NZ 1NT outside the range 11-15 (wholely or in part) > needs to be alerted. I regularly play a range of 12-15. I am also a > notorious underbidder with balanced hands. So I open 1NT with a large > number of balanced 16 counts and pass a number of balanced 12 counts. > Nevertheless I don't expect partner to alert my 1NT opening nor do I believe > it is required. I happen to believe it is required, but then I don't know the way the NZ alert regulation is worded. Surely I would expect your CC to be marked 12-15(16) or something. > On the other hand I believe he acts properly when > questioned about our range in saying that my effective range is 12-16. It > is my personal judgement when to downgrade a 16 count and not a matter for > partnership agreement. Law40E acknowledges that the two members of a > partnership may play the same system and yet still exercise different > judgement. > > In my experience and opinion most psyches are a matter of personal judgement > or style and not based on a partnership agreement or understanding and > therefore are not subject to the restrictions of L40 and L75. That is if I > open 1S on a small doubleton I would be thinking (for good or ill) that *I* > am judging to psyche on this board/situation and not that we have a > partnership agreement to psyche here. That is in contrast with > when I open 1S with a 13 count and five decent spades when I would be > thinking that this hand meets our agreed requirement for a 1S opening. > > What I dislike is that when a player risks a psyche there seems to be a > presumption that that player has done something illegal and that the onus is > on that player to establish innocence. In order to establish wrong doing I > think that it is not sufficient just to note that we survived this > particular auction or that we have psyched once or twice before. Such a > regulation is in my opinion at best abitrary and can only lead to bad > feeling when a legitimate successful action is penalized. > Exactly. > There seems to be a hidden agenda amoung the law and regulation makers to > discourage psyches. WBF and National bodies publish regulations restricting > psyches (in many ways). They always say they don't, and I believe them. The trouble is that they come up with regulations that are worded in such ways that people who want to banish psyching can use to effectively ban the psych. > In a lot of cases these regulations appear to me to > be contrary to a plain reading of the laws. For example my National Body > has a regulation prohibiting excessive psyching and defines excessive as > more than two psyches per session. This seems to be in direct conflict with > Law40A which allows "... any call ..." > May I quote you on that ? I am accused of excessive psyching in my area. I psyche probably once every month. > Finally > > Psyches are fun. > Psyches don't always work. > > Lets keep psyches as a legitmate part of our game. > > I for one believe that they are add to the fasination of our great game. :-) > I agree ! > Wayne Burrows -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 15 21:25:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA13929 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:25:28 +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 VAA13905 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:25:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-159.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.159]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA29582 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:25:00 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3948AA66.746C04F7@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:05:26 +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: End of L68B References: <200006131916.PAA25101@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.6.32.20000614165300.008446c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner wrote: > > At 12:34 14/06/00 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >Either every concession is a claim, or it isn't. > > AG : sorry for interrupting when not having heard the beginning of your > conversation, but you all have overlooked an important fact, a mathematical > fact if I dare say. > > If concessions and claims were the same thing, the Lawmaker wouldn't have > taken care to treat them separately. Thus, if you are to respect the > spirit of the Laws (don't we all ?), there is some distinction to be made. > > A. Indeed Alain, and the difference is this : a claim for all tricks is not a concession. So in that case partner cannot object and ask play to continue. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 15 21:25:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA13935 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:25:31 +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 VAA13920 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:25:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-159.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.159]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA29598 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:25:07 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3948AE99.CDB1A50@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:23:21 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific> <001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific> <000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona> <39461668.D81C58EA@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.20000614235439.0133ce30@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: > > At 12:23 AM 6/15/2000 +1200, Wayne wrote: > > >One contradiction I find in this whole argument is that as soon as you say > >that there is an (implicit) undisclosed agreement then the bid no longer > >becomes a psyche. That is you cannot argue both that the "psyche" is a part > >of some undisclosed agreement and that it is a "gross misdescription". The > >bid is either a psyche or it is part of your agreements it cannot be both. > >Those who argue against psyches seem to want it to be both. > > No, it is entirely consistent to argue that a psyche is both a "gross > misdescription" and part of an undisclosed agreement. If you and your > partner have "agreement", even if implicitly derived from prior relevant > partnership experience, that a particular bid in a given situation is apt > to be psychic, then the information conveyed to the opponents (whether > explicitly or inferentially) is a gross misdescription of your hand. The > problem is that it is not a misdescription to your partner, who can guess > what is happening, having been here before. > So, the remedy is to disclose it. On the CC, probably. And then all hell breaks loose. That is what I am arguing against. The Lawmakers, or not them really, rathere, the regulation interpreters force psychers to : either keep the psyches undisclosed, or : never to do it. And they won't admit that this is what they are doing. Please allow me to put on my CC the manner and frequency with which I am apt to psyche. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 15 21:25:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA13934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:25:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA13904 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:25:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-159.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.159]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA29563; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:24:56 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3948A53E.B4325273@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:43:26 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: alain gottcheiner , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: End of L68B References: <20000613221101.80344.qmail@hotmail.com> <3.0.6.32.20000614164927.0086eab0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner wrote to me in private : (Alain, there is no need to do this, your comments are welcome on the list as well) It is not good netiquette to reply on-list to a private comment, but there is not a lot in what Alain wrote that cannot bear greater airing. > I'm quite > >certain that in such a case it does not really matter if > >play continues or not. I'm sure that L16 and L50 are quite > >sufficient in those cases. > > AG : well ... what if the cards are like this : > > > irrelevant > > S K S - > H x H - > D - D xxx > C x C - > > S AQ > H A > D - > > South plays a spade contract. East is to play, and says 'my partner makes > one top trump'. This isn't true, but his side is truly and fairly entitled > to one trick (barring irrational play, that is, underruffing on S/A). > Perhaps East meant 'my partner makes one trump, because it will become > high'. Anyway, you have to rule as if there has been a contested claim, and > adjudicate one trick to E/W, or you would be the irrational one. > > A. Indeed. But the theoretical problem remains. This case just illustrates why the theoretical problem is just that, a theoretical one. Try constructing a case where it matters whether or not play continues. That would mean that there is a normal line which would lead to a trick less for defence (so it must count if it is a claim), but there are no logical alternatives to the play (so the UI won't matter). Let's forget this discussion. Let's agree that play only has to continue if there has been a concession of all tricks, and that in other cases UI and Claim Laws will result in the same ruling. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 15 22:18:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA14240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:18:40 +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 WAA14235 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:18:32 +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 132YbA-00010R-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:18:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 00:42:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: End of L68B References: <20000614180925.41761.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000614180925.41761.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: alain gottcheiner >>At 12:34 14/06/00 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >> > >> >Either every concession is a claim, or it isn't. >> >>AG : sorry for interrupting when not having heard the beginning of your >>conversation, but you all have overlooked an important fact, a mathematical >>fact if I dare say. >> >>If concessions and claims were the same thing, the Lawmaker wouldn't have >>taken care to treat them separately. Thus, if you are to respect the >>spirit of the Laws (don't we all ?), there is some distinction to be made. > > The metric for awarding a trick is the same regardless of whether the >statement was a claim or a concession. If there'a a normal line of play >that fails, you don't get the trick. That is how L70 is ruled and the >contrapositive is in L71. > Quite frankly, there's nothing unique in L71. L70 specifies guidelines >and ultimately leaves the decision up to the director's judgement. I >challenge those who say that the concession is cancelled and play ceases to >come up with a situation where the eventual ruling is different than if the >concession were not cancelled. There is no point to cancelling a >concession, maintaining a claim, and then going on as if you would >ordinarily have to deliver two rulings but are now reduced to one. > > Spirit of the Law. I still maintain that the writers did at least try >to make the laws as straight forward as possible. If the law makers' intent >were that play continues only where there has been an objection to a >concession of all the remaining tricks, L68B would read "if a defender >attempts to concede all the remaining tricks" rather than "one or more." Whatever they tried, they obviously failed in this case. You consider the above straightforward: to me, nothing is more straightforward than that after a claim play ceases, and it has amazed me that some people are willing to allow play after a 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 Thu Jun 15 22:18:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA14234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:18:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA14228 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:18:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 132Yay-0007Jh-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:18:05 +0000 Message-ID: <+d1Uz+A6wBS5Ewbj@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 00:58:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: End of L68B References: <200006131916.PAA25101@cfa183.harvard.edu> <39475FCD.A17C5BA6@village.uunet.be> <3.0.6.32.20000614165300.008446c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000614165300.008446c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner wrote: >At 12:34 14/06/00 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>Either every concession is a claim, or it isn't. > >AG : sorry for interrupting when not having heard the beginning of your >conversation, but you all have overlooked an important fact, a mathematical >fact if I dare say. > >If concessions and claims were the same thing, the Lawmaker wouldn't have >taken care to treat them separately. Thus, if you are to respect the >spirit of the Laws (don't we all ?), there is some distinction to be made. I think it may no longer be clear to everyone what everyone thinks, since so many posts recently have been fragmentary. In my view, when someone attempts to curtail play in a fairly obvious fashion, he has claimed and/or conceded. A claim is a suggestion that the claimer [and his partner] will make one or more of the remaining tricks. A concession is a suggestion that the claimer [and his partner] will lose one or more of the remaining tricks. Thus a suggestion that the claimer [and his partner] will win one or more but not all of the remaining tricks is a both a claim and a concession. After a claim, play ceases, so further play is never possible once a player has claimed one or more of the outstanding tricks. After a concession which is not a claim, ie a concession of all the remaining tricks, a defender's partner may object: then there has been no concession, and play continues with the normal UI caveats. After a concession which is a claim, ie a concession of some but not all of the remaining tricks, a defender's partner may object: then there has been no concession, but the claim still needs to be dealt with by the TD. Ok, I know that some people do not agree, but really the main arguments against this line so far seem to have been: [1] It isn't so, nyer. [2] What about claims and concessions of zero tricks? [3] It is obviously wrong. Now I believe that the wording of the claim Laws support my view strongly. I agree with Todd, for example, that a different set of claim Laws might be a good idea [though the present ones work pretty well with reasonable TDs and ACs: we really have been discussing exceptional cases] but at the moment we want to know how to rule in these cases under the current Law book. Perhaps someone who disagrees with me would like to tell me why. Where is Burn when you need him? About two to three years ago, it was he who convinced this list, myself, and ultimately a group of good Directors of the approach I have outlined above. Come back, David, and explain why it is 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 Thu Jun 15 23:32:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA14412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:02:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from alisier.wanadoo.fr (smtp-rt-9.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.55]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA14407 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:02:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from amyris.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.150) by alisier.wanadoo.fr; 15 Jun 2000 15:01:52 +0200 Received: from cllubintplord (193.250.107.130) by amyris.wanadoo.fr; 15 Jun 2000 15:01:31 +0200 Message-ID: <003e01bfd6ca$44425940$826bfac1@cllubintplord> From: "olivier beauvillain" To: "Liste Arbitrage" Subject: Tr: 12 + 2 = 13 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:04:39 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: olivier beauvillain To: Steve Willner Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 10:04 AM Subject: Re: 12 + 2 = 13 > > > > > > > > > This is an interesting point. We have to rule under L71A because the > > time for L71C has presumably expired. (Again, unless you read the > > initial sentence fragment without regard to the rest of L71C.) What > > does it mean to "win" a trick when there has been a claim? > When you claim "4H tricks, 5D and 3S", it's exactly the same as if you played those cards in the right order. As long it's possible... > > > > > > From: "olivier beauvillain" > > > It's clear for me : 12 tricks > > > Law 68C is OK : You gave a clear explanation : all my top tricks. > > > > This looks right to me. The claim statement was clear and unambiguous, > > so 12 tricks are won on the basis of the claim. They weren't all > > played out individually, but that doesn't matter. > > > > Imagine that declarer had played the first 12 tricks, then (perhaps > > because dummy didn't turn the last card) said "You get two." We > > wouldn't have any trouble then. > May be it's a case for Victor Mollo : declarer made 12 and defense the last two. Sorry, I'am jocking. You claim for your tricks in S, H and D. You get them, witch are 3+4+5. Even if you can't count them, you must take 12. As long as you play with 13 cards, opponents get the remainder, and it's only 1. What happen if after winning JS (1 trick for you), you claim "S, H & D and say "the last 12(!) for you? Do you get 3NT+3 or 3NT-8? A good claim is a clear (and complete one). This one is. You get your word, no more, no less. A+OB From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 15 23:37:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA14503 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:37:33 +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 XAA14498 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:37:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-33qsqdv.dsl.mindspring.com [199.174.105.191]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA06320 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 09:37:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001e01bfd6ce$d221c9e0$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <20000613221101.80344.qmail@hotmail.com> <3.0.6.32.20000614164927.0086eab0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3948A53E.B4325273@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: End of L68B Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 09:37:15 -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: "alain gottcheiner" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 5:43 AM Subject: Re: End of L68B > > Let's agree that play only has to continue if there has been > a concession of all tricks, and that in other cases UI and > Claim Laws will result in the same ruling. > > -- Near the end of the hand, a defender may well have a complete count of the hand. In that case, his logical alternatives may be very clear. If an alternative action to a clear LA is ruled careless but not irrational, Claim Law may produce a poorer result for a defender than application of L16 at this point. The end of L68B does not simply say that the concession is cancelled. It says "Regardless of the foregoing, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred; Law 16, Unauthorized Information, may apply, so the Director should be summoned forthwith." "Regardless of the foregoing" leads me to believe that the LC was well aware of the confusion their wording could create, but they gave a procedure to be followed so that an intelligible ruling could be made anyway. The FLB says that the TD is at the table to administer L16, not to rule on the concession (or partial claim, if you must split hairs), which has already been cancelled by the objection. If the TD restricts himself to applying L16, which is the specific duty given to him under 68B, then there is no problem. Hirsch Davis Rockville, MD USA From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 16 00:27:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA14726 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 00:27:42 +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 AAA14721 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 00:27:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from 62wim.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 ESMTP id e5FERHW33721 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:27:18 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000615095521.00a98d80@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:28:14 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. In-Reply-To: <3948ADD5.E4278736@village.uunet.be> References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific> <001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific> <000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona> <39461668.D81C58EA@village.uunet.be> <001701bfd5fb$6c96e840$532f37d2@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:20 AM 6/15/00, Herman wrote: > > One contradiction I find in this whole argument is that as soon as you say > > that there is an (implicit) undisclosed agreement then the bid no longer > > becomes a psyche. That is you cannot argue both that the "psyche" is a > part > > of some undisclosed agreement and that it is a "gross misdescription". The > > bid is either a psyche or it is part of your agreements it cannot be both. > > Those who argue against psyches seem to want it to be both. > >I don't mind if they call it both, as long as they don't >deduce from it that it must be prohibited. Well, I would mind, if they only went that far. The ACBL does call it both. They do not deduce from that that it must be prohibited. They do, however, deduce that it *may* be prohibited (or otherwise regulated) without conflicting with L40A, as it is not "not based on a partnership understanding". There was a time when nobody questioned the right to psych because, in effect, the assumption that players in general (and therefore one's partners) might psych was consensually assumed to be "drawn from [one's] general knowledge and experience" [L75C]. The ACBL, however, no longer acknowledges that to be true. They argue that if you assume that your partner might psych, you presumtively do so based on "special information conveyed to [you] through... partnership experience", provided only that you have had previous experience of partner's psyching. Their various interpretations of the laws on the subject, taken together, constitute the ACBL's infamous, if unacknowledged, "one psych per partnership per lifetime" rule. Eric From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 16 02:27:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA15209 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 02:27:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f267.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.45]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA15204 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 02:27:51 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 24146 invoked by uid 0); 15 Jun 2000 16:27:12 -0000 Message-ID: <20000615162712.24145.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.23 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 09:27:12 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.23] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: End of L68B Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 09:27:12 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson > > Spirit of the Law. I still maintain that the writers did at least >try > >to make the laws as straight forward as possible. If the law makers' >intent > >were that play continues only where there has been an objection to a > >concession of all the remaining tricks, L68B would read "if a defender > >attempts to concede all the remaining tricks" rather than "one or more." > > Whatever they tried, they obviously failed in this case. You consider >the above straightforward: to me, nothing is more straightforward than >that after a claim play ceases, and it has amazed me that some people >are willing to allow play after a claim. Law 68B outlines an exception. The exception is stated in terms that do not directly correlate with how you would rule it. That is not straight forward. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 16 03:13:09 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA15325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 03:13:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f255.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.28]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA15319 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 03:13:01 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 53614 invoked by uid 0); 15 Jun 2000 17:12:23 -0000 Message-ID: <20000615171223.53613.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.23 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:12:23 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.23] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: End of L68B Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:12:23 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson > Ok, I know that some people do not agree, but really the main >arguments against this line so far seem to have been: > >[1] It isn't so, nyer. >[2] What about claims and concessions of zero tricks? >[3] It is obviously wrong. I despair that you pay so little attention to anyone's words but your own. [4] There is no point to cancelling a concession if you are going to rule that it is still a claim. [5] The LC that wrote 68B allow a concession to be cancelled anytime partner objects. [6] (assumption) That LC wasn't stupid. Why allow a concession to be cancelled if that will have no effect? I think that the LC intended that a cancelled concession would have an effect even in the case of a concession of fewer than all the remaining tricks. As you would rule, it cannot. We're dealing specifically with the defenders here. Suppose one defender claims and the other objects. Describe a circumstance where allowing play to continue with Law 16 in effect and TD's presence produces a result more undesireable than applying Law 70. Here's an example of the opposite. (Given time I could construct something less absurd.) A spade contract, club led by west to east's ace. x xxx Axxxx x xxxxx x x KQxxxxx West expects that south has the KC (partner ordinarily plays the queen with that holding) and his AH will be the only other trick. West says, "We'll only get one more," and east objects. With Law 16 in effect, east really doesn't have any UI. West could be thinking about a club ruff. West could be thinking about the AD (not in dummy). East has no information to favor exitting a heart, a diamond, or a club over the other two. Allow east to play it out for 1 or 2 more tricks. Suppose west said instead, "And we'll only get my AH." Now east has UI, will be forbidden to exit his heart, and a playout gets one more trick. If Law 70 were applied, E/W are stuck with only one trick. I think this is the way to go. You object to partner's claim because you think you can earn more tricks. Law 70 will rarely award them. A playout with Law 16 gives you a fighting chance. > Now I believe that the wording of the claim Laws support my view >strongly. I agree with Todd, for example, that a different set of claim >Laws might be a good idea [though the present ones work pretty well with >reasonable TDs and ACs: we really have been discussing exceptional >cases] but at the moment we want to know how to rule in these cases >under the current Law book. > > Perhaps someone who disagrees with me would like to tell me why. Ever see 112 facet diamonds with a crack inside? There's no sense in refining material when you believe the result will still be flawed. At the moment, I believe the priorities should be to decide what we'd want the laws to do. You (and others) want play to cease always unless it was a concession of all the remaining tricks. Your defense has been that's what the laws say, but I want a compelling reason for why we should allow the laws to say such a thing. I (and others) think that play should continue unless it was a claim for all the tricks. We should develop arguments outside of the currently written laws to decide which approach is preferable. Then the laws should be rewritten to achieve that effect. There are also discussions about redefining 'normal play' to be had. Do we want to treat all class of players the same when ruling or does a players' skill affect the ruling? -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 16 03:37:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA15396 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 03:37:30 +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 DAA15391 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 03:37:23 +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 L0B8B0MB; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:37:13 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000614235439.0133ce30@pop.mindspring.com> References: <001701bfd5fb$6c96e840$532f37d2@laptop> <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific> <001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific> <000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona> <39461668.D81C58EA@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:38:24 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mike Dennis wrote: (big snip) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 16 04:37:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA15674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 04:37:03 +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 EAA15669 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 04:36:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive460.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.192]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA09221; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:36:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002701bfd6f9$30482b20$c010f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:40:31 -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: Michael S. Dennis To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >The second factor motivating the hostility toward psychic bidding in many >quarters is what I call the LOL factor. Good players understand that >psyches are a legitimate tactic, even if many of them choose not to >partake. But most players are not good, and almost nothing is more >upsetting to the average club player than to be victimized by a successful >psyche. This has nothing to do with CPU's or the like. It just isn't fair >that someone should mess up their game with a lie (or so they think). It >seems like cheating, somehow. > >I don't know about the state of bridge outside of North America, but the >ACBL has reason to be concerned about the health of the game and its >long-term prospects for survival, never mind growth. And if psychic bidding >is seen as disruptive and discomfitting by the bulk of its members, then >you can bet that measures will be taken, and to hell with the Laws. > This continued pandering to the unskilled geriatric set may in large part explain WHY there must be concern about the health of the game in North America. Old players are leaving the game through death and disability, and young ones are deterred by obsessive and illegal restrictions on their bidding, Since the Don Oakie article the game has consistently receded in popularity in our zone. While other activities (television for example) have claimed much of the bridge market, the anti-psych tell people how to bid psychology may have a lot more than a correlation explained solely by coincidence. Why is bridge not dying elsewhere? Perhaps it is because more innovation and flair is permitted. If the ACBL persists in committing suicide through over-regulation, that is no reason for the rest of the world to follow suit. Psychs are a legitimate and fun part of the game. The British model seems to be a not bad means of regulating abuse while not killing the game. And it is there and on the continent (where bidding appears even more free) that bridge is flourishing. Is there a message here? While we need full disclosure, I do not think we need to make the entire game over to protect mediocre players from their own stodginess, incompetence and inability to develop. Psychs should ALWAYS be legal; only improper fielding by partner should be a potential reason to grant redress. Let's face it, we know when a pair is operating beyond the bounds with CPU's. The real difficulty is penalising without accusation or slander. That's why the regulations must be more washy than wishy. But good TD's can and do sort it out. I gather psyching at the YC remains rather freewheeling, John? Is there not some permissiveness in your games, Herman? One psych per partner per lifetime is bad for bridge, period. How do the rest of you actually like to play? What is it like in the games in which you participate or direct. And, as a corrolary, how well is bridge doing in your area in terms of table count and enthusiam? -- Craig From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 16 04:58:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA15745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 04:58:38 +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 EAA15740 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 04:58:31 +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 L0B8CFK1; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:58:22 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <003401bfd6f9$eee132c0$c010f7a5@oemcomputer> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:59:33 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >that certainly IS a bid snip! > >:-) Craig > Sorry about that! Mike Dennis wrote: (big snip) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 16 05:10:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA15798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 05:10:42 +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 FAA15793 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 05:10:34 +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 MAA16358 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:10:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gateway.tandem.com (4.20/4.11) id AA11577; 15 Jun 0 12:09:08 -0700 Date: 15 Jun 0 12:06:00 -0700 Message-Id: <200006151209.AA11577@gateway.tandem.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: A Two-month Hiatus Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'll be out of the office for about two months, so I'm going to suspend my s*bscr*ption to BLML, at least from work. When I feel up to it, I may s*bscr*be from home. Anyone silly enough to want to copy me on any interesting items, or just to chat, can still get me at home: wwfiv@home.com Good luck, pleasant discourse and argument to you all. Regards, WWFiv (Wally Farley) Los Gatos, CA {ACBL District 21} From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 16 05:50:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA15932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 05:50:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f208.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.208]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA15927 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 05:50:18 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 34533 invoked by uid 0); 15 Jun 2000 19:49:40 -0000 Message-ID: <20000615194940.34532.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.23 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:49:40 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.23] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Retraction of final pass Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:49:40 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Declarer has tapped her bidding cards to indicate a final pass. As I (LHO) go to pick up my stack of cards, she relizes that the contract has been doubled and wants to change her pass to a bid. Everyone at the table agreed that it wasn't without pause for thought, so 25A doesn't apply. 25B expires after I would have made a call, but I can't make a call. The lead hasn't been pulled from hand, let alone faced. Ambiguity. 17E is unclear whether the auction ends after the 3rd pass or when the lead is faced. I assume when the lead is faced. 22B says that the final bid becomes the contract after the auction has ended, then play begins. So the lead is made before the contract is established, hmm... splitting hairs. In anycase, can the final pass be retracted? If the new call is not accepted, would it be ruled under 25B2b2? As it was, director made the final pass stand. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 16 07:32:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA16252 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 07:32:47 +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 HAA16247 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 07:32:40 +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 L0B8CQCC; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:32:32 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:33:43 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: WBF Position on Psychics Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk One last Try!!! >that certainly IS a bid snip! > >:-) Craig > Sorry about that! Mike Dennis wrote: (big snip) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 16 07:39:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA16291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 07:39:57 +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 HAA16285 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 07:39:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([210.55.46.120]) by mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000615213914.RQVB20783102.mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:39:14 +1200 Message-ID: <000b01bfd712$345f30a0$782e37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: Subject: Revoke Law62C - Poor wording of heading Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:39:33 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The heading here relates to subsequent cards played to the trick but the text in L62C1 uses "any card he may have played". The text is more reasonable and I assume is what applies as after a revoke and a lead to the next trick and then the opponent notices a non-established revoke, corrects the revoke thus winning the previous trick the card led to the next trick must surely be allowed to be replaced in the hand. Is anyone collecting these minor revisions? I got caught out on Saturday when under some pressure from a number of calls and being the sole director with 24 tables I could not find a law that related to the card led to the next trick. I kept scanning the heading and bypassing L62C. Eventually I ruled using my common sense which fortunately on this occasion seems to match what L62C1 says. Wayne Burrows From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 16 07:59:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA16382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 07:59:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.15]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA16377 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 07:59:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([210.55.46.120]) by mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000615215830.RWMK20783102.mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:58:30 +1200 Message-ID: <00a301bfd714$e52fdc20$782e37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <20000614181529.88331.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Claim laws revisited (or outright rewritten) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:58:45 +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 From: "Todd Zimnoch" > With everything else I think about the current claim laws said, if I > were rewriting the claim laws, I would go on the following basis. Biggest > changes, you can withdraw your own claim, Under what circumstances. I always thought that one of the reasons the Law was harsh on errant claims was that it is too likely that once you start making a claim that is nonsense it is too likely that the opponents will give away (perhaps involuntarily) that there is a problem which will cause you to rethink and perhaps realize the problem. So in general I do not like this. Playing on is effectively what happens on OKbridge. And I recall one sorry incident in which an opponent claimed in a Grand Slam we declined and he played it out now taking the necessary finesse that was not part of his claim. Given there was no director I simply privately commented to him that he may not get away with that face to face. Wayne Burrows From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 16 08:29:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA16528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 08:29:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f288.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA16523 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 08:29:35 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 16371 invoked by uid 0); 15 Jun 2000 22:28:57 -0000 Message-ID: <20000615222857.16370.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.23 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:28:57 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.23] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim laws revisited (or outright rewritten) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:28:57 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Wayne Burrows" >From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > With everything else I think about the current claim laws said, if >I > > were rewriting the claim laws, I would go on the following basis. >Biggest > > changes, you can withdraw your own claim, > >Under what circumstances. Before it is contested by your opponents. >I always thought that one of the reasons the Law >was harsh on errant claims was that it is too likely that once you start >making a claim that is nonsense it is too likely that the opponents will >give away (perhaps involuntarily) that there is a problem which will cause >you to rethink and perhaps realize the problem. > >So in general I do not like this. Perhaps that's better stated that you can contest your own claim, rather than withdraw. (It's what I meant.) You'll never get more tricks than you originally called for. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 16 08:50:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA16649 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 08:50:19 +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 IAA16644 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 08:50:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 132iSV-0006GR-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 00:49:59 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000616004443.00b44100@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 00:44:43 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Retraction of final pass In-Reply-To: <20000615194940.34532.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:49 PM 6/15/00 PDT, you wrote: > Declarer has tapped her bidding cards to indicate a final pass. As I >(LHO) go to pick up my stack of cards, she relizes that the contract has >been doubled and wants to change her pass to a bid. Everyone at the table >agreed that it wasn't without pause for thought, so 25A doesn't apply. 25B >expires after I would have made a call, but I can't make a call. The lead >hasn't been pulled from hand, let alone faced. > >Ambiguity. 17E is unclear whether the auction ends after the 3rd pass or >when the lead is faced. well, it is clear. auction period isnt over. I assume when the lead is faced. 22B says that the >final bid becomes the contract after the auction has ended, then play >begins. but auction isnt ended, see 17e so 22 cant be used So the lead is made before the contract is established, hmm... >splitting hairs. > >In anycase, can the final pass be retracted? If the new call is not >accepted, would it be ruled under 25B2b2? As it was, director made the >final pass stand. this is indeed interesting. Probably 25b2b can be used, but the TD should probably also use 74(b1) to give a PP i think. regards, anton > >-Todd > >________________________________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 16 09:25:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA16573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 08:34:42 +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 IAA16566 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 08:34:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-1054hs8.biz.mindspring.com [64.82.71.136]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA31471 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 18:34:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002e01bfd719$db568d20$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <20000615194940.34532.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Retraction of final pass Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 18:34:23 -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: "Todd Zimnoch" To: Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 3:49 PM Subject: Retraction of final pass > Declarer has tapped her bidding cards to indicate a final pass. As I > (LHO) go to pick up my stack of cards, she relizes that the contract has > been doubled and wants to change her pass to a bid. Everyone at the table > agreed that it wasn't without pause for thought, so 25A doesn't apply. 25B > expires after I would have made a call, but I can't make a call. The lead > hasn't been pulled from hand, let alone faced. > > Ambiguity. 17E is unclear whether the auction ends after the 3rd pass or > when the lead is faced. I don't see the ambiguity. If there has been a call, the auction ends when the opening lead is faced, following three passes in rotation. You have not faced your lead. The auction is still open. >I assume when the lead is faced. 22B says that the > final bid becomes the contract after the auction has ended, then play > begins. So the lead is made before the contract is established, hmm... > splitting hairs. > > In anycase, can the final pass be retracted? If the new call is not > accepted, would it be ruled under 25B2b2? As it was, director made the > final pass stand. > > -Todd > The final pass can be retracted under 25B, as the next player has not yet made a call (or play), and the auction is still open. As written, the pass can be retracted up to the point you turn your lead face up. 25B2b2 would have applied if you had not condoned the change of call. Hirsch Davis Rockville, MD USA From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 16 09:56:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA16906 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:56:54 +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 JAA16901 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:56:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.16.188]) by mta02-svc.server.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000616005611.VYVP10065.mta02-svc.server.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 00:56:11 +0000 Message-ID: <000b01bfd726$308c66a0$bc10ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" References: <3.0.2.32.20000616004443.00b44100@mail.a2000.nl> Subject: Re: Retraction of final pass Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 01:02:39 +0100 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: "Anton Witzen" To: Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 11:44 PM Subject: Re: Retraction of final pass > At 12:49 PM 6/15/00 PDT, you wrote: > > Declarer has tapped her bidding cards to indicate a final pass. As I > >(LHO) go to pick up my stack of cards, she relizes that the contract has > >been doubled and wants to change her pass to a bid. Everyone at the table > >agreed that it wasn't without pause for thought, so 25A doesn't apply. 25B > >expires after I would have made a call, but I can't make a call. The lead > >hasn't been pulled from hand, let alone faced. > > > >Ambiguity. 17E is unclear whether the auction ends after the 3rd pass or > >when the lead is faced. > > well, it is clear. auction period isnt over. > > > I assume when the lead is faced. 22B says that the > >final bid becomes the contract after the auction has ended, then play > >begins. > > but auction isnt ended, see 17e > so 22 cant be used > > So the lead is made before the contract is established, hmm... > >splitting hairs. > > > >In anycase, can the final pass be retracted? If the new call is not > >accepted, would it be ruled under 25B2b2? As it was, director made the > >final pass stand. > > this is indeed interesting. > Probably 25b2b can be used, but the TD should probably also use 74(b1) to > give a PP i think. > As one who loves Law 25B I am interested in this one. I see no reason, the WBFLC apart, why Law 25B as it is writ should not apply. I cannot imagine why a PP is considered however. Please tell me more. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 16 10:12:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA16983 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:12:21 +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 KAA16978 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:12:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([210.55.47.92]) by mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000616001139.TJPC20783102.mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:11:39 +1200 Message-ID: <001f01bfd727$7eafa580$5c2f37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <20000615222857.16370.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Claim laws revisited (or outright rewritten) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:12:00 +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 From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > > changes, you can withdraw your own claim, > > > >Under what circumstances. > > Before it is contested by your opponents. I would still be worried about an involuntary reaction by an opponent who didn't expect a claim. This prompts you to remember that there is a safety play for a bad break , or to be careful about an obscure ruff (or something similar). > You'll never get more tricks > than you originally called for. > But you may get more than had you played it out according to your original claim. Wayne Burrows From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 16 10:54:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA17164 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:54:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f134.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.134]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA17159 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:54:37 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 1097 invoked by uid 0); 16 Jun 2000 00:53:59 -0000 Message-ID: <20000616005359.1096.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.23 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:53:59 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.23] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim laws revisited (or outright rewritten) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:53:59 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Wayne Burrows" >From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > > > changes, you can withdraw your own claim, > > > > > >Under what circumstances. > > > > Before it is contested by your opponents. > >I would still be worried about an involuntary reaction by an opponent who >didn't expect a claim. This prompts you to remember that there is a safety >play for a bad break , or to be careful about an obscure ruff (or something >similar). Well, anything's bound to happen. TD will require all hands shown before making a ruling. Claimer will have all sorts of new information he's not allowed to use. > > You'll never get more tricks > > than you originally called for. > >But you may get more than had you played it out according to your original >claim. You assume that when you contest your own claim that you get to offer a new claim statement. You don't. You're stuck with your original. This is designed for situations like when you've claimed for all but one trick, each opponent holds one side ace and agrees to the claim without exposing his hand, and you remember that there were 2 outstanding aces instead of one after your opponents have rushed home. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 16 12:40:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA17530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:40:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA17525 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:40:41 +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 132m3Z-0005vr-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 03:40:30 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:31:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: End of L68B References: <002001bfd44f$3b676540$98b4f1c3@kooijman> <39461255.45E2597F@village.uunet.be> <4JZV2RAE91R5EwjS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3948A9A6.BF93FF4F@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3948A9A6.BF93FF4F@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> > >> >Otherwise, David, you are simply wrong. >> >> A concession of two tricks out of three is a claim of one trick. >> After a claim, play ceases. So, Herman, you are just wrong. >> > >A concession is cancelled if partner objects. >A cancelled concession is no concession. >No concession, no claim. > >So, David, you are just wrong. > >We can go on for hours like this, we shall never agree. > >And really, it doesn't matter. This type of case will >simply never come up. Have you ever really seen it, David ? Yes, I have seen a player object to his partner's concession that was not conceding his outstanding trump trick. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 16 13:39:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA17690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:39:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.pinehurst.net (mail.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA17685 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:39:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from mom (spmax4-58.pinehurst.net [12.4.97.122]) by mail.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA87184 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:39:19 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from nancy@pinehurst.net) Message-ID: <005701bfd743$c3a033a0$7a61040c@mom> From: "nancy" To: References: <20000615194940.34532.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Retraction of final pass Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:34:21 -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 Is tapping the bidding card a legal pass? I has always been my understanding that only a green pass card is legal. True? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 3:49 PM Subject: Retraction of final pass > Declarer has tapped her bidding cards to indicate a final pass. As I > (LHO) go to pick up my stack of cards, she relizes that the contract has > been doubled and wants to change her pass to a bid. Everyone at the table > agreed that it wasn't without pause for thought, so 25A doesn't apply. 25B > expires after I would have made a call, but I can't make a call. The lead > hasn't been pulled from hand, let alone faced. > > Ambiguity. 17E is unclear whether the auction ends after the 3rd pass or > when the lead is faced. I assume when the lead is faced. 22B says that the > final bid becomes the contract after the auction has ended, then play > begins. So the lead is made before the contract is established, hmm... > splitting hairs. > > In anycase, can the final pass be retracted? If the new call is not > accepted, would it be ruled under 25B2b2? As it was, director made the > final pass stand. > > -Todd > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 16 15:08:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA17859 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:08:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f123.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.123]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA17854 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:08:50 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 77534 invoked by uid 0); 16 Jun 2000 05:08:12 -0000 Message-ID: <20000616050812.77533.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.23 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:08:12 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.23] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Retraction of final pass Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:08:12 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It's accepted as a pass where I play. The laws do not specify a proper form for a pass, but L18F says, "Zonal Organizations may authorize different methods of making calls." So it's more a matter of regulation than legality. -Todd >From: "nancy" >To: >Subject: Re: Retraction of final pass >Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:34:21 -0400 > >Is tapping the bidding card a legal pass? I has always been my >understanding that only a green pass card is legal. True? ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 16 20:39:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA18525 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:39:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA18520 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:38:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.0.ap (resu)) id MAA02605; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:40:23 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/%I%.1.ap (mach.test)) id MAA03100; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:38:40 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000616124632.00868360@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:46:32 +0200 To: "Todd Zimnoch" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: Claim laws revisited (or outright rewritten) In-Reply-To: <20000614181529.88331.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:15 14/06/00 PDT, Todd Zimnoch wrote: > With everything else I think about the current claim laws said, if I >were rewriting the claim laws, I would go on the following basis. Biggest >changes, you can withdraw your own claim, play could continue after the >director's arrival, and there's no such beast as a concession. Comments and >hole-punching appreciated. > > >Law 68 >Definition and immediate effects > >A. Claim defined > >Any statement or action that suggests a final result for the hand is a >claim. Claimer is required to immediately suggest a new result if the >previous result is inconsistent with the number of tricks already won or >lost on the hand. # AG : this means that, if mismarked one of the previous tricks (thinking eg that I won 5 out of 8, while I had in fact won 6), I will have to see it immediately or lose many rights. > >B. Awarding of tricks > >Claimer will receive the least number of tricks possible by an opponent’s >suggested line-of-play that is not inconsistent with the claim statement. >For the purpose of this law, suggested lines-of-play will not be used unless >a peer of that player would seriously it consider given the same knowledge >about the hand. > >C. Awarding of tricks > >Claimer will receive the least of: >1. the number of tricks awarded by the original claim >2. the maximum number of tricks possible by any legal play of the cards # AG : I don't get this one. When would you expect case 2. to come into consideration ? >E. Abuse of contest > >Any player found to routinely contest claims solely on the hope of being >awarded an extra trick by Law 70B may be found in contempt of Law 74B5. A >player should sincerely believe that the claimer has some misconception of >the hand and will misplay it. # AG : really good, that one, although it seems to fit into the "properties" section. And what would you do to the player who claims in the hope that opponents don't see that a suit is blocked ? Also, it should once agin be mentioned that said misconception could be a serious negligence, but not an aberration. Examples would help. The classical case : declarer, playing a trump suit of AKQxx / xxx, and having no more outside losers, plays two rounds, sees they are 3-2, and claims. This should be allowed, because he clearly waited until he saw the trumps behave. To assume he will now forget to draw the third round is absurd. But if he drew one round, seeing everybody follow, and claimed ... well, I'd say he thought there were only 4 outstanding trumps. A. >Law 71 >Concession Canceled > >Removed > >________________________________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 16 20:48:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA18565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:48:23 +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 UAA18550 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:48:13 +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 132tfJ-0005Me-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:47:59 +0100 Message-ID: <617VZVBBuZS5EwZ$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 04:14:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Retraction of final pass References: <20000615194940.34532.qmail@hotmail.com> <3.0.2.32.20000616004443.00b44100@mail.a2000.nl> In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.20000616004443.00b44100@mail.a2000.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen wrote: >At 12:49 PM 6/15/00 PDT, you wrote: >>In anycase, can the final pass be retracted? If the new call is not >>accepted, would it be ruled under 25B2b2? As it was, director made the >>final pass stand. > >this is indeed interesting. >Probably 25b2b can be used, but the TD should probably also use 74(b1) to >give a PP i think. What is the PP for? Someone tries to change their call, which may or may not be legal: that is hardly an infraction! -- 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 Jun 16 20:48:25 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA18566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:48:25 +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 UAA18552 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:48:15 +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 132tfM-0005Mv-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:48:05 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 04:01:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: End of L68B References: <20000615171223.53613.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000615171223.53613.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 >> Ok, I know that some people do not agree, but really the main >>arguments against this line so far seem to have been: >> >>[1] It isn't so, nyer. >>[2] What about claims and concessions of zero tricks? >>[3] It is obviously wrong. > > > I despair that you pay so little attention to anyone's words but your >own. > > > >[4] There is no point to cancelling a concession if you are going to rule >that it is still a claim. That is not true. If you concede two tricks and claim two, and partner objects, then if the concession is not cancelled, you have conceded two tricks! To concede fewer than two tricks the concession has to be cancelled [or varied, or something else]. >[5] The LC that wrote 68B allow a concession to be cancelled anytime >partner objects. True. >[6] (assumption) That LC wasn't stupid. So what? > Why allow a concession to be cancelled if that will have no effect? It doesn't have no effect! If you do not cancel a concession of two tricks then two tricks are conceded! > I >think that the LC intended that a cancelled concession would have an effect >even in the case of a concession of fewer than all the remaining tricks. As >you would rule, it cannot. Wrong. Of course it has an effect. > > > > We're dealing specifically with the defenders here. Suppose one >defender claims and the other objects. Describe a circumstance where >allowing play to continue with Law 16 in effect and TD's presence produces a >result more undesireable than applying Law 70. Why should I? I am not trying to produce odd examples, which are without doubt possible. I am trying to interpret a Law. > Here's an example of the opposite. (Given time I could construct >something less absurd.) A spade contract, club led by west to east's ace. > >x xxx >Axxxx x >xxxxx x >x KQxxxxx > > West expects that south has the KC (partner ordinarily plays the queen >with that holding) and his AH will be the only other trick. West says, >"We'll only get one more," and east objects. With Law 16 in effect, east >really doesn't have any UI. West could be thinking about a club ruff. West >could be thinking about the AD (not in dummy). East has no information to >favor exitting a heart, a diamond, or a club over the other two. Allow east >to play it out for 1 or 2 more tricks. > Suppose west said instead, "And we'll only get my AH." Now east has >UI, will be forbidden to exit his heart, and a playout gets one more trick. > If Law 70 were applied, E/W are stuck with only one trick. > > I think this is the way to go. You object to partner's claim because >you think you can earn more tricks. Law 70 will rarely award them. A >playout with Law 16 gives you a fighting chance. > > > >> Now I believe that the wording of the claim Laws support my view >>strongly. I agree with Todd, for example, that a different set of claim >>Laws might be a good idea [though the present ones work pretty well with >>reasonable TDs and ACs: we really have been discussing exceptional >>cases] but at the moment we want to know how to rule in these cases >>under the current Law book. >> >> Perhaps someone who disagrees with me would like to tell me why. > Ever see 112 facet diamonds with a crack inside? There's no sense in >refining material when you believe the result will still be flawed. > > At the moment, I believe the priorities should be to decide what we'd >want the laws to do. You (and others) want play to cease always unless it >was a concession of all the remaining tricks. Your defense has been that's >what the laws say, but I want a compelling reason for why we should allow >the laws to say such a thing. I (and others) think that play should >continue unless it was a claim for all the tricks. We should develop >arguments outside of the currently written laws to decide which approach is >preferable. Then the laws should be rewritten to achieve that effect. You know, I hate this approach, and I think it highly deleterious to this list. This continual mixing up of totally different ideas benefits no-one except those who are arguing for the sake of it. If you want to discuss what the Laws ought to be, why on earth do you have to in the midst of a thread about what they are? I object to your statement that I *want* play to cease: I am doing what this thread started out as and trying to interpret the Laws. My wants do not come into it at all. These sort of remarks certainly make it more difficult for anyone to try to make sense of how they should be ruling at the moment. > There are also discussions about redefining 'normal play' to be had. >Do we want to treat all class of players the same when ruling or does a >players' skill affect the ruling? I don't give a damn what we want when discussing current interpretations of the Laws. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 16 20:48:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA18567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:48:25 +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 UAA18551 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:48:13 +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 132tfJ-0005Md-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:47:59 +0100 Message-ID: <8VQUhTBvpZS5Ew66@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 04:09:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claim laws revisited (or outright rewritten) References: <20000614181529.88331.qmail@hotmail.com> <00a301bfd714$e52fdc20$782e37d2@laptop> In-Reply-To: <00a301bfd714$e52fdc20$782e37d2@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows wrote: >From: "Todd Zimnoch" >> With everything else I think about the current claim laws said, if I >> were rewriting the claim laws, I would go on the following basis. Biggest >> changes, you can withdraw your own claim, > >Under what circumstances. I always thought that one of the reasons the Law >was harsh on errant claims was that it is too likely that once you start >making a claim that is nonsense it is too likely that the opponents will >give away (perhaps involuntarily) that there is a problem which will cause >you to rethink and perhaps realize the problem. > >So in general I do not like this. > >Playing on is effectively what happens on OKbridge. And I recall one sorry >incident in which an opponent claimed in a Grand Slam we declined and he >played it out now taking the necessary finesse that was not part of his >claim. Given there was no director I simply privately commented to him that >he may not get away with that face to face. I was given a ruling thirty years ago in the Easter Guardian in the Europa hotel that so incensed me that I have always remembered it. No appeal mechanism was available, of course. Declarer is playing a 4-4 fit, and is fooling around with odd ruffs and finesses. About trick eight I led a heart, and declarer showed his hand and claimed the rest. I called the TD. Declarer explained that he was ruffing the heart low, risking an over-ruff, which catered to a 4-1 spade break. The alternative was to ruff high: no risk of an over-ruff, but going off on a 4-1 break. The TD gave declarer the contract, and we were livid. There was a 4-1 break but no over-ruff. It was our view at the time, and after discussing my whole group was certain of it, that if partner had objected to the claim rather than me, declarer would have explained to the TD that he was ruffing high. Of course, under the suggested rule, declarer will now withdraw his claim and get it right. -- 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 Jun 16 21:31:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA18757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:31:09 +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 VAA18747 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:30:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-242.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.242]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA14970 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:30:46 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39492A14.27DCC1CC@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:10:12 +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: End of L68B References: <20000614180925.41761.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > Whatever they tried, they obviously failed in this case. You consider > the above straightforward: to me, nothing is more straightforward than > that after a claim play ceases, and it has amazed me that some people > are willing to allow play after a claim. > But there has been NO CLAIM !!! L68B says so : the concession is cancelled and play continues. Forget the literal wording. The Lawmakers obviously intended claims and concessions to go hand in hand. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 16 21:31:08 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA18756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:31:08 +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 VAA18746 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:30:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-242.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.242]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA14950 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:30:43 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39492993.5744C800@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:08:03 +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: End of L68B References: <200006131916.PAA25101@cfa183.harvard.edu> <39475FCD.A17C5BA6@village.uunet.be> <3.0.6.32.20000614165300.008446c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <+d1Uz+A6wBS5Ewbj@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 think it may no longer be clear to everyone what everyone thinks, > since so many posts recently have been fragmentary. > > In my view, when someone attempts to curtail play in a fairly obvious > fashion, he has claimed and/or conceded. > Indeed. > A claim is a suggestion that the claimer [and his partner] will make > one or more of the remaining tricks. > > A concession is a suggestion that the claimer [and his partner] will > lose one or more of the remaining tricks. > > Thus a suggestion that the claimer [and his partner] will win one or > more but not all of the remaining tricks is a both a claim and a > concession. > Yes it is. > After a claim, play ceases, so further play is never possible once a > player has claimed one or more of the outstanding tricks. > > After a concession which is not a claim, ie a concession of all the > remaining tricks, a defender's partner may object: then there has been > no concession, and play continues with the normal UI caveats. > Yes. > After a concession which is a claim, ie a concession of some but not > all of the remaining tricks, a defender's partner may object: then there > has been no concession, but the claim still needs to be dealt with by > the TD. > But there is no way this can be done. There are no rules as to how a concession are to be dealt with. So this is just senseless. > Ok, I know that some people do not agree, but really the main > arguments against this line so far seem to have been: > > [1] It isn't so, nyer. > [2] What about claims and concessions of zero tricks? > [3] It is obviously wrong. > Well yes [3]. But really I have explained why it is obvious. If you are right, then L68B need not be in the book. Even a concession of all tricks is a claim, by L68A. So play can never continue, if you carry your reasoning through. It IS obviously wrong. Wha about my last suggestion : since the concession is cancelled, there is no concession, and no claim. > Now I believe that the wording of the claim Laws support my view > strongly. Well I don't believe that. So your argument lacks any strength. > I agree with Todd, for example, that a different set of claim > Laws might be a good idea [though the present ones work pretty well with > reasonable TDs and ACs: we really have been discussing exceptional > cases] but at the moment we want to know how to rule in these cases > under the current Law book. > > Perhaps someone who disagrees with me would like to tell me why. > Haven't I done this, at great length ? > Where is Burn when you need him? About two to three years ago, it was > he who convinced this list, myself, and ultimately a group of good > Directors of the approach I have outlined above. Come back, David, and > explain why it is 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 ~ -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 16 21:46:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA18836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:46:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA18829 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:46:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.0.ap (resu)) id NAA12106; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:48:19 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/%I%.1.ap (mach.test)) id NAA09675; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:46:37 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000616135429.00868100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:54:29 +0200 To: "Todd Zimnoch" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: Retraction of final pass In-Reply-To: <20000615194940.34532.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:49 15/06/00 PDT, Todd Zimnoch wrote: > Declarer has tapped her bidding cards to indicate a final pass. As I >(LHO) go to pick up my stack of cards, she relizes that the contract has >been doubled and wants to change her pass to a bid. Everyone at the table >agreed that it wasn't without pause for thought, so 25A doesn't apply. 25B >expires after I would have made a call, but I can't make a call. The lead >hasn't been pulled from hand, let alone faced. AG : in several cases, it is stated that a player may have acted in such a way that some law is taking effect, although he didn't use the proper way to do it. For example, he might 'suggest that play be shortened' by any means, not necessarily by making a claim in due form ; and it generates the same effects as a claim. Or, he names a card rather than playing it, and he now has to play it. So, if in your part of the world and/or in your usual game, it is fashion to tap your cards to signal the final pass, the one who does it has *indeed* passed. It doesn't happen very often in Belgium, but we often replace the cards in the BB without making the final pass. It surely means the final pass is deemed to have been made. And if you are very busy trying to open that f** individual milk blister without spreading it on your T-shirt (I know what I'm speaking of), and say 'I pass' rather than placing the green card with your 3rd hand, you passed. And if you try to retract it, I wouldn't allow it. And if the person on lead does lead, I wouldn't rule lead before turn. A. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 16 22:32:42 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA19018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 22:32:42 +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 WAA19013 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 22:32:24 +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 NAA29555 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:32:15 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA13053 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:32:14 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:32:13 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 NAA13829 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:32:10 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id NAA03585 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:32:09 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:32:09 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200006161232.NAA03585@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: End of L68B [long] X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Where is Burn when you need him? About two to three years ago, it was > he who convinced this list, myself, and ultimately a group of good > Directors of the approach I have outlined above. Come back, David, and > explain why it is so. > I have tracked down the discussion (to June 1996). Two of David Burn's posts summarise his position and include various other people's posts. These posts are included below. David Stevenson's position was that play should continue, and everyone disagreed with him. But some (e.g. Herman) did think the claim for 2/3 tricks was cancelled when partner objected to the concession of the last trick. However, they then regarded the particular statement made in objecting to the concession constituted a claim of all three tricks! So play ceased anyway. David Burn's second post deals with the semantics of "An X is a Y", in particular if "An X is a Y", and the Y is cancelled, is X cancelled. Robin ----- Begin Included Message ----- >From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mon Jul 15 19:35:16 1996 remote from From: "Burn, David" To: "'Bridge Laws'" , willner Subject: Re: A claim or concession (repost) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 96 18:31:00 GMT Encoding: 525 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 19061 >From David Burn A number of people have asked me to post this again, since it wasn't clear which were my comments and which were David Stevenson's. Apologies for this - I have a mail reader which indents text from incoming messages, and I dismally failed to realise that other readers are not always going to be able to do this. I have put beside each non-original line of text the initials of the author this time. I have also spoken to Max Bavin, whose agreement with the Stevenson line appeared to have been diluted since reading my arguments. This is as it should be, of course - I would be wholly unfit for any official post without the ability to convince people that black may or may not, as the case may be and with full consideration given to opposing views, be white. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- David Stevenson wrote: DWS: Contract 3NT by South: West is on lead. DWS: -- DWS: -- DWS: 4 DWS: -- 32 -- DWS: 4 -- DWS: T8 92 DWS: -- -- Q DWS: K DWS: 3 DWS: T DWS: DWS: West puts his hand face up on the table and says "I'll play the ten of DWS: diamonds then the eight of diamonds and give you the last trick." East DWS: immediately objects, saying "No, I'll win the second diamond, and my DWS: club queen will win the last trick." DWS: DWS: (a) Assuming that East keeps his hand hidden while objecting, DWS: How do you rule? DWS: DWS: (b) Assuming that East exposes his hand hidden while objecting, DWS: How do you rule? DWS: DWS: Another easy one for you all. DWS: DWS: Law 68 - Claim or Concession of Tricks DWS: DWS: A. Claim Defined DWS: Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific DWS: number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. A contestant also DWS: claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows DWS: his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim). DWS: DWS: B. Concession Defined DWS: Any statement to the effect that a contestant will lose a specific DWS: number of tricks is a concession of those tricks; a claim of DWS: some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any. DWS: A player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his DWS: hand. Regardless of the foregoing, if a defender attempts to DWS: concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, DWS: no concession has occurred; Law 16, Unauthorized Information, DWS: and Law 57A, Premature Play, may apply, so the Director should DWS: be summoned forthwith. DWS: DWS: So according to L68A, West claimed, because he said he would win `a DWS: specific number of tricks' (two). According to L68B a claim of two DWS: tricks is a concession of one trick. Note that L68B makes it quite DWS: clear that if a claim is not for all the remaining tricks then it `is' a DWS: concession: in other words they are the same. So a concession of one DWS: trick (out of three) and a claim of two tricks (out of three) are the DWS: same thing. DWS: DWS: Now when East objected to the concession (as he clearly did) then, as DWS: L68B puts it, `no concession has occurred': this means that the claim DWS: is void as well, because a claim `is' the same as a concession in this DWS: case. What does this mean in effect? Play continues! This won't wash, David. West has in effect made two statements: (1) I will win tricks with the D10 and the D8 (2) I will concede the last trick (1) is a claim and (2) is a concession. You assert that (1) is also a concession because a claim and a concession are equivalent according to L68B. I do not believe that this is entirely correct, since L68A implies that claims do not have to be accompanied by a statement about the number of tricks that the contestant will win; claims not so accompanied cannot be concessions. But this is not relevant. East has objected to statement (2) - that West will concede the last trick. This statement is therefore deemed not to have occurred. Statement (1) remains, and play cannot continue until it has been addressed (since it is a claim). East has also objected to statement (1) in that he disputes the fact that West will win a trick with the D8. But this does not constitute an objection to a concession under L68B; West's assertion that he will win a trick with the D8 is not a concession. You may say that by objecting to part of West's statement East has objected to the totality of it, and since the totality of it constitutes a concession, L68B should be applied. But I see no reason for this: suppose a player says: "I will give you the last trick and Law 25B is a wonderful piece of legislation". East's objection to the second part of this statement is in no way an objection to the concession. DWS: michael amos wrote: MA: 1. a claim has occurred - play ceases MA: 2. a concession has occurred MA: 3. - but has been cancelled by other defender MA: 4. TD needed to adjudicate on disputed claim DWS: No: play continues: there is no claim. Yes, there is. DWS: Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: JBC: East is making a statement about later tricks that he expects to win. JBC: Thus he is claiming, and play ends. Had East just said, "No, I JBC: want play to continue", this would have been different. DWS: It is quite clear that East is objecting to West's concession: that is DWS: the situation that is covered by L68B [`and his partner immediately DWS: objects'] so even if he did not use the perfect wording this makes it DWS: clear that `no concession has occurred': since `a claim of some number DWS: of tricks is a concession of the remainder' there has been no claim or DWS: concession. Yes, there has. DWS: Eric Landau wrote: EL: When West spoke up, play ceased. When East spoke up, it became EL: established that no concession had occurred. At that point, the EL: result becomes a matter for adjudication, and I must see all the EL: remaining cards. East's immmediate verbal objection cancelled any EL: concession. DWS: Not true. After East spoke up, because no concession had occurred, DWS: there should be no adjudication, since play continues. Even if there had not been a claim, this would be nonsense; East and West have told each other what their hands are, and somebody needs to adjudicate on that! DWS: Alan LeBendig wrote: ALB: Given either scenario, I think L65B applies. Nothing improper has ALB: occurred as a result of E exposing his hand subsequent to the claim by ALB: W. I see no reason to apply L57A. DWS: Assuming he meant L68B he seems not to have addressed the point that DWS: there was no concession. He did mean 68B, of course. And although there was no concession, there is still a claim to be dealt with. DWS: Robin Barker wrote: RB: 1) West has claimed and conceded the last trick. RB: 2) East has objected to the concession, so no concession has occured RB: (68B). RB: Q. Has West's claim also 'not occured': I don't think so. DWS: He asked the right question: pity about the wrong answer. It wasn't the wrong answer. DWS: David Burn wrote: DB: The statement of the problem makes it clear that there has been a claim DB: but no concession (L68 - West has attempted to claim two tricks and DB: concede one; East has immediately objected to the concession of a DB: trick). DWS: The wording of L68B makes this impossible: `a claim of some number of DWS: tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any': note the word `is'. DWS: they are the same: you cannot have one without the other. True (up to a point). But you can have both, as in this case, and you can object to one without objecting to both. DWS: michael amos wrote: MA: I accept that there is no concession but there is IMO a claim and so MA: play does not continue a defender can stop his partner from conceding MA: but i don't see anything which says he can stop him claiming. MA: East has stopped West from conceding the last trick - let the TD decide DWS: Again, contrary to the wording of L68B. East has also stopped West from winning the penultimate trick. This has to be dealt with; play cannot continue. DWS: David A Blizzard wrote: DAB: My reading of the Laws. LAW 68 defines a claim as 'any statement that DAB: a contestant will win a specific number of tricks'. DAB: Therefore there is a claim and Law 70 applies. A concession is when DAB: a player states he will lost a specific number of tricks. Again DAB: there has been a concession so Law 71 also applies. DAB: Law 70 states that the Director shall adjudicate the result of the DAB: board (Law 68 states that plays cease after any claim or concession, DAB: so penalty cards can't apply here, play has ceased). DWS: This completely ignores the question of a concession being cancelled so DWS: is wrong. It isn't wrong. It's right as far as it goes, which isn't far enough. DWS: David A Blizzard wrote: DAB: (a) Can't happen (legally anyway). Once a claim or concession is made DAB: 'play ceases'. A director must cancel any play made after a claim DAB: or concession (Law 68D). DAB: I can't see how a card can be 'prematurely' exposed AFTER DAB: PLAY CEASES, so Law 50A should be applied. DWS: It can be inferred from this part of the Law that play continues, which DWS: is really clear anyway. True. But this Law is not the one that should be applied. DWS: michael amos wrote: MA: West claims (L68A - any statement to the effect that a contestant will MA: win a specific number of tricks ...) MA: West concedes, but his partner immediately objects, no concession has MA: occurred (L68B) MA: After any CLAIM or concession play ceases ..... MA: Nowhere in the laws does it seem to say that a claim can be revoked MA: L70A seems to apply DWS: There is no concession: a claim is a concession (unless for all or none DWS: of the remaining tricks): therefore there is no claim: therefore no DWS: L70A. There is still a claim. The fact that it is being contested in the first instance by East rather than by North or South does not prevent L70 from applying. DWS: Steve Willner wrote: SW: If a defender claims and states a line of play, surely he gets to SW: take advantage of the stated line. Making the defender's cards penalty SW: cards produces the odd result that declarer could make the claimer take SW: a different line. DWS: Again, the equivalence between claim and concession seems to be missed. It isn't a complete equivalence. If a player says "I'll win these two tricks and give you the last one", he is not speaking tautologically. DWS: Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: JBC: No; when East objected, there was no concession (L68B). Play JBC: continues, but ... JBC: I think the catch is "unless the Director designates otherwise" in JBC: L50A. If I don't exercise this clause, West's cards become penalty JBC: cards, and South would have the chance to require the H4 as the lead to JBC: trick 11. I still think East is claiming, even if he does not show his JBC: hand (L68A), and therefore I don't need to use the "catch" on East's JBC: hand. And I still rule all tricks to EW if anyone contests East's JBC: claim. So Eric and I have the same bottom line: No more tricks to JBC: declarer. DWS: At least Jens realises that play continues. However he is not really DWS: ruling according to the Laws even so. What happened? West made a claim DWS: and concession. Then what? East objected. You cannot say he didn't. No one is saying that he didn't. What I and others are saying is that if a player makes two statements, one of which is a claim and the other a concession, you can object to one without objecting to the other, and the cancellation of one does not involve the cancellation of the other. DWS: Now the Law actually refers to this procedure [`and his partner DWS: immediately objects'] so that Law covers it. It is not a claim: it is DWS: an objection, a procedure covered by the Laws. Maybe East did not DWS: object in the correct way but to say he claimed is ludicrous. East made a statement to the effect that he would win tricks. If that's not a claim under L68, then I don't know what is. To say that East's statement ("I will win tricks with the D9 and the CQ") was _not_ a claim is truly ludicrous. It was not a _valid_ claim, of course, because it was made after play ceased as a result of West's claim, but a claim it most certainly was. DWS: He objected. So play continues: there is no claim. Yes, there is. DWS: Jesper Dybdal wrote: JD: So we have two possible attitudes: one that is accordance with the JD: general "find an equitable result" attitude of the claim/concession JD: laws, and another in accordance with the "defenders are to be JD: penalized automatically with penalty cards if they expose their cards" JD: attitude of L49. JD: Personally, I think I prefer the gentle one: find an equitable result JD: (all tricks to EW), no penalty cards. But it would be nice if the JD: laws told us what to do. DWS: Very nice and gentle, Jesper. However the Laws clearly tell us what to DWS: do, so I think we should follow them. No, they don't. The Laws are not at all clear on this point, as this discussion has served to point out. DWS: There is no basis in Law for giving all the tricks to EW. Yes, there is. [L12B snipped] DWS: Let us take the path of Law. West claimed and made a concession, DWS: since they are equivalent. West claimed _and_ made a concession. There are two statements by West that must be addressed. DWS: East objected. Accordingly no concession DWS: occurred, and it follows that no claim occurred. Thus play continues. No, it doesn't. East objected to the concession, not the claim. Play ceases. DWS: Law 49 - Exposure of a Defender's Cards DWS: Whenever a defender faces a card on the table, holds a card so DWS: that it is possible for his partner to see its face, or names a DWS: card as being in his hand, before he is entitled to do so in the DWS: normal course of play or application of law, (penalty) each such DWS: card becomes a penalty card (Law 50); but see the footnote to DWS: Law 68, when a defender has made a statement concerning an DWS: uncompleted trick currently in progress. DWS: West puts his hand face up on the table and ... DWS: All West's cards become major penalty cards. No, they don't. And they wouldn't even if your argument was correct. West is entitled to table his cards in the course of making a claim - L68 makes this quite clear. No card exposed by a defender who claims can become a penalty card under L49. DWS: West says "I'll play the ten of diamonds then the eight of diamonds and DWS: give you the last trick." East immediately objects, saying "No, I'll DWS: win the second diamond, and my club queen will win the last trick." DWS: (a) Assuming that East keeps his hand hidden while objecting, DWS: How do you rule? DWS: East has named a card [the club queen] which becomes a major penalty DWS: card. True, as I stated in my earlier reply. DWS: South may choose West's lead [L51A] and will presumably choose the H4, DWS: East being forced to discard his CQ. South will then make two tricks DWS: presumably. Note that this is an assumption because the TD is not DWS: assigning anything. Play continues, and if South decides to ask for the DWS: DT instead of the H4, so be it. DWS: DWS: (b) Assuming that East exposes his hand hidden while objecting, DWS: How do you rule? DWS: All East's cards become major penalty cards, though this still leads DWS: (presumably) to two tricks. I missed this in my earlier analysis. East's cards are indeed penalty cards (but West's are not), so instead of requiring East to unblock the D9 under the 10, South will forbid West from leading a diamond and compel East to discard the CQ on the HK, leading to two tricks for NS rather than one. DWS: Jesper Dybdal wrote: JD: I just now noticed that though L50A says that an exposed card becomes JD: a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise, L49 says "... JD: each such card becomes a penalty card (Law 50)" with no "designates JD: otherwise" clause. Since they both deal with the same situation, I'll JD: assume that the lack of such a clause in L49 is an error and that I JD: really am allowed to "designate otherwise". DWS: The EBL guide says, and I agree, that this `designates otherwise' is for DWS: the sole purpose of stopping players taking advantage of each other. DWS: The only time you `designate otherwise' is when the players decided it DWS: was a penalty card without calling the TD. Then they call you to DWS: enforce the lead penalties. Since the defenders did not know the Law, DWS: they may be suffering, so if the know-alls can't be bothered to call the DWS: TD [or maybe perceived an advantage in not calling the TD] then the TD DWS: should designate the card not to be a penalty card. I agree with this, though the Law as worded appears to give the Director greater powers. DWS: I am not sure why there is so much apparent sympathy for East-West. DWS: When I was a young player, I was taught that, when making a claim in DWS: defence, I should *never* let partner see my cards until the claim was DWS: accepted. Sensible, and necessary under an earlier version of the Laws, but not in the current situation. I repeat: a defender is entitled to show his cards in order to claim; they do not become penalty cards; they must be dealt with under L70 not L49. DWS: Furthermore, if I as a defender, disagreed with a claim of DWS: partner's, I was taught not to let anyone see my hand, just to say I DWS: don't agree. This is certainly correct. DWS: As far as I am concerned, East and West have behaved like DWS: two very silly people, and have got what they fully deserved. They speak well of you! DWS: Another easy one for you all. DWS: Eric Landau wrote: EL: OK, David, we know you better than that. What's the catch? DWS: Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: JBC: I think the catch is JBC: "unless the Director designates otherwise" in L50A. DWS: Jesper Dybdal wrote: JD: Quite an interesting "easy one", David! DWS: I don't think there was a catch really: seemed quite easy to me! And to me. But... ----- End Included Message ----- ----- Begin Included Message ----- >From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mon Jul 29 16:09:38 1996 remote from From: "Burn, David" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: A claim or concession Date: Mon, 29 Jul 96 15:18:00 GMT Encoding: 98 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3415 DAVID STEVENSON Burn, David wrote: >DAVID STEVENSON > > I think this is really the answer to the whole problem. No-one has >produced any argument [even one I disagree with, perhaps :) ] as to why >my reading of L68B is wrong. I think the progression: > A claim of some tricks is a concession > No concession has occurred > There is no claim > is clear. Is it possible to come up with a sensible alternative >interpretation? > >David Burn > >Yes, of course. If it weren't, no one would be arguing with you > - except from force of habit, perhaps :) > >What you appear to believe the Law says is: "A claim of >some tricks is [one and the same thing as] a concession >of the remaining tricks." That is one implication of the >English word "is"; cf: "A triangle is a three-sided polygon". > >What I believe the Law says is: "A claim of some tricks is >[among other things] a concession of the remaining tricks." >That is another implication of the English word "is"; cf: >"A giraffe is a quadruped". > DAVID STEVENSON I am sorry that I have not made myself clear: I thought I had. I have already conceded that I was wrong to assume the meaning of "is" as in "A triangle is a three-sided polygon". My apologies for not making this clear. It is the progression: A claim of some tricks is a concession No concession has occurred There is no claim which is the same IMO as: A giraffe is a quadruped There is no quadruped Therefore there is no giraffe which I believe is logical? DAVID BURN The trouble is, of course, that the Laws of bridge are not written in a formal language. The two implications of "is" discussed above are equivalent to: (1) X is Y - there is a thing X that is one and the same thing as the thing Y. (2) X is Y - there is a set of things X which are all members of the set of things Y. Now, if either of those was what I believe is meant by "a claim is a concession", DWS's logic would be faultless. But it isn't. The Law does not say: "A claim [of less than all the tricks] is one and the same thing as a concession [of the rest of the tricks]." Nor does it say: "All claims [of less than all the tricks] are concessions [of the rest of the tricks]." What it says is: "There is a component of every claim [of less than all the tricks] which is [in sense (1) above] a concession [of the rest of the tricks]". In more formal terms: (3) X is Y - there is a composite thing X part of which is the thing Y. The example I chose was poor, and DWS is right to argue against it. Perhaps a better example would be: "A computer is an electronic mailer". The argument: A computer is an e-mailer There is no e-mailer Therefore there is no computer is (of course) false; that component of the computer which deals with e-mail may be missing, or broken, but the computer still exists. And just as you can break the e-mailer without breaking the computer, so you can cancel a concession without cancelling the claim of which the concession is part. What we really need, of course, is a formal language in which the Laws of bridge can be written and in which requests for rulings, appeals and so on can be stated. Then all we would need to do would be to compile the Laws and create an interface for the input of Director calls, and a computer could give impeccable rulings. Are you out there, Matt Ginsberg? ----- End Included Message ----- -- 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 Jun 17 00:24:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA19360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:24:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA19353 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:24:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.0.ap (resu)) id QAA13365; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:25:32 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/%I%.1.ap (mach.test)) id QAA12569; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:23:49 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000616163142.0086ee70@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:31:42 +0200 To: Robin Barker , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: End of L68B [long] In-Reply-To: <200006161232.NAA03585@tempest.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 13:32 16/06/00 +0100, Robin Barker wrote: > > > I am sorry that I have not made myself clear: I thought I had. > > I have already conceded that I was wrong to assume the meaning of "is" >as in "A triangle is a three-sided polygon". My apologies for not >making this clear. It is the progression: > A claim of some tricks is a concession > No concession has occurred > There is no claim > which is the same IMO as: > A giraffe is a quadruped > There is no quadruped > Therefore there is no giraffe > which I believe is logical? AG : I think the theory of reverse syllogism (bramantip and others) doesn't apply here because there is no inclusion of mathematical sets ; logical rules of consequences work differently, and this should be taken into account in your hypothetical logical language of bridge. >From : 1) A claim generates a concession 2) The concession has been voided You cannot infer that the claim has been voided, exactly in the same way as from : 1) A has robbed B, so there is an injury to B 2) A has offered to repay B, so there is no more injury you cannot infer that A is no more considered to have robbed A ; he is still liable to prosecution. A. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 17 00:25:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA19379 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:25:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA19367 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:24:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.0.ap (guppy)) id QAA10748; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:23:59 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/%I%.1.ap (mach.test)) id QAA13071; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:24:40 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000616163233.0086c940@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:32:33 +0200 To: "Todd Zimnoch" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: Retraction of final pass In-Reply-To: <20000616050812.77533.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id AAA19368 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 22:08 15/06/00 PDT, Todd Zimnoch wrote: > It's accepted as a pass where I play. > > The laws do not specify a proper form for a pass, but L18F says, "Zonal >Organizations may authorize different methods of making calls." So it's >more a matter of regulation than legality. > >-Todd > >>From: "nancy" >>To: >>Subject: Re: Retraction of final pass >>Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:34:21 -0400 >> >>Is tapping the bidding card a legal pass? I has always been my >>understanding that only a green pass card is legal. True? AG : true, but when the intent is clear, anything a player has made, he has made, even if slightly discrepant of the rules. For example, if you open 1S, and your LHO¨*says* 'I double', he won't be allowed to put a pass card on the table or track. He is deemed to have doubled, because he so clearly showed his intent. If he shows his cards, even when not saying a claim, he has claimed. And if somebody says 'we'd rather call the director', play ceases, even if no one has put an orange card on the track. And so on. Of course, this doesn't apply to involuntary events, like letting a card slip out of your hand when playing another. And, if you say, whan cards for deal 15 have been picked, 'on n°14 we were cold for 2S' (well, you shouldn't at that times, but it happens) you aren't deemed to have bid 2 spades (a classical Charlie the Chimp example). A. > >________________________________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 17 02:19:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA19945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 02:19:22 +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 CAA19935 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 02:19:13 +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 132yph-000A1z-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:19:04 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:28:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Retraction of final pass References: <20000616050812.77533.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000616050812.77533.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: > It's accepted as a pass where I play. > > The laws do not specify a proper form for a pass, but L18F says, "Zonal >Organizations may authorize different methods of making calls." So it's >more a matter of regulation than legality. Interesting: is there a difference? I would say it was illegal *because* it is in conflict with the regulations. -- 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 Sat Jun 17 02:19:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA19946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 02:19:23 +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 CAA19936 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 02:19:13 +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 132yph-000A2L-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:19:04 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:27:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Retraction of final pass References: <20000615194940.34532.qmail@hotmail.com> <005701bfd743$c3a033a0$7a61040c@mom> In-Reply-To: <005701bfd743$c3a033a0$7a61040c@mom> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk nancy wrote: >Is tapping the bidding card a legal pass? I has always been my >understanding that only a green pass card is legal. True? Certainly true. But there are generally accepted things that are not entirely legal. -- 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 Sat Jun 17 02:54:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA20045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 02:54:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f105.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.105]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA20040 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 02:53:55 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 20942 invoked by uid 0); 16 Jun 2000 16:53:17 -0000 Message-ID: <20000616165317.20941.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.23 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:53:17 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.23] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Retraction of final pass Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:53:17 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson >Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > It's accepted as a pass where I play. > > > > The laws do not specify a proper form for a pass, but L18F says, >"Zonal > >Organizations may authorize different methods of making calls." So it's > >more a matter of regulation than legality. > > Interesting: is there a difference? I would say it was illegal >*because* it is in conflict with the regulations. Fair. Let's say that it is not illegal according to the FLB. Consult your local authorities. Is this a case where the local club, or even TD?, could assign some method at their discretion? I went to some small-town sectional event where they ran out of bidding boxes for the number of tables. TD asked us to whisper, but as my hearing is so bad (the people 2-3 tables away will hear before I do), I suggested we pass a piece of paper around. We spoke louder instead. Thankfully I was only at the deficient table for one round. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 17 03:36:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA20185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 03:36:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f21.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA20180 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 03:36:29 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 12803 invoked by uid 0); 16 Jun 2000 17:35:51 -0000 Message-ID: <20000616173551.12802.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.23 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:35:51 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.23] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim laws revisited (or outright rewritten) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:35:51 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: alain gottcheiner > >Law 68 > >Definition and immediate effects > > > >A. Claim defined > > > >Any statement or action that suggests a final result for the hand is a > >claim. Claimer is required to immediately suggest a new result if the > >previous result is inconsistent with the number of tricks already won or > >lost on the hand. > ># AG : this means that, if mismarked one of the previous tricks (thinking >eg that I won 5 out of 8, while I had in fact won 6), I will have to see it >immediately or lose many rights. The intent is to correct it immediately when discovered. This provision is not set to expire, although at some point L79C will take over and it'll be too late. > >C. Awarding of tricks > > > >Claimer will receive the least of: > >1. the number of tricks awarded by the original claim > >2. the maximum number of tricks possible by any legal play of the cards > ># AG : I don't get this one. When would you expect case 2. to come into >consideration ? When you've claimed a trick that opponents could not possibly have lost. If even with the world's worst-seen defense, opponents will take 3 tricks, you can't keep a claim of making 5. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 17 04:17:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA20359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 04:17:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f91.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.91]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA20354 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 04:17:41 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 96543 invoked by uid 0); 16 Jun 2000 18:17:03 -0000 Message-ID: <20000616181703.96542.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.23 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:17:03 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.23] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim laws revisited (or outright rewritten) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:17:03 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson >Wayne Burrows wrote: > >From: "Todd Zimnoch" > >> With everything else I think about the current claim laws said, if >I > >> were rewriting the claim laws, I would go on the following basis. >Biggest > >> changes, you can withdraw your own claim, (snip) > > The TD gave declarer the contract, and we were livid. There was a 4-1 >break but no over-ruff. It was our view at the time, and after >discussing my whole group was certain of it, that if partner had >objected to the claim rather than me, declarer would have explained to >the TD that he was ruffing high. > > Of course, under the suggested rule, declarer will now withdraw his >claim and get it right. I'm guilty of malapropism. Declarer can *contest* his own claim. You're more likely to get a favorable ruling from TD when your opponent is cooperative enough to say he's made a bad claim. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 17 04:35:19 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA20135 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 03:22:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f226.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.226]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA20130 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 03:21:58 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 82458 invoked by uid 0); 16 Jun 2000 17:21:17 -0000 Message-ID: <20000616172117.82457.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.23 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:21:17 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.23] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: The End of L68B is Nigh (was: End of L68B) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:21:17 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson > >[4] There is no point to cancelling a concession if you are going to >rule > >that it is still a claim. > > That is not true. If you concede two tricks and claim two, and >partner objects, then if the concession is not cancelled, you have >conceded two tricks! To concede fewer than two tricks the concession >has to be cancelled [or varied, or something else]. That is a semantic difference only. There is a contest. If you could allow the concession to stand, TD has to arbitrate if it's valid and award some number of tricks to each side. Instead, you cancel the concession and TD has to award some number of tricks to each side. Will these two situations ever yield a different number of tricks? (Hint: there's no known example) There is no point to cancelling the concession when TD has to arrive to dole out the tricks. > > I > >think that the LC intended that a cancelled concession would have an >effect > >even in the case of a concession of fewer than all the remaining tricks. >As > >you would rule, it cannot. > > Wrong. Of course it has an effect. Proof by repeated, blatent assertion does not convince me nor should it convince anyone. > > We're dealing specifically with the defenders here. Suppose one > >defender claims and the other objects. Describe a circumstance where > >allowing play to continue with Law 16 in effect and TD's presence >produces a > >result more undesireable than applying Law 70. > > Why should I? I am not trying to produce odd examples, which are >without doubt possible. I am trying to interpret a Law. I'm suggesting that it be changed. This conversation has long since ceased to be about the current interpretation of the law for me. I've registered my opinion that play should continue when your partner objects. Now I'm trying to prove if it is in fact the superior method. > > At the moment, I believe the priorities should be to decide what >we'd > >want the laws to do. You (and others) want play to cease always unless >it > >was a concession of all the remaining tricks. Your defense has been >that's > >what the laws say, but I want a compelling reason for why we should allow > >the laws to say such a thing. I (and others) think that play should > >continue unless it was a claim for all the tricks. We should develop > >arguments outside of the currently written laws to decide which approach >is > >preferable. Then the laws should be rewritten to achieve that effect. > > You know, I hate this approach, and I think it highly deleterious to >this list. This continual mixing up of totally different ideas benefits >no-one except those who are arguing for the sake of it. If you want to >discuss what the Laws ought to be, why on earth do you have to in the >midst of a thread about what they are? You are the sole person to complain that he can't distinguish between an argument about the way things are and an argument about the way things should be. If I have greatly confused any number of people, I apologize. As far as being deleterious (and highly so, at that), I could have sworn that a purpose of this list was to suggest and debate changes in law. > I object to your statement that I *want* play to cease: I am doing >what this thread started out as and trying to interpret the Laws. My >wants do not come into it at all. These sort of remarks certainly make >it more difficult for anyone to try to make sense of how they should be >ruling at the moment. You are not shy about situations where the law tells you to do something you dislike. But if you object to my statement, then you are on my side to have play continue and have the current claim laws sent to the gallows? -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 17 05:42:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA20559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 05:42:12 +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 FAA20554 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 05:42:05 +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 L0B8D6NR; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:41:57 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:43:08 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Fwd: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I hope this copy goes through! >Mime-Version: 1.0 >X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu >Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:39:30 -0500 >To: HarrisR@missouri.edu >From: "Robert E. Harris" > >>that certainly IS a bid snip! >> >>:-) Craig >> >Sorry about that! >Mike Dennis wrote: >(big snip) >. >> >>I don't know about the state of bridge outside of North America, but the >>ACBL has reason to be concerned about the health of the game and its >>long-term prospects for survival, never mind growth. And if psychic bidding >>is seen as disruptive and discomfitting by the bulk of its members, then >>you can bet that measures will be taken, and to hell with the Laws. >> > >(Snip) > >The psychers seem to be mostly either rather young or rather old. > >Kids like to insert a little excitement into things, in general, and >psyching and using odd bidding methods appeals to them. The lols don't >like it, some of them, but they are dying off and the kids are not coming >in. Teaching new young players about psyching and encouraging them to try >it might be a good idea. > >REH >Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 >Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia >Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 > 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 Jun 17 06:10:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA20627 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 06:10:06 +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 GAA20622 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 06:09:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.253.90.32]) by mta01-svc.server.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000616200950.DAVZ381.mta01-svc.server.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:09:50 +0100 Message-ID: <001701bfd7cf$acdf9840$205afd3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" References: <20000614181529.88331.qmail@hotmail.com><00a301bfd714$e52fdc20$782e37d2@laptop> <8VQUhTBvpZS5Ew66@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Claim laws revisited (or outright rewritten) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:15:53 +0100 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, June 16, 2000 4:09 AM Subject: Re: Claim laws revisited (or outright rewritten) > Wayne Burrows wrote: > >From: "Todd Zimnoch" > >> With everything else I think about the current claim laws said, if I > >> were rewriting the claim laws, I would go on the following basis. Biggest > >> changes, you can withdraw your own claim, > > > >Under what circumstances. I always thought that one of the reasons the Law > >was harsh on errant claims was that it is too likely that once you start > >making a claim that is nonsense it is too likely that the opponents will > >give away (perhaps involuntarily) that there is a problem which will cause > >you to rethink and perhaps realize the problem. > > > >So in general I do not like this. > > > >Playing on is effectively what happens on OKbridge. And I recall one sorry > >incident in which an opponent claimed in a Grand Slam we declined and he > >played it out now taking the necessary finesse that was not part of his > >claim. Given there was no director I simply privately commented to him that > >he may not get away with that face to face. > > I was given a ruling thirty years ago in the Easter Guardian in the > Europa hotel that so incensed me that I have always remembered it. No > appeal mechanism was available, of course. > > Declarer is playing a 4-4 fit, and is fooling around with odd ruffs > and finesses. About trick eight I led a heart, and declarer showed his > hand and claimed the rest. > > I called the TD. Declarer explained that he was ruffing the heart > low, risking an over-ruff, which catered to a 4-1 spade break. The > alternative was to ruff high: no risk of an over-ruff, but going off on > a 4-1 break. > > The TD gave declarer the contract, and we were livid. There was a 4-1 > break but no over-ruff. It was our view at the time, and after > discussing my whole group was certain of it, that if partner had > objected to the claim rather than me, declarer would have explained to > the TD that he was ruffing high. > > Of course, under the suggested rule, declarer will now withdraw his > claim and get it right. > And we have probably got that Director to thanks for David's presence as a Laws Guru in our midst. Who was he, who so changed the 'direction' of our lives? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 17 07:36:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA20894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 07:36:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA20889 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 07:36:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-33qsqhr.dsl.mindspring.com [199.174.106.59]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA06494 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:36:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <006d01bfd7da$ed53d5c0$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <20000614180925.41761.qmail@hotmail.com> <39492A14.27DCC1CC@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: End of L68B Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:36:26 -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 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: Thursday, June 15, 2000 3:10 PM Subject: Re: End of L68B > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > > Whatever they tried, they obviously failed in this case. You consider > > the above straightforward: to me, nothing is more straightforward than > > that after a claim play ceases, and it has amazed me that some people > > are willing to allow play after a claim. > > > > But there has been NO CLAIM !!! > Exactly. > L68B says so : the concession is cancelled and play > continues. > > Forget the literal wording. The Lawmakers obviously > intended claims and concessions to go hand in hand. > > Why forget the literal wording? Don't forget the clause "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any." Some have fallen into the trap of treating the claim and concession separately. This phrase implies, at least to me, that for the purposes of 68B a partial claim and a concession are the same thing. Cancel the concession and you've cancelled the claim, because they are one and the same. Hirsch Davis Rockville, MD USA From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 17 08:06:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA20959 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 08:06:24 +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 IAA20954 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 08:06:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-33qsqhr.dsl.mindspring.com [199.174.106.59]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA18469 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 18:06:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <009001bfd7df$12135940$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <200006161232.NAA03585@tempest.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: End of L68B [long] Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 18:06:06 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Barker" To: Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 8:32 AM Subject: Re: End of L68B [long] > > David Burn's second post deals with the semantics of "An X is a Y", in > particular if "An X is a Y", and the Y is cancelled, is X cancelled. > Rather than argue in detail with a post that is several years old, I'll simply point out that the logic used in the second post is false, and leave it at that. Hirsch Davis Rockville, MD USA From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 17 08:18:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA20834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 07:20:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA20829 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 07:20:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-33qsqhr.dsl.mindspring.com [199.174.106.59]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA28695 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:20:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002601bfd7d8$a201d4c0$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <20000614181529.88331.qmail@hotmail.com><00a301bfd714$e52fdc20$782e37d2@laptop> <8VQUhTBvpZS5Ew66@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Claim laws revisited (or outright rewritten) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:20:00 -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: Thursday, June 15, 2000 11:09 PM Subject: Re: Claim laws revisited (or outright rewritten) > I was given a ruling thirty years ago in the Easter Guardian in the > Europa hotel that so incensed me that I have always remembered it. No > appeal mechanism was available, of course. > > Declarer is playing a 4-4 fit, and is fooling around with odd ruffs > and finesses. About trick eight I led a heart, and declarer showed his > hand and claimed the rest. > > I called the TD. Declarer explained that he was ruffing the heart > low, risking an over-ruff, which catered to a 4-1 spade break. The > alternative was to ruff high: no risk of an over-ruff, but going off on > a 4-1 break. > > The TD gave declarer the contract, and we were livid. There was a 4-1 > break but no over-ruff. It was our view at the time, and after > discussing my whole group was certain of it, that if partner had > objected to the claim rather than me, declarer would have explained to > the TD that he was ruffing high. > > Of course, under the suggested rule, declarer will now withdraw his > claim and get it right. > Of course, if Declarer had actually been required to give a statement (without prompting by the opponents) of exactly which cards he intended to play, and the order he intended to play them, you would never have had a problem in the first place. Hirsch Davis Rockville, MD USA From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 17 08:22:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA21018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 08:22:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (mailout3-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.168]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA21008 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 08:21:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.53] (d18182a35.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.53]) by mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA18831 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 18:13:56 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 18:20:10 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: The End of L68B is Nigh (was: End of L68B) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Razzlefratz. I had intended this message to go to the list, but I managed to send it back to Todd instead. :-( >You are the sole person to complain that he can't distinguish >between an argument about the way things are and an argument about >the way things should be. If I have greatly confused any number of >people, I apologize. > As far as being deleterious (and highly so, at that), I could >have sworn that a purpose of this list was to suggest and debate >changes in law. I don't complain about it because David usually beats me to it. However, if you must have corroboration, I don't like it either. I would much prefer that we keep "what do the existing laws say, and how are we to apply them" threads separate from "what _should_ the laws say" threads. The former are, to me, much more interesting, and much more important. Maybe some day, once I become as familiar with the laws as some of the rest of you, I'll be more interested in what they _should_ say, but I think first I oughta know what they _do_ say. :-) 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/AwUBOUqoeL2UW3au93vOEQJQzACfdZRsrpFPRUw211vEyOtmun3pimsAn1N8 Pe+WgQp8lKMphhXhscXf4xrO =zmGh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 17 08:22:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA21023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 08:22:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (mailout3-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.168]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA21016 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 08:22:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.53] (d18182a35.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.53]) by mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA18860 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 18:14:01 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 18:20:30 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: The End of L68B is Nigh (was: End of L68B) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Razzlefratz. I had intended this message to go to the list, but I managed to send it back to Todd instead. :-( >You are not shy about situations where the law tells you to do >something you dislike. But if you object to my statement, then you >are on my side to have play continue and have the current claim laws >sent to the gallows? Um. I submit that until the laws are changed, ruling (or playing) in accordance with what one thinks they should say, instead of what they do say, is both illegal and unethical. Not trying to insult anybody, that's just my opinion. 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/AwUBOUqofL2UW3au93vOEQLjvQCgw2Qi17XLvanyR1gn/94OKRYw77gAnjLn mllcuPAwaUpNwTs5EBtYpFRe =BhaU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 17 08:22:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA21013 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 08:22:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.118]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA21005 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 08:21:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.53] (d18182a35.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.53]) by mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA18815 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 18:13:49 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 18:19:51 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: The End of L68B is Nigh (was: End of L68B) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Razzlefratz. I had intended this message to go to the list, but I managed to send it back to Todd instead. :-( > I'm suggesting that it be changed. This conversation has long >since ceased to be about the current interpretation of the law for >me. I've registered my opinion that play should continue when your >partner objects. Now I'm trying to prove if it is in fact the >superior method. As many a cavalryman has found, to his chagrin, riding off on your own in a direction different to the rest of the troop is liable to get you killed. :-) 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/AwUBOUqoc72UW3au93vOEQLY/gCgrbAaS4a24U4RgLrW4us9TkeYCQIAn1tq XL/TnqHPlhjQW5Zs0KJNjz0Q =A2nF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 17 09:21:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21186 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 09:21:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f288.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA21181 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 09:21:28 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 30287 invoked by uid 0); 16 Jun 2000 23:20:50 -0000 Message-ID: <20000616232050.30286.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.23 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:20:50 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.23] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The End of L68B is Nigh (was: End of L68B) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:20:50 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Ed Reppert >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >Razzlefratz. I had intended this message to go to the list, but I >managed to send it back to Todd instead. :-( > > > > I'm suggesting that it be changed. This conversation has long > >since ceased to be about the current interpretation of the law for > >me. I've registered my opinion that play should continue when your > >partner objects. Now I'm trying to prove if it is in fact the > >superior method. > >As many a cavalryman has found, to his chagrin, riding off on your >own in a direction different to the rest of the troop is liable to >get you killed. :-) I'm no stranger to being proven wrong. I just hope that the riding in my own direction didn't imply that everyone else is cavalier about the discussion of which method is superior. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 17 09:25:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 09:25:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA21205 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 09:25:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 1335Tz-0007U0-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 23:25:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:38:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Retraction of final pass References: <20000616165317.20941.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000616165317.20941.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 >>Todd Zimnoch wrote: >> > It's accepted as a pass where I play. >> > >> > The laws do not specify a proper form for a pass, but L18F says, >>"Zonal >> >Organizations may authorize different methods of making calls." So it's >> >more a matter of regulation than legality. >> >> Interesting: is there a difference? I would say it was illegal >>*because* it is in conflict with the regulations. > > Fair. Let's say that it is not illegal according to the FLB. Consult >your local authorities. > > Is this a case where the local club, or even TD?, could assign some >method at their discretion? Yes, certainly. > I went to some small-town sectional event where >they ran out of bidding boxes for the number of tables. TD asked us to >whisper, but as my hearing is so bad (the people 2-3 tables away will hear >before I do), I suggested we pass a piece of paper around. We spoke louder >instead. Thankfully I was only at the deficient table for one round. Written bidding works well - ask any Australian. -- 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 Sat Jun 17 09:25:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 09:25:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA21206 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 09:25:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 1335Tz-0007U1-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 23:25:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:54:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: The End of L68B is Nigh (was: End of L68B) References: <20000616172117.82457.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000616172117.82457.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: > I'm suggesting that it be changed. This conversation has long since >ceased to be about the current interpretation of the law for me. I've >registered my opinion that play should continue when your partner objects. >Now I'm trying to prove if it is in fact the superior method. Fine. Well, in this thread I am trying to resolve what we should be ruling. Since you have no further interest I shall not debate it with you any more. [s] > As far as being deleterious (and highly so, at that), I could have >sworn that a purpose of this list was to suggest and debate changes in law. Why? No-one has ever suggested that. The prupose of this list is to consider the laws. If you want to get rid of people whose main interest is to cosnider the current Laws you would probably find the list a lot smaller. Why should people who want to know how to rule not be considered? > You are not shy about situations where the law tells you to do >something you dislike. But if you object to my statement, then you are on >my side to have play continue and have the current claim laws sent to the >gallows? I am not prepared to discuss changes to this Law in this thread. -- 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 Sat Jun 17 12:55:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA21809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 12:55:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f89.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.89]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA21804 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 12:55:19 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 17898 invoked by uid 0); 17 Jun 2000 02:54:40 -0000 Message-ID: <20000617025440.17897.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 172.167.39.92 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:54:39 PDT X-Originating-IP: [172.167.39.92] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The End of L68B is Nigh (was: End of L68B) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:54:39 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson > > As far as being deleterious (and highly so, at that), I could have > >sworn that a purpose of this list was to suggest and debate changes in >law. > > Why? No-one has ever suggested that. The prupose of this list is to >consider the laws. If you want to get rid of people whose main interest >is to cosnider the current Laws you would probably find the list a lot >smaller. Why should people who want to know how to rule not be >considered? I never suggested any purpose was exclusionary. If I meant that I might have written, "the prupose of this list is," like you did. You wouldn't boot the cats or dogs now, would you? ;) -Todd (I really don't take being patronized well, you know?) ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 17 13:00:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA21840 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 13:00:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f88.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA21834 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 13:00:25 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 4423 invoked by uid 0); 17 Jun 2000 02:59:45 -0000 Message-ID: <20000617025945.4422.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 172.167.39.92 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:59:45 PDT X-Originating-IP: [172.167.39.92] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Retraction of final pass Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:59:45 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson > > I went to some small-town sectional event where > >they ran out of bidding boxes for the number of tables. TD asked us to > >whisper, but as my hearing is so bad (the people 2-3 tables away will >hear > >before I do), I suggested we pass a piece of paper around. We spoke >louder > >instead. Thankfully I was only at the deficient table for one round. > > Written bidding works well - ask any Australian. Well, the reason we didn't do it is that we didn't know what to do about the alerts. Player bids, passes the paper to his partner to mark the alert, if necessary, and then passes the paper to the person whose turn it is to bid next? I will have to ask. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 17 17:59:29 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA22439 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 17:59:29 +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 RAA22434 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 17:59:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-197.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.197]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA12120 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 09:59:07 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <394A1E30.F006BDEC@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:31:44 +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: End of L68B References: <20000615171223.53613.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > > >[4] There is no point to cancelling a concession if you are going to rule > >that it is still a claim. > > That is not true. If you concede two tricks and claim two, and > partner objects, then if the concession is not cancelled, you have > conceded two tricks! To concede fewer than two tricks the concession > has to be cancelled [or varied, or something else]. > OK David, I will just for the sake of argument accept your position, and see where this leads us. Defender says "I take two tricks and you get the other two" (no cards shown) Declarer says "what ?" Partner says "no, please play on". The TD is called, and they are in bad luck, it is one DWS. He hears what happened and says "there has been a claim, and a concession. The concession is cancelled, but the claim isn't and I am going to rule on that. Did you add a claim statement ?" Of course the defender did not, and you don't allow him one now. And now you start your ruling. Defender has claimed two tricks, and nothing else has happened. Presumably two tricks are normal, and so you award them. But hey - partner has asked for three tricks, hasn't he ? Maybe there are some normal lines (but not all - of course) that lead to this third trick. You may even feel that defenders are entitled to this third trick, but how can you give them when you RTFLB : L69A doesn't help. Declarer has acquiesced in the claim of two tricks, and he will not withdraw that. L70 doesn't help. The claim is not contested. L71 doesn't help either. There has been no concession, so how can it be withdrawn ? And anyway, if you want to use it, you should ascertain that the third trick cannot be lost by "any" normal play. So really David, your interpretation does not make sense. By saying that the claim must be dealt with, you have no single route to awarding the third trick. And saying that the concession is cancelled doesn't help either, since no Law is able to deal with this. Sorry David. > >[5] The LC that wrote 68B allow a concession to be cancelled anytime > >partner objects. > > True. > > >[6] (assumption) That LC wasn't stupid. > > So what? > > > Why allow a concession to be cancelled if that will have no effect? > > It doesn't have no effect! If you do not cancel a concession of two > tricks then two tricks are conceded! > The question was : what effect does the Law have that allows a concession to be cancelled, if you don't apply it, not ever. Why would the LC have included a Law, if it can never be applied ? > > I > >think that the LC intended that a cancelled concession would have an effect > >even in the case of a concession of fewer than all the remaining tricks. As > >you would rule, it cannot. > > Wrong. Of course it has an effect. > > > > > > > > > We're dealing specifically with the defenders here. Suppose one > >defender claims and the other objects. Describe a circumstance where > >allowing play to continue with Law 16 in effect and TD's presence produces a > >result more undesireable than applying Law 70. > > Why should I? I am not trying to produce odd examples, which are > without doubt possible. I am trying to interpret a Law. > But you are not succeeding. > > You know, I hate this approach, and I think it highly deleterious to > this list. This continual mixing up of totally different ideas benefits > no-one except those who are arguing for the sake of it. If you want to > discuss what the Laws ought to be, why on earth do you have to in the > midst of a thread about what they are? > I agree with this statement. But I don't believe that is what Todd wanted to do. > I object to your statement that I *want* play to cease: I am doing > what this thread started out as and trying to interpret the Laws. My > wants do not come into it at all. These sort of remarks certainly make > it more difficult for anyone to try to make sense of how they should be > ruling at the moment. > David, please understand what Todd and I are saying. You have one interpretation of the Law, we have another one. For all your writings, you have not been able to state why you think our interpretation is wrong. We have tried to tell you why your interpretation is wrong (the cancellation of the concession must mean the cancellation of the claim as well) and we have tried to show you that your interpretation leads to clearly undesired effects. We are trying to let you see the light, David, and you accuse us of mixing arguments. Sorry about that, but we believe any method that leads to your enlightenment is worth a try. You are too valuable on this list, David, to continue this split to exist. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 17 22:09:04 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA22989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 22:09:04 +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 WAA22984 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 22:08:51 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 14281 invoked from network); 17 Jun 2000 12:07:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.7.55) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 17 Jun 2000 12:07:22 -0000 Message-ID: <394B6B6E.7A8C8D5A@inter.net.il> Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 15:13:34 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hirsch Davis CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: End of L68B [long] References: <200006161232.NAA03585@tempest.npl.co.uk> <009001bfd7df$12135940$0200000a@mindspring.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------C7B95F385A344D6888A3B7E7" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --------------C7B95F385A344D6888A3B7E7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well , I didn't get involved for a long while , but I feel that only the "lawyering" and "digging" is the main reason for the continuation of this discussion ( and the proposal for the rewriting the claim rules) . I can't ensure that the wording in the present laws is the best (I suggest to ask an Oxford and a Harvard Professor of English......) but I never had problems to implement these rules. If anyone doesn't want to claim !!! the scope of laws as "digging & lawyering & controversions & etc. , etc. "..... then there is no problem go on.......I mean both the TDs and the players...... None of the bridge laws deny the normal brain use , implementing the bridge laws , as written in the book. Ruling the national league , or any high level tournament , I never had problems when someone said "...take your K trump whenever you want , ...5 made ..." . never thought if it was a claim or a concession....and no one dared to ask that question................. Dany Hirsch Davis wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robin Barker" > To: > Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 8:32 AM > Subject: Re: End of L68B [long] > > > > > David Burn's second post deals with the semantics of "An X is a Y", in > > particular if "An X is a Y", and the Y is cancelled, is X cancelled. > > > > Rather than argue in detail with a post that is several years old, I'll > simply point out that the logic used in the second post is false, and leave > it at that. > > Hirsch Davis > Rockville, MD > USA --------------C7B95F385A344D6888A3B7E7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well   , I didn't get involved for a long while , but I feel that only the
"lawyering" and "digging" is the main reason for the continuation of this
discussion ( and the proposal for the rewriting the claim rules) .

I can't ensure that the wording in the present laws is the best (I suggest to ask an Oxford and a Harvard Professor of English......) but I never had problems to implement these rules.

If anyone doesn't want to claim !!! the scope of laws as "digging & lawyering & controversions & etc. , etc. "..... then there is no problem
go on.......I mean both the TDs and the players......
None of the bridge laws deny the normal brain use , implementing the bridge laws , as written in the book.
Ruling the national league , or any high level tournament , I never had problems when someone said "...take your K trump whenever you want , ...5 made ..." . never thought if it was a claim or a concession....and no one dared to ask that question.................

Dany
 
 
 

Hirsch Davis wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robin Barker" <rmb1@cise.npl.co.uk>
To: <bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 8:32 AM
Subject: Re: End of L68B [long]

>
> David Burn's second post deals with the semantics of "An X is a Y", in
> particular if "An X is a Y", and the Y is cancelled, is X cancelled.
>

Rather than argue in detail with a post that is several years old, I'll
simply point out that the logic used in the second post is false, and leave
it at that.

Hirsch Davis
Rockville, MD
USA

--------------C7B95F385A344D6888A3B7E7-- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 17 22:39:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA23072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 22:39:46 +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 WAA23067 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 22:39:36 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 22086 invoked from network); 17 Jun 2000 12:38:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.7.55) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 17 Jun 2000 12:38:09 -0000 Message-ID: <394B72A6.406CAE79@inter.net.il> Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 15:44:22 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Todd Zimnoch CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The End of L68B is Nigh (was: End of L68B) References: <20000617025440.17897.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello Ladies and Gents The cats and dogs are very respectable and clever animals , please don't let them to be confused with the very high ....(????) of the BLML....... And please again , attack subjects only not persons. Love you all Dany Todd Zimnoch wrote: > >From: David Stevenson > > > As far as being deleterious (and highly so, at that), I could have > > >sworn that a purpose of this list was to suggest and debate changes in > >law. > > > > Why? No-one has ever suggested that. The prupose of this list is to > >consider the laws. If you want to get rid of people whose main interest > >is to cosnider the current Laws you would probably find the list a lot > >smaller. Why should people who want to know how to rule not be > >considered? > > I never suggested any purpose was exclusionary. If I meant that I > might have written, "the prupose of this list is," like you did. You > wouldn't boot the cats or dogs now, would you? ;) > > -Todd > (I really don't take being patronized well, you know?) > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 17 23:14:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA23173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 23:14:25 +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 XAA23168 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 23:14:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-5-103.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.5.103]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA19324 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 15:14:05 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <394B3B1E.22F078B@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 10:47:26 +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: End of L68B [long] References: <3.0.6.32.20000616163142.0086ee70@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner wrote: > > At 13:32 16/06/00 +0100, Robin Barker wrote: > > > > > > I am sorry that I have not made myself clear: I thought I had. > > > > I have already conceded that I was wrong to assume the meaning of "is" > >as in "A triangle is a three-sided polygon". My apologies for not > >making this clear. It is the progression: > > A claim of some tricks is a concession > > No concession has occurred > > There is no claim > > which is the same IMO as: > > A giraffe is a quadruped > > There is no quadruped > > Therefore there is no giraffe > > which I believe is logical? > > AG : I think the theory of reverse syllogism (bramantip and others) doesn't > apply here because there is no inclusion of mathematical sets ; logical > rules of consequences work differently, and this should be taken into > account in your hypothetical logical language of bridge. > > >From : > > 1) A claim generates a concession > 2) The concession has been voided > > You cannot infer that the claim has been voided, exactly in the same way as > from : > > 1) A has robbed B, so there is an injury to B > 2) A has offered to repay B, so there is no more injury > > you cannot infer that A is no more considered to have robbed A ; he is > still liable to prosecution. > > A. All this is certainly true. But it is an argument for neither side of this discussion. What I mean is, neither side can use this to prove its case. The laws do NOT state that the claim must be cancelled, but they don't say that it shouldn't either. So we fall back on the logic of the Lawmakers' intent. And I maintain that the only sensible ruling is to let play continue. I thank Robin for digging up the original that prompted DS to change allegiance and side with DB, but I don't believe that it is relevant in a general sense. That case involved too much of a statement, and the showing of all cards, to allow play to continue. But the ruling should have been : no claim has occurred, play should have continued, but there is UI to defenders, and some lines of play are "Logical Alternatives" (not "Normal Lines") so those must be followed. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 18 00:10:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA23368 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:10:35 +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 AAA23363 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:10:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id KAA11221 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 10:10:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA24598 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 10:10:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 10:10:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200006171410.KAA24598@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: End of L68B X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > [TD] hears what happened and says "there has been a claim, and > a concession. The concession is cancelled, but the claim > isn't and I am going to rule on that. Did you add a claim > statement ?" > > Of course the defender did not, and you don't allow him one > now. It would have been normal to show cards and offer a claim statement when making the claim, but OK, suppose for the sake of argument the defender didn't do so. > And now you start your ruling. > > Defender has claimed two tricks, and nothing else has > happened. Well, not exactly nothing. The concession of the remaining two tricks has been cancelled. So the legal position at the table is that the TD is ruling on a claim of all four tricks. If a claim exists and no concession exists, the claim must be for all the tricks. It's interesting that Todd has argued that it makes no difference whether two tricks or four were claimed. Herman thinks it makes a difference. I am not sure, but it doesn't matter in the sorts of cases under discussion because the claim will always, legally speaking, be for all the tricks. (The TD may, of course, award fewer after adjudicating the claim.) If you want an absurd position, Herman, consider what happens if the defender _does_ show his cards and state a line of play. Are you really going to cancel the claim then? From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 18 01:45:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA23759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 01:45:45 +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 BAA23743 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 01:45:33 +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 133KmY-000778-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 15:45:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 01:39:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claim laws revisited (or outright rewritten) References: <20000614181529.88331.qmail@hotmail.com> <00a301bfd714$e52fdc20$782e37d2@laptop> <8VQUhTBvpZS5Ew66@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <002601bfd7d8$a201d4c0$0200000a@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <002601bfd7d8$a201d4c0$0200000a@mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: >From: "David Stevenson" >> I called the TD. Declarer explained that he was ruffing the heart >> low, risking an over-ruff, which catered to a 4-1 spade break. The >> alternative was to ruff high: no risk of an over-ruff, but going off on >> a 4-1 break. >> >> The TD gave declarer the contract, and we were livid. There was a 4-1 >> break but no over-ruff. It was our view at the time, and after >> discussing my whole group was certain of it, that if partner had >> objected to the claim rather than me, declarer would have explained to >> the TD that he was ruffing high. >> >> Of course, under the suggested rule, declarer will now withdraw his >> claim and get it right. >Of course, if Declarer had actually been required to give a statement >(without prompting by the opponents) of exactly which cards he intended to >play, and the order he intended to play them, you would never have had a >problem in the first place. He is required. The problem was bad tournament direction. -- 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 Sun Jun 18 01:45:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA23758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 01:45:45 +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 BAA23745 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 01:45:34 +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 133KmY-00077A-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 15:45:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 01:44:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fwd: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robert E. Harris wrote: >I hope this copy goes through! Congratulations! It made it! >>Kids like to insert a little excitement into things, in general, and >>psyching and using odd bidding methods appeals to them. The lols don't >>like it, some of them, but they are dying off and the kids are not coming >>in. Teaching new young players about psyching and encouraging them to try >>it might be a good idea. True. Also teaching them the rules and encouraging them to try them would not hurt either. -- 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 Sun Jun 18 01:45:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA23760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 01:45:45 +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 BAA23744 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 01:45:34 +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 133KmY-000777-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 15:45:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 01:38:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claim laws revisited (or outright rewritten) References: <20000614181529.88331.qmail@hotmail.com> <00a301bfd714$e52fdc20$782e37d2@laptop> <8VQUhTBvpZS5Ew66@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <001701bfd7cf$acdf9840$205afd3e@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <001701bfd7cf$acdf9840$205afd3e@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" >> The TD gave declarer the contract, and we were livid. There was a 4-1 >> break but no over-ruff. It was our view at the time, and after >> discussing my whole group was certain of it, that if partner had >> objected to the claim rather than me, declarer would have explained to >> the TD that he was ruffing high. >> >> Of course, under the suggested rule, declarer will now withdraw his >> claim and get it right. >> >And we have probably got that Director to thanks for David's >presence as a Laws Guru in our midst. Who was he, who so >changed the 'direction' of our lives? Thirty years ago? I have *no* idea. -- 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 Sun Jun 18 02:37:04 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA24098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 02:37:04 +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 CAA24093 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 02:36:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-1054gs8.dsl.mindspring.com [64.82.67.136]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA21802 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 12:36:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001a01bfd87a$37fe84e0$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <200006171410.KAA24598@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: End of L68B Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 12:36:41 -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: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2000 10:10 AM Subject: Re: End of L68B > > From: Herman De Wael > > [TD] hears what happened and says "there has been a claim, and > > a concession. The concession is cancelled, but the claim > > isn't and I am going to rule on that. Did you add a claim > > statement ?" > > > > Of course the defender did not, and you don't allow him one > > now. > > It would have been normal to show cards and offer a claim statement > when making the claim, but OK, suppose for the sake of argument the > defender didn't do so. > > > And now you start your ruling. > > > > Defender has claimed two tricks, and nothing else has > > happened. > > Well, not exactly nothing. The concession of the remaining two tricks > has been cancelled. So the legal position at the table is that the TD > is ruling on a claim of all four tricks. If a claim exists and no > concession exists, the claim must be for all the tricks. > No, from a purely legal position defender has conceded 2 tricks. Once the concession is cancelled there is nothing left but UI. Cancel the concession and you cancel the claim. The TD is never adjudicating a partial claim under these 68B, because it has been cancelled before he gets there. Not that anyone is still reading this, but here's my analysis of 68B: "B. Concession Defined Any statement to the effect that a contestant will lose a specific number of tricks is a concession of those tricks;" "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any." "A player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his hand." "Regardless of the foregoing," "if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects," "no concession has occurred;" "Law 16, Unauthorized Information, may apply, so the Director should be summoned forthwith." > It's interesting that Todd has argued that it makes no difference > whether two tricks or four were claimed. Herman thinks it makes a > difference. I am not sure, but it doesn't matter in the sorts of cases > under discussion because the claim will always, legally speaking, be > for all the tricks. (The TD may, of course, award fewer after > adjudicating the claim.) > It makes a difference if four tricks are left, because partner cannot object to a claim that is for all of the tricks. Note the conditions under which 68B applies. If a claim does not attempt to concede one or more tricks, it is not cancelled by partner's objection. > If you want an absurd position, Herman, consider what happens if the > defender _does_ show his cards and state a line of play. Are you > really going to cancel the claim then? If I'm to rule according to law, of course this "claim" is cancelled. 68B does not give the TD the option to decide whether or not to cancel the partial claim/concession, so the TD does not have a decision to make. The concession is cancelled, the exposed cards are penalty cards, UI is explained, and play continues. The length of this thread is entirely due to the interpretation of the statement: "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any." If one simply takes this literally, as the lawmakers wrote it, and doesn't tie oneself into sematic knots trying to break the situation into separate claim and concession components, then the ruling is easy. Hirsch Davis Rockville, MD USA From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 18 07:42:41 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA24918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 07:42:41 +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 HAA24913 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 07:42:33 +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 RAA16860 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 17:42:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA28858 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 17:42:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 17:42:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200006172142.RAA28858@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: End of L68B X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk SW> Well, not exactly nothing. The concession of the remaining two tricks SW> has been cancelled. So the legal position at the table is that the TD SW> is ruling on a claim of all four tricks. If a claim exists and no SW> concession exists, the claim must be for all the tricks. I thought the context of the above was clear, but evidently it wasn't. Herman argued that _if_ one accepts David's and my interpretation of L68B, one reaches a silly position. I was arguing that it's a perfectly reasonable position: there remains a claim for all the tricks. Now you may or may not agree that this is the correct interpretation of L68B, but I hope everyone agrees that it is a reasonable situation and one that a TD can adjudicate. > From: "Hirsch Davis" [L68B in part] > "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any." > > tricks must still be lost as a concession, for the purposes of 68B. > Statements applying to concessions also apply to this form of claim.> Yes, indeed the crux of the argument. Hirsch adopts yet another meaning of 'is': a claim of some but not all the tricks is _transformed_ into a concession. I don't see how this interpretation is viable. The text says a "concession _of the remainder_." How can that apply to the tricks that were claimed? There is a concession, all right, but not of the tricks that were claimed. No, when some but not all tricks are claimed, both a claim and a concession are created. SW> If you want an absurd position, Herman, consider what happens if the SW> defender _does_ show his cards and state a line of play. Are you SW> really going to cancel the claim then? [still from Hirsch:] > If I'm to rule according to law, of course this "claim" is cancelled. 68B > does not give the TD the option to decide whether or not to cancel the > partial claim/concession, so the TD does not have a decision to make. The > concession is cancelled, the exposed cards are penalty cards, UI is > explained, and play continues. Talk about ludicrous rulings! A player has made a perfectly legal claim (perhaps not valid, but certainly legal) and done so in proper form, and you are giving him penalty cards?! I suggest this is so far-fetched and unfair that one should look very hard to find another way to rule. In fact, we don't have to look hard at all. > "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any." > > If one simply takes this literally, as the lawmakers wrote it, and doesn't > tie oneself into sematic knots trying to break the situation into separate > claim and concession components, then the ruling is easy. Well, I've always considered myself BLML's foremost (perhaps "most extreme") promoter of literal interpretations, so I agree entirely with the approach. But "take literally" with which meaning for 'is'? As David B. pointed out, there are at least two, and Hirsch used yet a third one above. Give 'is' its meaning "is, among other things," and you have no problem. (David's example: "A computer is an emailer.") Yes, by all means, take L68B literally! But whatever you do, remember that only the "remainder" are conceded. The Laws very clearly separate claims and concessions. There are no "semantic knots" in that! From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 18 11:15:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA25654 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:15:03 +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 LAA25644 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:14:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 133Tfc-0004X3-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 02:14:41 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 18:27:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: End of L68B References: <20000615171223.53613.qmail@hotmail.com> <394A1E30.F006BDEC@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <394A1E30.F006BDEC@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: >> You know, I hate this approach, and I think it highly deleterious to >> this list. This continual mixing up of totally different ideas benefits >> no-one except those who are arguing for the sake of it. If you want to >> discuss what the Laws ought to be, why on earth do you have to in the >> midst of a thread about what they are? >I agree with this statement. But I don't believe that is >what Todd wanted to do. Todd Zimnoch wrote: > I'm suggesting that it be changed. This conversation has long since >ceased to be about the current interpretation of the law for me. I've >registered my opinion that play should continue when your partner objects. >Now I'm trying to prove if it is in fact the superior method. Todd Zimnoch wrote: > At the moment, I believe the priorities should be to decide what we'd >want the laws to do. You (and others) want play to cease always unless it >was a concession of all the remaining tricks. Your defense has been that's >what the laws say, but I want a compelling reason for why we should allow >the laws to say such a thing. I (and others) think that play should >continue unless it was a claim for all the tricks. We should develop >arguments outside of the currently written laws to decide which approach is >preferable. Then the laws should be rewritten to achieve that effect. -- 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 Sun Jun 18 11:15:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA25655 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:15:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA25645 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:14:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 133Tfc-0004X4-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 02:14:40 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 18:29:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Retraction of final pass References: <20000617025945.4422.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000617025945.4422.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 >> > I went to some small-town sectional event where >> >they ran out of bidding boxes for the number of tables. TD asked us to >> >whisper, but as my hearing is so bad (the people 2-3 tables away will >>hear >> >before I do), I suggested we pass a piece of paper around. We spoke >>louder >> >instead. Thankfully I was only at the deficient table for one round. >> >> Written bidding works well - ask any Australian. > > Well, the reason we didn't do it is that we didn't know what to do >about the alerts. Player bids, passes the paper to his partner to mark the >alert, if necessary, and then passes the paper to the person whose turn it >is to bid next? I will have to ask. In Australia when someone makes an alertable call, partner leans across the table and circles it. -- 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 Jun 19 01:23:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA28104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 01:23:20 +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 BAA28099 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 01:23:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 133grI-0006du-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 15:19:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 14:30:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: 500! MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I added 20 cat stories to my Storypage. Then I counted the articles on my site. Then I added one more. Anyway, why did I add one more? Because the totals on my site are now as follows: Homepage: 6 articles Bridgepage: 67 articles Bridge Lawspage: 40 articles Catpage: 40 articles Cat Storypage: 247 articles Generalpage: 77 articles Trainpage: 23 articles Site total: 500 articles Yipppeeeee! -- 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 Jun 19 01:30:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA28132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 01:30:37 +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 BAA28126 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 01:30:29 +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 LAA09537 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:30:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006181530.LAA09537@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: End of L68B Reply-To: michael@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <3948A9A6.BF93FF4F@village.uunet.be> References: <002001bfd44f$3b676540$98b4f1c3@kooijman> <39461255.45E2597F@village.uunet.be> <4JZV2RAE91R5EwjS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3948A9A6.BF93FF4F@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:30:45 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> A concession of two tricks out of three is a claim of one trick. >> Cite, please? L68B specifically states that a claim of one trick is a concession of the remainder; there is no converse stated in the Laws. The first sentence of L68A and L68B both begin the same way; so obviously there was something in the "concession" rule that the Lawmakers wished to do differently, as they added the second part to the first sentence of L68B. I think this is the key difference in people's positions here - but unless someone can show why the Lawmakers chose to specifically call a partial claim a concession, but not to call a partial concession a claim, I must believe that it was their intent not to do so. Glad to see my week of being publicly humiliated is over :-), Michael. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 19 02:50:24 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA28487 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 02:50:24 +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 CAA28482 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 02:50:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-33qsq7u.dsl.mindspring.com [199.174.104.254]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA20333 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 12:50:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000901bfd945$42a45520$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <200006172142.RAA28858@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: End of L68B Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 12:50:07 -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: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2000 5:42 PM Subject: Re: End of L68B > SW> Well, not exactly nothing. The concession of the remaining two tricks > SW> has been cancelled. So the legal position at the table is that the TD > SW> is ruling on a claim of all four tricks. If a claim exists and no > SW> concession exists, the claim must be for all the tricks. > > I thought the context of the above was clear, but evidently it wasn't. > Herman argued that _if_ one accepts David's and my interpretation of > L68B, one reaches a silly position. I was arguing that it's a > perfectly reasonable position: there remains a claim for all the > tricks. > > Now you may or may not agree that this is the correct interpretation of > L68B, but I hope everyone agrees that it is a reasonable situation and > one that a TD can adjudicate. > No, you're turning a partial claim into a complete one when partner objects, and ruling under Law 70. However, L68B specifically states that the TD is called because of the potential applicability of L16. L16 applies to contined play, not adjudicating a claim. Under your logic, L16 can never be applied to a partial concession when partner objects, even though 68B indicates that L16 is the reason for summoning the TD. The laws are sometimes unclear, but they're rarely that inconsistent. > > From: "Hirsch Davis" > [L68B in part] > > "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any." > > > > > tricks must still be lost as a concession, for the purposes of 68B. > > Statements applying to concessions also apply to this form of claim.> > > Yes, indeed the crux of the argument. Hirsch adopts yet another > meaning of 'is': a claim of some but not all the tricks is > _transformed_ into a concession. I don't see how this interpretation > is viable. The text says a "concession _of the remainder_." How can > that apply to the tricks that were claimed? There is a concession, > all right, but not of the tricks that were claimed. > There are claims and there are concessions. Consider them separate sets that intersect when certain conditions are met. These conditions are described in L68B. When that occurs, they are one and the same. L68B treats these partial claims/concessions as concessions for the purposes of ruling. They are not "transformed" in any way. They were always concessions, as defined by the lawmakers. > No, when some but not all tricks are claimed, both a claim and a > concession are created. > Agreed, from a strictly sematic point of view. Useless for ruling, though, since the laws tell us that this is treated as a concession. > SW> If you want an absurd position, Herman, consider what happens if the > SW> defender _does_ show his cards and state a line of play. Are you > SW> really going to cancel the claim then? > > [still from Hirsch:] > > If I'm to rule according to law, of course this "claim" is cancelled. 68B > > does not give the TD the option to decide whether or not to cancel the > > partial claim/concession, so the TD does not have a decision to make. The > > concession is cancelled, the exposed cards are penalty cards, UI is > > explained, and play continues. > > Talk about ludicrous rulings! A player has made a perfectly legal > claim (perhaps not valid, but certainly legal) and done so in proper > form, and you are giving him penalty cards?! I suggest this is so > far-fetched and unfair that one should look very hard to find another > way to rule. In fact, we don't have to look hard at all. > Which is of course absolutely the wrong way to go about a ruling. My choice of ruling may be right or wrong, but it is based on my attempt to follow the laws as closely as I can, as I understand them. What you are doing is suggesting that since you disagree with the result of a law application, find a way around it. If the laws lead me to a ludicrous ruling, then it is certainly appropriate for me to hope for a change in the laws. However, if IMO the ruling under law is clear, that's the ruling I'm going to make, regardless of whether or not I approve of the result. With regard to penalty cards, a defender faces his hand, telling declarer he has the rest of the tricks. Partner objects. There has been no claim at all (unless you're buying into the silly claim for zero tricks argument), so you can't apply 68D (surely you aren't arguing that 68B doesn't cancel *this* concession). Exactly what do you propose to do with the exposed cards? Defender has made a perfectly legal concession (perhaps not valid, but certainly legal)... Once you've worked that one out, now try the situation where a defender faces his hand, states "I get the high trump (true) and you get the rest" and his partner objects. Explain to me why it is "fair" that we should treat this differently than the case above. IMO they are the same. > > "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any." > > > > If one simply takes this literally, as the lawmakers wrote it, and doesn't > > tie oneself into sematic knots trying to break the situation into separate > > claim and concession components, then the ruling is easy. > > Well, I've always considered myself BLML's foremost (perhaps "most > extreme") promoter of literal interpretations, so I agree entirely with > the approach. But "take literally" with which meaning for 'is'? As > David B. pointed out, there are at least two, and Hirsch used yet a > third one above. Not really. >Give 'is' its meaning "is, among other things," and > you have no problem. (David's example: "A computer is an emailer.") There are a set of objects called computers. There are a set of objects that are called emailers. When a certain set of criteria are met, then those computers meet those criteria are emailers. Statements that apply to the group "emailers" also apply to the subset of the group "computers" that are part of the group "emailers". Is there a problem with this usage? > Yes, by all means, take L68B literally! But whatever you do, remember > that only the "remainder" are conceded. > > The Laws very clearly separate claims and concessions. They also indicate where the two groups intersect. >There are no > "semantic knots" in that! Sure... Hirsch Davis Rockville, MD USA From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 19 03:12:25 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA28541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 03:12:25 +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 DAA28536 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 03:12:16 +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 NAA10822 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 13:12:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006181712.NAA10822@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <3948ADD5.E4278736@village.uunet.be> References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific><001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific> <000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona> <39461668.D81C58EA@village.uunet.be> <001701bfd5fb$6c96e840$532f37d2@laptop> <3948ADD5.E4278736@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 13:12:33 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [large snippage here, still long, sorry] On 15 June 2000 at 12:20, Herman De Wael wrote: >Thak you Wayne, for what you wrote : > >Wayne Burrows wrote: >> >> > No one has ever suggested that the call be made invalid per >> > L40A. >> >> I don't agree with this and other attacks of psyches. >> >I hope you were not thinking I was making an attack on >psyches, jsut the contrary ! > Count me in on the not attacking psyches camp. However: >> Nevertheless I think the logic at this point is that the undisclosed >> agreement is illegal in the case of a psyche - it is either a prohibited >> convention or an agreement to open light opening and such agreements are >> often subject to regulations. > >That is most people's logic, not mine. > >> One contradiction I find in this whole argument is that as soon as you say >> that there is an (implicit) undisclosed agreement then the bid no longer >> becomes a psyche. That is you cannot argue both that the "psyche" is a part >> of some undisclosed agreement and that it is a "gross misdescription". The >> bid is either a psyche or it is part of your agreements it cannot be both. >> Those who argue against psyches seem to want it to be both. >> Well, when I argue against (specific) psyches, I don't do this - I state that the undisclosed agreement is part of an illegal system according to regulations, and rule as such. I'm not happy about that, but that's another story - but when I believe it's a CPU, I'm a lot less unhappy than when I think it was just blatant use of UI (because the former implies premeditation). I believe that the CoP makes finding evidence of such an undisclosed agreement too easy; in fact, circumstance d) in the CoP makes it possible for there to be a "partnership understanding" *even if there has never been a psychic call before in the careers of either of the partnership*. Ok, so anyone who tried this in an AC would be laughed out of the Casebooks, but: "d.the members of the partnership are mutually aware of some significant external matter that may help recognition of the psychic call." may be construed to be "we're playing against much better players; we're down 12 at the half of this qualifying match; and they've been belittling our game all night, and it looks like they have slam on this hand." So Alice makes a Sandwich double (showing high-card strength) with a 5242 2-count, hoping to argue them out of slam. I am worried about the CoP's circumstances: it seems that a) makes it illegal to psych in the same situation frequently (which I agree with), b) makes it illegal to psych a call which had a spectacular result in the recent past (good or bad) (ok, I can see that too), c) makes it illegal to psych if you psych too much (?), and d) makes it illegal to psych in the most common psyching situations (no comment). Not only does this remove most psyches anyway (especially if you are known to have done so), but such a psych based on a C(implicit)PU is regulable under L40D), therefore you are playing an illegal system (almost always). I'm also uncomfortable about the definition of an IPU as "the partner of the player who psyches has a heightened awareness that in the given situation the call may be psychic." if for no other reason than anyone who anticipates that I have made a psychic call, barring explicit evidence to the contrary, will be looking for another partner for the evening session. And I believe that to be true of anyone here who psyches frequently (i.e. more than once a year). Oh and for the reason that I may make no psychic calls in my favourite partnership, because he definately has a hightened awareness that (in any situation) my calls may be psychic (or, at least, that if there has been a psych, it's 10-1 that it was me rather than the opps - when does one become the converse?) "The opponents are entitled to a equal and timely awareness of any agreement, explicit or implicit..." - but at least in the ACBL and in the EBU, players are explicitly banned from giving that awareness on their CC (of course, now I can't find the reg. on the ACBL web site - if this has been taken away, wonderful). Also, what if the opponents have that "equal and timely awareness"? At my club (and especially, it seems at the YC on friday nights), everyone knows who the "usual suspects" are - and in fact, certain "everyones" do more to enhance my reputation as a psycher than I do by making the calls. Does that mean I have licence to psych there, but not where the opponents are unfamiliar? "Of course, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong." Sorry, I truly "didn't want to get on a rant, here"; I just have never been able to eloquently explain my reservations to this part of the CoP before (though I've had them since it came out). > >I don't mind if they call it both, as long as they don't >deduce from it that it must be prohibited. > Well, unfortunately, they can. L40D explicitly gives them the right to rule against calls once they have moved from the "psychic" to the "implicit understanding". I believe that should be the case for specific situations, but not for general frequency or just the "obvious psyches" (by general bridge experience; if a particular partnership psyches a 2S response to a weak 2H often enough, then it becomes an IPU, but not just because "it's a common psych", even though it may help partner discover it). >I can live with an obligation to disclose "psyching" >tendencies. > >I can live with a ruling that goes : > >Suppose I open 1He, third seat, on 1 HCP. Defenders find >out that I don't have 11HCP, and now play me for every >missing honour. >The TD could rule that if my CC had mentioned that I may >well open 1He in third seat with 0-3 HCP, opponents would >have defended differently, and he adjusts based on that. > >I can live with that. > But what do you do when, after your 1H opening, they get to 6NT. You have shown the SQ; partner has two lines of play. One succeeds when you hold the DQ; one succeeds when you hold DT9xxx. What if partner chooses to play you for long diamonds? He knows you've psyched; everyone knows you've psyched. But he has the added information that you have <4 points. If it's disclosed, I believe it's specific enough to be regulable; I believe "frequent 3rd seat psyches" is not. >I cannot live with a ruling that says that since this means >I have a CPU, the bid becomes illegal as such, or that it is >a systemic weak opening, which is forbidden. > Why not? If it showed 11-14, instead of 0-3, wouldn't you call it a systemic opening? Wouldn't it fit all the definitions of a regulable convention in your SO? Under the GCC here, a 1H opening which is either a normal 1H opening or 11-14 any in third seat is regulable and regulated against; what is the difference between that and 0-3? If it weren't so specific, or if the suit in which you psyched were not always 1He, I'd be happy with it (though if you switched it to "shorter major", I don't think that's variable enough). It still must be a "gross discription" of your hand, even after the psych is exposed. > >> The laws clearly distinguish between partnership agreement and partnership >> experience. (L75) "Agreements" need to be disclosed (L75A) in addition >> "experience" needs to be explained when answering questions (L75C). The Law >> also distinguishes between special agreements and experience and general >> bridge knowledge and experience. Special agreements and experience only >> need to be disclosed while general bridge knowledge need not. It is general >> bridge knowledge that a player is willingly allowed to violate partnership >> agreements and understandings (even gross violations - psyches). And it is >> general bridge knowledge that some situations lend themselves to psyches. >> >> In addition Law 75B states that habitual violations of announced agreements >> "may", but presumably not necessarily "will", create an implicit agreement . I agree with most of this - except that many people will not grant you the difference between "agreements", "experience", and "understandings"; even I am not sure they are separate enough for such a denotative reading of the Laws. However, the CoP have given guidelines to determine when habitual violations create an implicit agreement. See rant above :-). >I believe it creates axactly the same situation as with a >failure to alert, or any other misinformation. L12C2. > Unfortunately, the CoP and case history disagrees with you. L40D, if "explicit agreement concerning psychic calls, or implicit agreement concerning a praticular kind of psychic call." > >There really needs to be a better understanding of all these >terms. > Agreed. >> partnership agreement. Law40E acknowledges that the two members of a >> partnership may play the same system and yet still exercise different >> judgement. >> What happens, however, when the judgement is sufficiently different that the basic meanings of calls change? For instance with your 11+-16- 1NT opener; if partner plays a more traditional 12-15, your responses are going to be different than partner's, at least with borderline hands (in fact, I would believe that his minimum invitations are going to be slightly more minimun than yours, because I agree that your range is stronger, putting in the good 11s and taking out the bad 12s). For a more blatant example, I believe that JT98xx x KJT Qxx is a minimum first-seat weak 2S call. My partner from Wednesday night thinks that AQTxxx KJT x Jxx is a first-seat weak 2S call, as is AKQxxx x QJxx xx. We (probably violently) disagree on all three counts; but our responses are based on that knowledge. We are legal "technically" - we play 6-12 HCP weak 2s, allowed by the GCC; but our range of possible hands probably only overlaps in 60% of the cases. Are we still playing the same system? >> There seems to be a hidden agenda amoung the law and regulation makers to >> discourage psyches. WBF and National bodies publish regulations restricting >> psyches (in many ways). > >They always say they don't, and I believe them. > >The trouble is that they come up with regulations that are >worded in such ways that people who want to banish psyching >can use to effectively ban the psych. > No comment (were I in the States, I'd plead the 5th. But I ain't, and I can't, so I won't). >> Finally >> >> Psyches are fun. >> Psyches don't always work. >> In fact, in my experience, psyches return a better than non-psych result at most 40% of the time. OTOH, the knowledge that "he psyches" is probably worth 1/4 board a session to me at the club. So I psych signifiantly less frequently than once every 8 sessions :-). As a side note, the last psych that I had to rule on, one of the "NOs" (a perennial grumbler about psyches) was heard to mention "Well, we came in second, *in spite of* that psych; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 04:47:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp180-156.worldonline.nl [195.241.180.156]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 3D73F36C01; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 20:47:45 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <012201bfd955$5c36b540$0100007f@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Hirsch Davis" , Subject: Re: End of L68B Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:05:18 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> > >> > Defender has claimed two tricks, and nothing else has >> > happened. >> >> Well, not exactly nothing. The concession of the remaining two tricks >> has been cancelled. So the legal position at the table is that the TD >> is ruling on a claim of all four tricks. If a claim exists and no >> concession exists, the claim must be for all the tricks. Plain nonsense, not realistic to keep polite anymore. ton >No, from a purely legal position defender has conceded 2 tricks. Once the >concession is cancelled there is nothing left but UI. Cancel the concession >and you cancel the claim. The TD is never adjudicating a partial claim >under these 68B, because it has been cancelled before he gets there. Not >that anyone is still reading this, but here's my analysis of 68B: O.K. brave you try once more, but you won't succeed. ton >"B. Concession Defined >Any statement to the effect that a contestant will lose a specific number of >tricks is a concession of those tricks;" > > > >"a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any." > >tricks must still be lost as a concession, for the purposes of 68B. >Statements applying to concessions also apply to this form of claim.> > > "A player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his hand." > > > >"Regardless of the foregoing," > >to make a coherent ruling> > >"if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner >immediately objects," > > > >"no concession has occurred;" > >claim, since such a claim has already been defined as a concession and we've >already been told that it has not occurred> > >"Law 16, Unauthorized Information, may apply, so the Director should be >summoned forthwith." > >concession. Again, note that L16 applies only when play continues. Since >there is no provision made for the TD to stop play under these >circumstances, the logical inference is that the lawmakers mean exactly what >they wrote. The partial claim is a concession, it is cancelled, the TD >rules on UI, and the hand played out.> > > >> It's interesting that Todd has argued that it makes no difference >> whether two tricks or four were claimed. Herman thinks it makes a >> difference. I am not sure, but it doesn't matter in the sorts of cases >> under discussion because the claim will always, legally speaking, be >> for all the tricks. (The TD may, of course, award fewer after >> adjudicating the claim.) >> > >It makes a difference if four tricks are left, because partner cannot object >to a claim that is for all of the tricks. Note the conditions under which >68B applies. If a claim does not attempt to concede one or more tricks, it >is not cancelled by partner's objection. good thinking ton >> If you want an absurd position, Herman, consider what happens if the >> defender does show his cards and state a line of play. Are you >> really going to cancel the claim then? Don't attack Herman please, he is one of the few understanding what the laws say on this subject. >If I'm to rule according to law, of course this "claim" is cancelled. 68B >does not give the TD the option to decide whether or not to cancel the >partial claim/concession, so the TD does not have a decision to make. The >concession is cancelled, the exposed cards are penalty cards, UI is >explained, and play continues. At last an interesting new aspect (sorry if it was mentioned before, not surprisingly not noticed then). Should conceder have penalty cards? What does the word 'attempts' mean, you concede or not. Or is this to emphasize that a concession is only reached if partner does not object immediately? Anyway, it is within the laws to put your cards on the table when conceding (and claiming), and we do not penalize bad bridge abilities, so my choice is to treat those cards as described in the foot note in the heading of 68. Taken back and UI. When somebody asks me why this law is written like this, I do not know. I agree when somebody tells me that there is no reason at all to continue play in case of a contested concession by partner. Let him tell why he thinks to make more tricks and make a judgement. This has nothing to do with the present laws, but we might consider to change them. ton The length of this thread is entirely due to the interpretation of the >statement: > >"a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any." > >If one simply takes this literally, as the lawmakers wrote it, and doesn't >tie oneself into sematic knots trying to break the situation into separate >claim and concession components, then the ruling is easy. > >Hirsch Davis >Rockville, MD >USA > > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 19 06:10:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA29098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 06:10:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA29093 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 06:10:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id QAA24990 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:10:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA11488 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:10:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:10:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200006182010.QAA11488@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: End of L68B X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Hirsch Davis" > > Now you may or may not agree that this is the correct interpretation of > > L68B, but I hope everyone agrees that it is a reasonable situation and > > one that a TD can adjudicate. > > > > No, you're turning a partial claim into a complete one when partner objects, Good grief, Hirsch. Why do you insist on mixing up two different issues? I am fairly thick-skinned, but I dislike constantly having to correct mistaken interpretations of my messages. Whether David's (both David's, in fact) and my interpretation is correct or not _was not the issue being addressed_. _If_ ours is the correct interpretation, the TD will have no special difficulty ruling. Play is over, there is a claim for all the tricks, there is UI, and the TD decides. Is there anyone who thinks this is an impossible situation on which to rule? If I have time, I'll write a modest essay on _why_ this is the correct interpretation. There is no point arguing with me on that subject until I have done so. (Feel free, of course, to address anyone else's arguments or simply state your own.) > and ruling under Law 70. However, L68B specifically states that the TD is > called because of the potential applicability of L16. L16 applies to > contined play, not adjudicating a claim. Under your logic, L16 > can never be applied to a partial concession when partner objects, even > though 68B indicates that > L16 is the reason for summoning the TD. The laws are sometimes unclear, but > they're rarely that inconsistent. This is incorrect in two ways. First, the _usual_ application of L68B is a concession of _all the tricks_. If the concession is by a defender whose partner immediately objects, play continues, but the TD needs to explain the L16 implications. Second, if the concession is NOT for all the tricks, play stops, but L16 must still be applied in judging the claim. Either way, L16 applies, and there is good reason for L68B to call attention to it. Everything is perfectly consistent _except_ there's a small problem with L68A. It's a sort of problem well known to apply to several other laws. I'll address it in my little essay if I write it. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 19 06:21:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA29138 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 06:21:51 +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 GAA29133 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 06:21:34 +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 QAA25071 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:20:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA11591 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:20:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:20:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200006182020.QAA11591@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: End of L68B X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Michael Farebrother > unless someone can show why the Lawmakers chose to specifically call a > partial claim a concession, but not to call a partial concession a > claim, I must believe that it was their intent not to do so. It's hard to imagine how a partial concession could NOT be a claim, given all the conditions in L68A. After all, if you are conceding less than all the tricks, isn't that in effect a statement that you will win the ones you aren't conceding? In contrast, absent the specific statement in L68B, it wouldn't be obvious that a partial claim is also a concession. At least that's my guess. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 19 09:32:50 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA29666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:32:50 +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 JAA29660 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:32:39 +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 133oYB-000Brb-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 00:32:24 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 00:29:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: End of L68B References: <200006172142.RAA28858@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200006172142.RAA28858@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >The Laws very clearly separate claims and concessions. There are no >"semantic knots" in that! Let us see whether we can resolve this problem. It seems to me that early posts to this thread were along the lines of [1] It is obvious that when partner objects to a concession play continues, and a claim does not come in to it, or [2] It is obvious that when partner objects to a concession [unless it is a concession of all the tricks] that there has also been a claim, and play ceases, and the TD deals with the claim. After some faffing around, some better arguments were produced, like [3] If you work through what happens when partner objects to a concession then it does not work to treat it a a claim, or [4] Since a claim of some tricks is a concession of the remainder, then if the concession does not exist any more, nor does the claim, or [5] If a player puts his hand down and claims, surely there can be no Law that says play on, or [6] The Law is such a mess that we should not worry about it but work out how it should be changed, or [7] If you assume the WBFLC know what they are doing then you must assume [1], or [8] If you assume the WBFLC know what they are doing then you must assume [2], or [9] It really does not matter because the result is the same anyway. As I have explained before, I think [6] is unhelpful, and I propose to ignore it. I think [9] is a very ill-advised view, since the basis of decision for UI situations and claim situations is often different, and there will certainly be cases where the result is not the same. However, rather than attack any argument produced so far, I am going to go through a couple of examples, and see if quoting real examples rather than trying to argue what the Laws "obviously" mean gets us to some acceptable conclusion. Two small matters to be dealt with first. A claim for all the tricks is a claim. Partner can not "object to your concession" because you have conceded nothing [why should he anyway? I don't know!]. This will be dealt with by the TD in the normal way. A concession of all the tricks is a concession. Purists could argue that such a concession is also a claim under the wording of the second sentence of L68A, but I do not propose to argue that. I believe there is no effective argument with the view that if there is a concession of all the tricks and partner objects, there was no concession, there never was a claim, and play continues [with the TD overseeing]. So the situation we are trying to resolve is one where a defender concedes one or more tricks, but not all the remaining tricks, and his partner immediately objects. Let us look at some examples [South is always declarer, clubs are always trumps]: [1] West says "You get your trump trick." - - xx x KQJ x - - - A - J x - x x East is on lead and objects. Would you say West has claimed? What is a fair resolution of the hand? I do not think there is a problem here if East can demonstrate he knew the position. Whether we let him play it out or treat it as a claim of all the tricks the defence will make the rest. If East knows the position then the lead of either a spade or a diamond is [a] not an LA or [b] irrational dependent on which Law. Why do I say treat it as a claim of all the tricks? Because if a concession has not occurred then we cannot have a claim for some of the tricks, because that would be a concession of the remainder. As to whether this constitutes a claim, we have to refer to L68A for the definition. Did the contestant say he would win a specific number of tricks? More importantly, did he make a "statement to that effect"? Certainly the latter though not the former, so there was a claim. One of the arguments was that if the concession "never occurred" then nor did the claim. While this is never stated in the Laws, it is one way of looking at this problem. I would say our first example does not prove the need for dealing with this one way or another, nor does it indicate which is right. [2] West says "You get your trump trick." - - xx x KQJ x - - - A - J x - x x South is on lead and East objects. Would you say West has claimed? What is a fair resolution of the hand? As before, assume that East knows the position: then the question is really whether South does. If he leads a spade he makes his trump en passant: if he leads a club or diamond he makes no more tricks. If play were to continue here we would probably get a fair result because we would find out whether South was going to lead a spade or not. If we treat it as a claim then we presumably give South a trick: we certainly would if West had claimed the rest and South had objected. However, you might balance this by saying that if West had claimed all three tricks and South had not objected, West would have got all three tricks. This example seems to suggest that whatever is right, playing on is better. [3] West says "You get your trump trick" and puts his hand on the table, face up. - - xx x KQJ x - - - A - J x - x x East is on lead and objects. Would you say West has claimed? What is a fair resolution of the hand? As we have seen earlier, if this is treated as a claim, East/West get all the tricks because East will cash the club. However, if we play on, West has three penalty cards, and South can require a spade lead, thus making a trick. I know some of you will say it is West's fault for putting his hand face up but a modicum of sympathy might be offered: it is normal for claimer to put his hand down face up. No doubt here West intended to claim. Let us consider this case a little deeper. It, after all, totally negates the poster who said that it makes no difference how we treat these cases: this one clearly does make a difference. So let me ask you, "What is a fair resolution of the hand?". One thing is clear to me: the non-offending side is N/S. If the original concession was accurate then we would never get these problems. So benefit of doubt should go to N/S. But, it does whatever we decide! If we treat it as a claim, then benefit of doubt goes against claimer: if we let play continue, there is UI, and benefit of doubt in UI cases goes against E/W. I think this example is very important. We expect people to put their hands down and claim. True, the Law does not require it, but it does require a clarification statement, and it is often very difficult to make one intelligibly unless the hand is visible. It does seem a little harsh that declarer should get tricks not for benefit of doubt [which is fair enough] but also for penalty cards, which would never happen in any other claim situation. [4] West says "I claim three tricks: I take my three spades and give you the last trick with your ace of diamonds" and puts his hand on the table, face up. xx - xx - KQJ - - J x Axx - - - x KQJ - West is on lead and East objects. Would you say West has claimed? What is a fair resolution of the hand? If we treat this as a claim we give East/West four tricks. Despite West's stupid claim, few would suggest that this is not fair. If we say that play continues, then West has four penalty cards, declarer chooses which will be played first, he obviously chooses the diamond, and N/S get two tricks. Can this be fair? I think the fairness of this can be seen in the fact that about 98% of declarers, having seen the defenders' hands, would not bother the TD, but let them have four tricks without argument. For the people who have suggested that when "there has been no concession" play continues, I think this example is the best to show why it breaks down. It seems inconceivable that we do not treat it as a claim. West even said he was claiming! [5] West says "I claim three tricks: I take my three spades and give you the last two tricks" and puts his hand on the table, face up. xx - xx - KQJ - - J x Kxx - - - x AQJ - West is on lead and East objects. Would you say West has claimed? What is a fair resolution of the hand? If we treat this as a claim we give East/West three tricks. Despite West's inability to count, few would suggest that this is not fair. If we say that play continues, then West has four penalty cards, declarer chooses which will be played first, he obviously chooses the diamond, and N/S get three tricks. Can this be fair? [6] West says "No doubt you get your two trumps". xx - xx - KQ - x A A Kxx - J - x x xx West is on lead and East objects. Would you say West has claimed? What is a fair resolution of the hand? Goodness knows what will happen to this hand! Does the defence really know what they are doing? Obviously heart to the ace, club jack, and the defence will make three tricks. If we let play continue but with UI restraints we shall probably get a fair conclusion. The defence will play as they see fit, and be able then to explain how they did not use UI. However, to rule it as a claim is a nightmare. There was no clarification statement, and if we are deciding it as a Contested Claim, who contested it? This example suggests allowing the players to continue. However, there is one other point: if we rule it as a claim, we shall presumably give South two tricks on a benefit of doubt basis: if we allow the defence to play on South may do worse. A contested claim probably benefits declarer here - but I think there will be some examples the other way. So, where are we? well, we have looked at a few examples, and one thing is outstanding: equity is not going to be served once a player faces his hand. Maybe UI constraints and a claim will not often come to a different number of tricks, but treating all claimer's hand as penalty cards will often wreck it. Are we prepared to adopt a different approach depending on how the "concession" is worded? A player who tells us how he is going to make three tricks has claimed, and should get the benefit of L70 at least, but a player who just tells his opponent that they get one trick? No, that does not hold water. L68A makes both a claim, so either the fact that a concession has not occurred cancels the claim in each case or in neither. I cannot believe that a player who puts his hand down and states a line can ever be asked to play on. I think the examples have shown that asking him to play on causes situations that are just not fair because of the penalty cards, and that do not follow the Laws. I could see it might be considered reasonable to allow play to continue if the hand had not been faced, but I cannot believe there is an interpretation of the Law that allows this differentiation. Thus I conclude that once there has been a concession of some but not all the tricks, there has been no concession, but the TD must now rule on a contested claim for all the tricks. -- 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 Jun 19 13:03:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA00549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:03:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f74.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA00544 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:03:46 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 29097 invoked by uid 0); 19 Jun 2000 03:03:08 -0000 Message-ID: <20000619030308.29096.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 172.142.181.51 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 20:03:08 PDT X-Originating-IP: [172.142.181.51] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: End of L68B Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 20:03:08 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson > Let us consider this case a little deeper. It, after all, totally >negates the poster who said that it makes no difference how we treat >these cases: this one clearly does make a difference. So let me ask >you, "What is a fair resolution of the hand?". ARGH! First, it doesn't negate the poster, merely his argument. :) It makes no difference if you rule a hand as a claim and a consession or merely as a claim. If you stop play to adjudicate on a claim, the existance or non- of a consession does not affect the ruling, so cancelling it or not makes no difference. There is nothing in your example [3] to suggest that cancelling the consession has affected TD's ruling on the claim. btw, all of your examples in favor of ceasing play break down when the exposed cards are treated as UI rather than penalty cards. I will offer a final argument for the changing of these laws. They are indisputably not clear. We see by the resurrection of an old thread that as recently as 4 years ago, DWS was arguing for the very position he's arguing against now. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 19 16:00:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA00990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:00:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f11.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA00985 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:00:24 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 71974 invoked by uid 0); 19 Jun 2000 05:59:30 -0000 Message-ID: <20000619055930.71973.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 172.142.181.51 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:59:30 PDT X-Originating-IP: [172.142.181.51] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: End of L68B Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:59:30 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson >Herman De Wael wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> You know, I hate this approach, and I think it highly deleterious to > >> this list. This continual mixing up of totally different ideas >benefits > >> no-one except those who are arguing for the sake of it. If you want to > >> discuss what the Laws ought to be, why on earth do you have to in the > >> midst of a thread about what they are? > > >I agree with this statement. But I don't believe that is > >what Todd wanted to do. Maybe we should ask what Herman meant by this. (snip: an awful lot of evidence that I do want to discuss what the law should be changed to, but none to suggest that I'm trying to confuse the issue.) I seeking a clarity few others seems to care to discuss. (DWS outright dismisses it.) Not "What is the law?" nor "How do we rule on the law?" but "Why is it the law?" The previous two follow as consequences to the last, so I believe it's the most important. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 19 19:04:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA01347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 19:04:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA01340 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 19:04:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-65.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.65]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA05723 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:03:53 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <394C97D8.94F7C258@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:35:20 +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: End of L68B References: <200006172142.RAA28858@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > The Laws very clearly separate claims and concessions. There are no > "semantic knots" in that! And the Law does not say how to rule on concessions. And the Law does not say how to rule on claims without concessions. Really, Steve. I suggest we just let this rest. I propose the WBFLC settles it, once and for all, in Maastricht. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 19 19:04:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA01342 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 19:04:14 +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 TAA01336 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 19:04:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-65.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.65]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA05707 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:03:50 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <394C96AF.D5F63F19@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:30:23 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: End of L68B References: <200006171410.KAA24598@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: Herman De Wael > > [TD] hears what happened and says "there has been a claim, and > > a concession. The concession is cancelled, but the claim > > isn't and I am going to rule on that. Did you add a claim > > statement ?" > > > > Of course the defender did not, and you don't allow him one > > now. > > It would have been normal to show cards and offer a claim statement > when making the claim, but OK, suppose for the sake of argument the > defender didn't do so. > Indeed, we are talking about a defender only conceding tricks. Everything else just compounds the problem. > > And now you start your ruling. > > > > Defender has claimed two tricks, and nothing else has > > happened. > > Well, not exactly nothing. The concession of the remaining two tricks > has been cancelled. So the legal position at the table is that the TD > is ruling on a claim of all four tricks. If a claim exists and no > concession exists, the claim must be for all the tricks. > But that is just as ridiculous as ruling on a claim for three tricks, as I suggested. The "equitable" position (I hope you know what I mean) is to give defenders three tricks, but there has been no claim statement to that effect. > It's interesting that Todd has argued that it makes no difference > whether two tricks or four were claimed. Herman thinks it makes a > difference. I am not sure, but it doesn't matter in the sorts of cases > under discussion because the claim will always, legally speaking, be > for all the tricks. (The TD may, of course, award fewer after > adjudicating the claim.) > I don't know how many tricks should be claimed. I prefer to look at it as if there has been no claim. > If you want an absurd position, Herman, consider what happens if the > defender _does_ show his cards and state a line of play. Are you > really going to cancel the claim then? Yes, barring the effects of the UI that has been transmitted. I would agree that the cards become penalty cards, as the footnote on L68 talks only of cards shown pertaining to a trick in progress. But you cannot rule on the claim as such, since you cannot have a claim statement, nor do you know how many tricks the defenders want. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 19 19:41:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA01408 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 19:41:48 +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 TAA01399 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 19:41:38 +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 133y3Y-0001Jn-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:41:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 03:30:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: End of L68B References: <002001bfd44f$3b676540$98b4f1c3@kooijman> <39461255.45E2597F@village.uunet.be> <4JZV2RAE91R5EwjS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3948A9A6.BF93FF4F@village.uunet.be> <200006181530.LAA09537@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> In-Reply-To: <200006181530.LAA09537@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: >>David Stevenson wrote: >>> >>> A concession of two tricks out of three is a claim of one trick. >>> >Cite, please? L68B specifically states that a claim of one trick is a >concession of the remainder; there is no converse stated in the Laws. >The first sentence of L68A and L68B both begin the same way; so >obviously there was something in the "concession" rule that the >Lawmakers wished to do differently, as they added the second part to the >first sentence of L68B. If you can find a method of conceding two tricks out of three that is not a claim under the wording of L68A then I would be pleased to hear it. I am not deducing anything from reversing the logic: I know that to be fallible. But read the words of L68A and explain how such a concession is not a 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 Mon Jun 19 19:41:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA01409 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 19:41:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA01398 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 19:41:38 +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 133y3a-0001Jm-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:41:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 03:28:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: End of L68B References: <012201bfd955$5c36b540$0100007f@kooijman> In-Reply-To: <012201bfd955$5c36b540$0100007f@kooijman> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ton kooijman wrote: >>> If you want an absurd position, Herman, consider what happens if the >>> defender does show his cards and state a line of play. Are you >>> really going to cancel the claim then? > > >Don't attack Herman please, he is one of the few understanding what the laws >say on this subject. Does he indeed? A defender shows his cards, claims six of the last seven tricks and concedes two, and you say that Herman understands the Law because he considers no claim has occurred? I do not think that Herman's position on this is either tenable or in agreement with the Law as written. -- 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 Jun 19 19:48:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA01434 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 19:48:31 +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 TAA01429 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 19:48:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id LAA21770 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:50:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Jun 19 11:48:28 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JQSB906PYQ000MM2@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:50:47 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:46:23 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:50:37 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: End of L68B To: "'Herman De Wael'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B614@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 > Steve Willner wrote: > > > > > > The Laws very clearly separate claims and concessions. There are no > > "semantic knots" in that! > > And the Law does not say how to rule on concessions. > And the Law does not say how to rule on claims without > concessions. > Really, Steve. > > I suggest we just let this rest. good idea, > I propose the WBFLC settles it, once and for all, in > Maastricht. There is nothing to settle! You really want us to spend time on a trivial subject? We could add it to our '2005' agenda, since there is a good reason not to continue play anymore after a disputed concession by partner-defender. ton > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 19 20:11:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA01483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 20:11:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA01478 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 20:11:20 +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 LAA14470; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:11:07 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA16217; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:11:06 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:11:05 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 LAA01743; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:11:03 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id LAA27717; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:11:02 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:11:02 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200006191011.LAA27717@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL Subject: RE: End of L68B Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > There is nothing to settle! You really want us to spend time on a trivial > subject? > > > We could add it to our '2005' agenda, since there is a good reason not to > continue play anymore after a disputed concession by partner-defender. > > ton Ton I know you think it is clear, but it would be clearer if the words "or claim" were added to Law 68B, so it reads: "Regardless of the foregoing, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession or claim has occurred; Law 16, ... " If you keep this idea in 2005, I would suggest such an addition to the laws. Respectfully, 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 Jun 19 20:17:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA01508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 20:17:31 +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 UAA01503 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 20:17:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id MAA15899 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:19:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Jun 19 12:17:28 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JQSC9Z2F2Y000MMV@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:19:47 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:15:25 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:19:44 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: End of L68B To: "'David Stevenson'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B616@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 > >Don't attack Herman please, he is one of the few > understanding what the laws > >say on this subject. > > Does he indeed? A defender shows his cards, claims six of the last > seven tricks and concedes two, and you say that Herman understands the > Law because he considers no claim has occurred? > > I do not think that Herman's position on this is either > tenable or in > agreement with the Law as written. Your statement underlines the destructive way this discussion is going. ton -- > 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 Jun 19 20:20:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA01526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 20:20:18 +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 UAA01521 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 20:20:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id MAA02338 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:22:08 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Jun 19 12:20:17 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JQSCDGJDFI000MN3@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:22:36 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:18:13 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:22:28 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: End of L68B To: "'Robin Barker'" , "Kooijman, A." Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B617@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 Happy to read a constructive suggestion, ton > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Robin Barker [mailto:rmb1@cise.npl.co.uk] > Verzonden: maandag 19 juni 2000 12:11 > Aan: A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL > CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: RE: End of L68B > > > > > There is nothing to settle! You really want us to spend > time on a trivial > > subject? > > > > > > We could add it to our '2005' agenda, since there is a good > reason not to > > continue play anymore after a disputed concession by > partner-defender. > > > > ton > > Ton > > I know you think it is clear, but it would be clearer if the words > "or claim" were added to Law 68B, so it reads: > > "Regardless of the foregoing, if a defender attempts to concede one or > more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no > concession or claim > has occurred; Law 16, ... " > > If you keep this idea in 2005, I would suggest such an > addition to the laws. > > Respectfully, > > 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 Jun 19 23:11:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA01967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 23:11:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA01962 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 23:11:21 +1000 (EST) From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.2]) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA24435; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:11:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA276650269; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:11:09 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:11:04 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Fwd: Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au 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 XAA01963 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Barvo David.... Teaching rules is part of teaching bridge.... Laval Du Breuil Quebec City True. Also teaching them the rules and encouraging them to try them would not hurt either. -- 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 Jun 19 23:27:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA02005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 23:27:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA01995 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 23:27:32 +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 1341aC-000P8O-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:27:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:40:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: End of L68B References: <20000619030308.29096.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000619030308.29096.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 >> Let us consider this case a little deeper. It, after all, totally >>negates the poster who said that it makes no difference how we treat >>these cases: this one clearly does make a difference. So let me ask >>you, "What is a fair resolution of the hand?". > > ARGH! > > First, it doesn't negate the poster, merely his argument. :) Very hilarious. > It makes no difference if you rule a hand as a claim and a consession >or merely as a claim. If you stop play to adjudicate on a claim, the >existance or non- of a consession does not affect the ruling, so cancelling >it or not makes no difference. There is nothing in your example [3] to >suggest that cancelling the consession has affected TD's ruling on the >claim. > > btw, all of your examples in favor of ceasing play break down when the >exposed cards are treated as UI rather than penalty cards. All right. You make a claim of six of the last eight tricks. Who gives a damn whether your cards are now penalty cards or not: why is the TD forcing you to play on? > I will offer a final argument for the changing of these laws. They are >indisputably not clear. So what? > We see by the resurrection of an old thread that as >recently as 4 years ago, DWS was arguing for the very position he's arguing >against now. Again, so what? If no-one is ever prepared to change their views, there is damn-all point arguing on this list, is there? -- 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 Jun 19 23:27:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA02006 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 23:27:43 +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 XAA01996 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 23:27:33 +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 1341aD-000P8P-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:27:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:49:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: End of L68B References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B614@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B614@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. wrote: >> Steve Willner wrote: >> > The Laws very clearly separate claims and concessions. There are no >> > "semantic knots" in that! >> And the Law does not say how to rule on concessions. >> And the Law does not say how to rule on claims without >> concessions. >> Really, Steve. >> >> I suggest we just let this rest. >good idea, >> I propose the WBFLC settles it, once and for all, in >> Maastricht. >There is nothing to settle! You really want us to spend time on a trivial >subject? > >We could add it to our '2005' agenda, since there is a good reason not to >continue play anymore after a disputed concession by partner-defender. I think this is a very unfortunate approach. Ok, let us not bother to have BLML at all. We have a situation where you have proposed a view that seems wrong in certain situations. It is certainly not clear at all how people should be ruling. What is your solution? You have told us Herman is right but have produced no argument. You have come up with a curious view on penalty cards. Now you do not want to discuss it in Maastricht because it is a trivial subject. You know, Ton, it would be helpful if the lawmakers would get it clear how they intend to discuss interpretation of the Law. It is no longer good enough to treat everyone as though the communications are as in the 1950s. Should you be sorting it out at Maastricht? I do not know, but if you are not going to *there* it would be sensible if it were sorted out here. To say it is too trivial for Maastricht and then try to kill it here hardly seems the correct approach. Furthermore, several people who read this list, and others who hear of these things would like to know the correct ruling. I think to dismiss it as trivial is very dismissive of such people. -- 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 Jun 20 02:04:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA02648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 02:04:09 +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 CAA02643 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 02:04:02 +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 L0B8F6DQ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:03:53 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:05:09 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: Fwd: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Robert E. Harris wrote: >>I hope this copy goes through! > > Congratulations! It made it! > >>>Kids like to insert a little excitement into things, in general, and >>>psyching and using odd bidding methods appeals to them. The lols don't >>>like it, some of them, but they are dying off and the kids are not coming >>>in. Teaching new young players about psyching and encouraging them to try >>>it might be a good idea. > > True. Also teaching them the rules and encouraging them to try them >would not hurt either. > >-- >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 ~ Of course. My experience has been the kids (the few) learn the rules pretty quickly are are generally good about obeying them. The lols (of both sexes) at the club level tend to be the big offenders in using UI, and in other ways, such as long and loud discussion of hands. REH Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 20 02:08:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA02666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 02:08:48 +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 CAA02661 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 02:08:41 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 37980 invoked by uid 0); 19 Jun 2000 16:08:04 -0000 Message-ID: <20000619160804.37979.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.23 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:08:04 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.23] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: End of L68B Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:08:04 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson > > btw, all of your examples in favor of ceasing play break down when >the > >exposed cards are treated as UI rather than penalty cards. > > All right. You make a claim of six of the last eight tricks. Who >gives a damn whether your cards are now penalty cards or not: why is the >TD forcing you to play on? Statement of fact, do with it as you please. (My personal take is that if you are playing on, the cards should be considered UI rather than penalty cards as the opposite simply isn't fair. I know this is not the current state of affairs.) > > I will offer a final argument for the changing of these laws. They >are > >indisputably not clear. > > So what? Statement of fact, do with it as you please. (My personal take is that the laws should be clear so that these types of discussions needn't occur.) > > We see by the resurrection of an old thread that as > >recently as 4 years ago, DWS was arguing for the very position he's >arguing > >against now. > > Again, so what? If no-one is ever prepared to change their views, >there is damn-all point arguing on this list, is there? Statement of fact, do with it as you please. (My personal take is that you're showing an awful lot of virulent defensiveness and no patience. However long it took you to understand this point, expect it to take the less apt of us at least as long.) -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 20 02:15:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA02700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 02:15:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f116.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.116]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA02695 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 02:15:30 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 32323 invoked by uid 0); 19 Jun 2000 16:14:51 -0000 Message-ID: <20000619161451.32322.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.23 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:14:51 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.23] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: End of L68B Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:14:51 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Robin Barker > > There is nothing to settle! You really want us to spend time on a >trivial > > subject? > > > > > > We could add it to our '2005' agenda, since there is a good reason not >to > > continue play anymore after a disputed concession by partner-defender. > > > > ton > >Ton > >I know you think it is clear, but it would be clearer if the words >"or claim" were added to Law 68B, so it reads: > >"Regardless of the foregoing, if a defender attempts to concede one or >more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession or claim >has occurred; Law 16, ... " > >If you keep this idea in 2005, I would suggest such an addition to the >laws. I would also add either: 1) a statement that exposed cards are considered UI and not penalty cards or 2) a statement that a claim still has occured when a hand is exposed. Preference for the former. -Todd (actually, a preference for a complete rewrite L68-71) ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 20 04:04:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA02944 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 04:04:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA02936 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 04:03:50 +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 LAA22567; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:00:07 -0700 Message-Id: <200006191800.LAA22567@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: End of L68B In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:30:45 PDT." <200006181530.LAA09537@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:00:08 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> > >> A concession of two tricks out of three is a claim of one trick. > >> > Cite, please? L68B specifically states that a claim of one trick is a > concession of the remainder; there is no converse stated in the Laws. > The first sentence of L68A and L68B both begin the same way; so > obviously there was something in the "concession" rule that the > Lawmakers wished to do differently, as they added the second part to the > first sentence of L68B. I don't think this is obvious. I don't know all of the history of the Laws, but I do think it's a mistake to assume that the Laws were written as a monolithic unit. If they were, one could assume that the presence of this clause in L68B, and the absence of the converse, was deliberate. However, as has been pointed out to me several times in the past, the Laws weren't written all at once, and sometimes Laws or portions of them were added later to address a particular problem that came up. When something is added later, it's not necessarily the case that the Lawmakers carefully considered the interrelation of the later addition with *all* the previously existing Laws. In fact, it's been clear to me, in other cases, that the Lawmakers did *not* consider all the possibilities (for example, the revoke penalties in Law 64A2 were changed fairly recently, and it's obvious to me that the Lawmakers just forgot to think about how claims affect the penalties). To state it a different way, there are at least two possible explanations for the inclusion of this clause: "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder": (1) The Lawmakers deliberately intended to do something different with "concessions" than with "claims", as Michael suggests; (2) The clause in question was added later to solve a problem. Perhaps some declarer, with four cards left to play, claimed two of the four tricks, the opponents acquiesced, and then declarer saw the opponents' cards and argued that he should get another trick, and without this clause, there were two possible interpretations of whether declarer should have gotten the extra trick. My intuition tells me that (2) is a lot more likely. In fact, it seems obvious to me, just from my playing experience, that a concession of some (but not all) of the tricks *does* constitute a claim of the remaining tricks. When someone concedes, he's suggesting that play be curtailed. If he is conceding just some of the tricks, he wouldn't be suggesting that play be curtailed unless he thinks the ownership of the remaining tricks is not in doubt---that is, unless he thinks he's getting the tricks he didn't concede. So someone who concedes some of the tricks is obviously claiming the remaining tricks, and it takes an awful lot of semantic hair-splitting to deny this. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 20 04:19:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA03027 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 04:19:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA03021 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 04:19:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA23028; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:15:38 -0700 Message-Id: <200006191815.LAA23028@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: L68B (proposed change?) In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:14:51 PDT." <20000619161451.32322.qmail@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:15:39 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Since some people have proposed tinkering with this Law, either to clarify it or to change the way it works, I think we also need to consider this question: Is there any reason for the last sentence in Law 68B to exist? I mean, if a defender concedes and thereby suggests play be curtailed, why is it better for Bridge to allow play to continue in any circumstance? Why isn't it better to stop play, as with any other claim, and let the Director determine the result if the players can't agree on the correct result? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 20 04:35:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA03095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 04:35:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA03090 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 04:35:19 +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 OAA07194; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:35:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA074909709; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:35:09 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:34:58 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: L68B (proposed change?) To: adam@irvine.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I fully agree Adam and it is how I always ruled before receiving those tons of messages on L68B....forcing me to read it again and again...I do like to follow Laws.... Laval Du Breuil Quebec City _________________________________________________________________ Objet : Re: L68B (proposed change?) Since some people have proposed tinkering with this Law, either to clarify it or to change the way it works, I think we also need to consider this question: Is there any reason for the last sentence in Law 68B to exist? I mean, if a defender concedes and thereby suggests play be curtailed, why is it better for Bridge to allow play to continue in any circumstance? Why isn't it better to stop play, as with any other claim, and let the Director determine the result if the players can't agree on the correct result? -- Adam - From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 20 05:32:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA03252 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 05:32:39 +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 FAA03246 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 05:32:31 +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 PAA24633 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:32:22 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:31:17 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: How to get *players* to know laws and regulations? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I don't expect all players to know all the laws; that's what TD's are for. But it seems that there are some laws and refulations that players need to know, because they cause trouble by not knowing them. What are these laws, and what should TD's, club managers, and others do to ensure that players know them? Here are my examples of the laws. 1. When a claim is disputed, play ceases and the director must be summoned; players may not play out the claim on their own. This is probably the most commonly violated law. When my claim is disputed, the player disputing almost always says, "play it out", and opponents are sometimes annoyed when I refuse to play it out and call the director. 2. When attention is drawn to an irregularity, all four players have an obligation to summon the director. Players cause a lot of trouble when they try to make their own rulings in cases such as corrected revokes. "All four players" is included because dummy is sometimes the only player at the table who knows the rule, while defenders believe that dummy cannot call the director. 3. All convention cards on the table must be completely filled out, including carding agreements. Many pairs in the ACBL leave the carding section blank; this is a clear infraction, as there is a box to check for standard carding. On the old convention card, there is no indicated lead from three small; on the new card, the indicated lead from three small is low, but players who haven't bothered to fill out the section may well have an agreement to lead high. I have also encountered pairs who left the carding section blank but played Lavinthal discards, and pairs who had incompletely filled carding sactions such as Lavinthal discards checked only against suits when they are also played at NT. (I usually ask the opponents at the start of the round when I see a blank carding section, but few players do.) The players least likely to follow the rules here are also the ones most likely to be intimidated by the follow-up process. If a weak player leads the 9 from 972 with the default low from three small marked, and a good declarer checks the convention card and miscounts the hand, what do you expect will be the leader's reaction when the TD is called for misinformation? Are there any other examples of rules that players need to know and don't? And what should be done to ensure that players know the rules? One partial solution to #3 is to make the card hard to fill out incorrectly. The old ACBL convention cards had a check-box for optional doubles of preempts, but most players who checked that box thought that the standard takeout double was "optional" because partner was allowed to pass it. The new card has no such check-box; players who write in "optional" usually know what they are doing. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 20 05:42:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA03304 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 05:42:16 +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 FAA03299 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 05:42:06 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 27104 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2000 19:40:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.1.184) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 19 Jun 2000 19:40:37 -0000 Message-ID: <394E78B1.28FB7AA@inter.net.il> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:46:58 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 500! References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Happy .... work David After the most important blessings from the religions' Heads.....I try now to found an eparchy for the cats. The big question is - who will be the leaders in this unified community - Cardinals or Bishops ?? Dany P.S. I will consult H-personalities.......... David Stevenson wrote: > I added 20 cat stories to my Storypage. Then I counted the articles > on my site. Then I added one more. > > Anyway, why did I add one more? Because the totals on my site are now > as follows: > > Homepage: 6 articles > Bridgepage: 67 articles > Bridge Lawspage: 40 articles > Catpage: 40 articles > Cat Storypage: 247 articles > Generalpage: 77 articles > Trainpage: 23 articles > > Site total: 500 articles > > Yipppeeeee! > > -- > 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 Jun 20 06:14:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA03350 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 06:14:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f91.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.91]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA03345 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 06:14:00 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 57233 invoked by uid 0); 19 Jun 2000 20:13:21 -0000 Message-ID: <20000619201321.57232.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.23 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:13:20 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.23] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L68B (proposed change?) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:13:20 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Adam Beneschan >Since some people have proposed tinkering with this Law, either to >clarify it or to change the way it works, I think we also need to >consider this question: > >Is there any reason for the last sentence in Law 68B to exist? I >mean, if a defender concedes and thereby suggests play be curtailed, >why is it better for Bridge to allow play to continue in any >circumstance? Why isn't it better to stop play, as with any other >claim, and let the Director determine the result if the players can't >agree on the correct result? When you disagree with your partner's concession, it's a lot more likely that you're going to get the tricks partner didn't claim when you play it out than through TDs ruling. e.g., east on lead, spades are trump. immaterial - x Ax x Jx x - x J KQ - J If play is stopped, TD must award 3 tricks to declarer. If play is continued, east may find the heart or diamond exit. There's been nothing in west's statement to suggest which trick he'll get. The hand could be immaterial - x Q x Jx x J x J AK x - It could depend on whether you believe east should be allowed a chance at the result that could have happened with a playout or not. Or do you decide that in his effort to speed up the game, west must lose a trick that east could have earned/lucked into. If you opt to cease play and have TD decide, defenders will have no motivation for conceeding and they will always wait for declarer to make a claim. In the first position above, if declarer claimed, EW get two tricks. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 20 07:29:15 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA03612 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 07:29:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA03606 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 07:29:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA27711; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:25:20 -0700 Message-Id: <200006192125.OAA27711@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: L68B (proposed change?) In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:13:20 PDT." <20000619201321.57232.qmail@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:25:21 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: > >From: Adam Beneschan > >Since some people have proposed tinkering with this Law, either to > >clarify it or to change the way it works, I think we also need to > >consider this question: > > > >Is there any reason for the last sentence in Law 68B to exist? I > >mean, if a defender concedes and thereby suggests play be curtailed, > >why is it better for Bridge to allow play to continue in any > >circumstance? Why isn't it better to stop play, as with any other > >claim, and let the Director determine the result if the players can't > >agree on the correct result? > > When you disagree with your partner's concession, it's a lot more > likely that you're going to get the tricks partner didn't claim when you > play it out than through TDs ruling. e.g., east on lead, spades are trump. > > immaterial > - x > Ax x > Jx x > - x > > J > KQ > - > J > > If play is stopped, TD must award 3 tricks to declarer. If play is > continued, east may find the heart or diamond exit. There's been nothing in > west's statement to suggest which trick he'll get. The hand could be > > immaterial > - x > Q x > Jx x > J x > > J > AK > x > - > > It could depend on whether you believe east should be allowed a chance > at the result that could have happened with a playout or not. > > Or do you decide that in his effort to speed up the game, west must > lose a trick that east could have earned/lucked into. If you opt to cease > play and have TD decide, defenders will have no motivation for conceeding > and they will always wait for declarer to make a claim. In the first > position above, if declarer claimed, EW get two tricks. Everything you say is correct. I don't see any of it as a reason to keep this Law, however. You say that if play continues, the defense may get extra tricks that they wouldn't get if play is stopped. Correct, but so what? The same is true of claims. If declarer claims when he shouldn't, then in essence we give him the lowest number of tricks he might have gotten had the hand been played out. Declarer might have gotten more tricks if the hand were played out, but nobody here argues that we should give declarer a chance at those extra tricks. He made a bad claim, he pays for it. So if this is how we feel about declarer making a claim that he shouldn't have made, why would we feel any differently about defender making a concession he shouldn't have made? Yes, this will take away some of the motivation for defense concessions. I'm not bothered by that. While *good* claims and concessions should be encouraged, bad ones (where the ownership of some tricks is in doubt) should be discouraged, because they screw up the game. This may make concessions a lot rarer, but the fact is that *good* defensive concessions (like good defensive claims) are inherently much rarer than good claims by the declaring side. Why would we want to increase the motivation for players to curtail play before they should? P.S. I probably claim more quickly as declarer than many people I play against, but I don't think I ever concede the rest of the tricks as defender unless I can tell dummy is high. Even in cases where it appears certain to me that declarer has the rest and should be claiming, I still won't concede because it's always possible that partner has something I didn't expect (declarer might have one fewer trump or one fewer ace than he promised in the auction, for instance). -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 20 08:43:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA03758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:43:11 +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 IAA03753 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:43:05 +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 IAA11798 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:40:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:40:25 +0000 (EST) Subject: Turning a Trick To: Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:42:01 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 20/06/2000 08:38:03 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk When I am dummy, I often see an absent-minded declarer violate L65B. Can I immediately correct this infraction under L42B2? Or is there no *gap* between the commencement and completion of this irregularity, and therefore Laws 43A1(b) and 43A1(c) apply? Best wishes Richard Hills richard.hills@immi.gov.au From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 20 10:22:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA04046 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:22:50 +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 KAA04041 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:22:42 +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 134Bny-000EcG-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 01:22:15 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:58:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: End of L68B References: <200006191011.LAA27717@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200006191011.LAA27717@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: > >> There is nothing to settle! You really want us to spend time on a trivial >> subject? >> >> >> We could add it to our '2005' agenda, since there is a good reason not to >> continue play anymore after a disputed concession by partner-defender. >> >> ton > >Ton > >I know you think it is clear, but it would be clearer if the words >"or claim" were added to Law 68B, so it reads: > >"Regardless of the foregoing, if a defender attempts to concede one or >more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession or claim >has occurred; Law 16, ... " > >If you keep this idea in 2005, I would suggest such an addition to the laws. If so, I think you should also think of the ramifications when a 'real' claim is treated this way. -- 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 Jun 20 10:41:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA04104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:41:48 +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 KAA04099 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:41:42 +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 e5K0feK02448 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:41:40 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:41:40 +1000 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@medvesajt.anu.edu.au To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Fwd: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Robert E. Harris wrote: > >Robert E. Harris wrote: > >>>Kids like to insert a little excitement into things, in general, and > >>>psyching and using odd bidding methods appeals to them. The lols don't > >>>like it, some of them, but they are dying off and the kids are not coming > >>>in. Teaching new young players about psyching and encouraging them to try > >>>it might be a good idea. > > > > True. Also teaching them the rules and encouraging them to try them > >would not hurt either. > > > Of course. My experience has been the kids (the few) learn the rules > pretty quickly are are generally good about obeying them. The lols (of > both sexes) at the club level tend to be the big offenders in using UI, and > in other ways, such as long and loud discussion of hands. > > REH Amen (from a kid who's seen too many auctions go 1NT P 2D (alert, "Oh, what's that? A transfer is it? Oh.") 2H followed by a 3D bid on a balanced 8-count) Sadly my experience of some directors has been that the kid is assumed a) to have no idea about the rules, or b) to be sufficiently likely to be deliberately flouting them that guilt can be presumed. The LOL gets a pat on the hand and a "Don't do that again dearie", though :-) Mark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 20 11:17:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA04198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:17:07 +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 LAA04193 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:17:01 +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 e5K1GwK03249 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:16:58 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:16:58 +1000 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@medvesajt.anu.edu.au To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Turning a Trick In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > When I am dummy, I often see an absent-minded declarer violate L65B. Can I > immediately correct this infraction under L42B2? Or is there no *gap* > between the commencement and completion of this irregularity, and therefore > Laws 43A1(b) and 43A1(c) apply? L42B is "subject to the limitations provided in Law 43" one of which is L43A1(b) which precludes dummy from drawing attention to declarer's violation of L65B - pointing their tricks the wrong way. Most dummies get a little annoyed if you suggest this sort of thing to them though. I had one get annoyed with me on the weekend for suggesting that she was in violation of dummy's limitations when she commented volubly on my failure to follow suit to the first round of a suit that I'd psyched. Mark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 20 17:32:44 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA04839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:32:44 +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 RAA04833 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:32:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-78.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.78]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA21086 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:32:21 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <394DF6C9.4BE7F89B@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:32:41 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: End of L68B References: <200006172142.RAA28858@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think David has, once again, provided a brilliant analysis. Congratulations. There is now one conclusion. Tha Laws are indeed a mess. David Stevenson wrote: > > Steve Willner wrote: > > >The Laws very clearly separate claims and concessions. There are no > >"semantic knots" in that! > > Let us see whether we can resolve this problem. It seems to me that > early posts to this thread were along the lines of > > [1] It is obvious that when partner objects to a concession play > continues, and a claim does not come in to it, or > > [2] It is obvious that when partner objects to a concession [unless it > is a concession of all the tricks] that there has also been a claim, and > play ceases, and the TD deals with the claim. > > After some faffing around, some better arguments were produced, like > > [3] If you work through what happens when partner objects to a > concession then it does not work to treat it a a claim, or > > [4] Since a claim of some tricks is a concession of the remainder, then > if the concession does not exist any more, nor does the claim, or > > [5] If a player puts his hand down and claims, surely there can be no > Law that says play on, or > > [6] The Law is such a mess that we should not worry about it but work > out how it should be changed, or > > [7] If you assume the WBFLC know what they are doing then you must > assume [1], or > > [8] If you assume the WBFLC know what they are doing then you must > assume [2], or > > [9] It really does not matter because the result is the same anyway. > > As I have explained before, I think [6] is unhelpful, and I propose to > ignore it. Well, at the end we seem to have to return to that one. I think [9] is a very ill-advised view, since the basis of > decision for UI situations and claim situations is often different, and > there will certainly be cases where the result is not the same. > However, rather than attack any argument produced so far, I am going to > go through a couple of examples, and see if quoting real examples rather > than trying to argue what the Laws "obviously" mean gets us to some > acceptable conclusion. > I agree with David on that one. I was the one who stated that it would not matter in 99.9% of cases (and I still believe that), but we should indeed consider the 0.1% of others as well. In fact, it is probably only this low incidence that has allowe this Law to be unresolved for such a long time. > Two small matters to be dealt with first. A claim for all the tricks > is a claim. Partner can not "object to your concession" because you > have conceded nothing [why should he anyway? I don't know!]. This will > be dealt with by the TD in the normal way. > Absolutely agreed. > A concession of all the tricks is a concession. Purists could argue > that such a concession is also a claim under the wording of the second > sentence of L68A, but I do not propose to argue that. I believe there > is no effective argument with the view that if there is a concession of > all the tricks and partner objects, there was no concession, there never > was a claim, and play continues [with the TD overseeing]. > Not very absolutely agreed. If you use L68A to call the others a claim, then this is one as well. But that is just messing with details, let's continue. > So the situation we are trying to resolve is one where a defender > concedes one or more tricks, but not all the remaining tricks, and his > partner immediately objects. Let us look at some examples [South is > always declarer, clubs are always trumps]: > > [1] West says "You get your trump trick." > > - > - > xx > x > KQJ x > - - > - A > - J > x > - > x > x > > East is on lead and objects. > Would you say West has claimed? David is asking the same question throughout. I believe the question is a problematic one. I think that L68A states that all these cases constitute a claim. I am very much of the opinion (and David seems to agree with this) that the exact wording by West should not matter. It is his intent that counts, not his wording. In all cases, he intends to give South one (sometimes more) tricks, and he intends to make the others, either himself, or partner. I am calling all of these "claims", and I am calling all these claims "objected to" and therefor "cancelled". But let's continue. > What is > a fair resolution of the hand? > > I do not think there is a problem here if East can demonstrate he knew > the position. Whether we let him play it out or treat it as a claim of > all the tricks the defence will make the rest. If East knows the > position then the lead of either a spade or a diamond is [a] not an LA > or [b] irrational dependent on which Law. > > Why do I say treat it as a claim of all the tricks? Because if a > concession has not occurred then we cannot have a claim for some of the > tricks, because that would be a concession of the remainder. > > As to whether this constitutes a claim, we have to refer to L68A for > the definition. Did the contestant say he would win a specific number > of tricks? More importantly, did he make a "statement to that effect"? > Certainly the latter though not the former, so there was a claim. > Well, in any of your cases, he "suggests that play be curtailed", so it IS a claim. I don't believe you can get away with calling some of your examples claims, and others not, David ! > One of the arguments was that if the concession "never occurred" then > nor did the claim. While this is never stated in the Laws, it is one > way of looking at this problem. > > I would say our first example does not prove the need for dealing with > this one way or another, nor does it indicate which is right. > I agree. With one exception. You say "if East is aware of the position". If east is not aware of the position, then there can be LA's. But of course those would also be "normal lines". Don't you agree that it may well be better to let East play on, and use his way of playing the Jack of Clubs as an indication as to whether or not he needed the UI to in fact cash it ? I vote one in favour of playing on. > [2] West says "You get your trump trick." > > - > - > xx > x > KQJ x > - - > - A > - J > x > - > x > x > > South is on lead and East objects. Would you say West has claimed? > What is a fair resolution of the hand? > > As before, assume that East knows the position: then the question is > really whether South does. If he leads a spade he makes his trump en > passant: if he leads a club or diamond he makes no more tricks. > > If play were to continue here we would probably get a fair result > because we would find out whether South was going to lead a spade or > not. If we treat it as a claim then we presumably give South a trick: > we certainly would if West had claimed the rest and South had objected. > However, you might balance this by saying that if West had claimed all > three tricks and South had not objected, West would have got all three > tricks. > > This example seems to suggest that whatever is right, playing on is > better. > I agree. Playing on leads 2-0. > [3] West says "You get your trump trick" and puts his hand on the table, > face up. > > - > - > xx > x > KQJ x > - - > - A > - J > x > - > x > x > > East is on lead and objects. Would you say West has claimed? What is > a fair resolution of the hand? > > As we have seen earlier, if this is treated as a claim, East/West get > all the tricks because East will cash the club. However, if we play on, > West has three penalty cards, and South can require a spade lead, thus > making a trick. > > I know some of you will say it is West's fault for putting his hand > face up but a modicum of sympathy might be offered: it is normal for > claimer to put his hand down face up. No doubt here West intended to > claim. > > Let us consider this case a little deeper. It, after all, totally > negates the poster who said that it makes no difference how we treat > these cases: this one clearly does make a difference. So let me ask > you, "What is a fair resolution of the hand?". > > One thing is clear to me: the non-offending side is N/S. If the > original concession was accurate then we would never get these problems. > So benefit of doubt should go to N/S. But, it does whatever we decide! > If we treat it as a claim, then benefit of doubt goes against claimer: > if we let play continue, there is UI, and benefit of doubt in UI cases > goes against E/W. > > I think this example is very important. We expect people to put their > hands down and claim. True, the Law does not require it, but it does > require a clarification statement, and it is often very difficult to > make one intelligibly unless the hand is visible. It does seem a little > harsh that declarer should get tricks not for benefit of doubt [which is > fair enough] but also for penalty cards, which would never happen in any > other claim situation. > I agree with David on this one. 2-1 in favour of claiming. But see my important note below. > [4] West says "I claim three tricks: I take my three spades and give you > the last trick with your ace of diamonds" and puts his hand on the > table, face up. > > xx > - > xx > - > KQJ - > - J > x Axx > - - > - > x > KQJ > - > > West is on lead and East objects. Would you say West has claimed? > What is a fair resolution of the hand? > > If we treat this as a claim we give East/West four tricks. Despite > West's stupid claim, few would suggest that this is not fair. > > If we say that play continues, then West has four penalty cards, > declarer chooses which will be played first, he obviously chooses the > diamond, and N/S get two tricks. Can this be fair? > > I think the fairness of this can be seen in the fact that about 98% of > declarers, having seen the defenders' hands, would not bother the TD, > but let them have four tricks without argument. > > For the people who have suggested that when "there has been no > concession" play continues, I think this example is the best to show why > it breaks down. It seems inconceivable that we do not treat it as a > claim. West even said he was claiming! > As before, the statement, or lack of it, should not matter, and nor should the showing of the cards. 2-2, but see important note > [5] West says "I claim three tricks: I take my three spades and give you > the last two tricks" and puts his hand on the table, face up. > > xx > - > xx > - > KQJ - > - J > x Kxx > - - > - > x > AQJ > - > > West is on lead and East objects. Would you say West has claimed? > What is a fair resolution of the hand? > > If we treat this as a claim we give East/West three tricks. Despite > West's inability to count, few would suggest that this is not fair. > > If we say that play continues, then West has four penalty cards, > declarer chooses which will be played first, he obviously chooses the > diamond, and N/S get three tricks. Can this be fair? > Well, David, if you are going to stack the deck in your favour, ... I vote to disallow this example. It proves nothing extra. > [6] West says "No doubt you get your two trumps". > > xx > - > xx > - > KQ - > x A > A Kxx > - J > - > x > x > xx > > West is on lead and East objects. Would you say West has claimed? > What is a fair resolution of the hand? > > Goodness knows what will happen to this hand! Does the defence really > know what they are doing? Obviously heart to the ace, club jack, and > the defence will make three tricks. > > If we let play continue but with UI restraints we shall probably get a > fair conclusion. The defence will play as they see fit, and be able > then to explain how they did not use UI. However, to rule it as a claim > is a nightmare. There was no clarification statement, and if we are > deciding it as a Contested Claim, who contested it? > > This example suggests allowing the players to continue. However, > there is one other point: if we rule it as a claim, we shall presumably > give South two tricks on a benefit of doubt basis: if we allow the > defence to play on South may do worse. A contested claim probably > benefits declarer here - but I think there will be some examples the > other way. > A clear 3-2 in favour of allowing play to continue. > So, where are we? well, we have looked at a few examples, and one > thing is outstanding: equity is not going to be served once a player > faces his hand. Maybe UI constraints and a claim will not often come to > a different number of tricks, but treating all claimer's hand as penalty > cards will often wreck it. > That is the important point. David's 2(3) examples in which considering it a claim were the more "equitable" one, all involved penalty cards. If the cards had not been shown, or if they had not become penalty cards, then playing on would have been the better (I believe) in all those cases as well. > Are we prepared to adopt a different approach depending on how the > "concession" is worded? A player who tells us how he is going to make > three tricks has claimed, and should get the benefit of L70 at least, > but a player who just tells his opponent that they get one trick? No, > that does not hold water. L68A makes both a claim, so either the fact > that a concession has not occurred cancels the claim in each case or in > neither. > I don't believe the way of wording, or even the showing of cards, whould matter. > I cannot believe that a player who puts his hand down and states a > line can ever be asked to play on. I think the examples have shown that > asking him to play on causes situations that are just not fair because > of the penalty cards, and that do not follow the Laws. I could see it > might be considered reasonable to allow play to continue if the hand had > not been faced, but I cannot believe there is an interpretation of the > Law that allows this differentiation. > > Thus I conclude that once there has been a concession of some but not > all the tricks, there has been no concession, but the TD must now rule > on a contested claim for all the tricks. > Your conclusion, David, is solely based on the principle of the penalty cards. Here comes my important note : IMPORTANT NOTE If we consider that a partner can object to both the concession and claim, then we must read what : L68B states : "no concession has occured. L16 may apply" There is no mention that cards shown become penalty cards. There is the footnote (which I agree, does not refer to this case) that says that cards shown do NOT become penalty cards. There is the sentence at the start of L50 which says "unless the TD designates otherwise" I propose the following : Whenever a defender suggests that play is over, and his partner objects, play continues. All statements are UI to partner, but cards shown shall not be designated penalty cards. I believe that this proposal is within the scope of the Laws. It suggests a line of action that the TD can follow, which most clearly reflects the intention of the Lawmakers. I believe that Ton's post on this subject confirms this last view. Ton suggests to use the footnote as such, but I doubt if that is completely legal. I believe we should add the sentence of L50 to the TD's arsenal in reaching the optimum ruling. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 20 17:32:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA04834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:32:37 +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 RAA04823 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:32:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-78.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.78]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA21068 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:32:19 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <394DF5F8.6F72717D@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:29:12 +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: 500! References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > Site total: 500 articles > > Yipppeeeee! > Can I count every biography of an Olympian as one ? Then I have 600 of those alone. Anyway, congratulations David. And it is amusing to see that Bridge-Laws come only fourth-equal on the list ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 20 17:32:35 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA04832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:32:35 +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 RAA04821 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:32:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-78.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.78]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA21040 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:32:15 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <394DF553.9F9A9257@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:26:27 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific><001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific> <000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona> <39461668.D81C58EA@village.uunet.be> <001701bfd5fb$6c96e840$532f37d2@laptop> <3948ADD5.E4278736@village.uunet.be> <200006181712.NAA10822@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: > > [large snippage here, still long, sorry] > That's allright, Michael, I'll snip away as well. I believe we are on the same track. > > > >I can live with a ruling that goes : > > > >Suppose I open 1He, third seat, on 1 HCP. Defenders find > >out that I don't have 11HCP, and now play me for every > >missing honour. > >The TD could rule that if my CC had mentioned that I may > >well open 1He in third seat with 0-3 HCP, opponents would > >have defended differently, and he adjusts based on that. > > > >I can live with that. > > > But what do you do when, after your 1H opening, they get to 6NT. You > have shown the SQ; partner has two lines of play. One succeeds when you > hold the DQ; one succeeds when you hold DT9xxx. What if partner chooses > to play you for long diamonds? > > He knows you've psyched; everyone knows you've psyched. But he has the > added information that you have <4 points. If it's disclosed, I believe > it's specific enough to be regulable; I believe "frequent 3rd seat > psyches" is not. > I would expect my partner to play me for long diamonds. I would not call that an CPU, since IMO this should also be told to opponents. I think it should be disclosed. I do not deduce from that that this is regulable. If it is, it simply bans psyching. Why ? Because I would be unable to psyche in this manner, no matter who my partner was. I have done this too often, and have told too many people (as I believe I should, or it IS a CPU), that the TD should be able to call it PU, and thus disclosable, no matter who I happen to play with. I want to call it PU ! I want to tell my opponents in as many ways as I can without telling partner too much, and I want to be ruled against if I fail in my attempt. But since everyone (including you Michael) continues to equate Partnership understanding with Partnership agreement, I cannot do all the above, because I will be facing the even harsher penalties of IPA (1) in stead of the reasonable ones of UPU (2). (1) Illegal Partnership Agreement. (2) Undisclosed Partnership Understanding. > >I cannot live with a ruling that says that since this means > >I have a CPU, the bid becomes illegal as such, or that it is > >a systemic weak opening, which is forbidden. > > > Why not? If it showed 11-14, instead of 0-3, wouldn't you call it a > systemic opening? Wouldn't it fit all the definitions of a regulable > convention in your SO? > Yes it would, because the definition is flawed. I believe that all regulations should be void on psyches. I believe that this necessitates a few additions on the definition of psyche : frequency and absence of systemic ways of discovery should be among those. > Under the GCC here, a 1H opening which is either a normal 1H opening or > 11-14 any in third seat is regulable and regulated against; what is the > difference between that and 0-3? > Frequency. The hand comes up about once every three months, as opposed to a normal 1He opening once every tournament. > If it weren't so specific, or if the suit in which you psyched were not > always 1He, I'd be happy with it (though if you switched it to "shorter > major", I don't think that's variable enough). It still must be a > "gross discription" of your hand, even after the psych is exposed. Gross misdescreption, you mean ? Well, it is. It cannot be after the psyche is exposed. [snip] > I agree with most of this - except that many people will not grant you > the difference between "agreements", "experience", and "understandings"; > even I am not sure they are separate enough for such a denotative > reading of the Laws. > Why did they give them three different words then ? > However, the CoP have given guidelines to determine when habitual > violations create an implicit agreement. See rant above :-). > I agree with the definitions in the CoP. As long as they are used to rule against psyches as UPU, not as IPA ! [snip] -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 20 18:38:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA04936 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:38:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from uucp.nl.uu.net (uucp.nl.uu.net [193.79.237.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA04931 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:38:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:37:56 +0200 Received: from xion.spase.nl (xion.spase.nl [192.168.200.7]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with ESMTP id KAA02524 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:12:00 +0200 Received: by xion.spase.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:10:55 +0200 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Subject: RE: Turning a Trick Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:10:54 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >When I am dummy, I often see an absent-minded declarer violate L65B. Can I >immediately correct this infraction under L42B2? Or is there no *gap* >between the commencement and completion of this irregularity, and therefore >Laws 43A1(b) and 43A1(c) apply? Actually, this question is a regular customer on TD-exams in the Netherlands. Dummy may warn declarer that he is about to violate L65B, that is his L42B2 right. However, once declarer has put the card down, the infraction is committed and dummy must keep silent. Therefore dummy has to be very quick if he wants to warn his partner. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 20 22:06:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA05328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 22:06:58 +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 WAA05322 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 22:06:49 +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 134Mnd-000Bsn-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:06:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 03:24:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Turning a Trick References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard wrote: >When I am dummy, I often see an absent-minded declarer violate L65B. Can I >immediately correct this infraction under L42B2? Or is there no *gap* >between the commencement and completion of this irregularity, and therefore >Laws 43A1(b) and 43A1(c) apply? You can try to stop declarer putting the card down wrong before he lets go of it: that is ok because you are preventing an irregularity, but takes pretty quick reactions. Once he has put it down you cannot prevent an irregularity. The ACBL comments: There is no automatic penalty for an infraction of this nature. The Director should consider an adjustment whenever Dummy's action may have aided Declarer's play of the hand. In cases where Dummy immediately notifies Declarer of an incorrectly pointed card there is very little possibility of an adjustment. This seems sensible to me. They acknowledge it is illegal, while suggesting that immediate correction will nearly always be subject to no penalty. -- 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 Jun 20 22:07:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA05333 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 22:07:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA05327 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 22:06:54 +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 134Mnd-000Bsm-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:06:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 03:26:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: How to get *players* to know laws and regulations? 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: >Are there any other examples of rules that players need to know and don't? I think L73C is one that is needed, probably re-written in user- friendly language. >And what should be done to ensure that players know the rules? Simple signs on the walls? Little cards to be handed to the players with a summary of a Law on? -- 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 Jun 20 23:20:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA05377 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 22:23:15 +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 WAA05372 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 22:23:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from 62wim.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 ESMTP id e5KCMtW23452 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:22:57 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000620081259.00ab5970@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:23:44 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. In-Reply-To: <394DF553.9F9A9257@village.uunet.be> References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific> <001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific> <000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona> <39461668.D81C58EA@village.uunet.be> <001701bfd5fb$6c96e840$532f37d2@laptop> <3948ADD5.E4278736@village.uunet.be> <200006181712.NAA10822@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:26 AM 6/19/00, Herman wrote: >I agree with the definitions in the CoP. >As long as they are used to rule against psyches as UPU, not >as IPA ! But a definition is just that, and does not, in itself, determine how it is applied. The problem in the ACBL is that if you allow psyches to be ruled against as UPUs, you acknowledge that they are PUs. Then the ACBL cites L75A to erase any distinction between "implicit partnership agreements" (PUs) and explicit PAs, and decrees that any understanding/agreement whatsoever regarding psyches is illegal. Thus the definition in the CoP, which would work reasonably if it was applied reasonably, becomes the catch-22 under which the ACBL can justify its infamous one-psych-per-partnership-per-lifetime rule. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 20 23:47:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA05661 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 23:47:48 +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 XAA05656 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 23:47:40 +1000 (EST) From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.2]) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA00215; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:47:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA031788844; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:47:24 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:47:08 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: How to get *players* to know laws and regulations? Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au 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 XAA05657 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Objet : Re: How to get *players* to know laws and regulations? David J. Grabiner wrote: >Are there any other examples of rules that players need to know and don't? >David wote: I think L73C is one that is needed, probably re-written in user- >friendly language. How to deal with unauthorised information is essential to avoid penalties. It is necessary indeed to write something, user friendly, taking parts of Laws 73 and 75 (how to deal with mistaken bids and mistaken explanations). >And what should be done to ensure that players know the rules? >David wrote: Simple signs on the walls? Little cards to be handed to the >players with a summary of a Law on? Just convince your bridge teachers it is part of their job. I know by experience that students like to learn a minimum of rules before playing in clubs. It is quite easy to design a serie of lessons taking half an hour to teach on basic Laws and other things to know (filling CC and duplicata forms, mouvements, bidding boxes, etc..) and the rest of the time for practice (using different types of mouvements...). They enjoy. My school of bridge gives such lessons for more then 5 years now. I can send you a Word file (in French only for the moment...) if you want to see how we design the material and present Laws. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 21 00:07:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA05723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:07:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from hermes.isi.com (hermes.isi.com [192.73.222.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA05718 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:07:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc (nash-dhcp-7 [128.224.193.36]) by hermes.isi.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3/Hermes 991202 TroyC) with SMTP id HAA03183 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 07:08:13 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: RE: WBF position on Psychics. Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:06:57 -0700 Message-ID: <001701bfdad9$f0ddf660$24c1e080@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20000620081259.00ab5970@pop.cais.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I have a VERY explict question regarding WBF and ACBl policy regarding psyches. This year, in the International Teams trial, Zia opened 1N in second seat holding the following hand. S JT3 H K98 D AJ64 C T65 (The board in question is hand number 107 from the ITT finals) His partner, Michael Rosenberg, blasted directly to 3N holding a flat 14 count. (I don't think for a moment that Rosenberg "fielded" this psyche in any way.) I recall Zia making almost the exact same psyche in another recent event. (Opening a balanced hand with ~9 HCP with a "psychic" 1N). If anyone really wants, I can try to find the original hand. I find it hard to reconcile this behavior with the strict ACBL policy with respect to psyches discussed earlier in this thread. I am left with the uncomfortable conclusion that one of two different things is occurring. The ACBL is selective in its enforcement of the Laws of Bridge. Existing legitimate regulations are not enforced against well known players. The ACBL policy with respect to psyches is not legitimate according to the Laws of Bridge. This policy is not enforced during major events because the players involved at this level understand that the policy is not enforcable and would protest. However, the illegitimate policy is imposed those players who do not have a strong enough understanding of the actual laws. If there is another explanation for the selective enforcement of existing regulations, I would dearly love to know what it is. Richard -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOU+ksCGkJ7YU62vZEQI9uACg8vLKI0yBLACXUyvgvf+66zdJHeAAn1pb 95HZvVpMCE1+Bsmww3oZYBxv =w/Nv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 21 00:18:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA05566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 23:22:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA05560 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 23:22:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.142] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 134NyJ-000Ock-00; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:21:43 +0100 Message-ID: <002901bfdaba$be692fc0$355908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" , "William Schoder" Cc: , "Max Bavin" , "Grattan Endicott" , "dburn" , "David Martin" , "David W Stevenson" , "Ralph Cohen" , "Antonio Riccardi" , "William Schoder" , "Richard Grenside" Subject: Fw: Psychic Bidding Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:22:36 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott I have followed with interest the exchanges on this subject. I have the > following comments. Please feel free to quote me. > > 1. We have struggled for many years to produce clear definitions of psyches. > Perhaps we should accept that to a large extent it is an abstract concept > and therefore not capable of exact definition. > > 2. What we have is the result of a long discussion correspondence and > interaction between many competent people. Personally I have tried hard to > see the way to be totally specific, but I cannot and I do not want to spend > more of my time on this matter. I feel strongly that what we have, though > not perfect, is about as good as we can get. > > 3. There are three aspects: > > a) We have the Law, which I think no-one wants to change. The concept must > be right. > > b) The Code of Practice tries to guide Directors and Committees in how to > apply the Law. It does not change it - it tells them what to look for in > applying the Law. > > c) In the final analysis, it is for Directors and Appeals Committees to > decide whether a Psyche has been illegally fielded. That is why they are > there. How much weight they put on each aspect is up to them, and it has to > be. > > Regards > > John Wignall > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 21 01:28:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA05982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:28:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from falcon.prod.itd.earthlink.net (falcon.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA05977 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:28:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-002kslawrP336.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.114]) by falcon.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3-EL_1_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA15328 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:28:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <200006201026290350.001171DB@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <394DF6C9.4BE7F89B@village.uunet.be> References: <200006172142.RAA28858@cfa183.harvard.edu> <394DF6C9.4BE7F89B@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.10.03.02 (3) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:26:29 -0500 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: End of L68B Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> As to whether this constitutes a claim, we have to refer to L68A for >> the definition. Did the contestant say he would win a specific number >> of tricks? More importantly, did he make a "statement to that effect"? >> Certainly the latter though not the former, so there was a claim. >You say "if East is aware of the position". >If east is not aware of the position, then there can be >LA's. This brings up a question I had. What if, in contesting the concession, East did not claim an additional trick but instead said something like "Wait, I'm not sure, I may get another one, let me look at this a second", and declarer, for whatever reason, called the TD at that point? Seems to me that in this situation, East is not aware of the position, but he has not claimed. On what basis would we adjudicate this position? I'm not arguing with any of David's points, merely bringing up a subvariation that I don't think was mentioned yet. Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading Am I paranoid, or is it just me? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 21 01:52:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA06051 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:52:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA06046 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:52:34 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.10.) id r.2b.7462c4d (4400); Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:50:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <2b.7462c4d.2680ece0@aol.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:50:56 EDT Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. To: rwilley@isi.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 109 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 6/20/00 10:09:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rwilley@isi.com writes: > I have a VERY explict question regarding WBF and ACBl policy > regarding psyches. > > This year, in the International Teams trial, Zia opened 1N in second > seat holding the following hand. > > S JT3 > H K98 > D AJ64 > C T65 > > (The board in question is hand number 107 from the ITT finals) > > His partner, Michael Rosenberg, blasted directly to 3N holding a flat > 14 count. (I don't think for a moment that Rosenberg "fielded" this > psyche in any way.) > > I recall Zia making almost the exact same psyche in another recent > event. (Opening a balanced hand with ~9 HCP with a "psychic" 1N). > If anyone really wants, I can try to find the original hand. > > I find it hard to reconcile this behavior with the strict ACBL policy > with respect to psyches discussed earlier in this thread. > > I am left with the uncomfortable conclusion that one of two different > things is occurring. > > The ACBL is selective in its enforcement of the Laws of Bridge. > Existing legitimate regulations are not enforced against well known > players. > > The ACBL policy with respect to psyches is not legitimate according > to the Laws of Bridge. This policy is not enforced during major > events because the players involved at this level understand that the > policy is not enforcable and would protest. However, the > illegitimate policy is imposed those players who do not have a strong > enough understanding of the actual laws. > > If there is another explanation for the selective enforcement of > existing regulations, I would dearly love to know what it is. > > Richard How's this for a possible explanation? IT AIN'T A PSYCHE(SIC)! Is it possible that Zia and Michael are playing 1NT 10-12? Is this a gross and deliberate mistatement in that case? Are you perhaps too spring loaded to accuse with such words as selective enforcement, dearly love, etc? I'd be wIlling to bet that this is not even a psychic bid by definition! Cheers, Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 21 02:20:39 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA06285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:20:39 +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 CAA06280 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:20:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id SAA15791 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:22:26 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Jun 20 18:20:31 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JQU38HQI84000O1I@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:22:52 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:18:29 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:39:51 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: End of L68B To: "'David Stevenson'" , "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B619@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: David Stevenson [mailto:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] > Verzonden: maandag 19 juni 2000 12:49 > Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: Re: End of L68B > > > Kooijman, A. wrote: > >> Steve Willner wrote: > > >> > The Laws very clearly separate claims and concessions. > There are no > >> > "semantic knots" in that! > > >> And the Law does not say how to rule on concessions. > >> And the Law does not say how to rule on claims without > >> concessions. > >> Really, Steve. > >> > >> I suggest we just let this rest. > > >good idea, > > >> I propose the WBFLC settles it, once and for all, in > >> Maastricht. > > >There is nothing to settle! You really want us to spend > time on a trivial > >subject? > > > >We could add it to our '2005' agenda, since there is a good > reason not to > >continue play anymore after a disputed concession by > partner-defender. > > I think this is a very unfortunate approach. Ok, let us > not bother to > have BLML at all. > > We have a situation where you have proposed a view that > seems wrong in > certain situations. It is certainly not clear at all how > people should > be ruling. > > What is your solution? You have told us Herman is right but have > produced no argument. You have come up with a curious view on penalty > cards. Now you do not want to discuss it in Maastricht > because it is a > trivial subject. > > You know, Ton, it would be helpful if the lawmakers would > get it clear > how they intend to discuss interpretation of the Law. That is also trivial. If the L.C. thinks it necessary to interpret a law it will do that, using a internal discussion if needed. It is no longer > good enough to treat everyone as though the communications > are as in the > 1950s. > And observations in the outside world will help the LC. to decide whether interpretations are needed. So there is the function of BLML as far as the relation with the LC is concerned. And as everyone in this group could know we actually follow this description. In our meetings in Bermuda several items on the agenda where born through a discussion within BLML. > Should you be sorting it out at Maastricht? I do not know, > but if you > are not going to *there* it would be sensible if it were sorted out > here. To say it is too trivial for Maastricht and then try to kill it > here hardly seems the correct approach. Well, it is the task of (the chairman of) the LC to decide its agenda. And an endless BLML discussion not automatically leads to an item for this agenda. Sorry, if this sounds disappointing. > > Furthermore, several people who read this list, and others > who hear of > these things would like to know the correct ruling. I told you my opinion about the correct procedure 7000 ends of 68B ago. Let me repeat it. When a defender concedes tricks and his partner immediately objects, the TD gives instructions and play continues. A player concedes one or more tricks when he allows his opponents to win those. That is what the laws say. My advise to every TD in the whole world is to follow the laws. I still don't understand where or what in the laws leads to another conclusion (7000 messages later). OK, I realise that if you (and apparently many others) read the laws differently it is not easy to accept this. But the world is tough. Compromise: if Kokak or (inclusive) Grattan, both certainly following this discussion, suggest to put this issue on the agenda, we will do that. Then they might gentily telling me that I am completely wrong or like these discussions that much that they want to encourage you to continue (I don't like any of these two possibilties). As far as my curious point on penalty cards is involved, that is another issue. I think that interpretation there could be good. I described my doubts, so don't accuse me of stubborness (I really should bring a dictionary to my office (my boss refuses to buy one) there. ton I think > to dismiss > it as trivial is very dismissive of such people. > > > > -- > 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 Jun 21 02:32:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA06336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:32:25 +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 CAA06327 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:32:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive50m.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.20.22]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA21957 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:32:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <007e01bfdad5$a4923e00$1614f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Re: The End of L68B is Nigh (was: End of L68B) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:36:09 -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 If you don't like being patronised, then perhaps you might consider being less offensive? It has long been considered a breach of netiquette to make fun of another's typos. And I must join with David and Ed in suggesting that if you want to veer a discussion of what the law is into what you would have it be you start a new thread and see if there are any who wish to follow you. (There often are, but that is a choice that should be theirs.) Ever since you have come on list you seem to have had a desire to be confrontational and abrasive. I do not see that you are being patronised by anyone...in fact there has been commendable restraint by many in listening to what you say and commenting upon that, rather than seeking to stifle you or put you in your place. Please show others the same courtesy they are attempting to show you. Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: Todd Zimnoch To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, June 16, 2000 11:06 PM Subject: Re: The End of L68B is Nigh (was: End of L68B) >>From: David Stevenson >> > As far as being deleterious (and highly so, at that), I could have >> >sworn that a purpose of this list was to suggest and debate changes in >>law. >> >> Why? No-one has ever suggested that. The prupose of this list is to >>consider the laws. If you want to get rid of people whose main interest >>is to cosnider the current Laws you would probably find the list a lot >>smaller. Why should people who want to know how to rule not be >>considered? > > I never suggested any purpose was exclusionary. If I meant that I >might have written, "the prupose of this list is," like you did. You >wouldn't boot the cats or dogs now, would you? ;) > >-Todd >(I really don't take being patronized well, you know?) > > >________________________________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 21 03:56:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA06557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 03:56:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from hermes.isi.com (hermes.isi.com [192.73.222.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA06552 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 03:56:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc (nash-dhcp-7 [128.224.193.36]) by hermes.isi.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3/Hermes 991202 TroyC) with SMTP id KAA06434; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:56:54 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: , Subject: RE: WBF position on Psychics. Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:55:37 -0700 Message-ID: <002701bfdaf9$e2769f80$24c1e080@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <2b.7462c4d.2680ece0@aol.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > Is it possible that Zia and Michael are playing 1NT 10-12? > > Is this a gross and deliberate mistatement in that case? > Are you perhaps too spring loaded to accuse with such words > as selective enforcement, dearly love, etc? > > Cheers, Kojak Zia and Rosenberg might have been playing a 10-12 HCP 1N. I seem to recall that they typically play 12 - 14 non-vulnerable. However, this being the ACBL, the possibility of applying judgement to upgrade a good 9 HCP to be the equivalent of a 10 count did not occur to me. For this, I apologize. However, I seem to recall that Zia and Rosenberg play a 12 - 14 HCP NT opening NV. I did a check check of the hand records for the ITT. Zia and Rosenberg opened 1N NV on the following set of hands 15, 43, 53, 75, 89 Many of these openings seem to suggest a 12-14 HCP range. Notably, board 53 K85 A6 AJT5 QT95 Three examples would also support a 10 - 12 HCP range Board 15 Board 43 Board 75 73 86 Q54 A84 AQ Q94 AQ984 AJT3 AT7 Q72 T9852 A874 However, Zia and Rosenberg also passed with a number of hands that would have been consistant with a 10-12 HCP NT range. Board 47 Board 56 Board 78 QJ862 9543 K2 86 KQ62 K97 T52 KJ5 A863 AQ2 QJ 7653 Richard -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOU/aRyGkJ7YU62vZEQLWHgCfRxY+l/z2gkfBAbu9qjtBtWbEhQ8Anj8j i9Z8uJz1+Q6GvdWv5pIs+s54 =d7u3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 21 04:14:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA06611 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 04:14:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA06605 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 04:14:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.183] (dhcp165-183.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.183]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA07141 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:14:22 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <2b.7462c4d.2680ece0@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:13:15 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:50 AM -0400 6/20/00, Schoderb@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 6/20/00 10:09:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rwilley@isi.com >writes: > >> I have a VERY explict question regarding WBF and ACBl policy >> regarding psyches. >> >> This year, in the International Teams trial, Zia opened 1N in second >> seat holding the following hand. >> >> S JT3 >> H K98 >> D AJ64 >> C T65 >> I recall Zia making almost the exact same psyche in another recent >> event. (Opening a balanced hand with ~9 HCP with a "psychic" 1N). >> If anyone really wants, I can try to find the original hand. >> >How's this for a possible explanation? > >IT AIN'T A PSYCHE(SIC)! > > >Is it possible that Zia and Michael are playing 1NT 10-12? >Is this a gross and deliberate mistatement in that case? >Are you perhaps too spring loaded to accuse with such words as selective >enforcement, dearly love, etc? However, if this is not a psyche, then it is a violation of ACBL regulations. If you agree to open 1NT with less than 10 HCP, you may not play any conventions over it. And it is ACBL policy that you may not use judgement here, unlike other similar regulations (you may not play conventions over a 4-11 HCP weak 2-bid, but if you play 5-11 and open 2S with xxx xxx x KJT9xx, this is OK). If you violate the agreement twice, you create an implicit agreement. I don't think the ACBL has the authority under the Laws to forbid the use of judgement in playing permitted conventions, but the ACBL does. Thus the appropriate ruling should be that the result stands on this board but that this pair may no longer use any conventions over the 10-12 1NT opening. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 21 04:14:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA06617 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 04:14:47 +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 EAA06612 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 04:14:38 +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 OAA07138; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:14:21 -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: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:04:12 -0400 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Turning a Trick Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 3:24 AM +0100 6/20/00, David Stevenson wrote: >Richard wrote: >>When I am dummy, I often see an absent-minded declarer violate L65B. Can I >>immediately correct this infraction under L42B2? Or is there no *gap* >>between the commencement and completion of this irregularity, and therefore >>Laws 43A1(b) and 43A1(c) apply? > > You can try to stop declarer putting the card down wrong before he >lets go of it: that is ok because you are preventing an irregularity, >but takes pretty quick reactions. Once he has put it down you cannot >prevent an irregularity. > > The ACBL comments: > > There is no automatic penalty for an infraction > of this nature. The Director should consider an > adjustment whenever Dummy's action may have aided > Declarer's play of the hand. In cases where > Dummy immediately notifies Declarer of an > incorrectly pointed card there is very little > possibility of an adjustment. Is this treated as UI? If so, the following situation can happen: Declarer is in 4S, and thinks he has lost three tricks (actually, he has lost only two). He declines a safety play in trumps, losing two trump tricks for down one. If dummy notifies declarer that a trick is turned wrong, then declarer can take the safety play and make. In practice, director is never called when dummy notifies declarer of a trick turned wrong, or when one defender notifies the other. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 21 04:58:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA06761 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 04:58:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA06756 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 04:57:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA19594; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:54:15 -0700 Message-Id: <200006201854.LAA19594@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:55:37 PDT." <002701bfdaf9$e2769f80$24c1e080@isi.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:54:15 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Willey wrote: > > Is it possible that Zia and Michael are playing 1NT 10-12? > > > Is this a gross and deliberate mistatement in that case? > > Are you perhaps too spring loaded to accuse with such words > > as selective enforcement, dearly love, etc? > > > > Cheers, Kojak > > Zia and Rosenberg might have been playing a 10-12 HCP 1N. > I seem to recall that they typically play 12 - 14 non-vulnerable. > However, this being the ACBL, the possibility of applying judgement > to upgrade a good 9 HCP to be the equivalent of a 10 count did not > occur to me. For this, I apologize. > > However, I seem to recall that Zia and Rosenberg play a 12 - 14 HCP > NT opening NV. FWIW, my hazy recollection is the same as yours---I think their notrump range is 12-14. I think this is what I've seen in tournament reports in _The Bridge World_. But I'd have to look it up at home to be sure. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 21 07:42:41 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA07124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 07:42:41 +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 HAA07119 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 07:42:33 +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 RAA03602 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:42:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006202142.RAA03602@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <2b.7462c4d.2680ece0@aol.com> References: <2b.7462c4d.2680ece0@aol.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:42:52 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 20 June 2000 at 11:50, Schoderb@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 6/20/00 10:09:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rwilley@isi.com >writes: > >> I have a VERY explict question regarding WBF and ACBl policy >> regarding psyches. >> >> This year, in the International Teams trial, Zia opened 1N in second >> seat holding the following hand. >> [snip 9 point 3343, Hand 107, ITT 2000 finals] >> >> I recall Zia making almost the exact same psyche in another recent >> event. (Opening a balanced hand with ~9 HCP with a "psychic" 1N). >> If anyone really wants, I can try to find the original hand. >> http://deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=492102605 has the hand and Barry Rigal's response. Dejanews is your friend, despite how much they've tried in the last few years to annoy their friends. Strangely enough, the other "recent event" was the 1999 ITT (semi-final, board 82, this time). NV, third-seat. >> I find it hard to reconcile this behavior with the strict ACBL policy >> with respect to psyches discussed earlier in this thread. >> >> I am left with the uncomfortable conclusion that one of two different >> things is occurring. >> >> The ACBL is selective in its enforcement of the Laws of Bridge. >> Existing legitimate regulations are not enforced against well known >> players. >> >> The ACBL policy with respect to psyches is not legitimate according >> to the Laws of Bridge. This policy is not enforced during major >> events because the players involved at this level understand that the >> policy is not enforcable and would protest. However, the >> illegitimate policy is imposed those players who do not have a strong >> enough understanding of the actual laws. >> >> If there is another explanation for the selective enforcement of >> existing regulations, I would dearly love to know what it is. >> They "proclaim" things, making them "general bridge knowledge", hoping to "solve" their "problem" without actually making it a regulation that they have to live up to? Yes, I know that's mean of me, but their Bulletin proclamations that aren't "Official", even though they are requested by the ACBL to be placed in the only organ that all ACBL members are guaranteed to see, lead to little other interpretation. See the discussion in rgb over Meckstroth's famous guest editorials in the Bulletin - or don't; they were in 1995, and deja doesn't go back that far. The rgb.anu.edu.au archives do, but they're much more difficult to navigate. I am very upset about the difficulty the rank-and-file ACBL member has of finding the regulations they are expected to abide by. This has been made immesurably easier by the web site, but the regulations pages are in a very obscure location even there, and I keep going back to find things I remember seeing and finding them gone. It can't be *all* my faulty memory, can it? >How's this for a possible explanation? > >IT AIN'T A PSYCHE(SIC)! > That's what people thought the last time this came up (see deja record above). In fact, they were complaining about the famous (and not written anywhere official where I can find it) "10-12 or no conventions means 10-12, not even the best 9-count in the world, not even once" "regulation", not the fact that it was a psyche. That's why Mr. Rigal pointed this out to the madding crowd. see also, later, http://deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN493347836 . >Is it possible that Zia and Michael are playing 1NT 10-12? >Is this a gross and deliberate mistatement in that case? >Are you perhaps too spring loaded to accuse with such words as selective >enforcement, dearly love, etc? > Unfortunately, Kojak, in this case Richard's memory was correct. ZM and MR play 12-14 NTs NV, but never 10-12 (or at least the last time this came up, they didn't). Oh, and the CoC for the ITT were ACBL Superchart for the finals; so if the natural NT opening range had a limit of fewer than 10HCP, no conventional responses, rebids or defences to conventional defences would have been allowed. Not that that's relevant in this case, but it may have been had Kojak been correct. Michael. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 21 08:31:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA07269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 08:31:58 +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 IAA07258 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 08:31:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.189] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 134WYV-000FFG-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 23:31:39 +0100 Message-ID: <00c801bfdb07$91af44e0$bd5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific><001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific><000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona><39461668.D81C58EA@village.uunet.be><001701bfd5fb$6c96e840$532f37d2@laptop><3948ADD5.E4278736@village.uunet.be><200006181712.NAA10822@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <4.3.2.7.1.20000620081259.00ab5970@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 23:31:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 1:23 PM Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. > At 06:26 AM 6/19/00, Herman wrote: > > >I agree with the definitions in the CoP. > >As long as they are used to rule against psyches as UPU, not > >as IPA ! > > But a definition is just that, and does not, in itself, determine how it is > applied. The problem in the ACBL is that if you allow psyches to be ruled > against as UPUs, you acknowledge that they are PUs. Then the ACBL cites > L75A to erase any distinction between "implicit partnership agreements" > (PUs) and explicit PAs, and decrees that any understanding/agreement > whatsoever regarding psyches is illegal. Thus the definition in the CoP, > which would work reasonably if it was applied reasonably, becomes the > catch-22 under which the ACBL can justify its infamous > one-psych-per-partnership-per-lifetime rule. > +=+ I think Eric has grasped the point that the CoP recommends attitudes and approaches for appeals committees. It invites NCBOs, in particular, to adopt its text as the basis for appeals procedures. But it expresses principles and it leaves the values to be attached to these principles to the guidance issued by NCBOs etc. So the 'infamous rule', if it exists, is a value adopted by the ACBL. In point of fact several prominent figures in the ACBL have said to me that in this matter the ACBL's position has not been correctly presented. The principle that the CoP states is that the matter to be judged is the degree of mutual awareness in the partnership that the bid in question may be a psyche. It offers bases upon which such a judgement may be made. Significantly it avoids evaluating the links between frequency and lapse of time in the events it cites, leaving such questions to be judged by the Director and/or Appeals Committee. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 21 08:31:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA07268 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 08:31:57 +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 IAA07259 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 08:31:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.189] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 134WYX-000FFG-00; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 23:31:41 +0100 Message-ID: <00c901bfdb07$92b431c0$bd5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific><001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific> <000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona> <39461668.D81C58EA@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 23:32:09 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 12:09 PM Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. ----------------------- \x/ ----------------- > Now I agree that there can be a ruling on incomplete > disclosure, and I am all for the full investigation on the > psyche, and a possible ruling. > > What I fail to see is why the only measure that is > contemplated is the banning of the call (and thus the > rendering of A--). > +=+ Because the disclosure required by the law is "prior announcement" (sic) the call was illegal when made. It is not part of the legal auction. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 21 08:43:56 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA07334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 08:43:56 +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 IAA07329 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 08:43:48 +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 SAA04637 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:44:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006202244.SAA04637@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: How to get *players* to know laws and regulations? Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:44:11 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 20 June 2000 at 3:26, David Stevenson wrote: >David J. Grabiner wrote: > >>Are there any other examples of rules that players need to know and don't? > > I think L73C is one that is needed, probably re-written in user- >friendly language. > I agree with the first phrase, but I think that "rewriting" is what all the "bid what you would have without the hesitation" people would say they did. I prefer giving it straight as it would be read to them at the table, and perhaps presenting examples if the legalese is deemed too obscure. To answer the original question: 1. Stop card regulations. Yes, they are different in every country, but players should at least know theirs. It's not like it's 16 pages of Alert pamphlet (which I don't expect players to know, but I do expect them to have looked at it once or twice and compared it to their system). The one thing that irritates me (as a player) more often than anything else is having LHO stare at me with a "so, why aren't you bidding? What's your problem" attitude while I am attentively studying my hand and the auction for 9-11 seconds; then when I do act (especially when I pass), going into the tank. What, they can't think on my time? (Well, to give them their due, around here, they can't - because few people actually do pause). If we could just educate people that the 10-second pause you are asking LHO for when you use the Stop card is also to minimize UI from partner having a problem... 2. When a claim occurs, *play ceases*. I've forgotten, maybe that was in the original. (No cross-references to that other thread allowed from here - mdf). 3. L49. Many people here are convinced that the law says something about declarer; specifically "declarer has seen [the card's] face". 4. L9B. Again, that may have been in the original post. 5. L74B5. If you want to bias me as a director against you (you won't succeed, but you can try hard), yell *DIE-REK-TOR* with that peculiar "my opponents have done something *illegal*, I'm taking it as a personal insult, come over here and slap them down for me" intonation (Everyone here's heard this, haven't they?) Not only am I unaccustomed to being summoned like a slave (is adding a ", Please" really so hard?), but you are intimidating your opponents, and reinforcing the "no need to call the cops" attitude that sours so many B- and C-flight games. 6. L74C1. Really, All of L74C, but C1 is the usual culprit, followed closely by C5 (first phrase) and C4. 7. ACBL-specific, and the regulars can hit "d" now, but: The requirement at sectional tournaments and above for *two, identical complete and legible* CCs *on the table* *throughout the session* for the opponents' use. >>And what should be done to ensure that players know the rules? > > Simple signs on the walls? Little cards to be handed to the players >with a summary of a Law on? > Reminders at the beginning of a session (one snippet a week, 30 secs max)? But most importantly (and never done out here) RT ruling, out of the FLB, _at_ _the_ _table_. Show the players the FLB (frankly, I'd be happy for now if I actually saw a director with a FLB in their hand). Let them read it, if they wish. It doesn't take a law degree to understand (most of) it... (preaching to the converted, but it may be another reason to use when dealing with the heathen) I don't care if you know it; I don't care if you've given the ruling 1000 times; that's not the point. The reason to read it out of the book is so that the *players* can learn it (and so they know you're right, and so that you don't get caught out by that one little exception, and so that you don't get confused in the maze that is L29-34, and all the other reasons). I seem to be using emphasis entirely too often today. Maybe I should relax a bit :-). Michael. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 21 09:02:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA07364 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:02:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA07359 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:02:23 +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 PAA24809; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:58:32 -0700 Message-Id: <200006202258.PAA24809@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:42:52 PDT." <200006202142.RAA03602@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:58:32 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: > http://deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=492102605 has the hand and Barry > Rigal's response. Dejanews is your friend, despite how much they've > tried in the last few years to annoy their friends. I feel your pain . . . I think I can honestly say that this is one program that gets worse every time they improve it. [snip] > see also, later, http://deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN493347836 . That should be http://deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=493347836 -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 21 09:42:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA07438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:42:04 +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 JAA07433 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:41:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([210.55.45.149]) by mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000620234122.TUXC15783400.mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:41:22 +1200 Message-ID: <005e01bfdb11$045b9120$4c2e37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific><001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific> <000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona> <39461668.D81C58EA@village.uunet.be> <00c901bfdb07$92b431c0$bd5908c3@dodona> Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:41:06 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" > > Now I agree that there can be a ruling on incomplete > > disclosure, and I am all for the full investigation on the > > psyche, and a possible ruling. > > > > What I fail to see is why the only measure that is > > contemplated is the banning of the call (and thus the > > rendering of A--). > > > +=+ Because the disclosure required by the > law is "prior announcement" (sic) the call > was illegal when made. It is not part of the > legal auction. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Prior announcement is only required by the law when there is a "partnership understanding" L40A and L40B or "partnership agreement" L75. The moot point is what constitutes an "agreement" or "understanding"? I don't believe that an arbitrary rule/regulation like "... has occured before..." is sufficient to constitute either an "agreement" or an "understanding". Nor do I believe that I happened to get lucky this time and survive this auction is sufficient evidence to prove an "agreement" or "understand". Wayne Burrows From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 21 09:59:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA07517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:59:46 +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 JAA07512 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:59:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([210.55.45.149]) by mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000620235903.UAIH15783400.mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:59:03 +1200 Message-ID: <006e01bfdb13$7cf5ac40$4c2e37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: Subject: "...the most favourable result that was likely..." L12C2 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:58:51 +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 Recently an appeals committee decided to award an assigned adjusted score. The assigned contract was 2H and the defense had 5 tricks in aces and kings in three suits and declarer has _no_ opportunity to avoid these losers unless the defense erred. The defense would need to fail to cash their tricks and set up dummy's trick and provide an entry to the entryless dummy. Therefore an adjustment of 2H making 8 tricks was ruled. Subsequently it was discovered that at most tables that played in hearts the defense had erred and nine tricks were made more often than not. Should this later fact be used in any way to determine the assigned score or should the adjustment be made in some other way? Wayne Burrows From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 21 10:07:32 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA07554 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:07:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA07549 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:07:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.78.121.145]) by mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000621000644.QHIB1605.mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:06:44 +0000 Message-ID: <395006F6.59AE6AFC@worldnet.att.net> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 20:06:15 -0400 From: Richard Colker Reply-To: rcolker@worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan Endicott CC: ton kooijman , William Schoder , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, Max Bavin , Grattan Endicott , dburn , David Martin , David W Stevenson , Ralph Cohen , Antonio Riccardi , Richard Grenside Subject: Re: Fw: Psychic Bidding References: <002901bfdaba$be692fc0$355908c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Gentlemen, While I was not privy to the discussion which preceeded Grattan's and John's messages, I agree with John. I find it difficult to believe that anyone would wish a "precise," formal definition of psychic which would force TDs and ACs to treat some awkward bid as a psychic when it was simply a way of dealing with a hand which had no descriptive call available in the pair's methods. For example, playing natural (standard) bidding methods a player picks up S:Qx H:Axx D:xxx C:AKxxx. He responds 2C to his partner's 1S opening and rebids 3D over the 2H rebid (2S, 2NT and 3C would all have been non-forcing). Is 3D a psychic? Can xxx really be taken seriously as either length or strength? Such bids are difficult to distinguish from real psychics, which "grossly" distort either length, strength or both. If anyone thinks that this hand does not fit the above definition of psychic, then take away a point or two and maybe move one of the small diamonds to the club suit (e.g., S:Jx H:Axx D:xx C:AKxxxx). 3D is BOTH a length and a strength distortion which I would categorize as "gross," yet I would not call this a psychic -- even playing a natural system. It is what I would call a "tactical" bid. All of my experience with the "psych police," a.k.a. "thought police" (not at the WBF level, but here in the US at clubs and even sectional and regional tournaments), is that they are looking for reasons not to let people "play bridge" whenever their concrete-thinking opponents are taken by surprise by a perfectly logical bridge action. I agree with everything John said. We have outstanding TDs and ACs that are getting better each tournament, especially with the recent help of the COP. Let them do their job and determine whether an illegal psychic has been either made or fielded. (I say this even after the poorly handled case of the 1NT psychic from the World Mixed Pairs in Lille.) It ain't broke, so let's not rush to "fix it." Question(s) for Grattan (and anyone else who cares to offer an opinion): Is it possible to have an "illegally made" psychic with no evidence that it was "illegally fielded"? If so, is there some reason to penalize a psychic bid, absent any evidence that partner knew what was happening? Cheers to all. Looking forward to seeing everyone in Maastricht. Rich Grattan Endicott wrote: > Grattan Endicott ===================================== > Voice of Experience. > "The player over was behind the man ahead of him" > - Barry Davies, BBC's longest serving match commentator > 11th June 00 > ---------------------------------------------------------- > +=+ I am indebted to John Wignall for the following opinion, > I have only one reservation - "illegally fielded or illegally made" - > with which I am content to rest the subject: ~G~ +=+ > > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 12:07 AM > Subject: Psychic Bidding > > > I have followed with interest the exchanges on this subject. I have the > > following comments. Please feel free to quote me. > > > > 1. We have struggled for many years to produce clear definitions of > psyches. > > Perhaps we should accept that to a large extent it is an abstract concept > > and therefore not capable of exact definition. > > > > 2. What we have is the result of a long discussion correspondence and > > interaction between many competent people. Personally I have tried hard to > > see the way to be totally specific, but I cannot and I do not want to > spend > > more of my time on this matter. I feel strongly that what we have, though > > not perfect, is about as good as we can get. > > > > 3. There are three aspects: > > > > a) We have the Law, which I think no-one wants to change. The concept must > > be right. > > > > b) The Code of Practice tries to guide Directors and Committees in how to > > apply the Law. It does not change it - it tells them what to look for in > > applying the Law. > > > > c) In the final analysis, it is for Directors and Appeals Committees to > > decide whether a Psyche has been illegally fielded. That is why they are > > there. How much weight they put on each aspect is up to them, and it has > to > > be. > > > > Regards > > > > John Wignall > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 21 10:29:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA07463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:45:57 +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 JAA07458 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:45:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([210.55.45.149]) by mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000620234513.TWAH15783400.mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop>; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:45:13 +1200 Message-ID: <006401bfdb11$8e518f60$4c2e37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific><001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific><000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona><39461668.D81C58EA@village.uunet.be><001701bfd5fb$6c96e840$532f37d2@laptop><3948ADD5.E4278736@village.uunet.be><200006181712.NAA10822@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <4.3.2.7.1.20000620081259.00ab5970@pop.cais.com> <00c801bfdb07$91af44e0$bd5908c3@dodona> Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:45:02 +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 From: "Grattan Endicott" > The principle that the CoP states is that the matter to be judged > is the degree of mutual awareness in the partnership that the bid > in question may be a psyche. It offers bases upon which such a > judgement may be made. Significantly it avoids evaluating the > links between frequency and lapse of time in the events it cites, > leaving such questions to be judged by the Director and/or > Appeals Committee. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I like this. But it still fails in practice when Appeals Committees or Directors or NCBOs rule or issue regulations that can only be interpreted as arbitrary. Wayne Burrows From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 21 11:13:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA07408 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:23:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA07398 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:23:22 +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 134XMJ-0004K6-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 23:23:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 23:36:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: End of L68B References: <012201bfd955$5c36b540$0100007f@kooijman> In-Reply-To: <012201bfd955$5c36b540$0100007f@kooijman> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ton kooijman wrote: >>> > >>> > Defender has claimed two tricks, and nothing else has >>> > happened. >>> >>> Well, not exactly nothing. The concession of the remaining two tricks >>> has been cancelled. So the legal position at the table is that the TD >>> is ruling on a claim of all four tricks. If a claim exists and no >>> concession exists, the claim must be for all the tricks. > >Plain nonsense, not realistic to keep polite anymore. An arrogant and unnecessary approach. It does you no favours to adopt this approach. It is quite clear that you do not understand the ramifications of this problem. Unlike Herman, who at least is trying to explain a view that could be followed, you have attempted to belittle people who do not agree with you, said the problem is trivial, and finally tried to justify it by going against the Law. You may think it trivial because you have made no attempt to follow the Laws. We are trying to sort it out under the current Laws, which is hardly trivial. [s] >At last an interesting new aspect (sorry if it was mentioned before, not >surprisingly not noticed then). >Should conceder have penalty cards? What does the word 'attempts' mean, you >concede or not. Or is this to emphasize that a concession is only reached if >partner does not object immediately? Anyway, it is within the laws to put >your cards on the table when conceding (and claiming), and we do not >penalize bad bridge abilities, so my choice is to treat those cards as >described in the foot note in the heading of 68. Taken back and UI. This is completely contrary to the Laws. The footnote says "If the statement or action pertains only to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress, ...". This not the case here, so the footnote cannot be used in this fashion. -- 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 Jun 21 11:23:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA07771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:23:25 +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 LAA07766 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:23:20 +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 LAA24393 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:20:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:20:38 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics To: Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:22:12 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 21/06/2000 11:18:15 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows wrote: "Prior announcement is only required by the law when there is a "partnership understanding" L40A and L40B or "partnership agreement" L75." "The moot point is what constitutes an "agreement" or "understanding"?" "I don't believe that an arbitrary rule/regulation like "... has occured before..." is sufficient to constitute either an "agreement" or an "understanding". Nor do I believe that I happened to get lucky this time and survive this auction is sufficient evidence to prove an "agreement" or "understand"." In my regular partnership, I have many times made a particular type of psyche - opening 1H or 1S lacking points and suit. However, between each psyche has been several hundred legitimate 1H or 1S openings. Partner has never picked my psyche (except when I have been able to pass a game-forcing response). Before the WBF Code of Practice was issued, I thought I was acting ethically by spacing my psyches out to once every six months or so. Now it seems that I am violating L40 by repeating a particular type of psyche in the same partnership, even though we have a 99.5% agreement that a 1H or 1S opening is normal. Best wishes Richard Hills richard.hills@immi.gov.au From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 21 11:25:05 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA07407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:23:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA07397 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:23:22 +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 134XMK-0004K7-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 23:23:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:21:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: End of L68B References: <200006172142.RAA28858@cfa183.harvard.edu> <394DF6C9.4BE7F89B@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <394DF6C9.4BE7F89B@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 think David has, once again, provided a brilliant >analysis. > >Congratulations. > >There is now one conclusion. Tha Laws are indeed a mess. I think that our analysis suggests one thing: the Law on concessions was actually written to cover concessions of all the tricks. However, we still have to know how to progress. [s] >Your conclusion, David, is solely based on the principle of >the penalty cards. I think that is mainly right, though not completely. I am unhappy about a pure, real claim, being followed by the players continuing. The thought that I can say "I am making six of the remaining eight tricks, and I am going to do this: ...." being followed by me being told to play on under any circumstances worries me. Still, my side has created the difficulty: after all, it is my partner who is objecting, probably because I have made a mistake. >Here comes my important note : > >IMPORTANT NOTE > >If we consider that a partner can object to both the >concession and claim, then we must read what : >L68B states : >"no concession has occured. L16 may apply" >There is no mention that cards shown become penalty cards. Of course, this proves nothing. Laws 49 and 50 stand alone in their definition of penalty cards. >There is the footnote (which I agree, does not refer to this >case) that says that cards shown do NOT become penalty >cards. Agreed, the footnote has nothing to do with it. >There is the sentence at the start of L50 which says "unless >the TD designates otherwise" That is the legal basis for not using them as penalty cards. >I propose the following : > >Whenever a defender suggests that play is over, and his >partner objects, play continues. All statements are UI to >partner, but cards shown shall not be designated penalty >cards. > >I believe that this proposal is within the scope of the >Laws. It suggests a line of action that the TD can follow, >which most clearly reflects the intention of the Lawmakers. I believe that there is nothing immediately to say this is not legal, and thus maybe it is the solution. >I believe that Ton's post on this subject confirms this last >view. I really think we may ignore all Ton's posts in this thread. >Ton suggests to use the footnote as such, but I doubt if >that is completely legal. I believe we should add the >sentence of L50 to the TD's arsenal in reaching the optimum >ruling. The footnote certainly is not a legal method of dealing with this. When you have a footnote that starts "If the statement or action pertains only to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress, ..." then you may not use it to define what happens to a claim and concession covering [for example] the remaining five tricks. -------- OK, it seems to me that it may be an acceptable approach that we allow play to continue after a claim+concession by a defender, ie a claim for one or more of the remaining tricks, and a concession of one or more of the remaining tricks, where partner objects. It is noted that the TD allows play to continue, checking for UI, but using his power under L50 to deem that any cards exposed while making the claim are not penalty cards. This means that we have allowed a claim to be cancelled. This interpretation of the Laws is not perfectly delineated, but as everyone seems to be agreed, the Laws do not cover this very well so we need an interpretation. Of course, the players concerned may claim again very soon - perhaps immediately. Another point is that this situation will often be a very simple one: my guess is that in nearly every example the number of tricks will not be a problem **so long as** declarer cannot force strange plays because of penalty cards. Now to get David Burn back to tell me how I am making an ass of myself. -- David Stevenson A learned bridge player called Burn Liverpool, England, UK Tried to lead when it wasn't his turn David Stevenson said Ian Payn wrote: "Have him shot through the head, That's the only way he'll ever learn." From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 21 12:49:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA07948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:49:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from umc-mail01.missouri.edu (umc-mail01.missouri.edu [128.206.10.216]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA07939 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:48:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from [128.206.98.1] (mu-098001.dhcp.missouri.edu [128.206.98.1]) by umc-mail01.missouri.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id L0B82X4A; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 21:48:48 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 21:50:06 -0500 To: From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Off on vacation (again) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk We're off to Albuquerque (grandchildren, grandcat) and LA (niece's third wedding, niece and nephew cats) so no bridge-laws and no bridge for 24 days. I hope End of Law 68B is done by then, or is this the law equivalent of the Master Solver's Club Death Hand? 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 Wed Jun 21 17:04:45 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA08445 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:04:45 +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 RAA08440 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:04:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-1054gmg.dsl.mindspring.com [64.82.66.208]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id DAA13139 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 03:04:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <019101bfdb4e$eedf3200$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <2b.7462c4d.2680ece0@aol.com> Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 03:04:23 -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: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 11:50 AM Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. > > > > The ACBL policy with respect to psyches is not legitimate according > > to the Laws of Bridge. This policy is not enforced during major > > events because the players involved at this level understand that the > > policy is not enforcable and would protest. However, the > > illegitimate policy is imposed those players who do not have a strong > > enough understanding of the actual laws. > > > > If there is another explanation for the selective enforcement of > > existing regulations, I would dearly love to know what it is. > > > > Richard > > > How's this for a possible explanation? > > IT AIN'T A PSYCHE(SIC)! > > > Is it possible that Zia and Michael are playing 1NT 10-12? > Is this a gross and deliberate mistatement in that case? > Are you perhaps too spring loaded to accuse with such words as selective > enforcement, dearly love, etc? > > I'd be wIlling to bet that this is not even a psychic bid by definition! > > Cheers, Kojak > The quotes below are from articles by Jeff Meckstroth in the ACBL Bulletin (I posted them here about a year ago). They may or may not represent actual ACBL policy, but after these articles it's what the membership believes the policy to be. The legality of the position stated below is another issue... From Aug '95: "...A 1NT opening of fewer than 10 points is deemed to be destructive...So is it OK to open a great 9-point hand that is worth 10? No. It's certainly OK to open a 15-17 point NT with 14, why not here? 'Borrowing' a point to open a strong notrump is not destructive in any way, but the mini notrump is a destructive device...A pair who opens 1NT on a 9-point hand is considered to have an agreement. A second occurrence will result in that pair's not being allowed to play any conventions over their mini notrump. So what should you do if someone opens a 9-point notrump? Two things: (1) call the director to report it and (2) fill out a player memo for the recorder in your district. Destructive methods such as these deserve attention." >From Nov '95 (further explanation of the first article): "...The literal meaning of the term 'destructive' applies to the mini- 1NT only in regards to 9-point openers. The ACBL policy disallows bids that are purely destructive in nature. A 1NT opening of less than 10 HCP is in this family. The only reason this is apporached so severely is because of the rules and regulations regarding 1NT openings. A pair who opens a 9-point NT more than once is considered to have an implied agreement. Bear in mind as well that, unless you are willing to forego playing conventions over 1NT, you are now allowed to have an explicit agreement that a 1 NT opener can be a 9-point hand (sic). A few responses expressed concern that this type of strict regulation might creep into other situations at bridge. Be assured this will NOT happen. To occasionally deviate from one's normal high-card range for a particular bid, such as a point range for a weak two-bid, is considered normal. Players will always have the right to exercise their bridge judgment..." Hirsch Davis Rockville, MD USA From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 21 17:29:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA08472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:29:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f26.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.26]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA08467 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:29:14 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 98274 invoked by uid 0); 21 Jun 2000 07:28:35 -0000 Message-ID: <20000621072835.98273.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 172.143.22.193 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:28:35 PDT X-Originating-IP: [172.143.22.193] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: End of L68B Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:28:35 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson > OK, it seems to me that it may be an acceptable approach that we allow >play to continue after a claim+concession by a defender, ie a claim for >one or more of the remaining tricks, and a concession of one or more of >the remaining tricks, where partner objects. It is noted that the TD >allows play to continue, checking for UI, but using his power under L50 >to deem that any cards exposed while making the claim are not penalty >cards. And to think I was dismissed several days ago for suggesting this as the way a new law should be written. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 21 21:00:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA08889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 21:00:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA08884 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 21:00:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.0.ap (guppy)) id MAA21401; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:59:50 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/%I%.1.ap (mach.test)) id NAA19779; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:00:33 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000621130831.00877820@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:08:31 +0200 To: "Richard Willey" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: RE: WBF position on Psychics. In-Reply-To: <001701bfdad9$f0ddf660$24c1e080@isi.com> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000620081259.00ab5970@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:06 20/06/00 -0700, Richard Willey wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >I have a VERY explict question regarding WBF and ACBl policy >regarding psyches. > >This year, in the International Teams trial, Zia opened 1N in second >seat holding the following hand. > >S JT3 >H K98 >D AJ64 >C T65 > >(The board in question is hand number 107 from the ITT finals) > >His partner, Michael Rosenberg, blasted directly to 3N holding a flat >14 count. (I don't think for a moment that Rosenberg "fielded" this >psyche in any way.) #AG : well, it does even *prove* pertner didn't suspect the psyche in any way (I suppose their normal range is 12-14 ?)? So, according to the LB, what happened is absolutely clean and sinless. >I recall Zia making almost the exact same psyche in another recent >event. (Opening a balanced hand with ~9 HCP with a "psychic" 1N). >If anyone really wants, I can try to find the original hand. #AG : so he did it twice. So what ? > >I am left with the uncomfortable conclusion that one of two different >things is occurring. > >The ACBL is selective in its enforcement of the Laws of Bridge. >Existing legitimate regulations are not enforced against well known >players. > >The ACBL policy with respect to psyches is not legitimate according >to the Laws of Bridge. This policy is not enforced during major >events because the players involved at this level understand that the >policy is not enforcable and would protest. However, the >illegitimate policy is imposed those players who do not have a strong >enough understanding of the actual laws. >If there is another explanation for the selective enforcement of >existing regulations, I would dearly love to know what it is. #AG : I can offer one - not that I think it is the good way to deal with psyches. The policy about psyches is more lax in big events, because people who play in them should know how to deal with. Exactly the same as convention classifications - ACBL A to E, EBU colors. So ,if you aren't allowed to open a TWO-WAY 2-bid in low-level events, perhaps you won't be allowed to psyche ? Logical, even though I don't like it. In France, you aren't allowed you TWO-WAY bid in regional events. But you are, in tournaments which will attract people from abroad. Similar rules might hold for psyches. I disapprove with the idea that great lpayers are allowed more than others. It is widespread opinion, and this opinion might injure the developement ofthe game. A. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 21 22:20:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA09065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:20:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo-r19.mx.aol.com (imo-r19.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.73]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA09060 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:20:35 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.10.) id p.6.79c955a (4389); Wed, 21 Jun 2000 08:19:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <6.79c955a.26820cdd@aol.com> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 08:19:41 EDT Subject: Travel To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, PanellaM@aol.com, ltegreene@vistana.com, anna@ecats.co.uk CC: gester@globalnet.co.uk, Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk, cfrancin@worldbridgefed.com, Schoders@aol.com, A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL, joanandron@worldnet.att.net, edorsi@ruralsp.com.br, hoosiercoop@prodigy.net, max@ebu.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 109 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Off to Lima Peru until the 27th of June and then to Buenos Aires Argentina until the 9th of July for the South American Championships. Hope Law 68 is over by then so that I have room on my computer. I'll be giving classes at both sites for TDs -- not the BLML upheavals, but the interpretations used at WBF championships. Should be easy, no? Re: WBF position on Psyches(sic). The discussion over Zia's ITT action in ACBL needs to have it's own heading. It is NOT the "WBF POSITION ON PSYCHES" that is being discussed. Cheers to all, for emergency contact we can be reached through: conterno@terra.com.pe until 27 June and aba@via-net-works.net.ar from 27 June to 9 July. See ya, Kojak and Bud. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 21 22:31:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA09093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:31:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy-4.cais.net (stmpy-4.cais.net [205.252.14.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA09088 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:30:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from 62wim.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-4.cais.net (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e5LCUcf70899 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 08:30:40 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000621082553.00abf6f0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 08:31:48 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. In-Reply-To: <2b.7462c4d.2680ece0@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:50 AM 6/20/00, Schoderb wrote: >How's this for a possible explanation? > >IT AIN'T A PSYCHE(SIC)! > >Is it possible that Zia and Michael are playing 1NT 10-12? >Is this a gross and deliberate mistatement in that case? >Are you perhaps too spring loaded to accuse with such words as selective >enforcement, dearly love, etc? > >I'd be wIlling to bet that this is not even a psychic bid by definition! No, it's not, but according to the ACBL, it's something perhaps even worse -- a 1NT opening bid with fewer than 10 HCP, which receives an automatic penalty, even if never done before. I don't have the exact reference, but there was an article in the ACBL Bulletin a few years ago, written by Jeff Meckstroth, in which he not only set forth this policy (explicitly stating that it came from the ACBL Board of Directors) but wrote at some length as to why it was justified and promulgated. I recall a considerable flap over this on the previous occasion on which Zia opened a 10-12 NT with a 9-count in a widely reported event. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 21 22:49:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA09145 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:49:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy-4.cais.net (stmpy-4.cais.net [205.252.14.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA09140 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:49:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from 62wim.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-4.cais.net (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e5LCnIf71819 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 08:49:18 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000621084254.00abe350@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 08:50:28 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. In-Reply-To: <00c801bfdb07$91af44e0$bd5908c3@dodona> References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific> <001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific> <000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona> <39461668.D81C58EA@village.uunet.be> <001701bfd5fb$6c96e840$532f37d2@laptop> <3948ADD5.E4278736@village.uunet.be> <200006181712.NAA10822@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <4.3.2.7.1.20000620081259.00ab5970@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:31 PM 6/20/00, Grattan wrote: >So the >'infamous rule', if it exists, is a value adopted by the ACBL. In >point of fact several prominent figures in the ACBL have said to >me that in this matter the ACBL's position has not been correctly >presented. I've heard the same rumor. But the fact remains that the only statements on the subject promulgated by the ACBL to its players are those which have appeared in "The Bridge Bulletin" (which calls itself "The official publication of the ACBL" on its title page) and the ACBL's "The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge". Perhaps someday one of these mysterious "prominent figures" will reveal to us just where the ACBL's real "official" position HAS been correctly presented. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 21 23:19:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA09193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:57:51 +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 WAA09173 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:57:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-36.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.36]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA19162 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:57:19 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39509FF0.AC14B358@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:58:56 +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: End of L68B References: <200006172142.RAA28858@cfa183.harvard.edu> <394DF6C9.4BE7F89B@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > OK, it seems to me that it may be an acceptable approach that we allow > play to continue after a claim+concession by a defender, ie a claim for > one or more of the remaining tricks, and a concession of one or more of > the remaining tricks, where partner objects. It is noted that the TD > allows play to continue, checking for UI, but using his power under L50 > to deem that any cards exposed while making the claim are not penalty > cards. > > This means that we have allowed a claim to be cancelled. This > interpretation of the Laws is not perfectly delineated, but as everyone > seems to be agreed, the Laws do not cover this very well so we need an > interpretation. > Since David Stevenson seems to agree with Herman De Wael, may I propose that this problem has been resolved ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 22 00:30:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA09196 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:57:53 +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 WAA09175 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:57:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-36.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.36]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA19185 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:57:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3950A225.489EF2A0@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:08:21 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific> <001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific> <000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona> <39461668.D81C58EA@village.uunet.be> <001701bfd5fb$6c96e840$532f37d2@laptop> <3948ADD5.E4278736@village.uunet.be> <200006181712.NAA10822@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <4.3.2.7.1.20000620081259.00ab5970@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > At 06:26 AM 6/19/00, Herman wrote: > > >I agree with the definitions in the CoP. > >As long as they are used to rule against psyches as UPU, not > >as IPA ! > > But a definition is just that, and does not, in itself, determine how it is > applied. The problem in the ACBL is that if you allow psyches to be ruled > against as UPUs, you acknowledge that they are PUs. Then the ACBL cites > L75A to erase any distinction between "implicit partnership agreements" > (PUs) and explicit PAs, and decrees that any understanding/agreement > whatsoever regarding psyches is illegal. Thus the definition in the CoP, > which would work reasonably if it was applied reasonably, becomes the > catch-22 under which the ACBL can justify its infamous > one-psych-per-partnership-per-lifetime rule. Which is exactly my point ! The definition is OK, but it's application isn't !!!! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 22 00:32:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA09194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:57:51 +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 WAA09174 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:57:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-36.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.36]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA19177 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:57:21 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3950A1D6.BA78E68D@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:07:02 +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: WBF position on Psychics. References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific><001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific> <000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona> <39461668.D81C58EA@village.uunet.be> <00c901bfdb07$92b431c0$bd5908c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > Now I agree that there can be a ruling on incomplete > > disclosure, and I am all for the full investigation on the > > psyche, and a possible ruling. > > > > What I fail to see is why the only measure that is > > contemplated is the banning of the call (and thus the > > rendering of A--). > > > +=+ Because the disclosure required by the > law is "prior announcement" (sic) the call > was illegal when made. It is not part of the > legal auction. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > This won't wash. Suppose a player bids 2He over opponent's 1NT. He holds spades and intends it as a transfer. Partner does not alert and thinks it's hearts. At the end we decide to rule that, since no proof whatsoever is available, we shall consider the transfer to be systemic and there is Misinformation. By exactly the same reasoning as above, there is a lack of prior announcement. My point is that I don't see the difference between the two cases. Besides, I want to be able to give prior announcement. But in some jurisdictions, including Belgium, I am prevented from doing so! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 22 00:37:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA09438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 00:37:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA09433 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 00:37:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-002kslawrP283.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.85]) by avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3-EL_1_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA18218 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 07:37:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <200006210935280140.00130ED2@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <019101bfdb4e$eedf3200$0200000a@mindspring.com> References: <2b.7462c4d.2680ece0@aol.com> <019101bfdb4e$eedf3200$0200000a@mindspring.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.10.03.02 (3) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:35:28 -0500 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >"... Bear in mind as >well that, unless you are willing to forego playing conventions over 1NT, >you are now allowed to have an explicit agreement that a 1 NT opener can be >a 9-point hand (sic). ... "now" is probably a typo for "not", I'll betcha. Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading Typos are Coyote's footprints in your manuscript. Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading Am I paranoid, or is it just me? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 22 01:19:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA09195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:57:53 +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 WAA09176 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:57:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-36.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.36]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA19191 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:57:25 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3950A912.88D6E2D4@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:37:54 +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: "...the most favourable result that was likely..." L12C2 References: <006e01bfdb13$7cf5ac40$4c2e37d2@laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I believe that there is some mistake in what : Wayne Burrows wrote: > > Recently an appeals committee decided to award an assigned adjusted score. > The assigned contract was 2H and the defense had 5 tricks in aces and kings > in three suits and declarer has _no_ opportunity to avoid these losers > unless the defense erred. _no_ opportunity. > The defense would need to fail to cash their > tricks and set up dummy's trick and provide an entry to the entryless dummy. > > Therefore an adjustment of 2H making 8 tricks was ruled. > > Subsequently it was discovered that at most tables that played in hearts the > defense had erred and nine tricks were made more often than not. > _more often than not_ These two are impossible together. Since the second is a statement of fact, I presume the first to be in error. > Should this later fact be used in any way to determine the assigned score or > should the adjustment be made in some other way? > I believe the AC should reconsider their belief that there was _no_ opportunity for opponent's error, and perhaps change their decision. If they are of the opinion that it is impossible to make 9 tricks, they should investigate how the majority managed it after all (perhaps there was a collective outbreak of revokes, or the hand was played from the other side, with some impossible lead now becoming possible, or something), in which case they would be correct in awarding 8 tricks even when many make 9. But just llike this, we can't tell, Wayne. > Wayne Burrows -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 22 01:35:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA09584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 01:35:36 +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 BAA09574 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 01:35:28 +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 134mX7-000B6w-0U; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:35:19 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:12:25 +0100 To: Herman De Wael Cc: Bridge Laws From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: End of L68B References: <200006172142.RAA28858@cfa183.harvard.edu> <394DF6C9.4BE7F89B@village.uunet.be> <39509FF0.AC14B358@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <39509FF0.AC14B358@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 S Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <39509FF0.AC14B358@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes > >Since David Stevenson seems to agree with Herman De Wael, >may I propose that this problem has been resolved ? > Are you free to play with DWS at the Acol next Tuesday? I'll be TD'ing it so there should be a good basis for some BL'ing after the game!! HEHEHE. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 22 01:35:37 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA09585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 01:35:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA09575 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 01:35:28 +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 134mX7-000B6x-0U; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:35:18 +0100 Message-ID: <6Ru6KMAE7NU5EwLb@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:27:00 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: End of L68B References: <200006172142.RAA28858@cfa183.harvard.edu> <394DF6C9.4BE7F89B@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 S Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >Herman De Wael wrote: >>I think David has, once again, provided a brilliant >>analysis. >> >>Congratulations. >> >>There is now one conclusion. Tha Laws are indeed a mess. > > I think that our analysis suggests one thing: the Law on concessions >was actually written to cover concessions of all the tricks. However, >we still have to know how to progress. I have always felt that a concession specifically was a concession of *all* the remaining tricks. "I concede" = "I give up". Any "concession" which involves winning some tricks is IMO a claim for those tricks and is not a concession "I concede the nine yards" = "I maintain my claim for one yard". If we treat it this way then the only time play can continue is if we concede (all the tricks) *and* partner objects. We're in UI territory as a result. I have a suspicion that if one concedes *and* shows ones hand it should be treated as a claim for zero tricks (by virtue of the exposure of the hand), to be resolved under claim law. In this case we can hear partner's objections, but we resolve doubt in favoUr of the non- claimers. Within this framework, we are tending to be more draconian, the more that the defenders have "caused problems at the table". This I think is clearly a good idea. It also IMO operates within the Laws, and is thus justifiable both to the player and to the FLB. This thread has been very interesting to follow. cheers john > > [s] > >>Your conclusion, David, is solely based on the principle of >>the penalty cards. > > I think that is mainly right, though not completely. I am unhappy >about a pure, real claim, being followed by the players continuing. The >thought that I can say "I am making six of the remaining eight tricks, >and I am going to do this: ...." being followed by me being told to play >on under any circumstances worries me. > > Still, my side has created the difficulty: after all, it is my partner >who is objecting, probably because I have made a mistake. > >>Here comes my important note : >> >>IMPORTANT NOTE >> >>If we consider that a partner can object to both the >>concession and claim, then we must read what : >>L68B states : >>"no concession has occured. L16 may apply" >>There is no mention that cards shown become penalty cards. > > Of course, this proves nothing. Laws 49 and 50 stand alone in their >definition of penalty cards. > >>There is the footnote (which I agree, does not refer to this >>case) that says that cards shown do NOT become penalty >>cards. > > Agreed, the footnote has nothing to do with it. > >>There is the sentence at the start of L50 which says "unless >>the TD designates otherwise" > > That is the legal basis for not using them as penalty cards. > >>I propose the following : >> >>Whenever a defender suggests that play is over, and his >>partner objects, play continues. All statements are UI to >>partner, but cards shown shall not be designated penalty >>cards. >> >>I believe that this proposal is within the scope of the >>Laws. It suggests a line of action that the TD can follow, >>which most clearly reflects the intention of the Lawmakers. > > I believe that there is nothing immediately to say this is not legal, >and thus maybe it is the solution. > >>I believe that Ton's post on this subject confirms this last >>view. > > I really think we may ignore all Ton's posts in this thread. > >>Ton suggests to use the footnote as such, but I doubt if >>that is completely legal. I believe we should add the >>sentence of L50 to the TD's arsenal in reaching the optimum >>ruling. > > The footnote certainly is not a legal method of dealing with this. >When you have a footnote that starts "If the statement or action >pertains only to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently >in progress, ..." then you may not use it to define what happens to a >claim and concession covering [for example] the remaining five tricks. > > -------- > > OK, it seems to me that it may be an acceptable approach that we allow >play to continue after a claim+concession by a defender, ie a claim for >one or more of the remaining tricks, and a concession of one or more of >the remaining tricks, where partner objects. It is noted that the TD >allows play to continue, checking for UI, but using his power under L50 >to deem that any cards exposed while making the claim are not penalty >cards. > > This means that we have allowed a claim to be cancelled. This >interpretation of the Laws is not perfectly delineated, but as everyone >seems to be agreed, the Laws do not cover this very well so we need an >interpretation. > > Of course, the players concerned may claim again very soon - perhaps >immediately. Another point is that this situation will often be a very >simple one: my guess is that in nearly every example the number of >tricks will not be a problem **so long as** declarer cannot force >strange plays because of penalty cards. > > Now to get David Burn back to tell me how I am making an ass of >myself. > -- John (MadDog) Probst From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 22 02:44:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA09890 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 02:44:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f170.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA09885 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 02:44:18 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 68873 invoked by uid 0); 21 Jun 2000 16:43:40 -0000 Message-ID: <20000621164340.68872.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.22 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:43:40 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.22] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "...the most favourable result that was likely..." L12C2 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:43:40 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Herman De Wael >I believe that there is some mistake in what : > >Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > Recently an appeals committee decided to award an assigned adjusted >score. > > The assigned contract was 2H and the defense had 5 tricks in aces and >kings > > in three suits and declarer has _no_ opportunity to avoid these losers > > unless the defense erred. > >_no_ opportunity. > > > The defense would need to fail to cash their > > tricks and set up dummy's trick and provide an entry to the entryless >dummy. > > > > Therefore an adjustment of 2H making 8 tricks was ruled. > > > > Subsequently it was discovered that at most tables that played in hearts >the > > defense had erred and nine tricks were made more often than not. > > > >_more often than not_ > >These two are impossible together. Since the second is a >statement of fact, I presume the first to be in error. There is no contradiction. On flawless defense you get 8 tricks. On imperfect defense you get nine. Defensive errors were common in this field. > > Should this later fact be used in any way to determine the assigned >score or > > should the adjustment be made in some other way? > >I believe the AC should reconsider their belief that there >was _no_ opportunity for opponent's error, and perhaps >change their decision. The statement was not that there was no opportunity for an error, rather that there's no opportunity for 9 tricks unless there was an error. (snip) >But just llike this, we can't tell, Wayne. The problem abstracted: the original ruling didn't think that 9 tricks was likely because defense needed to make a series of gaffs to allow it, so 8 was awarded. Afterwards, it was found that those gaffs were commonly made at the other tables. Do you use the results from the field to re-evaluate the meaning of "the most favorable result that was likely?" -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 22 03:55:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA10179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 03:55:47 +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 DAA10174 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 03:55:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([210.55.45.144]) by mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000621175503.CFHG15783400.mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 05:55:03 +1200 Message-ID: <000a01bfdba9$cc86b740$902d37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <20000621164340.68872.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: "...the most favourable result that was likely..." L12C2 Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 05:54:49 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > The problem abstracted: the original ruling didn't think that 9 tricks > was likely because defense needed to make a series of gaffs to allow it, so > 8 was awarded. Afterwards, it was found that those gaffs were commonly made > at the other tables. Do you use the results from the field to re-evaluate > the meaning of "the most favorable result that was likely?" > > -Todd Thanks Todd this is exactly what I meant and thought that I said. Wayne Burrows From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 22 05:38:32 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA10462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 05:38:32 +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 FAA10457 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 05:38:23 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 79733 invoked for bounce); 21 Jun 2000 19:38:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.42.202) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 21 Jun 2000 19:38:12 -0000 Message-ID: <029301bfdbb8$65876260$ca2a1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific><001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific><000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona><39461668.D81C58EA@village.uunet.be><001701bfd5fb$6c96e840$532f37d2@laptop><3948ADD5.E4278736@village.uunet.be><200006181712.NAA10822@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <4.3.2.7.1.20000620081259.00ab5970@pop.cais.com> <00c801bfdb07$91af44e0$bd5908c3@dodona> Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 21:38:11 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Eric Landau > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 1:23 PM > Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. > > > > At 06:26 AM 6/19/00, Herman wrote: > > > > >I agree with the definitions in the CoP. > > >As long as they are used to rule against psyches as UPU, not > > >as IPA ! > > > > But a definition is just that, and > > does not, in itself, determine how it is > > applied. The problem in the ACBL > > is that if you allow psyches to be ruled > > against as UPUs, you acknowledge that they are PUs. Then the ACBL cites > > L75A to erase any distinction between "implicit partnership agreements" > > (PUs) and explicit PAs, and decrees that any understanding/agreement > > whatsoever regarding psyches is illegal. > > Thus the definition in the CoP, > > which would work reasonably if it was applied reasonably, becomes the > > catch-22 under which the ACBL can justify its infamous > > one-psych-per-partnership-per-lifetime rule. > > > +=+ I think Eric has grasped the point that the CoP recommends > attitudes and approaches for appeals committees. It invites NCBOs, > in particular, to adopt its text as the basis for appeals procedures. > But it expresses principles and it leaves the values to be attached > to these principles to the guidance issued by NCBOs etc. So the > 'infamous rule', if it exists, is a value adopted by the ACBL. In > point of fact several prominent figures in the ACBL have said to > me that in this matter the ACBL's position has not been correctly > presented. > The principle that the CoP states is that the matter to be judged > is the degree of mutual awareness in the partnership that the bid > in question may be a psyche. It offers bases upon which such a > judgement may be made. Significantly it avoids evaluating the > links between frequency and lapse of time in the events it cites, > leaving such questions to be judged by the Director and/or The main point totally ignored in the CoP is that the are situations where is clear somebody has psyched: 1NT X 2C X - - 2D X - - 2H (an idiot might expect responder to have 1444, but most likely he has a heart or spade one-suiter) 1H X 1NT X 2D p 2S (responder will have a D or H fit, not spades) - - - 2C (GF) 2H 2S 3NT (you know the man has hearts, not 15 HCP) - - 1NT X XX p 2C (the Lille situation, XX for penalties, forces opener's pass) Do you really expect partner not to "field" such psyches? I do not see anything wrong if in such situations first seat bids according to the assumption that his partner has psyched. Not even if partner has already made the same psyche in the same session. And I do not think that there is an obligation to alert such bids as psyches, except if opponents are clients who have paid for their bridge lessons. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 22 08:58:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA10978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 08:58:57 +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 IAA10973 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 08:58:49 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id XAA22400 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:58:10 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:58 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. 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: <000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona> Grattan wrote: > it always was the > case that what the law forbids is *making* the psychic > call if an undisclosed partnership agreement exists. On this > point the law speaks with clarity. If only. L40B requires disclosure (and not prior disclosure) *in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation* and even then only in situations where the opposing pair may not be reasonably expected to understand its meaning#. Such regulations, where they exist might be: General and specific psychic tendencies should be shown on the CC. Commonly psyched openings should be alerted. When answering opponent's questions full disclosure requires that any known psychic tendencies relevant to the current sequence be included in the explanation. Absent specific SO regulation I would assume the third of these to be in force. All this before we even start to debate what constitutes a "special partnership understanding" and the extent to which this is different from a partnership agreement. L40A OTOH forbids making a psychic call *based* on a PU. The fact that a player understands, to an extent, his partner's psychic tendencies does not mean that the partner is basing his call on such an understanding (in fact the call is based on the fact that although partner will trust the bid there is a hope that the bid will confuse the opponents more). # Eg. Dodgy 3rd in hand openings are fine if you know/expect the opposition to be competent. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 22 12:16:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA12500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:16:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA12494 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:15:57 +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 134wWu-000NWJ-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 02:15:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 01:29:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: "...the most favourable result that was likely..." L12C2 References: <20000621164340.68872.qmail@hotmail.com> <000a01bfdba9$cc86b740$902d37d2@laptop> In-Reply-To: <000a01bfdba9$cc86b740$902d37d2@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Todd Zimnoch" >> >> The problem abstracted: the original ruling didn't think that 9 >tricks >> was likely because defense needed to make a series of gaffs to allow it, >so >> 8 was awarded. Afterwards, it was found that those gaffs were commonly >made >> at the other tables. Do you use the results from the field to re-evaluate >> the meaning of "the most favorable result that was likely?" >> >> -Todd > >Thanks Todd this is exactly what I meant and thought that I said. Hmmm. We may have guessed it is what you meant but it is useful that you have said so because you said something completely different. When an AC is deciding how many tricks to award, if there is no opportunity for the defence to fail to get five tricks then of course you rule declarer makes eight tricks. However, it is a different concept if there is an opportunity but the defence has to be fairly silly. Now an AC has to judge how silly and set it against the Laws. Still, I do not think that a decision should be changed later because of a score-sheet. -- David Stevenson A learned bridge player called Burn Liverpool, England, UK Tried to lead when it wasn't his turn David Stevenson said Ian Payn wrote: "Have him shot through the head, That's the only way he'll ever learn." From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 22 13:19:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA12871 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:19:18 +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 NAA12864 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:19:08 +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 NAA07227 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:16:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:16:45 +0000 (EST) Subject: ACBL policy on the mini-notrump (was WBF position on Psychics) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:18:19 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 22/06/2000 01:14:21 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis quoted Jeff Meckstroth on ACBL policy on 9 point 1NT openings: [snip] "The ACBL policy disallows bids that are purely destructive in nature. A 1NT opening of less than 10 HCP is in this family. The only reason this is apporached so severely is because of the rules and regulations regarding 1NT openings. A pair who opens a 9-point NT more than once is considered to have an implied agreement. Bear in mind as well that, unless you are willing to forego playing conventions over 1NT,..." [snip] L40D prevents the ACBL directly prohibiting a partnership agreement to open a natural 1NT with eight or nine points. However, the ACBL has evaded the spirit of the law by decreeing that anyone whose 1NT opening range includes the iniquitous 9-count may not use any subsequent convention (no Stayman or transfers etc). If a player using a 15-17 notrump psyches 1NT on a 9 count, this will not prohibit subsequent Staymaning. But for those playing a 10-12 1NT, opening 1NT on a 9 count is *not* a psyche - since the call is not a "gross misstatement of honour strength". But if such a 9-point 1NT opening occurs more than once, the partnership now has an implicit agreement of a 9-12 range for their 1NT. And as soon as that implicit agreement exists, under ACBL regulations use of Stayman is illegal. Best wishes Richard Hills richard.hills@immi.gov.au From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 22 14:17:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA13210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:17:38 +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 OAA13205 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:17:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.181]) by mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000622041653.IFPB15783400.mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:16:53 +1200 Message-ID: <008a01bfdc00$aa5e9820$792e37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: Subject: Re: ACBL policy on the mini-notrump (was WBF position on Psychics) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:16:39 +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 From: > But for those playing a 10-12 1NT, opening 1NT on a 9 count is *not* a > psyche - since the call is not a "gross misstatement of honour strength". > But if such a 9-point 1NT opening occurs more than once, the partnership > now has an implicit agreement of a 9-12 range for their 1NT. And as soon > as that implicit agreement exists, under ACBL regulations use of Stayman is > illegal. > For the ACBL or anyone else to say that something occuring more than once (in and of itself) creates an "implicit agreement" is a distortion of the language. In fact it is a "pysch", a "gross misstatement" of the meaning of the Language used in the Laws. An analogy: If in a relationship one partner cheats on the other ('psyche') or even commits some other minor indiscretion then after the indiscretion has occurred more than once I don't think that many would say (or consider ) they now have an "implicit agreement" to commit further indiscretions. In fact repeated indiscretions may never create an agreement. In the same way in my bridge partnerships repeated violations (major or minor) of our partnership agreements are more likely to terminate our partnership than to create an agreement. We should let the language mean what it says. Wayne Burrows From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 00:14:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA17770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:14:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA17763 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:14:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.0.ap (resu)) id QAA13165; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:14:20 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/%I%.1.ap (mach.test)) id QAA01940; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:13:51 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000622162152.0084b430@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:21:52 +0200 To: "Todd Zimnoch" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: "...the most favourable result that was likely..." L12C2 In-Reply-To: <20000621164340.68872.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:43 21/06/00 PDT, Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > The problem abstracted: the original ruling didn't think that 9 tricks >was likely because defense needed to make a series of gaffs to allow it, so >8 was awarded. Afterwards, it was found that those gaffs were commonly made >at the other tables. Do you use the results from the field to re-evaluate >the meaning of "the most favorable result that was likely?" AG : to me, 'was likely' means 'could heve happened, barring absurdities, penalties (eg for revokes), and considering only equals thing to be equal' (Herman's remark about the side from where the contract was played is relevant). The usual way to assign this is to consider on paper how many tricks are done according to several lines of play - good or bad. But what happened at numerous tables is much stronger evidence - it happended, which proves (not merely suggests) it could happen. I would certainly reconsider the scoring, if a substantial amount of other pairs let 9 tricks make (another 25% rule ?). A. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 00:22:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA17809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:22:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA17804 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:22:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.0.ap (guppy)) id QAA25914; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:21:22 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/%I%.1.ap (mach.test)) id QAA07176; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:22:05 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000622163006.00849840@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:30:06 +0200 To: "Thomas Dehn" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. In-Reply-To: <029301bfdbb8$65876260$ca2a1dc2@rabbit> References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific> <001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific> <000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona> <39461668.D81C58EA@village.uunet.be> <001701bfd5fb$6c96e840$532f37d2@laptop> <3948ADD5.E4278736@village.uunet.be> <200006181712.NAA10822@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <4.3.2.7.1.20000620081259.00ab5970@pop.cais.com> <00c801bfdb07$91af44e0$bd5908c3@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 21:38 21/06/00 +0200, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > >The main point totally ignored in the CoP is that >the are situations where is clear somebody >has psyched: AG : well, a clear distinction should be made between the following sequences : >1NT X 2C X - - 2D X - - 2H (an idiot might expect responder to > have 1444, but most likely he has a heart or spade one-suiter) AG : classical psyche indeed >1H X 1NT X 2D p 2S (responder will have a D or H fit, not spades) AG : not a psyche ! This is an artificial bid 'through bridge logic', present in many books as such, indeed meaning one has a diamond fit. So there is no fielding of it. I don't even think it should be alerted, according to Law 40 (bridge logic). >- - - 2C (GF) 2H 2S 3NT (you know the man has hearts, not 15 HCP) AG : not a psyche ! But a strange bid indeed. Should be codified by most regular partnerships (I use it to distinguish the number of defensive tricks : 4H = 1, 3NT = 0, 3S = 2), but if the opponents believe it's natural, they've missed something. >- - 1NT X XX p 2C (the Lille situation, XX for penalties, forces opener's >pass) AG : borderline case : opener might have made a slight distortion (not a psyche) with 2236 pattern and slightly less than a normal strength 1NT opening. >Do you really expect partner not to "field" such psyches? AG : if only they were ... A. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 02:07:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA19021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 02:07:50 +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 CAA19014 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 02:07:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-81.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.81]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA07475 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 18:07:26 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3952064B.421777B@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:27:55 +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: "...the most favourable result that was likely..." L12C2 References: <20000621164340.68872.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > >From: Herman De Wael [snip] > > > >I believe the AC should reconsider their belief that there > >was _no_ opportunity for opponent's error, and perhaps > >change their decision. > > The statement was not that there was no opportunity for an error, > rather that there's no opportunity for 9 tricks unless there was an error. > > (snip) > >But just llike this, we can't tell, Wayne. > > The problem abstracted: the original ruling didn't think that 9 tricks > was likely because defense needed to make a series of gaffs to allow it, so > 8 was awarded. Afterwards, it was found that those gaffs were commonly made > at the other tables. Do you use the results from the field to re-evaluate > the meaning of "the most favorable result that was likely?" > Well, defensive error must be contained in the concept of "likely". In your statement, it seemed that the AC considered the number of gaffs, or their level of gaffiness, to be such that they considered it unlikely that this would happen. Apparently, they got this wrong. So they should change their ruling. I believe the AC should use all available evidence in finding out what is "likely". The happenings in the field are some indication to this effect. Which is why I said that if they first consider 9 tricks unlikely, and then it turns out that a significant portion still reach 9 tricks, they should investigate. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 02:07:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA19031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 02:07:55 +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 CAA19019 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 02:07:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-81.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.81]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA07520 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 18:07:37 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3952069F.3E39CFE9@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:29:19 +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: "...the most favourable result that was likely..." L12C2 References: <20000621164340.68872.qmail@hotmail.com> <000a01bfdba9$cc86b740$902d37d2@laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > Still, I do not think that a decision should be changed later because > of a score-sheet. > Neither do I. But the score-sheet may present an indication that the original ruling was flawed. In which case it should be changed. At the very least the AC should reconsider. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 02:07:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA19032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 02:07:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA19022 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 02:07:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-81.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.81]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA07543 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 18:07:39 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <395207AF.A074BF66@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:33:51 +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: ACBL policy on the mini-notrump (was WBF position on Psychics) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > If a player using a 15-17 notrump psyches 1NT on a 9 count, this will not > prohibit subsequent Staymaning. > > But for those playing a 10-12 1NT, opening 1NT on a 9 count is *not* a > psyche - since the call is not a "gross misstatement of honour strength". > But if such a 9-point 1NT opening occurs more than once, the partnership > now has an implicit agreement of a 9-12 range for their 1NT. And as soon > as that implicit agreement exists, under ACBL regulations use of Stayman is > illegal. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > richard.hills@immi.gov.au Richard is absolutely right. If you open on 9 when playing 15-17, this is a psyche, and allowed. If you open on 9 when playing 10-12, this is a gray system area, and disallowed. I would like to add : If you open on 3, this is a psyche, and allowed. All under ACBL regulations, of course. I would like to add that I do not want to wait for the second 9 points opening of a pair playing 10-12, I would ban it from the first such occurence. It is never a psyche, since it is never a gross misstatement. I consider every call that is actually made as being systemic (with a few exceptions such as miscounting, if I choose to believe them). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 02:55:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA19374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 02:55:42 +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 CAA19368 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 02:55:35 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA02366 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:54:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200006221654.MAA02366@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: ACBL policy on the mini-notrump (was WBF position on Psychics) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:54:53 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <008a01bfdc00$aa5e9820$792e37d2@laptop> from "Wayne Burrows" at Jun 22, 2000 04:16:39 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 Although an understandable understanding, that is unfortunately not the norm. In the ACBL, it is very common to have such implicit agreements and undiscussed partnership agreements. "Bridge judgement" and "that's just bridge" are often used to shade these types of comments, but the end result is always the same, that the offending partnership has an unfair advantage over the opponents because they know that partner might do such a thing, but the opponents don't. I've seen many folks open "good 14" counts with 1NT when they have the explicit agreement that it is 15-17. When they do and the opponents are trying to count out the hand and they place cards in certain places on the advertised range, what can they do? Personally, I think it should be a punishable offense to open NT outside the published range. If you play 14+, then say 14+ and not 15. If you play 10-12 then play it and adhere to it. To shade and not tell is unethical. -Ted Ying. > From: "Wayne Burrows" > Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:16:39 +1200 > > For the ACBL or anyone else to say that something occuring more than once > (in and of itself) creates an "implicit agreement" is a distortion of the > language. In fact it is a "pysch", a "gross misstatement" of the meaning of > the Language used in the Laws. > > An analogy: > > If in a relationship one partner cheats on the other ('psyche') or even > commits some other minor indiscretion then after the indiscretion has > occurred more than once I don't think that many would say (or consider ) > they now have an "implicit agreement" to commit further indiscretions. > > In fact repeated indiscretions may never create an agreement. > > In the same way in my bridge partnerships repeated violations (major or > minor) of our partnership agreements are more likely to terminate our > partnership than to create an agreement. > > We should let the language mean what it says. > > Wayne Burrows > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 03:39:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA19748 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 03:39:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA19740 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 03:39:15 +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 KAA02021; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 10:35:34 -0700 Message-Id: <200006221735.KAA02021@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: "...the most favourable result that was likely..." L12C2 In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:29:19 PDT." <3952069F.3E39CFE9@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 10:35:35 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman de Wael wrote: > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > > Still, I do not think that a decision should be changed later because > > of a score-sheet. > > > > Neither do I. > > But the score-sheet may present an indication that the > original ruling was flawed. In which case it should be > changed. > > At the very least the AC should reconsider. The problem is that you can't tell what's going on just from the score sheet. It's entirely possible that something different happened at that table that would have made the "most favorable likely result" 8 tricks, even though 9 tricks were the result at most other tables. The auction could have proceeded in a different way that would have made the correct defense easier to find, or an opponent could have found a good opening lead that the rest of the field wasn't finding. (Or, as someone else pointed out, the contract could have been played from the other side.) If this all happened *before* the infraction occurred (and possibly if some of it happened after the infraction? That's why I asked the other question I just asked), it would be perfectly correct for the AC to find that 8 tricks should be the result. Wayne, do you have the actual hand? It might make it easier to discuss, and if we can see that the AC blew it when they made their ruling, it might be instructive. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 03:56:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA19907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 03:56:20 +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 DAA19901 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 03:56:12 +1000 (EST) From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.2]) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA14382 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:56:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA062976561; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:56:01 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:55:46 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: Placing led suit to the left Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au 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 DAA19902 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all, >From times to times, I see a declarer asking dummy to place the led suit the same place on table (dummy's left). I use to tell him it is a bad habit, because, when defending, they will wrongly think that the suit at left is the one led. A local director has been told by ACBL that this is more than a bas habit, but a violation of Law 40 (foot note): "A player is not entitle, during auction and play, to any aids to his memory...." I have no intention, even on torture, to do more than I used to do with this (Il n'y a pas de quoi fouetter un chat...), but I will like to know your opinion. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 04:20:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA19528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 03:17:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA19522 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 03:17:32 +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 KAA01625; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 10:13:46 -0700 Message-Id: <200006221713.KAA01625@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: More on "most favorable result" Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 10:13:47 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Note that I've corrected the spelling of "favorable" in the subject line. [donning asbestos flame-retardant suit . . . :-)] OK, seriously now . . . This is a hypothetical situation. In a competitive auction, N-S get to 2S, but West hesitates before passing, and after the hesitation, East bids 3H. N-S take the push to 3S. Normally, this would make, but West finds a very intelligent opening lead that holds N-S to 8 tricks. After the hand is over, the director has to rule. The director rules that East's 3H bid is based on the unauthorized information, so he rolls the contract back to 2S. Question: Assuming that West's intelligent lead was based just on good logic, and was demonstrably not influenced by East's 3H bid nor by the higher level of the final contract, should the director change the score to +110 or +140? Just reading the Laws, it seems that we could award +110, since in determining the "most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred", we could assume that West still would have found the same lead if the auction had died at 2S. However, the WBF Code of Practice says that "Damage exists when . . . an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation in the instant prior to the infraction." This doesn't say explicitly that we should adjust the score to the expectation in the "instant prior to the infraction", but the implication is there. This would imply that anything good (such as a great opening lead) that the offenders did after the infraction would be irrelevant, regardless of whether the good thing had any connection to the infraction or not. Following this logic, we should award +140. What's the correct answer? If it's 140 for both sides, should we feel comfortable nullifying West's brilliancy? I suspect we've discussed this before on BLML, but I don't remember the result. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 04:27:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA20105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 04:27:47 +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 EAA20100 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 04:27:39 +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 OAA02448; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:27:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200006221654.MAA02366@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> References: <008a01bfdc00$aa5e9820$792e37d2@laptop> from "Wayne Burrows" at Jun 22, 2000 04:16:39 PM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:26:18 -0400 To: Ted Ying , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: ACBL policy on the mini-notrump (was WBF position on Psychics) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:54 PM -0400 6/22/00, Ted Ying wrote: >Although an understandable understanding, that is unfortunately >not the norm. In the ACBL, it is very common to have such >implicit agreements and undiscussed partnership agreements. >"Bridge judgement" and "that's just bridge" are often used to >shade these types of comments, but the end result is always the >same, that the offending partnership has an unfair advantage >over the opponents because they know that partner might do such >a thing, but the opponents don't. > >I've seen many folks open "good 14" counts with 1NT when they >have the explicit agreement that it is 15-17. When they do and >the opponents are trying to count out the hand and they place >cards in certain places on the advertised range, what can they >do? The test should be whether partner is as unprepared as the opponents. Players who open a good 14 count or bad 18 count with 1NT usually do this because they want the hand to be treated as 15-17. A player who opens 1NT with, say, KQJ QJ KQJ2 QJ54 (18 points only for a Walrus) does this because he expects to go down in 2NT or 3NT if he opens a minor and partner responds. All players at the table expect this, and if LHO overcalls 2H, plays there, and drops the QJ tight of hearts, both partner and LHO will expect opener to have 16-18 rather than 15-17. Similarly, the ACBL convention card has a box for "5-card major common". Note that the word is "common", not "possible". Most players who don't open 1NT with 5-card majors will still open AQ 97642 KJ4 AQ3, bidding as if the hand had only four hearts. >Personally, I think it should be a punishable offense to open >NT outside the published range. If you play 14+, then say 14+ >and not 15. If you play 10-12 then play it and adhere to it. >To shade and not tell is unethical. There's a distinction between shading and using judgement. When I play a 21-22 2NT opening, I open 2NT with 20 HCP and all four aces, for fear of missing game if 1C or 1D is passed out. When I play 20+ to 22, I open half of all 20 counts. PLayers who regularly shade 21-22 should list 20+, but the distinction is lost if players who open on A6 AQ7 AQT95 AT3 must also list 20+. The same principle applies in any other situation in which there is an agreed range. Precision Club players agree that a positive response to 1C shows 8 or more HCP, but most will bid 1H with 73 KQT96 QT975 8 and 1D with QJ Q96 T9754 QJ8. They should be allowed to do so in order to get to a good game on the first hand and avoid a bad game on the second. The convention card only has a space for the range for the 1D response; listing "0-bad 8" creates the incorrect impression that a positive response requires a good 8 and will never be made on 7. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 04:35:13 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA20151 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 04:35:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA20146 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 04:35:05 +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 LAA03242; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:31:24 -0700 Message-Id: <200006221831.LAA03242@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: ACBL policy on the mini-notrump (was WBF position on Psychics) In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:54:53 PDT." <200006221654.MAA02366@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:31:24 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ted Ying wrote: > Although an understandable understanding, that is unfortunately > not the norm. In the ACBL, it is very common to have such > implicit agreements and undiscussed partnership agreements. > "Bridge judgement" and "that's just bridge" are often used to > shade these types of comments, but the end result is always the > same, that the offending partnership has an unfair advantage > over the opponents because they know that partner might do such > a thing, but the opponents don't. > > I've seen many folks open "good 14" counts with 1NT when they > have the explicit agreement that it is 15-17. When they do and > the opponents are trying to count out the hand and they place > cards in certain places on the advertised range, what can they > do? They can learn that HIGH CARD POINTS are just an estimate of the worth of one's hand, not a revelation from God. My experience has taught me that it's often necessary to lie a little bit (about HCP, shape, or whatever) during the auction in order to get the true nature of one's hand across to partner. Some 14-HCP hands are worth 15 or 16 or more; some 15-HCP hands are worth only 14 or 13 or less; some 4-card heart suits are better than some 5-card heart suits, some 5-4-3-1 hands are more notrump-oriented than some 4-4-3-2 hands, etc. This is called Bridge Judgment, and it's (to me and most experienced players) a very important part of the game. No announced agreement could possibly take into account all the judgment factors that go into deciding what a hand is really worth. When an opponent doesn't have the hand he "promises" during the bidding, it's my own fault if I fail to take this possibility into account on defense, since I know from experience that it's necessary for the opponents to use Bridge Judgment sometimes. (I'm talking about my general experience playing bridge, of course, not my experience with a particular partner.) If others don't realize that this happens, then any problems that this causes are simply due to their lack of experience, not by anything wrong the opponents have done. This is something I feel very strongly about (in case you haven't guessed)---strongly enough that, on r.g.b, I once proposed that we add an explicit Law that says something to the effect that "the fact that announced agreements are often blurred around the edges and point counts are just approximations, is considered General Knowledge for the purposes of Law 75C." Taking this away would take away players' ability to use logic and judgment when deciding how to bid a hand, which would, in my opinion, destroy an integral part of the game. > Personally, I think it should be a punishable offense to open > NT outside the published range. If you play 14+, then say 14+ > and not 15. If I see 14+ on an opponent's card, I will assume that they open a lot of good 14-counts with 1NT (maybe 40-50%, or more, of 14-counts), rather than just an occasional very good 14-count. Saying 14+-17 when you open 1NT on maybe 5% of 14-counts is worse misinformation than saying 15-17. > If you play 10-12 then play it and adhere to it. > To shade and not tell is unethical. If you want to play under a rule that an announced agreement is a binding contract with the opponents, and if you want to gather together other people who would like playing with such a rule, by all means please feel free to do so. Just don't call your game "bridge", because your game will be too different from the game I love. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 04:51:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA20210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 04:51:44 +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 EAA20205 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 04:51:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (user-38ldmlq.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.218.186]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA24866 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:51:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <39526043.27FCD231@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:51:47 -0700 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: ACBL policy on the mini-notrump (was WBF position on Psychics) References: <200006221654.MAA02366@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ted Ying wrote: > > Although an understandable understanding, that is unfortunately > not the norm. In the ACBL, it is very common to have such > implicit agreements and undiscussed partnership agreements. > "Bridge judgement" and "that's just bridge" are often used to > shade these types of comments, but the end result is always the > same, that the offending partnership has an unfair advantage > over the opponents because they know that partner might do such > a thing, but the opponents don't. > > I've seen many folks open "good 14" counts with 1NT when they > have the explicit agreement that it is 15-17. When they do and > the opponents are trying to count out the hand and they place > cards in certain places on the advertised range, what can they > do? > > Personally, I think it should be a punishable offense to open > NT outside the published range. If you play 14+, then say 14+ > and not 15. If you play 10-12 then play it and adhere to it. > To shade and not tell is unethical. This is, I think, an interesting issue. My basic problem is that I and many, many others don't use point count in anything like the standard Walrus way, so *all* point count issues are made difficult. Do I open light? I don't think so; I open fewer hands than those who say they open light, but I open some 9-counts and even an 8-count every couple of years. What *is* my NT range? It's listed as 15-17, but I open some 14s and the rare 18-count. Is it more accurate to say 14+-18-? Or is that, in fact, more deceptive; I only open really shiny 14s and seriously flawed 18s. I open some 17s 1m, intending to rebid 2N. Very rarely, I'll open a 15-count 1m. The *value* needs to be 15-17 for me to open it 1N; if in my opinion it is outside that range, I'll open something else. There are many in my position. While it seems OK to me to interpret point counts as the estimated value of the hand, rather than the Work point count, this can certainly lead to problems when players of differing philosophies meet. If I play in a U.S. nationally rated event, I would expect to never have a problem if I upgrade/downgrade my hand, but is it fair to those unfamiliar with standard expert evaluation to have to guess because I've effectively mismarked my card? Heck, even those familiar with it do not know whether I'm a Walrus or not until they've played me before. And I note that some very fine players never deviate from the point ranges they have posted. I've engineered to provide no answers. I thought for a brief moment that perhaps a box saying "all point counts are estimates," or something might be available, but I suspect everyone would check it whether it applied or not. Ideas? --JRM From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 05:08:06 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA20263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 05:08:06 +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 FAA20257 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 05:07:52 +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 PAA21972 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:08:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006221908.PAA21972@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL policy on the mini-notrump (was WBF position on Psychics) Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <395207AF.A074BF66@village.uunet.be> References: <395207AF.A074BF66@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:08:14 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 22 June 2000 at 14:33, Herman De Wael wrote: >richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >> >> If a player using a 15-17 notrump psyches 1NT on a 9 count, this will not >> prohibit subsequent Staymaning. >> >> But for those playing a 10-12 1NT, opening 1NT on a 9 count is *not* a >> psyche - since the call is not a "gross misstatement of honour strength". >> But if such a 9-point 1NT opening occurs more than once, the partnership >> now has an implicit agreement of a 9-12 range for their 1NT. And as soon >> as that implicit agreement exists, under ACBL regulations use of Stayman is >> illegal. >> As is Blackwood (even on the 3rd round of the auction); as is any conventional defence to a conventional defence of the NT by the opponents. You may not even cuebid their overcalled suit asking for a stopper for 3NT. Actually, it is my belief that the first occurrance *makes* the agreement; either you choose right then to play 9-12 (w/o conventions) or 10-12 (and keep Stayman, etc.) The second occurrance is illegal because it shows that chose to do neither. To avoid ACBL-slagging; the EBU (among others) also uses this "sleaze tactic"[1] for certain situations, and the WBFLC has ruled it a valid use of the SO's ability to regulate conventions. I am worried about the potential for misuse this "Congress shall make no law restricting the rights of SOs to regulate conventions" philosophy allows, by allowing effective regulation of natural bids (some people already believe it has been misused - I am carefully not offering an opinion on that subject here) bids. But I'm just a player and sometimes-TD; I have neither political clout nor ambition (ok, maybe interest - but I'm just too lazy^Wdisorganized)[2]. >Richard is absolutely right. > >If you open on 9 when playing 15-17, this is a psyche, and >allowed. >If you open on 9 when playing 10-12, this is a gray system >area, and disallowed. > >I would like to add : > >If you open on 3, this is a psyche, and allowed. > [warning: topic drift] But, at least according to the CoP, if you do it often or spectacularly enough that partner has a heightened awareness of its possibility, it shall be deemed a partnership understanding, and disallowed (for whatever reason - lack of disclosure, opening at 1 level by agreement with a hand more than a K weaker than an average hand, or whichever other reason seems most conforming with the words "understanding", "agreement", and "system"). All y'all know already that I am uncomfortable about this (especially the deliberate omission of any qualifier to the words "enough" or "hightened awareness" - I don't believe it has been made clear to TPTB that the omission is to allow the qualifiers to be decided on through case law, as opposed to because "any" is the intended qualifier). But it is important to know. >All under ACBL regulations, of course. > >I would like to add that I do not want to wait for the >second 9 points opening of a pair playing 10-12, I would ban >it from the first such occurence. It is never a psyche, >since it is never a gross misstatement. The argument supporters of 9HCP 10-12 1NTs make is exactly that: since KQJT 52 QJT9 987 is much stronger than Q53 QJ QJ2 Q8532, they don't see why they are allowed to open the latter and keep conventions but not the former (given that the philosophy is to restrict "over-weak" openings). The counterargument that makes the most sense to me is the ease of explanation and objectivity of the rulings (the Burn factor? Though he may be incensed at this particular invocation :-). Basically, "yes, we agree with you, but trying to explain to people (especially the LOL/LOM opponents of the Kamikaze NTers) why playing conventions over "that" 9HCP hand was illegal, but not over "this" one, would be too difficult, and cause much more ill-feeling, than this easy-to-understand, if technically inferior rule." And I wouldn't do anything on the first occurance, unless I *knew* the pair involved knew the ruling. Especially as it is perfectly OK to treat a great 14-count as a 15-17 NT. >I consider every >call that is actually made as being systemic (with a few >exceptions such as miscounting, if I choose to believe >them). > I wonder what Herman would have done with the situation I put myself in last night. The agreement is to open pretty much any 9-count with a decent 5cM 1M in third seat (especially at favourable). I did precisely this, except for the fact that my 9-count was QJ98x Kx JTxx xx (I plead lack of sleep. It was a 9-count when I bid, occifer!) Now, the ruling against this in the ACBL would be much harsher than just "you are playing 9-12 1NTs. You may not play conventions over this, or you must immediately change your NT range, and never open a 9-count again"; players are not allowed to have an agreement to open 7HCP hands at the one level, in any ACBL-sanctioned game (including the ITT trials; which blows my mind, but the reason for that is too offtopic for BLML even for me). Do you choose to believe me? If not, I guess it would have been C&E time for me. And maybe that's right. Michael. [1] Two things here: a)IIRC, the LC's ruling was along the lines of "this goes against the spirit of the Law, but it's perfectly legal, so if you want to do it, we can't stop you." b)The other game I play regularly is Advanced Squad Leader. Totally different philosophy toward the Laws in ASL: first, the rule book is about 200 pages of letter-sized paper, in 6-point type (though you really only need to know 70 pages or so to play - look up the other parts as the need arises). You could drop the FLB into the ASLRB without causing a splash. Second, players are *expected* to know the rules, and exploit them - winning by having a better memory for the rules is explicitly stated as ethical in the RB (as is winning by doing something illegal that your opponent didn't catch, so long as you didn't do it deliberately). So there are many tactics that, even though they would *never* happen in real life (this is a military simulation, after all) or would work in a completely different manner in real life, or come from an obscure exception to an obscure rule, are perfectly legal. These tactics are collectively referred to as "sleazes". (and there's sometimes a great context switch I have to make, especially when going ASL->BLML) [2] Or, just possibly, I haven't been annoyed enough to do something about it personally. We'll see in 20 years or so, I guess. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 06:06:22 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA20422 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 06:06:22 +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 GAA20417 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 06:06:14 +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 QAA23478 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:06:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006222006.QAA23478@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL policy on the mini-notrump (was WBF position on Psychics) Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <200006221654.MAA02366@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> References: <200006221654.MAA02366@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:06:38 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 22 June 2000 at 12:54, Ted Ying wrote: > >Although an understandable understanding, that is unfortunately >not the norm. In the ACBL, it is very common to have such >implicit agreements and undiscussed partnership agreements. >"Bridge judgement" and "that's just bridge" are often used to >shade these types of comments, but the end result is always the >same, that the offending partnership has an unfair advantage >over the opponents because they know that partner might do such >a thing, but the opponents don't. > I have no disagreement with what you have said here, but just because "that's just bridge" is used to shade or hide actual agreements/ *partnership* experience, doesn't mean that "that's just bridge" or "bridge judgement" should not be allowed when setting up or playing a system. >I've seen many folks open "good 14" counts with 1NT when they >have the explicit agreement that it is 15-17. When they do and >the opponents are trying to count out the hand and they place >cards in certain places on the advertised range, what can they >do? > I would believe if they were "great 14s" - not just good ones - that should be legal. I don't agree with an explanation of a bid as "natural" or "just bridge" or whatever, when it's obvious that partner knows much more than he's divulging to the opponents, but "bridge judgement" does exist, and it isn't limited to the Gospel according to Milton Work. And as to what the opponents can do, they can learn the same thing all the experienced players have learned - that neither strength nor bridge judgement is limited to the 16 "aces and faces"; and in the same way - by getting caught out on it until they too, become experienced. >Personally, I think it should be a punishable offense to open >NT outside the published range. If you play 14+, then say 14+ >and not 15. If you play 10-12 then play it and adhere to it. >To shade and not tell is unethical. > Ok, how do I state "we open 1NT with all balanced hands that have playing strength, in our judgement, in the range between the average-minus 15HCP balanced hand and the average-plus 17 HCP balanced hand" on my CC? That's what I play (modulo major-suit considerations), that's what most Flight A players who write down 15-17 on the card play, and I would believe that that is "standard bridge judgement". As would opening 1C (16+) on an excellent 15 (say including SAKJT9xx), or opening 1S (11-15) with a poor 16 HCP. Another example: my partnership, like many in Ontario, uses "6-11HCP" weak 2s. A complete description of our agreements about what constitutes a 2D, 2H or 2S opener takes about 2 pages. I do feel very uncomfortable with the amount of information we can publish on the ACBL CC (there's no explicit area to explain differences by seat or vulnerability, for example), and especially when we are simply asked "weak?"[1] Of course, I am equally uncomfortable about the fact that I cannot get any idea of style or the above variations from the average pair that opens a weak 2 bid in front of me (though, to their credit, I believe that half of them truly don't know - or know that they know - i any more than "weak".) Or those Precision players who think a complete explanation of their nebulous diamond opener is "could be short" - especially when they can't or won't answer the followup "how short?" It *is* (or should be, anyway) standard bridge knowledge that the Work count (as with all quantification methods) is only an approximation to the strength of a hand, and often a very poor approximation. However, where on the "religiously follows HCP"<--->"uses HCP solely as a convenient conversational tool" line a particular partnership lies is "partnership experience", not "general bridge knowledge", and to attempt to hide that from the opponents with "just bridge" or the like is unethical. In summary, I believe that we must continue to eradicate the "incomplete disclosure" folks who hide information opponents are entitled to behind "weak" or "natural" or "just bridge"; but "general bridge knowledge" does exist, and lack of understanding or experience does count against you in the same way lack of understanding or experience with squeezes will count against you[2]. Michael. [1] What I find really uncomfortable is explaining the Alert in the following situation: (0,1, or 2 passes)-2H-p-2NT(Ogust)-3H!. "Taking the vulnerability into account, he considers he has a poor suit, but a good hand for a (1st,2nd, or 3rd)-seat weak 2." is the best I've come up with, implying that more information about what constitutes a weak 2 in that seat and at these colours is available. But it sounds really vague in a way that the 3H response is really not. Help (on- or off-line) would be appreciated. Muses: I wonder if defining different HCP ranges for different positions and vulnerabilities would fall afoul of the "no conventions if weak not within a 7 HCP range"? After all, one can play 10-12 NT NV and 15-17 V and still play conventions...Hmm. Must ask for a ruling on that one... [2] Need I say here that when it is obvious that the opponents are truly novices, one should err on the side of over-completeness, even to things that "everybody knows"? I didn't think so. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 06:07:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA20431 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 06:07:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo-r19.mx.aol.com (imo-r19.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.73]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA20426 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 06:07:23 +1000 (EST) From: DANDEE4727@aol.com Received: from DANDEE4727@aol.com by imo-r19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.10.) id f.3f.67dec8c (16781); Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:05:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3f.67dec8c.2683cb99@aol.com> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:05:45 EDT Subject: Re: Placing led suit to the left To: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 103 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I first read in about 1932 that dummy should always place the led suit last (and slowly) to at least force declarer to think that long. (Wish I could remember important things that well) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 06:26:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA20517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 06:26:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA20512 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 06:26:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA05860; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:22:20 -0700 Message-Id: <200006222022.NAA05860@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: ACBL policy on the mini-notrump (was WBF position on Psychics) In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:26:18 PDT." Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:22:21 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > >I've seen many folks open "good 14" counts with 1NT when they > >have the explicit agreement that it is 15-17. When they do and > >the opponents are trying to count out the hand and they place > >cards in certain places on the advertised range, what can they > >do? > > The test should be whether partner is as unprepared as the opponents. > Players who open a good 14 count or bad 18 count with 1NT usually do this > because they want the hand to be treated as 15-17. A player who opens 1NT > with, say, KQJ QJ KQJ2 QJ54 (18 points only for a Walrus) does this because > he expects to go down in 2NT or 3NT if he opens a minor and partner > responds. All players at the table expect this, and if LHO overcalls 2H, > plays there, and drops the QJ tight of hearts, both partner and LHO will > expect opener to have 16-18 rather than 15-17. I'm not sure if "unprepared" is the right word. When one of my partners opens a 15-17 notrump, I'm fully aware that he might have an excellent 14, so you could say I'm "prepared" for it. But the fact is that I don't care about this possibility (and I don't even think about it). I'm going to respond as if he has a 15-17, and if it turns out my partner really opened on a great 14, I don't expect this to have any effect on our chances at all. If I have a hand that I think will make game opposite a minimum 15-count, then I will also expect it to make game opposite any 14-count that partner decides to treat as a 15-count. On the other hand, if we decided to play 14+-17, then I *would* bid differently with some hands. Now, with a hand that I think will just barely make game opposite a minimum 15-count, I might have to settle for an invitation, since a minimum 14+ would be "significantly" worse than a minimum 15. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 07:12:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA20629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 07:12:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f243.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.243]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA20624 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 07:12:09 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 53474 invoked by uid 0); 22 Jun 2000 21:11:32 -0000 Message-ID: <20000622211132.53473.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.23 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:11:31 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.23] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Disclosure Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:11:31 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Michael Farebrother (snip) >In summary, I believe that we must continue to eradicate the "incomplete >disclosure" folks who hide information opponents are entitled to behind >"weak" or "natural" or "just bridge"; but "general bridge knowledge" >does exist, and lack of understanding or experience does count against >you in the same way lack of understanding or experience with squeezes >will count against you[2]. (snip) >[2] Need I say here that when it is obvious that the opponents are truly >novices, one should err on the side of over-completeness, even to things >that "everybody knows"? I didn't think so. For much the same reason that alerts are announced and only explained when asked about, I don't think it's a particularly good idea. Novices through intermediate players may not know what to do with the extra information (aka "general bridge knowledge"). Knowing if a bid is generally weak or strong is sufficient and an over zealous explanation may make them think you've given your partner extra information. A different issue about disclosure... Though I dislike the following situation (I think the point range should be announced as well): 1D - Alert "could be as few as two" (announced) "point range?" "10-19, limited" I also equally dislike: 1D - Alert "could be as few as two" (announced) "point range?" "10-19, limited, no 5+ card major unless the point range is 16-19, cannot have two 5 card minors unless the point range is 10-15, in 3rd or 4th seat will not have fewer than 13hcp without some 5+ card suit." What about after answering the question posed, state if there's more to the partnership agreement that wasn't covered by the question? Don't necessarily state what it is or the nature, just at least bring attention to its existence. e.g. "10-19, limited, with contraints on distribution" or "10-19, limited, and some other agreements" or in the case of weak 2's, "weak, with constraints based on vulnerability" -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 07:45:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA20745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 07:45:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA20738 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 07:45:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.7] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 135Emi-0009SR-00; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:45:16 +0100 Message-ID: <001701bfdc93$6d8996a0$075608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" Cc: References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific><001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific> <000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona> <39461668.D81C58EA@village.uunet.be> <00c901bfdb07$92b431c0$bd5908c3@dodona> <3950A1D6.BA78E68D@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:15:57 +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: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 12:07 PM Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. > > Suppose a player bids 2He over opponent's 1NT. > He holds spades and intends it as a transfer. > Partner does not alert and thinks it's hearts. > > At the end we decide to rule that, since no proof whatsoever > is available, we shall consider the transfer to be systemic > and there is Misinformation. > > By exactly the same reasoning as above, there is a lack of > prior announcement. > +=+ An alert has nothing to do with PRIOR announcement. The alert follows and does not precede the occurrence. A prior announcement is either on the CC or in information given verbally to opponents before the call in question occurs. Your example involves a player bidding on the basis, as he understands, of a disclosed partnership agreement. The territory is Law 75 footnote territory - it fits either example 1 or example 2. An alert is information not disclosure; it draws attention to meanings already disclosed. The foundation of the law on disclosure is that what is not a call opponents may reasonably be expected to understand must be announced beforehand (thus allowing opponents to consider their counteraction). In ruling the action systemic you establish the requirement for it to be announced on the CC, something that the Director will look to see, or otherwise told to opponents beforehand. The regulations will specify what means are available to announce methods beforehand. +=+ > > My point is that I don't see the difference between the two > cases. > +=+ If there is an agreement and it should be, but is not, on the CC etc. then there is a violation of Law 40. Law 40C applies together with any Regulations that address the subject. [A psychic based on a PU is only a special case of the application of this law, but it is one that usually attracts specific regulation.] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 07:45:38 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA20749 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 07:45:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA20740 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 07:45:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.7] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 135Emm-0009SR-00; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:45:20 +0100 Message-ID: <001801bfdc93$6fd386a0$075608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Thomas Dehn" Cc: References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific><001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific><000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona><39461668.D81C58EA@village.uunet.be><001701bfd5fb$6c96e840$532f37d2@laptop><3948ADD5.E4278736@village.uunet.be><200006181712.NAA10822@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <4.3.2.7.1.20000620081259.00ab5970@pop.cais.com> <00c801bfdb07$91af44e0$bd5908c3@dodona> <029301bfdbb8$65876260$ca2a1dc2@rabbit> Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:40:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 8:38 PM Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. > -------------------------- \z/ ---------------------------- > > The main point totally ignored in the CoP is that > the are situations where is clear somebody > has psyched: > 1NT X 2C X - - 2D X - - 2H (an idiot might expect responder to > have 1444, but most likely he has a heart or spade one-suiter) > 1H X 1NT X 2D p 2S (responder will have a D or H fit, not spades) > - - - 2C (GF) 2H 2S 3NT (you know the man has hearts, not 15 HCP) > - - 1NT X XX p 2C (the Lille situation, XX for penalties, forces opener's > pass) > > Do you really expect partner not to "field" such psyches? > I do not see anything wrong if in such situations > first seat bids according > to the assumption that his partner has psyched. > Not even if partner has already made the same psyche in the > same session. > And I do not think that there is an obligation to > alert such bids as psyches, except if opponents > are clients who have paid for their bridge lessons. > +=+ I think you may well be right that the CoP would be improved if it were to contain a statement on this aspect of the matter. I agree it is something for the Lausanne Group to look at. The violation of law is to have a partnership understanding not disclosed in advance to opponents and to base a psychic action upon it. It is legitimate to field partner's psychic if in the subsequent action the psychic is exposed by the information upon which it is lawful to base calls or plays. Even then the partner of the psycher may occasionally need to explain why he believes it is his partner and not an opponent who has psyched. Where the psychic is not exposed by the authorised information available to the partner, the 'fielding' (subsequent collusive action protecting the psychic) is evidence of an undisclosed partnership understanding. The laws do not say that 'fielding' is an offence, they point to the making of the psychic call as the offence in the stated circumstances. The fielding is one category of evidence of a violation. In some places and at some times it has been seen as the only kind of evidence, but this is not so and the CoP has concentrated on driving home recognition of other evidence on which a Director or an AC may also judge the question. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 07:48:34 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA20777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 07:48:34 +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 HAA20772 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 07:48:24 +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 RAA26076 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 17:48:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006222148.RAA26076@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <394DF553.9F9A9257@village.uunet.be> References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific><001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific> <000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona> <39461668.D81C58EA@village.uunet.be> <001701bfd5fb$6c96e840$532f37d2@laptop> <3948ADD5.E4278736@village.uunet.be> <200006181712.NAA10822@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <394DF553.9F9A9257@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 17:48:50 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 19 June 2000 at 12:26, Herman De Wael wrote: >Michael Farebrother wrote: Sorry to take so long to get back to this. > >I believe we are on the same track. > I do too, except for the one point of disagreement. I have a feeling that that disagreement we'll keep to the grave (or the next rewriting of the FLB, whichever comes first)...but I'll try once more. >I would expect my partner to play me for long diamonds. I >would not call that an CPU, since IMO this should also be >told to opponents. > I strongly agree with you on the disclosure issue. But both of our SOs disagree with us, and we have to follow the Laws with such regulations on psyches and disclosure as we are given. >I think it should be disclosed. I do not deduce from that >that this is regulable. I also do not deduce from the requirement for disclosure that it is regulable. I argue that the fact that, given only that partner knows you've psyched, he has a perfectly accurate description of your hand, moves it out of the "gross misstatement" category. The relative frequencies are irrelevant, in my opinion. Nor, really, is the fact that partner would never play you for it - if for no other reason than you have just told me that you would expect partner *would* play you for it. >If it is, it simply bans psyching. No. >Why ? > >Because I would be unable to psyche in this manner, no >matter who my partner was. Exactly. But you can't generalize here. You will be unable to psyche in this manner, no matter who your partner was. You would, however, be able to psych 1H with 875 -- AKQJT742 432, or with xx xxxxxx xxx xx, or with xxxx x xxxx xxxx or in any of the many other ways it is possible to grossly misdescribe your hand with a 1H call. Also, you would be able to psych 1S third in hand with 0-3, or 1NT, even, were that your wont. And after a couple of years of this, when it gets to the point where partner can no longer map your hand based solely on the twin information that you have bid 1H and that you have psyched, you'll be able to do it again - provided you continue to "mix it up". >I have done this too often, and >have told too many people (as I believe I should, or it IS a >CPU), that the TD should be able to call it PU, and thus >disclosable, no matter who I happen to play with. >I want to call it PU ! I want to tell my opponents in as >many ways as I can without telling partner too much, and I >want to be ruled against if I fail in my attempt. > No problem here, and I agree with all of this. None of it, however allows "I can't psych in this situation because it would be illegal" to imply "I can't psych because it would be illegal." >But since everyone (including you Michael) continues to >equate Partnership understanding with Partnership agreement, I don't want to. But the CoP, ACBL regulations, interpretations, etc. imply I must. My ruling that it is a two-way systemic bid does, yes, equate the two, and you're making me rethink that. However, L40A states [you may do anything, including psych] "without prior announcement, provided that such call...is not based on a partnership understanding". Because your habit of psyching 1H with a specific hand - only - has become a PU, you may not make it without "prior announcement", and your SO's regs ban prior announcement of psychic tendencies. So you're locked on the horns, even if we don't equate the two. >Yes it would, because the definition is flawed. >I believe that all regulations should be void on psyches. >I believe that this necessitates a few additions on the >definition of psyche : frequency and absence of systemic >ways of discovery should be among those. > And I believe that another addition to the definition of a psychic bid must be the inherent randomness of it - I would be taking the same position if you always psyched by bidding the shorter major, or by bidding the suit under the one you actually have. I actually don't believe that systemic ways of discovery inherently remove a call from the realm of psychic - I would be perfectly happy with a system that stated "a jump shift to 3C (or 3D over a club opener) is a conventional 'did you psych' inquiry" (of course, I'll never get an SO to agree with me). The thing that bothers me about, say, the K-S "systemic psyches", is that, once they are found out to be psychic, the hand is as well, or better, described as it would have been had it not been psychic (in their case, 5+suit to 2/top 4 and no other honours). Same problem I have with your 1H bid. >> Under the GCC here, a 1H opening which is either a normal 1H opening or >> 11-14 any in third seat is regulable and regulated against; what is the >> difference between that and 0-3? >> >Frequency. The hand comes up about once every three months, >as opposed to a normal 1He opening once every tournament. > I really don't see how this comes into it. I also can't reason out why I think this. Sorry. >> If it weren't so specific, or if the suit in which you psyched were not >> always 1He, I'd be happy with it (though if you switched it to "shorter >> major", I don't think that's variable enough). It still must be a >> "gross misdiscription" of your hand, even after the psych is exposed. > [thanks for the correction] >Well, it is. > >It cannot be after the psyche is exposed. > Why not? Example comment from my partner: "I knew you'd psyched [1S], but I couldn't tell whether you had spades or not." >[snip] > >> I agree with most of this - except that many people will not grant you >> the difference between "agreements", "experience", and "understandings"; >> even I am not sure they are separate enough for such a denotative >> reading of the Laws. >> >Why did they give them three different words then ? > Well, the answer I was given just last week when I asked a "why did the Lawmakers do X" question is that it isn't a monolithic work, nor written by lawyers, and it just slipped through. After all, it was only in 1975 that the use of the words "must", "may", "shall", and "should" were codified (and well done, too. More of this, please, in future rewritings!) >> However, the CoP have given guidelines to determine when habitual >> violations create an implicit agreement. See rant above :-). >> >I agree with the definitions in the CoP. >As long as they are used to rule against psyches as UPU, not >as IPA ! > Well, you're nailed by L40A either way. Note that I believe that an agreement means that both partners will do the same thing in the same situation, whereas an understanding may only be one-way (I psyche, my partner doesn't, for instance). Michael. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 08:19:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA20907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:19:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout2-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.165]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA20902 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:19:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.53] (d18182a35.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.53]) by mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA02153 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 18:12:41 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200006221654.MAA02366@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> References: <200006221654.MAA02366@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 18:10:14 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: ACBL policy on the mini-notrump (was WBF position on Psychics) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ted Ying writes: >I've seen many folks open "good 14" counts with 1NT when they >have the explicit agreement that it is 15-17. When they do and >the opponents are trying to count out the hand and they place >cards in certain places on the advertised range, what can they >do? They can keep in mind that the point count is not perfect. >Personally, I think it should be a punishable offense to open >NT outside the published range. If you play 14+, then say 14+ >and not 15. If you play 10-12 then play it and adhere to it. >To shade and not tell is unethical. Perhaps what is needed is a caveat on the CC: "We use the Work Point Count for initial evaluation of hands, but we may adjust our raw point count evaluation up or down based on addition good or bad factors in the hand." Hm. Can we make that fit somewhere? Or should we ask the ACBL to pre print it? I said in another post that 99% of bridge players know the point count isn't perfect, and they in fact adjust their own hand evaluations accordingly. Perhaps I'm wrong. I would like to think not, but... 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+AwUBOVKQ3r2UW3au93vOEQLX9gCWMiW9DevBqzxZxMux3lMzEKtU8gCdFy3p f1B4eo4HnT9k4jhSWEJ+FDA= =Tug2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 08:19:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA20872 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:10:37 +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 IAA20867 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:10:29 +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 SAA11701 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 18:10:20 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20000622211132.53473.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 18:09:00 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Disclosure Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 2:11 PM -0700 6/22/00, Todd Zimnoch wrote: >1D - Alert >"could be as few as two" (announced) >"point range?" >"10-19, limited" > > I also equally dislike: > >1D - Alert >"could be as few as two" (announced) >"point range?" >"10-19, limited, no 5+ card major unless the point range is 16-19, cannot >have two 5 card minors unless the point range is 10-15, in 3rd or 4th seat >will not have fewer than 13hcp without some 5+ card suit." > > What about after answering the question posed, state if there's more to >the partnership agreement that wasn't covered by the question? Don't >necessarily state what it is or the nature, just at least bring attention to >its existence. e.g. "10-19, limited, with contraints on distribution" or >"10-19, limited, and some other agreements" or in the case of weak 2's, >"weak, with constraints based on vulnerability" If the added condition is a matter of general bridge knowledge, as with weak 2's, it need not be included. But in general, the partial information with a reference to the addaitional information available is useful. I explain 2NT Lebensohl as "Lebensohl relay to 3C, shows any of a variety of handss; would you like a description?" Another alternative is to give the information likely to be useful, as with 2D forcing Stayman, "Artificial, game forcing, doesn't promise a 4-card major, may be many different game-forcing hands". From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 08:56:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA20988 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:56:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f24.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.24]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA20983 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:56:10 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 74582 invoked by uid 0); 22 Jun 2000 22:55:32 -0000 Message-ID: <20000622225532.74581.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.21 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:55:32 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.21] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:55:32 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Michael Farebrother >I actually don't believe that systemic ways of discovery inherently remove >a call from the realm of psychic - I would be perfectly happy with a >system that stated "a jump shift to 3C (or 3D over a club opener) is a >conventional 'did you psych' inquiry" (of course, I'll never get an SO >to agree with me). Of course you'll have yes/no responses, but what are the yes responses and what other information do they carry in light of the bid that was psyched? Here's the example that convinced me it's a bad idea. 2H is a bid showing a weak 6-card spade suit. 2S by responder shows no spade support. 2NT by responder shows spade support. After a 2NT response, anything but 3S or 4S says, "I psyched." What pass, 3C, 3D, 3H, or 3NT mean will become a CPU over time. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 09:01:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21016 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 09:01:11 +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 JAA21011 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 09:01:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from wrightnet.demon.co.uk ([193.237.21.47]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 135Fxr-0002ch-0Y for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:00:52 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:59:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Steve Wright Subject: Re: Placing led suit to the left References: <3f.67dec8c.2683cb99@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <3f.67dec8c.2683cb99@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.00 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In article <3f.67dec8c.2683cb99@aol.com>, DANDEE4727@aol.com writes >I first read in about 1932 that dummy should always place the led suit last >(and slowly) to at least force declarer to think that long. >(Wish I could remember important things that well) I was always taught that it was good practice to put the suits red black red black in a suit contract and black red red black etc in a no-trump contract. It's a pity the laws don't require this as a simple glance at the dummy would immediately identify if it is a no-trump contract or a suit contract and what the trumps are. I have also learnt the hard way never to put a suit bid by partner on the right (where trumps normally go) when playing in a no-trump contract. :-( - -- Steve Wright -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 iQA/AwUBOVKaafI+4up1n/4bEQKUsgCgwzYEusZZWQ8uQafO+zvS4aRBT3cAoKRm b2obmbUKbj95NwtrE6mw7/qp =Dy3t -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 09:02:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 09:02:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f260.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA21028 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 09:02:15 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 45169 invoked by uid 0); 22 Jun 2000 23:01:36 -0000 Message-ID: <20000622230136.45168.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.21 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:01:36 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.21] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Disclosure Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:01:36 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "David J. Grabiner" > >or in the case of weak 2's, > >"weak, with constraints based on vulnerability" > >If the added condition is a matter of general bridge knowledge, as with >weak 2's, it need not be included. But it's not general bridge knowledge if my partner and I have any agreements about weak 2's and vulnerability. For me, my mood can be more of a factor than the vulnerability and some partners shouldn't explain as above. Not because it's general bridge knowledge, but because it simply isn't true. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 09:06:34 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21048 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 09:06:34 +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 JAA21043 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 09:06:26 +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 TAA27509 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:06:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006222306.TAA27509@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <001701bfdc93$6d8996a0$075608c3@dodona> References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific><001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific> <000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona> <39461668.D81C58EA@village.uunet.be> <00c901bfdb07$92b431c0$bd5908c3@dodona> <3950A1D6.BA78E68D@village.uunet.be> <001701bfdc93$6d8996a0$075608c3@dodona> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:06:51 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 22 June 2000 at 19:15, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: (Yes, I realize that all of this is strictly your opinion, and not spoken with your official hat on. Yes, I also realize that your opinion is much more likely to be what the Lawmakers intended than mine is. Yes, I'm splitting hairs. Having said all of that : - ) >+=+ An alert has nothing to do with PRIOR announcement. >The alert follows and does not precede the occurrence. A >prior announcement is either on the CC or in information >given verbally to opponents before the call in question >occurs. I'm a little concerned about this - there are lots of things that any serious pair play that cannot be disclosed on the ACBL CC and needn't and probably shouldn't be preannounced - the easiest one I can think of is "what does 1NT-2C-2x-3C mean?" In most partnerships, there is a definite agreement, and since there are at least three different common agreements (weak, inv, strong) the opponents cannot be expected to understand it without explanation. Those playing a strong club system have even more problems with the ACBL CC - there's usually no place to put even the *first round* information, especially after interference (unlike normal, where it's usually fine until responder's second call). >The foundation of the law on disclosure >is that what is not a call opponents may reasonably be >expected to understand must be announced beforehand >(thus allowing opponents to consider their counteraction). I don't read quite that into L40. L40A allows you to do anything you like without prior announcement, provided there is no understanding, but says nothing about the converse. L40B does not require "prior announcement", only "disclos[ure]...in accordance with the regulations of the SO." It does not require disclosure prior to use. In fact, L40E allows SOs to prescribe a CC, but if they don't, and they do not make any disclosure regulations to the contrary, I see nothing in the Laws that requires players to do anything prior to use of a call. The meaning must be fully and freely available (L75A), but no mention of time. Were an SO to make the regulation that "you must disclose the meaning of any call or play or sequence of calls or plays only when asked", I don't see anything in the Laws that this regulation contravenes, and it means that there is no prior announcement, no announcement at the fact, and no announcement afterwards, unless the opponents wish one. And that would be full disclosure according to both L40, L75, and the SOs regulations. I realize I'm doing a pretty legalistic reading of L40 and L75. Oh, and slightly off-thread - note that L40 always uses the word "understanding" and that L75 always uses the word "agreement", even when it is explicitly referring to L40 (L75A). I believe that gives credence to those who believe the two are to be considered synonymous. >+=+ If there is an agreement and it should be, but is >not, on the CC etc. then there is a violation of Law 40. As I said above, given that there need not even be a CC, I am not convinced of this. Michael. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 10:13:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA21231 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:13:22 +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 KAA21226 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:13:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 135H5l-0007Kr-0W; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 01:13:06 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:46:48 +0100 To: Wayne Burrows Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: "...the most favourable result that was likely..." L12C2 References: <20000621164340.68872.qmail@hotmail.com> <000a01bfdba9$cc86b740$902d37d2@laptop> In-Reply-To: <000a01bfdba9$cc86b740$902d37d2@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 S Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <000a01bfdba9$cc86b740$902d37d2@laptop>, Wayne Burrows writes > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Todd Zimnoch" >> >> The problem abstracted: the original ruling didn't think that 9 >tricks >> was likely because defense needed to make a series of gaffs to allow it, >so >> 8 was awarded. Afterwards, it was found that those gaffs were commonly >made >> at the other tables. Do you use the results from the field to re-evaluate >> the meaning of "the most favorable result that was likely?" >> >> -Todd > >Thanks Todd this is exactly what I meant and thought that I said. > >Wayne Burrows > > I understood what you'd said, but I'm with DWS here, I don't think a TD should *ever*, and an AC almost *never* adjust because of the scoresheet. The objective assessment of the hand in isolation is IMO the only way to award an adjusted score. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 10:43:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA20865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:09:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.118]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA20860 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:09:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.53] (d18182a35.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.53]) by mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA01212 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 18:01:15 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <395207AF.A074BF66@village.uunet.be> References: <395207AF.A074BF66@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 18:04:09 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: ACBL policy on the mini-notrump (was WBF position on Psychics) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Herman De Wael writes: >I would like to add that I do not want to wait for the >second 9 points opening of a pair playing 10-12, I would ban >it from the first such occurence. No, it's never a psyche. *But*... The Work Point Count (or the Goren Point Count, or whatever you'd like to call it) is not a perfect system for hand evaluation. 99% of bridge players know that, and so 99% of bridge players know that when one says "our NT range is 15-17" or "our NT range is 10-12" that range is an _approximation_, and hands at the table might be evaluated up or down a bit from their raw point count based on other factors - in the case of nt hands, for example, the presence of good intermediate spot cards, or a potentially runnable 5 card suit. What the acbl rule does is say "we don't care that the point count is not perfect, we are not going to allow you to apply any other method of hand evaluation or adjustment when you say you open a 10-12 hcp hand with 1NT." The legality of this is one thing; its sensibility is another thing altogether. When you look at it this way, it looks like pure nonsense. It shows that the rules makers aren't interested in letting people play bridge, they just want to ban an agreement they don't like. At least, that's what it looks like to me. for the record, I've never played mini-notrump. Nor have I played against it, and that's not a prospect to which I look forward, either. But I still don't think the acbl should be regulating the game in this way. 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/AwUBOVKOl72UW3au93vOEQJV/QCg4z7+tmApQNAHBJNioEb2PXgIiFUAoMJz SZ7g0JhKFLHKOKKWRnFUXqGf =R7RF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 11:09:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA21348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:09:19 +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 LAA21338 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:08:41 +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 135HxJ-000GXN-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 01:08:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:43:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL policy on the mini-notrump (was WBF position on Psychics) References: <200006221654.MAA02366@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <39526043.27FCD231@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <39526043.27FCD231@mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John R. Mayne wrote: >This is, I think, an interesting issue. My basic problem is that I and >many, many others don't use point count in anything like the standard >Walrus way, so *all* point count issues are made difficult. Do I open >light? I don't think so; I open fewer hands than those who say they open >light, but I open some 9-counts and even an 8-count every couple of >years. > >What *is* my NT range? It's listed as 15-17, but I open some 14s and the >rare 18-count. Is it more accurate to say 14+-18-? Or is that, in fact, >more deceptive; I only open really shiny 14s and seriously flawed 18s. I >open some 17s 1m, intending to rebid 2N. Very rarely, I'll open a >15-count 1m. The *value* needs to be 15-17 for me to open it 1N; if in >my opinion it is outside that range, I'll open something else. > >There are many in my position. > >While it seems OK to me to interpret point counts as the estimated value >of the hand, rather than the Work point count, this can certainly lead >to problems when players of differing philosophies meet. If I play in a >U.S. nationally rated event, I would expect to never have a problem if I >upgrade/downgrade my hand, but is it fair to those unfamiliar with >standard expert evaluation to have to guess because I've effectively >mismarked my card? > >Heck, even those familiar with it do not know whether I'm a Walrus or >not until they've played me before. And I note that some very fine >players never deviate from the point ranges they have posted. > >I've engineered to provide no answers. I thought for a brief moment that >perhaps a box saying "all point counts are estimates," or something >might be available, but I suspect everyone would check it whether it >applied or not. > >Ideas? In my view you should not rely on a CC for detail. If you need a point of fine detail you should ask. For example, many players will open 1NT with a very bad five-card major - but some will not. If you need to know detail of this sort you should ask. Do you open 1NT with a 5422 hand or a 6322 hand? Do you expect to see this on a CC? I don't: I would ask if I needed to know. I think that whether a player uses his judgement in his assessment of points for a 1NT opening is something that an opponent should ask if he needs to know. -- David Stevenson A learned bridge player called Burn Liverpool, England, UK Tried to lead when it wasn't his turn David Stevenson said Ian Payn wrote: "Have him shot through the head, That's the only way he'll ever learn." From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 11:40:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 09:26:17 +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 JAA21104 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 09:26:07 +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 TAA27860 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:26:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006222326.TAA27860@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <001801bfdc93$6fd386a0$075608c3@dodona> References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific><001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific><000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona><39461668.D81C58EA@village.uunet.be><001701bfd5fb$6c96e840$532f37d2@laptop><3948ADD5.E4278736@village.uunet.be><200006181712.NAA10822@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <4.3.2.7.1.20000620081259.00ab5970@pop.cais.com> <00c801bfdb07$91af44e0$bd5908c3@dodona> <029301bfdbb8$65876260$ca2a1dc2@rabbit> <001801bfdc93$6fd386a0$075608c3@dodona> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:26:28 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 22 June 2000 at 22:40, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: > > The violation of law is to have a partnership >understanding not disclosed in advance to opponents >and to base a psychic action upon it. I am unclear about this. How can one base a psychic action on any partnership understanding as to frequency, for instance? Or: partner knows I've psyched 1NT with a "weak 2C opener" several times. Even if I do it again, how have I based my decision on that understanding? Now if we've decided, explicitly or implicitly, that that is what to do with those hands, that's different. >It is legitimate to >field partner's psychic if in the subsequent action the >psychic is exposed by the information upon which it >is lawful to base calls or plays. Even then the partner >of the psycher may occasionally need to explain why >he believes it is his partner and not an opponent who >has psyched. If the understanding partner and I have (gained independently, through experience), that we psych with a frequency X ~= 10x the frequency of the average pair in this area, were disclosed prior to my field, would that be legal (with the explanation that "I know someone psyched, and it's 10-1 odds that it was our side on average."? > Where the psychic is not exposed by the authorised >information available to the partner, the 'fielding' >(subsequent collusive action protecting the psychic) > is evidence of an undisclosed partnership >understanding. The laws do not say that 'fielding' is >an offence, they point to the making of the psychic >call as the offence in the stated circumstances. Again, I don't understand this. There may be an partnership understanding, disclosed or undisclosed. But given the partnership understanding outlined above, I would believe that the only call that could possibly be based on that partnership understanding is the "field". Or are we talking "I haven't psyched for much longer than is my norm. I'm going to psych the next hand that is appropriate"? Michael. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 12:09:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA21524 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:09:22 +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 MAA21519 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:09:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.253.88.54]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000623020904.EXJA290.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 03:09:04 +0100 Message-ID: <006701bfdcb8$ed254880$c315ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" References: <395207AF.A074BF66@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: ACBL policy on the mini-notrump (was WBF position on Psychics) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 03:15:39 +0100 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: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2000 11:04 PM Subject: Re: ACBL policy on the mini-notrump (was WBF position on Psychics) > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Herman De Wael writes: > > >I would like to add that I do not want to wait for the > >second 9 points opening of a pair playing 10-12, I would ban > >it from the first such occurence. > > No, it's never a psyche. *But*... > > The Work Point Count (or the Goren Point Count, or whatever you'd > like to call it) is not a perfect system for hand evaluation. 99% of > bridge players know that, and so 99% of bridge players know that when > one says "our NT range is 15-17" or "our NT range is 10-12" that > range is an _approximation_, and hands at the table might be > evaluated up or down a bit from their raw point count based on other > factors - in the case of nt hands, for example, the presence of good > intermediate spot cards, or a potentially runnable 5 card suit. What > the acbl rule does is say "we don't care that the point count is not > perfect, we are not going to allow you to apply any other method of > hand evaluation or adjustment when you say you open a 10-12 hcp hand > with 1NT." The legality of this is one thing; its sensibility is > another thing altogether. When you look at it this way, it looks like > pure nonsense. It shows that the rules makers aren't interested in > letting people play bridge, they just want to ban an agreement they > don't like. At least, that's what it looks like to me. > > for the record, I've never played mini-notrump. Nor have I played > against it, and that's not a prospect to which I look forward, > either. But I still don't think the acbl should be regulating the > game in this way. > Why does the ACBL, the EBL or any other 'BL regulate the game at all? The reason for regulation is no doubt to make the game a challenge, while making it a possible conundrum to solve. If no regulation was practised I suspect that there would be an infinite number of variables. The game would be so difficult, it is already the most difficult card game to play, that its' followers would become so few that the game would vanish into obscurity. Long live regulation.Long live Bridge as a puzzle, the solution to which is a challenge for many, but an impossibility for none. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 12:26:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA21620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:26:35 +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 MAA21615 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:26:30 +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 MAA23418 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:23:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:23:45 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics To: Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:25:19 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 23/06/2000 12:21:22 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk One of the signals I have agreed to play with partner is Cooper Echoes (when declarer, I may play high-low in dummy to reassure pard that the contract is making). In the spirit of full disclosure, this convention is written on my system cards. Therefore, after the signal occurs, the opponents can concentrate on conserving unnecessary overtricks, rather than dropping an imp or two in a futile attempt to beat the contract. However, we have a CPU, since I have at least twice psyched a Cooper Echo. The WBF position is that under L40B it is such a psyche, rather than any fielding of it, which is illegal. In future the WBF ruling will leave me honour-bound never to unblock from dummy, unless I can guarantee that my contract will make. Best wishes Richard Hills richard.hills@immi.gov.au From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 13:19:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA21640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:35:02 +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 MAA21635 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:34:56 +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 e5N2YsE16515 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:34:54 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:34:54 +1000 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@medvesajt.anu.edu.au To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Placing led suit to the left In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: > Hi all, > > From times to times, I see a declarer asking dummy to place the > led suit the same place on table (dummy's left). I use to tell him > it is a bad habit, because, when defending, they will wrongly > think that the suit at left is the one led. > > A local director has been told by ACBL that this is more than > a bas habit, but a violation of Law 40 (foot note): > "A player is not entitle, during auction and play, to any aids to > his memory...." This "agreement" with dummy is a clear violation of the said footnote. Alternating the suits red-black-red-black or red-black-black-red is not really a violation since all players are entitled to be told the level and denomination of the contract (and whether it is doubled or redoubled but not by whom). Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 14:19:43 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA21599 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:22:40 +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 MAA21590 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:22:28 +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 e5N2MNE16206 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:22:24 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:22:23 +1000 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@medvesajt.anu.edu.au To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Disclosure In-Reply-To: <20000622211132.53473.qmail@hotmail.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, Todd Zimnoch wrote: > >From: Michael Farebrother > (snip) > >In summary, I believe that we must continue to eradicate the "incomplete > >disclosure" folks who hide information opponents are entitled to behind > >"weak" or "natural" or "just bridge"; but "general bridge knowledge" > >does exist, and lack of understanding or experience does count against > >you in the same way lack of understanding or experience with squeezes > >will count against you[2]. > (snip) > >[2] Need I say here that when it is obvious that the opponents are truly > >novices, one should err on the side of over-completeness, even to things > >that "everybody knows"? I didn't think so. > > For much the same reason that alerts are announced and only explained > when asked about, I don't think it's a particularly good idea. Novices > through intermediate players may not know what to do with the extra > information (aka "general bridge knowledge"). Knowing if a bid is generally > weak or strong is sufficient and an over zealous explanation may make them > think you've given your partner extra information. So what if they do think that? Every time you answer a question you've given partner extra information. "Yes partner, I'm still on the same planet as you" > What about after answering the question posed, state if there's more to > the partnership agreement that wasn't covered by the question? Don't > necessarily state what it is or the nature, just at least bring attention to > its existence. e.g. "10-19, limited, with contraints on distribution" or > "10-19, limited, and some other agreements" or in the case of weak 2's, > "weak, with constraints based on vulnerability" Based on my limited experience playing against American 2/1 GF pairs on OKbridge, a 1D opening merits no alert or prealert or comment on the convention card. When asked, the response is almost always "natural". A "full" explanation of my understanding of a 2/1 1D opening would be along the lines of "if balanced, at least 3 diamonds (comment about 4333 and 3433 treatments) and either 11+ to 14 HCP or 18-20 HCP adjusted for shapeliness and intermediates; if unbalanced, at least 4 diamonds - if the hand has at least five diamonds then diamonds will be the longest suit, or partner has judged to describe the hand as having a long diamond suit, the strength will be 11-21 depending on the presence and quality of side suits - if the hand is unbalanced with exactly four diamonds then it shows some permutation of 4441 (comment about style) again with around 11-21 **OR** a 3145 or 1345 (or 2245 with weak doubletons) with insufficient values to reverse to 2D over a response of 1H,1S,1NT or 2C (around 11-15)" Clearly one would not give this explanation at the table, however "natural" is a completely inappropriate way to describe a bid that can be a canape, particularly when planning to follow up with a 2C bid that is neither alerted nor explained as a possible canape. "natural, some unnatural distribution constraints" would be the minimum acceptable explanation, but "natural, possible club canape" is MUCH better. What explanation gets given in American club games??? **I** know enough to make the opponents alert partner after the auction 1D-P-1H-P-2C that a 3145 is a lively possibility, but rarely do they do it voluntarily, or graciously. Why should I have to do anything? Mark From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 14:58:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA21883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:58:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout2-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.165]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA21878 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:58:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.53] (d18182a35.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.53]) by mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA14884 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:51:40 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <006701bfdcb8$ed254880$c315ff3e@vnmvhhid> References: <395207AF.A074BF66@vil lage.uunet.be> <006701bfdcb8$ed254880$c315ff3e@vnmvhhid> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:54:37 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: ACBL policy on the mini-notrump (was WBF position on Psychics) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 "anne_jones" wrote: >Why does the ACBL, the EBL or any other 'BL regulate the game at all? >The reason for regulation is no doubt to make the game a challenge, while >making it a possible conundrum to solve. >If no regulation was practised I suspect that there would be an infinite >number of variables. The game would be so difficult, it is already the most >difficult card game to play, that its' followers would become so few that >the game would vanish into obscurity. >Long live regulation.Long live Bridge as a puzzle, the solution to which is >a challenge for many, but an impossibility for none. I didn't say there should be no regulation, I said that this _particular_ regulation doesn't seem to me to be appropriate. Sure, defending against a mini-notrump is difficult. But it's not impossible, if a pair sit down and think about how they're gonna do it. Is the mini-notrump that much more destructive than, say, a forcing pass system? I may be mistaken, but the way I read the convention charts, opening 1NT on a 9 point hand when your agreed range is 10-12 is illegal at _all_ levels, if your responses are conventional. If I'm wrong, I'll shut up, but if I'm right, I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed at _some_ level. Long live Bridge, yes. But is _this_ regulation good for the game, or bad, in the long run? 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/AwUBOVLuX72UW3au93vOEQLQNgCfQ06jpE3iWGSD4ZuFMVbVccidy3kAnAs4 vVzOykIV4gLqr6VRTJS/0whS =TDUe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 15:38:12 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA21972 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:38:12 +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 PAA21966 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:38:03 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 80009 invoked for bounce); 23 Jun 2000 05:37:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.41.183) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 23 Jun 2000 05:37:53 -0000 Message-ID: <010601bfdcd5$56149f00$2f291dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific><001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific><000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona><39461668.D81C58EA@village.uunet.be><001701bfd5fb$6c96e840$532f37d2@laptop><3948ADD5.E4278736@village.uunet.be><200006181712.NAA10822@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <4.3.2.7.1.20000620081259.00ab5970@pop.cais.com> <00c801bfdb07$91af44e0$bd5908c3@dodona> <029301bfdbb8$65876260$ca2a1dc2@rabbit> <001801bfdc93$6fd386a0$075608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 07:38:47 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Thomas Dehn > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 8:38 PM > Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. > > > The main point totally ignored in the CoP is that > > the are situations where is clear somebody > > has psyched: > > 1NT X 2C X - - 2D X - - 2H (an idiot might expect responder to > > have 1444, but most likely he has a heart or spade one-suiter) > > 1H X 1NT X 2D p 2S (responder will have a D or H fit, not spades) > > - - - 2C (GF) 2H 2S 3NT (you know the man has hearts, not 15 HCP) > > - - 1NT X XX p 2C (the Lille situation, > > XX for penalties, forces opener's pass) > > > > Do you really expect partner not to "field" such psyches? > > I do not see anything wrong if in such situations > > first seat bids according > > to the assumption that his partner has psyched. > > Not even if partner has already made the same psyche in the > > same session. > > And I do not think that there is an obligation to > > alert such bids as psyches, except if opponents > > are clients who have paid for their bridge lessons. > > > +=+ I think you may well be right that the CoP would be > improved if it were to contain a statement on this aspect > of the matter. I agree it is something for the Lausanne > Group to look at. > The violation of law is to have a partnership > understanding not disclosed in advance to opponents > and to base a psychic action upon it. There still exists some confusion between what I would call "the mechanics of the game", and "partnership understandings". There exist common situations where a psyche is almost free of risk. Experienced players are aware of such situations like "we have already limited our hands", or "they are in an artificial sequence and have not yet exchanged much information". It is well-known that people are reluctant to psyche red vs. white, and that OTOH any 3rd seat opening might be psychic, and that there aren't 80 high card points in the deck. Some basic psyches practically never hurt your side's bidding, but still might catch a lapse of concentration (hopefully opponents', not partner's). > It is legitimate to > field partner's psychic if in the subsequent action the > psychic is exposed by the information upon which it > is lawful to base calls or plays. Even then the partner > of the psycher may occasionally need to explain why > he believes it is his partner and not an opponent who > has psyched. > Where the psychic is not exposed by the authorised > information available to the partner, the 'fielding' > (subsequent collusive action protecting the psychic) > is evidence of an undisclosed partnership > understanding. The laws do not say that 'fielding' is > an offence, they point to the making of the psychic > call as the offence in the stated circumstances. I still see here a tendency to outlaw common well-known psyches. I disagree with Grattan's opinion that the law restricts psyches to psyches of which partner is unaware. The law only restricts psyches about which partner has additional *private* information, not psyches about which partner has extraneous *public* information the opponents don't actually have but would have if they were better players or would sometimes play against frequent psychers. It is not illegal to make a psyche because at the moment the psyche is made partner knows it is a psyche, and opponents might or might not know, or do know but do not understand even though it is contained in half of the basic books about bridge. The psyche is illegal only if partner's "fielding" of the psyche is based on information which was unavailable to the opponents. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 17:11:52 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA22125 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:11:52 +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 RAA22120 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:11:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.141] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 135Ncj-000Hom-00; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:11:33 +0100 Message-ID: <009101bfdce2$8949d4a0$f25908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Thomas Dehn" Cc: References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific><001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific><000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona><39461668.D81C58EA@village.uunet.be><001701bfd5fb$6c96e840$532f37d2@laptop><3948ADD5.E4278736@village.uunet.be><200006181712.NAA10822@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <4.3.2.7.1.20000620081259.00ab5970@pop.cais.com> <00c801bfdb07$91af44e0$bd5908c3@dodona> <029301bfdbb8$65876260$ca2a1dc2@rabbit> <001801bfdc93$6fd386a0$075608c3@dodona> <010601bfdcd5$56149f00$2f291dc2@rabbit> Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:12:53 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 6:38 AM Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. ------------------- \x/ ------------------ > There still exists some confusion between what I would call > "the mechanics of the game", and "partnership understandings". > -------------------- \X/------------------ > > It is legitimate to > > field partner's psychic if in the subsequent action the > > psychic is exposed by the information upon which it > > is lawful to base calls or plays. Even then the partner > > of the psycher may occasionally need to explain why > > he believes it is his partner and not an opponent who > > has psyched. > > Where the psychic is not exposed by the authorised > > information available to the partner, the 'fielding' > > (subsequent collusive action protecting the psychic) > > is evidence of an undisclosed partnership > > understanding. The laws do not say that 'fielding' is > > an offence, they point to the making of the psychic > > call as the offence in the stated circumstances. > > I still see here a tendency to outlaw common > well-known psyches. I disagree with Grattan's opinion > that the law restricts psyches to psyches of > which partner is unaware. --------------- \X/ -------------------- > It is not illegal to make a psyche because at > the moment the psyche is made partner knows it > is a psyche, and opponents might or might not know, > +=+ Quote: "A player may violate an announced partnership agreement so long as his partner is unaware of the violation (but habitual violations in a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed)" - Law 75B. Quote: " A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding." - Law 40A. You may not like the law, Thomas; I may think it could be rewritten with advantage; but we must deal now with the law as it is. Unless an action is a 'commonly accepted' usage, something for the Directors and ACs to judge (maybe with the NCBOs guidance), the law only looks at what the partnership discloses and what the partnership knows about its own habits and practices, and it tests these against what any opposing pair may be reasonably expected to understand. If "the moment a psyche is made partner knows it is a psyche" (sic), there is not the slightest doubt that the law demands prior announcement of the partnership understanding from which this knowledge of a deliberate violation of announced methods is gained. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 17:17:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA22143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:17:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA22138 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:16:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA19104 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 09:18:49 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Jun 23 09:16:51 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JQXR4LET4Q000QE4@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 09:19:18 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 09:14:52 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 09:19:17 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: End of L68B To: "'David Stevenson'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B61D@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 herman wrote: > >I believe that Ton's post on this subject confirms this last > >view. and the reply of David was: > I really think we may ignore all Ton's posts in this thread. Well David you indeed ignored all my post in this thread, but after 7000 'ends' the result is what I described in my first message. That might be a message in itself. And I never told that the footnote applied to this case, but gave my opinion on how to deal with exposed cards in this case: comparable with the description in the footnote. My impression is that your destructive tone has not disappeared yet. ton From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 17:35:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA22187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:35:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com [139.134.5.173]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA22182 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:35:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ia012956 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:36:11 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-221-80.tmns.net.au ([203.54.221.80]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Gentle-MailRouter V2.8a 13/58090); 23 Jun 2000 17:36:10 Message-ID: <006c01bfdc80$c1710f40$50dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: ACBL policy on the mini-notrump (was WBF position on Psychics) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 05:33:34 +1000 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 John Mayne wrote: >This is, I think, an interesting issue. My basic problem is that I and >many, many others don't use point count in anything like the standard >Walrus way, so *all* point count issues are made difficult. Do I open >light? I don't think so; I open fewer hands than those who say they open >light, but I open some 9-counts and even an 8-count every couple of >years. > >What *is* my NT range? It's listed as 15-17, but I open some 14s and the >rare 18-count. Is it more accurate to say 14+-18-? Or is that, in fact, >more deceptive; I only open really shiny 14s and seriously flawed 18s. I >open some 17s 1m, intending to rebid 2N. Very rarely, I'll open a >15-count 1m. The *value* needs to be 15-17 for me to open it 1N; if in >my opinion it is outside that range, I'll open something else. > >There are many in my position. > >While it seems OK to me to interpret point counts as the estimated value >of the hand, rather than the Work point count, this can certainly lead >to problems when players of differing philosophies meet. If I play in a >U.S. nationally rated event, I would expect to never have a problem if I >upgrade/downgrade my hand, but is it fair to those unfamiliar with >standard expert evaluation to have to guess because I've effectively >mismarked my card? > >Heck, even those familiar with it do not know whether I'm a Walrus or >not until they've played me before. And I note that some very fine >players never deviate from the point ranges they have posted. > >I've engineered to provide no answers. I thought for a brief moment that >perhaps a box saying "all point counts are estimates," or something >might be available, but I suspect everyone would check it whether it >applied or not. > >Ideas? One possibility is for exact pointcounters to write 15-17 whereas approximate poincounters write on the CC "15-17" or "15" - "17" Peter Gill Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 19:07:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA22320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 19:07:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA22315 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 19:07:36 +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 135PQm-000HvF-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:07:21 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 02:22:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Placing led suit to the left References: <3f.67dec8c.2683cb99@aol.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Wright wrote: >I have also learnt the hard way never to put a suit bid by partner on >the right (where trumps normally go) when playing in a no-trump >contract. :-( I have been doing this for many years, and you are the first other person I have heard of who does this. -- David Stevenson A learned bridge player called Burn Liverpool, England, UK Tried to lead when it wasn't his turn David Stevenson said Ian Payn wrote: "Have him shot through the head, That's the only way he'll ever learn." From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 20:49:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA22531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 20:49:30 +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 UAA22526 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 20:49:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.6.68.252] (helo=[62.6.68.252]) by neodymium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #16) id 135R1J-0004Xm-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:49:12 +0100 From: David Burn To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "...the most favourable result that was likely..." L12C2 Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:49:37 +0000 X-Mailer: EPOC32 Email Version 1.50 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id UAA22527 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: I understood what you'd said, but I'm with DWS here, I don't think a TD should *ever*, and an AC almost *never* adjust because of the scoresheet. The objective assessment of the hand in isolation is IMO the only way to award an adjusted score. Don't be silly. Is it more likely that a random pair of whom I know nothing, but who may be considered representative of the field as a whole, will make: (a) as many tricks as the field as a whole have on average made; (b) as many tricks as I, on double-dummy analysis, think they ought to make? David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 21:15:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA22619 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 21:15:57 +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 VAA22613 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 21:15:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.23.88]) by mta02-svc.server.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000623121510.RHVW10065.mta02-svc.server.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:15:10 +0000 Message-ID: <001501bfdd05$44e81a60$5817ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" References: <3f.67dec8c.2683cb99@aol.com> Subject: Re: Placing led suit to the left Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:22:07 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 2:22 AM Subject: Re: Placing led suit to the left > Steve Wright wrote: > > >I have also learnt the hard way never to put a suit bid by partner on > >the right (where trumps normally go) when playing in a no-trump > >contract. :-( > > I have been doing this for many years, and you are the first other > person I have heard of who does this. > Doen't everyone? > Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 21:25:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA22645 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 21:25:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA22640 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 21:25:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.0.ap (guppy)) id NAA18567; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:24:34 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/%I%.1.ap (mach.test)) id NAA10104; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:25:16 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000623133320.00877e30@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:33:20 +0200 To: Ted Ying , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: ACBL policy on the mini-notrump (was WBF position on Psychics) In-Reply-To: <200006221654.MAA02366@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> References: <008a01bfdc00$aa5e9820$792e37d2@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:54 22/06/00 -0400, Ted Ying wrote: > > >Personally, I think it should be a punishable offense to open >NT outside the published range. If you play 14+, then say 14+ >and not 15. If you play 10-12 then play it and adhere to it. >To shade and not tell is unethical. AG : Well, something is rotten from the beginning. The point count says that : QJ KJ10 K432 KJ10 A432 AQJ109 KQ4 xx are hands of the same value; And it is prohibited (that's the rottenness) to state your ranges by other means than thez 4-3-2-1 point count. So, if you disallow somebody to reevaluate or devaluate a hand, you are forcing them to use a mechanism that doesn't work. Wasn't there somebody wo said 'points, schmoints' ? If I decide to open a strong NT on the second hand only, and do it consistently, it would be unethical ? So you write on your convention card : 'any hand may be upgraded or downgraded by 1 pt according to the placement of honors'. But would you be requested to explain : 'We play, 15 to 17, but there are bad 15 counts that we don't open, and the same holds for good 17s, and good 14s that we open 1NT, and bad 18s too, and it might contain a 5-card suit that we don't want to show as a 5-card because it's so weak, and ...' Well, only 7 minutes are available on each deal. And this is only an opening bid, and a common one at that. I feel it more sensible to stete '15-17', because it is the worth I give to the hand. I mean, if I have, A10x Axx K10x Kxx xx Jx AQJxx AQJxx I feel those hands have the same value, and if opponents deduce I *must* have the Diamond Jack in my opening, they're the odd ones out. A. > -Ted Ying. > >> From: "Wayne Burrows" >> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:16:39 +1200 >> >> For the ACBL or anyone else to say that something occuring more than once >> (in and of itself) creates an "implicit agreement" is a distortion of the >> language. In fact it is a "pysch", a "gross misstatement" of the meaning of >> the Language used in the Laws. >> >> An analogy: >> >> If in a relationship one partner cheats on the other ('psyche') or even >> commits some other minor indiscretion then after the indiscretion has >> occurred more than once I don't think that many would say (or consider ) >> they now have an "implicit agreement" to commit further indiscretions. >> >> In fact repeated indiscretions may never create an agreement. >> >> In the same way in my bridge partnerships repeated violations (major or >> minor) of our partnership agreements are more likely to terminate our >> partnership than to create an agreement. >> >> We should let the language mean what it says. >> >> Wayne Burrows >> > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 22:06:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA22755 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 22:06:13 +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 WAA22750 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 22:06:02 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 27231 invoked from network); 23 Jun 2000 12:04:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.2.121) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 23 Jun 2000 12:04:30 -0000 Message-ID: <395353D9.DD82C927@inter.net.il> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:11:05 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "John (MadDog) Probst" CC: Wayne Burrows , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "...the most favourable result that was likely..." L12C2 References: <20000621164340.68872.qmail@hotmail.com> <000a01bfdba9$cc86b740$902d37d2@laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well John.... I don't agree with your statement bellow.. I can tell you about dozens cases when I had to leave the "scoresheet's raw " blank , before decided to assign a score , because had no time to do it during the specific round. And a lot of times I considered the results cumulated on the scoresheet to control my evaluation. I am sure for 101% that there is a significant difference in the play when you see your hand only , without any idea about your partner's cards , and the TD's evaluation of what could happen....... I don't believe that "ever" decide for the cumulated results or "never" consider them should be a good advice. Cheers Dany "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > In message <000a01bfdba9$cc86b740$902d37d2@laptop>, Wayne Burrows > writes > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Todd Zimnoch" > >> > >> The problem abstracted: the original ruling didn't think that 9 > >tricks > >> was likely because defense needed to make a series of gaffs to allow it, > >so > >> 8 was awarded. Afterwards, it was found that those gaffs were commonly > >made > >> at the other tables. Do you use the results from the field to re-evaluate > >> the meaning of "the most favorable result that was likely?" > >> > >> -Todd > > > >Thanks Todd this is exactly what I meant and thought that I said. > > > >Wayne Burrows > > > > > I understood what you'd said, but I'm with DWS here, I don't think a TD > should *ever*, and an AC almost *never* adjust because of the > scoresheet. The objective assessment of the hand in isolation is IMO > the only way to award an adjusted score. cheers john > -- > John (MadDog) Probst From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 23 22:51:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA22892 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 22:51:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy-5.cais.net (stmpy-5.cais.net [205.252.14.75]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA22887 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 22:51:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from 62wim.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-5.cais.net (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e5NCpGL26743 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:51:21 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000623084458.00a8aa20@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:52:30 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: ACBL policy on the mini-notrump (was WBF position on Psychics) In-Reply-To: References: <200006221654.MAA02366@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <200006221654.MAA02366@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:10 PM 6/22/00, Ed wrote: >Ted Ying writes: > > >I've seen many folks open "good 14" counts with 1NT when they > >have the explicit agreement that it is 15-17. When they do and > >the opponents are trying to count out the hand and they place > >cards in certain places on the advertised range, what can they > >do? > >They can keep in mind that the point count is not perfect. > > >Personally, I think it should be a punishable offense to open > >NT outside the published range. If you play 14+, then say 14+ > >and not 15. If you play 10-12 then play it and adhere to it. > >To shade and not tell is unethical. > >Perhaps what is needed is a caveat on the CC: "We use the Work Point >Count for initial evaluation of hands, but we may adjust our raw >point count evaluation up or down based on addition good or bad >factors in the hand." Hm. Can we make that fit somewhere? Or should >we ask the ACBL to pre print it? > >I said in another post that 99% of bridge players know the point >count isn't perfect, and they in fact adjust their own hand >evaluations accordingly. Perhaps I'm wrong. I would like to think >not, but... I know several players who are strict point-counters, who would tell you that they never deviate from their announced point-count ranges. But even they do not use the strict 4-3-2-1 Work point count. They probably never even heard of Milton Work. They use the Goren point count, which contains some "built-in" adjustments (add a point for holding all four aces; subtract a point for 4-3-3-3 shape if bidding to a suit contract, etc.). How do we, or do we at all, distinguish these folks from those who are simply using their judgment to make their own "adjustments" to the Work count? Do we expect them to state their 2NT opening range as 20-22 rather than 21-22 because they count Axx/AKxx/Ax/AJxx as 21? 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 Jun 24 00:10:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA23133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 00:10:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA23128 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 00:10:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.0.ap (resu)) id QAA24145; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:10:51 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/%I%.1.ap (mach.test)) id QAA17111; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:10:23 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000623161825.00880100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:18:25 +0200 To: Steve Wright , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: Placing led suit to the left In-Reply-To: References: <3f.67dec8c.2683cb99@aol.com> <3f.67dec8c.2683cb99@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 23:59 22/06/00 +0100, Steve Wright wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >In article <3f.67dec8c.2683cb99@aol.com>, DANDEE4727@aol.com writes >>I first read in about 1932 that dummy should always place the led suit last >>(and slowly) to at least force declarer to think that long. >>(Wish I could remember important things that well) > >I was always taught that it was good practice to put the suits red black >red black in a suit contract and black red red black etc in a no-trump >contract. #AG : wouldn't work in Belgium : you are requested to put suits in alternate order if opponents request so (and I do). >I have also learnt the hard way never to put a suit bid by partner on >the right (where trumps normally go) when playing in a no-trump >contract. :-( #AG : and it indeed serves as a reminder. So memory joggers ain't quite disallowed. Also, I use to play the King when playing to dummy's AK, so that I later remember I still have a trick in the suit. And of course, there is also the marking of tricks won by both sides, and the fact that dummy may do this if declarer doesn't, so dummy may indeed help partner. A. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 24 00:24:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA23068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 23:57:33 +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 XAA23058 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 23:57:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-167.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.167]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA25575; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:57:10 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39534811.AD143D6B@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:20:49 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws , Su Burn Subject: Re: Tuesday night References: <42DKTvAwxqU5Ew4H@probst.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Su, Phil, "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > Surprised you'll be at the YC on Tuesday, it's simple systems night. > Anyway DWS *will* be in London on Tuesday night > > YC Monday, Wednesday, Friday > Acol Tuesday Thursday > > are the reasonable games > Should we make it some other night ? > cheers john > -- > John (MadDog) Probst -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 24 00:27:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA23184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 00:27:02 +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 AAA23179 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 00:26:55 +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 KAA10279 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:27:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006231427.KAA10279@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Placing led suit to the left Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: <3f.67dec8c.2683cb99@aol.com> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:27:22 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 23 June 2000 at 2:22, David Stevenson wrote: >Steve Wright wrote: > >>I have also learnt the hard way never to put a suit bid by partner on >>the right (where trumps normally go) when playing in a no-trump >>contract. :-( > > I have been doing this for many years, and you are the first other >person I have heard of who does this. > Ok, just so you don't feel too lonely. I go a bit farther - I never put a suit bid by me, or partner, on my right in a NT contract. In fact, I try to avoid putting a long suit at all on my right. And I do like the idea (first shown to me in a book by Helen Sobol) of putting led suit down last. Fortunately, my regular partners are not of the Mr. Smug school, so I don't have to worry about it. But when my job as TD forces me to play spare, I seem to go into that mode, for reasons that escape me at the moment. ObBLML: Hmm. I wonder if it is "an aid to memory" if I as declarer, request a reordering of dummy (except to put trumps on dummy's right, of course). And I enjoyed the story of the "Cooper Echo" - partner and I (independently of agreement) both play "Beer echoes" - if I go out of my way to play the D7 from dummy at my first opportunity to do so, I don't expect to make the contract. If I don't play the D7 when it would be safe to do so, even if scoring the beer is a 0% probability, the contract is safe. And yeah, I've psyched this play on occasion too... Reminds me of the "Grazie? What do you mean, Grazie?" story I heard about (IIRC) Belladonna in the heyday of the Italian domination. Michael. (ztill blml-zigless). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 24 01:19:31 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA23087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 23:57:53 +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 XAA23077 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 23:57:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-167.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.167]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA25716 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:57:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <395369FC.7447D22A@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:45:32 +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: ACBL policy on the mini-notrump (was WBF position on Psychics) References: <395207AF.A074BF66@village.uunet.be> <200006221908.PAA21972@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: > > > > I wonder what Herman would have done with the situation I put myself > in last night. The agreement is to open pretty much any 9-count with a > decent 5cM 1M in third seat (especially at favourable). I did precisely > this, except for the fact that my 9-count was QJ98x Kx JTxx xx (I plead > lack of sleep. It was a 9-count when I bid, occifer!) Now, the ruling > against this in the ACBL would be much harsher than just "you are > playing 9-12 1NTs. You may not play conventions over this, or you must > immediately change your NT range, and never open a 9-count again"; > players are not allowed to have an agreement to open 7HCP hands at the > one level, in any ACBL-sanctioned game (including the ITT trials; which > blows my mind, but the reason for that is too offtopic for BLML even for > me). Do you choose to believe me? If not, I guess it would have been > C&E time for me. And maybe that's right. > Michael, from the tone you write this in, you would have no problem in convincing every one at the table (TD, partner, and opponents) that you did in fact miscount. Thus, I would not consider this opening as evidence for any illegal system. But of course, don't do it twice. And maybe if you're Omar Sharif, I would not allow it either. Too good an actor. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 24 01:27:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA23086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 23:57:53 +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 XAA23076 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 23:57:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-167.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.167]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA25697 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:57:30 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <395366A3.77329DEB@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:31:15 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific><001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific> <000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona> <39461668.D81C58EA@village.uunet.be> <00c901bfdb07$92b431c0$bd5908c3@dodona> <3950A1D6.BA78E68D@village.uunet.be> <001701bfdc93$6d8996a0$075608c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > +=+ An alert has nothing to do with PRIOR announcement. > The alert follows and does not precede the occurrence. A > prior announcement is either on the CC or in information > given verbally to opponents before the call in question > occurs. In my example, no such prior announcement has been given. > Your example involves a player bidding on the basis, > as he understands, of a disclosed partnership agreement. Of which he was mistaken. So there was NO prior announcement. Why not apply L40A to this case then ? Mind you, I am not saying that we should rule this way, only that ruling this way in the case of a psyche is equally wrong, IMHO. > The territory is Law 75 footnote territory - it fits either > example 1 or example 2. An alert is information not > disclosure; it draws attention to meanings already > disclosed. The foundation of the law on disclosure > is that what is not a call opponents may reasonably be > expected to understand must be announced beforehand > (thus allowing opponents to consider their counteraction). > In ruling the action systemic you establish the requirement > for it to be announced on the CC, something that the > Director will look to see, or otherwise told to opponents > beforehand. The regulations will specify what means are > available to announce methods beforehand. +=+ OK, in ruling the bidding systemic, I tell them that there should have been prior announcement, and this is absent. Should I now not use L40A? > > > > My point is that I don't see the difference between the two > > cases. > > > +=+ If there is an agreement and it should be, but is > not, on the CC etc. then there is a violation of Law 40. > Law 40C applies together with any Regulations that > address the subject. [A psychic based on a PU is > only a special case of the application of this law, but > it is one that usually attracts specific regulation.] > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Grattan, the CoP, which I believe to be a very good document, tells us that we should look a bit further to discover whether or not some aspect of a psyche should have been disclosed. I fully agree with that fact. What I do not agree upon, is the ruling that is needed when the disclosure has not been complete. As long as we keep the ruling based on the missing disclosure, I am fully agreed. But when you call a psyche illegal because of lack of disclosure, I am not. That is banning psyches. Don't tell me it isn't. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 24 02:01:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA23639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 02:01:10 +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 CAA23633 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 02:01:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:00:33 +0200 Received: from xion.spase.nl (xion.spase.nl [192.168.200.7]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with ESMTP id RAA24591 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:51:26 +0200 Received: by xion.spase.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:50:25 +0200 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Placing led suit to the left Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:50:23 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Michael Farebrother wrote: >Reminds me of the "Grazie? What do you mean, Grazie?" story I heard >about (IIRC) Belladonna in the heyday of the Italian domination. > >Michael. (ztill blml-zigless). If I recall correctly, this was a tournament where Belladonna on occasion was playing with Omar Sharif. During the tournament, one could see Sharif put his hand down as dummy. Belladonna responded absently "Grazie". Upon which Sharif jumped off his chair, saying: "Grazie? What do you mean, Grazie?" Afterward, it turned out that Sharif had told Belladonna that he was very nervous when he was dummy, because he didn't know what the chances were in the contract. Which was bad for his heart. So they agreed upon the following, to ease the pressure for Sharif: Whenever Sharif put down the dummy, Belladonna would respond with "Thank you" if the contract was a near certainty; if work had to be done, then Belladonna would respond "Grazias", and finally if the contract was without chance, he would respond even shorter "Grazie". In this particular deal, Sharif thought that he had bid rather well, and was very annoyed when Belladonna thanked him with "Grazie"... - -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 Int. for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOVN4Ka7vPO+sRa1dEQLDGACfQPWKRrSrqiC/I6WnB630WyX4wUQAoPsc QimUlvYV9wK4qxuhZVhvUtEl =CUeM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 24 02:19:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA23361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 01:32:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA23356 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 01:32:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA25521; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:28:31 -0700 Message-Id: <200006231528.IAA25521@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Placing led suit to the left In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 23 Jun 2000 02:22:18 PDT." Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:28:30 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Steve Wright wrote: > > >I have also learnt the hard way never to put a suit bid by partner on > >the right (where trumps normally go) when playing in a no-trump > >contract. :-( > > I have been doing this for many years, and you are the first other > person I have heard of who does this. OK, I'll chime in and say that I do something like this too. I don't know if I really have a well-defined rule like Steve does; I just try not to put any suit in the "trump" position that might confuse partner into thinking we're playing with that suit as trumps. I think I got the idea from a newspaper column many years ago. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 24 02:27:14 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA23075 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 23:57:39 +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 XAA23067 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 23:57:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-167.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.167]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA25616 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:57:15 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39535E69.8515C27@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:56:09 +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: WBF position on Psychics. References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific><001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific> <000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona> <39461668.D81C58EA@village.uunet.be> <001701bfd5fb$6c96e840$532f37d2@laptop> <3948ADD5.E4278736@village.uunet.be> <200006181712.NAA10822@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <394DF553.9F9A9257@village.uunet.be> <200006222148.RAA26076@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: > > On 19 June 2000 at 12:26, Herman De Wael wrote: > >Michael Farebrother wrote: > Sorry to take so long to get back to this. Not at all, it gives us time to clearly formulate our views. Something we should try to do more often, on blml. I am certainly also guilty of to hasty reply-posting. > > > >I believe we are on the same track. > > > I do too, except for the one point of disagreement. I have a feeling > that that disagreement we'll keep to the grave (or the next rewriting of > the FLB, whichever comes first)...but I'll try once more. > I don't believe it is a point of disagreement. I doubt if everyone has fully comprehended my stance on this subject. I shall try once more as well. > >I would expect my partner to play me for long diamonds. I > >would not call that an CPU, since IMO this should also be > >told to opponents. > > > I strongly agree with you on the disclosure issue. But both of our > SOs disagree with us, and we have to follow the Laws with such > regulations on psyches and disclosure as we are given. > Indeed we must. But it is my impression that some of the regulations are contrary to the Laws. We should, each in our own corner, continue to fight the wording and interpretations of regulation that are contrary to the Laws. > >I think it should be disclosed. I do not deduce from that > >that this is regulable. > > I also do not deduce from the requirement for disclosure that it is > regulable. I argue that the fact that, given only that partner knows > you've psyched, he has a perfectly accurate description of your hand, > moves it out of the "gross misstatement" category. > Well I don't believe this. If a bid promises 13 HCP, and you do it with 3, that is a gross misstatement. If later on it transpires that you have fewer than 9, it is possible that partner is allowed to know you have 0-3 and not 0-5, for example. But perhaps this is because I stress too much the particular psyche I like. There is even with mine no perfectly accurate description ! > The relative frequencies are irrelevant, in my opinion. Nor, really, > is the fact that partner would never play you for it - if for no other > reason than you have just told me that you would expect partner *would* > play you for it. > After a lot of other facts have come to light - to him and to opponents. Something that happens once every three months is unexpected without additional information. > >If it is, it simply bans psyching. > > No. > > >Why ? > > > >Because I would be unable to psyche in this manner, no > >matter who my partner was. > > Exactly. But you can't generalize here. You will be unable to psyche > in this manner, no matter who your partner was. You would, however, be > able to psych 1H with 875 -- AKQJT742 432, or with xx xxxxxx xxx xx, or > with xxxx x xxxx xxxx or in any of the many other ways it is possible to > grossly misdescribe your hand with a 1H call. Also, you would be able to > psych 1S third in hand with 0-3, or 1NT, even, were that your wont. > I see what you are driving at. Yet, the CoP goes a lot further than that. The very knowledge that partner is apt to psych consitutes some form of partnership understanding. The CoP tries to establish guidelines when psyches become "disclosable" and they go a lot further than what we are now used to. I agree with that but I am afraid of the lethal combination. The lethal combination is that others (not the Lausanne group) will use the CoP, equate disclosable with regulable, and banish all psyches that fall within the scope of the CoP. > And after a couple of years of this, when it gets to the point where > partner can no longer map your hand based solely on the twin information > that you have bid 1H and that you have psyched, you'll be able to do it > again - provided you continue to "mix it up". > I see. I am not allowed to psyche only once. I must do it more often. Strange kind of interpretation ! > >I have done this too often, and > >have told too many people (as I believe I should, or it IS a > >CPU), that the TD should be able to call it PU, and thus > >disclosable, no matter who I happen to play with. > >I want to call it PU ! I want to tell my opponents in as > >many ways as I can without telling partner too much, and I > >want to be ruled against if I fail in my attempt. > > > No problem here, and I agree with all of this. None of it, however > allows "I can't psych in this situation because it would > be illegal" to imply "I can't psych because it would be illegal." > But this is the only psyche that I want to do. Or not. Doesn't matter. I am in a situation. I want to psyche. It is illegal. That is tantamount to banishing psyching. The fact that I am still allowed to psyche in some other situation does not alter the fact that I am not allowed to do something which according to L40A is perfectly legal. If I hold xxx xx xxxxx Kxx, you tell me I am not allowed to open 1He, simply because I have done this once before ? That is a one-psyche-per-lifetime-rule of the exact nature that the ACBL says does not exist. > >But since everyone (including you Michael) continues to > >equate Partnership understanding with Partnership agreement, > > I don't want to. But the CoP, ACBL regulations, interpretations, etc. > imply I must. The CoP does not say this. I hope not. ACBL regulations don't say it. I think not. ACBL regulations interpretations do say this. I say that those interpretations are wrong, because they are in conflict with L40A. I am not obliged to follow interpretations which I believe are in conflict with the Law. Or if I am obliged to, then please allow me this forum to say that the interpretations are wrong. Besides, who makes these interpretations ? WE do ! WE are the forum that makes the interpretations. Not the ACBL ! The Directors, all together. And WE should be saying that these interpretations are wrong. And you should not blindly follow interpretations. > My ruling that it is a two-way systemic bid does, yes, > equate the two, and you're making me rethink that. > I believe that is a small victory. > However, L40A states [you may do anything, including psych] "without prior > announcement, provided that such call...is not based on a partnership > understanding". Because your habit of psyching 1H with a specific hand > - only - has become a PU, you may not make it without "prior > announcement", and your SO's regs ban prior announcement of psychic > tendencies. So you're locked on the horns, even if we don't equate the > two. > We don't equate them, THEY do. And they are wrong in doing so. That is what I am trying to change. If I have found one person who will no longer equate the two, then I have doubled my following. Now I'd like to go for an additional 50% gain. > >Yes it would, because the definition is flawed. > >I believe that all regulations should be void on psyches. > >I believe that this necessitates a few additions on the > >definition of psyche : frequency and absence of systemic > >ways of discovery should be among those. > > > And I believe that another addition to the definition of a psychic bid > must be the inherent randomness of it - I would be taking the same > position if you always psyched by bidding the shorter major, or by > bidding the suit under the one you actually have. > Perhaps you are right on this matter. But I think it would be hard to regulate this. I don't psyche on a 4-point count (I twice did so, and it turned out wrong). Are you saying that my 0-3 range is illegal because I never do it on 4-6 ? You see that this is unreasonable. Also I won't psyche a 0-3 hand in the five card suit. That gets too close to not being a "gross misstatement", and I do believe that this can be regulated against. Also it does not seem to me to be very effective, since you are not taking away a suit that opponents have. Again I have limited my psyche to some subset. Further more, I will do it more likely with short hearts than with short spades. Again I have merely limited the hands that I do psyche on. I feel that all these tendencies should be disclosed. The fact that they lead to a "1He in 3rd hand = possible psyche on 0-3 with short hearts" (system - for lack of better word) should not mean that it is now more systemic than if I also did it on 4HCP, or in spades, or whatever. > I actually don't believe that systemic ways of discovery inherently remove > a call from the realm of psychic - I would be perfectly happy with a > system that stated "a jump shift to 3C (or 3D over a club opener) is a > conventional 'did you psych' inquiry" (of course, I'll never get an SO > to agree with me). I do believe that such a system should be regulatable. If I play that under no circumstances my partner is to raise my 1He 3rd hand opening, if doubled, to 4He, but that he should always pass by a redouble or a 2Club bid, then I believe I have introduced the 0-3 meaning into my system. I have a very good example of this. Did I already tell you of the possibility of a weak 2 in diamonds within my 2Club opening ? I did not play that addition with one partner. Even so, we had agreed that he whould always answer 2Di to my 2Cl (always strong), unless very weak himself. If under that system, I would "psyche" a weak two in diamonds with a 2Club opening, I would not call that a psyche, since there is a systemic manner of dealing with it - whether or not partner actually realised this. > The thing that bothers me about, say, the K-S > "systemic psyches", is that, once they are found out to be psychic, > the hand is as well, or better, described as it would have been had it > not been psychic (in their case, 5+suit to 2/top 4 and no other > honours). Same problem I have with your 1H bid. > There is a huge difference : in K-S, the "finding out" is by systemic means. In my 1He opening, the finding out is simply when there have turned up 43 points in the book. > >> Under the GCC here, a 1H opening which is either a normal 1H opening or > >> 11-14 any in third seat is regulable and regulated against; what is the > >> difference between that and 0-3? > >> > >Frequency. The hand comes up about once every three months, > >as opposed to a normal 1He opening once every tournament. > > > I really don't see how this comes into it. I also can't reason out why > I think this. Sorry. > Please tell me what you can't reason out. The fact that a 0-3 hand in third position comes up very infrequently? > >> If it weren't so specific, or if the suit in which you psyched were not > >> always 1He, I'd be happy with it (though if you switched it to "shorter > >> major", I don't think that's variable enough). It still must be a > >> "gross misdiscription" of your hand, even after the psych is exposed. > > > [thanks for the correction] > > >Well, it is. > > > >It cannot be after the psyche is exposed. > > > Why not? Example comment from my partner: "I knew you'd psyched [1S], but I > couldn't tell whether you had spades or not." > > >[snip] > > > >> I agree with most of this - except that many people will not grant you > >> the difference between "agreements", "experience", and "understandings"; > >> even I am not sure they are separate enough for such a denotative > >> reading of the Laws. > >> > >Why did they give them three different words then ? > > > Well, the answer I was given just last week when I asked a "why did the > Lawmakers do X" question is that it isn't a monolithic work, nor written > by lawyers, and it just slipped through. > Indeed, an answer I have quite often given myself. But the fact remains that there are a few different words. Saying that they are all equal because the Laws are badly written is too easy an argument. > After all, it was only in 1975 that the use of the words "must", "may", > "shall", and "should" were codified (and well done, too. More of this, > please, in future rewritings!) > > >> However, the CoP have given guidelines to determine when habitual > >> violations create an implicit agreement. See rant above :-). > >> > >I agree with the definitions in the CoP. > >As long as they are used to rule against psyches as UPU, not > >as IPA ! > > > Well, you're nailed by L40A either way. Note that I believe that an > agreement means that both partners will do the same thing in the same > situation, whereas an understanding may only be one-way (I psyche, my > partner doesn't, for instance). > Well, I don't believe this. That's another discussion really. > Michael. Anyway, with arguments like this, we are not going to get there. The CoP places a higher hurdle around psyches. "hightened awareness" is enough. Psyches must be better disclosed. When you are calling my 1He "systemic" because of this better disclosure, you are falling into the very same trap yet again. It cannot be the good description that makes the difference between a psyche (merely disclosable) and a system (also regulable). There must be other differences as well, or you are banning the psyche. I am not saying (here and now) what those other differences may well be, but it cannot be the fact that there is an upper limit to the psychable hands for a particular psycher. That is the "lethal combination" all over again. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 24 04:22:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 04:22:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f5.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA24015 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 04:22:41 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 69472 invoked by uid 0); 23 Jun 2000 18:22:03 -0000 Message-ID: <20000623182203.69471.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.22 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:22:03 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.22] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Placing led suit to the left Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:22:03 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Michael Farebrother >And I enjoyed the story of the "Cooper Echo" - partner and I >(independently of agreement) both play "Beer echoes" - if I go out of my >way to play the D7 from dummy at my first opportunity to do so, I don't >expect to make the contract. If I don't play the D7 when it would be >safe to do so, even if scoring the beer is a 0% probability, the >contract is safe. And yeah, I've psyched this play on occasion too... But do you really have to disclose such things to the opponents? I always thought that the carding agreements applied to defense only. And even if you are required, wouldn't it be false carding? -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 24 04:29:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 04:29:06 +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 EAA24033 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 04:28:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4cm.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.17.150]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA23049; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:28:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002401bfdd41$7437f420$9611f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Burn" , Subject: Re: "...the most favourable result that was likely..." L12C2 Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:32:55 -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 Welcome back David...it will now get livelier here I suspect. :-)) I don't want to be silly...but if you are going to allow resulting in the determination, isn't it then an imperative to determine if the results represent players of comparable skill to those at the table in question skill in both directions? Here in the U.S. where it is getting hard to find an unstratified game, is it fair to judge to result of an A pair defending against a C pair as in any way equivalent to a C pair defending against an A pair? I think resulting opens a nasty can of worms. Craig -----Original Message----- From: David Burn To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, June 23, 2000 6:57 AM Subject: Re: "...the most favourable result that was likely..." L12C2 >John Probst wrote: > >I understood what you'd said, but I'm with DWS here, I don't think a TD should *ever*, and an AC almost *never* adjust because of the >scoresheet. The objective assessment of the hand in isolation is IMO >the only way to award an adjusted score. > >Don't be silly. Is it more likely that a random pair of whom I know nothing, but who may be considered representative of the field as a whole, will make: (a) as many tricks as the field as a whole have on average made; (b) as many tricks as I, on double-dummy analysis, think they ought to make? > >David Burn >London, England > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 24 05:25:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 04:51:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA24088 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 04:50:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-001kslawrP305.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.43]) by harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3-EL_1_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA19627 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:50:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <200006231349070660.00E79AB4@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <200006231528.IAA25521@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200006231528.IAA25521@mailhub.irvine.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.10.03.02 (3) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:49:07 -0500 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Placing led suit to the left Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> I have been doing this for many years, and you are the first other >> person I have heard of who does this. > >OK, I'll chime in and say that I do something like this too. I don't >know if I really have a well-defined rule like Steve does; I just try >not to put any suit in the "trump" position that might confuse partner >into thinking we're playing with that suit as trumps. I think I got >the idea from a newspaper column many years ago. I've been doing the same thing for a few years now. I got the idea from a David Burn article on David Stevenson's bridgepage. Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 24 05:57:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA24235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 05:57:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com [139.134.5.236]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA24230 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 05:57:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id fa623147 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 05:55:45 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-010-p-224-160.tmns.net.au ([203.54.224.160]) by mail7.bigpond.com (Claudes-Courteous-MailRouter V2.8a 15/1539621); 24 Jun 2000 05:55:43 Message-ID: <013201bfdce8$2d0b4560$a0e036cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: ACBL policy on the mini-notrump (was WBF position on Psychics) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:53:52 +1000 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 Herman de Wael wrote: >But of course, don't do it twice. Down here in Australia, we play a game called bridge. I am going to summarise my interpretation of how the same game seems to work in the ACBL. Would someone correct the mistakes in my interpretation below? - Zia opens 1NT (12-14HCP) on 9HCP twice. - On the second occasion, his partner raises to 3NT on 14HCP, indicating that the psyche was not fielded. - Zia's opponents did not call the TD, so he's off the hook (just as revokes can go unpunished if the TD is not called). - But had Zia's opponents called the TD or reported Zia's second psyche to the "Recorder in the District" (see below), and if the TD or Recorder had have remembered Zia's previous 9HCP psyche then: - the Zia and Rosenberg partnership in ACBL events would not be allowed to play conventions opposite their 1NT opening for (is it?) ?the rest of their lives? or ??the rest of the tournament?? or ? - this restriction would not apply to them in WBF events. - "conventions" means Stayman, Blackwood, Transfers etc, which raises an interesting point. Denied such conventions, would they have to alert their 3NT response to 1NT and, if asked, say something like "we bid 3NT on almost all game-going hands, with four card majors and the like, because the ACBL doesn't allow us to bid normally". Richard Willey originally posted: >>The ACBL is selective in its enforcement of the Laws of Bridge. >>Existing legitimate regulations are not enforced against >>well known players. as being one of two possible explanations of the ACBL's failure to take action against Zia. Being from faraway, I wonder: - are there inexperienced pairs all over USA who nowadays are denied the right to use conventions in response to 1NT? Or is there any such pair? Or was Richard kidding with the above explanation? I personally think that Richard omitted a third possible explanation: no action was taken because the TD/Recorder was not called. Peter Gill Australia. Hirsch Davis had earlier quoted Meckstroth (Aug 95): "...A 1NT opening of fewer than 10 points is deemed to be destructive...So is it OK to open a great 9-point hand that is worth 10? No. It's certainly OK to open a 15-17 point NT with 14, why not here? 'Borrowing' a point to open a strong notrump is not destructive in any way, but the mini notrump is a destructive device...A pair who opens 1NT on a 9-point hand is considered to have an agreement. A second occurrence will result in that pair's not being allowed to play any conventions over their mini notrump. So what should you do if someone opens a 9-point notrump? Two things: (1) call the director to report it and (2) fill out a player memo for the recorder in your district. Destructive methods such as these deserve attention." From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 24 06:21:44 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA24306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 06:21:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout.isi.com (karma.isi.com [192.73.222.42] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA24301 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 06:21:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc (nash-dhcp-7 [128.224.193.36]) by mailout.isi.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3/Mailout 991117 TroyC) with SMTP id NAA03201 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:13:08 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: RE: ACBL policy on the mini-notrump (was WBF position on Psychics) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:20:58 -0700 Message-ID: <001501bfdd69$afdd8c60$24c1e080@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <013201bfdce8$2d0b4560$a0e036cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Richard is attempting to play a game called "reductio ad absurdum". The ACBL has established a set of regulations governing the way tournament bridge is played here in the United States. Some of the ACBL's regulations seem somewhat counter intuitive. One of the most controversial is the ACBL contention that a given partnership can not make the same pysche more that once. The ACBL claims that the first instance of a the pysche establishes a concealed partnership understanding. The existence of the concealed partnership understanding is then used to ban making a similar pysche at any future point in time. I am merely trying to demonstrate that these regulations are going to lead to an unenforcable mess. Please, note. I think that a number of posters are confusing two issues. The ACBL has one regulation that forbids the use of conventions following a NT opening of 9 HCP or less. The ACBL has another regulation that regarding concealed partnership understandings. At this point in time, I am only concentrating on the second point. Richard > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Peter > Gill Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 12:54 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: ACBL policy on the mini-notrump (was WBF position on > Psychics) > > > Herman de Wael wrote: > >But of course, don't do it twice. > > > Down here in Australia, we play a game called bridge. I am > going to summarise my interpretation of how the same game > seems to work in the ACBL. Would someone correct the > mistakes in my interpretation below? > > - Zia opens 1NT (12-14HCP) on 9HCP twice. > > - On the second occasion, his partner raises to 3NT on > 14HCP, indicating that the psyche was not fielded. > > - Zia's opponents did not call the TD, so he's off the hook > (just as revokes can go unpunished if the TD is not called). > > - But had Zia's opponents called the TD or reported Zia's > second psyche to the "Recorder in the District" (see below), > and if the TD or Recorder had have remembered Zia's > previous 9HCP psyche then: > > - the Zia and Rosenberg partnership in ACBL events would > not be allowed to play conventions opposite their 1NT > opening for (is it?) ?the rest of their lives? or ??the rest > of the tournament?? or ? > > - this restriction would not apply to them in WBF events. > > - "conventions" means Stayman, Blackwood, Transfers etc, > which raises an interesting point. Denied such conventions, > would they have to alert their 3NT response to 1NT and, if > asked, say something like "we bid 3NT on almost all > game-going hands, with four card majors and the like, > because the ACBL doesn't allow us to bid normally". > > Richard Willey originally posted: > >>The ACBL is selective in its enforcement of the Laws of Bridge. > >>Existing legitimate regulations are not enforced against > >>well known players. > > as being one of two possible explanations of the ACBL's failure > to take action against Zia. Being from faraway, I wonder: > - are there inexperienced pairs all over USA who nowadays are > denied the right to use conventions in response to 1NT? Or is there > any such pair? Or was Richard kidding with the above explanation? > > I personally think that Richard omitted a third possible > explanation: no action was taken because the TD/Recorder was not > called. > > Peter Gill > Australia. > Hirsch Davis had earlier quoted Meckstroth (Aug 95): > > "...A 1NT opening of fewer than 10 points is deemed to be > destructive...So is it OK to open a great 9-point hand that is > worth 10? No. It's certainly OK to open a 15-17 point NT with > 14, why not here? 'Borrowing' a point to open a strong notrump > is not destructive in any way, but the mini notrump is a > destructive device...A pair who opens 1NT on a 9-point hand is > considered > to have an agreement. A second occurrence will result in that > pair's not being allowed to play any conventions over their mini > notrump. So what should you do if someone opens a 9-point > notrump? Two things: (1) call the director to report it and > (2) fill out a player memo for the recorder in your district. > Destructive methods such as these deserve attention." > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOVPw2SGkJ7YU62vZEQL3ugCg3sgOsiYstJPWOnFhcMXhCBTGPcAAnjig RE7ttqe6uKTl++tSJqwegc1i =SWen -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 24 07:31:43 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA24500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 07:31:43 +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 HAA24495 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 07:31:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.193.222] (helo=[213.1.193.222]) by neodymium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #16) id 135b2O-0001hH-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 22:30:59 +0100 From: David Burn To: Subject: Re: "...the most favourable result that was likely..." L12C2 Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 22:31:24 +0000 X-Mailer: EPOC32 Email Version 1.50 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id HAA24496 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig wrote: >Welcome back David...it will now get livelier here I suspect. :-)) I don't have a great deal to add to the universal and entirely apposite criticism of the WBF position on psyching, and whereas I do have some comments on the Zia 1NT thread, they are not especially contentious. I have long ago accepted that there is no need for players to slow the game down by actually stating how they are going to play when they make a claim. So, unless people are continuing to maintain that cards exposed on purpose should be treated as having been played by accident, I don't see that my return will have very much effect. If, as DWS has pointed out, the views of the Chairman of the WBF Laws Commission should be ignored by all right-thinking people, what hope is there for my small voice to be heard? >I don't want to be silly...but if you are going to allow resulting in the determination, isn't it then an imperative to determine if the results represent players of comparable skill to those at the table in question skill in both directions? Yes, of course it is. The procedure that one ought in my view to follow, in the example given, is roughly this. (Synopsis of position: the hand was played at the table in 3H by EW, but this contract was reached "using" UI, and the TD has determined that the contract should have been 2S by NS. We therefore want the "most favourable" result for NS, in terms of the number of tricks that might have been taken in spades, provided that this result is "likely" - that is, would occur as often as one time in three or thereabouts). (1) Look at the hand and determine what lines of play and defence might be found at single dummy. Use whatever knowledge you have of the relative skill of the players in determining which of these lines is "likely". (2) If one such line leads to n tricks, and all other such lines lead to n or fewer tricks, make a provisional judgement that n tricks will be awarded to NS. (3) Go and find the traveller, because it is possible that your judgement is at fault. If there are a significant number of NS pairs in 2S, and more than, say, 80% of those pairs have made a different number of tricks from n, try to work out why this has happened. It may well be that a line of play or defence - whether brilliant or awful - that you have dismissed as "unlikely" will in fact be frequently found at single dummy by players of all abilities. It may also be that you have overlooked a line of play that is not only "likely" but completely obvious. All Vugraph commentators will tell you that it is very difficult indeed, when you can see all four hands, to put yourself in the position of a player who cannot. TDs and ACs are not immune from this difficulty, and it is the height of arrogance to assume that you or anyone is capable of carrying out the kind of "objective assessment" to which John Probst refers. (4) Now that you can see why not-n tricks appears a more likely outcome than n tricks on the basis of the results, consider whether the line or lines you have overlooked or dismissed would in fact have been found with >33% probability at your table (given the class of players involved). If so, repeat step (2) having included these new lines for consideration, and make your final judgement. Now, I cannot imagine that any conscientious tournament director or appeals committee could act in a way other than that which I have described. Yet an alternative course of action appears not only to have been advocated, but to have received serious consideration. Any comment that I might make would, however, doubtless be classed as "lively". >Here in the U.S. where it is getting hard to find an unstratified game, is it fair to judge to result of an A pair defending against a C pair as in any way equivalent to a C pair defending against an A pair? Yes. Most of the time, the lines you will be considering are not going to be especially complex - even flight A defenders make the wrong opening lead with >30% probability; even flight C players can draw trumps and take a two-way finesse correctly. But this is really beside the point - I have already said that it is appropriate to bring to bear your knowledge of the players's skill in making your assessment. The question is whether you should use the field's results to assist you in arriving at your final decision, as well as (not instead of) using your own analysis of the hand and your own view of the players. As I have tried to show above, it is inconceivable to me that you should not do this. > I think resulting opens a nasty can of worms. "I am adjusting the score to NS plus 110." "Thank you, Director. Er... that still seems to be a bottom for us, since everyone else is plus 140." "I can't help that. It is obvious to me that there are no more than eight tricks available on a defensive smother play, which can only be broken up by the absurdly implausible line of drawing trumps. Since you are an idiot and your opponents a pair of geniuses, there is no chance at all that you would have scored any match points on this board or, as far as I can see, any other. You now have ninety seconds in which to play the next board." A can of what, Craig? David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 24 10:55:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA24930 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 10:55:29 +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 KAA24920 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 10:55:21 +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 135eE1-000HFu-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 00:55:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 01:53:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: "...the most favourable result that was likely..." L12C2 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 S Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Burn writes >John Probst wrote: > >I understood what you'd said, but I'm with DWS here, I don't think a TD should >*ever*, and an AC almost *never* adjust because of the >scoresheet. The objective assessment of the hand in isolation is IMO >the only way to award an adjusted score. > >Don't be silly. Is it more likely that a random pair of whom I know nothing, >but >who may be considered representative of the field as a whole, will make: (a) as >many tricks as the field as a whole have on average made; (b) as many tricks as >I, on double-dummy analysis, think they ought to make? > Don't be silly. Is it more likely that Mrs Guggenheim will achieve the most favourable likely result, or that by thinking the hand through, I as TD, will find that result? John Probst London, England >David Burn >London, England From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 24 10:55:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA24931 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 10:55:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA24921 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 10:55:20 +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 135eE1-000HFt-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 00:55:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 01:52:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: Placing led suit to the left References: <3f.67dec8c.2683cb99@aol.com> <3f.67dec8c.2683cb99@aol.com> <3.0.6.32.20000623161825.00880100@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000623161825.00880100@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 S Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.6.32.20000623161825.00880100@pop.ulb.ac.be>, alain gottcheiner writes >At 23:59 22/06/00 +0100, Steve Wright wrote: >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>Hash: SHA1 >> >>In article <3f.67dec8c.2683cb99@aol.com>, DANDEE4727@aol.com writes >>>I first read in about 1932 that dummy should always place the led suit last >>>(and slowly) to at least force declarer to think that long. >>>(Wish I could remember important things that well) >> >>I was always taught that it was good practice to put the suits red black >>red black in a suit contract and black red red black etc in a no-trump >>contract. > >#AG : wouldn't work in Belgium : you are requested to put suits in >alternate order if opponents request so (and I do). There is No law that requires this. "... trumps if any on his right..." is the only law about suit order. This is not something that we can regulate either. I refuse to do this. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 24 14:27:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA25260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 14:27:23 +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 OAA25255 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 14:27:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-33qsqfu.dsl.mindspring.com [199.174.105.254]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA14185 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 00:27:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <018401bfdd94$74a60980$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <200006221654.MAA02366@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov><200006221654.MAA02366@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <4.3.2.7.1.20000623084458.00a8aa20@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: ACBL policy on the mini-notrump (was WBF position on Psychics) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 00:27:04 -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: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 8:52 AM Subject: Re: ACBL policy on the mini-notrump (was WBF position on Psychics) > > I know several players who are strict point-counters, who would tell you > that they never deviate from their announced point-count ranges. But even > they do not use the strict 4-3-2-1 Work point count. Strict Work point count? Let's see what a noted author had to say about the Work Point Count: "..Reckon an Ace as 4, a King as 3, a Queen as 2, and a Jack as 1; which makes a total of 10 for an average hand. An additional Queen would bring this total up to 12; therefore an original No Trump at Contract, in addition to having the three suits stopped, should count 12.*... *Although Tens are not reckoned in this count, they may be of material value; two Tens might justify an able player in bidding with a count of 11." The citation and its footnote are from Work, Milton C., Contract Bridge, p.28, 1927. So, we can't blame the Work point count for the ACBL's unfortunate use of HCP only in hand evaluation. Work himself allowed some flexibility for intermediates in hand evaluation (at least in the hands of an "able player"). There was never any such thing as a "strict" Work point count, except in the minds of some ACBL regulators. Playing 10-12 NT, any evaluation scheme that lets me open 1 NT with QJ32 Q32 QJ2 Q32, but not with T98 KT9 AT987 QT9 is flawed beyond repair, as is the regulation that mandates its use. >They probably never > even heard of Milton Work. >They use the Goren point count, which contains > some "built-in" adjustments (add a point for holding all four aces; > subtract a point for 4-3-3-3 shape if bidding to a suit contract, > etc.). How do we, or do we at all, distinguish these folks from those who > are simply using their judgment to make their own "adjustments" to the Work > count? Do we expect them to state their 2NT opening range as 20-22 rather > than 21-22 because they count Axx/AKxx/Ax/AJxx as 21? > > > 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 > Hirsch Davis Rockville, MD USA From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 24 17:59:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA25516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 17:59:15 +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 RAA25511 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 17:59:05 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 2499 invoked from network); 24 Jun 2000 07:57:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.7.105) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 24 Jun 2000 07:57:30 -0000 Message-ID: <39546B76.1D775CDC@inter.net.il> Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 11:04:06 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: D-BLML list - the clever friends - June 2000 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear all H-BLML (human....) and D-BLML member Here is the 21th release of the almost new famous club !!!! The list will be updated and publish every 24th , and 24.8 will be announced as the List's day (Kushi's birth day). The list will include lovely dogs who go on their existence at Rainbow Bridge , thinking about their lovely human friends. D-BLML - DOGS' blml LIST (cats) Linda Trent - Panda , Gus (none) Dany Haimovich - Kushi (9) Jan Kamras - Koushi (none) Irv Kostal - Molly (3) Craig Senior - Patches , Rusty , (10) Nutmeg , Lucky Adam Beneschan - Steffi (1) Eric Landau - Wendell (4) Bill Seagraves - Zoe {RB-5/1999} (none) Jack Kryst - Darci (2) Demeter Manning - Katrina (2) Jan Peter Pals - Turbo (none) Anne Jones - Penny {RB-3/1999} (none) Fearghal O'Boyle - Topsy (none) Louis Arnon - Mooky (4) Roger Pewick - Louie (none) Phillip Mendelshon - Visa , Mr. Peabody (none) Eric Favager - Sophie, Sundance-Sunny (6) Larry Bennett - Rosie , Rattie (none) Olivier Beauvillaine - Alphonse (none) H. Thompson - Rex,Sheeba, Cobber (none) His Excellency the sausage KUSHI - a 10 years old black duckel - is the administrator of the new D-BLML. SHOBO ( The Siamese Chief cat here) helps him too and will be responsible for the intergalactic relations with QUANGO - the Fabulous C-BLML chaircat ,and Nanky Poo.. Please be kind and send the data to update it. Dany From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 24 18:02:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA25538 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 18:02:14 +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 SAA25532 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 18:02:08 +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 e5O825E02843 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 18:02:06 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 18:02:05 +1000 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@appenzeller.anu.edu.au To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: ACBL policy on the mini-notrump (was WBF position on Psychics) In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000623133320.00877e30@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, alain gottcheiner wrote: > AG : Well, something is rotten from the beginning. > The point count says that : > > QJ KJ10 > K432 KJ10 > A432 AQJ109 > KQ4 xx > > are hands of the same value; And it is prohibited (that's the rottenness) > to state your ranges by other means than thez 4-3-2-1 point count. I recently played an Australian National level event playing a system whose constructive actions were based on a valuation called "Opening Points", being the sum of the HCP and the lengths of the two longest suits. Two players who represented Australia in Bermuda arrived at the table for our teams match. After hearing our prealert and seeing our convention card marked with our "Opening Points" definitions, one of them began to protest vehemently that convention cards had to be marked in HCP and that he was going to call the TD and force us to give him a convention card marked in HCP. We reminded him that this was impossible because a) any HCP range would depend on shape and would thus be approximate and not an accurate disclosure of our methods, b) there is no requirement to announce agreements only using 4-3-2-1 count, and c) the convention card clearly indicates that a "specific agreement" is appropriate for disclosure. He proceeded to grumble something about the WBF requiring 4-3-2-1 count to be on convention cards, to which I could only sweetly reply that this was an ABF event not a WBF event. Then (joy of joys) he gave me their convention card which was of the (illegal) WBF variety. I'd like to say I threw this over my shoulder and demanded an ABF system card but sadly I restrained myself... Mark From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 24 19:43:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA25648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 19:43:58 +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 TAA25643 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 19:43:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-15-192.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.15.192]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA07750 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 11:43:40 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39538E34.A60AFE1@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:20:04 +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: Psyches, another try Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Let me try to get my opinions accross in a new way : 1) There exist things that are called psyches. We do not really know what they are, but they DO exist. We shall try and form an opinion as to how to define them later. 2) Psyches can not be ruled illegal. There are two methods by which some people rule some actions illegal. Law 40A states that psyches are not illegal. So if something is ruled illegal by Law 40A, it is not a psyche. Law 40D states that some agreements can be made illegal. Psyches are not agreements, so they cannot be illegal. 2a) Anything that is ruled illegal is not a psyche. In fact the same argument. Call it part of the definition, if you want, but if it is ruled illegal, it cannot be called a psyche. Accept is a an axiom if you must. 3) The set of psyches is non-empty. Some people would perhaps like this to be the case, but the intent of the WBF, as witnessed by Law 40A, is clearly such. No single organisation has ever failed to publicly state that psyches are allowed. Their actions and the results of them have not always been to that effect, but their words have always been thus. By non-empty, of course I am not referring to the very restricted set of "first in a lifetime"-psyches. Some people advocate (or work by) a once-in-a-lifetime rule. That is not what I am talking of. important conclusion : There is a set of actions, not empty, that can not be ruled illegal. Some people seem to act as if this is not true. Not that they'd admit to it. 4) There can be partnership understanding about psyches. This seems to be wrong, in many (most) people's eyes, yet it must be true. Every single action creates some partnership understanding. That must include psyches. If you exclude from the set of psyches every action about which there is partnership understanding, you are left with an empty set. Which cannot be right. Remark that this is not contrary to Law 40A, which states that a psyche cannot be _based on_ a partnership understanding. Whatever that means, it is not the same as saying that there is partnership understanding. 4a) The mere fact that there is some partnership understanding, does not make an action a non-psyche. Logical consequence of the above. 5) There are some partnership understandings that cannot be regulated against. If the regulations could rule any understanding illegal, then there can remain no psyches. This is contrary to the above. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 24 23:28:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA26086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 23:28:30 +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 XAA26076 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 23:28:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 135pyk-000KRn-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 14:28:10 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 01:22:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: "...the most favourable result that was likely..." L12C2 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Burn writes >John Probst wrote: > >I understood what you'd said, but I'm with DWS here, I don't think a TD should >*ever*, and an AC almost *never* adjust because of the >scoresheet. The objective assessment of the hand in isolation is IMO >the only way to award an adjusted score. > >Don't be silly. Is it more likely that a random pair of whom I know nothing, but >who may be considered representative of the field as a whole, will make: (a) as >many tricks as the field as a whole have on average made; (b) as many tricks as >I, on double-dummy analysis, think they ought to make? > >David Burn >London, England > > I have to say that I don't agree with DWS and John Probst and apparently most of you here - the scores round the room seem terribly relevant here - ok ok - declarer may be different - auction may be different but the AC has listened to all that - as TD I've often been asked by AC to produce the traveller and indeed have sometimes quoted frequencies on a board to justify a particular score adjustment. If 1/4 of the room has made 9 tricks in a particular contract that seems likely enough for me mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 24 23:28:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA26087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 23:28:31 +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 XAA26077 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 23:28:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 135pyk-000KRo-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 14:28:10 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 01:37:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: "...the most favourable result that was likely..." L12C2 References: <002401bfdd41$7437f420$9611f7a5@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: <002401bfdd41$7437f420$9611f7a5@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <002401bfdd41$7437f420$9611f7a5@oemcomputer>, Craig Senior writes >Welcome back David...it will now get livelier here I suspect. :-)) > >I don't want to be silly...but if you are going to allow resulting in the >determination, isn't it then an imperative to determine if the results >represent players of comparable skill to those at the table in question >skill in both directions? Here in the U.S. where it is getting hard to find >an unstratified game, is it fair to judge to result of an A pair defending >against a C pair as in any way equivalent to a C pair defending against an A >pair? I think resulting opens a nasty can of worms. > >Craig Strange isn't how the offending side want to defend like Garozzo and expect the NOS to play like the Rueful Rabbit If the A pair are offending then they lose the right to defend. L12C2 = "The most favourable result that was likely" not the most likely result. I think the real can of worms comes if when David Burn is the offender (An A player) and we award him 5 tricks in defence and when Mike Amos is the offender (A C player) we award him 4 tricks in defence Offending As and Cs get treated alike - "resulting" seems a fair way to go Mike > >-----Original Message----- >From: David Burn >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: Friday, June 23, 2000 6:57 AM >Subject: Re: "...the most favourable result that was likely..." L12C2 > > >>John Probst wrote: >> >>I understood what you'd said, but I'm with DWS here, I don't think a TD >should *ever*, and an AC almost *never* adjust because of the >>scoresheet. The objective assessment of the hand in isolation is IMO >>the only way to award an adjusted score. >> >>Don't be silly. Is it more likely that a random pair of whom I know >nothing, but who may be considered representative of the field as a whole, >will make: (a) as many tricks as the field as a whole have on average made; >(b) as many tricks as I, on double-dummy analysis, think they ought to make? >> >>David Burn >>London, England >> >> > -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 24 23:46:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA26140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 23:46:19 +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 XAA26134 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 23:46:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-211.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.211]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA22039 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 15:46:00 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3954897E.9E2360E@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 12:12:14 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: ACBL policy on the mini-notrump (was WBF position on Psychics) References: <200006221654.MAA02366@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov><200006221654.MAA02366@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <4.3.2.7.1.20000623084458.00a8aa20@pop.cais.com> <018401bfdd94$74a60980$0200000a@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > Playing 10-12 NT, any evaluation scheme that lets me open 1 NT with QJ32 Q32 > QJ2 Q32, but not with T98 KT9 AT987 QT9 is flawed beyond repair, as is the > regulation that mandates its use. > That is not the point Hirsh. As has been pointed out, the regulation has drawbacks, but also one great advantage : it is simple. Even if you don't use this particular point method yourself, it is easy to check if you are in fact breaking the regulation when you open on any particular hand. As to your example above, it is quite easy to see why you'd consider the second hand worth more : it has 14 cards. But you realy should not look at two hands just accross the 9HCP limit. By playing a 10-12 NT, you are already playing a system at the limit of what is permitted. You schould really ask the question whether or not it is sane to allow you to open on QJ32 Q32 QJ2 Q32 (rubbish), not whether it is foolish to ban you from opening T98 KT9 AT987 QT9, minus any of those nines. The ACBL has deemed it necessary to ban you from opening this hand. I do not want to argue the reasons of this ban. But that the regulation is simple and therefor a good formulation is beyond any doubt. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 25 01:13:10 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA26306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 01:13:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA26301 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 01:13:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp181-23.worldonline.nl [195.241.181.23]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 0610636BFE; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 17:12:38 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003e01bfddee$5dcaf400$17b5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Psyches, another try Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 17:09:55 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am not sure that this brings us anywhere we want to be. But the subject is important and I do not want to 'miss the train'. My comments are interwoven in your statements. -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Date: Saturday, June 24, 2000 12:06 PM Subject: Psyches, another try >Let me try to get my opinions accross in a new way : > > > >1) There exist things that are called psyches. I AGREE > >We do not really know what they are, but they DO exist. NOT SO SURE, WE HAVE A DEFINITION. DOESN'T IT WORK? >We shall try and form an opinion as to how to define them >later. > >2) Psyches can not be ruled illegal. I PROBABLY AGREE, ALWAYS HAVE HAD PROBLEMS WITH REGULATIONS FORBIDDING PSYCHES (OF STRONG ARTIFICIAL OPENING CALLS). SEEMS TO BE BASED ON 40D, FIRST SENTENCE. >There are two methods by which some people rule some actions >illegal. >Law 40A states that psyches are not illegal. >So if something is ruled illegal by Law 40A, it is not a >psyche. NO. 'THEY' MIGHT MISUSE 40A. >Law 40D states that some agreements can be made illegal. >Psyches are not agreements, so they cannot be illegal. LOGICALLY SPOKEN NOT TRUE. SOME ANIMALS CAN BE GREEN. A CAR IS NOT AN ANIMAL, SO CAN'T BE GREEN. THAT DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT. 'THEY' SEEM TO SAY THAT IT IS POSSIBLE UNDER 40A TO RESTRICT THE USE OF A CONVENTION. YOU MAY USE IT UNDER THE CONDITION (REGULATION) THAT YOU DO NOT PSYCHE IT. ISN'T THAT CLEVER? IT SEEMS TO CONTRADICT THE NATURE OF A PSYCHE TO REGULATE IT, BUT IF SOMEBODY WAS IN TROUBLE AND NEEDED TO FIND A WAY TO GET RID OF PSYCHES, WE HAVE TO ADMIT THAT THE REASONING IS NOT THAT OBVIOUSLY ILLEGAL. > >2a) Anything that is ruled illegal is not a psyche. > >In fact the same argument. Call it part of the definition, >if you want, but if it is ruled illegal, it cannot be called >a psyche. >Accept is a an axiom if you must. > >3) The set of psyches is non-empty. > >Some people would perhaps like this to be the case, but the >intent of the WBF, as witnessed by Law 40A, is clearly such. >No single organisation has ever failed to publicly state >that psyches are allowed. Their actions and the results of >them have not always been to that effect, but their words >have always been thus. >By non-empty, of course I am not referring to the very >restricted set of "first in a lifetime"-psyches. Some >people advocate (or work by) a once-in-a-lifetime rule. >That is not what I am talking of. > >important conclusion : > >There is a set of actions, not empty, that can not be ruled >illegal. LET ME REPEAT: I PROBABLY AGREE WITH YOU, UNLESS SOMEBODY CAN CONVINCE ME THAT A RESTRICTION IN THE USE OF A CONVENTION MAY BE TO FORBID PSYCHING IT. > >Some people seem to act as if this is not true. >Not that they'd admit to it. > >4) There can be partnership understanding about psyches. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS STATEMENT. YOU ABIDE THE LAWS IN A VERY SATISFYING WAY (FOR A LAW-MAN) AND SUDDENLY YOU IGNORE 40A. SUCH A STATEMENT CAN ONLY LEAD TO THE CONCUSION THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO USE A PSYCHE. > >This seems to be wrong, in many (most) people's eyes, yet it >must be true. >Every single action creates some partnership understanding. >That must include psyches. >If you exclude from the set of psyches every action about >which there is partnership understanding, you are left with >an empty set. OK, WE AGREE AGAIN, FOLLOWING YOUR THESES. > >Which cannot be right. > >Remark that this is not contrary to Law 40A, which states >that a psyche cannot be _based on_ a partnership >understanding. Whatever that means, it is not the same as >saying that there is partnership understanding. THIS IS TOO EASY. BUT IMPORTANT. MY CONCLUSION IS THAT WE HAVE TO CHANGE 'BASED ON'. IN MY OPINION WE CAN CHANGE IT IN 'MAY NOT CREATE A PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDING'. THE ADVANTAGE IS THAT IT NOW SEEMS POSSIBLE TO HANDLE THE REMARK THAT IT WAS THE FIRST TIME EVER. 'YES SIR, BUT YOUR PARTNER WILL NEVER FORGET THIS!' > >4a) The mere fact that there is some partnership >understanding, does not make an action a non-psyche. I DO NOT AGREE, IT DOES MAKE THE CALL A NON-PSYCHE. >Logical consequence of the above (MIGHT BE, BUT WITH WRONG THESES). SO I DO NOT BOTHER ABOUT 5) ANYMORE. LAST QUESTION: WHERE DO YOU NEED THIS FOR? > >5) There are some partnership understandings that cannot be >regulated against. > >If the regulations could rule any understanding illegal, >then there can remain no psyches. This is contrary to the >above. > > > > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 25 07:26:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA27093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 07:26:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA27087 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 07:26:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([210.55.45.221]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000624212604.WBDD680.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 09:26:04 +1200 Message-ID: <005c01bfde22$bed5cc00$382e37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: Subject: Condoning Regulating Conventions L40D Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 09:25:12 +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 L40D. Regulation of Conventions The sponsoring organisation may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions. Zonal organisations may, in addition, regulate partnership understandings (even if not conventional) that permit the partnership's initial actions at the one level to be made with a hand of a King or more below average strength. Zonal organisations may delegate this responsibility. This just occurred to me: Assume that it is okay to use this law to forbid playing a (or any) convention over a non-conventional bid. ACBL and probably others think so and appear to have their position condoned by WBF (either explicitly or implicitly - I dont know about the relevant pronouncements on this). Then logically this must apply to any such regulation so it would be legal and presummably condoned by WBF to make regulations like: You may not play any conventions if you play four (or five) card majors; You may not play conventions over strong (or weak) no trumps. (One could make up even more obscure regulations of the same type.) There is no difference in the logic of these regulations than that that has been condoned. Did WBF and/or the law makers really intend delegating that much responsibility to Zonal Authorities and those that they delegate it to. I doubt it. And so I conclude that any such regulations _must_ be illegal. Wayne Burrows From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 25 07:34:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA27116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 07:34:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA27111 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 07:34:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([210.55.45.221]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000624213345.WBWR680.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 09:33:45 +1200 Message-ID: <006201bfde23$d1ffff20$382e37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200006221654.MAA02366@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov><200006221654.MAA02366@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <4.3.2.7.1.20000623084458.00a8aa20@pop.cais.com> <018401bfdd94$74a60980$0200000a@mindspring.com> <3954897E.9E2360E@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: ACBL policy on the mini-notrump (was WBF position on Psychics) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 09:33:19 +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 From: "Herman De Wael" > But you realy should not look at two hands just accross the > 9HCP limit. By playing a 10-12 NT, you are already playing a > system at the limit of what is permitted. Not true. The law allows for no regulations on your opening at the 1-level on hands less than a King or more below average strength. Use just the 4321 count this would mean that openings on 8 high card points cannot be restricted and any such restrictions are not mandatory - Zonal authorities just have the right to make such regulations. Wayne Burrows From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 25 07:47:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA27162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 07:47:29 +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 HAA27157 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 07:47:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from iig.com.au (cns-5-a151.pool.iig.com.au [203.102.103.151]) by mx1.mail.iig.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3/R9) with ESMTP id HAA08993 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 07:47:16 +1000 Message-ID: <39552DED.865C1237@iig.com.au> Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 07:53:49 +1000 From: H Thompson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: change of mind? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is my first posting. Would it be possible to get some feedback, please? Country Congress of indifferent standard. The Director is imported and has no idea of the level of the pair involved. Contract 4S, Declarer needs to take last two tricks. The cards specified are Spades. x means card of another suit. A4 --- 10 2 xx Q x Defender leads S2. Declarer plays SQ, then calls for the SA from dummy. After an agreed brief pause, he corrects to S4. Your ruling? Director rules inadvertent and corrects to S4, contract making. Appealed. The appeals committee calls a defender who hasn't spoken. She mentions the declarer called for the SA and dummy touched the S4. Then declarer changed his call. The other defender says the same thing. Dummy has gone home (although aware of the appeal and requested to stay). Declarer confirms the S4 was touched. Your ruling? Thanks for the help. Helen From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 25 07:51:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA27186 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 07:51:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA27181 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 07:51:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([210.55.47.86]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000624215036.WDMB680.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 09:50:36 +1200 Message-ID: <006801bfde26$2cb5d1e0$382e37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: Subject: Re: "...the most favourable result that was likely..." L12C2 Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 09:49:47 +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 From: "michael amos" > In article , David Burn > writes > >John Probst wrote: > > > >I understood what you'd said, but I'm with DWS here, I don't think a TD should > >*ever*, and an AC almost *never* adjust because of the > >scoresheet. The objective assessment of the hand in isolation is IMO > >the only way to award an adjusted score. > > > >Don't be silly. Is it more likely that a random pair of whom I know nothing, but > >who may be considered representative of the field as a whole, will make: (a) as > >many tricks as the field as a whole have on average made; (b) as many tricks as > >I, on double-dummy analysis, think they ought to make? > > > >David Burn > >London, England > > > > > I have to say that I don't agree with DWS and John Probst and apparently > most of you here - the scores round the room seem terribly relevant here > - ok ok - declarer may be different - auction may be different but the > AC has listened to all that - as TD I've often been asked by AC to > produce the traveller and indeed have sometimes quoted frequencies on a > board to justify a particular score adjustment. If 1/4 of the room has > made 9 tricks in a particular contract that seems likely enough for me > > mike > -- > michael amos The law does say "the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred" To my mind this implies trying to decide what was likely to happen at that table and not basing a decision on what was happening at other tables. There are a number of reasons for this being a sensible approach. One is that players have different systems and agreements and so the information at one table is going to be different than the information at another table. And therefore a cursory look at the other tables results may not have any bearing at all on what was likely to happen at one particular table. On the other hand a look at the score sheet may indicate that your initial analysis was wrong but I think this should merely prompt you to redo your analysis and decide if what you initially thought was likely really was likely. Wayne Burrows From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 25 07:52:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA27200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 07:52:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA27195 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 07:52:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([210.55.47.93]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000624215208.WDSB680.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 09:52:08 +1200 Message-ID: <006901bfde26$636a5620$382e37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: Subject: Re: "...the most favourable result that was likely..." L12C2 Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 09:49:47 +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 From: "michael amos" > In article , David Burn > writes > >John Probst wrote: > > > >I understood what you'd said, but I'm with DWS here, I don't think a TD should > >*ever*, and an AC almost *never* adjust because of the > >scoresheet. The objective assessment of the hand in isolation is IMO > >the only way to award an adjusted score. > > > >Don't be silly. Is it more likely that a random pair of whom I know nothing, but > >who may be considered representative of the field as a whole, will make: (a) as > >many tricks as the field as a whole have on average made; (b) as many tricks as > >I, on double-dummy analysis, think they ought to make? > > > >David Burn > >London, England > > > > > I have to say that I don't agree with DWS and John Probst and apparently > most of you here - the scores round the room seem terribly relevant here > - ok ok - declarer may be different - auction may be different but the > AC has listened to all that - as TD I've often been asked by AC to > produce the traveller and indeed have sometimes quoted frequencies on a > board to justify a particular score adjustment. If 1/4 of the room has > made 9 tricks in a particular contract that seems likely enough for me > > mike > -- > michael amos The law does say "the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred" To my mind this implies trying to decide what was likely to happen at that table and not basing a decision on what was happening at other tables. There are a number of reasons for this being a sensible approach. One is that players have different systems and agreements and so the information at one table is going to be different than the information at another table. And therefore a cursory look at the other tables results may not have any bearing at all on what was likely to happen at one particular table. On the other hand a look at the score sheet may indicate that your initial analysis was wrong but I think this should merely prompt you to redo your analysis and decide if what you initially thought was likely really was likely. Wayne Burrows From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 25 08:19:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA27220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 07:57:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA27215 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 07:57:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([210.55.47.93]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000624215709.WEDW680.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 09:57:09 +1200 Message-ID: <006f01bfde27$165c45e0$382e37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <002401bfdd41$7437f420$9611f7a5@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: "...the most favourable result that was likely..." L12C2 Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 09:56:43 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: "michael amos" > > I think the real can of worms comes if when David Burn is the offender > (An A player) and we award him 5 tricks in defence and when Mike Amos > is the offender (A C player) we award him 4 tricks in defence > > Offending As and Cs get treated alike - "resulting" seems a fair way to > go > I dont think this is what the law says. It says go back to as if the irregularity had not occurred and try to determine the most favourable result that was likely. I think this necessarily implies that one takes into account the nature of the players at the table. Wayne Burrows From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 25 11:08:22 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA27520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 11:08:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta02-svc.server.ntlworld.com (mta02-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA27515 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 11:08:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.19.133]) by mta02-svc.server.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000625020732.DULC10065.mta02-svc.server.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 02:07:32 +0000 Message-ID: <000501bfde42$baed87c0$8513ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" References: <39552DED.865C1237@iig.com.au> Subject: Re: change of mind? Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 02:14:36 +0100 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: "H Thompson" To: Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2000 10:53 PM Subject: change of mind? > This is my first posting. Would it be possible to get some feedback, > please? Hello Helen. Welcome. Please tell David Stevenson if you have any cats, and Dany Haimovici if you have any dogs. It's a tradition. > Country Congress of indifferent standard. The Director is imported and > has no idea of the level of the pair involved. Sounds like an EBU event :-) Oh! Did you mean the players were of indifferent standard. Sounds like a WBU event:-)) > Contract 4S, Declarer needs to take last two tricks. The cards > specified are Spades. x means card of another suit. > > A4 > --- 10 2 > xx > Q > x > > Defender leads S2. Declarer plays SQ, then calls for the SA from > dummy. After an agreed brief pause, he corrects to S4. Your ruling? > > Director rules inadvertent and corrects to S4, contract > making. > I cannot see much wrong with this. As a TD I would have asked dec. what he was thinking about when he asked for SA. I would expect the answer, The Q has won the trick, I am thinking SA for last trick and said SA. If dec says anything about overtaking, being in dummy etc then my ruling changes.Any suggestion of a rethink cancels inadvertancy. "What were you thinking" is a question players do not expect, the first answer is usually true. There is no doubt that the SA is a played card L45B L45C4a but L45C4b allows for the change of an inadvertant designation. > > Appealed. > > The appeals committee calls a defender who hasn't spoken. She mentions > the declarer called for the SA and dummy touched the S4. Then declarer > changed his call. The other defender says the same thing. Dummy has > gone home (although aware of the appeal and requested to stay). > You should be cautious of reading too much into this. Unfortunately players have homes, lifts etc. Surely the non attendor wrote a players comment on the AC form, or maybe considered that his input was irrelevant.He was Dummy and so far nobody has mentioned his touching the S4. He might have been unaware! > Declarer confirms the S4 was touched. Your ruling? > Interesting. Dummy may not help dec. to play the hand, and might have done so. So assume that the inavertancy (if we are agreed it was so) has been drawn to decs. attention by dummy. I would expect that maybe AC would rule that there was UI and, L16A1/2, there has been an infraction.L12 now kicks in and our old favourite "the most favourable result that was likely" for the NOs. AC may adjust to 4S-1. AC may feel that Dummy's part was irrelevant, having heard Dec., and ruled 4S=. If AC chose to adjust they would be able to recommend that TD issues PP to Dummy. Appeals to National Authority are expected to involve points of principle, gross missaplications of Law, or gross errors in value judgement. I do not think this would qualify either way. If you are aggrieved - grin and bear it. > As a TD, when delivering the AC ruling, I would be asking appellants why they had not given all the relevant facts to the TD.If all facts had been given they might not have been obliged to gamble their deposit.If there had been no additional evidence I believe they may have lost out.(maybe the TD was dismissive - not an EBU or a WBU TD of course :-) > Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 25 12:13:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA27642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 12:13:55 +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 MAA27637 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 12:13:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=antonwit) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 1361vX-00006c-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 04:13:39 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000625040758.00f5ae30@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 04:07:58 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: change of mind? In-Reply-To: <39552DED.865C1237@iig.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:53 AM 6/25/00 +1000, you wrote: >This is my first posting. Would it be possible to get some feedback, >please? >Country Congress of indifferent standard. The Director is imported and >has no idea of the level of the pair involved. >Contract 4S, Declarer needs to take last two tricks. The cards >specified are Spades. x means card of another suit. > > A4 > --- 10 2 > xx > Q > x > >Defender leads S2. Declarer plays SQ, then calls for the SA from >dummy. After an agreed brief pause, he corrects to S4. Your ruling? > >Director rules inadvertent and corrects to S4, contract making. >Appealed. > >The appeals committee calls a defender who hasn't spoken. She mentions >the declarer called for the SA and dummy touched the S4. Then declarer >changed his call. The other defender says the same thing. Dummy has >gone home (although aware of the appeal and requested to stay). >Declarer confirms the S4 was touched. Your ruling? > >Thanks for the help. Helen > > well, if declarer calls for sA dummy has to take this card from the table. If he takes the s4 he suggest declarer something is wrong. This probably leads declarer to the impression he did something rather silly, and the change isnt an inadvert call now anymore. I let the play of the sA stand. regards, anton Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 25 12:18:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA27660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 12:18:41 +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 MAA27655 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 12:18:33 +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 136208-0002iA-0X for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 03:18:24 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 03:17:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: UK UI MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk 2S P(h) 3S, Green (favoUrable if you're a Yank) x Q9xx AQ109 Axxx Do you allow a double? 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 Jun 25 12:30:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA27690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 12:30:15 +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 MAA27685 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 12:30:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from iig.com.au (cns-4-a064.pool.iig.com.au [203.102.105.64]) by mx1.mail.iig.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3/R9) with ESMTP id MAA14635 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 12:30:01 +1000 Message-ID: <3955702C.514C937A@iig.com.au> Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 12:36:29 +1000 From: H Thompson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: change of mind?2nd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm not sure but I get the idea I shouldn't have sent this. I am a Congress Director who in this case was the Appeal Chair. I was abused for half an hour by declarer after we decided 4S down 1. There was no paper work on the Appeal. We were just told that only the 2 card ending mattered to us, that Declarer had led the SQ (he hadn't as it turned out, Defence led S2) and that there was a defender who hadn't been asked her opinion and perhaps we should call her frst. After the decision Declarer started saying Dummy touched the SA too. To me this means had enough time to change mind. We made our decision without knowing who was Declarer until the end when we had decided if the said dummy had touched card we would rule down 1. Had we known who Dec. was we would always have ruled that way as this is a frequent occurance. I was trying not to prejudice answers with extraneous information and to find out if you thought touching S4 was enough to constitute a suggestion without knowing the pairs history. Thanks for the responses so far. Cats and dogs are registered . Helen From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 25 13:40:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA27770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 13:40:41 +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 NAA27764 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 13:40:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from julie (p9-tnt1.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.18.111.9]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id PAA01019 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 15:40:26 +1200 Message-ID: <001401bfde57$149b3420$096f12ce@ihug.co.nz> From: "Julie Atkinson" To: References: Subject: Re: UK UI Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 20:40:15 -0700 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2000 7:17 PM Subject: UK UI > 2S P(h) 3S, Green (favoUrable if you're a Yank) > > x > Q9xx > AQ109 > Axxx > > Do you allow a double? > Yes, expect this hand would always double opp an in tempo pass, so can't think of any reaon not to allow. Julie From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 25 16:17:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA27977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 16:17:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA27972 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 16:17:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (user-2inis81.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.113.1]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA26516 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 02:17:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3955A3F7.E66E1C28@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 23:17:27 -0700 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UK UI References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > 2S P(h) 3S, Green (favoUrable if you're a Yank) Favorable for us Yank's. > > x > Q9xx > AQ109 > Axxx > > Do you allow a double? No. Easy. Demonstrably suggested by the hesitation, and far from clear. --JRM From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 25 17:31:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA28103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:31:56 +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 RAA28098 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:31:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from iig.com.au (cns-4-a012.pool.iig.com.au [203.102.105.12]) by mx1.mail.iig.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3/R9) with ESMTP id RAA20246 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:31:43 +1000 Message-ID: <3955B6E0.DE6D3A76@iig.com.au> Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:38:09 +1000 From: H Thompson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: sorry Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry all. I'm very tired and misinterpreted the first responses I got. They both very graciously welcomed my dogs and cats and answered my question. Please delete my second posting. Helen From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 25 22:03:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA28522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 22:03:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com [139.134.5.173]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA28517 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 22:03:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ka041766 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 22:04:05 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-225-247.tmns.net.au ([203.54.225.247]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Well-Rounded-MailRouter V2.8a 13/420741); 25 Jun 2000 22:04:04 Message-ID: <006401bfde38$93532da0$f7e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: UK UI Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 10:01:55 +1000 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 John Probst wrote: >2S P(h) 3S, Green (favoUrable if you're a Yank) > >x >Q9xx >AQ109 >Axxx > >Do you allow a double? I wouldn't, unless there is clear evidence that this pair regularly makes light T/O doubles (e.g. some pairs write that on the WBF CC). On a similar much-discussed hand from the recent Aussie Nationals, I (East) held 3, 10876, AQJ5, AK92, both vul: S W N E 1S P 3S ? (no hesitations) where 3S is mildly preemptive. I doubled, West bid 4H, South doubled, a trump was led to South's AKQJ and N/S cashed the first nine tricks for 1700. The consensus was, to my surprise, that my double was not clearcut. For example, a newspaper columnist (Denis Howard) wrote under the heading: *Unfortunate takeout double causes carnage*: "The modern style is to double on East's hand, certainly over 3S, and more likely than not had the raise been to four. But the central issue is to be consistent. If you prefer a more conservative approach, stick to it, but don't double one day, and pass the next, as that way madness lies." Peter Gill Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 25 23:19:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA28586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 22:24:56 +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 WAA28570 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 22:24:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-11.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.11]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA04521 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 14:24:24 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3955EBCB.43F1765C@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 13:23:55 +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: UK UI References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > 2S P(h) 3S, Green (favoUrable if you're a Yank) > > x > Q9xx > AQ109 > Axxx > > Do you allow a double? > I am assuming 2Sp is weak, and 3Sp is competitive. This shape is too perfect not to make a take-out double. I allow it. > 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 Sun Jun 25 23:52:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA28741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 23:52:12 +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 XAA28736 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 23:52:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-33qtjm1.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.206.193]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA19074 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 09:51:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000625140458.00847770@mindspring.com> X-Sender: htcs@mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 07:04:58 -0700 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Henry Sun Subject: Re: UK UI Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:17 AM 6/25/00 +0100, you wrote: >2S P(h) 3S, Green (favoUrable if you're a Yank) > >x >Q9xx >AQ109 >Axxx > >Do you allow a double? under the current interpretation in the US as i understand it, no. passing 3s is clearly a logical alternative to doubling, and as the hesitation appears to suggest bidding rather than passing, 4th seat shan't opt for doubling. henry sun From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 25 23:56:17 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA28759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 23:56:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA28754 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 23:56:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.223] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 136CtA-000PNw-00; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 14:55:56 +0100 Message-ID: <002201bfdead$5e51f080$df5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" , "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <003e01bfddee$5dcaf400$17b5f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: Psyches, another try Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 14:54:26 +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: Herman De Wael ; Bridge Laws Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2000 4:09 PM Subject: Re: Psyches, another try > I am not sure that this brings us anywhere we want to be. But the subject is > important and I do not want to 'miss the train'. > My comments are interwoven in your statements. > ------------------------------------------------------------ +=+ And mine also [marked +=+] - Grattan. +=+ ------------------------------------------------------------ > >Let me try to get my opinions accross in a new way : > > > > > > > >1) There exist things that are called psyches. > > I AGREE > > > >We do not really know what they are, but they DO exist. > > NOT SO SURE, WE HAVE A DEFINITION. DOESN'T IT WORK? > > >We shall try and form an opinion as to how to define them > >later. > > > >2) Psyches can not be ruled illegal. > > > I PROBABLY AGREE, ALWAYS HAVE HAD PROBLEMS WITH REGULATIONS FORBIDDING > PSYCHES (OF STRONG ARTIFICIAL OPENING CALLS). SEEMS TO BE BASED ON 40D, > FIRST SENTENCE. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- [+=+ A psychic is illegal under Law 40A and/or Law 75B if based upon a partnership understanding that has not been announced beforehand. An alert is not something that provides 'PRIOR ANNOUNCEMENT ' (sic). But see reference below to a WBFLC ruling sent to the EBL.+=+] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >There are two methods by which some people rule some actions > >illegal. > >Law 40A states that psyches are not illegal. > >So if something is ruled illegal by Law 40A, it is not a > >psyche. > > NO. 'THEY' MIGHT MISUSE 40A. > > >Law 40D states that some agreements can be made illegal. > >Psyches are not agreements, so they cannot be illegal. > > LOGICALLY SPOKEN NOT TRUE. SOME ANIMALS CAN BE GREEN. A CAR IS NOT AN > ANIMAL, SO CAN'T BE GREEN. THAT DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT. > > 'THEY' SEEM TO SAY THAT IT IS POSSIBLE UNDER 40A TO RESTRICT THE USE OF A > CONVENTION. YOU MAY USE IT UNDER THE CONDITION (REGULATION) THAT YOU DO NOT > PSYCHE IT. ISN'T THAT CLEVER? IT SEEMS TO CONTRADICT THE NATURE OF A > PSYCHE TO REGULATE IT, BUT IF SOMEBODY WAS IN TROUBLE AND NEEDED TO FIND A > WAY TO GET RID OF PSYCHES, WE HAVE TO ADMIT THAT THE REASONING IS NOT THAT > OBVIOUSLY ILLEGAL. > > > > >2a) Anything that is ruled illegal is not a psyche. > > > >In fact the same argument. Call it part of the definition, > >if you want, but if it is ruled illegal, it cannot be called > >a psyche. > >Accept is a an axiom if you must. > > > >3) The set of psyches is non-empty. > > > >Some people would perhaps like this to be the case, but the > >intent of the WBF, as witnessed by Law 40A, is clearly such. > >No single organisation has ever failed to publicly state > >that psyches are allowed. Their actions and the results of > >them have not always been to that effect, but their words > >have always been thus. > >By non-empty, of course I am not referring to the very > >restricted set of "first in a lifetime"-psyches. Some > >people advocate (or work by) a once-in-a-lifetime rule. > >That is not what I am talking of. > > > >important conclusion : > > > >There is a set of actions, not empty, that can not be ruled > >illegal. > > > LET ME REPEAT: I PROBABLY AGREE WITH YOU, UNLESS SOMEBODY CAN CONVINCE ME > THAT A RESTRICTION IN THE USE OF A CONVENTION MAY BE TO FORBID PSYCHING IT. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- [+=+ In response to formal enquiry from the European Bridge League the WBF Laws Committee replied that the Law empowering the regulation of the use of conventions is unrestricted and includes the power to ban their psyching. I have the record of this ruling on file. The reference to one level initial actions in 40D was added later, but it is part of the same Law and equally unrestricted as to the nature of the regulation that may be applied. +=+] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >Some people seem to act as if this is not true. > >Not that they'd admit to it. > > > >4) There can be partnership understanding about psyches. > > I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS STATEMENT. YOU ABIDE THE LAWS IN A VERY SATISFYING > WAY (FOR A LAW-MAN) AND SUDDENLY YOU IGNORE 40A. SUCH A STATEMENT CAN ONLY > LEAD TO THE CONCUSION THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO USE A PSYCHE. > > > > >This seems to be wrong, in many (most) people's eyes, yet it > >must be true. > >Every single action creates some partnership understanding. > >That must include psyches. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- [+=+ The WBF Code of Practice sets out the principle of awareness. It does not consider there is an awareness if the history has faded from mind. In a number of cited scenarios it leaves judgement of whether the recollection has faded from mind to Directors and Appeals Committees. As the WBF Laws Committee recently noted and minuted, post facto collusion is one kind of evidence on which a Director/AC may form a judgement as to the existence of partnership understandings. +=+] ------------------------------------------------------------------- > >If you exclude from the set of psyches every action about > >which there is partnership understanding, you are left with > >an empty set. > > OK, WE AGREE AGAIN, FOLLOWING YOUR THESES. > > > >Which cannot be right. > > > >Remark that this is not contrary to Law 40A, which states > >that a psyche cannot be _based on_ a partnership > >understanding. Whatever that means, it is not the same as > >saying that there is partnership understanding. > > > THIS IS TOO EASY. BUT IMPORTANT. MY CONCLUSION IS THAT WE HAVE TO CHANGE > 'BASED ON'. IN MY OPINION WE CAN CHANGE IT IN 'MAY NOT CREATE A PARTNERSHIP > UNDERSTANDING'. THE ADVANTAGE IS THAT IT NOW SEEMS POSSIBLE TO HANDLE THE > REMARK THAT IT WAS THE FIRST TIME EVER. 'YES SIR, BUT YOUR PARTNER WILL > NEVER FORGET THIS!' ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - [+=+ The WBF Code of Practice does not take the view that partner will never forget. The suggestion to change 'based on' is wholly revolutionary, touches upon wording that has remained constant in the laws since at least 1963, and has potentially unforeseen consequences that may undermine the regulatory policies of the WBF, the ACBL, and the EBL, as well as others. +=+] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >4a) The mere fact that there is some partnership > >understanding, does not make an action a non-psyche. > > I DO NOT AGREE, IT DOES MAKE THE CALL A NON-PSYCHE. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- [+=+ A psychic call is defined as "a deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength or suit length". Law 40A makes it clear that the definition is tested against what has been announced beforehand by the partnership as to its agreements. Agreements are subject to regulation under Law 40D; an agreement is subject to regulation if it constitutes a conventional use of a bid - i.e. a use that does not match to one of the exclusions in section 1 of the definition of 'convention'; an agreement is also subject to regulation if it permits the partnership's initial actions at the one level, even if not conventional, to be made with a hand a king or more below average strength. A regulation may forbid such agreements under the ruling made by the WBF Laws Committee (which ruling has been acted upon by, inter alia, the European Bridge League, the American Contract Bridge League, and the World Bridge Federation). Under the Geneva ruling of the WBF Executive and Rules & Regulations Committee sitting jointly regulations under Law 40D are not subject to Law 80F. The WBF Laws Committee ruling above is consistent with this. It was one of the early signals that the WBF was prepared to be confident of sensible action by regulating authorities and not to be a nanny to them. +=+] --------------------------------------------------------------- > > >Logical consequence of the above (MIGHT BE, BUT WITH WRONG THESES). SO I DO > NOT BOTHER ABOUT 5) ANYMORE. > > LAST QUESTION: WHERE DO YOU NEED THIS FOR? > > > >5) There are some partnership understandings that cannot be > >regulated against. > > > >If the regulations could rule any understanding illegal, > >then there can remain no psyches. This is contrary to the > >above. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ [+=+ The law already makes illegal a psychic call that is based upon a partnership understanding. No regulation is required to rule such illegal. The question to which the laws do not speak, and which it would be unwise for them to address since it is a matter of judgement, is the evidence upon which the Directors and Appeals Committees may find that a partnership understanding/ agreement exists. +=+] --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > >-- > >Herman DE WAEL > >Antwerpen Belgium > >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 26 00:11:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA28818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 00:11:56 +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 AAA28813 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 00:11:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=antonwit) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 136D8I-0001nF-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 16:11:34 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000625160553.0364b3a8@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 16:05:53 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: UK UI In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:17 AM 6/25/00 +0100, you wrote: >2S P(h) 3S, Green (favoUrable if you're a Yank) > >x >Q9xx >AQ109 >Axxx > >Do you allow a double? > yes. to pass is no LA i think, even with the hesitation of pd. regards, anton >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 > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 26 00:21:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA28587 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 22:24:58 +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 WAA28576 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 22:24:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-11.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.11]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA04525 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 14:24:26 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3955F020.B08CC8D@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 13:42:24 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: sorry References: <3955B6E0.DE6D3A76@iig.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk H Thompson wrote: > > Sorry all. I'm very tired and misinterpreted the first responses I got. > They both very graciously welcomed my dogs and cats and answered my > question. Please delete my second posting. Helen No need, Helen, and welcome to the list. No need to apologise either. This list is open to anyone, and all questions are welcome. No need either to immediately reveal in what guise you were writing. What we should learn from this (as most of us regulars have) is that there are almost no questions that produce unanimous answers. Different people read different things into questions, and then produce different answers. There is no substitute from being there. I myself, when reading your first post, thought you did not know about the sentence in the first paragraph of L46B. Then the answer is simple : yes, if the intention is incontrovertible, the change is allowed. But if the AC rule that the intention is not, then their ruling is correct as well. Personally, I see no reason to not call it incontrovertible. It is plain silly to take a trick with the ace of trumps, when you have already made it. I do not believe that the fact that the change was not immediate matters, nor the fact that dummy drew the attention. There was an erroneous call, with different intention incontrovertible. Thus the card has not been played. The only thing that could make me change my mind is if declarer had forgotten that this were trumps. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 26 00:27:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA28563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 22:24:38 +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 WAA28556 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 22:24:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-11.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.11]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA04475 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 14:24:16 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3955E46C.CE104D5F@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 12:52:28 +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: ACBL policy on the mini-notrump (was WBF position on Psychics) References: <200006221654.MAA02366@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov><200006221654.MAA02366@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <4.3.2.7.1.20000623084458.00a8aa20@pop.cais.com> <018401bfdd94$74a60980$0200000a@mindspring.com> <3954897E.9E2360E@village.uunet.be> <006201bfde23$d1ffff20$382e37d2@laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows wrote: > > From: "Herman De Wael" > > > > But you realy should not look at two hands just accross the > > 9HCP limit. By playing a 10-12 NT, you are already playing a > > system at the limit of what is permitted. > > > Not true. The law allows for no regulations on your opening at the 1-level > on hands less than a King or more below average strength. Use just the 4321 > count this would mean that openings on 8 high card points cannot be > restricted and any such restrictions are not mandatory - Zonal authorities > just have the right to make such regulations. > > Wayne Burrows Wayne, sorry, but you are mixing problems here. I have no opinion on what you are saying. I am merely stating that if such a regulation is to be written, the way that it is written is the best way. The implications are simple. I am not saying that it is a good regulation, or that it is a legal one. I am not saying the reverse either. But I don't like people attacking the regulation by examples and saying "isn't it ridiculous that I am banned from doing this when they allow that". Every regulation shall produce such examples. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 26 00:27:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA28873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 00:27:43 +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 AAA28865 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 00:27:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-025.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.217]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA45906 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 15:26:54 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <001a01bfdeb2$4cee64e0$d9307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: UK UI Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 15:33:09 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >> >> 2S P(h) 3S, Green (favoUrable if you're a Yank) > >Favorable for us Yank's. > >> >> x >> Q9xx >> AQ109 >> Axxx >> >> Do you allow a double? No. The double is suggested over pass by the hesitation. Best regards, Fearghal. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 26 01:24:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA28585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 22:24:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA28566 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 22:24:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-11.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.11]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA04507 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 14:24:22 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3955EAA5.4B2220FE@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 13:19:01 +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: Condoning Regulating Conventions L40D References: <005c01bfde22$bed5cc00$382e37d2@laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > There is no difference in the logic of these regulations than that that has > been condoned. > > Did WBF and/or the law makers really intend delegating that much > responsibility to Zonal Authorities and those that they delegate it to. I > doubt it. > > And so I conclude that any such regulations _must_ be illegal. > You may well be right, Wayne, but I would not advise you to disregard the regulation because of it. We have many examples of this in European Law. It is quite common for a country (Belgium is a frequent offender) to be overruled in the European Court in Strasbourg for some piece of Law which is deemed contrary to the European principles. In all such cases, the National Law is changed, but only rarely does this affect retrospectively. I am sure the same is true for state vs federal Laws in the USA. What I mean is, if someone challenges the right of the ACBL to make the regulation that it has, then he should take this up with the WBF. If the WBF decide that the ACBL was wrong in making this regulation, the ACBL shall have to change it, but until it does, the regulation still has the power of Law. FWIW, I agree with you. This roundabout way of prohibiting conventions over some natural bid seems to go against the spirit of the Laws, if not the letter. But I don't mind. I believe that it should be legal to ban a 9 point 1NT opening. OTOH, I don't believe that it is necessary to ban such an opening. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 26 02:07:18 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA28577 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 22:24:50 +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 WAA28562 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 22:24:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-11.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.11]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA04489 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 14:24:19 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3955E8D1.CB5DD633@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 13:11:13 +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: Psyches, another try References: <003e01bfddee$5dcaf400$17b5f1c3@kooijman> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello Ton, nice to see that you take the time to reply to my rantings. ton kooijman wrote: > > I am not sure that this brings us anywhere we want to be. But the subject is > important and I do not want to 'miss the train'. I had written this and not had the time to finish it. I wanted to continue the next day but it got sent before I continued. Which is why it does not yet lead us somewhere. It will, eventually, I hope. > My comments are interwoven in your statements. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Date: Saturday, June 24, 2000 12:06 PM > Subject: Psyches, another try > > >Let me try to get my opinions accross in a new way : > > > > > > > >1) There exist things that are called psyches. > > I AGREE > > > >We do not really know what they are, but they DO exist. > > NOT SO SURE, WE HAVE A DEFINITION. DOESN'T IT WORK? > I'm not sure that it does. Some things are called psyches which are not, IMO. Some people seem to have a different grasp. Some people want to ban some types of psyches. I say that this is impossible, but maybe it IS right to ban the things, in which case they are not psyches. So, no, I am not sure that we know what psyches really are. Sorry. > >We shall try and form an opinion as to how to define them > >later. > > > >2) Psyches can not be ruled illegal. > > I PROBABLY AGREE, ALWAYS HAVE HAD PROBLEMS WITH REGULATIONS FORBIDDING > PSYCHES (OF STRONG ARTIFICIAL OPENING CALLS). SEEMS TO BE BASED ON 40D, > FIRST SENTENCE. > > >There are two methods by which some people rule some actions > >illegal. > >Law 40A states that psyches are not illegal. > >So if something is ruled illegal by Law 40A, it is not a > >psyche. > > NO. 'THEY' MIGHT MISUSE 40A. > Indeed. My point exactly. > >Law 40D states that some agreements can be made illegal. > >Psyches are not agreements, so they cannot be illegal. > > LOGICALLY SPOKEN NOT TRUE. SOME ANIMALS CAN BE GREEN. A CAR IS NOT AN > ANIMAL, SO CAN'T BE GREEN. THAT DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT. > > 'THEY' SEEM TO SAY THAT IT IS POSSIBLE UNDER 40A TO RESTRICT THE USE OF A > CONVENTION. YOU MAY USE IT UNDER THE CONDITION (REGULATION) THAT YOU DO NOT > PSYCHE IT. ISN'T THAT CLEVER? IT SEEMS TO CONTRADICT THE NATURE OF A > PSYCHE TO REGULATE IT, BUT IF SOMEBODY WAS IN TROUBLE AND NEEDED TO FIND A > WAY TO GET RID OF PSYCHES, WE HAVE TO ADMIT THAT THE REASONING IS NOT THAT > OBVIOUSLY ILLEGAL. > Exactly. Some people say they don't want to abolish psyches, and then they go on abolishing things by saying they are not psyches. If they do this, they might be right, but some do it in such a way that nothing remains in the psyche category. Those people seem to be saying "we don't ban psyches, but there are no such things as psyches". That is the type of reasoning that I want to expose. > > > >2a) Anything that is ruled illegal is not a psyche. > > > >In fact the same argument. Call it part of the definition, > >if you want, but if it is ruled illegal, it cannot be called > >a psyche. > >Accept is a an axiom if you must. > > > >3) The set of psyches is non-empty. > > > >Some people would perhaps like this to be the case, but the > >intent of the WBF, as witnessed by Law 40A, is clearly such. > >No single organisation has ever failed to publicly state > >that psyches are allowed. Their actions and the results of > >them have not always been to that effect, but their words > >have always been thus. > >By non-empty, of course I am not referring to the very > >restricted set of "first in a lifetime"-psyches. Some > >people advocate (or work by) a once-in-a-lifetime rule. > >That is not what I am talking of. > > > >important conclusion : > > > >There is a set of actions, not empty, that can not be ruled > >illegal. > > LET ME REPEAT: I PROBABLY AGREE WITH YOU, UNLESS SOMEBODY CAN CONVINCE ME > THAT A RESTRICTION IN THE USE OF A CONVENTION MAY BE TO FORBID PSYCHING IT. I also believe that some uses of conventions should not be psychable. But in order to do that, we should find a way of defining those actions as non-psyches in such a manner that leaves a good deal of non-regulable psyches out there. > > > >Some people seem to act as if this is not true. > >Not that they'd admit to it. > > > >4) There can be partnership understanding about psyches. > > I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS STATEMENT. YOU ABIDE THE LAWS IN A VERY SATISFYING > WAY (FOR A LAW-MAN) AND SUDDENLY YOU IGNORE 40A. SUCH A STATEMENT CAN ONLY > LEAD TO THE CONCUSION THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO USE A PSYCHE. > see below. Probably my use of "partnership understanding" in the above sentence was wrong. In rereading, I would probably have changed it to "partnership knowledge" in order not to get immediately into legal terms. But the result is the same, because this knowledge would (as "experience") be just as diclosable under L75. > > > >This seems to be wrong, in many (most) people's eyes, yet it > >must be true. > >Every single action creates some partnership understanding. > >That must include psyches. > >If you exclude from the set of psyches every action about > >which there is partnership understanding, you are left with > >an empty set. > > OK, WE AGREE AGAIN, FOLLOWING YOUR THESES. See ? > > > >Which cannot be right. > > > >Remark that this is not contrary to Law 40A, which states > >that a psyche cannot be _based on_ a partnership > >understanding. Whatever that means, it is not the same as > >saying that there is partnership understanding. > > THIS IS TOO EASY. BUT IMPORTANT. MY CONCLUSION IS THAT WE HAVE TO CHANGE > 'BASED ON'. IN MY OPINION WE CAN CHANGE IT IN 'MAY NOT CREATE A PARTNERSHIP > UNDERSTANDING'. THE ADVANTAGE IS THAT IT NOW SEEMS POSSIBLE TO HANDLE THE > REMARK THAT IT WAS THE FIRST TIME EVER. 'YES SIR, BUT YOUR PARTNER WILL > NEVER FORGET THIS!' I don't believe it is right to banish second time psyching. If something is correct a first time, it should also be correct the second time. Or we are right back into ACBL "one-psyche-a-lifetime" territory. > > > >4a) The mere fact that there is some partnership > >understanding, does not make an action a non-psyche. > > I DO NOT AGREE, IT DOES MAKE THE CALL A NON-PSYCHE. > Call it "knowledge" then. > >Logical consequence of the above (MIGHT BE, BUT WITH WRONG THESES). SO I DO > NOT BOTHER ABOUT 5) ANYMORE. > > LAST QUESTION: WHERE DO YOU NEED THIS FOR? OK, rephrase the conclusion : > >4a) The mere fact that there is some partnership > >_knowledge_, does not make an action a non-psyche. That knowledge cannot be called partnership understanding. WHERE DO I NEED THIS FOR ? The CoP goes a lot further than before in defining "partnership knowledge". Such knowledge is disclosable under L75. But if, as some people tend to do, such knowledge is also called parntership understanding, and this mere fact would be enough to rule the psyche illegal under L40A, that is just another way to say that all psyching is illegal. Because there is always some partnership knowledge. Even "this is the second hand we've played together, and he did not psyche the first one" is a piece of knowledge. The mere fact that there is knowledge can not be the basis on which to rule whether something is a psyche or not. Yet that same knowledge IS disclosable. I am only attacking the type of reasoning that goes : "a psyche is only a psyche if partner knows nothing about it". > > > >5) There are some partnership understandings that cannot be > >regulated against. > > > >If the regulations could rule any understanding illegal, > >then there can remain no psyches. This is contrary to the > >above. > > > > > > > > > >-- > >Herman DE WAEL > >Antwerpen Belgium > >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 26 02:12:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA29282 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 02:12:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from tisch.mail.mindspring.net (tisch.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.157]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA29277 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 02:12:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-33qsql7.dsl.mindspring.com [199.174.106.167]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA32506 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 12:12:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <007b01bfdec0$2e0611a0$010aa2c6@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3955B6E0.DE6D3A76@iig.com.au> <3955F020.B08CC8D@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: sorry Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 12:12:36 -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, June 25, 2000 7:42 AM Subject: Re: sorry > > I myself, when reading your first post, thought you did not > know about the sentence in the first paragraph of L46B. > Then the answer is simple : yes, if the intention is > incontrovertible, the change is allowed. > The first sentence of 46B does not stand alone. The conditions under which it applies are described in 45C4b. The failure to remember this was an important component of the now famous "Oh sh*t" ruling. > But if the AC rule that the intention is not, then their > ruling is correct as well. > > Personally, I see no reason to not call it > incontrovertible. It is plain silly to take a trick with > the ace of trumps, when you have already made it. > > I do not believe that the fact that the change was not > immediate matters, Please look at 45C4b, which allows a change in an inadvertent designation *without pause for thought*. >nor the fact that dummy drew the > attention. Please read 45F. Dummy's touching the 4, rather than the A (if this is what occurred), certainly appears to consititute a suggestion. At that point, even if Declarer's original call was determined to be inadvertent, the TD must adjust if the defenders were damaged by the play suggested. > There was an erroneous call, with different intention > incontrovertible. > Thus the card has not been played. > No, see above. > The only thing that could make me change my mind is if > declarer had forgotten that this were trumps. > > A is played. There are two likely grounds for ruling it stays played: If there was pause for thought Declarer can no longer change the inadvertent designation (if the designation was in fact deemed to be inadvertent). Also, if touching the 4 by Dummy is considered to suggest a play of the 4, then the TD must adjust the score if the suggested play damages the defense. IMO the AC got it right. Hirsch Davis Rockville, MD USA From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 26 04:42:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA29530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 04:42:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA29525 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 04:42:45 +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 136HMW-00005F-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 19:42:33 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:32:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific> <001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific> <000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona> <39461668.D81C58EA@village.uunet.be> <001701bfd5fb$6c96e840$532f37d2@laptop> <3948ADD5.E4278736@village.uunet.be> <200006181712.NAA10822@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <4.3.2.7.1.20000620081259.00ab5970@pop.cais.com> <00c801bfdb07$91af44e0$bd5908c3@dodona> <029301bfdbb8$65876260$ca2a1dc2@rabbit> <001801bfdc93$6fd386a0$075608c3@dodona> <010601bfdcd5$56149f00$2f291dc2@rabbit> <009101bfdce2$8949d4a0$f25908c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <009101bfdce2$8949d4a0$f25908c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >> It is not illegal to make a psyche because at >> the moment the psyche is made partner knows it >> is a psyche, and opponents might or might not know, >+=+ Quote: "A player may violate an announced >partnership agreement so long as his partner is >unaware of the violation (but habitual violations in >a partnership may create implicit agreements, which >must be disclosed)" - Law 75B. > Quote: " A player may make any call or play >(including an intentionally misleading call - such >as a psychic bid - or a call or play that departs >from commonly accepted, or previously announced, >use of a convention), without prior announcement, >provided that such call or play is not based on a >partnership understanding." - Law 40A. > You may not like the law, Thomas; I may think >it could be rewritten with advantage; but we must >deal now with the law as it is. Unless an action is >a 'commonly accepted' usage, something for the >Directors and ACs to judge (maybe with the NCBOs >guidance), the law only looks at what the >partnership discloses and what the partnership >knows about its own habits and practices, and >it tests these against what any opposing pair may > be reasonably expected to understand. The trouble is that while this may be your opinion of the *Law*, it is not the test applied in cases like the one Thomas is describing. He does refer to 'commonly accepted' usage. What is wrong with the approach to psyches you are espousing is that partnership understanding is being treated *differently* in the area of psyches, and the Law book does not suggest that at all. If the bidding goes 1S=2C=2H=3NT it is general knowledge rather than partnership knowledge that the 3NT bidder might be having a gamble, might have a solid 3NT, has shown a diamond stop, may not have a diamond stop. There is no need to disclose this. The approach to a green 3rd in hand opening having a tendency not to have full values is just as well known as a principle and shouldbe treated the same way. -- David Stevenson A learned bridge player called Burn Liverpool, England, UK Tried to lead when it wasn't his turn David Stevenson said Ian Payn wrote: "Have him shot through the head, That's the only way he'll ever learn." From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 26 05:08:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA29570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 05:08:54 +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 FAA29565 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 05:08:45 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 18062 invoked for bounce); 25 Jun 2000 19:08:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.43.200) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 25 Jun 2000 19:08:35 -0000 Message-ID: <03f801bfded8$eca80600$c82b1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: Subject: Re: UK UI Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 21:04:12 +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 "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > 2S P(h) 3S, Green (favoUrable if you're a Yank) > > x > Q9xx > AQ109 > Axxx > > Do you allow a double? No. If partner has values, he can reopen. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 26 05:26:08 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA29611 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 05:26:08 +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 FAA29602 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 05:25:36 +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 136I1L-000555-00; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 21:24:44 +0200 Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 21:29:42 +0100 (MET DST) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, =?iso-8859-2?q?Kov=E1cs=20Andr=E1s?= , =?iso-8859-2?q?Szil=E1gyi=20L=E1szl=F3?= , =?iso-8859-2?q?G=E1l=20P=E9ter?= , =?iso-8859-2?q?Homonnay=20G=E9za?= , =?iso-8859-2?q?Kelen=20K=E1roly?= , =?iso-8859-2?q?Ker=E9nyi=20Istv=E1n?= , =?iso-8859-2?q?Marjai=20Gy=F6rgy?= , =?iso-8859-2?q?Sztrapkovics=20L=E1szl=F3?= , Vikor Dani Subject: One board - two different problems 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 FAA29604 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The following board caused 2 interesting problems on a Hungarian tournament recently. The board. Pairs, dealer East, nobody vulnerable North J 9 7 4 5 2 Q 9 6 4 A Q 7 West East K 8 A Q 10 6 5 A K Q 9 8 4 3 J 10 7 K 10 5 2 8 5 10 6 3 South 3 2 6 A J 8 7 3 K J 9 4 2 Case 1. West is playing 4 Hearts. Unfortunately the K of Spades is among the Clubs. Opening lead is a Spade and declarer (do not ask me why) plays the 10 from dummy winning the trick. Now he plays the Ace of Spades discarding his "third" club (please do not analyse the play, anything can happen on Open Pairs), and leads a Diamond, winning the trick with the King. Plays 2 round of trumps plays the King of Spades (everybody discovering the revoke) and takes all the 13 tricks. The TD first offers the normal 2 tricks penalty for E-W (11 tricks). However South explains without the revoke he should have realised that the Spade suit yielded 5 trick for declarer therefore without the revoke he would certainly have played the Ace of Diamonds. How many trick do you decide for E-W? Case 2. (much more sophisticated) Bidding. East, wanted to make a weak 2 Spade bid places the red Stop card on the table but South (out of turn) places the green Pass on the table. The TD is called. West accepts the BOOT and the bidding goes: South West North East Pass 1 Cl* Pass 1 Di** Pass 1 H Pass 1 Sp Dble*** 2 H Pass 3 H**** Pass Pass Pass * Precision, 16 or more HCP ** Less than 8 HCP *** Not alerted **** Before the 3 H bid East asks the meaning of the double. North reply: Penalty Opening lead is a Spade. East leaves the room to smoke and knows nothing about the hands and result (12 tricks were taken). She returns for the next board to the next table and West explains her why did not she bid 4 H as South's did not have a hand for penalty double. Now East calls the TD and explains she got wrong information about the meaning of the double. Having the right information she would have bid 4 H instead of 3. The TD asks N-S and discovers they have no agreement for this situation. South obviously meant the double as take-out for the other 2 suits (as 1 Club and 1 Diamond were artificial calls) but North - due to the lack of any agreement for this situation - gave the information of Penalty to East. The TD decided the result achieved at the table should stand. E-W appealed. The AC decided there was no infraction of the Laws and the result of the board was due to the mistakes of E-W (especially E) therefore let the TD's decision stand (+230 for E-W) and decided in ratio of 2 to 1 to forfeit the appeal's fee. What is your opinion about this one? Thanks. Andras Booc martaandras@uze.net From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 26 05:58:58 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA29662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 05:58:58 +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 FAA29657 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 05:58:50 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 61421 invoked for bounce); 25 Jun 2000 19:58:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.42.142) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 25 Jun 2000 19:58:34 -0000 Message-ID: <044701bfdedf$e8086200$c82b1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Grattan Endicott" Cc: References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific><001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific><000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona><39461668.D81C58EA@village.uunet.be><001701bfd5fb$6c96e840$532f37d2@laptop><3948ADD5.E4278736@village.uunet.be><200006181712.NAA10822@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <4.3.2.7.1.20000620081259.00ab5970@pop.cais.com> <00c801bfdb07$91af44e0$bd5908c3@dodona> <029301bfdbb8$65876260$ca2a1dc2@rabbit> <001801bfdc93$6fd386a0$075608c3@dodona> <010601bfdcd5$56149f00$2f291dc2@rabbit> <009101bfdce2$8949d4a0$f25908c3@dodona> Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 21:59:20 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Grattan Endicott" wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Thomas Dehn > To: > Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 6:38 AM > Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. > ------------------- \x/ ------------------ > > > There still exists some confusion between what I would call > > "the mechanics of the game", and "partnership understandings". > > > -------------------- \X/------------------ > > > It is legitimate to > > > field partner's psychic if in the subsequent action the > > > psychic is exposed by the information upon which it > > > is lawful to base calls or plays. Even then the partner > > > of the psycher may occasionally need to explain why > > > he believes it is his partner and not an opponent who > > > has psyched. > > > Where the psychic is not exposed by the authorised > > > information available to the partner, the 'fielding' > > > (subsequent collusive action protecting the psychic) > > > is evidence of an undisclosed partnership > > > understanding. The laws do not say that 'fielding' is > > > an offence, they point to the making of the psychic > > > call as the offence in the stated circumstances. > > > > I still see here a tendency to outlaw common > > well-known psyches. I disagree with Grattan's opinion > > that the law restricts psyches to psyches of > > which partner is unaware. > --------------- \X/ -------------------- > > > It is not illegal to make a psyche because at > > the moment the psyche is made partner knows it > > is a psyche, and opponents might or might not know, > > > +=+ Quote: "A player may violate an announced > partnership agreement so long as his partner is > unaware of the violation (but habitual violations in > a partnership may create implicit agreements, which > must be disclosed)" - Law 75B. L75B does not state whether "A player may not violate an announced partnership agreement if partner is aware of the violation" holds or not. The comment in parantheses clarifies that implicit agreements about violations of agreements must be disclosed, but does not restrict the violations either. Note, furthermore, that "habitual violation" is quite a strong wording. Then, there is a difference between "knowing partner has psyched" (frequently easy to work out by looking at the vulnerability without even knowing whom you are partnering), and knowing partner's actual holding. > Quote: " A player may make any call or play > (including an intentionally misleading call - such > as a psychic bid - or a call or play that departs > from commonly accepted, or previously announced, > use of a convention), without prior announcement, > provided that such call or play is not based on a > partnership understanding." - Law 40A. If my partner's 3rd seat nonvul openers depart from system, this bis is based on the mechanics of bridge, not on a partnership understanding. There might be an undisclosed partnership understanding if his nonvul 3rd seat openers, especially his preempts, never were shady :->. There also might be a partnership understanding if partner's shows a certain pattern in his deviations, like Herman's 1H "0-3 or normal opening bid". But there is nothing to disclose or announce just because a player frequently psyches in situations which call for some action. I request prior announcement if my opponents do *never* psyche :->>>. > You may not like the law, Thomas; I may think > it could be rewritten with advantage; but we must > deal now with the law as it is. I agree. However, I do see the CoP in violation with the laws as they are. That's the point of this discussion. > Unless an action is > a 'commonly accepted' usage, something for the > Directors and ACs to judge (maybe with the NCBOs > guidance), the law only looks at what the > partnership discloses and what the partnership > knows about its own habits and practices, and > it tests these against what any opposing pair may > be reasonably expected to understand. If "the > moment a psyche is made partner knows it is a > psyche" (sic), there is not the slightest doubt that > the law demands prior announcement of the > partnership understanding from which this > knowledge of a deliberate violation of announced > methods is gained. Most opponents are aware of simple facts like "vulnerable games score more than a few nonvul undertricks" or "if I deny a 5 card spade suit I won't suddenly show up with 6 spades". Other opponents are unaware of such basic facts, but since those facts are publicly available and part of the game, I do not see any requirement to disclose them, neither in advance nor once such situations show up at the table. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 26 06:00:23 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA29677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 06:00:23 +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 GAA29672 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 06:00:12 +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 136IZ2-0006pW-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 21:59:33 +0200 Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 22:04:43 +0100 (MET DST) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: One board - two different problems (fwd) 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 GAA29673 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk 2000.06.25. 21:29:42 +1h-kor írta: The following board caused 2 interesting problems on a Hungarian tournament recently. The board. Pairs, dealer East, nobody vulnerable North J 9 7 4 5 2 Q 9 6 4 A Q 7 West East K 8 A Q 10 6 5 A K Q 9 8 4 3 J 10 7 K 10 5 2 8 5 10 6 3 South 3 2 6 A J 8 7 3 K J 9 4 2 Case 1. West is playing 4 Hearts. Unfortunately the K of Spades is among the Clubs. Opening lead is a Spade and declarer (do not ask me why) plays the 10 from dummy winning the trick. Now he plays the Ace of Spades discarding his "third" club (please do not analyse the play, anything can happen on Open Pairs), and leads a Diamond, winning the trick with the King. Plays 2 round of trumps plays the King of Spades (everybody discovering the revoke) and takes all the 13 tricks. The TD first offers the normal 2 tricks penalty for E-W (11 tricks). However South explains without the revoke he should have realised that the Spade suit yielded 5 trick for declarer therefore without the revoke he would certainly have played the Ace of Diamonds. How many trick do you decide for E-W? Case 2. (much more sophisticated) Bidding. East, wanted to make a weak 2 Spade bid places the red Stop card on the table but South (out of turn) places the green Pass on the table. The TD is called. West accepts the BOOT and the bidding goes: South West North East Pass 1 Cl* Pass 1 Di** Pass 1 H Pass 1 Sp Dble*** 2 H Pass 3 H**** Pass Pass Pass * Precision, 16 or more HCP ** Less than 8 HCP *** Not alerted **** Before the 3 H bid East asks the meaning of the double. North reply: Penalty Opening lead is a Spade. East leaves the room to smoke and knows nothing about the hands and result (12 tricks were taken). She returns for the next board to the next table and West explains her why did not she bid 4 H as South's did not have a hand for penalty double. Now East calls the TD and explains she got wrong information about the meaning of the double. Having the right information she would have bid 4 H instead of 3. The TD asks N-S and discovers they have no agreement for this situation. South obviously meant the double as take-out for the other 2 suits (as 1 Club and 1 Diamond were artificial calls) but North - due to the lack of any agreement for this situation - gave the information of Penalty to East. The TD decided the result achieved at the table should stand. E-W appealed. The AC decided there was no infraction of the Laws and the result of the board was due to the mistakes of E-W (especially E) therefore let the TD's decision stand (+230 for E-W) and decided in ratio of 2 to 1 to forfeit the appeal's fee. What is your opinion about this one? Thanks. Andras Booc martaandras@uze.net From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 26 07:50:33 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA29893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 07:50:33 +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 HAA29888 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 07:50:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.181] (dhcp165-181.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.181]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA00160 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:50:00 -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: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:48:56 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: One board - two different problems Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 9:29 PM +0100 6/25/00, Martaandras@uze.net wrote: >The following board caused 2 interesting problems on a >Hungarian tournament recently. >The board. >Pairs, dealer East, nobody vulnerable > > North > J 9 7 4 > 5 2 > Q 9 6 4 > A Q 7 > >West East >K 8 A Q 10 6 5 >A K Q 9 8 4 3 J 10 7 >K 10 5 2 >8 5 10 6 3 > South > 3 2 > 6 > A J 8 7 3 > K J 9 4 2 > >Case 1. >West is playing 4 Hearts. Unfortunately the K of Spades is among the Clubs. >Opening lead is a Spade and declarer (do not ask me why) plays the 10 >from dummy winning the trick. Now he plays the Ace of Spades discarding his >"third" club (please do not analyse the play, anything can happen on Open >Pairs), and leads a Diamond, winning the trick with the King. Plays 2 >round of trumps >plays the King of Spades (everybody discovering the revoke) and takes all >the 13 >tricks. The TD first offers the normal 2 tricks penalty for E-W (11 tricks). >However South explains without the revoke he should have realised that >the Spade suit yielded 5 trick for declarer therefore without the revoke he >would certainly have played the Ace of Diamonds. >How many trick do you decide for E-W? We need to see what West gained from the revoke. If West had known about the SK at trick 1, he would have cashed his twelve tricks. If West had discovered the SK at trick 2, he would have crashed it with the SA. Normal play still yields twelve tricks: two rounds of trumps ending in dummy, SQ pitching a club, spade ruff, another trump to dummy, throw a club on the last spade, lead a diamond. I don't think it is fair to West to assume that he would have played the hand sufficiently badly as to make only ten tricks without the revoke. If one of the above lines had yielded ten tricks, then I would rule ten tricks. >Case 2. (much more sophisticated) >Bidding. >East, wanted to make a weak 2 Spade bid places the red Stop card on the >table but >South (out of turn) places the green Pass on the table. The TD is called. Is the STOP card UI or AI to West? It was not an infraction, but it was also not a legal call or bid. I would say it is AI, as it is a withdrawn action of the non-offending side. (This doesn't matter here.) West accepts the >BOOT and the bidding goes: >South West North East >Pass 1 Cl* Pass 1 Di** >Pass 1 H Pass 1 Sp >Dble*** 2 H Pass 3 H**** >Pass Pass Pass >* Precision, 16 or more HCP >** Less than 8 HCP >*** Not alerted >**** Before the 3 H bid East asks the meaning of the double. North reply: >Penalty > >Opening lead is a Spade. East leaves the room to smoke and knows nothing >about the >hands and result (12 tricks were taken). She returns for the next board to >the next table >and West explains her why did not she bid 4 H as South's did not have a >hand for penalty >double. Now East calls the TD and explains she got wrong information about >the meaning >of the double. Having the right information she would have bid 4 H >instead of 3. Was there MI? I don't think there is a strong obligation here to get the opponents to correct a probably mistaken explanation. If the explanation is clearly wrong on the auction (I've had opponents alert and explain a non-jump bid as a weak jump shift), a good player cannot claim MI, but I don't think this situation fits into that category. Double for takeout is also odd here if South could have bid an unusual 1NT last turn to show the minors. Now, assuming MI, was there damage? Some Precision players hold strictly to HCP and will not open 1C without 16 HCP. However, the actual hand has only 15, which suggests that E-W are not in this group. If West could have promoted his hand, as most Precision players do, then East's 3H bid is correct with the MI; give West x AKQxxx xxx AJx and 4H will probably go down. The next problem is West's failure to bid 4H. The MI suggests that South is likely to have five good spades, in which case a spade lead and ruffed spade return will cost West a trick. Give East JTxxx JTx Ax xxx and 4H is now hopeless; switch the minors and it still requires the DA on side. Thus, I don't find West's failure to bid 4H, given his MI about the spade position, to be an egrqgious error. >The TD asks N-S and discovers they have no agreement for this situation. >South obviously >meant the double as take-out for the other 2 suits (as 1 Club and 1 >Diamond were artificial calls) >but North - due to the lack of any agreement for this situation - gave the >information of Penalty >to East. The TD decided the result achieved at the table should stand. E-W >appealed. The TD should say why he was ruling; this may affect such things as the AC's retention of the deposit. If the TD ruled no MI, fo example, then the AC cannot reasonably retain the deposit if it finds that there was MI. >The AC decided there was no infraction of the Laws and the result of the >board was due to >the mistakes of E-W (especially E) therefore let the TD's decision stand >(+230 for E-W) and >decided in ratio of 2 to 1 to forfeit the appeal's fee. >What is your opinion about this one? I strongly disagree with the forfeited fee. The fact that I had to go into some analysis to determine whether 3H or 4H were errors indicates that E-W should not be expected to decide this on their own. I could sess the AC ruling either way (disagreeing with my analysis on either bid). The standard for retention of the deposit should be that the appellants, given their level of expertise, and the TD's ruling, should have known that they had no case. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 26 10:05:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA00239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:05:27 +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 KAA00234 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:05:19 +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 <20000626000510.XZGA381.mta01-svc.server.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 01:05:10 +0100 Message-ID: <006201bfdf03$2042ae00$6958fd3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Needle in a haystack. Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 01:11:49 +0100 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 please ignore this for 14 days. Game All. Dealer E. 64 KT74 952 KT52 T852 KJ3 986 A532 AQJ3 K7 J7 AQ86 AQ97 QJ T864 943 Auction W N E S 1C P 1D P 2NT P 3C P 3H P 3NT AP No bids were alerted. There were no hesitations. Table result N/S -600 Result in other room N/S -120 Before South faced the opening lead, West said "my partner should have alerted my 3C". East refuted this. West said "It's 5 card Stayman". Systemically. E/W system is 5 card Stayman opposite an opening 2NT, but in this auction it is natural and forcing. When Dummy was faced North called the TD and asked why if he thought they were playing 5 cd Stayman, West had not bid 4H. TD asked West away from the table why he had chosen to bid 3NT. He answered "because my hand is flat". Further asked why he had used a 5 card ask, he said "we might have had a fit. Asked what he thought when his partner failed to alert, he said "I thought he'd forgotten the system". Do you think he's got 5 H? "No I think it might be 4" By this time East had told the opps that he had not been responding to Stayman, but bidding naturally in accord with their system. Both East and West have been most helpful to their opps, and to the TD. N/S claimed confusion caused them to misdefend 3NT. N/S agreed they had all necessary information before play began. Is there an infraction here? How do you rule. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 26 10:18:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA00269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:18:42 +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 KAA00264 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:18:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.253.88.105]) by mta02-svc.server.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000626011754.LPGU10065.mta02-svc.server.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 01:17:54 +0000 Message-ID: <006a01bfdf04$fa5682a0$6958fd3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" Subject: RTFLB for me. Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 01:25:05 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I can't see it. OBOOT. RHOs turn LHO does not accept. RHO opens 1NT. Overcall 2C which systemically would be Ms. Now it is natural Part is silenced 1 round. Assume bidding gets to partner on R2. Is partner allowed to assume Nat Clubs or must part alert 2C and bid as tho' Ms? Surely this is not a psyche opposite a silenced partner. Conventional correction of insufficiency is dealt with by Law 27.Law 31 does not seem to address this. There is no suggestion of "could have known" Please advise me. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 26 10:25:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA00290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:25:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta02-svc.server.ntlworld.com (mta02-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA00284 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:25:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.253.88.105]) by mta02-svc.server.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000626012438.LQHO10065.mta02-svc.server.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 01:24:38 +0000 Message-ID: <008e01bfdf05$eb195640$6958fd3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" Subject: RTFLB for me. Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 01:31:49 +0100 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 can't see it. 1C OBOOT. RHOs turn LHO does not accept. RHO opens 1NT. Overcall 2C which systemically would be Ms. Now it is natural Part is silenced 1 round. Assume bidding gets to partner on R2. Is partner allowed to assume Nat Clubs or must part alert 2C and bid as tho' Ms? Surely this is not a psyche opposite a silenced partner. Conventional correction of insufficiency is dealt with by Law 27.Law 31 does not seem to address this. There is no suggestion of "could have known" Please advise me. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 26 10:51:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA00380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:51:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.118]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA00375 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:51:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.53] (d18182a35.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.53]) by mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA19561 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 20:42:42 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <007b01bfdec0$2e0611a0$010aa2c6@mindspring.com> References: <3955B6E0.DE6D3A76@iig.com.au> <3955F020.B08CC8D@village.uunet.be> <007b01bfdec0$2e0611a0$010aa2c6@mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 20:49:56 -0400 To: "Bridge Laws" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: sorry Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 12:12 PM -0400 6/25/00, Hirsch Davis wrote: >Please read 45F. Dummy's touching the 4, rather than the A (if this is what >occurred), certainly appears to consititute a suggestion. At that point, >even if Declarer's original call was determined to be inadvertent, the TD >must adjust if the defenders were damaged by the play suggested. Let's say I am dummy in this situation. My partner calls for the Ace. I am quite likely to touch the 4 in the course of getting to the Ace and picking it up. Are you saying that's illegal? It seems like the assumption here is that _any_ time dummy touches a card not called for by declarer, that constitutes a suggestion as to what to play. I don't buy it. Sure if I touch the 4, and then sit there, that looks like I'm suggesting declarer rethink his play, but the only evidence I've seen said "dummy touched the 4". What _really_ happened? 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/AwUBOVao7r2UW3au93vOEQJREACfQ5mZ3t9jd0DxSgOpcqb4b6aLOv4AoIYQ zXFVERdK90h53RUYQN8C5MIs =RXpM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 26 12:52:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA00594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:52:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f82.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA00589 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:52:14 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 45489 invoked by uid 0); 26 Jun 2000 02:51:36 -0000 Message-ID: <20000626025136.45488.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 172.162.213.195 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 19:51:36 PDT X-Originating-IP: [172.162.213.195] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UK UI Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 19:51:36 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Thomas Dehn" > >"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > 2S P(h) 3S, Green (favoUrable if you're a Yank) > > > > x > > Q9xx > > AQ109 > > Axxx > > > > Do you allow a double? > >No. If partner has values, he can reopen. This assumes that the double has already been made and it's up to the director to allow it. As a player, if you choose to pass, do it in tempo or your partner will not be allowed to bid either. Me, I probably would have knee-jerk doubled, but given the hesitation I don't think it'll wash. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 26 13:52:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA00720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:52:57 +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 NAA00715 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:52:48 +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 136PwO-00034R-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 05:52:08 +0200 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 05:57:13 +0100 (MET DST) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: One board - two different problems 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 NAA00716 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "David J. Grabiner" 2000.06.25. 17:48:56 -4h-kor írta: Necessary additional information to Case 2: EW players were really experienced, NS players were tourists. Neither the TD nor the AC found any MI in this case. Andras Booc From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 26 14:00:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA00744 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:00:26 +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 OAA00739 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:00:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-1054g4e.dsl.mindspring.com [64.82.64.142]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA14587 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 00:00:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000001bfdf23$04f9ea80$010aa2c6@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3955B6E0.DE6D3A76@iig.com.au><3955F020.B08CC8D@village.uunet.be><007b01bfdec0$2e0611a0$010aa2c6@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: sorry Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 23:49:55 -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: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2000 8:49 PM Subject: Re: sorry > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > At 12:12 PM -0400 6/25/00, Hirsch Davis wrote: > >Please read 45F. Dummy's touching the 4, rather than the A (if this is what > >occurred), certainly appears to consititute a suggestion. At that point, > >even if Declarer's original call was determined to be inadvertent, the TD > >must adjust if the defenders were damaged by the play suggested. > > Let's say I am dummy in this situation. My partner calls for the Ace. > I am quite likely to touch the 4 in the course of getting to the Ace > and picking it up. Are you saying that's illegal? >It seems like the > assumption here is that _any_ time dummy touches a card not called > for by declarer, that constitutes a suggestion as to what to play. I > don't buy it. Sure if I touch the 4, and then sit there, that looks > like I'm suggesting declarer rethink his play, but the only evidence > I've seen said "dummy touched the 4". What _really_ happened? > > Regards, > > Ed > Ed, Please look at the part of my post in parentheses, where it says "if this is what occurred". I had hoped that was a sufficient disclaimer to indicate that I am not in possession of all of the facts. If you read 45F, it's up to the TD (or AC) to determine if contact represents a suggestion (and yes, any time Dummy touches or indicates a card without instructions from Declarer, it is an infraction (unless it is for purposes of arrangement) and requires that the TD be summoned to determine if the contact represents a suggestion.) If the player had to move the 4 to reach the A, that is simply rearrangement and not a problem. The description that was presented led me to believe that this was not what occurred. There are two cards on the table. Declarer calls for the losing one. Dummy touches the other. Declarer changes his play. Please allow me a certain amount of skepticism about this sequence of events. Regards, Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 26 17:19:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA01116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:19:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.118]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA01110 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:19:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.53] (d18182a35.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.53]) by mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA10518 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 03:10:45 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000001bfdf23$04f9ea80$010aa2c6@mindspring.com> References: <3955B6E0.DE6D3A76@iig.com.au><3955F020.B08CC8D@village.uunet.be><007b01bf dec0$2e0611a0$010aa2c6@mindspring.com> <000001bfdf23$04f9ea80$010aa2c6@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 03:15:45 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: sorry Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 "Hirsch Davis" wrote: >Ed, > >Please look at the part of my post in parentheses, where it says "if this is >what occurred". I had hoped that was a sufficient disclaimer to indicate >that I am not in possession of all of the facts. I did read it. I missed its significance. My bad. > If you read 45F, it's up to >the TD (or AC) to determine if contact represents a suggestion (and yes, any >time Dummy touches or indicates a card without instructions from Declarer, >it is an infraction (unless it is for purposes of arrangement) and requires >that the TD be summoned to determine if the contact represents a suggestion.) > >If the player had to move the 4 to reach the A, that is simply rearrangement >and not a problem. The description that was presented led me to believe >that this was not what occurred. There are two cards on the table. Declarer >calls for the losing one. Dummy touches the other. Declarer changes his >play. Please allow me a certain amount of skepticism about this sequence of >events. Certainly, if you will allow me the same amount of skepticism as to the way it happened. As you say, we don't have all the facts. I do have one question, though: are you really suggesting, as you seem to be, that every time I see dummy touch a card declarer did not name, and it is not absolutely clear he needed to rearrange to comply with declarer's instructions, I should call the director? That seems a bit, um, unwieldy. :-) 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/AwUBOVcD3L2UW3au93vOEQKXlQCg3rVCIy7TMlKnlUC52RovHa50OsUAoJUG GI/NJ9WTxuLVOlJJNCwYHcYh =yF2W -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 26 17:29:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA01152 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:29:43 +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 RAA01147 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:29:35 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id IAA24527 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 08:28:53 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 08:28 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: UK UI 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: "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > 2S P(h) 3S, Green (favoUrable if you're a Yank) > > x > Q9xx > AQ109 > Axxx > > Do you allow a double? > How do we know. Assuming 3S is 0+ 3 card support then a typical semi-aggressive MP-style YC player would never pass this. If 3S is semi-constructive then several reasonable, but slightly over-cautious team/rubber-style* players would not take the risk of doubling. I doubt many of your Japanese ladies would even consider bidding. * Although players do change their style between MPs/IMPs I believe that many become somewhat habituated by the game they normally play (or perhaps are just naturally more inclined to a particular form of scoring). Also please note that I cannot construct a hand that hesitates for 10+ seconds over 2S and doesn't take action if 3S is passed back round so whether we allow the double or not may not affect the final score. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 26 18:56:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA01260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:56:04 +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 SAA01255 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:55:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id KAA25135 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:57:49 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Jun 26 10:55:43 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JR21GD7TP2000T58@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:58:18 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:53:49 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:58:11 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: RTFLB for me. To: "'anne_jones'" , BLML Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B625@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk We changed this in '97, adding to L29 that the interpretation of denomination in L31 (among others) should be related to the suits shown. So partner is barred from the bidding during this whole auction. This should have been told by the TD, may be south still has a call to show his clubs. And how can he bid 2c knowing his partner is barred? Accepting 2c down 7? If he had bid 2H in stead he still does not repeat the suits shown (not the spades)and partner should pass constantly. Furthermore 26A applies (if becoming defender), unless south is able to show clubs during the legal auction. ton > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: anne_jones [mailto:anne_jones@ntlworld.com] > Verzonden: maandag 26 juni 2000 2:32 > Aan: BLML > Onderwerp: RTFLB for me. > > > I can't see it. > > 1C OBOOT. RHOs turn > LHO does not accept. > RHO opens 1NT. > Overcall 2C which systemically would be Ms. > Now it is natural Part is silenced 1 round. > Assume bidding gets to partner on R2. > Is partner allowed to assume Nat Clubs or must part > alert 2C and bid as tho' Ms? > Surely this is not a psyche opposite a silenced partner. > Conventional correction of insufficiency is dealt > with by Law 27.Law 31 does not seem to address this. > There is no suggestion of "could have known" > Please advise me. > Anne > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 26 19:31:26 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA01382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 19:31:26 +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 TAA01377 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 19:31:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 11:30:49 +0200 Received: from xion.spase.nl (xion.spase.nl [192.168.200.7]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with ESMTP id LAA02421 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 11:17:05 +0200 Received: by xion.spase.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 11:16:36 +0200 Message-ID: <00B2A1703C4BD41186A4005004546901A3C9@xion.spase.nl> From: Martin Sinot To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: One board - two different problems Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 11:16:31 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martaandras@uze.net wrote: >The following board caused 2 interesting problems on a >Hungarian tournament recently. >The board. >Pairs, dealer East, nobody vulnerable > > North > J 9 7 4 > 5 2 > Q 9 6 4 > A Q 7 > >West East >K 8 A Q 10 6 5 >A K Q 9 8 4 3 J 10 7 >K 10 5 2 >8 5 10 6 3 > South > 3 2 > 6 > A J 8 7 3 > K J 9 4 2 > > >Case 1. >West is playing 4 Hearts. Unfortunately the K of Spades is among the Clubs. >Opening lead is a Spade and declarer (do not ask me why) plays the 10 >from dummy winning the trick. Now he plays the Ace of Spades discarding his >"third" club (please do not analyse the play, anything can happen on Open >Pairs), and leads a Diamond, winning the trick with the King. Plays 2 round of trumps >plays the King of Spades (everybody discovering the revoke) and takes all the 13 >tricks. The TD first offers the normal 2 tricks penalty for E-W (11 tricks). >However South explains without the revoke he should have realised that >the Spade suit yielded 5 trick for declarer therefore without the revoke he >would certainly have played the Ace of Diamonds. >How many trick do you decide for E-W? As far as I can see, West takes twelve tricks without the revoke. And even if you let West play the SK under the ace, he certainly would discard at least one club on the spades after drawing trumps, before playing a diamond. That brings in at least 11 tricks for EW. Therefore, the revoke penalty of two tricks is sufficient compensation for NS. 11 tricks. >Case 2. (much more sophisticated) >Bidding. >East, wanted to make a weak 2 Spade bid places the red Stop card on the table but >South (out of turn) places the green Pass on the table. The TD is called. West accepts the >BOOT and the bidding goes: >South West North East >Pass 1 Cl* Pass 1 Di** >Pass 1 H Pass 1 Sp >Dble*** 2 H Pass 3 H**** >Pass Pass Pass >* Precision, 16 or more HCP >** Less than 8 HCP >*** Not alerted >**** Before the 3 H bid East asks the meaning of the double. North reply: Penalty > >Opening lead is a Spade. East leaves the room to smoke and knows nothing about the >hands and result (12 tricks were taken). She returns for the next board to the next table >and West explains her why did not she bid 4 H as South's did not have a hand for penalty >double. Now East calls the TD and explains she got wrong information about the meaning >of the double. Having the right information she would have bid 4 H instead of 3. >The TD asks N-S and discovers they have no agreement for this situation. South obviously >meant the double as take-out for the other 2 suits (as 1 Club and 1 Diamond were artificial calls) >but North - due to the lack of any agreement for this situation - gave the information of Penalty >to East. The TD decided the result achieved at the table should stand. E-W appealed. > >The AC decided there was no infraction of the Laws and the result of the board was due to >the mistakes of E-W (especially E) therefore let the TD's decision stand (+230 for E-W) and >decided in ratio of 2 to 1 to forfeit the appeal's fee. >What is your opinion about this one? > >Thanks. > >Andras Booc >martaandras@uze.net Without agreements about the double, it sounds to me as a penalty double, just as North explained it. That would mean no infraction, hence no correction. Although I would tell North that it is better in this case to explain that there no agreements about the double, rather than telling his interpretation. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 26 20:30:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA01597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 20:30:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f157.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.157]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA01590 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 20:30:11 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 33388 invoked by uid 0); 26 Jun 2000 10:29:22 -0000 Message-ID: <20000626102922.33387.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.219 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 03:29:22 PDT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UK UI Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 03:29:22 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" >To: >Subject: Re: UK UI >Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 15:33:09 +0100 > > >"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > >> > >> 2S P(h) 3S, Green (favoUrable if you're a Yank) > > > >Favorable for us Yank's. > > > >> > >> x > >> Q9xx > >> AQ109 > >> Axxx > >> > >> Do you allow a double? > > > >No. The double is suggested over pass by the hesitation. > >Best regards, >Fearghal. > Which means, effectively, that all partner has to do when he wants you to shut up is to hesitate. That cannot, with respect, be the intent of the laws. ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 26 21:37:33 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA01834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:37:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA01829 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:37:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id NAA29654 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:38:47 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Jun 26 13:36:35 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JR272SJYB2000TB1@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:39:09 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:34:40 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:39:05 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Psyches, another try To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , ton kooijman , Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B627@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 Herman wrote: > > >2) Psyches can not be ruled illegal. > > and I responded: > > I PROBABLY AGREE, ALWAYS HAVE HAD PROBLEMS WITH > REGULATIONS FORBIDDING > > PSYCHES (OF STRONG ARTIFICIAL OPENING CALLS). SEEMS TO BE > BASED ON 40D, > > FIRST SENTENCE. after which Grattan added: > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------- > [+=+ A psychic is illegal under Law 40A and/or Law 75B if based > upon a partnership understanding that has not been announced > beforehand. An alert is not something that provides 'PRIOR > ANNOUNCEMENT ' (sic). But see reference below to a WBFLC > ruling sent to the EBL.+=+] > -------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------- Grattan is right, look at the definition: it does not say that partner should be unaware of the deviation. So a psyche with a partnership understanding is possible and then illegal (ton) > > > > >There are two methods by which some people rule some actions > > >illegal. > > >Law 40A states that psyches are not illegal. > > >So if something is ruled illegal by Law 40A, it is not a > > >psyche. > > > > NO. 'THEY' MIGHT MISUSE 40A. Well, I repeat my yesterday conclusion, that Herman's reasoning is not right > > >Some people would perhaps like this to be the case, but the > > >intent of the WBF, as witnessed by Law 40A, is clearly such. > > >No single organisation has ever failed to publicly state > > >that psyches are allowed. Their actions and the results of > > >them have not always been to that effect, but their words > > >have always been thus. > > >By non-empty, of course I am not referring to the very > > >restricted set of "first in a lifetime"-psyches. Some > > >people advocate (or work by) a once-in-a-lifetime rule. > > >That is not what I am talking of. > > > > > >important conclusion : > > > > > >There is a set of actions, not empty, that can not be ruled > > >illegal. > > > > > > LET ME REPEAT: I PROBABLY AGREE WITH YOU, UNLESS SOMEBODY > CAN CONVINCE ME > > THAT A RESTRICTION IN THE USE OF A CONVENTION MAY BE TO > FORBID PSYCHING > IT. > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------- > > [+=+ In response to formal enquiry from the European Bridge League > the WBF Laws Committee replied that the Law empowering the > regulation of the use of conventions is unrestricted and includes > the power to ban their psyching. I have the record of this ruling on > file. The reference to one level initial actions in 40D was added > later, but it is part of the same Law and equally unrestricted as to > the nature of the regulation that may be applied. +=+] > -------------------------------------------------------------- Yes we are aware of that decision, but the question is whether this answer was in line with the laws as written by the WBF LC itself. A legal psyche is not part of the system and I find it strange to regulate it. Using 40D for conventions is completely legal of course, but not comparable with using it for psyches. How happy we can be that no appeal is possible against decisions of the LC of which I have the honour to be the chairman. ton > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > [+=+ A psychic call is defined as "a deliberate and gross > misstatement of honour strength or suit length". Law 40A > makes it clear that the definition is tested against what has > been announced beforehand by the partnership as to its > agreements. Agreements are subject to regulation under > Law 40D; an agreement is subject to regulation if it > constitutes a conventional use of a bid - i.e. a use that > does not match to one of the exclusions in section 1 of > the definition of 'convention'; an agreement is also > subject to regulation if it permits the partnership's initial > actions at the one level, even if not conventional, to be > made with a hand a king or more below average strength. > A regulation may forbid such agreements under the > ruling made by the WBF Laws Committee (which > ruling has been acted upon by, inter alia, the European > Bridge League, the American Contract Bridge League, > and the World Bridge Federation). This still doen't lead to the conclusion that we can forbid psyches when using a bid with a conventional meaning. I do not see the connection with the statements above and keep my doubts. The problem is that I like the approach to forbid such calls in pairs (2 boards a table) events. So don't expect me to attack it, but how legal are we? ton > Under the Geneva ruling of the WBF Executive > and Rules & Regulations Committee sitting jointly > regulations under Law 40D are not subject to Law 80F. > The WBF Laws Committee ruling above is consistent > with this. It was one of the early signals that the WBF > was prepared to be confident of sensible action > by regulating authorities and not to be a nanny to > them. +=+] > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 26 21:42:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA01862 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:42:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA01857 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:41:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.0.ap (guppy)) id NAA09713; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:40:38 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/%I%.1.ap (mach.test)) id NAA04409; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:41:23 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000626134930.00881100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:49:30 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: Psyches, another try In-Reply-To: <39538E34.A60AFE1@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 18:20 23/06/00 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: # AG : thuis one is *great*. Albeit wirh a little flaw in it, as I will try to explain. [snip] (end of point 3) >There is a set of actions, not empty, that can not be ruled >illegal. #AG : up to there, the reasoning is flawless, and would score high in a course on Bourbachian mathematics. > >Some people seem to act as if this is not true. >Not that they'd admit to it. > >4) There can be partnership understanding about psyches. > >This seems to be wrong, in many (most) people's eyes, yet it >must be true. >Every single action creates some partnership understanding. # AG : well, here is the problem : Herman states 'every single action creates some partnership understanding' as a new axiom. I don't think it is a good one. I'd even say more : 1) a partnership understanding about some bid is a characteristic, agreed by both players, which would influence parnter's further bidding in any way. 2) a psyche could fairly well be defined as a bid that doesn't create a partnership understanding, because partner won't take this into account when deciding how to bid further. But if you state that partner will never support a (3rd seat) 1H opening to 4H, or that after 1H-D-1S-P, opener may not bid 3S, *this* creates a partnership understanding, and takes your 1H opening out of psyche territory. So my *axiomatic* position would be : 1) if nothing is built in the system to allow for a possible (say, 1H opening) being a psyche, it it really a psyche, and as such may not be restricted, according to what preceedes. 2) if some developements make it clear that the partnership will be aware of a possible psyche, the bid in question is no more a psyche, creates a partnership understanding, and may be regulated, even banned (it often will). This is the same as stating that a pair who plays Drury over 3rd hand openings is aware that 3rd hand openings might well be light : they have prepared themselves for it happening. Isn't that *logic* ? A. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 27 00:04:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA02216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 00:04:45 +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 AAA02211 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 00:04:35 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id PAA09280 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:03:55 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:03 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: RE: Psyches, another try 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: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B627@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Ton wrote: > Grattan is right, look at the definition: it does not say that partner > should be unaware of the deviation. So a psyche with a partnership > understanding is possible and then illegal (ton) It seems almost impossible *not* to have a "partnership understanding", except perhaps for the first few boards with a pick-up partner. Are all psyches then, by definition, illegal. I have never had the pleasure of partnering Zia but when he invites me to do so in the next world championship I will be reluctant to decline. However, I do know that he likes to psyche now and again - an understanding most players in the world would find hard to avoid. Is this level of understanding enough to rule any psyche he makes illegal? If not, why not? Then the circular argument starts to come into play. If all his psyches are illegal then I must surely disclose to opponents that he will not be psyching, thus I can have no understanding that he might psyche, thus he is free to psyche, thus I have an understanding, thus... I attempt to classify the Zia NT 1. Ostensibly 12(11.5)-14 balanced, and that is what partner will play for. 2. May be a balanced 9 count 3. May be off-shape and weak with a 6 card suit 4. May be overstrength hoping to trap opponents 5. May be something else I haven't thought of 6. No special sequences exist to allow partner to detect the psyche. 7. Pass does not deny the hand-types covered by 2&3. My belief is that this is a true, and legal, psyche regardless of who his partner might be. Compare this with the Modified DeWael 1H (after P,P). 1. Ostensibly 5+ hearts, 11+ points, and that is what partner will play for. 2. If not the above then 0-3 points short hearts. 3. No special sequences exist to allow partner to detect the psyche. 4. Pass would deny the holding in 2. Under these conditions I could live with a ruling stating that the 1H psyche was illegal. However make it 1. Ostensibly 5+ hearts, 11+ points, and that is what partner will play for. 2. May be 0-3 points short hearts. 3. May be weak with hearts 4. May be one of several other hand types 5. No special sequences exist to allow partner to detect the psyche. 6. Pass does not deny holdings 2-4. And again I think we are back to a true, and legal, psyche. So something like. A psyche is illegal if, on being told that partner has psyched one can guess their hand within narrow boundaries. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 27 00:20:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA02247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 00:07:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from poseidon.tcp.net.uk (poseidon.tcp.net.uk [195.80.0.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA02235 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 00:07:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (vt1-71.du.tcp.co.uk [195.80.1.71]) by poseidon.tcp.net.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id PAA10518; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:06:25 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000626142322.007ad4b0@popmail.tcp.co.uk> X-Sender: spock@popmail.tcp.co.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:23:22 +0100 To: "John Probst" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: M Smith Subject: Re: UK UI In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:17 25/06/2000 +0100, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >2S P(h) 3S, Green (favoUrable if you're a Yank) > >x >Q9xx >AQ109 >Axxx > >Do you allow a double? Double certainly looks automatic to me, at any vulnerability, hesitation or not. Marc From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 27 01:09:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA02426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:09:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA02421 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:09:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.0.ap (guppy)) id RAA07440; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:08:36 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/%I%.1.ap (mach.test)) id RAA19992; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:09:20 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000626171729.00882ca0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:17:29 +0200 To: "Wayne Burrows" , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: "...the most favourable result that was likely..." L12C2 In-Reply-To: <006801bfde26$2cb5d1e0$382e37d2@laptop> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:49 25/06/00 +1200, Wayne Burrows wrote: > >From: "michael amos" > >To my mind this implies trying to decide what was likely to happen at that >table and not basing a decision on what was happening at other tables. >There are a number of reasons for this being a sensible approach. One is >that players have different systems and agreements and so the information at >one table is going to be different than the information at another table. >And therefore a cursory look at the other tables results may not have any >bearing at all on what was likely to happen at one particular table. I have a good example of this, although I don't think it would often be the case. Also, it doesn't mean that you shouldn't take into account the results from other tables, only that you should be careful in your investigations (I mean, more than a 'cursory look'). North had 6 good spades and a 10-count, so most judged they had to open a weak 2-bid. Many did so by the way of a Multi 2D bid, a treatment which is very popular in the area (the Flemish outskirts of Brussels). East was sitting with : xxx / Qx / KQJx / AJxx. Most people doubled, some to show diamonds, some to show a balanced hand with something in diamonds. At two tables, the opening was a weak 2S (or maybe 1S), and the lead came from East ; it was a diamond, of course. As a result, against the normal contract of 2S, or 3S, the lead was usually a diamond, which restricts the contract to 9 tricks. At our table, the bidding went : N E S W 2H(1) p 2S ...p p 2NT (2) (3) (1) transfer to spades (2) unclear, but probably the minors (3) South called the director, based on the long time taken by West. The director let of course the bidding proceed, and it went to 4C, which went down one (down two was possible, but difficult, to achieve). We called him back. He decided that the 2NT bid was indeed helped by partner's tempo. Perhaps you would have done the same, or perhaps you would not ; this is another story. In adjudicating the score, he had to decide how many tricks could have been made had we peacefully played in 2S. The answer depends on the lead. As, at our table, the lead could well have been other than a diamond, since East had no opportunity to say he held them. A club lead seemed more plausible. So, the best probable result for N/S would have been +170, although only one other pair scored it. The director duly awarded us +170, an unfrequent result, but logical. Was he missing something ? (in this case I am, too) Needless to say, our opponents weren't delighted. A. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 27 01:20:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA02169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 23:41:00 +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 XAA02164 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 23:40:52 +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 JAA13620; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:40:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA206026838; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:40:38 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:40:21 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: UK UI 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 XAA02165 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: Objet : UK UI 2S P(h) 3S, Green (favoUrable if you're a Yank) x Q9xx AQ109 Axxx Do you allow a double? ______________________________________________ I will ALWAYS X with such a hand, and more when responder bid 3S (my pd will have a fit somewhere). No UI problem with players of any level IMHO. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 27 01:20:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA02466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:20:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA02461 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:20:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA21045; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 08:16:44 -0700 Message-Id: <200006261516.IAA21045@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: UK UI In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 25 Jun 2000 03:17:24 PDT." Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 08:16:43 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > 2S P(h) 3S, Green (favoUrable if you're a Yank) > > x > Q9xx > AQ109 > Axxx > > Do you allow a double? Yep. Personally, I think double is 110% clearcut. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 27 01:22:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA02233 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 00:06:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from poseidon.tcp.net.uk (poseidon.tcp.net.uk [195.80.0.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA02228 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 00:06:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (vt1-71.du.tcp.co.uk [195.80.1.71]) by poseidon.tcp.net.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id PAA10548; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:06:35 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000626145046.007ad4b0@popmail.tcp.co.uk> X-Sender: spock@popmail.tcp.co.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:50:46 +0100 To: "anne_jones" , "BLML" From: M Smith Subject: Re: Needle in a haystack. In-Reply-To: <006201bfdf03$2042ae00$6958fd3e@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:11 26/06/2000 +0100, anne_jones wrote: >DWS please ignore this for 14 days. > >Game All. Dealer E. > > 64 > KT74 > 952 > KT52 >T852 KJ3 >986 A532 >AQJ3 K7 >J7 AQ86 > AQ97 > QJ > T864 > 943 > >Auction >W N E S > 1C P >1D P 2NT P >3C P 3H P >3NT AP > >No bids were alerted. >There were no hesitations. > >Table result N/S -600 >Result in other room N/S -120 > >Before South faced the opening lead, West >said "my partner should have alerted my 3C". >East refuted this. >West said "It's 5 card Stayman". >Systemically. >E/W system is 5 card Stayman opposite an >opening 2NT, but in this auction it is natural >and forcing. >When Dummy was faced North called the TD >and asked why if he thought they were playing > 5 cd Stayman, West had not bid 4H. >TD asked West away from the table why he >had chosen to bid 3NT. He answered "because >my hand is flat". Further asked why he had used a >5 card ask, he said "we might have had a fit. >Asked what he thought when his partner failed to >alert, he said "I thought he'd forgotten the system". >Do you think he's got 5 H? "No I think it might be 4" >By this time East had told the opps that he had not >been responding to Stayman, but bidding naturally >in accord with their system. >Both East and West have been most helpful to their >opps, and to the TD. >N/S claimed confusion caused them to misdefend 3NT. >N/S agreed they had all necessary information before play >began. >Is there an infraction here? How do you rule. >Anne There can be no damage to the defenders since they were provided with the correct information before play began. Thus the table result should stand. However, West clearly took advantage of partner's failure to alert 3C. The argument that he chose 3NT rather than 4H because he was balanced is inconsistent with the decision to ask about 5-card majors to start with. Clearly, he bid 3NT on the UI of the failure to alert 3C. EW should be assessed a procedural penalty equivalent to the number of matchpoints they scored on this deal. Marc From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 27 01:34:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA02527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:34:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA02521 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:34:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.0.ap (guppy)) id RAA10084; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:33:39 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/%I%.1.ap (mach.test)) id RAA02276; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:34:23 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000626174231.0088c800@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:42:31 +0200 To: "John Probst" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: UK UI In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:17 25/06/00 +0100, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >2S P(h) 3S, Green (favoUrable if you're a Yank) > >x >Q9xx >AQ109 >Axxx > >Do you allow a double? AG : yes if it is pure takeout, or any bid that would replace the TO dbl (4C playing Weiss or Fishbein, 3NT playing RUD). Seems obvious, would be the action of 95% of players above the beginner level. Thus it meets the requirements for a decision after a marked hesitation. By the way, I suppose you meant *very* long hesitation. After all, 2S was a skip bid. A. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 27 01:49:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA02590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:49:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA02585 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:49:08 +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 IAA21502; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 08:45:28 -0700 Message-Id: <200006261545.IAA21502@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: One board - two different problems In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 25 Jun 2000 21:29:42 PDT." Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 08:45:27 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Andras Booc wrote: > The following board caused 2 interesting problems on a > Hungarian tournament recently. > The board. > Pairs, dealer East, nobody vulnerable > > North > J 9 7 4 > 5 2 > Q 9 6 4 > A Q 7 > > West East > K 8 A Q 10 6 5 > A K Q 9 8 4 3 J 10 7 > K 10 5 2 > 8 5 10 6 3 > South > 3 2 > 6 > A J 8 7 3 > K J 9 4 2 > > > Case 1. > West is playing 4 Hearts. Unfortunately the K of Spades is > among the Clubs. Opening lead is a Spade and declarer (do not ask > me why) plays the 10 from dummy winning the trick. Now he plays the > Ace of Spades discarding his "third" club (please do not analyse the > play, anything can happen on Open Pairs), and leads a Diamond, > winning the trick with the King. Plays 2 round of trumps plays the > King of Spades (everybody discovering the revoke) and takes all the > 13 tricks. The TD first offers the normal 2 tricks penalty for E-W > (11 tricks). However South explains without the revoke he should > have realised that the Spade suit yielded 5 trick for declarer > therefore without the revoke he would certainly have played the Ace > of Diamonds. How many trick do you decide for E-W? As I understand the Law, damage occurs if the result for N-S is less than the expected result the instant before the infraction occurred (according to the WBFLC Appeals Committee Code of Practice). The first trick was won in dummy with the spade 10, then East led the ace of spades, South follows, and we need to determine the most favorable result that's at all likely for N-S at *this* point, realizing that West will have to drop the king under the ace. A good player will still make 12 tricks at that point. Draw two rounds of trumps ending in dummy, cash the spade queen pitching a club; when they don't break, ruff another spade, return to dummy with a trump, cash the last spade to pitch the last club, lead up to the king of diamonds. A lesser player might botch something, but I can't think of a way that anyone except a complete beginner would take fewer than 11 tricks. So I rule that Law 64C doesn't apply, and the 11-trick result stands. It seems that South wants the TD to rule that he was damaged by being misled about the hand, and fooled into not taking the diamond ace; and he wants the TD to give him the trick for the diamond ace PLUS the revoke penalty. This doesn't work. The score after a revoke is either (1) the actual table result, with a revoke penalty applied; or (2) the most favorable result that would have happened if the revoke hand't occurred (and if the revoke hadn't occurred, there would have been NO revoke penalty). -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 27 02:13:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA02831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 02:13:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA02825 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 02:13:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.0.ap (resu)) id SAA04371; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:13:46 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/%I%.1.ap (mach.test)) id SAA20312; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:13:14 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000626182123.0087faa0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:21:23 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: psyches Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This will be my final word in this thread, but I need to restate what appeared fairly nebulous in my response to Herman's axiomatization. I pretend there are three types if 'gross misstatements' : 1) the deviation is or isn't frequent, but not clearly defined ; partner hasn't at his disposal means of discovering the misstatement : this is a psyche, and should be allowed in any case. Example : opening a 12-14 1NT today on a flat 9 count, and next month on a 3-count & 7 clubs. I know the ACBL doesn't agree with that. This doesn't mean they're right (litotes). 2) the deviation is or isn't frequent, but is codified (clearly restricted), which means that if partner discovers there is something bizarre he would be able to guess what it is : it is in principle a psyche, but will inevitably lead to agreement. I think those should be written on the convention card. Also, I think they might be regulated, even prohibited. But I wouldn't be shocked by anyone stating the contrary. Example : The De Wael 1H opening. 3) the deviation is or isn't frequent, is or is not codified, and specific devices are integrated to the system, allowing partner to check whether a deviation had indeed occured. This is no more a psyche. This is a clear agreement. It could be regulated, will usually be, and right so. I *would* be shocked by any expression of the opposite opinion. Example : K-S 'controlled psyches'. Think of it : if Sheinwold/Kaplan, and Karpin, are able to describe in their writings the precise meaning of the bid and following precise sequences, this means the bid will no more be a surprise to partner. The ultimate test for a psyche is : did it surprise partner as much as it did the opponents ? (please do not substitute 'deceive' for' 'surprise', the meaning would be altered) A. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 27 02:20:04 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA02552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:39:10 +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 BAA02546 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:39:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-33qtik3.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.202.131]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA23865 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 11:38:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000626155146.0084b304@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, 26 Jun 2000 08:51:46 -0700 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Henry Sun Subject: Re: UK UI Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:29 AM 6/26/00 PDT, you wrote: > >>No. The double is suggested over pass by the hesitation. >> >>Best regards, >>Fearghal. >> >Which means, effectively, that all partner has to do when he wants you to >shut up is to hesitate. That cannot, with respect, be the intent of the >laws. > it isn't. i recall a discussion in the bridge world, when the modern approach to hesitations and etc was finally gaining wide acceptance, between kaplan and a correspondent, who essentially observed that a slow double could be used to bar partner from pulling. kaplan replied that such a practice was a form of cheating, and i'd guess the same is true for a slow pass that could be used to bar partner from bidding. henry sun From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 27 02:20:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA02858 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 02:20:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f54.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.54]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA02853 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 02:20:04 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 3316 invoked by uid 0); 26 Jun 2000 16:19:40 -0000 Message-ID: <20000626161940.3315.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.18 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:19:40 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.18] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Psyches, another try Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:19:40 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Kooijman, A." > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------- > > [+=+ A psychic is illegal under Law 40A and/or Law 75B if based > > upon a partnership understanding that has not been announced > > beforehand. An alert is not something that provides 'PRIOR > > ANNOUNCEMENT ' (sic). But see reference below to a WBFLC > > ruling sent to the EBL.+=+] > >Grattan is right, look at the definition: it does not say that partner >should be unaware of the deviation. So a psyche with a partnership >understanding is possible and then illegal (ton) Why isn't "partnership understanding" explicitly two-way? That is, not only is your partner aware that you have psyched before in a certain position, but that you simultaneously think he might make his bid with the knowledge of the prior psyche. I believe I should be allowed to psyche a 5HCP 1NT as long as I expect my partner to respond as if I had my normal 15-17. Once he stops responding as if I had 15-17, then the psyche should be illegal, but not before. Then I will be opening 1NT with the partnership understanding that it's 5 or 15-17HCP. But until this point, the prior knowledge of my inclination to psyche is only a one-way 'individual' understanding. Now if I did this with every hand, I'd rather the bid be ruled illegal because it's purely destructive than be decided an illegal psyche. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 27 02:22:04 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA02243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 00:07:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from poseidon.tcp.net.uk (poseidon.tcp.net.uk [195.80.0.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA02234 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 00:06:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (vt1-71.du.tcp.co.uk [195.80.1.71]) by poseidon.tcp.net.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id PAA10543; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:06:32 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000626144623.007ad4b0@popmail.tcp.co.uk> X-Sender: spock@popmail.tcp.co.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:46:23 +0100 To: Martaandras@uze.net, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: M Smith Subject: Re: One board - two different problems (fwd) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Pairs, dealer East, nobody vulnerable > > North > J 9 7 4 > 5 2 > Q 9 6 4 > A Q 7 > >West East >K 8 A Q 10 6 5 >A K Q 9 8 4 3 J 10 7 >K 10 5 2 >8 5 10 6 3 > South > 3 2 > 6 > A J 8 7 3 > K J 9 4 2 > >Case 2. (much more sophisticated) >Bidding. >East, wanted to make a weak 2 Spade bid places the red Stop card on the table but >South (out of turn) places the green Pass on the table. The TD is called. West accepts the >BOOT and the bidding goes: >South West North East >Pass 1 Cl* Pass 1 Di** >Pass 1 H Pass 1 Sp >Dble*** 2 H Pass 3 H**** >Pass Pass Pass >* Precision, 16 or more HCP >** Less than 8 HCP >*** Not alerted >**** Before the 3 H bid East asks the meaning of the double. North reply: Penalty > >Opening lead is a Spade. East leaves the room to smoke and knows nothing about the >hands and result (12 tricks were taken). She returns for the next board to the next table >and West explains her why did not she bid 4 H as South's did not have a hand for penalty >double. Now East calls the TD and explains she got wrong information about the meaning >of the double. Having the right information she would have bid 4 H instead of 3. >The TD asks N-S and discovers they have no agreement for this situation. South obviously >meant the double as take-out for the other 2 suits (as 1 Club and 1 Diamond were artificial calls) >but North - due to the lack of any agreement for this situation - gave the information of Penalty >to East. The TD decided the result achieved at the table should stand. E-W appealed. > >The AC decided there was no infraction of the Laws and the result of the board was due to >the mistakes of E-W (especially E) therefore let the TD's decision stand (+230 for E-W) and >decided in ratio of 2 to 1 to forfeit the appeal's fee. >What is your opinion about this one? I have no strong opinion on whether the AC should adjust the score to 4H+2, but keeping the deposit is a terrible decision. For a start, the decision to keep the money should ALWAYS be unanimous. If one member of the AC feels the appeal is not frivilous, then it is not. I also feel that the deposit should never be kept when it is the non-offending side who are forced (by the TD's ruling) to lodge the appeal. There is no doubt that the explanation and the hand/intention were different. Whether there was misinformation and whether EW were damaged as a result is a subjective decision, and thus the appeal cannot be deemed frivilous. Marc From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 27 03:29:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA02150 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 23:36:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA02145 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 23:36:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id PAA31591 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:37:58 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Jun 26 15:35:52 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JR2B8O8PTA000TE7@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:38:26 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:33:52 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:38:16 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: RTFLB for me. To: "'Roger Pewick'" , "Kooijman, A." , "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B628@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You are right and so I am wrong. This proofs the quite imperfect way we changed the laws in a late phase of the proces, by changing as few words as possible. My intention then was to include both situations and sometimes I confuse reality with my perfect world. Following the laws my solution is wrong; ashamed I wait for others to give the right answer. Don't be afraid I'll jump in if considered necessary. ton > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Roger Pewick [mailto:axman22@hotmail.com] > Verzonden: maandag 26 juni 2000 13:54 > Aan: Kooijman, A. > Onderwerp: Re: RTFLB for me. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Kooijman, A. > To: 'anne_jones' ; BLML > > Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 3:58 AM > Subject: RE: RTFLB for me. > > > | We changed this in '97, adding to L29 that the interpretation of > | denomination in L31 (among others) should be related to the suits > shown. So > | partner is barred from the bidding during this whole auction. This > should > | have been told by the TD, may be south still has a call to show his > clubs. > | And how can he bid 2c knowing his partner is barred? > Accepting 2c down > 7? If > | he had bid 2H in stead he still does not repeat the suits shown (not > the > | spades)and partner should pass constantly. > | Furthermore 26A applies (if becoming defender), unless south is able > to show > | clubs during the legal auction. > | > | ton > > Something intrigues me about the language. L29C refers to the COOT > being conventional. When the COOT is not conventional L29C would not > apply. It would seem that if what the law should mean is that if the > COOT or the one substituted in rotation were conventional that L29C > applies, then it must necessarily say so. > > Might this be to what Anne is referring? > > Roger Pewick > Houston, Texas > > | > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > | > Van: anne_jones [mailto:anne_jones@ntlworld.com] > | > Verzonden: maandag 26 juni 2000 2:32 > | > Aan: BLML > | > Onderwerp: RTFLB for me. > | > > | > > | > I can't see it. > | > > | > 1C OBOOT. RHOs turn > | > LHO does not accept. > | > RHO opens 1NT. > | > Overcall 2C which systemically would be Ms. > | > Now it is natural Part is silenced 1 round. > | > Assume bidding gets to partner on R2. > | > Is partner allowed to assume Nat Clubs or must part > | > alert 2C and bid as tho' Ms? > | > Surely this is not a psyche opposite a silenced partner. > | > Conventional correction of insufficiency is dealt > | > with by Law 27.Law 31 does not seem to address this. > | > There is no suggestion of "could have known" > | > Please advise me. > | > Anne > | > > | > > | > > | > > | > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 27 03:33:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA02403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:03:07 +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 BAA02398 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:02:35 +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 LAA08010 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 11:02:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006261502.LAA08010@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL policy on the mini-notrump (was WBF position on Psychics) Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <006201bfde23$d1ffff20$382e37d2@laptop> References: <200006221654.MAA02366@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov><200006221654.MAA02366@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <4.3.2.7.1.20000623084458.00a8aa20@pop.cais.com> <018401bfdd94$74a60980$0200000a@mindspring.com> <3954897E.9E2360E@village.uunet.be> <006201bfde23$d1ffff20$382e37d2@laptop> Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 11:02:55 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 25 June 2000 at 9:33, "Wayne Burrows" wrote: > >From: "Herman De Wael" > > >> But you realy should not look at two hands just accross the >> 9HCP limit. By playing a 10-12 NT, you are already playing a >> system at the limit of what is permitted. > > >Not true. The law allows for no regulations on your opening at the 1-level >on hands less than a King or more below average strength. Use just the 4321 >count this would mean that openings on 8 high card points cannot be >restricted and any such restrictions are not mandatory - Zonal authorities >just have the right to make such regulations. Unfortunately, very true. What you said is correct - just not the entire story. The WBFLC has stated that SOs are given completely free rein in regulating conventions including, but not limited to, regulating conventions after non-regulable natural bids. They are even allowed to regulate conventions to the point of banning them (IIRC, this was self-appealed to the WBFLC by the EBU L&EC soon after (before?) they implemented it, and the response was (heavily paraphrased) "It's legal. We don't like it, and it distorts the spirit of the Laws so strongly she's screaming, but we can't and won't stop you.") So if the Allurian Contract Bridge League wished to state that it was only permissible to play Standard Allurian - Yarborough Card, by stating that all other conventions are banned, and if you systemically open with less than 13 Hill-Count Points or at the one level with more than 20 Hill-Count Points, you can't play any conventions at all; they can, and nobody can stop them. Of course, I don't think the SO of East Alluria is that insane (though I don't know - I don't know any East Allurians), but it is legal. Michael. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 27 04:25:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA03101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 04:25:38 +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 EAA03095 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 04:25:28 +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 136dYH-0003jr-00; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 20:24:09 +0200 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 20:14:55 +0100 (MET DST) To: M Smith , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: One board - two different problems (fwd) 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 EAA03097 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk M Smith 2000.06.26. 14:46:23 +1h-kor írta: Sorry for my ignorance Marc, I would appreciate some references just to use them to amend our rules. Thanks. András > > I have no strong opinion on whether the AC should adjust the score to 4H+2, > but keeping the deposit is a terrible decision. For a start, the decision > to keep the money should ALWAYS be unanimous. If one member of the AC > feels the appeal is not frivilous, then it is not. > > I also feel that the deposit should never be kept when it is the > non-offending side who are forced (by the TD's ruling) to lodge the appeal. > There is no doubt that the explanation and the hand/intention were > different. Whether there was misinformation and whether EW were damaged as > a result is a subjective decision, and thus the appeal cannot be deemed > frivilous. > > Marc From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 27 04:32:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA03166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 04:32:09 +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 EAA03159 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 04:32:01 +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 OAA07104; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:31:48 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <006a01bfdf04$fa5682a0$6958fd3e@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:29:44 -0400 To: "anne_jones" , "BLML" From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: RTFLB for me. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 1:25 AM +0100 6/26/00, anne_jones wrote: >I can't see it. > >OBOOT. RHOs turn >LHO does not accept. >RHO opens 1NT. >Overcall 2C which systemically would be Ms. >Now it is natural Part is silenced 1 round. >Assume bidding gets to partner on R2. >Is partner allowed to assume Nat Clubs or must part >alert 2C and bid as tho' Ms? Partner is not forbidden from using logic as long as there is no UI, and in this contect, it is clear that the bidder could not be using the convention, since he was likely to play in his bid. This situation is more common when a player opens out of turn and guesses to bid 3NT because that is what he thinks he can make. Even if his side is playing 3NT gambling, this is allowed. >Surely this is not a psyche opposite a silenced partner. >Conventional correction of insufficiency is dealt >with by Law 27.Law 31 does not seem to address this. >There is no suggestion of "could have known" Given this last statement, the result stands, whatever it happens to be. If the player who bid out of turn could have known that it would be to his advantage to bar partner, then you adjust, but that is rare for an opening bid out of turn. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 27 05:13:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA03256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 05:13:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA03251 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 05:13:04 +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 PAA21147; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:12:50 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000626145046.007ad4b0@popmail.tcp.co.uk> References: <006201bfdf03$2042ae00$6958fd3e@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:10:24 -0400 To: M Smith , "anne_jones" , "BLML" From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Needle in a haystack. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 2:50 PM +0100 6/26/00, M Smith wrote: >At 01:11 26/06/2000 +0100, anne_jones wrote: >>Game All. Dealer E. >> >> 64 >> KT74 >> 952 >> KT52 >>T852 KJ3 >>986 A532 >>AQJ3 K7 >>J7 AQ86 >> AQ97 >> QJ >> T864 >> 943 >> >>Auction >>W N E S >> 1C P >>1D P 2NT P >>3C P 3H P >>3NT AP >> >>No bids were alerted. >>There were no hesitations. >> >>Table result N/S -600 >>Result in other room N/S -120 >> >>Before South faced the opening lead, West >>said "my partner should have alerted my 3C". >>East refuted this. >>West said "It's 5 card Stayman". [which turned out not to be the agreement] >There can be no damage to the defenders since they were provided with the >correct information before play began. Thus the table result should stand. Remember to consider both UI and MI. The non-offenders could be damaged by possible use of UI. >However, West clearly took advantage of partner's failure to alert 3C. The >argument that he chose 3NT rather than 4H because he was balanced is >inconsistent with the decision to ask about 5-card majors to start with. >Clearly, he bid 3NT on the UI of the failure to alert 3C. It's not absolutely clear; West could have intended to play 4S opposite five spades and 3NT otherwise. However, 4H is a LA on the West hand given that East is expected to hold five hearts; West's T864 of spades is a liability in NT on the likely spade lead. That's the only determination we need to make to adjust the score. 4H appears to go down two, -200 for E-W. I don't think N-S made an egregious error on defense; leading the S7 allowes 3NT to make and it a reasonbable lead given that South is expected to hold five hearts and only two spades. Unless they made an egregious error later in the defense, +200 to N-S is also fair. >EW should be assessed a procedural penalty equivalent to the number of >matchpoints they scored on this deal. This type of procedural penalty is not correct. A procedural penalty is a penalty for violations of procedure, not a penalty to restore equity. If West did something wrong, he should be penalized 1/4, 1/2, or 1 board according to the seriousness of his offense, not 1 board for an infraction that happened to give him a top and 1/4 board for the same infraction when it gave him a bad board. In any case, I don't think West deserves a procedural penalty except at a very high level. Flagrant use of UI is penalizable, but I don't think West had such an intention; he might have made the bid he actually made if he had been properly alerted. (This is particularly true at IMPs, where +600 versus +620 is meaningless and +600 versus -100 is a huge gain.) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 27 06:11:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA03376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 06:11:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA03371 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 06:11:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id QAA26980 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:11:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA21172 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:11:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:11:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200006262011.QAA21172@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [Very late followup; I've been travelling a lot.] > Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 00:03:10 +0100 > From: David Stevenson [TD taking into account the ability of a player or pair:] > No, it is a requirement of some of the Laws of Bridge. Certainly. Emphasis on "some." > The interpretation of an LA depends on the players' peers. Good example. > Some of the rules about claims, such as what is normal, dpend on the > class of player involved. But this last is very much subject to debate. Just because _some_ things depend on ability doesn't mean _everything_ does. I'm not trying to reopen the debate about whether ability is a factor in judging claims, just noting for the record that the debate exists. Do L12C2 rulings depend on the abilities of the two sides? Or is that addressed in an upcoming thread that I haven't reached yet? > More experienced players tend to be held to a higher standard of > ethics because it is assumed they are more knowledgeable. Yes. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 27 06:22:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA03414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 06:22:53 +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 GAA03409 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 06:22:44 +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 QAA27363 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:22:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA21190 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:22:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:22:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200006262022.QAA21190@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Insufficient agreement X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [still way behind!] > Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 10:21:11 +0200 > From: Petrus Schuster OSB > - 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), Others have given suggestions on handling the whole matter differently, and those ideas sound reasonable. However, if for whatever reason you are unable to determine that both of the two bids in question are "incontrovertably not conventional," you apply L27B2. In other words, if there is doubt, you assume conventional, not the reverse. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 27 06:59:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA03520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 06:59:30 +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 GAA03515 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 06:59:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id QAA28729 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:59:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA21208 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:59:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:59:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200006262059.QAA21208@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 02:09:53 +0100 > From: David Stevenson > So when else could we award an artificial one in excess of 60%? Well, > you could do so under regulations from the SO. They would be legal. This was an interesting thread, and I hope it led to an entry in Grattan's overflowing notebook. Doesn't the ACBL have a regulation to the effect that avg+/avg- are 70%/30% if there are only two tables? And something else, maybe 65%/35% if there are three? Or am I (mis-)remembering something else entirely? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 27 07:42:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA03671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 07:42:35 +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 HAA03665 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 07:42:27 +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 RAA11817; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:42:18 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200006262011.QAA21172@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:39:55 -0400 To: Steve Willner , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 4:11 PM -0400 6/26/00, Steve Willner wrote: >But this last is very much subject to debate. Just because _some_ >things depend on ability doesn't mean _everything_ does. I'm not >trying to reopen the debate about whether ability is a factor in >judging claims, just noting for the record that the debate exists. > >Do L12C2 rulings depend on the abilities of the two sides? Or is that >addressed in an upcoming thread that I haven't reached yet? This issue has come up before, and the conensus is that the ability may matter in determining "the most favorable result that was likely" or "the least favorable result that was at all probable". If the contract is adjusted to 4S by the OS, which makes on a double squeeze, the AC could determine that it is "not at all probable" that an expert would fail to set up the double squeeze and rule 4S making. A weaker declarer would be awarded 4S down one. Such rulings should be very rare, particularly when it is the NOS's ability that is being ruled against. If the same contract is adjusted to 4S by the NOS, and the NOS is an unknown Flight B pair, then an AC which rules that the NOS could not set up a squeeze will be perceived by the NOS as showing favoritism toiwards the experts. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 27 07:52:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA03721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 07:52:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA03706 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 07:52:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.151] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 136gnb-000OH5-00; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 22:52:11 +0100 Message-ID: <00ac01bfdfb9$1199d020$0f5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Todd Zimnoch" , References: <20000626161940.3315.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Psyches, another try Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 22:26:26 +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, June 26, 2000 5:19 PM Subject: RE: Psyches, another try > > Why isn't "partnership understanding" explicitly two-way? That is, not > only is your partner aware that you have psyched before in a certain > position, but that you simultaneously think he might make his bid with the > knowledge of the prior psyche. > > I believe I should be allowed to psyche a 5HCP 1NT as long as I expect > my partner to respond as if I had my normal 15-17. Once he stops responding > as if I had 15-17, then the psyche should be illegal, but not before. Then > I will be opening 1NT with the partnership understanding that it's 5 or > 15-17HCP. But until this point, the prior knowledge of my inclination to > psyche is only a one-way 'individual' understanding. > +=+ The point is one that can be discussed in drafting the next major revision of the laws - planned for 2002-2005 AD. In the meantime we have what we have. This is the kind of law change that might possibly be 'right' for stronger players but not for lesser mortals. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 27 07:52:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA03719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 07:52:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA03704 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 07:52:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.151] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 136gnd-000OH5-00; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 22:52:13 +0100 Message-ID: <00ad01bfdfb9$13037240$0f5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" , "Herman De Wael" , "ton kooijman" , "Kooijman, A." Cc: "Grattan Endicott" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B627@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: Psyches, another try Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 22:31:00 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: 'Grattan Endicott' ; ton kooijman ; Herman De Wael ; Bridge Laws Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 12:39 PM Subject: RE: Psyches, another try > > This still doen't lead to the conclusion that we can forbid psyches when > using a bid with a conventional meaning. I do not see the connection with > the statements above and keep my doubts. > The problem is that I like the approach to forbid such calls in pairs (2 > boards a table) events. > So don't expect me to attack it, but how legal are we? > > ton +=+ Well, the EBL asked for an interpretation and they got one. As far as I am concerned an interpretation by the WBFLC is an exercise of its specified powers under the WBF By-Laws and binding upon affiliates. Let it be added that the EBL made it clear what use they wished to make of it; what is more other prestigious bodies have relied upon this same interpretation which has not been altered. For my part personally I would add that I think it is a desirable position that the power to regulate these matters should be unrestricted, as they are declared to be. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 27 07:52:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA03720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 07:52:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA03705 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 07:52:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.151] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 136gnf-000OH5-00; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 22:52:15 +0100 Message-ID: <00ae01bfdfb9$13ece7e0$0f5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific><001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific><000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona> <39461668.D81C58EA@village.uunet.be><001701bfd5fb$6c96e840$532f37d2@laptop> <3948ADD5.E4278736@village.uunet.be><200006181712.NAA10822@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca><4.3.2.7.1.20000620081259.00ab5970@pop.cais.com><00c801bfdb07$91af44e0$bd5908c3@dodona><029301bfdbb8$65876260$ca2a1dc2@rabbit><001801bfdc93$6fd386a0$075608c3@dodona><010601bfdcd5$56149f00$2f291dc2@rabbit><009101bfdce2$8949d4a0$f25908c3@dodona> Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 22:48:26 +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, June 23, 2000 10:32 AM Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. -------------------------- \x/ ------------------------ > > The trouble is that while this may be your opinion of the *Law*, it is > not the test applied in cases like the one Thomas is describing. He > does refer to 'commonly accepted' usage. > > What is wrong with the approach to psyches you are espousing is that > partnership understanding is being treated *differently* in the area of > psyches, and the Law book does not suggest that at all. > +=+ How differently? This is not an argument I have made. Any call or play is illegal if it contravenes the requirements under Law 40. Any suggestion that a partnership understanding in the area of psychics may be treated 'differently' will derive from the explicit mention in Law 75B. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 27 08:20:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA03753 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 07:57:35 +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 HAA03747 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 07:57:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.183] (dhcp165-183.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.183]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA16897; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:57:13 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200006262059.QAA21208@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:46:14 -0400 To: Steve Willner , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Extraneous UI question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 4:59 PM -0400 6/26/00, Steve Willner wrote: >> Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 02:09:53 +0100 >> From: David Stevenson >> So when else could we award an artificial one in excess of 60%? Well, >> you could do so under regulations from the SO. They would be legal. > >This was an interesting thread, and I hope it led to an entry in >Grattan's overflowing notebook. > >Doesn't the ACBL have a regulation to the effect that avg+/avg- are >70%/30% if there are only two tables? And something else, maybe >65%/35% if there are three? Or am I (mis-)remembering something else >entirely? I think the rule you are thinking of is the rule for small groups in fouled boards. The fouled board formual is used when there are at least four scores, or when there are three and that is the larger group. Otherwise, three scores are 70%/60%/50%, two are 65%/55%, and a single score is 60% both ways. When there are only two tabls, as at board-a-match, average-plus is still 60%. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 27 08:51:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA03894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:51:51 +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 IAA03889 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:51:43 +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 136hiz-000Fzs-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 22:51:29 +0000 Message-ID: <4BVV0CAk59V5EwDu@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 23:51:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Ruling from Schiphol 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 IAA03890 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Declarer is in 3NT after the following sequence [no alerts]: 1D=1H= 2H=2S= 3D=3N= P When declarer runs her red suits, a defender discards from a five-card spade holding. This gives an overtrick because declarer has four hearts and five spades. She says it is irrelevant that her partner had not alerted the 1H bid or the 2S bid because: [1] She had told her opponents that they played canapé at the start of the round [2] Her opponents had player four boards against them the previous night and this was the sixth board of the set and they should have know their system by now [3] They are playing standard Blue Club and everyone at this level would know what the bidding means The defender retorts that [1] There was never any mention of playing canapé in response [2] The previous nine boards did not include any one with canapé by the defence [3] The defender has not played against anyone who plays canapé in response for many years [4] None of the reasons gives any excuse for not alerting The convention card has "Canape" under System Summary. The defender did not look at the responses to 1D. What is your ruling? What would your ruling be if it is discovered that the defender is not damaged because he would be squeezed out of the overtrick anyway? -- David Stevenson A learned bridge player called Burn Liverpool, England, UK Tried to lead when it wasn't his turn David Stevenson said Ian Payn wrote: "Have him shot through the head, That's the only way he'll ever learn." From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 27 10:58:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA04288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:58:42 +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 KAA04282 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:58:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.253.84.167]) by mta01-svc.server.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000627005824.GIWH381.mta01-svc.server.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:58:24 +0100 Message-ID: <001201bfdfd3$c2dfbec0$a754fd3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" References: <4BVV0CAk59V5EwDu@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Ruling from Schiphol Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 02:05:18 +0100 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: Monday, June 26, 2000 11:51 PM Subject: Ruling from Schiphol > > Declarer is in 3NT after the following sequence [no alerts]: > > 1D=1H= > 2H=2S= > 3D=3N= > P > > When declarer runs her red suits, a defender discards from a five-card > spade holding. This gives an overtrick because declarer has four hearts > and five spades. She says it is irrelevant that her partner had not > alerted the 1H bid or the 2S bid because: > > [1] She had told her opponents that they played canapé at the start of > the round > [2] Her opponents had player four boards against them the previous > night and this was the sixth board of the set and they should have know > their system by now > [3] They are playing standard Blue Club and everyone at this level > would know what the bidding means > > The defender retorts that > [1] There was never any mention of playing canapé in response > [2] The previous nine boards did not include any one with canapé by the > defence > [3] The defender has not played against anyone who plays canapé in > response for many years > [4] None of the reasons gives any excuse for not alerting > > The convention card has "Canape" under System Summary. The defender > did not look at the responses to 1D. > > What is your ruling? What would your ruling be if it is discovered > that the defender is not damaged because he would be squeezed out of the > overtrick anyway? > Defender is entitled to her alert. If she could not rely on an alert she may have taken more interest in the CC. I rule that if defender is damaged Law 12 kicks in and TD awards an adjusted score. If defenders are not damaged then no adjusted score. In either case I may impose a PP on declarer's side. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 27 11:36:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA04369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:36:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout.isi.com (karma.isi.com [192.73.222.42] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA04364 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:36:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc (csdial8.isi.com [192.103.52.199]) by mailout.isi.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3/Mailout 991117 TroyC) with SMTP id SAA08033 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:27:52 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: Subject: ACBL position on Psychics Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:35:48 -0700 Message-ID: <000d01bfdff1$2a9b5ac0$c73467c0@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: <200006210935280140.00130ED2@mail.earthlink.net> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I recieved some interesting commentary from GArt Blaiss regarding the ACBL position on psychics. >In order to deal with a psych, a director must be notified by the >opponent's that a psych has taken place. The director does not (even >in the finals of a major event) monitor the action at the table or >review after the event. >In these cases, Zia's opponents had no problem with the actions at >the table and did not call the director. >The reason why neither opponent may have called the director may >have been the state of the match. As you might expect, when a team >is down 60 or 70 IMPs with only one or two segments remaining, they >may caution the opponents to be sure to "buckle up." At any rate, >to make the same psych once a year is not, to me, a cause for >concern. I am unaware of any regulation which states that a second >psych "creates a concealed partnership understanding." Repeated >psychs may create an implied partnership agreement and the director >may judge that the pair has an undisclosed agreement. >However, the reason that these psychs were not addressed by the >tournament staff is that they were never called about the problem >(it was unreported). Quite obviously, the opponent's expected that >there may be some shots taken due to the state of the match and may >have even been told so. - From my perspective, the interesting point is the last two sentences of paragraph 3. For all intents and purposes, this is a ruling from the ACBL that states that there is no "one psyche in a lifetime" policy. Richard -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOVgvIiGkJ7YU62vZEQLMOQCgn2Xs7Csw9NHu9LudR2NHKEgf8pAAoJ13 gyuIYngZeyWUSeBrfYZ5Km54 =4YYK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 27 11:51:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA04421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:51:35 +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 LAA04416 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:51:20 +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 136kWo-00049U-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 02:51:07 +0100 Message-ID: <3N6c$eADgAW5EwrS@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 02:48:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Needle in a haystack. References: <006201bfdf03$2042ae00$6958fd3e@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <006201bfdf03$2042ae00$6958fd3e@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <006201bfdf03$2042ae00$6958fd3e@vnmvhhid>, anne_jones writes >DWS please ignore this for 14 days. > >Game All. Dealer E. > > 64 > KT74 > 952 > KT52 >T852 KJ3 >986 A532 >AQJ3 K7 >J7 AQ86 > AQ97 > QJ > T864 > 943 > >Auction >W N E S > 1C P >1D P 2NT P >3C P 3H P >3NT AP > >No bids were alerted. >There were no hesitations. Are you seriously suggesting that West is to believe that East has 5H and 5C and a balanced hand? Alert or no alert WTP? Everything was explained before the opening lead, the TD is on another planet if he does anything but say "result stands, and the AC will drink you deposit if you appeal" cheers john > >Table result N/S -600 >Result in other room N/S -120 > >Before South faced the opening lead, West >said "my partner should have alerted my 3C". >East refuted this. >West said "It's 5 card Stayman". >Systemically. >E/W system is 5 card Stayman opposite an >opening 2NT, but in this auction it is natural >and forcing. >When Dummy was faced North called the TD >and asked why if he thought they were playing > 5 cd Stayman, West had not bid 4H. >TD asked West away from the table why he >had chosen to bid 3NT. He answered "because >my hand is flat". Further asked why he had used a >5 card ask, he said "we might have had a fit. >Asked what he thought when his partner failed to >alert, he said "I thought he'd forgotten the system". >Do you think he's got 5 H? "No I think it might be 4" >By this time East had told the opps that he had not >been responding to Stayman, but bidding naturally >in accord with their system. >Both East and West have been most helpful to their >opps, and to the TD. >N/S claimed confusion caused them to misdefend 3NT. >N/S agreed they had all necessary information before play >began. >Is there an infraction here? How do you rule. >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 Tue Jun 27 11:51:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA04426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:51:33 +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 LAA04415 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:51:18 +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 136kWo-00049V-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 02:51:07 +0100 Message-ID: <5tbfniAFhAW5EwJ0@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 02:49:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: UK UI References: <3.0.6.32.20000626174231.0088c800@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000626174231.0088c800@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.6.32.20000626174231.0088c800@pop.ulb.ac.be>, alain gottcheiner writes >At 03:17 25/06/00 +0100, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>2S P(h) 3S, Green (favoUrable if you're a Yank) >> >>x >>Q9xx >>AQ109 >>Axxx >> >>Do you allow a double? > btw it was imps, sorry I didn't mention it. >AG : yes if it is pure takeout, or any bid that would replace the TO dbl >(4C playing Weiss or Fishbein, 3NT playing RUD). Seems obvious, would be >the action of 95% of players above the beginner level. Thus it meets the >requirements for a decision after a marked hesitation. > >By the way, I suppose you meant *very* long hesitation. After all, 2S was a >skip bid. > > A. > Actually it was a question "Is that weak?" from a not very strong player, the rest of the players at the table are "expert" but not World class (ie UK Lady international had the decision :)) ) -- 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 Jun 27 12:46:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA04538 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 12:46:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from lethal.atrax.net.au (LETHAL.ATRAX.NET.AU [203.24.218.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA04533 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 12:46:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from host-216-252-211-145.interpacket.net (host-216-252-211-145.interpacket.net [216.252.211.145]) by lethal.atrax.net.au (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.acae) with ESMTP id ma118156 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 12:58:56 +1000 Message-ID: <03e501bfdfe0$f6e47960$91d3fcd8@noelbuge> From: "Noel & Pam" To: References: <4BVV0CAk59V5EwDu@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Ruling from Schiphol Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:41:57 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As a Blue Club player in Australia, we have to pre-alert the Canape in response and then we have to alert the second bid (but not the first - alerting the first bid has caused us problems in the past). Why is everyone else only making 3NT if the Defenders haven't been damaged? regards, Noel &/or Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: 27 June 2000 8:51 Subject: Ruling from Schiphol Declarer is in 3NT after the following sequence [no alerts]: 1D=1H= 2H=2S= 3D=3N= P When declarer runs her red suits, a defender discards from a five-card spade holding. This gives an overtrick because declarer has four hearts and five spades. She says it is irrelevant that her partner had not alerted the 1H bid or the 2S bid because: [1] She had told her opponents that they played canapé at the start of the round [2] Her opponents had player four boards against them the previous night and this was the sixth board of the set and they should have know their system by now [3] They are playing standard Blue Club and everyone at this level would know what the bidding means The defender retorts that [1] There was never any mention of playing canapé in response [2] The previous nine boards did not include any one with canapé by the defence [3] The defender has not played against anyone who plays canapé in response for many years [4] None of the reasons gives any excuse for not alerting The convention card has "Canape" under System Summary. The defender did not look at the responses to 1D. What is your ruling? What would your ruling be if it is discovered that the defender is not damaged because he would be squeezed out of the overtrick anyway? -- David Stevenson A learned bridge player called Burn Liverpool, England, UK Tried to lead when it wasn't his turn David Stevenson said Ian Payn wrote: "Have him shot through the head, That's the only way he'll ever learn." From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 27 12:46:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA04532 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 12:46:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from lethal.atrax.net.au (LETHAL.ATRAX.NET.AU [203.24.218.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA04526 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 12:46:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from host-216-252-211-145.interpacket.net (host-216-252-211-145.interpacket.net [216.252.211.145]) by lethal.atrax.net.au (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.acae) with ESMTP id la118155 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 12:58:54 +1000 Message-ID: <03e401bfdfe0$f5ad31e0$91d3fcd8@noelbuge> From: "Noel & Pam" To: References: <200006221654.MAA02366@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov><200006221654.MAA02366@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <4.3.2.7.1.20000623084458.00a8aa20@pop.cais.com> <018401bfdd94$74a60980$0200000a@mindspring.com> <3954897E.9E2360E@village.uunet.be> <006201bfde23$d1ffff20$382e37d2@laptop> <200006261502.LAA08010@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Subject: Re: ACBL policy on the mini-notrump (was WBF position on Psychics) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:21:50 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 And there will be no-one left in Alluria playing Bridge in about 3 months.... regards, Noel &/or Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Farebrother" To: Sent: 27 June 2000 1:02 Subject: Re: ACBL policy on the mini-notrump (was WBF position on Psychics) > On 25 June 2000 at 9:33, "Wayne Burrows" wrote: > > > >From: "Herman De Wael" > > > > > >> But you realy should not look at two hands just accross the > >> 9HCP limit. By playing a 10-12 NT, you are already playing a > >> system at the limit of what is permitted. > > > > > >Not true. The law allows for no regulations on your opening at the 1-level > >on hands less than a King or more below average strength. Use just the 4321 > >count this would mean that openings on 8 high card points cannot be > >restricted and any such restrictions are not mandatory - Zonal authorities > >just have the right to make such regulations. > > Unfortunately, very true. What you said is correct - just not the entire > story. The WBFLC has stated that SOs are given completely free rein in > regulating conventions including, but not limited to, regulating > conventions after non-regulable natural bids. They are even allowed to > regulate conventions to the point of banning them (IIRC, this was > self-appealed to the WBFLC by the EBU L&EC soon after (before?) they > implemented it, and the response was (heavily paraphrased) "It's legal. > We don't like it, and it distorts the spirit of the Laws so strongly > she's screaming, but we can't and won't stop you.") > > So if the Allurian Contract Bridge League wished to state that it was > only permissible to play Standard Allurian - Yarborough Card, by stating > that all other conventions are banned, and if you systemically open with > less than 13 Hill-Count Points or at the one level with more than 20 > Hill-Count Points, you can't play any conventions at all; they can, and > nobody can stop them. Of course, I don't think the SO of East Alluria is > that insane (though I don't know - I don't know any East Allurians), but it > is legal. > > Michael. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 27 13:51:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA04715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:51:50 +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 NAA04710 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:51:44 +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 NAA06010 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:48:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:48:53 +0000 (EST) Subject: Invisible Revoke To: Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:48:14 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 27/06/2000 01:46:28 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On the final board of last night's session at my local bridge club, my opponents - a pair of sweet LOLs - were declaring a contract of 4H doubled. On correct defence my partner and I were due to collect +100. However, (due to tiredness) I incorrectly defended by accidentally revoking in trumps. By the time I noticed what I had done, the revoke was established. So after turning green I applied L72B3, said nothing, and played on. A few tricks later I ruffed dummy's winner with the trump I *couldn't* have. But none of the other three players noticed the revoke! (They must have been tired too.) As a result, my side scored +500 instead of +100, and I felt extremely guilty about what I had done to these nice LOLs. Questions: 1. L64C allows the TD to restore equity after a revoke which is not subject to penalty, yet L72B3 suggests the TD need not be informed by the offender. What is ethical for an offender to do under the current Laws? 2. L62A requires an offender to correct a non-established revoke. Should the 2007 Laws reverse L72B3 so that offenders must correct established revokes also? Best wishes Richard Hills richard.hills@immi.gov.au From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 27 14:25:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA04804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:25:34 +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 OAA04799 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:25:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-1054hrs.biz.mindspring.com [64.82.71.124]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA18368 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 00:25:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00c001bfdfef$b3547e20$010aa2c6@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3955B6E0.DE6D3A76@iig.com.au><3955F020.B08CC8D@village.uunet.be><007b01bfdec0$2e0611a0$010aa2c6@mindspring.com><000001bfdf23$04f9ea80$010aa2c6@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: sorry Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 00:25:17 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 3:15 AM Subject: Re: sorry > > I do have one question, though: are you really suggesting, as you > seem to be, that every time I see dummy touch a card declarer did not > name, and it is not absolutely clear he needed to rearrange to comply > with declarer's instructions, I should call the director? That seems > a bit, um, unwieldy. :-) > > Regards, > > Ed > The suggestion is not mine. Here is the text of 45F: "F. Dummy Indicates Card After dummy's hand is faced, dummy may not touch or indicate any card (except for purpose of arrangement) without instruction from declarer. If he does so, the Director should be summoned forthwith. The Director shall rule whether dummy's act did in fact constitute a suggestion to declarer. When the Director judges that it did, he allows play to continue, reserving his right to assign an adjusted score if the defenders were damaged by the play so suggested." Regards, Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 27 15:59:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA05109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:59:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA05104 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:59:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.110]) by mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000627055830.BFOT15783400.mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 17:58:30 +1200 Message-ID: <011701bfdffc$a52b6360$6e6860cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "BLML" References: <3.0.6.32.20000626145046.007ad4b0@popmail.tcp.co.uk> Subject: Re: Needle in a haystack. Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 17:57:20 +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 From: "M Smith" > There can be no damage to the defenders since they were provided with the > correct information before play began. Thus the table result should stand. No damage in the play maybe. But they possibly were damaged in the bidding. > > However, West clearly took advantage of partner's failure to alert 3C. The > argument that he chose 3NT rather than 4H because he was balanced is > inconsistent with the decision to ask about 5-card majors to start with. > Clearly, he bid 3NT on the UI of the failure to alert 3C. > > EW should be assessed a procedural penalty equivalent to the number of > matchpoints they scored on this deal. Why don't EW and NS both deserve a result related to the number of matchpoints that would have been gained playing/defending 4H? > > Marc Wayne Burrows From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 27 17:40:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA05369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 17:40:19 +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 RAA05364 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 17:40:11 +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 JAA27500; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:39:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA00980; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:39:32 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:39:32 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: David Stevenson cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Ruling from Schiphol In-Reply-To: <4BVV0CAk59V5EwDu@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id RAA05365 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, David Stevenson wrote: > > Declarer is in 3NT after the following sequence [no alerts]: > > 1D=1H= > 2H=2S= > 3D=3N= > P > > When declarer runs her red suits, a defender discards from a five-card > spade holding. This gives an overtrick because declarer has four hearts > and five spades. She says it is irrelevant that her partner had not > alerted the 1H bid or the 2S bid because: > > [1] She had told her opponents that they played canapé at the start of > the round > [2] Her opponents had player four boards against them the previous > night and this was the sixth board of the set and they should have know > their system by now > [3] They are playing standard Blue Club and everyone at this level > would know what the bidding means All this is probably true, but under the rules of this event, that doesn't mean that the 1H/2S sequence (and probably the 1D/2H sequence) shouldn't be alerted. > The convention card has "Canape" under System Summary. The defender > did not look at the responses to 1D. > > What is your ruling? Adjust the score to 3NT, =. If declarer is the female Austrian who I think she is, a 5 VP or so PP for the failure to alert and the subsequent nonsense explaining why there shouldn't be an alert anyway. This is definitely not the first time she has failed to alert or mis-explained the auction. > What would your ruling be if it is discovered > that the defender is not damaged because he would be squeezed out of the > overtrick anyway? Back to 3NT, +1. 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 Jun 27 18:13:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA05503 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 18:13:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA05497 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 18:13:27 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id JAA23584 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:12:46 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:12 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: UK UI 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: <5tbfniAFhAW5EwJ0@probst.demon.co.uk> John wrote: > btw it was imps, sorry I didn't mention it. > > Actually it was a question "Is that weak?" from a not very strong > player, the rest of the players at the table are "expert" but not World > class (ie UK Lady international had the decision :)) ) A very different kettle of fish IMO. The UI from one simple question after a presumed alert, rather than a prolonged hesitation tells one very little. OK the hand is probably not a flat 0-count - but that is AI from the auction anyway. Given it is IMPs I could be convinced that pass is an LA (depends which UK lady international), but not that it is "demonstrably suggested" by this UI. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 27 20:55:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA06386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 20:55:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA06380 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 20:54:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.0.ap (resu)) id MAA01906; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 12:55:11 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/%I%.1.ap (mach.test)) id MAA07073; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 12:54:39 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000627130247.0084b100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:02:47 +0200 To: richard.hills@immi.gov.au, From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: Invisible Revoke In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 13:48 27/06/00 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >On the final board of last night's session at my local bridge club, my >opponents - a pair of sweet LOLs - were declaring a contract of 4H doubled. >On correct defence my partner and I were due to collect +100. > >However, (due to tiredness) I incorrectly defended by accidentally revoking >in trumps. By the time I noticed what I had done, the revoke was >established. So after turning green I applied L72B3, said nothing, and >played on. > >A few tricks later I ruffed dummy's winner with the trump I *couldn't* >have. But none of the other three players noticed the revoke! (They must >have been tired too.) > >As a result, my side scored +500 instead of +100, and I felt extremely >guilty about what I had done to these nice LOLs. > >Questions: > >1. L64C allows the TD to restore equity after a revoke which is not >subject to penalty, yet L72B3 suggests the TD need not be informed by the >offender. What is ethical for an offender to do under the current Laws? AG : precisely what you did. Whether it is fair is another matter. But they must have been very, very tired. >2. L62A requires an offender to correct a non-established revoke. Should >the 2007 Laws reverse L72B3 so that offenders must correct established >revokes also? AG : doesn't seem a good idea to me. Because, if one compels the offender to draw the attention on his (or, more often, her :) own revoke, it would be impossible to apply this : how would you establish that the culprit later became aware of what he had done ? And players could always pretend they did never become aware. So it would be an useless rule, exactly as the law which interdicts writing somethig on your ballot paper : how can you catch the offenders ? A. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 27 21:11:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA06449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 21:11:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA06444 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 21:11:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.0.ap (resu)) id NAA04304; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:11:45 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/%I%.1.ap (mach.test)) id NAA16769; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:11:14 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000627131921.008838c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:19:21 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Missorting, misinterpreting Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ... and for another case of missorting the cards. I must warn you you could see some more, as I am notoriously astigmatic, and some other players I know are even more lunatic. After the lead, dummy (north) tables his cards, which include Kxx diamonds. Declarer opens his mouth, blurbs something, then regains his composure, replaces his 'diamond king' among his hearts, to which he belonged, and proceeds to play his contract. Of course, opponents are now on the wrong track, because : 1) they don't know south opened 1C on AKJxx H and three clubs 2) they interpreted his surprise as a sign that the contract was atrocious, while the 'new' south cards make it even better. So they misdefend, based on this false belief. Point 1) is just plain unfortunate. But what about point 2 ? Could declarer's reaction be considered a deceptive mannerism ? Is intent the first criterion ? Is the 'could have known' rule usable here ? Would it be fair to him to state, at this point, that his cards didn't match his bidding ? A. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 27 22:22:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA06634 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 22:22:24 +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 WAA06629 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 22:22:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from 62wim.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 ESMTP id e5RCM6g70317 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:22:07 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000627081310.00acdbd0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:23:13 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: ACBL position on Psychics In-Reply-To: <000d01bfdff1$2a9b5ac0$c73467c0@isi.com> References: <200006210935280140.00130ED2@mail.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:35 AM 6/27/00, Richard wrote: >- From my perspective, the interesting point is the last two sentences >of paragraph 3. >For all intents and purposes, this is a ruling from the ACBL that >states that there is no "one psyche in a lifetime" policy. This is hardly an official ruling; it is simply a statement, made in a private communication. Folks at the ACBL have repeatedly made such statements. But they remain in contradiction to the ACBL's most recently officially stated policy. The last communication on the subject from the ACBL *to its membership* was in the infamous article by Don Oakie, and appears in the current edition of the ACBL's "Official Encyclopedia of Bridge". If Mr. Blaiss truly believes that the ACBL has no such policy, and the ACBL Board of Directors agrees, I'm sure he would have no trouble at all convincing Mr. Manley to let him write an article for the ACBL Bulletin ("The official publication of the American Contract Bridge League") saying so that would put the matter to rest permanently. 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 Jun 27 23:08:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA06823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 23:08:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from poseidon.tcp.net.uk (poseidon.tcp.net.uk [195.80.0.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA06818 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 23:08:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (vt1-113.du.tcp.co.uk [195.80.1.113]) by poseidon.tcp.net.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA22903; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:08:12 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000627135913.007b08b0@popmail.tcp.co.uk> X-Sender: spock@popmail.tcp.co.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:59:13 +0100 To: Martaandras@uze.net, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: M Smith Subject: Re: One board - two different problems (fwd) 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 XAA06819 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 20:14 26/06/2000 +0100, Martaandras@uze.net wrote: >M Smith 2000.06.26. 14:46:23 +1h-kor írta: > >Sorry for my ignorance Marc, I would appreciate some references >just to use them to amend our rules. I'm not sure there are any references - just what seems right. I disagree on principle with the concept of monetary deposits, believing instead that the forfeit for a frivilous appeal whould be some number of VPs or matchpoints. It seems logical that if the committee are split on whether an appeal is frivilous, though, then by definition it cannot be, since a member of the appeals committee considered that it had merit. M >Thanks. > >András >> >> I have no strong opinion on whether the AC should adjust the score to 4H+2, >> but keeping the deposit is a terrible decision. For a start, the decision >> to keep the money should ALWAYS be unanimous. If one member of the AC >> feels the appeal is not frivilous, then it is not. >> >> I also feel that the deposit should never be kept when it is the >> non-offending side who are forced (by the TD's ruling) to lodge the appeal. >> There is no doubt that the explanation and the hand/intention were >> different. Whether there was misinformation and whether EW were damaged as >> a result is a subjective decision, and thus the appeal cannot be deemed >> frivilous. >> >> Marc > > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 27 23:45:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA06905 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 23:45:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com [139.134.5.173]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA06900 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 23:45:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ma105156 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 23:43:15 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-003-p-214-46.tmns.net.au ([203.54.214.46]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Swaying-MailRouter V2.8a 13/380301); 27 Jun 2000 23:43:14 Message-ID: <008e01bfe0a1$d7e79c60$2ed636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Ruling from Schiphol Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:40:28 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >Declarer is in 3NT after the following sequence [no alerts]: > > 1D=1H= > 2H=2S= > 3D=3N= > P > > When declarer runs her red suits, a defender discards from a >five-card spade holding. This gives an overtrick because declarer >has four hearts and five spades. She says it is irrelevant that her >partner had not alerted the 1H bid or the 2S bid because: > >[1] She had told her opponents that they played canapé at the start >of the round >[2] Her opponents had player four boards against them the previous >night and this was the sixth board of the set and they should have >know their system by now >[3] They are playing standard Blue Club and everyone at this level >would know what the bidding means > > The defender retorts that >[1] There was never any mention of playing canapé in response >[2] The previous nine boards did not include any one with canapé by >the defence >[3] The defender has not played against anyone who plays canapé in >response for many years >[4] None of the reasons gives any excuse for not alerting > > The convention card has "Canape" under System Summary. The >defender did not look at the responses to 1D. > > What is your ruling? What would your ruling be if it is discovered >that the defender is not damaged because he would be squeezed >out of the overtrick anyway? I rule that 2S is alertable, unless the SO's regulations clearly say otherwise. I would examine the card play very closely to see if the squeeze is inevitable or not, before deciding whether to award an adjusted score. I am not in favour of a PP. The irregularity was by dummy, who failed to alert. However it was declarer who made the ridiculous comments (3) and (2) above. I might ask dummy why he/she failed to alert. If declarer is an experienced player, I would probably report her curious beliefs to the Recorder or Chief TD or to whomever she might listen respectfully. Peter Gill Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 28 01:20:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 01:20:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA07168 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 01:20:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA10722; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:16:39 -0700 Message-Id: <200006271516.IAA10722@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Invisible Revoke Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:16:39 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Hills wrote: > On the final board of last night's session at my local bridge club, my > opponents - a pair of sweet LOLs - were declaring a contract of 4H doubled. > On correct defence my partner and I were due to collect +100. > > However, (due to tiredness) I incorrectly defended by accidentally revoking > in trumps. By the time I noticed what I had done, the revoke was > established. So after turning green I applied L72B3, said nothing, and > played on. > > A few tricks later I ruffed dummy's winner with the trump I *couldn't* > have. But none of the other three players noticed the revoke! (They must > have been tired too.) > > As a result, my side scored +500 instead of +100, and I felt extremely > guilty about what I had done to these nice LOLs. > > Questions: > > 1. L64C allows the TD to restore equity after a revoke which is not > subject to penalty, yet L72B3 suggests the TD need not be informed by the > offender. What is ethical for an offender to do under the current Laws? Personally, I'd inform the TD, and I can't imagine doing otherwise, whether the Laws say I have to or not. I don't want to win by gaining advantages from breaking the Laws; I don't think it's part of bridge. It may be part of other games (i.e. the opponents have the responsibility to catch you doing something wrong, and if they don't it's their loss), but I don't think bridge is that way, and I don't want it to be. > 2. L62A requires an offender to correct a non-established revoke. Should > the 2007 Laws reverse L72B3 so that offenders must correct established > revokes also? Do you really mean "correct" here? Correcting a non-established revoke means you withdraw your illegal card (making it a penalty card) and play a legal card instead, and anyone who already played after you has a chance to withdraw their cards and substitute other cards. (Read the rest of L62.) This is feasible if a couple cards, at most, have been played after the illegal card, but you can imagine what a nightmare it would be to correct a revoke that happened four tricks ago. Would we have to rewind the play to let you withdraw the illegal card and replay all four tricks? I'd definitely be against this sort of change in the Laws. However, if you really meant that an offender must draw attention to their own established revoke, i.e. adding an obligation that doesn't currently exist, I wouldn't be opposed to that change. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 28 02:02:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA07469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 02:02:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca [132.156.47.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA07464 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 02:02:51 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5RFvIe06355 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:57:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200006271557.e5RFvIe06355@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: Ruling from Schiphol To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:57:10 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <4BVV0CAk59V5EwDu@blakjak.demon.co.uk> from "David Stevenson" at Jun 26, 2000 11:51:16 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > > > Declarer is in 3NT after the following sequence [no alerts]: > > 1D=1H= > 2H=2S= > 3D=3N= > P > > When declarer runs her red suits, a defender discards from a five-card > spade holding. This gives an overtrick because declarer has four hearts > and five spades. She says it is irrelevant that her partner had not > alerted the 1H bid or the 2S bid because: > > [1] She had told her opponents that they played canapé at the start of > the round In no way removes the obligation to alert. Besides, not everyone plays Canape the same way. > [2] Her opponents had player four boards against them the previous > night and this was the sixth board of the set and they should have know > their system by now This I have *some* sympathy for. Provided there were auctions that would have brought their style here out. > [3] They are playing standard Blue Club and everyone at this level > would know what the bidding means > And yet there are pairs playing what they call Standard Blue Club who don't play Canape responses. None of this matters to their score. So far, at minimum they get a PP. Declarer had an obligation to point out the failure to alert. > The defender retorts that > [1] There was never any mention of playing canapé in response > [2] The previous nine boards did not include any one with canapé by the > defence > [3] The defender has not played against anyone who plays canapé in > response for many years > [4] None of the reasons gives any excuse for not alerting Or declarer's failing to point out the failure to alert. If declarer had done so, no damage. > > The convention card has "Canape" under System Summary. The defender > did not look at the responses to 1D. Not sure why this matters. Lazy perhaps, but I trust the director or AC is not going to rule that there was an obligation to look at each turn. > > What is your ruling? Infraction - failure to alert. Damage was a consequence. 9 ticks. And at minimum a reprimand to declarer. I'd argue for a more severe penalty. Simply rolling back to 9 tricks isn't adequate. > What would your ruling be if it is discovered > that the defender is not damaged because he would be squeezed out of the > overtrick anyway? As if. I don't care who declarer is. Are there alternative lines of play? Would playing for the squeeze remove other options? Does the defence have to cooperate? Is there a possibility that declarer would mis-guess the count? I almost certainly would not give the squeeze. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 28 03:29:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA07610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 03:29:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA07605 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 03:29:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id NAA23598 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:28:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA27961 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:28:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:28:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200006271728.NAA27961@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Missorting, misinterpreting X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: alain gottcheiner > After the lead, dummy (north) tables his cards, which include Kxx diamonds. > Declarer opens his mouth, blurbs something, then regains his composure, > replaces his 'diamond king' among his hearts, to which he belonged, and > proceeds to play his contract. > > Of course, opponents are now on the wrong track, because : > 2) they interpreted his surprise as a sign that the contract was atrocious, > while the 'new' south cards make it even better. So they misdefend, based > on this false belief. > But what about point 2 ? Could declarer's reaction be considered a > deceptive mannerism ? > Is intent the first criterion ? Is the 'could have known' rule usable here The applicable law is 73F2. You could apply 73B1, but the effect will be the same. Intent is _not_ a factor. The issues are: 1) innocent player - yes 2) false inference from... - yes 3) no demonstrable bridge reason - yes 4) could have known - well, maybe It depends on exactly what declarer did, when, and how. Could declarer have known that the action "could" work to his benefit? I suppose any action "could" benefit declarer, but I'd interpret the verb here to mean had a reasonable expectation or something like it. Otherwise the qualification is essentially meaningless. (If I blink my eyes, the opponents "could" draw some deep inference and go off the rails, and I "could" know that, but I can't believe that's what L73F2 is supposed to mean.) In other words, is the action something an unscrupulous declarer might try? That is a decision for TD judgment. On the facts stated, it seems unlikely that declarer could have known. His action might very well have led to a _correct_ inference by the defense, damaging declarer's side. So I don't think an adjustment is likely. But if declarer's "blurb" was something like "Oh, what a horrible contract!" there might very well be a case. Or if declarer's contract was a sure zero absent defensive error, a villain might think a coffeehouse the only chance. (Even if it backfires, he is still no worse off.) The TD simply has to decide the "could have known" issue based on all the facts. > ? Would it be fair to him to state, at this point, that his cards didn't > match his bidding ? _If_ declarer judges his spontaneous reaction to have been deceptive, he can avoid an adjustment if he can "undo" the damage. The most common example is when a player who has accidentally hesitated says "Sorry, no problem." In the case above, "undoing" might be harder, but "Sorry, I was surprised to find my cards missorted," might do. Again, it will be for TD judgment to determine whether the "undo" was good enough, not good enough, or itself deceptive. It would be better, of course, for all of us to avoid reactions of surprise, but not very many players can manage in all circumstances. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 28 04:25:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA07763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 04:25:17 +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 EAA07758 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 04:25:08 +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 13701Z-0006Ag-00; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 20:23:54 +0200 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 20:29:00 +0100 (MET DST) To: M Smith , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: One board - two different problems (fwd) 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 EAA07759 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear All what is your opinion? Is it the only proper way that the appeal's fee can be refrained only when all members of the AC decide so? Thanks for your comments. Andras M Smith 2000.06.27. 13:59:13 +1h-kor írta: > At 20:14 26/06/2000 +0100, Martaandras@uze.net wrote: > >M Smith 2000.06.26. 14:46:23 +1h-kor írta: > > > >Sorry for my ignorance Marc, I would appreciate some references > >just to use them to amend our rules. > > I'm not sure there are any references - just what seems right. I disagree > on principle with the concept of monetary deposits, believing instead that > the forfeit for a frivilous appeal whould be some number of VPs or > matchpoints. > > It seems logical that if the committee are split on whether an appeal is > frivilous, though, then by definition it cannot be, since a member of the > appeals committee considered that it had merit. > > M > > > > >Thanks. > > > >András > >> > >> I have no strong opinion on whether the AC should adjust the score to > 4H+2, > >> but keeping the deposit is a terrible decision. For a start, the > decision > >> to keep the money should ALWAYS be unanimous. If one member of the AC > >> feels the appeal is not frivilous, then it is not. > >> > >> I also feel that the deposit should never be kept when it is the > >> non-offending side who are forced (by the TD's ruling) to lodge the > appeal. > >> There is no doubt that the explanation and the hand/intention were > >> different. Whether there was misinformation and whether EW were damaged > as > >> a result is a subjective decision, and thus the appeal cannot be deemed > >> frivilous. > >> > >> Marc > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 28 04:59:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA07866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 04:59:30 +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 EAA07861 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 04:59:22 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 39100 invoked for bounce); 27 Jun 2000 18:59:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.58.186) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 27 Jun 2000 18:59:12 -0000 Message-ID: <008e01bfe069$f1d1a720$ba3a1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <4BVV0CAk59V5EwDu@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Ruling from Schiphol Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 20:58:55 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Declarer is in 3NT after the following sequence [no alerts]: > > 1D=1H= > 2H=2S= > 3D=3N= > P > > When declarer runs her red suits, a defender discards from a five-card > spade holding. This gives an overtrick because declarer has four hearts > and five spades. She says it is irrelevant that her partner had not > alerted the 1H bid or the 2S bid because: > > [1] She had told her opponents that they played canapé at the start of > the round > [2] Her opponents had player four boards against them the previous > night and this was the sixth board of the set and they should have know > their system by now > [3] They are playing standard Blue Club and everyone at this level > would know what the bidding means > > The defender retorts that > [1] There was never any mention of playing canapé in response > [2] The previous nine boards did not include any one with canapé by the > defence > [3] The defender has not played against anyone who plays canapé in > response for many years > [4] None of the reasons gives any excuse for not alerting > > The convention card has "Canape" under System Summary. The defender > did not look at the responses to 1D. > > What is your ruling? This is a clear case of MI. Can't decide about damage with the information as it has been presented. The blue club pair mind need a PP as a reminder of their duties. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 28 05:22:15 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA07937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 05:22:15 +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 FAA07932 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 05:22:02 +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 PAA09619 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:22:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006271922.PAA09619@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Invisible Revoke Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:22:31 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 27 June 2000 at 13:48, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >On the final board of last night's session at my local bridge club, my >opponents - a pair of sweet LOLs - were declaring a contract of 4H doubled. >On correct defence my partner and I were due to collect +100. [revoke causes +500 rather than +100, no-one except Richard notices, and he chooses not to point it out] > >Questions: > >1. L64C allows the TD to restore equity after a revoke which is not >subject to penalty, yet L72B3 suggests the TD need not be informed by the >offender. This revoke is subject to penalty. If someone draws attention to the revoke, the TD will come over and give the simple, standard ruling. The comment in L64C is referring to the situations enumerated in L64B. >What is ethical for an offender to do under the current Laws? > It is ethical for an offender to not draw attention to his irregularity (but not to do anything to make it more difficult for anyone else to draw attention to it, L72B4); but he is similarly not honour-bound to keep silent, either. If the offender considers his own ethics or conscience better served by pointing out the revoke and taking the penalty , that is entirely his right. If offender's partner takes exception to this, that is her right, but if I'm the offender, she will be given the choice to either accept that that's one of the things she will have to take to get my ability to find the killing lead after 1D(promising 4 spades or 5S332, 12-14)-p-3NT-ap holding J J9843 9432 985, or find another partner. It's entirely her choice :-) Against sweet LOLs, I'd probably point it out; against sour LOLs (and one pair in particular), I'd be vewy, vewy quiet (apologies to the Warner Brothers-deprived); against experts, I'd probably consider it their lookout, not mine. If the game didn't matter (for whatever reason), I'd be more likely to point it out. So I'm petty - sue me. It's both legal and ethical. In summary; noone is allowed to impugn your ethics if you keep silent - in fact, the Laws go out of their way to acknowledge that your silence is completely ethical. OTOP, noone is going to question your judgement (at least in my game) if you choose not to take your silence option. >2. L62A requires an offender to correct a non-established revoke. Should >the 2007 Laws reverse L72B3 so that offenders must correct established >revokes also? Interesting question. I assume you mean not that it be corrected (L63C), but that attention to the established revoke must be drawn when the revoker becomes aware of it. I would support this exception to L72B3 (which L62A already is); it is, however, not so easy to enforce (because the offender is setting himself up for a penalty) as is the case before the revoke becomes established (where the offender can't do any worse with the MPC than if he allows the revoke to be established). Michael (.sig-enabled, but more reflecting my mood than BLML. Still working on it, though). P.S. Apologies to threaded-newsreaders if this breaks the threading. -- 4-aminobiphenyl, hexachlorobenzene / dimethyl sulfate, chloromethyl methylether 2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin, carbon disulfide / dibromochloropane, chlorinated benzenes / 2-nitropropane, pentachlorophenol / benzotrichloride, strontium chromate / 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane - W.Zevon, "Run Straight Down" From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 28 05:33:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA07994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 05:33:19 +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 FAA07987 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 05:33:11 +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 13716J-0000K5-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 20:32:56 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:32:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific> <001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific> <000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona> <39461668.D81C58EA@village.uunet.be> <001701bfd5fb$6c96e840$532f37d2@laptop> <3948ADD5.E4278736@village.uunet.be> <200006181712.NAA10822@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <394DF553.9F9A9257@village.uunet.be> <200006222148.RAA26076@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <39535E69.8515C27@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <39535E69.8515C27@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: >Besides, who makes these interpretations ? WE do ! >WE are the forum that makes the interpretations. Not the >ACBL ! >The Directors, all together. >And WE should be saying that these interpretations are >wrong. You are saying that the Directors make interpretations and not the sponsoring organisation? I don't think so! -- David Stevenson A learned bridge player called Burn Liverpool, England, UK Tried to lead when it wasn't his turn David Stevenson said Ian Payn wrote: "Have him shot through the head, That's the only way he'll ever learn." From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 28 05:33:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA07982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 05:33:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA07976 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 05:32:58 +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 13716G-0000Jy-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 20:32:49 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 02:43:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: End of L68B References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B61D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B61D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. wrote: > >herman wrote: > >> >I believe that Ton's post on this subject confirms this last >> >view. > >and the reply of David was: > >> I really think we may ignore all Ton's posts in this thread. > > >Well David you indeed ignored all my post in this thread, but after 7000 >'ends' the result is what I described in my first message. That might be a >message in itself. >And I never told that the footnote applied to this case, but gave my opinion >on how to deal with exposed cards in this case: comparable with the >description in the footnote. >My impression is that your destructive tone has not disappeared yet. Of course my tone has not disappeared. On this occasion unlike in other cases you have seen fit to adopt a very unfortunate tone yourself that is not designed to further this argument in any way. It is not your usual style and I find it very surprising. However, you really must expect some form of retaliation when you adopt a scathing tone of this sort. I am really surprised that you have decided to be rude to people who disagree with you in this thread. I see no need for it, and it does you and your reputation no favours whatever. No doubt I am wrong to retaliate but I am only human. I see no reason for you to post on this thread again. You have stated a position, and been offensive to those who disagreed with it. I am surprised that you expect no retaliation to your domineering tone, and it certainly does not impress me, and I doubt whether impresses anyone else. -- David Stevenson A learned bridge player called Burn Liverpool, England, UK Tried to lead when it wasn't his turn David Stevenson said Ian Payn wrote: "Have him shot through the head, That's the only way he'll ever learn." From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 28 05:33:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA07990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 05:33:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA07983 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 05:33:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp181-65.worldonline.nl [195.241.181.65]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 7F3C737E7F; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 21:33:46 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <006401bfe06e$247c1800$41b5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Todd Zimnoch" , Subject: Re: Psyches, another try Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 20:42:56 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Todd asks: >> >> Why isn't "partnership understanding" explicitly two-way? That is, >not >> only is your partner aware that you have psyched before in a certain >> position, but that you simultaneously think he might make his bid with the >> knowledge of the prior psyche. >> >> I believe I should be allowed to psyche a 5HCP 1NT as long as I >expect >> my partner to respond as if I had my normal 15-17. Once he stops >responding >> as if I had 15-17, then the psyche should be illegal, but not before. >Then >> I will be opening 1NT with the partnership understanding that it's 5 or >> 15-17HCP. But until this point, the prior knowledge of my inclination to >> psyche is only a one-way 'individual' understanding. And Grattan answers: >> >+=+ The point is one that can be discussed in drafting the next >major revision of the laws - planned for 2002-2005 AD. In the >meantime we have what we have. > This is the kind of law change that might possibly be 'right' >for stronger players but not for lesser mortals. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >Both of you seem to forget an overwhelming significant aspect, which makes the approach Todd describes illegal and therefore impossible. When a partnership has this agreement it should be on their conventioncard: opponents are entitled to know this!!!! look at 40B please. And then it is impossible to call it a psyche anymore. But I am afraid to fall into the not-too-logical claws of Herman de Wael now. No chance Todd. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 28 06:38:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA08208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 06:38:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA08203 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 06:38:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA15802; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:34:43 -0700 Message-Id: <200006272034.NAA15802@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Invisible Revoke Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:34:44 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: > against experts, I'd probably consider it > their lookout, not mine. One problem I have with this is that in some situations, even an expert couldn't possibly know that you revoked. E.g. Expert plays in 4S. At trick 4, expert enters dummy with a heart to take a trump finesse; you ruff the heart even you are not out of hearts. At trick 6, expert claims the rest (the trump finesse no longer being necessary). You and your partner acquiesce, and you fold your cards and put them back in the board. Expert hasn't seen your last eight cards, and nothing in the prior auction or play would give him any reason to believe you revoked. Nobody has done anything illegal, but do you think this is fair? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 28 06:46:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA08254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 06:46:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA08249 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 06:46:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp180-201.worldonline.nl [195.241.180.201]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 9692C372BC; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 22:47:06 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00a501bfe078$60e0b620$41b5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: End of L68B Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 22:43:17 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I had no intention to be rude, and I am still not aware of having been rude (which might sound rude in itself), but when I was, I am sorry. I still don't think that you should tell anybody to ignore what I am saying unless the content of it is nonsense. Which I try to avoid even more then being rude (I have to admit). What I also try and see as one of my tasks in this group is to avoid that opinions of which I am (almost) sure to be wrong are sent around the world and get settled in the minds and habits of acting TD's. And sometimes I have the impression that I need to raise my voice for that. I allow you to change the first 2 lines in your rhyme in: A learned (?) TD called ton, tried to use an unpleasant tone, etc. (not more than 2 days please) kind regards, ton -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 9:57 PM Subject: Re: End of L68B >Kooijman, A. wrote: >> >>herman wrote: >> >>> >I believe that Ton's post on this subject confirms this last >>> >view. >> >>and the reply of David was: >> >>> I really think we may ignore all Ton's posts in this thread. >> >> >>Well David you indeed ignored all my post in this thread, but after 7000 >>'ends' the result is what I described in my first message. That might be a >>message in itself. >>And I never told that the footnote applied to this case, but gave my opinion >>on how to deal with exposed cards in this case: comparable with the >>description in the footnote. >>My impression is that your destructive tone has not disappeared yet. > > Of course my tone has not disappeared. On this occasion unlike in >other cases you have seen fit to adopt a very unfortunate tone yourself >that is not designed to further this argument in any way. It is not >your usual style and I find it very surprising. However, you really >must expect some form of retaliation when you adopt a scathing tone of >this sort. > > I am really surprised that you have decided to be rude to people who >disagree with you in this thread. I see no need for it, and it does you >and your reputation no favours whatever. No doubt I am wrong to >retaliate but I am only human. > > I see no reason for you to post on this thread again. You have stated >a position, and been offensive to those who disagreed with it. I am >surprised that you expect no retaliation to your domineering tone, and >it certainly does not impress me, and I doubt whether impresses anyone >else. > >-- >David Stevenson A learned bridge player called Burn >Liverpool, England, UK Tried to lead when it wasn't his turn > David Stevenson said > Ian Payn wrote: "Have him shot through the head, > That's the only way he'll ever learn." > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 28 07:10:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA08353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:10:22 +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 HAA08348 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:10:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([210.55.47.99]) by mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000627210939.YIIB20783102.mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 09:09:39 +1200 Message-ID: <007901bfe07b$edacfe80$632f37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: Subject: L57A Premature Play by a Defender Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 09:08:39 +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 At the club last night: A defender led to trick twelve, declarer played and then the same defender exposed their thirteenth card as if to lead to trick thirteen. The position last night was Q10 - - - A x Q - - 7 - - x x - - The diamond seven was led and the spade led to trick 13 before partner or dummy had played to trick 12. The options in L57A seem to me to be inadequate, in particular L57A3. Card of Another Suit forbid offender's partner to play a card of another suit specified by declarer. Declarer can forbid LHO to play one particular suit. If declarer guesses or knows to forbid a heart then the SA is pitched but if declarer does not have a count and guesses to forbid a club then the defender can not now go wrong and pitches the HQ. It seems to me that the result should not depend on whether or not declarer has a count on the hand. In this case declarer has a good chance of not going wrong with the outstanding cards being honours but what if all the outstanding cards were spot cards in a similar position? Wayne Burrows From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 28 07:15:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA08370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:15:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com [139.134.5.173]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA08365 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:15:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id pa106927 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:07:41 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-006-p-217-91.tmns.net.au ([203.54.217.91]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Assertive-MailRouter V2.8a 13/462264); 28 Jun 2000 07:07:40 Message-ID: <002f01bfe0e0$0926d820$5bd936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Invisible Revoke Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 19:05:41 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: >In summary; noone is allowed to impugn your ethics if you >keep silent - in fact, the Laws go out of their way to acknowledge >that your silence is completely ethical. OTOP, noone is going >to question your judgement (at least in my game) if you choose >not to take your silence option. In a 1989 National, I chose the non-silent option under similar circumstances. After the match finished, my partner told me that I must NEVER ever call the TD against myself again when partnering him. I of course found a new partner, and he went on to play for Australia at World Championships; c'est la vie. Peter Gill Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 28 07:17:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA08394 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:17:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.15]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA08389 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:17:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([210.55.45.175]) by mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000627211702.YKPU20783102.mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 09:17:02 +1200 Message-ID: <007a01bfe07c$f5e8bb60$632f37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: Subject: L57A Premature Play by a Defender Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 09:08:39 +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 At the club last night: A defender led to trick twelve, declarer played and then the same defender exposed their thirteenth card as if to lead to trick thirteen. The position last night was Q10 - - - A x Q - - 7 - - x x - - The diamond seven was led and the spade led to trick 13 before partner or dummy had played to trick 12. The options in L57A seem to me to be inadequate, in particular L57A3. Card of Another Suit forbid offender's partner to play a card of another suit specified by declarer. Declarer can forbid LHO to play one particular suit. If declarer guesses or knows to forbid a heart then the SA is pitched but if declarer does not have a count and guesses to forbid a club then the defender can not now go wrong and pitches the HQ. It seems to me that the result should not depend on whether or not declarer has a count on the hand. In this case declarer has a good chance of not going wrong with the outstanding cards being honours but what if all the outstanding cards were spot cards in a similar position? Wayne Burrows From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 28 08:22:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA08727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 08:22:43 +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 IAA08722 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 08:22:37 +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 IAA16091 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 08:19:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 08:19:42 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: Invisible Revoke To: Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 08:19:03 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 28/06/2000 08:17:16 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: "One problem I have with this is that in some situations, even an expert couldn't possibly know that you revoked. E.g. Expert plays in 4S. At trick 4, expert enters dummy with a heart to take a trump finesse; you ruff the heart even you are not out of hearts. At trick 6, expert claims the rest (the trump finesse no longer being necessary). You and your partner acquiesce, and you fold your cards and put them back in the board. Expert hasn't seen your last eight cards, and nothing in the prior auction or play would give him any reason to believe you revoked." "Nobody has done anything illegal, but do you think this is fair?" Under L72B4 I would class simply folding my cards and putting them away after a claim as "mixing the cards prematurely". I would feel obliged to place my remaining cards face up first when declarer's claim occurred. Best wishes Richard Hills richard.hills@immi.gov.au From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 28 08:44:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA08831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 08:44:54 +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 IAA08826 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 08:44:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=antonwit) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 13745s-0001LP-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 00:44:36 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000628003816.00f4c784@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 00:38:16 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Invisible Revoke In-Reply-To: <002f01bfe0e0$0926d820$5bd936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:05 PM 6/28/00 +1000, you wrote: >Michael Farebrother wrote: >>In summary; noone is allowed to impugn your ethics if you >>keep silent - in fact, the Laws go out of their way to acknowledge >>that your silence is completely ethical. OTOP, noone is going >>to question your judgement (at least in my game) if you choose >>not to take your silence option. > >In a 1989 National, I chose the non-silent option under similar >circumstances. After the match finished, my partner told me >that I must NEVER ever call the TD against myself again when >partnering him. I of course found a new partner, and he went >on to play for Australia at World Championships; c'est la vie. > well, the good side is that he probalby would have dumped you anyway for being too ethical, but who cares. Your own ethical standards are the thing that counts. I cant dispute your acting. If you would have done otherwise i also cant dispute it (sigh). Thats life. I think you did well. regards, anton >Peter Gill >Australia. > > > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 28 09:29:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA08928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 09:29:43 +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 JAA08923 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 09:29:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.253.85.191]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000627232927.HRIO290.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 00:29:27 +0100 Message-ID: <003001bfe090$880b0800$bf55fd3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: One board - two different problems (fwd) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 00:36:33 +0100 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: "M Smith" ; Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 8:29 PM Subject: Re: One board - two different problems (fwd) > Dear All what is your opinion? Is it the only proper way > that the appeal's fee can be refrained only when all members of the > AC decide so? > > Thanks for your comments. > > Andras > My opinion is that all members of the AC should agree that the appeal is frivolous before the deposit is forfeit. I have knowledge of an appeal where a portion of the deposit was forfeit, possibly because one member did not agree on retention, possibly because there was a shared responsibility for the original problem. I do not understand this.I consider the deposit to be a token. As such it is not divisible.It is either retained or returned. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 28 09:55:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA09002 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 09:55:34 +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 JAA08996 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 09:55:26 +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 1375CG-0009X6-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 23:55:17 +0000 Message-ID: <7f4apBAV5TW5Ew7g@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 00:52:53 +0100 To: Bridge Laws From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Code of Practice MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 S Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Note: this is not official! EBU have decided [subject to ratification]: Law 12C3 enabled for TDs from 1st August, but no guidance to TDs how to apply: this will be done by Custom+Practice, generally in line with existing practices for ACs and later consideration by the L&EC. The CoP approach to psyches will be considered again and will not be enabled for the time being. The idea of split scores based on "irrational, wild or gambling action" has been deferred. All other items in the CoP have been enabled from 1st August. Note to Anne Jones: Do we follow this for the WBU? BTW: this is David Stevenson, posting from John's machine. I am sitting in John's garden, and we have to ask Herman [yes, *that* Herman] to walk around every few minutes to get the anti-burglar light to turn on again! Herman finished ahead of me in the duplicate at the Acol - but the *chicken* had refused to play *with* me. -- John (MadDog) Probst From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 28 12:41:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA09466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 12:41:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA09461 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 12:41:07 +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 1377mb-0005Vn-0U for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 03:40:58 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 03:29:27 +0100 To: Bridge Laws From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Drunk again MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 S Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It is Probst again! He is feeding me drink!!!! -- John (MadDog) Probst From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 28 12:52:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA09501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 12:52:29 +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 MAA09496 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 12:52:23 +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 MAA14187 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 12:49:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 12:49:32 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: Invisible Revoke To: Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 12:48:54 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 28/06/2000 12:47:06 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: [big snip] >2. L62A requires an offender to correct a non-established revoke. Should >the 2007 Laws reverse L72B3 so that offenders must correct established >revokes also? Interesting question. I assume you mean not that it be corrected (L63C), but that attention to the established revoke must be drawn when the revoker becomes aware of it. I would support this exception to L72B3 (which L62A already is); it is, however, not so easy to enforce [small snip] Merely because a Law is difficult to enforce against an unethical player (for example L16B) does not mean that it should not exist, since the Law provides guidance to the vast majority of ethical players on the Right Thing To Do. What I would like L72B3 to tell me in 2007, is that I must disclose all of my infractions to the TD as soon as I become aware of them. Best wishes Richard Hills richard.hills@immi.gov.au From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 28 13:27:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA09584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 13:27:44 +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 NAA09579 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 13:27:39 +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 NAA16268 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 13:24:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 13:24:49 +0000 (EST) Subject: Life, the Universe and Everything (was Invisible Revoke) To: Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 13:24:11 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 28/06/2000 01:22:23 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen wrote: "Your own ethical standards are the thing that counts. I cant dispute your acting. If you would have done otherwise i also cant dispute it (sigh). Thats life." Nietzche and Plato had differing views of the purpose of the universe. Similarly, the philosophers of the mini-universe of Bridge do not agree on the essence of the game. Edgar Kaplan believed that the purpose a pair or team should should strive for is to maximise their results in a contest (not necessarily any part of that contest) in strict accordance with the Laws. Carried to a logical extreme, this led to him to support misere in some bridge situations. Michael Rosenberg believes that mechanical accidents have no place in the game. Carried to a logical extreme, he refuses to exercise any of his five options when an opponent leads out of turn. I believe that it does not matter ethically whether you follow the Kaplan or Rosenberg school of thought. What *is* important is that you are consistent - avoiding being nice to one pair, but strict to another. (This does not preclude being friendly and courteous to beginners as you explain why it is necessary to summon the TD.) Best wishes Richard Hills richard.hills@immi.gov.au From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 28 14:08:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA09701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 14:08:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1-1.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 OAA09696 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 14:08:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.53] (d18182a35.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.53]) by mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA24265 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 00:06:40 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20000627081310.00acdbd0@pop.cais.com> References: <200006210935280140.00130ED2@mail.earthlink.net> <4.3.2.7.1.20000627081310.00acdbd0@pop.cais.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 23:59:00 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: ACBL position on Psychics Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Eric Landau wrote: >This is hardly an official ruling; it is simply a statement, made in >a private communication. Depends. Mr. Blaiss is, of course, the chief TD of the ACBL. Members are encouraged to write to him at mailto:rulings@acbl.org with questions. I have done so myself. As far as I'm concerned, responses to questions mailed to that address are official rulings unless and until the ACBL states otherwise. Of course, if Richard just wrote privately to his good buddy Gary, that's another story. :-) 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/AwUBOVl6Kr2UW3au93vOEQIz0gCfY0lyiHN/81n06qpl6pbeapmQD6sAnRI4 acn2o1R+SuEEfcy8c4h2yZom =jy5s -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 28 17:46:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA10601 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 17:46:33 +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 RAA10591 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 17:46:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.103] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 137CXw-000CuR-00; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 08:46:09 +0100 Message-ID: <003301bfe0d5$37039220$675408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" Cc: References: Subject: Re: Ruling from Schiphol Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:50:04 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: David Stevenson Cc: Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 8:39 AM Subject: Re: Ruling from Schiphol On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, David Stevenson wrote: > > Declarer is in 3NT after the following sequence [no alerts]: > > 1D=1H= > 2H=2S= > 3D=3N= > P > > When declarer runs her red suits, a defender discards from a five-card > spade holding. This gives an overtrick because declarer has four hearts > and five spades. She says it is irrelevant that her partner had not > alerted the 1H bid or the 2S bid > +=+ There has to be a catch. Such a simple ruling as this would seem to be wasting our time. I think we would not have heard of the incident if a proper ruling had been given. So there is either a Director or an appeals committee whose hands have blood on them. And presumably Declarer did not make those statements to an appeals committee or we would have heard of a fierce reaction. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 28 17:46:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA10600 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 17:46:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA10590 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 17:46:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.103] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 137CXq-000CuR-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 08:46:03 +0100 Message-ID: <003001bfe0d5$337191c0$675408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific><001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific><000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona> <39461668.D81C58EA@village.uunet.be><001701bfd5fb$6c96e840$532f37d2@laptop> <3948ADD5.E4278736@village.uunet.be><200006181712.NAA10822@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca><394DF553.9F9A9257@village.uunet.be><200006222148.RAA26076@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca><39535E69.8515C27@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 23:51:29 +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: Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 1:32 AM Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >Besides, who makes these interpretations ? WE do ! > >WE are the forum that makes the interpretations. Not the > >ACBL ! > >The Directors, all together. > >And WE should be saying that these interpretations are > >wrong. > > You are saying that the Directors make interpretations and not the > sponsoring organisation? I don't think so! > +=+ Extract from minutes of WBF LC (24 August 98): "interim interpretations of Law are made by Zonal organizations.Where significant conflicts are identified the Committee will consider its view at its next Meeting." ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 28 17:49:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA10630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 17:49:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA10625 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 17:49:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.103] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 137CXv-000CuR-00; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 08:46:07 +0100 Message-ID: <003201bfe0d5$36295ec0$675408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" , "David Stevenson" , References: <00a501bfe078$60e0b620$41b5f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: End of L68B Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 00:19:29 +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: David Stevenson ; Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 9:43 PM Subject: Re: End of L68B > I had no intention to be rude, and I am still not aware of having been rude > (which might sound rude in itself), but when I was, I am sorry. > I still don't think that you should tell anybody to ignore what I am saying > unless the content of it is nonsense. Which I try to avoid even more then > being rude (I have to admit). What I also try and see as one of my tasks in > this group is to avoid that opinions of which I am (almost) sure to be wrong > are sent around the world and get settled in the minds and habits of acting > TD's. And sometimes I have the impression that I need to raise my voice for > that. > I allow you to change the first 2 lines in your rhyme in: A learned (?) TD > called ton, tried to use an unpleasant tone, etc. > (not more than 2 days please) > > kind regards, > > ton > +=+ I regard this as a calm and mature response. We all tend to get frustrated at times when our point does not seem to get across, and I know the tendency in myself to be rather sharp if I have an impression that someone is just being obtuse or argumentative. It is probably right to walk away from the keyboard when such feelings are aroused. There is an art in composing soft language when under stress, and it is one most of us could attempt more often. David gives the impression that he thinks aggressive language is sometimes the only solution; if he does, that is a pity. +=+ Grattan Endicott; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 17:51:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.103] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 137CXp-000CuR-00; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 08:46:01 +0100 Message-ID: <002f01bfe0d5$32a08620$675408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" , "Todd Zimnoch" , References: <006401bfe06e$247c1800$41b5f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: Psyches, another try Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 23:16:55 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Grattan Endicott ; Todd Zimnoch ; Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 7:42 PM Subject: Re: Psyches, another try > And Grattan answers: > > >> > >+=+ The point is one that can be discussed in drafting the next > >major revision of the laws - planned for 2002-2005 AD. In the > >meantime we have what we have. > > This is the kind of law change that might possibly be 'right' > >for stronger players but not for lesser mortals. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > >Both of you seem to forget an overwhelming significant aspect, which makes > the approach Todd describes illegal and therefore impossible. > +=+ I was saying it needs a change of law. I agree it would be a fundamental change. But discussion of it is surely not out of the question (I am not advocating it). ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 28 21:56:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA11349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 21:56:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy-5.cais.net (stmpy-5.cais.net [205.252.14.75]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA11343 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 21:56:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from 62wim.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-5.cais.net (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e5SBuAL51253 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:56:12 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000628074833.00acb750@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:57:28 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: One board - two different problems (fwd) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:29 PM 6/27/00, Martaandras wrote: >Dear All what is your opinion? Is it the only proper way >that the appeal's fee can be refrained only when all members of the >AC decide so? I would agree. The fee should be kept only if the appeal is obviously without merit. If any member of the AC feels that the appeal was justified, it is not "obviously without". In the ACBL (before they gave up monetary deposits), only a majority of the AC needed to vote to keep the fee for it to be kept. A number of ACs embarassed themselves by keeping a deposit after handing down a split decision -- I recall one case where the vote was 3-2 against the appellants, then 3-2 to keep the deposit. At minimum, the fee should *never* be retained unless the decision against the appellants was unanimous. IMHO this should be obvious to everyone, but apparently it is not. 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 Jun 28 22:19:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA11436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 22:19:45 +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 WAA11431 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 22:19:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from 62wim.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 ESMTP id e5SCJQg37418 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 08:19:26 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000628081301.00acdba0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 08:20:44 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L57A Premature Play by a Defender In-Reply-To: <007a01bfe07c$f5e8bb60$632f37d2@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:08 PM 6/27/00, Wayne wrote: >At the club last night: > >A defender led to trick twelve, declarer played and then the same defender >exposed their thirteenth card as if to lead to trick thirteen. > >The position last night was > > > Q10 > - > - > - >A x >Q - >- 7 >- - > x > x > - > - >The diamond seven was led and the spade led to trick 13 before partner or >dummy had played to trick 12. > >The options in L57A seem to me to be inadequate, in particular > >L57A3. Card of Another Suit >forbid offender's partner to play a card of another suit specified by >declarer. > >Declarer can forbid LHO to play one particular suit. If declarer guesses or >knows to forbid a heart then the SA is pitched but if declarer does not have >a count and guesses to forbid a club then the defender can not now go wrong >and pitches the HQ. > >It seems to me that the result should not depend on whether or not declarer >has a count on the hand. > >In this case declarer has a good chance of not going wrong with the >outstanding cards being honours but what if all the outstanding cards were >spot cards in a similar position? The result should depend on whether West has a count on the hand. When the D7 becomes a penalty card (L57A) it is withdrawn (L47A), and its identity becomes UI to West (L16C2). West may not discard the HQ if discarding the SA is an LA. In practice, then, it's up to West to convince the TD/AC that throwing the SA was not an LA, which he can do if he can demonstrate that he knew from the earlier play that East could not hold a heart. 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 Jun 28 22:47:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA11545 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 22:47:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy-4.cais.net (stmpy-4.cais.net [205.252.14.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA11540 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 22:47:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from 62wim.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-4.cais.net (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e5SCl4f19088 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 08:47:05 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000628082716.00aca100@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 08:32:57 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: ACBL position on Psychics In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000627081310.00acdbd0@pop.cais.com> <200006210935280140.00130ED2@mail.earthlink.net> <4.3.2.7.1.20000627081310.00acdbd0@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:59 PM 6/27/00, Ed wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > >This is hardly an official ruling; it is simply a statement, made in > >a private communication. > >Depends. Mr. Blaiss is, of course, the chief TD of the ACBL. Members >are encouraged to write to him at mailto:rulings@acbl.org with >questions. I have done so myself. As far as I'm concerned, responses >to questions mailed to that address are official rulings unless and >until the ACBL states otherwise. > >Of course, if Richard just wrote privately to his good buddy Gary, >that's another story. :-) I don't see how anything that isn't somehow disseminated to the affected parties can be considered an "official ruling". Mr. Blaiss's position, along with the fact that such questions are solicited, make his responses "official interpretations" -- he is not setting "official" policy; he is "officially" explaining it. What I'd like to know in this case is where, oh where, might a mere mortal find the official ruling that Mr. Blaiss believes he is officially explaining. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 29 00:43:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA11857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 00:43:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (postfix@omicron.comarch.pl [195.116.125.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA11852 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 00:43:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from comarch.pl (unknown [10.10.2.50]) by omicron.comarch.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7F90176EA; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 16:42:38 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <395A0F15.EDCA4574@comarch.pl> Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 16:43:33 +0200 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Probst Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UK UI References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > 2S P(h) 3S, Green (favoUrable if you're a Yank) > > x > Q9xx > AQ109 > Axxx > > Do you allow a double? [Peter Gill] >I wouldn't, unless there is clear evidence that this pair >regularly makes light T/O doubles (e.g. some pairs >write that on the WBF CC). I put this hand as a probem on pl.rec.gry.brydz and bridge@cena.fr - a Polish news list and a French mailing list. [Henry Sun] >under the current interpretation in the US as i understand it, no. > >passing 3s is clearly a logical alternative to doubling, and as the >hesitation appears to suggest bidding rather than passing, 4th >seat shan't opt for doubling. [John R. Mayne] No. Easy. Demonstrably suggested by the hesitation, and far from clear. [Fearghal O'Boyle] No. The double is suggested over pass by the hesitation. [Thomas Dehn] No. If partner has values, he can reopen. I think that all of you, with all the respect, failed to answer the right question. Being asked "Do you allow the double" you replied "No. Double is demonstably suggested by the hesitation etc.". But to determine whether passing is a LA you have to answer a _bridge_ problem, not a _ruling_ problem. i.e. "The bidding goes 2S p 3S . What do you bid with this hand?" without mentioning that there was a hesitation. And that's what I did. I posted this hand as a problem on pl.rec.gry.brydz and bridge@cena.fr - a Polish news list and a French mailing list. I haven't found a _single_ person who voted for a pass. Everyone doubled unanimously. I guess this closes the whole thing. Pass is not a LA. -- *********************************************************************** - One school believes that high taxes are most profitable for the poor as there is more money in the budget for social purposes. The other one claims that low taxes are better for the poor as the rich ones can keep more money for investments that give work to the unemployed ones etc. Which side does your party support? - Both of these schools are right but we reject both viewpoints. ( from a TV debate before the elections in a certain European country ) Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 29 02:29:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA12284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 02:29:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f5.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA12279 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 02:29:06 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 4202 invoked by uid 0); 28 Jun 2000 16:28:28 -0000 Message-ID: <20000628162828.4201.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.197 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 09:28:28 PDT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.197] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UK UI Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 09:28:28 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Konrad Ciborowski >To: John Probst >CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Subject: Re: UK UI >Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 16:43:33 +0200 > >"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > > 2S P(h) 3S, Green (favoUrable if you're a Yank) > > > > x > > Q9xx > > AQ109 > > Axxx > > > > Do you allow a double? > > >[Peter Gill] > >I wouldn't, unless there is clear evidence that this pair > >regularly makes light T/O doubles (e.g. some pairs > >write that on the WBF CC). > I put this hand as a probem on pl.rec.gry.brydz >and bridge@cena.fr - a Polish news list and a French >mailing list. > >[Henry Sun] > >under the current interpretation in the US as i understand it, no. > > > >passing 3s is clearly a logical alternative to doubling, and as the > >hesitation appears to suggest bidding rather than passing, 4th > >seat shan't opt for doubling. > >[John R. Mayne] >No. Easy. Demonstrably suggested by the hesitation, and far from clear. > > >[Fearghal O'Boyle] >No. The double is suggested over pass by the hesitation. > >[Thomas Dehn] >No. If partner has values, he can reopen. > > > I think that all of you, with all the respect, failed >to answer the right question. Being asked "Do you allow the double" >you replied "No. Double is demonstably suggested by the hesitation >etc.". >But to determine whether passing is a LA you have to answer a _bridge_ >problem, not a _ruling_ problem. i.e. "The bidding goes 2S p 3S . What >do you bid with this hand?" without mentioning that there was >a hesitation. > And that's what I did. I posted this hand as a problem on >pl.rec.gry.brydz >and bridge@cena.fr - a Polish news list and a French mailing list. >I haven't found a _single_ person who voted for a pass. Everyone >doubled unanimously. > I guess this closes the whole thing. Pass is not a LA. > Some sense at last. Not only should this be how a question be phrased 'conversationally', on this mailing list, for example, but also when a TD goes off to 'consult' before giving a ruling. Obviously there are some circumstances where the questioned can guess what's going on, but at least it starts proceedings off on the right foot. ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 29 10:36:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA13528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 10:36:39 +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 KAA13514 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 10:36:29 +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 137SJV-000Lpi-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 00:36:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 01:30:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Drunk again References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , John (MadDog) Probst writes > > It is Probst again! > > He is feeding me drink!!!! > > > This wasn't me!! By the way, who should be propping up the bar of the YC this evening but Herman (yes, that Herman), and David Burn (who got a lift later on) so my car has now had the pleasure of 2xDavids and a Herman within 24 hours. btw DWS was not very well this morning. He didn't complain about my Lawgiving once over breakfast (about 1230 pm), and was remarkably quiet. Herman (who ended up sleeping over in one of the spare rooms) sensibly left at 8 am whilst we were sleeping off the garden party. Try this one: 2NT P 2D P delayed alert of the 2D call. I got this one right, and somebody didn't (HeHe) 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 Jun 29 10:36:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA13530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 10:36:40 +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 KAA13515 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 10:36:31 +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 137SJX-0004j0-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 00:36:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 01:12:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: UK UI References: <395A0F15.EDCA4574@comarch.pl> In-Reply-To: <395A0F15.EDCA4574@comarch.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <395A0F15.EDCA4574@comarch.pl>, Konrad Ciborowski writes >"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >> >> 2S P(h) 3S, Green (favoUrable if you're a Yank) >> >> x >> Q9xx >> AQ109 >> Axxx >> >> Do you allow a double? > > snip > And that's what I did. I posted this hand as a problem on >pl.rec.gry.brydz >and bridge@cena.fr - a Polish news list and a French mailing list. >I haven't found a _single_ person who voted for a pass. Everyone >doubled unanimously. > I guess this closes the whole thing. Pass is not a LA. > I ruled that pass was not a LA given the class of player and the class of the field. I felt that over 80% of all YC players would double in sleep. I got appealed (didn't take a deposit as I didn't think the appeal was frivolous) and was upheld by the AC. They too felt about it the same as I did. Thanks Guys, I'd promised to post it as I wondered how other jurisdictions would vote. As expected the Yanks lined the doubler up against the wall and the Europeans allowed it (in general) 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 Jun 29 10:36:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA13529 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 10:36:39 +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 KAA13513 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 10:36:29 +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 137SJV-000Bc9-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 00:36:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 01:17:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Ruling from Schiphol References: <003301bfe0d5$37039220$675408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <003301bfe0d5$37039220$675408c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <003301bfe0d5$37039220$675408c3@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott===================================== > "The best reply to unseemly behaviour >is patience and moderation. " (Moliere) >===================================== >----- Original Message ----- >From: Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) >To: David Stevenson >Cc: >Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 8:39 AM >Subject: Re: Ruling from Schiphol > > >On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, David Stevenson wrote: > >> >> Declarer is in 3NT after the following sequence [no alerts]: >> >> 1D=1H= >> 2H=2S= >> 3D=3N= >> P >> >> When declarer runs her red suits, a defender discards from a five-card >> spade holding. This gives an overtrick because declarer has four hearts >> and five spades. She says it is irrelevant that her partner had not >> alerted the 1H bid or the 2S bid >> somebody with this attitude problem would not be welcome in one of my games. ... and it wouldn't just be me who made that clear to them. I'd adjust and nail them with a PP too, and explain to them how I expect them to behave in future. I really wouldn't mind losing this customer, I'll keep a lot more. cheers john >+=+ There has to be a catch. Such a simple ruling as this >would seem to be wasting our time. I think we would >not have heard of the incident if a proper ruling had been >given. So there is either a Director or an appeals committee >whose hands have blood on them. And presumably >Declarer did not make those statements to an appeals >committee or we would have heard of a fierce >reaction. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > -- 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 Jun 29 11:24:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA13668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 11:24:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.rdc2.occa.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc2.occa.home.com [24.2.8.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA13663 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 11:24:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc68559a ([24.5.183.132]) by mail.rdc2.occa.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.00 201-229-116) with SMTP id <20000629012410.YCGJ20009.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 18:24:10 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: One board - two different problems (fwd) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 18:02:55 -0700 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) In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20000628074833.00acb750@pop.cais.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Part of the problem in the ACBL was that there were "conscientious objectors" to a monetary penalty that has different value depending on who the appellant is.... therefore unanimous was very often impossible regardless of the lack of merit of the appeal $50 is very different to a millionaire than to a student.... This problem is probably not as severe at the WBF level.. After time our position changed to something along the following lines: If after hearing from the Director and all the players, if the AC members look at each other and say "why are we here" then the appeal lacks merit. If there is discussion about bridge matters, then the appeal should be considered to probably have merit. However, the majority still rules and those that are "conscientious objectors" to any sort of penalty are asked not to vote in this portion of the decision. I think our trend since this type of thought (and our point system) is to more accurately determine when appeals lack merit - If anything, lately, we don't do it often enough (especially the Director Panels - who tend to have more of the 'why are we here' cases than National Events tend to generate) Linda > I would agree. The fee should be kept only if the appeal is obviously > without merit. If any member of the AC feels that the appeal was > justified, it is not "obviously without". > > In the ACBL (before they gave up monetary deposits), only a > majority of the > AC needed to vote to keep the fee for it to be kept. A number of ACs > embarassed themselves by keeping a deposit after handing down a split > decision -- I recall one case where the vote was 3-2 against the > appellants, then 3-2 to keep the deposit. At minimum, the fee should > *never* be retained unless the decision against the appellants was > unanimous. IMHO this should be obvious to everyone, but > apparently it is not. > > > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com > APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 29 13:16:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA13957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:16:30 +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 NAA13952 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:16:24 +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 NAA18149 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:13:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:13:32 +0000 (EST) Subject: Witness for the Prosecution To: Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:12:52 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 29/06/2000 01:11:06 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Playing in a teams event, I overheard a violation of Law at an adjacent table (not my team-mates table). None of the four players directly involved called the TD. 1. Does L72A1 permit me to call the TD as an amicus curiae? 2. If the answer to the above question is *it depends*, then for which Law violations is it appropriate for me to be a busybody? In real life, I merely filled in a Recorder notice. Best wishes Richard Hills richard.hills@immi.gov.au From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 29 17:06:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA14369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 17:06:34 +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 RAA14363 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 17:06:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 09:05:55 +0200 Received: from xion.spase.nl (xion.spase.nl [192.168.200.7]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with ESMTP id NAA11267 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 13:38:08 +0200 Received: by xion.spase.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 13:38:06 +0200 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: UK UI Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 13:38:03 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >2S P(h) 3S, Green (favoUrable if you're a Yank) > >x >Q9xx >AQ109 >Axxx > >Do you allow a double? Funny. At first, I only saw the bidding 2S P 3S. With that, and assuming that 2S is weak and 3S a preemtive raise, well, I tend to bid rather aggressively, so I would double. The lack of HCP is compensated by the distribution of the hand. Only after that I saw that partner hesitated before passing. But based on my first instinct, I would allow the double. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 29 18:16:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA14547 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 18:16:53 +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 SAA14542 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 18:16:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.89] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 137ZUv-000MKB-00; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 09:16:34 +0100 Message-ID: <002501bfe1a2$a1d67040$595608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , References: <3.0.6.32.20000626174231.0088c800@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5tbfniAFhAW5EwJ0@probst.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: UK UI Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 09:15:50 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 2:49 AM Subject: Re: UK UI > In article <3.0.6.32.20000626174231.0088c800@pop.ulb.ac.be>, alain > gottcheiner writes > >At 03:17 25/06/00 +0100, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >>2S P(h) 3S, Green (favoUrable if you're a Yank) > >> > >>x > >>Q9xx > >>AQ109 > >>Axxx > >> > >>Do you allow a double? > > > btw it was imps, sorry I didn't mention it. > ____________ \x/ _______________ > > > Actually it was a question "Is that weak?" from a not very strong > player, the rest of the players at the table are "expert" but not World > class (ie UK Lady international had the decision :)) ) > +=+ I think there are two considerations: (1) is the weak player so weak that no reliable information has been conveyed? Perhaps not, from the description. (2) how assured can we be that, say, 80% plus of lady internationals would double? (I would think pretty certain). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 29 18:38:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA14597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 18:38:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA14592 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 18:38:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.89] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 137Zq2-000Nfz-00; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 09:38:23 +0100 Message-ID: <004101bfe1a5$ada9c0e0$595608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: References: Subject: Re: Witness for the Prosecution Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 09:37:04 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 4:12 AM Subject: Witness for the Prosecution > Playing in a teams event, I overheard a violation of Law at an adjacent > table (not my team-mates table). None of the four players directly > involved called the TD. > > 1. Does L72A1 permit me to call the TD as an amicus curiae? > > 2. If the answer to the above question is *it depends*, then for which Law > violations is it appropriate for me to be a busybody? > > In real life, I merely filled in a Recorder notice. > +=+ Personally, unless you receive unauthorized information from it, I do not think you have any place taking notice of what goes on at another table. You may be asked for evidence at some time, and that is the time to speak. I think you are in effect a kibitzer at that table; do kibitzers complete forms for Recorders ? There is also the risk that you have misheard or misunderstood. And with some witnesses it would be the case that they did not understand the law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 29 21:20:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA14902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:53:56 +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 UAA14876 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:53:39 +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 137bwf-000Hoa-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 10:53:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 01:14:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) References: <200006262011.QAA21172@cfa183.harvard.edu> 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: >Such rulings should be very rare, particularly when it is the NOS's ability >that is being ruled against. If the same contract is adjusted to 4S by the >NOS, and the NOS is an unknown Flight B pair, then an AC which rules that >the NOS could not set up a squeeze will be perceived by the NOS as showing >favoritism toiwards the experts. So what? There will always be nagging by some people over appeals decisions. That is no reason not to rule correctly. -- David Stevenson A learned bridge player called Burn Liverpool, England, UK Tried to lead when it wasn't his turn David Stevenson said Ian Payn wrote: "Have him shot through the head, That's the only way he'll ever learn." From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 29 22:20:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA14900 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:53:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA14870 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:53:36 +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 137bwd-000HoZ-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 10:53:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 01:13:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) References: <200006262011.QAA21172@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200006262011.QAA21172@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >[Very late followup; I've been travelling a lot.] >> Some of the rules about claims, such as what is normal, dpend on the >> class of player involved. > >But this last is very much subject to debate. Just because _some_ >things depend on ability doesn't mean _everything_ does. I'm not >trying to reopen the debate about whether ability is a factor in >judging claims, just noting for the record that the debate exists. I don't understand what is "subject to debate". Are you trying to tell me that the words "... play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved ..." do not mean that rules that use this footnote depend on the class of player? -- David Stevenson A learned bridge player called Burn Liverpool, England, UK Tried to lead when it wasn't his turn David Stevenson said Ian Payn wrote: "Have him shot through the head, That's the only way he'll ever learn." From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 29 23:20:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA14903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:53:56 +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 UAA14873 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:53:38 +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 137bwf-000Hoc-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 10:53:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 01:18:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Missorting, misinterpreting References: <200006271728.NAA27961@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200006271728.NAA27961@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: alain gottcheiner >> After the lead, dummy (north) tables his cards, which include Kxx diamonds. >> Declarer opens his mouth, blurbs something, then regains his composure, >> replaces his 'diamond king' among his hearts, to which he belonged, and >> proceeds to play his contract. >> >> Of course, opponents are now on the wrong track, because : >> 2) they interpreted his surprise as a sign that the contract was atrocious, >> while the 'new' south cards make it even better. So they misdefend, based >> on this false belief. > >> But what about point 2 ? Could declarer's reaction be considered a >> deceptive mannerism ? >> Is intent the first criterion ? Is the 'could have known' rule usable here > >The applicable law is 73F2. You could apply 73B1, but the effect will >be the same. > >Intent is _not_ a factor. The issues are: >1) innocent player - yes >2) false inference from... - yes >3) no demonstrable bridge reason - yes Of course there is a demonstrable bridge reason. The sight of two kings of diamonds is sufficient reason for an expression of surprise. So, there is no reason to adjust. -- David Stevenson A learned bridge player called Burn Liverpool, England, UK Tried to lead when it wasn't his turn David Stevenson said Ian Payn wrote: "Have him shot through the head, That's the only way he'll ever learn." From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 29 23:32:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA14901 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:53:56 +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 UAA14872 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:53:38 +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 137bwd-000Hoy-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 10:53:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 01:09:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: change of mind?2nd References: <3955702C.514C937A@iig.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3955702C.514C937A@iig.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk H Thompson wrote: >I'm not sure but I get the idea I shouldn't have sent this. I am a >Congress Director who in this case was the Appeal Chair. I was abused >for half an hour by declarer after we decided 4S down 1. I should report this to your state authority. Declarer needs disciplinary action to be taken against him. > There was no >paper work on the Appeal. We were just told that only the 2 card ending >mattered to us, that Declarer had led the SQ (he hadn't as it turned >out, Defence led S2) and that there was a defender who hadn't been asked >her opinion and perhaps we should call her frst. I am afraid this means that the appeal was not arranged in a satisfactory fashion. While in exceptional circumstances there might be no paperwork it is certainly unsatisfactory to hear an appeal without the players present. The actual Director appears to have not organised this matter very well. > After the decision >Declarer started saying Dummy touched the SA too. To me this means had >enough time to change mind. We made our decision without knowing who >was Declarer until the end when we had decided if the said dummy had >touched card we would rule down 1. Had we known who Dec. was we would >always have ruled that way as this is a frequent occurance. I was >trying not to prejudice answers with extraneous information and to find >out if you thought touching S4 was enough to constitute a suggestion >without knowing the pairs history. The pair's history is irrelevant to a single case. -- David Stevenson A learned bridge player called Burn Liverpool, England, UK Tried to lead when it wasn't his turn David Stevenson said Ian Payn wrote: "Have him shot through the head, That's the only way he'll ever learn." From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 29 23:55:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA15469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 23:55:38 +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 XAA15464 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 23:55:30 +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 JAA05555 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 09:55:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA094716920; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 09:55:20 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 09:55:09 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: Ruling: contested claim Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au 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 XAA15465 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all, Yesterday, I had to rule on a "contested" claim on this hand: x x x K x x x x x x A Q x x x x x x x x x 9 x x A x A x K J x x x x x x South x x x A K Q J 10 x x Q x x K x x South playing in a H contract, W led DA followed by a D to the K and a D ruffed by W. On lead later with HA, E played an other D. Then S claimed without any statement. W called TD saying he could win an other trick with H9 because S did not mention the outside trick, could have forget it and make a careless play ruffing with a small H. I ruled no additionnal trick to W saying this player (ACBL life master) was all probably aware of the outstanding trump (Law 70C2) and it would be irrationnal to ruff with a small trump (footnote to Law 70). I want to follow Laws, but hate giving tops for nothing. Players use to think they will always get a trick when declarer claim without mentionnind an outstanding trick. Your comments would be welcome. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 00:18:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA14904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:53:57 +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 UAA14878 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:53:39 +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 137bwi-000HoZ-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 10:53:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 01:22:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L57A Premature Play by a Defender References: <007a01bfe07c$f5e8bb60$632f37d2@laptop> In-Reply-To: <007a01bfe07c$f5e8bb60$632f37d2@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows wrote: >At the club last night: > >A defender led to trick twelve, declarer played and then the same defender >exposed their thirteenth card as if to lead to trick thirteen. > >The position last night was > > > Q10 > - > - > - >A x >Q - >- 7 >- - > x > x > - > - >The diamond seven was led and the spade led to trick 13 before partner or >dummy had played to trick 12. > >The options in L57A seem to me to be inadequate, in particular > >L57A3. Card of Another Suit >forbid offender's partner to play a card of another suit specified by >declarer. > >Declarer can forbid LHO to play one particular suit. If declarer guesses or >knows to forbid a heart then the SA is pitched but if declarer does not have >a count and guesses to forbid a club then the defender can not now go wrong >and pitches the HQ. > >It seems to me that the result should not depend on whether or not declarer >has a count on the hand. > >In this case declarer has a good chance of not going wrong with the >outstanding cards being honours but what if all the outstanding cards were >spot cards in a similar position? L57A says the card becomes a penalty card. That makes it subject to L50, which says [inter alia] "The Director shall award an adjusted score, in lieu of the rectifications below, when he deems that Law 72B1 applies.". So, apply L72B1 and assign a score which gives declarer the last trick. -- David Stevenson A learned bridge player called Burn Liverpool, England, UK Tried to lead when it wasn't his turn David Stevenson said Ian Payn wrote: "Have him shot through the head, That's the only way he'll ever learn." From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 00:20:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA14899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:53:51 +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 UAA14869 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:53:35 +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 137bwb-000Hoc-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 10:53:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 01:05:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: change of mind? References: <39552DED.865C1237@iig.com.au> In-Reply-To: <39552DED.865C1237@iig.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk H Thompson wrote: >This is my first posting. Would it be possible to get some feedback, >please? Hi Helen, nice to see you, have you any cats? >Country Congress of indifferent standard. The Director is imported and >has no idea of the level of the pair involved. >Contract 4S, Declarer needs to take last two tricks. The cards >specified are Spades. x means card of another suit. > > A4 > --- 10 2 > xx > Q > x > >Defender leads S2. Declarer plays SQ, then calls for the SA from >dummy. After an agreed brief pause, he corrects to S4. Your ruling? > >Director rules inadvertent and corrects to S4, contract making. >Appealed. > >The appeals committee calls a defender who hasn't spoken. She mentions >the declarer called for the SA and dummy touched the S4. Then declarer >changed his call. The other defender says the same thing. Dummy has >gone home (although aware of the appeal and requested to stay). >Declarer confirms the S4 was touched. Your ruling? To be honest, I cannot really give an answer. This one needs to be able to speak to the players and hear their answers. It is a judgement whether the call for the SA was inadvertent. However, my gut feeling is that it was not inadvertent, and the play stands. Furthermore, if it is judged that dummy suggested a card then under L45F I am not allowing a change whether it was inadvertent or not, or perhaps I should say that I might allow the change but I would assign a score that gives the trick back. As for the absence of dummy from the appeal, that is dummy's own affair. If he is not there then his opponents are in a strong position over findings of fact. On balance I am very likely to rule this one as 4S-1, but as explained I might rule differently once I have spoken to everyone. -- 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 Jun 30 01:11:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA15718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 01:11:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt7-he.global.net.uk (cobalt7-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.167]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA15707 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 01:11:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from p58s08a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.136.89] helo=pacific) by cobalt7-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 137Y0r-00051V-00; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 07:41:26 +0100 Message-ID: <002601bfe1dc$05c4c6e0$598893c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: One board - two different problems (fwd) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 14:39:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: 29 June 2000 02:02 Subject: RE: One board - two different problems (fwd) > > $50 is very different to a millionaire than to a student.... This problem is > probably not as severe at the WBF level.. > +=+ Where we are all students.....+=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 01:11:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA15717 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 01:11:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt7-he.global.net.uk (cobalt7-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.167]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA15708 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 01:11:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from p58s08a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.136.89] helo=pacific) by cobalt7-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 137Y0n-00051V-00; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 07:41:21 +0100 Message-ID: <002301bfe1dc$0337b360$598893c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Richard Willey" References: <000d01bfdff1$2a9b5ac0$c73467c0@isi.com> Subject: Re: ACBL position on Psychics Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 14:21:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: 27 June 2000 05:35 Subject: ACBL position on Psychics > > - From my perspective, the interesting point is the last two sentences > of paragraph 3. > For all intents and purposes, this is a ruling from the ACBL that > states that there is no "one psyche in a lifetime" policy. > +=+ It would be progress, therefore, if examples could be quoted of rulings/appeals decisions that have created the impression that there is such a policy. Perhaps they would show that the 'policy' was a misinterpretation by a limited number of people of the guidance on which they acted. Alternatively a misinterpretation by players ruled against of the grounds for the rulings. I think the ACBL does have the problems that are associated with extended lines of communication. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 02:00:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA16063 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 02:00:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt7-he.global.net.uk (cobalt7-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.167]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA16057 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 02:00:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from pb8s01a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.129.185] helo=pacific) by cobalt7-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 137Ymp-0005xU-00; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 08:30:59 +0100 Message-ID: <006701bfe1e2$f270cb00$598893c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Fw: WBF policy on psychics. Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 16:15:15 +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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott +=+ WBF General Conditions of Contest > (section 42): > > "Psychic bids are specifically permitted by the > Laws of Duplicate Bridge provided that any > partnership understandings or agreements are > disclosed. It would be inconsistent therefore if > the WBF forbade psychics in its own tournaments. > > Some partnerships of reasonably long standing > develop understandings that psychic bids in certain > situations will be of a certain type. These are > developed partnership understandings and not > conventions, and should be explained on the > Convention Card and on the Supplementary Sheets. > In other words the psychics should be made > randomly but any understandings about them should > be revealed. > > Where partnerships have agreements that psychic > bids are expected or are likely in specific situations or > where psychics are protected by System then a > convention has developed. Such psychic understandings > are classified as Brown Sticker Conventions and are > therefore forbidden in certain events. The type of > agreement referred to, for example, is where, third in > hand at favourable vulnerability, the player is expected > to open the bidding on anything at all." > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > [As for example: 1H - dbl -- 1 psyche.] ~ G ~ +=+ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > These statements are supplementary to the guidance > on identifying the existence of understandings given > in the CoP. (To which it may be useful to add something > about 'fielding' as circumstantial evidence of the presence of an understanding.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 02:57:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA16166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 02:57:30 +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 CAA16161 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 02:57:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d360.iae.nl [212.61.5.106]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 42E7B20F2F for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 18:56:58 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <001a01bfe1ea$e2077680$6a053dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: Subject: Re: drunk again Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 18:54:57 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0015_01BFE1FB.84C35D20" 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_0015_01BFE1FB.84C35D20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable John wrote: try this one. To me it is quit clear. The 2NT bidder realises firstly that he has not an agreement on an = insufficient bid. So no alert. But later he likes to inform the opponents with an delayed alert that 2D = is insufficient. Do you have an agreement on insufficients bids? I believe I am becoming a little drunk. ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01BFE1FB.84C35D20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
John wrote: try this one.
 
To me it is quit clear.
The 2NT bidder realises firstly that he = has not an=20 agreement on an insufficient bid. So no alert.
But later he likes to inform the = opponents with an=20 delayed alert that 2D is insufficient.
Do you have an agreement on = insufficients=20 bids?
I believe I am becoming a little=20 drunk.
------=_NextPart_000_0015_01BFE1FB.84C35D20-- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 03:04:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA16192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 03:04:29 +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 DAA16187 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 03:04:20 +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 NAA14666 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:04:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA14051 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:04:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:04:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200006291704.NAA14051@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > I don't understand what is "subject to debate". Are you trying to > tell me that the words "... play that would be careless or inferior for > the class of player involved ..." do not mean that rules that use this > footnote depend on the class of player? About two months ago, we had a very long thread on exactly this subject. People on both sides said what they had to say, and I don't see why we need to go through it again. But yes, there are very definitely two sides, and each side thinks the other is reading the text incorrectly. My impression from BLML and other sources is that, in practice, it seems more popular than not to consider ability in judging claims, i.e. many TD's will uphold a claim by a good player but reject the identical claim from a poor player. Not everyone agrees that this is what the Laws say should happen. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 03:15:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA16223 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 03:15:39 +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 DAA16218 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 03:15:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id NAA14999 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:15:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA14070 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:15:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:15:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200006291715.NAA14070@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Missorting, misinterpreting X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Of course there is a demonstrable bridge reason. The sight of two > kings of diamonds is sufficient reason for an expression of surprise. Ah, now that's an interesting view. Is having one's hand missorted or otherwise having mistaken one card for another a _bridge_ reason? Obviously I didn't think so, but I'm ready to be persuaded. Anyone else care to offer an opinion? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 03:31:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA16287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 03:31:43 +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 DAA16282 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 03:31:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-010.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.202]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA31360 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 18:30:55 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <000901bfe1f0$acf1ed80$ca307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: Ruling: contested claim Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 18:37:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk If declarer claims in this position I think it is incontrovertible that he intends to ruff high. IMHO the claim is good. Regards, Fearghal -----Original Message----- From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 29 June 2000 15:10 Subject: Ruling: contested claim >Hi all, > >Yesterday, I had to rule on a "contested" claim on this hand: > > x x x > K x x > x x x x > A Q x > > x x x x x x x x > 9 x x A x > A x K J x x > x x x x South x x x > A K > Q J 10 x x > Q x x > K x x > >South playing in a H contract, W led DA followed by a D >to the K and a D ruffed by W. On lead later with HA, E >played an other D. Then S claimed without any statement. > >W called TD saying he could win an other trick with H9 >because S did not mention the outside trick, could have >forget it and make a careless play ruffing with a small H. > >I ruled no additionnal trick to W saying this player (ACBL >life master) was all probably aware of the outstanding trump >(Law 70C2) and it would be irrationnal to ruff with a small >trump (footnote to Law 70). > >I want to follow Laws, but hate giving tops for nothing. >Players use to think they will always get a trick when >declarer claim without mentionnind an outstanding trick. > >Your comments would be welcome. > >Laval Du Breuil >Quebec City > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 03:56:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA16386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 03:56:24 +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 DAA16381 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 03:56:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id NAA16712 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:56:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA14135 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:56:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:56:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200006291756.NAA14135@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fw: WBF policy on psychics. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > Where partnerships have agreements that psychic > > bids are expected or are likely in specific situations or > > where psychics are protected by System then a > > convention has developed. Such psychic understandings > > are classified as Brown Sticker Conventions Surely that should be "may be classified," not "are classified." If the convention is an otherwise legal two-way action, for example, why should it be brown sticker? For example, 1H-x-1S, where 1S shows either 4 or more spades _or_ four or more hearts, short spades, and a weak hand. (I presume that's a legal convention in WBF play. It would be legal on the ACBL GCC as a defense to opponents' conventional call, the takeout double. Of course it would have to be properly disclosed.) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 04:24:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA16537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 04:24:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA16532 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 04:24:47 +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 LAA21138; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 11:21:04 -0700 Message-Id: <200006291821.LAA21138@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Drunk again In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 29 Jun 2000 01:30:23 PDT." Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 11:21:04 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: > Try this one: > > 2NT P 2D P delayed alert of the 2D call. > > I got this one right, and somebody didn't (HeHe) L27A says an insufficient bid is accepted if the bidder's LHO calls. L21B says that a player may change a call when it's probably that he made the call as a result of a failure to alert promptly; but it doesn't give the player the right to withdraw the call completely in a way that revokes the acceptance he gave, according to L27A, when he passed. So (the fact that alerting an insufficient bid makes no sense notwithstanding), the 2D call stands. OK, now the alert. I'm sure it's completely illegal to have agreements about the meaning of an insufficient bid. (I once proposed a bidding system called Insufficient Bid Game Force, where 1S-pass-2C would be non-game-forcing, while 1S-pass-1C corrected to 2C would be a game force. But I couldn't get anyone to play this system with me, perhaps because it would have been cheating.) Opener might have had a legitimate reason to alert anyway; perhaps he wanted to tell the opponents that 1NT-2D or 2NT-3D would have been a transfer (I'm assuming EBU regulations). Basically, I think the director needs to straighten out what information about possible relevant legal sequences the opponents are entitled to, and make sure the opponents get that. Still, however, since 2NT-2D is not a legal sequence and a partnership can't have any understandings about it, I don't think the failure to alert properly can be considered misinformation, so I'd rule that L21B does not apply, and the last pass stands. OK, what did I miss? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 04:49:22 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA16602 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 04:49:22 +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 EAA16596 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 04:49:10 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 72753 invoked for bounce); 29 Jun 2000 18:48:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.43.46) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 29 Jun 2000 18:48:29 -0000 Message-ID: <00e401bfe1fa$c8975de0$79291dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "bridge-laws" References: <006701bfe1e2$f270cb00$598893c3@pacific> Subject: Re: WBF policy on psychics. Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:49:28 +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 As one who has frequently disagreed with Grattan on this issue, I want to state that I agree with most of the policy as described below. "Grattan Endicott" wrote: > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - > > Sent: 29 June 2000 16:01 > Subject: WBF policy on psychics. > > > > +=+ WBF General Conditions of Contest > > (section 42): > > > > "Psychic bids are specifically permitted by the > > Laws of Duplicate Bridge provided that any > > partnership understandings or agreements are > > disclosed. It would be inconsistent therefore if > > the WBF forbade psychics in its own tournaments. > > > > Some partnerships of reasonably long standing > > develop understandings that psychic bids in certain > > situations will be of a certain type. This is a key point. Here, the policy discusses "psychic bids of a certain type", like the 'de Waels 1H opener'. Such bids can indeed create partnership understandings. The previous disagreement between Graham, me, and others mostly was about "psychic bids in certain situations" and about "psychic bids which are not based on partnership understandings (put partner 'fields' them nevertheless)" "A player may violate an announced partnership agreement so long as his partner is unaware of the violation (but habitual violations in a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed)" - Law 75B. My PoV was that L75B does not restrict psyches where partner can work out from his general bridge knowledge rather than from partnership experience that I have psyched (not a 'habitual violation'). Graham's PoV was that L75B and L40A demand prior announcement of all psyches where partner is aware of the violation, regardless of whether partner's knowledge is based on a partnership understanding or not. > > These are > > developed partnership understandings and not > > conventions, and should be explained on the > > Convention Card and on the Supplementary Sheets. > > In other words the psychics should be made > > randomly but any understandings about them should > > be revealed. psychic bids will never be made truly randomly. Most players will consider a psyche when they hope to gain from a psyche, and will not psyche when they expect that the psyche will result in a loss. > > Where partnerships have agreements that psychic > > bids are expected or are likely in specific situations or > > where psychics are protected by System then a > > convention has developed. Such psychic understandings > > are classified as Brown Sticker Conventions and are > > therefore forbidden in certain events. The type of > > agreement referred to, for example, is where, third in > > hand at favourable vulnerability, the player is expected > > to open the bidding on anything at all." There is difference between a) the simple fact that psychic bids are likely in specific situations (or at least much more likely than in some other situations) b) agreements/understandings on the type of hands which might psyche c) agreements/understandings on how to show a psyche d) agreements/understanings on asking partner whether he has psyched, or other system protection for psyches (but the fact that a passed hand will never bid 3NT opposite a 9-12 NT is not a psychic protection) agrremtns as in b) - d) are indeed conventions, which might be forbidden or regulated in certain events or at certain levels. a) is not a brown sticker convention as long as the frequency of psyches in those situations is in accordance with the mechanics of the game. Also note the difference between 'might be regulated' and 'require prior announcement'. To modify the example: if, when third in hand at favourable vulnerability, a player opens 2, 3, or even 5 percent of all hands which do not have opening bid strength, this is not a brown sticker convention, and I doubt that those repeated psyches are a violation of L75B/L40A *even*if*there*is*no*prior*disclosement* However, if the player psyches one third of those hands, then this is a substantial deviation from normal tactical bidding, and now L75B/L40A demand prior disclosement. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 05:41:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA16751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 05:41:26 +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 FAA16746 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 05:41:16 +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 PAA21023 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 15:41:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA14510 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 15:41:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 15:41:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200006291941.PAA14510@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UK UI X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > As expected the Yanks lined the doubler up against the wall and the > Europeans allowed it (in general) cheers John I'm a little surprised. I wouldn't have thought pass to be a LA even in North America, but if a competent TD here ruled that it is, I probably wouldn't appeal. In the rest of the world (i.e. 70-75% rule), I can't imagine thinking pass is a LA. Good thing you are so generous, John. I'd probably have wanted to keep the deposit. The hand has perfect shape and is easily strong enough to double. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 05:44:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA16774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 05:44:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA16764 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 05:44:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp181-171.worldonline.nl [195.241.181.171]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 0367836BDC; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 21:43:47 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003001bfe201$fce56540$abb5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: , Subject: Re: Ruling: contested claim Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 21:29:53 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I would have given the same ruling on the board and would have told declarer to clarify his play next time. But I like the idea to start a procedure with all TD's around the world to assess a procedural penalty for this kind of arrogant/lazy claimimg. It disturbs the normal play, upsets opponents and needs to be avoided. So let us educate them. But then still we need to use our judgement. In an important top event in the Netherlands (16 of our best pairs) two weeks ago declarer played 4spades with bare K in dummy which he played, both opponents following, and getting in hand he now put down AQ in spades from AQ10 xxx originally without a statement. He needed to make all trump tricks. The opponents held Jx and 9xxx so he took all tricks. But now his opponents called the director and said that he might have forgotten the 9 was still in play. The TD wove this objection aside and they appealed. The appeal committee, of which I was the chairman, decided to give a warning to the appealing side (no money involved). We found the play of declarer obvious and a sufficient statement in itself. My question: can we handle these kind of problems, giving the procedural penalty when it is needed? And do I get support for this approach? ton -----Original Message----- From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, June 29, 2000 4:20 PM Subject: Ruling: contested claim >Hi all, > >Yesterday, I had to rule on a "contested" claim on this hand: > > x x x > K x x > x x x x > A Q x > > x x x x x x x x > 9 x x A x > A x K J x x > x x x x South x x x > A K > Q J 10 x x > Q x x > K x x > >South playing in a H contract, W led DA followed by a D >to the K and a D ruffed by W. On lead later with HA, E >played an other D. Then S claimed without any statement. > >W called TD saying he could win an other trick with H9 >because S did not mention the outside trick, could have >forget it and make a careless play ruffing with a small H. > >I ruled no additionnal trick to W saying this player (ACBL >life master) was all probably aware of the outstanding trump >(Law 70C2) and it would be irrationnal to ruff with a small >trump (footnote to Law 70). > >I want to follow Laws, but hate giving tops for nothing. >Players use to think they will always get a trick when >declarer claim without mentionnind an outstanding trick. > >Your comments would be welcome. > >Laval Du Breuil >Quebec City > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 05:44:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA16775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 05:44:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA16765 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 05:44:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp181-171.worldonline.nl [195.241.181.171]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 45C4B36BE0; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 21:43:48 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003101bfe201$fdf99460$abb5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , Cc: Subject: Re: Witness for the Prosecution Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 21:40:14 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Grattan Endicott To: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, June 29, 2000 11:10 AM Subject: Re: Witness for the Prosecution > >Grattan Endicott===================================== >"Dreamer of dreams, born out of my due time, >Why should I strive to set the crooked straight? >Let it suffice that my murmuring rhyme >Beats with light wing against the ivory gate, >Telling a tale not too importunate." (William Morris) >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: >Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 4:12 AM >Subject: Witness for the Prosecution > > >> Playing in a teams event, I overheard a violation of Law at an adjacent >> table (not my team-mates table). None of the four players directly >> involved called the TD. >> >> 1. Does L72A1 permit me to call the TD as an amicus curiae? >> >> 2. If the answer to the above question is *it depends*, then for which >Law >> violations is it appropriate for me to be a busybody? >> >> In real life, I merely filled in a Recorder notice. >> >+=+ Personally, unless you receive unauthorized >information from it, I do not think you have any place >taking notice of what goes on at another table. You >may be asked for evidence at some time, and that >is the time to speak. I think you are in effect a >kibitzer at that table; do kibitzers complete forms >for Recorders ? > There is also the risk that you have misheard >or misunderstood. And with some witnesses it >would be the case that they did not understand >the law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Isn't that answer too absolute? What if a match is given away? Which can be done by not calling a TD after a revoke has been noticed? I would like to be able to use L81C6 being TD and informed by whoever it is, even kibitzers. We had a similar discussion some time ago here. So my answer would be you should not call the director, but you are allowed to inform the director after which it is his decision whether to take action or not. If Grattan has another opinion about this, which seems to be the case, it might be a good idea to make it part of the agenda in Maastricht, which still has plenty of room. ton From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 05:48:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA16243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 03:20:01 +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 DAA16237 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 03:19:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.23.242]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000629171912.VIAW290.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 18:19:12 +0100 Message-ID: <000701bfe1ef$32116f60$f217ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" References: <004101bfe1a5$ada9c0e0$595608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: Witness for the Prosecution Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 18:26:42 +0100 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: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 9:37 AM Subject: Re: Witness for the Prosecution > > Grattan Endicott ===================================== > "Dreamer of dreams, born out of my due time, > Why should I strive to set the crooked straight? > Let it suffice that my murmuring rhyme > Beats with light wing against the ivory gate, > Telling a tale not too importunate." (William Morris) > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 4:12 AM > Subject: Witness for the Prosecution > > > > Playing in a teams event, I overheard a violation of Law at an adjacent > > table (not my team-mates table). None of the four players directly > > involved called the TD. > > > > 1. Does L72A1 permit me to call the TD as an amicus curiae? > > > > 2. If the answer to the above question is *it depends*, then for which > Law > > violations is it appropriate for me to be a busybody? > > > > In real life, I merely filled in a Recorder notice. > > > +=+ Personally, unless you receive unauthorized > information from it, I do not think you have any place > taking notice of what goes on at another table. You > may be asked for evidence at some time, and that > is the time to speak. I think you are in effect a > kibitzer at that table; do kibitzers complete forms > for Recorders ? > There is also the risk that you have misheard > or misunderstood. And with some witnesses it > would be the case that they did not understand > the law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Let us hypothesise. 1)You are sitting at a table in a "deal them at the table" Swiss teams event. You notice a player remove a pack of cards from his pocket, and without shuffling, place them in the board. Do you tell the Director? Do you file a Recorder memo? 2)You are visiting the gentlemen's room, and you hear two members of a team discuss a hand which one of them is about to play.These two players are not playing at the same table. Do you tell the Director? Do you file a Recorder memo? 3)You hear a conversation at another table, where the members of opposing teams are agreeing on a score, not achieved at the table, the purpose being tactical placement. Do you tell the Director. Do you file a Recorder memo? 4)You hear a conversation at another table about a board that has been passed out. The players agree to redeal it. Do you tell the Director? Do you file a Recorder memo? > The examples are many.Some may be serious, some may be trivial, but infractions of Law nevertheless. We were not told what infraction of Law it was, but I cannot imagine, that if I you have reported none of these things, how anyone will know you have any knowledge. How then can you be called as a witness? > Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 07:16:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA17020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 07:16:07 +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 HAA17015 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 07:15:59 +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 RAA12620 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 17:15:46 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <003001bfe201$fce56540$abb5f1c3@kooijman> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 17:09:39 -0400 To: From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Ruling: contested claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 9:29 PM +0200 6/29/00, ton kooijman wrote: >I would have given the same ruling on the board and would have told declarer >to clarify his play next time. >But I like the idea to start a procedure with all TD's around the world to >assess a procedural penalty for this kind of arrogant/lazy claimimg. It >disturbs the normal play, upsets opponents and needs to be avoided. So let >us educate them. I don't like the idea of a procedural penalty. Losing a trick which you would have won is enough of a penalty for a bad claim. If players are liable to procedural penalties for improper claims, they will be discouraged from making claims which they believe to be obvious, because mistakes will be more costly. I have often had opponents claim against me without stating a line. Often, the claim should be something like, "I'll take QJ of clubs and crossruff the last four tricks." Usually, I ask to see declarer's hand (and sometimes partner's), and acquiesce as soon as I have counted the tricks; when it's not obvious, I might ask declarer to explain the claim. I don't think such a declarer should get a procedural penalty. In fact, this is one situation in which rulings are often made without the TD involved. If, in the above situation, I have the CK which declarer has forgotten about, it may be clear that I will take the CK but declarer will have the last five tricks. In theory, the TD should be called on a contested claim, but in practice, all four players often agree that declarer can correct his claim statement, as if he had said, "I'll give you the CK, cash the CJ, and crossruff four tricks." The TD only gets called if there is an actual contesting of the claim. There will also be problems with rulings on disputed facts. I have had claims contested before I finished a statement, often with "Play it out" or "I have a high trump". >But then still we need to use our judgement. >In an important top event in the Netherlands (16 of our best pairs) two >weeks ago declarer played 4spades with bare K in dummy which he played, both >opponents following, and getting in hand he now put down AQ in spades from >AQ10 xxx originally without a statement. He needed to make all trump tricks. >The opponents held Jx and 9xxx so he took all tricks. But now his opponents >called the director and said that he might have forgotten the 9 was still in >play. The TD wove this objection aside and they appealed. The appeal >committee, of which I was the chairman, decided to give a warning to the >appealing side (no money involved). We found the play of declarer obvious >and a sufficient statement in itself. The warning to the appelants is certainly correct; this type of bridge lawyering should not be encouraged. (Calling the TD in this situation is correct; the declarer didn't state a line, and it needs to be deternined whether cashing only three rounds of trumps and waiting to cash the fourth is a normal line.) But I can't see the AC giving a PP here unless you beleive that the TD should have given one, and TD's are not likely to give such PP's. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 07:32:20 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA17059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 07:32:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f100.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA17053 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 07:32:13 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 55726 invoked by uid 0); 29 Jun 2000 21:31:35 -0000 Message-ID: <20000629213135.55724.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.18 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 14:31:35 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.18] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL position on Psychics Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 14:31:35 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Grattan Endicott" >----- Original Message ----- >From: Richard Willey > > - From my perspective, the interesting point is the last two sentences > > of paragraph 3. > > For all intents and purposes, this is a ruling from the ACBL that > > states that there is no "one psyche in a lifetime" policy. > > >+=+ It would be progress, therefore, if examples >could be quoted of rulings/appeals decisions that >have created the impression that there is such a >policy. Perhaps they would show that the 'policy' was >a misinterpretation by a limited number of people >of the guidance on which they acted. Alternatively >a misinterpretation by players ruled against of the >grounds for the rulings. > I think the ACBL does have the problems that >are associated with extended lines of communication. Case 30 of the Chicago appeals book has some peculiar things to say about psyches and I guess that you can consider that ACBL policy. At least it's a precedent. It essentially says that you can't psych if your partner could field it, but opponents can't*, even if it's the first time you've ever psyched. And psyching against weak opponents is almost unpardonable. I'm certain that there are other appeals cases, but no other stand out quite as much. http://www.acbl.org/regulations/discguide.htm Disciplinary Sanction Guide - E3 "Excessive (unsportsmanlike and frivolous) psyching" I think that as few as 2 psyches in one event can get you written up to the recorder, but I may be wrong. http://www.acbl.org/info/charts/limited.htm )Agreements allowing the partnership to open the bidding at the one level with fewer than 8 HCP are not allowed. This does not preclude a psychic opening bid. )Psyching of artificial opening bids or conventional responses to artificial opening bids is not allowed.. )Psychic controls (bids designed to determine whether partner has psyched or to clarify the nature of the psych) are not allowed. (and the other level convention charts, which are less restrictive) That's it for the official policy, I think. When I first played duplicate, I was told that your system could not include any psychic bids (true) with the definition that a psych was any bid that didn't reflect my hand, yet my partner could figure it out (false, psyches are more than that and there's nothing inherently wrong in fielding a psych). Official policy or not, it took a while before anyone challenged this belief for me. We know that policy does not mirror reality extremely well. The one-of-a-psyche per-partnership per-lifetime might be another one of those deals. -Todd * - I think this is close to pure evil. It's extended to "you can't bid unless your opponents are able to figure it out because anything else makes the game less enjoyable." You can design bidding systems where even when the opponents are given full disclosure of how it works, they aren't always able to determine which of you has what sort of holding. This is a primary idea behind multi-2D. Opponents don't figure it out until it's too late. There's been resistance to these sort of advancements in bidding theory. Some people consider bidding to be a compression/cost function problem, specifically, "how much or how good of information can I tell my partner with my bid." Why encryption problems, specifically, "how much information can I keep from my opponents," are not considered "bridge" is beyond me. ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 07:39:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA17084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 07:39:21 +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 HAA17079 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 07:39:14 +1000 (EST) Received: by MIDNTPROD03 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 16:41:28 -0500 Message-ID: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF0959@MIDNTPROD03> From: John Nichols To: BLML Subject: RE: Witness for the Prosecution Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 16:41:27 -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 > -----Original Message----- > From: anne_jones [mailto:anne_jones@ntlworld.com] > Let us hypothesise. > 1)You are sitting at a table in a "deal them at > the table" Swiss teams event. > You notice a player remove a pack of cards > from his pocket, and without shuffling, place > them in the board. > Do you tell the Director? > Do you file a Recorder memo? > 2)You are visiting the gentlemen's room, and > you hear two members of a team discuss > a hand which one of them is about to play.These > two players are not playing at the same table. > Do you tell the Director? > Do you file a Recorder memo? > 3)You hear a conversation at another table, where > the members of opposing teams are agreeing > on a score, not achieved at the table, the > purpose being tactical placement. > Do you tell the Director. > Do you file a Recorder memo? These first three items seem well beyond "infractions" and are cheating. They should, at the least, be reported to the director. > 4)You hear a conversation at another table about > a board that has been passed out. The players > agree to redeal it. > Do you tell the Director? > Do you file a Recorder memo? This one seems less severe, but still, I would "point it out" to the director. > > The examples are many.Some may be serious, some > may be trivial, but infractions of Law nevertheless. > We were not told what infraction of Law it was, but I > cannot imagine, that if I you have reported none of > these things, how anyone will know you have any > knowledge. How then can you be called as a witness? > > > Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 07:47:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA17103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 07:47:01 +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 HAA17098 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 07:46:54 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 831 invoked for bounce); 29 Jun 2000 21:46:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.42.90) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 29 Jun 2000 21:46:45 -0000 Message-ID: <006401bfe213$b03ff220$5a2a1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <200006291941.PAA14510@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: UK UI Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 23:44:32 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote > > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > > As expected the Yanks lined the doubler up against the wall and the > > Europeans allowed it (in general) cheers John > > I'm a little surprised. I wouldn't have thought pass to be a LA even > in North America, but if a competent TD here ruled that it is, I > probably wouldn't appeal. > > In the rest of the world (i.e. 70-75% rule), I can't imagine thinking > pass is a LA. Good thing you are so generous, John. I'd probably have > wanted to keep the deposit. The hand has perfect shape and is easily > strong enough to double. OTOH the heart suit is abysmal, and this is IMPs. Do we have reasonable chances to make 4H opposite an average hand (something like 7-10 HCP with 4 hearts)? Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 08:45:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17191 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 08:45:13 +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 IAA17186 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 08:45:05 +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 SAA03545 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 18:44:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA14753 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 18:44:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 18:44:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200006292244.SAA14753@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UK UI X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Thomas Dehn" > OTOH the heart suit is abysmal, and this is IMPs. > Do we have reasonable chances to make > 4H opposite an average hand (something like > 7-10 HCP with 4 hearts)? The hand was x Q9xx AQ109 Axxx . If we believe the opponents, partner has 3 spades, possibly 4. Therefore he could have quite a strong hand and not have acted in direct position. Give partner a 7-count like xxx KJxx Kxx xx and 4H is fine. Heck, I wouldn't be astonished if we have slam: xxx AKTx KJx Kx . (And I could easily have made the hand better!) Also, final contracts of 3Sx, 3NT, and 4m are possible, not just 4H. Anyway, you saw Konrad's poll results. Nobody passed. Sure, double can work badly, but I can't believe very many bridge players would pass. Unless your methods require partner to act over 2S with a balanced 14-count: then pass becomes a lot more attractive. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 08:47:59 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 08:47:59 +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 IAA17200 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 08:47:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=antonwit) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 137n5w-0004Bi-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 00:47:40 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000630004150.0105496c@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 00:41:50 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Witness for the Prosecution In-Reply-To: <000701bfe1ef$32116f60$f217ff3e@vnmvhhid> References: <004101bfe1a5$ada9c0e0$595608c3@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:26 PM 6/29/00 +0100, you wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Grattan Endicott" >To: >Cc: >Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 9:37 AM >Subject: Re: Witness for the Prosecution > > >> >> Grattan Endicott> ===================================== >> "Dreamer of dreams, born out of my due time, >> Why should I strive to set the crooked straight? >> Let it suffice that my murmuring rhyme >> Beats with light wing against the ivory gate, >> Telling a tale not too importunate." (William Morris) >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: >> To: >> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 4:12 AM >> Subject: Witness for the Prosecution >> >> >> > Playing in a teams event, I overheard a violation of Law at an adjacent >> > table (not my team-mates table). None of the four players directly >> > involved called the TD. >> > >> > 1. Does L72A1 permit me to call the TD as an amicus curiae? >> > >> > 2. If the answer to the above question is *it depends*, then for which >> Law >> > violations is it appropriate for me to be a busybody? >> > >> > In real life, I merely filled in a Recorder notice. >> > >> +=+ Personally, unless you receive unauthorized >> information from it, I do not think you have any place >> taking notice of what goes on at another table. You >> may be asked for evidence at some time, and that >> is the time to speak. I think you are in effect a >> kibitzer at that table; do kibitzers complete forms >> for Recorders ? >> There is also the risk that you have misheard >> or misunderstood. And with some witnesses it >> would be the case that they did not understand >> the law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >Let us hypothesise. >1)You are sitting at a table in a "deal them at >the table" Swiss teams event. >You notice a player remove a pack of cards >from his pocket, and without shuffling, place >them in the board. >Do you tell the Director? no, it is not required by law. >Do you file a Recorder memo? no we dont have these in holland Our NCBO doesnt know this way of reporting 'funny' things, most TD's would love to have it >2)You are visiting the gentlemen's room, and >you hear two members of a team discuss >a hand which one of them is about to play.These >two players are not playing at the same table. >Do you tell the Director? certainly >Do you file a Recorder memo? >3)You hear a conversation at another table, where >the members of opposing teams are agreeing >on a score, not achieved at the table, the >purpose being tactical placement. >Do you tell the Director. yes >Do you file a Recorder memo? >4)You hear a conversation at another table about >a board that has been passed out. The players >agree to redeal it. >Do you tell the Director? no, although it is against the law, but frequently done here in holland >Do you file a Recorder memo? >> >The examples are many.Some may be serious, some >may be trivial, but infractions of Law nevertheless. >We were not told what infraction of Law it was, but I >cannot imagine, that if I you have reported none of >these things, how anyone will know you have any >knowledge. How then can you be called as a witness? >> >Anne > > I dont think the law permits players to protest against what happens at other tables. perhaps that could be changesd and probably is the point ton is making. I dont know if it is a good or bad thing. It certainly opens a can of worms we perhaps dont know to deal with. regards anton > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 10:20:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:53:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA17386 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:53:22 +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 137o6b-000Lot-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 23:52:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 23:44:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: One board - two different problems (fwd) References: <003001bfe090$880b0800$bf55fd3e@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <003001bfe090$880b0800$bf55fd3e@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk anne_jones wrote: >I have knowledge of an appeal where a portion of the deposit was forfeit, >possibly because one member did not agree on retention, possibly >because there was a shared responsibility for the original problem. >I do not understand this.I consider the deposit to be a token. As such it >is not divisible.It is either retained or returned. Perhaps it was partly frivolous? -- 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 Jun 30 10:30:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA17549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:30:34 +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 KAA17543 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:30:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.16] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 137ohE-000OSH-00; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 01:30:17 +0100 Message-ID: <003f01bfe22a$a945f020$105608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "anne_jones" , "BLML" References: <004101bfe1a5$ada9c0e0$595608c3@dodona> <000701bfe1ef$32116f60$f217ff3e@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: Witness for the Prosecution Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 00:27:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott > > To: > > Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 4:12 AM > > Subject: Witness for the Prosecution --------------- \x/ -------------- > The examples are many.Some may be serious, some > may be trivial, but infractions of Law nevertheless. > We were not told what infraction of Law it was, but I > cannot imagine, that if I you have reported none of > these things, how anyone will know you have any > knowledge. How then can you be called as a witness? > > > Anne > +=+ If you are accusing someone of misconduct there will no doubt be a procedure for that under bylaws or conditions of contest, and yes in such a case to lodge the accusation with the Director does seem right. For mere violations of law at tables where we are not in play the position is much less clear, and so far as I know there is no law establishing the duties of players in respect of occurrences at tables other than their own. I tend to think they have no duties prescribed. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 10:30:47 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA17562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:30:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA17550 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:30:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.16] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 137ohH-000OSH-00; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 01:30:20 +0100 Message-ID: <004001bfe22a$ab12c0e0$105608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" , Cc: References: <003101bfe201$fdf99460$abb5f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: Witness for the Prosecution Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 00:37:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: ton kooijman To: Grattan Endicott ; Cc: Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 8:40 PM Subject: Re: Witness for the Prosecution > > -----Original Message----- > From: Grattan Endicott > To: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Date: Thursday, June 29, 2000 11:10 AM > Subject: Re: Witness for the Prosecution > > > > > >Grattan Endicott >===================================== > >"Dreamer of dreams, born out of my due time, > >Why should I strive to set the crooked straight? > >Let it suffice that my murmuring rhyme > >Beats with light wing against the ivory gate, > >Telling a tale not too importunate." (William Morris) > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: > >To: > >Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 4:12 AM > >Subject: Witness for the Prosecution > > > > > >> Playing in a teams event, I overheard a violation of Law at an adjacent > >> table (not my team-mates table). > > -------------------- \x/ ------------------ > > Isn't that answer too absolute? What if a match is given away? Which can be > done by not calling a TD after a revoke has been noticed? > I would like to be able to use L81C6 being TD and informed by whoever it is, > even kibitzers. We had a similar discussion some time ago here. > So my answer would be you should not call the director, but you are allowed > to inform the director after which it is his decision whether to take action > or not. If Grattan has another opinion about this, which seems to be the > case, it might be a good idea to make it part of the agenda in Maastricht, > which still has plenty of room. > > ton > +=+ Absolute in a way perhaps. And maybe we could discuss why there is no law prescribing the duties of players in these circumstances, and whether to add the subject to the list for 2005. I have no strong feelings; I think the laws assume that players are unaware of what is happening at other tables, which may be just a theory of course. Kibitzers? Well, a spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake, nor speak on any question of fact or law except by request of the Director. That, for sure, is absolute. I have something of an aversion to thought police. As for the Maastricht agenda, ton, you and other committee members are about to receive a selection of papers, mailed today; when put to a formal agenda there may be one or two things to add. I am not so sure you will find the space quite so uncrowded as you suggest. [Tomorrow I am going to meet some people from Wales; they are creating a rugby ground and have slight problems as there is no obvious way for spectators to access the ground and the teams have to kit up half a mile away before they scramble down a steep hillside. I wonder what they want to do with the money they have asked for? Cable cars, perhaps.] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 11:16:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17385 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:53:27 +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 JAA17351 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:52:49 +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 137o6O-0003yi-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 23:52:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:45:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UK UI References: <3.0.6.32.20000626174231.0088c800@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5tbfniAFhAW5EwJ0@probst.demon.co.uk> <002501bfe1a2$a1d67040$595608c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <002501bfe1a2$a1d67040$595608c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ I think there are two considerations: >(1) is the weak player so weak that no >reliable information has been conveyed? >Perhaps not, from the description. >(2) how assured can we be that, say, 80% >plus of lady internationals would double? >(I would think pretty certain). I cannot resist this one! Grattan can be pretty certain of what 80% of females would do? Oh, yes, Grattan, we believe you!!! -- 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 Jun 30 11:18:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA17737 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 11:18:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA17731 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 11:18:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.2]) by swarm.mosquitonet.com (8.9.1/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA13759 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 17:18:48 -0800 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 17:18:42 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 29 Jun 2000, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Some of the rules about claims, such as what is normal, dpend on the > >> class of player involved. > > > >But this last is very much subject to debate. Just because _some_ > >things depend on ability doesn't mean _everything_ does. I'm not > >trying to reopen the debate about whether ability is a factor in > >judging claims, just noting for the record that the debate exists. > > I don't understand what is "subject to debate". Are you trying to > tell me that the words "... play that would be careless or inferior for > the class of player involved ..." do not mean that rules that use this > footnote depend on the class of player? Yes, that's what he is trying to tell you. That is how quite a few of us read this law. I would paraphrase the footnote as "We are going to award you the worst result possible, considering all lines except the utterly irrational ones. We don't give a damn whether you are so good you can execute triple squeezes, or so bad that you always play AKT65 opposite 987 by trying to drop a doubleton QJ." The law is worded as it is to emphasize that it is completely irrelevant whether a line is normal or careless for the class of player involved; the only thing that matters is whether is it irrational. As we have noted before, this leaves us in need of an objective definition of "irrational," which the laws don't give us. My own belief is that a line is only irrational if it is dominated in the game-theoretic sense, i.e., there exists no lie of the cards on which the line does better than some other (rational) line, and there do exist lies on which it does worse. The alternative reading is to let "for the class of player involved" modify "irrational" and not just "normal" and "careless." It's one of those sticky questions about the placement of a comma; both readings are logical ways to interpret the footnote's wording. It seems to boil down to which interpretation we are willing to use and explain at the table. Personally, if I have to tell a beginner "I taught you that safety play last week but since you didn't mention it in your claim statement I have to rule as if you have forgotten it," then I feel morally obligated to tell the expert "We both know it's an obvious textbook safety play, but that's the price you pay for forgetting what L68C says and not making a statement." Maybe you disagree. But I would much rather see the experts learn to be careful to properly explain their claims, than see one bright beginner insulted and turned away. GRB From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 11:30:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA17808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 11:30:15 +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 LAA17803 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 11:30:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.6.4]) by mta01-svc.server.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000630012952.FFBX381.mta01-svc.server.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 02:29:52 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01bfe233$bff9eca0$0406ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" References: <003001bfe090$880b0800$bf55fd3e@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: One board - two different problems (fwd) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 02:37:26 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 11:44 PM Subject: Re: One board - two different problems (fwd) > anne_jones wrote: > > >I have knowledge of an appeal where a portion of the deposit was forfeit, > >possibly because one member did not agree on retention, possibly > >because there was a shared responsibility for the original problem. > >I do not understand this.I consider the deposit to be a token. As such it > >is not divisible.It is either retained or returned. > > Perhaps it was partly frivolous? > And the weather was partly raining? > Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 11:41:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA17880 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 11:41:12 +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 LAA17875 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 11:41:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.6.4]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000630014055.XXTL290.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 02:40:55 +0100 Message-ID: <002601bfe235$4b84c640$0406ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" References: <004101bfe1a5$ada9c0e0$595608c3@dodona> <000701bfe1ef$32116f60$f217ff3e@vnmvhhid> <003f01bfe22a$a945f020$105608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: Witness for the Prosecution Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 02:48:30 +0100 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: "Grattan Endicott" To: "anne_jones" ; "BLML" Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 12:27 AM Subject: Re: Witness for the Prosecution > > Grattan Endicott ===================================== > "Dreamer of dreams, born out of my due time, > Why should I strive to set the crooked straight? > Let it suffice that my murmuring rhyme > Beats with light wing against the ivory gate, > Telling a tale not too importunate." (William Morris) > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: anne_jones > > > > To: > > > Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 4:12 AM > > > Subject: Witness for the Prosecution > --------------- \x/ -------------- > > The examples are many.Some may be serious, some > > may be trivial, but infractions of Law nevertheless. > > We were not told what infraction of Law it was, but I > > cannot imagine, that if I you have reported none of > > these things, how anyone will know you have any > > knowledge. How then can you be called as a witness? > > > > > Anne > > > +=+ If you are accusing someone of misconduct > there will no doubt be a procedure for that under > bylaws or conditions of contest, and yes in such > a case to lodge the accusation with the Director > does seem right. For mere violations of law at > tables where we are not in play the position is > much less clear, and so far as I know there is > no law establishing the duties of players in > respect of occurrences at tables other than > their own. I tend to think they have no duties > prescribed. ~ G ~ +=+ > The question is - where is the line drawn? Let's ignore the recorder situation. We in UK do not have one.(Despite the fact that Wales has recently considered and rejected the idea.) TFLB is not helpful. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 11:49:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA17909 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 11:49:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA17904 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 11:49:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([210.55.123.140]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000630014907.JHYY1324558.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 13:49:07 +1200 Message-ID: <003701bfe235$49db0de0$8c7b37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: Subject: Re: Ruling: contested claim Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 13:48:27 +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 For me, you have not given enough information. The law say that declarer needs to be probably unaware of the trump and would need to be convinced that declarer was not probably unaware of the trump. It seems a simple matter in this situation to say ruff high and draw trump. If declarer is aware of the need to ruff high I can't imagine why one would not say so. Wayne Burrows From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 12:07:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17362 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:53:13 +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 JAA17325 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:52:37 +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 137o6K-000Los-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 23:52:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:37:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UK UI References: <1.5.4.32.20000625140458.00847770@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.20000625140458.00847770@mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henry Sun wrote: >At 03:17 AM 6/25/00 +0100, you wrote: >>2S P(h) 3S, Green (favoUrable if you're a Yank) >> >>x >>Q9xx >>AQ109 >>Axxx >> >>Do you allow a double? > >under the current interpretation in the US as i understand it, no. Well, the subject suggests that the US interpretation is not what is required. >passing 3s is clearly a logical alternative to doubling, and as the >hesitation appears to suggest bidding rather than passing, 4th >seat shan't opt for doubling. Pass is clearly an LA in the ACBL, because some people would seriously consider passing. But is it in an LA in the UK, where we need 30% of people to be passing? -- David Stevenson A learned TD called Ton Liverpool, England, UK Tried to force his opinion upon This wonderful list The best I can do! "The claim will be missed And the concession treated as gone!" From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 12:20:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:53:42 +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 JAA17370 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:53:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 137o6W-000Jhh-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 23:52:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:57:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: One board - two different problems References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id JAA17373 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Andras wrote: >"David J. Grabiner" 2000.06.25. 17:48:56 -4h-kor írta: > >Necessary additional information to Case 2: >EW players were really experienced, NS players were >tourists. Neither the TD nor the AC found any MI in this case. The strange thing about this case is that on the facts given there was definitely MI since the double was described as penalty and in fact was no agreement. Personally, I might easily adjust, but it is a judgement whether E/W were damaged. However, for the TD and AC to find no MI is very curious. -- 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 Jun 30 13:02:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17366 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:53:14 +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 JAA17326 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:52:37 +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 137o6K-000Lor-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 23:52:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:29:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: "...the most favourable result that was likely..." L12C2 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >Now, I cannot imagine that any conscientious tournament director or appeals >committee could act in a way other than that which I have described. Yet an >alternative course of action appears not only to have been advocated, but to >have received serious consideration. Any comment that I might make would, >however, doubtless be classed as "lively". Err, two alternative courses of action, I think you will find. The approach that I do not like is basically to start with the frequencies and assume the result based on them - and that has not only been suggested but I know of TDs who do it. That is the course of action I dislike. Of course it is reasonable to use the frequencies or score-sheet to check once you have made an initial decision. -- David Stevenson A learned TD called Ton Liverpool, England, UK Tried to force his opinion upon This wonderful list The best I can do! "The claim will be missed And the concession treated as gone!" From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 13:27:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA18136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 13:27:12 +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 NAA18131 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 13:27:06 +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 NAA05764 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 13:23:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 13:24:12 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: Witness for the Prosecution To: Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 13:23:32 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 30/06/2000 01:21:46 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: +=+ If you are accusing someone of misconduct there will no doubt be a procedure for that under bylaws or conditions of contest, and yes in such a case to lodge the accusation with the Director does seem right. For mere violations of law at tables where we are not in play the position is much less clear, and so far as I know there is no law establishing the duties of players in respect of occurrences at tables other than their own. I tend to think they have no duties prescribed. ~ G ~ +=+ The case I witnessed fell into a grey area between law violation and misconduct. A few more details follow. Average player A committed an infraction (hesitating with a singleton). Experienced opponent B did not call the TD, but instead informed player A (and adjacent tables) how disappointed player B was with player A's ethics. Player B's lecture was a gross violation of L74A2. But in common with most average players in Canberra, player A was unaware of the existence of this Law, and therefore did not summon the TD. In retrospect, I was entitled to use L74A2 myself to call the TD, since Player B was causing "annoyance or embarassment" to all who heard him. Best wishes Richard Hills richard.hills@immi.gov.au From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 13:26:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17367 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:53:15 +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 JAA17340 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:52:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 137o6K-000Lot-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 23:52:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:42:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UK UI References: <20000626102922.33387.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000626102922.33387.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Norman Scorbie wrote: >>From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" >>No. The double is suggested over pass by the hesitation. >Which means, effectively, that all partner has to do when he wants you to >shut up is to hesitate. That cannot, with respect, be the intent of the >laws. Of course it is not the intent of the Laws. But it is the effect in some situations. There will always with regret be some people who cheat: they get weeded out in time. A lot of people hesitate at times: in my view 100%. Only a very small proportion do it deliberately. Even then, we can adjust under L72B1 without accusing anyone of cheating. Suppose this hand passes, and partner is proved to hold xxx xxx xxx xxxx for his hesitation and pass. We adjust to the worst that could happen if this hand doubles, and send a record to the national authority. -- 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 Jun 30 13:27:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17413 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:53:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA17369 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:53:11 +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 137o6W-000Lor-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 23:52:22 +0000 Message-ID: <3mjmdfByh6W5Ewp7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:50:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: sorry References: <3955B6E0.DE6D3A76@iig.com.au> <3955F020.B08CC8D@village.uunet.be> <000001bfdf23$04f9ea80$010aa2c6@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: >Certainly, if you will allow me the same amount of skepticism as to >the way it happened. As you say, we don't have all the facts. > >I do have one question, though: are you really suggesting, as you >seem to be, that every time I see dummy touch a card declarer did not >name, and it is not absolutely clear he needed to rearrange to comply >with declarer's instructions, I should call the director? That seems >a bit, um, unwieldy. :-) Oh, come on. You call the TD when you think something is going wrong. In the actual case declarer called for the ace: the four is the obvious card, dummy touched the four. Of course you call the TD: why ever not? But where do you get the logical leap that therefore you should call the TD whenever dummy calls a different card even when it does not matter? -- 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 Jun 30 13:50:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17416 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:53:50 +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 JAA17396 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:53:30 +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 137o6e-0003yi-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 23:52:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 00:06:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Invisible Revoke References: <200006272034.NAA15802@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200006272034.NAA15802@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > >Michael Farebrother wrote: > >> against experts, I'd probably consider it >> their lookout, not mine. > >One problem I have with this is that in some situations, even an >expert couldn't possibly know that you revoked. E.g. Expert plays in >4S. At trick 4, expert enters dummy with a heart to take a trump >finesse; you ruff the heart even you are not out of hearts. At trick >6, expert claims the rest (the trump finesse no longer being >necessary). You and your partner acquiesce, and you fold your cards >and put them back in the board. Expert hasn't seen your last eight >cards, and nothing in the prior auction or play would give him any >reason to believe you revoked. > >Nobody has done anything illegal, but do you think this is fair? This has been discussed before, and the consensus [with which I agree] is that the player should *face* his cards. No comment is required, and he can then put them away. But it was felt to be underhand to put them away unshown. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 14:13:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17368 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:53:18 +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 JAA17339 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:52:43 +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 137o6K-000Jhh-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 23:52:09 +0000 Message-ID: <2P22HyAk7zW5Ew7k@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:19:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: End of L68B References: <00a501bfe078$60e0b620$41b5f1c3@kooijman> In-Reply-To: <00a501bfe078$60e0b620$41b5f1c3@kooijman> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ton kooijman wrote: >I had no intention to be rude, and I am still not aware of having been rude >(which might sound rude in itself), but when I was, I am sorry. OK, let us forget it then. No point or need to re-hash the actual wording. >I still don't think that you should tell anybody to ignore what I am saying >unless the content of it is nonsense. Which I try to avoid even more then >being rude (I have to admit). What I also try and see as one of my tasks in >this group is to avoid that opinions of which I am (almost) sure to be wrong >are sent around the world and get settled in the minds and habits of acting >TD's. And sometimes I have the impression that I need to raise my voice for >that. If I may respectfully suggest in future: if you have a strong view on an interpretation either explain it or quote an authority if there is no explanation that is convincing. If you cannot do either then I think we can take it as no more than your opinion. >I allow you to change the first 2 lines in your rhyme in: A learned (?) TD >called ton, tried to use an unpleasant tone, etc. I don't think it rhymes. -- David Stevenson A learned TD called Ton Liverpool, England, UK Tried to force his opinion upon This wonderful list The best I can do! "The claim will be missed And the concession treated as gone!" From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 14:15:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:53:29 +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 JAA17358 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:53:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 137o6P-000Lot-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 23:52:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:32:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Psyches, another try References: <39538E34.A60AFE1@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <39538E34.A60AFE1@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: >Let me try to get my opinions accross in a new way : > > [s] >2) Psyches can not be ruled illegal. > >There are two methods by which some people rule some actions >illegal. >Law 40A states that psyches are not illegal. L40A says they are not illegal if certain conditions are met. >So if something is ruled illegal by Law 40A, it is not a >psyche. >Law 40D states that some agreements can be made illegal. >Psyches are not agreements, so they cannot be illegal. I do not agree with this. It is permissible to have a non-psyching regulation of a specific agreement under L40D, so it is possible to have a psyche that is illegal. note, however, that it is ruled illegal under L40D not under L40A. >2a) Anything that is ruled illegal is not a psyche. > >In fact the same argument. Call it part of the definition, >if you want, but if it is ruled illegal, it cannot be called >a psyche. >Accept is a an axiom if you must. I certainly am not going to accept it any way at all. You can rule a psyche illegal in two ways: [1] Under L40A if the conditions are not met. [2] Under L40D if regulations for the use of a convention are not met. I am not sure that this actually matters to the points you were trying to make: I just think you should cut down your approach to consider psyches that are not illegal in one of these two ways. -- 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 Jun 30 14:20:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA18158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 13:29:43 +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 NAA18153 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 13:29:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-1054mb4.dsl.mindspring.com [64.82.89.100]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA26978 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 23:29:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000629232920.0130f33c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 23:29:20 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Witness for the Prosecution In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:12 PM 6/29/2000 +1000, you wrote: >Playing in a teams event, I overheard a violation of Law at an adjacent >table (not my team-mates table). None of the four players directly >involved called the TD. > >1. Does L72A1 permit me to call the TD as an amicus curiae? No. >2. If the answer to the above question is *it depends*, then for which Law >violations is it appropriate for me to be a busybody? See #1. >In real life, I merely filled in a Recorder notice. Despite my suspicion that I will not find your answer entirely satisfactory, I am intrigued. What on earth happened? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 15:17:41 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:53:53 +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 JAA17397 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:53:30 +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 137o6d-000Jhh-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 23:52:29 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 23:49:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: One board - two different problems (fwd) References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000628074833.00acb750@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Linda Trent wrote: >Part of the problem in the ACBL was that there were "conscientious >objectors" to a monetary penalty that has different value depending on who >the appellant is.... therefore unanimous was very often impossible >regardless of the lack of merit of the appeal > >$50 is very different to a millionaire than to a student.... This problem is >probably not as severe at the WBF level.. > >After time our position changed to something along the following lines: If >after hearing from the Director and all the players, if the AC members look >at each other and say "why are we here" then the appeal lacks merit. If >there is discussion about bridge matters, then the appeal should be >considered to probably have merit. However, the majority still rules and >those that are "conscientious objectors" to any sort of penalty are asked >not to vote in this portion of the decision. I think our trend since this >type of thought (and our point system) is to more accurately determine when >appeals lack merit - If anything, lately, we don't do it often enough >(especially the Director Panels - who tend to have more of the 'why are we >here' cases than National Events tend to generate) AC members are required to follow the Laws, and the Regulations of the Sponsoring Organisation. If they are not prepared to then there is no way they should be used on ACs. It is vital that ACBL AC members do not consider themselves above the Laws and Regulations. Allow them to fail to apply ACBL Regulations and you will find the next step is that they ignore the Laws of the game, perhaps ruling deliberately wrongly because they have a feeling. Guess which appeal is in my mind now? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 15:20:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:53:48 +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 JAA17384 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:53:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 137o6Z-000Los-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 23:52:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 23:43:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: One board - two different problems (fwd) References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id JAA17388 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Andras wrote: >M Smith 2000.06.26. 14:46:23 +1h-kor írta: > >Sorry for my ignorance Marc, I would appreciate some references >just to use them to amend our rules. The problem is that there are not too many references to details of how appeals are run. I can send the detail from the EBU's white book. some of the detail is also in our Orange book. All that is said about when to retain deposits is: 8.1.1 A Law 92A appeal to an EBU Appeals Committee or Referee is - at the time of going to print - subject to a deposit of Ł10 for a pair and Ł20 for a team. This is returned at the Appeals Committee's discretion and their decision is based upon whether they consider the appeal to have been frivolous for the class of player involved. The test in the case of an experienced appellant would be if the Committee came to a unanimous decision with little or no discussion; the less experienced the player, the more lenient the Committee would be. This does suggest that deposits should not be kept if there is no unanimity, and I would say that is the EBU's general view. >> I have no strong opinion on whether the AC should adjust the score to 4H+2, >> but keeping the deposit is a terrible decision. For a start, the decision >> to keep the money should ALWAYS be unanimous. If one member of the AC >> feels the appeal is not frivilous, then it is not. So I agree with this. >> I also feel that the deposit should never be kept when it is the >> non-offending side who are forced (by the TD's ruling) to lodge the appeal. I disagree strongly with this. If the TD considers his ruling right, and the NOs appeal, and it is a frivolous appeal, I can see no reason why we should not keep a deposit. Do you want every time the TD rules in favour of the Os that the NOs should appeal even when they have no case? >> There is no doubt that the explanation and the hand/intention were >> different. Whether there was misinformation and whether EW were damaged as >> a result is a subjective decision, and thus the appeal cannot be deemed >> frivilous. Seems fair. -- 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 Jun 30 15:20:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA18332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 14:49:03 +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 OAA18327 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 14:48:53 +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 137sig-00017Q-00; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 06:48:03 +0200 Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 06:53:10 +0100 (MET DST) To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, David Stevenson Subject: Re: One board - two different problems 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 OAA18328 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As the facts were established it was clear that NS had no agreement for this situation. I believe if N would reply to the question of the meaning of the double: Penalty as we have no agreement there would be no MI as EW got the information they are entitled for. This is the reply we can expect from expert players. However when we talk about less experienced players who are tourists and entered the tournament just to enjoy their holiday I am not convinced they are expected to give such a precise answer. András David Stevenson 2000.06.29. 20:57:51 +1h-kor írta: > Andras wrote: > >"David J. Grabiner" 2000.06.25. 17:48:56 -4h-kor írta: > > > >Necessary additional information to Case 2: > >EW players were really experienced, NS players were > >tourists. Neither the TD nor the AC found any MI in this case. > > The strange thing about this case is that on the facts given there was > definitely MI since the double was described as penalty and in fact was > no agreement. > > Personally, I might easily adjust, but it is a judgement whether E/W > were damaged. However, for the TD and AC to find no MI is very curious. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 15:42:46 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:53:40 +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 JAA17371 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:53:12 +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 137o6V-0003yi-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 23:52:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:44:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Condoning Regulating Conventions L40D References: <005c01bfde22$bed5cc00$382e37d2@laptop> In-Reply-To: <005c01bfde22$bed5cc00$382e37d2@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows wrote: >L40D. Regulation of Conventions >The sponsoring organisation may regulate the use of bidding or play >conventions. Zonal organisations may, in addition, regulate partnership >understandings (even if not conventional) that permit the partnership's >initial actions at the one level to be made with a hand of a King or more >below average strength. Zonal organisations may delegate this >responsibility. > >This just occurred to me: > >Assume that it is okay to use this law to forbid playing a (or any) >convention over a non-conventional bid. ACBL and probably others think so >and appear to have their position condoned by WBF (either explicitly or >implicitly - I dont know about the relevant pronouncements on this). Explicitly. They were asked in writing and answered Yes in writing. >Then logically this must apply to any such regulation so it would be legal >and presummably condoned by WBF to make regulations like: > >You may not play any conventions if you play four (or five) card majors; > >You may not play conventions over strong (or weak) no trumps. > >(One could make up even more obscure regulations of the same type.) > >There is no difference in the logic of these regulations than that that has >been condoned. > >Did WBF and/or the law makers really intend delegating that much >responsibility to Zonal Authorities and those that they delegate it to. I >doubt it. They stated that it was acceptable as a general approach to regulation. I think you have no reason to doubt it really. You seem to be assuming the WBF will be sensible and Zones will not. I do not see that this is logical. >And so I conclude that any such regulations _must_ be illegal. It is not a logical conclusion. Let me reword your argument in a more general way: [1] There is a regulation used by a Zone. [2] The Zone checks with the WBF as to whether it is legal. [3] The WBF states that it is legal. [4] It would be possible to make an unreasonable regulation from this. [5] Therefore it is not legal. I am sorry, it does not make sense. Let me try another way. You are saying that if a Zone misuses the power it could be very bad for bridge and therefore .... How is this different from the normal regulating of conventions? A Zone [eg Australia+NZ] have the *power* to ban all conventions that use the club suit. That would be a terrible regulation, but legal. you cannot deduce that the Zone does not have the power because it could misuse it. -- 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 Jun 30 16:11:54 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:53:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA17398 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:53:31 +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 137o6d-000Lor-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 23:52:29 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 00:03:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Invisible Revoke References: <200006271516.IAA10722@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200006271516.IAA10722@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > >Richard Hills wrote: > >> On the final board of last night's session at my local bridge club, my >> opponents - a pair of sweet LOLs - were declaring a contract of 4H doubled. >> On correct defence my partner and I were due to collect +100. >> >> However, (due to tiredness) I incorrectly defended by accidentally revoking >> in trumps. By the time I noticed what I had done, the revoke was >> established. So after turning green I applied L72B3, said nothing, and >> played on. >> >> A few tricks later I ruffed dummy's winner with the trump I *couldn't* >> have. But none of the other three players noticed the revoke! (They must >> have been tired too.) >> >> As a result, my side scored +500 instead of +100, and I felt extremely >> guilty about what I had done to these nice LOLs. >> >> Questions: >> >> 1. L64C allows the TD to restore equity after a revoke which is not >> subject to penalty, yet L72B3 suggests the TD need not be informed by the >> offender. What is ethical for an offender to do under the current Laws? > >Personally, I'd inform the TD, and I can't imagine doing otherwise, >whether the Laws say I have to or not. I don't want to win by gaining >advantages from breaking the Laws; I don't think it's part of bridge. It *is* part of bridge because the ethics of the game permit it. >It may be part of other games (i.e. the opponents have the >responsibility to catch you doing something wrong, and if they don't >it's their loss), but I don't think bridge is that way, and I don't >want it to be. Well, it is. Whether it should be is for others to discuss. However, I have a very strong view about what I call "personal ethics". These are ethics in situations where the Laws of the game place no ethical responsibility on players. People have their own views and follow them. I think the game will be considerably poorer if this is not acceptable. Let me give you a few examples. [1] A player passed the response to Blackwood by accident in a large French tournament. His LHO doubled to give him another chance - and got pilloried by several people for the action. I think it disgraceful to attack a person for his own beliefs. I see no reason why a player should not double if he does not wish to win by a mistake of this sort. On the other hand, there should be no blame either for a player who takes advantage of this and passes it out. In other words, a player's actions in this sort of situation depend on his own personal ethics, and he should not be criticised for them. [2] The case in point, where a player knows he has revoked, and it has been established. Some players point such a revoke out, some don't. Either is acceptable. Neither approach should be attacked. [3] Pre-alerting when not required by the SO. Some players like to give their oppos extra notice of strange conventions. If done in the right spirit, this is of course acceptable, but it is also acceptable not to: it is a matter of personal ethics. One further point: I am assuming that players are either consistent in these views, or perhaps give poorer oppos a bit more help. To be inconsistent in favour of your friends, for example, is not acceptable. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 16:19:25 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17357 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:53:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA17324 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:52:34 +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 137o6K-0003yi-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 23:52:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:07:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Ruling from Schiphol References: <4BVV0CAk59V5EwDu@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <03e501bfdfe0$f6e47960$91d3fcd8@noelbuge> In-Reply-To: <03e501bfdfe0$f6e47960$91d3fcd8@noelbuge> 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 JAA17327 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Noel & Pam wrote: >As a Blue Club player in Australia, we have to pre-alert the Canape in >response and then we have to alert the second bid (but not the first - >alerting the first bid has caused us problems in the past). > >Why is everyone else only making 3NT if the Defenders haven't been damaged? Hi Noel &/or Pamela, nice to see you, have you any cats, are you really Noel or really Pamela? This was a match with boards dealt at the table, so there was only one other relevant score. Since it was an overtrick at imps it was the approach that worried me, not the actual score which was largely irrelevant. ----------- Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >If declarer is the female Austrian who I think she is, a 5 VP or so PP for >the failure to alert and the subsequent nonsense explaining why there >shouldn't be an alert anyway. This is definitely not the first time she >has failed to alert or mis-explained the auction. Hey!! Noffair!! How did you know declarer was a female Austrian!! Well guessed, Henk, declarer was a top female Austrian player with an attitude problem. --------- Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ There has to be a catch. Such a simple ruling as this >would seem to be wasting our time. I think we would >not have heard of the incident if a proper ruling had been >given. So there is either a Director or an appeals committee >whose hands have blood on them. And presumably >Declarer did not make those statements to an appeals >committee or we would have heard of a fierce >reaction. Well, this is true. It was a little difficult to take a ruling to an appeals committee where no victory Point was at issue! The Director certainly bought declarer's arguments, and ruled that while the sequence was alertable, the defence should have asked to protect themselves. One reason I occasionally ask about fairly simple rulings is because I might have overlooked something. On this occasion I thought the Director out of his tree, but I wanted to see whether the list agreed with me. There is another case which looks fairly simple to me, but on discovering that a poll amongst top players ended in the voting Top players 18 votes for doing one thing David Stevenson 1 vote for doing something different I got worried and conducted my own poll. So now we have Top players 18 votes for doing one thing Members of the EBU L&EC 4 votes for doing something different I also think this one quite simple, but for your interest I shall write it up [unless I already have, but I don't think so] and present it in case there is any interest in it. You will recognise it by the sequence 1C 1NT P 2H. --------- Ron Johnson wrote: >David Stevenson writes: >> [3] They are playing standard Blue Club and everyone at this level >> would know what the bidding means >And yet there are pairs playing what they call Standard Blue Club >who don't play Canape responses. The only local pair that plays Blue Club do not play canapé in response. [s] >> The convention card has "Canape" under System Summary. The defender >> did not look at the responses to 1D. >Not sure why this matters. Lazy perhaps, but I trust the director >or AC is not going to rule that there was an obligation to look at >each turn. The point was that declarer said that since the defender had looked at the CC he should have known 1H was canapé. I was the defender, and in England, canapé on the CC nearly always means canapé by opener. It is several years since I knowingly played against anyone who plays canapé by responder. I always look at and keep by me the System Summary on WBF CCs, or the Basic Approach on EBU CCS, or the General Approach on ACBL CCs. I tend not to look further than this when the opponents bid something like 1D=1H=2D with no alerts: I am relying on the alert. -------- Anne Jones wrote: >Defender is entitled to her alert. If she could not rely on an alert she may >have >taken more interest in the CC. Her? It was I! >I rule that if defender is damaged Law 12 kicks in and TD awards an adjusted >score. >If defenders are not damaged then no adjusted score. >In either case I may impose a PP on declarer's side. The results on this list merely mirror my feelings. She seemed to be a very good player with an attitude problem, and I think a PP was required. -- 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 Jun 30 17:04:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA18658 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 17:04:57 +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 RAA18653 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 17:04:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.69] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 137ual-0002SL-00; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 07:47:59 +0100 Message-ID: <002501bfe25f$6d331ce0$455608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <005c01bfde22$bed5cc00$382e37d2@laptop> Subject: Re: Condoning Regulating Conventions L40D Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 07:48:41 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 8:44 PM Subject: Re: Condoning Regulating Conventions L40D --------------- \x/ -------------------. > > > >Did WBF and/or the law makers really intend delegating that much > >responsibility to Zonal Authorities and those that they delegate it to. I > >doubt it. > > They stated that it was acceptable as a general approach to > regulation. I think you have no reason to doubt it really. > > You seem to be assuming the WBF will be sensible and Zones will not. > I do not see that this is logical. > -------------- \z/ ------------------ > > Let me try another way. You are saying that if a Zone misuses the > power it could be very bad for bridge and therefore .... > > How is this different from the normal regulating of conventions? A > Zone [eg Australia+NZ] have the *power* to ban all conventions that use > the club suit. That would be a terrible regulation, but legal. you > cannot deduce that the Zone does not have the power because it could > misuse it. > +=+ The point is surely that all power can be misused. Edgar did have an attitude that wanted to control from the centre because he did not trust people down the line to use power in accordance with his view of the game. We were not greatly helped by reports of what one European NCBO was doing at the time. But gradually a few of the locks were prised open and more confidence was placed in affiliated bodies to act responsibly in the interests of the game within their own boundaries. I think that is as it should be and I am urging the WBF Lausanne Group, for example, to lead rather than seek to impose as it endeavours to bring world practices into closer harmony. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 17:08:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA18680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 17:08:48 +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 RAA18675 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 17:08:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (1Cust143.tnt3.syd2.da.uu.net [63.12.2.143]) by oznet14.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA09066 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 17:08:35 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000630170939.00820ec0@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 17:09:39 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Not yet a penalty card? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk East bids diamonds illegally during the auction. I give declarer (South) the option to forbid a diamond opening lead from West. Diamonds are forbidden so I tell West that she cannot lead a diamond until she loses the lead, but also there may even then be restrictions owing to UI. I watch her lead the spade Ace, and then before my very eyes, she switches to the diamond King. I say that the obligation to lose the lead before leading diamonds is still in force so the diamond king cannot be led unless declarer wishes to accept. Declarer doesn't, so I make the diamond king a penalty card, penalty provisions to come into force only after West leads something else. Is that correct? Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 18:44:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA18834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 18:44:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA18829 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 18:44:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.0.ap (guppy)) id KAA24709; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:43:28 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/%I%.1.ap (mach.test)) id KAA09471; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:44:14 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000630105224.00855990@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:52:24 +0200 To: richard.hills@immi.gov.au, From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: Witness for the Prosecution In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 13:12 29/06/00 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Playing in a teams event, I overheard a violation of Law at an adjacent >table (not my team-mates table). None of the four players directly >involved called the TD. > >1. Does L72A1 permit me to call the TD as an amicus curiae? AG : I would answer 'no', because the law states that _the director_ is allowed to bring any case without being called ; if it were _any player_, that would have been mentioned. A player, however, has the right to complain if 'the other table' makes the conditions of play poor (eg by verbal abuse, slow play); But that's only violation of correct procedure, not of the law. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 19:37:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA18917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 19:37:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA18911 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 19:36:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.0.ap (guppy)) id LAA00817; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 11:35:53 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/%I%.1.ap (mach.test)) id LAA11268; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 11:36:39 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000630114450.00896100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 11:44:50 +0200 To: Tony Musgrove , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: Not yet a penalty card? In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000630170939.00820ec0@ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 17:09 30/06/00 +1000, Tony Musgrove wrote: > >East bids diamonds illegally during the auction. I give >declarer (South) the option to forbid a diamond opening >lead from West. Diamonds are forbidden so I tell West >that she cannot lead a diamond until she loses the lead, but >also there may even then be restrictions owing to UI. >I watch her lead the spade Ace, and then before my very eyes, >she switches to the diamond King. AG : I use to say 'you may not lead a diamond until you lose the lead, for example, you may not cash an ace then play a diamond'. Perhaps it would have avoided the problem. Anyway, the play of the DK was illegal. I say that the obligation to >lose the lead before leading diamonds is still in force so >the diamond king cannot be led unless declarer wishes to accept. > >Declarer doesn't, so I make the diamond king a penalty card, penalty >provisions to come into force only after West leads something else. AG : of course ! If they came into force before it was played, it would be played immediately. >Is that correct? AG : seems obvioous to me. And give him/her a serious warning. Cheers, A. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 20:22:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA18971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 20:22:36 +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 UAA18956 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 20:22:25 +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 137xMp-000BTH-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:45:48 +0100 Message-ID: <+Xa7AUA3v+W5EwqO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 01:38:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Drunk again References: <200006291821.LAA21138@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200006291821.LAA21138@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > >John Probst wrote: > >> Try this one: >> >> 2NT P 2D P delayed alert of the 2D call. >> >> I got this one right, and somebody didn't (HeHe) > >L27A says an insufficient bid is accepted if the bidder's LHO calls. >L21B says that a player may change a call when it's probably that he >made the call as a result of a failure to alert promptly; but it >doesn't give the player the right to withdraw the call completely in a >way that revokes the acceptance he gave, according to L27A, when he >passed. So (the fact that alerting an insufficient bid makes no sense >notwithstanding), the 2D call stands. > >OK, now the alert. I'm sure it's completely illegal to have >agreements about the meaning of an insufficient bid. (I once proposed >a bidding system called Insufficient Bid Game Force, where 1S-pass-2C >would be non-game-forcing, while 1S-pass-1C corrected to 2C would be a >game force. But I couldn't get anyone to play this system with me, >perhaps because it would have been cheating.) Opener might have had a >legitimate reason to alert anyway; perhaps he wanted to tell the >opponents that 1NT-2D or 2NT-3D would have been a transfer (I'm >assuming EBU regulations). Basically, I think the director needs to >straighten out what information about possible relevant legal >sequences the opponents are entitled to, and make sure the opponents >get that. Still, however, since 2NT-2D is not a legal sequence and a >partnership can't have any understandings about it, I don't think the >failure to alert properly can be considered misinformation, so I'd >rule that L21B does not apply, and the last pass stands. > >OK, what did I miss? Hehe! Well, a certain view of psyches is that one occurrence in a lifetime provides partnership experience/understanding. So if the player's partner has ever produced this sequence before, they now have an understanding which might be alertable. I wouldn't take this post *too* seriously. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 20:22:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA18972 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 20:22:37 +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 UAA18962 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 20:22:29 +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 137xMp-000BTI-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:45:48 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 01:41:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Witness for the Prosecution References: <004101bfe1a5$ada9c0e0$595608c3@dodona> <000701bfe1ef$32116f60$f217ff3e@vnmvhhid> <3.0.2.32.20000630004150.0105496c@mail.a2000.nl> In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.20000630004150.0105496c@mail.a2000.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen wrote: >>4)You hear a conversation at another table about >>a board that has been passed out. The players >>agree to redeal it. >>Do you tell the Director? >no, although it is against the law, but frequently done here in holland In which case there must be a case for telling the Director since these players are deliberately and with malice aforethought breaking the Laws in a way that will disadvantage me. Players who believe in [a] the mini no-trump and [b] their ability to judge fourth-hand minimum openers should not have the number of hands available to them reduced. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 20:22:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA18965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 20:22:33 +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 UAA18954 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 20:22:22 +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 137xMw-000BTY-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:45:55 +0100 Message-ID: <83974RAps+W5EwJl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 01:34:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) References: <200006291704.NAA14051@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200006291704.NAA14051@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 >> I don't understand what is "subject to debate". Are you trying to >> tell me that the words "... play that would be careless or inferior for >> the class of player involved ..." do not mean that rules that use this >> footnote depend on the class of player? > >About two months ago, we had a very long thread on exactly this >subject. People on both sides said what they had to say, and I don't >see why we need to go through it again. But yes, there are very >definitely two sides, and each side thinks the other is reading the >text incorrectly. > >My impression from BLML and other sources is that, in practice, it >seems more popular than not to consider ability in judging claims, >i.e. many TD's will uphold a claim by a good player but reject the >identical claim from a poor player. Not everyone agrees that this >is what the Laws say should happen. Excuse me!!!!!!! I object to the term i.e.! :) On some occasions the reverse is certainly true, i.e. one upholds a claim from a poor player which one would not from a good player. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 22:20:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA19283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 22:00:38 +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 WAA19268 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 22:00:25 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id MAA03335 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:59:41 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:59 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Witness for the Prosecution 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: <002601bfe235$4b84c640$0406ff3e@vnmvhhid> Anne Jones wrote: > The question is - where is the line drawn? How about. Approach the TD and tell him "At one of the other tables I saw...". "Could you check if this is something I should report officially and if it is I will tell you which table." I realise this doesn't solve the TDs' problems but players should be able to comply fairly easily. Tim West-Meads. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 22:49:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA19483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 22:49:58 +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 WAA19478 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 22:49:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d050.iae.nl [212.61.3.50]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 4F32C20F4F for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 14:49:40 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <003f01bfe291$7c66a420$32033dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: References: <003001bfe090$880b0800$bf55fd3e@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: One board - two different problems (fwd) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 14:36:08 +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 > anne_jones wrote: > > >I have knowledge of an appeal where a portion of the deposit was forfeit, > >possibly because one member did not agree on retention, possibly > >because there was a shared responsibility for the original problem. > >I do not understand this.I consider the deposit to be a token. As such it > >is not divisible.It is either retained or returned. > DWS wrote > Perhaps it was partly frivolous? > A woman is pregnant or a woman is not pregnant. A woman cannot be partly pregnant. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 23:14:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA19282 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 22:00:39 +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 WAA19267 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 22:00:25 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id MAA03311 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:59:40 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:59 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Missorting, misinterpreting 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: <200006291715.NAA14070@cfa183.harvard.edu> Steve willner wrote: > > Of course there is a demonstrable bridge reason. The sight of two > > kings of diamonds is sufficient reason for an expression of surprise. > > Ah, now that's an interesting view. Is having one's hand missorted > or otherwise having mistaken one card for another a _bridge_ reason? > Obviously I didn't think so, but I'm ready to be persuaded. > Missorting ones hand is a normal part of the game. Indeed IIRC it was the best part of the Rueful Rabbit's game. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 30 23:20:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA19281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 22:00:38 +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 WAA19266 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 22:00:24 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id MAA03301 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:59:39 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:59 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Invisible Revoke 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: > One further point: I am assuming that players are either consistent in > these views, or perhaps give poorer oppos a bit more help. To be > inconsistent in favour of your friends, for example, is not acceptable. My personal ethics tell me that I should that I should not usually take advantage of simple mechanical errors (eg I will normally condone opening bids out of turn). I make exceptions in four situations. 1. The error is likely to lead to an unnaturally poor result if accepted. 2. I consider partner to be playing for higher stakes than he can really afford and that he will be unhappy if I don't make the most it. 3. The offending player is one whom I know to like the game played "strictly by the book". 4. The offending player is particularly boorish/obnoxious Items 2 and 4 sounds close to what you label as unacceptable so I hope that is not what you meant. Tim West-Meads